NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
214 reportsClear category filter85,000 miles · Mar 20, 2007
Electrical SystemVisibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. THE WINDSHIELD LEAKED WHEN IT RAINED AND CAUSED AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE IN THE GEM BOX. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000. THE ENGINE REMAINED ON AFTER THE CONTACT REMOVED THE KEY FROM THE IGNITION. THE DEALER REPLACED THE GEM BOX. HOWEVER, THEY DID NOT RESEAL THE WINDOWS TO PREV…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. THE WINDSHIELD LEAKED WHEN IT RAINED AND CAUSED AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE IN THE GEM BOX. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000. THE ENGINE REMAINED ON AFTER THE CONTACT REMOVED THE KEY FROM THE IGNITION. THE DEALER REPLACED THE GEM BOX. HOWEVER, THEY DID NOT RESEAL THE WINDOWS TO PREVENT IT FROM LEAKING. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 97000. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10185705
90,000 miles · Mar 12, 2007
Electrical SystemFire
TL* - THE CONTACT CALLED REGARDING 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE HAD DRIVEN THE VEHICLE EARLIER AND APPROXIMATELY 3-4 HOURS LATER THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS ON FIRE. THE CONTACT STATED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TOOK PICTURES OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT STA…
Read full complaint
TL* - THE CONTACT CALLED REGARDING 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE HAD DRIVEN THE VEHICLE EARLIER AND APPROXIMATELY 3-4 HOURS LATER THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS ON FIRE. THE CONTACT STATED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TOOK PICTURES OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SOME OF THE VINYL SIDING ON HIS HOME WAS DAMAGED BY THE FIRE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE CONTACT STATED HE RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICE IN NOV 2006. HE HAD ATTEMPTED TO GET THE RECALL WORK DONE, HOWEVER THE FORD DEALER DID NOT HAVE ANY AVAILABLE APPOINTMENTS. THE MANUFACTURER HAS DENIED THE CLAIM STATING THE CONSUMER DID NOT RESPOND TO THE RECALL LETTER. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000 MILES.
NHTSA ODI #10184869
82,000 miles · Mar 1, 2007
Electrical SystemVisibility
I OWN A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, I WOULD TURN THE KEY TO CRANK MY TRUCK AND NO SOUND. NOTHING WOULD TURN ON. THE ELECTRICAL, TOTALLY DEAD. I WOULD JUMP IT OFF AND IT RAN FINE FOR 2 DAYS AND THEN THE SAME WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS PROBLEM AND HAVE FOUND THAT A LEAKING WINDSHIELD IS THE PROBLE…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, I WOULD TURN THE KEY TO CRANK MY TRUCK AND NO SOUND. NOTHING WOULD TURN ON. THE ELECTRICAL, TOTALLY DEAD. I WOULD JUMP IT OFF AND IT RAN FINE FOR 2 DAYS AND THEN THE SAME WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS PROBLEM AND HAVE FOUND THAT A LEAKING WINDSHIELD IS THE PROBLEM. IT IS LEAKING AND CAUSING MY GEM MODULE AND FUSE BOX TO GET WET. THIS CAN CAUSE A FIRE AS EVERYONE KNOWS AS WELL AS UNWANTED ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY WHEN THE TRUCK IS UNATTENDED. IT IS ALSO AFFECTING MY RADIO WHICH WILL NOT TURN ON THEN TURN ON BY ITSELF. THIS IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND I HAVE READ WHERE MANY EXPEDITION OWNERS ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH WINDSHIELD LEAKAGE CAUSING NO STARTS AND ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS. THIS SHOULD BE FIXED AT FORDS EXPENSE CONSIDERING IT WAS NOT THE FAULT OF THE OWNER FORD HAS A MANUFACTURING ISSUE WITH THEIR WINDSHIELDS. AS YOU MUST KNOW THIS IS A FIRE HAZARD THAT COULD RESULT IN THE DEATH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. IT IS A DEFECT FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY THAT NEEDS TO BE RECALLED NOW TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE OR POSSIBLE DEATH BY FIRE. IF FORD STANDS BY THEIR PRODUCTS THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO PROVE THAT TO THEIR LOYAL CUSTOMERS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10183885
Mileage unknown · Feb 26, 2007
Electrical System
I HAVE HAD MANY OF THE SAME COMPLAINTS AS THOSE LISTED ON THE NET. WIPERS COMING ON AT ANY GIVEN TIME, SPEEDOMETER NOT WORKING, LIGHTS ON RADIO NOT WORKING, WIPERS COME ON WHEN I TRY TO LET THE DRIVER WINDOW DOWN. THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS AS WELL. HAVE NOT TAKEN TO SHOP YET, BUT WILL SOON. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10183513
Mileage unknown · Feb 23, 2007
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling
I TOOK MY 2000 FORD EXPEDITION XLT IN TO HUNTINGTON BEACH FORD TO BE SERVICED DUE TO R.P.M. FLUCTUATION AND A SERVICE ENGINE SOON LIGHT. THEY CONDUCTED A DIAGNOSIS AND STATED I WOULD NEED A I.A.C. PART. THE NEW I.A.C. DID NOT FIX THE PROBLEM SO I TOOK IT BACK TO H.B. FORD AND THEY STATED I WOULD NEED A D.P.F.E. SENSOR. I HAD …
Read full complaint
I TOOK MY 2000 FORD EXPEDITION XLT IN TO HUNTINGTON BEACH FORD TO BE SERVICED DUE TO R.P.M. FLUCTUATION AND A SERVICE ENGINE SOON LIGHT. THEY CONDUCTED A DIAGNOSIS AND STATED I WOULD NEED A I.A.C. PART. THE NEW I.A.C. DID NOT FIX THE PROBLEM SO I TOOK IT BACK TO H.B. FORD AND THEY STATED I WOULD NEED A D.P.F.E. SENSOR. I HAD THEM REPLACE THAT WHICH DID NOT FIX THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE R.P.M. FLUCTUATION WAS STILL EVIDENT. I WENT BACK TO H.B. FORD AND THEY DIAGNOSED A NEW THROTTLE BODY. I GAVE THEM THE O.K. TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. THEY CALLED ME A COUPLE DAYS LATER TO INFORM ME THAT THAT DID NOT SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM SO I WILL NEED TO PAY AN EXTRA $400 FOR A DIAGNOSTIC FEE SO THEY CAN CHECK ALL THE WIRING. THE MANAGER HAS STATED THEY BELIEVE IT IS COMING FROM THE WIRING SYSTEM? WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE WHEN THEY CANNOT PINPOINT THE PROBLEM? *NM
NHTSA ODI #10183353
150,000 miles · Feb 17, 2007
Electrical SystemEquipmentVisibility
ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS ON 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. BLINKER LIGHTS INOP. SPEEDOMETER TUNING ON AND OFF, RADIO STATION/CLOCK LIGHTS DON'T WORK. RADIO SOMETIMES WONT WORK. REAR WINDSHIELD WIPERS DON'T WORK. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10182875
112,000 miles · Jan 23, 2007
Electrical System
I TOOK OUR 2000 FORD EXPEDITION (EDDIE BAUER ED.) INTO JOPLIN FORD LINCOLN MERCURY BECAUSE OF VARIOUS ELECTRICAL ABNORMALITIES. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: WIPERS STOPPING WHILE DRIVING(1-20-07). I HAD THE DEALERSHIP RUN COMPUTER DIAGNOSTICS TO TELL ME WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEMS WAS. I WAS INFORMED THAT "WDS PERFORMED …
Read full complaint
I TOOK OUR 2000 FORD EXPEDITION (EDDIE BAUER ED.) INTO JOPLIN FORD LINCOLN MERCURY BECAUSE OF VARIOUS ELECTRICAL ABNORMALITIES. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: WIPERS STOPPING WHILE DRIVING(1-20-07). I HAD THE DEALERSHIP RUN COMPUTER DIAGNOSTICS TO TELL ME WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEMS WAS. I WAS INFORMED THAT "WDS PERFORMED DIAGNOSTIC TESTS FOUND CENTRAL JUNCTION BOX, AND GEM MODULE CAUSING CONCERN, WATER INTRUSION CAUSED BY LEAKING WINDSHIELD." TOTAL ESTIMATE TO REPAIR BETWEEN $885 AND $948 (DEPENDING ON WHETHER WINDSHIELD COULD BE REUSED). I DECLINED TO HAVE REPAIRS MADE (COULDN'T AFFORD IT) BUT PRE-PAID ($503.04 FOR PARTS AND DIAGNOSTICS) SO THAT I COULD DO THE WORK MYSELF. IT WAS DURING AN INTERNET SEARCH FOR "GEM MODULE" THAT I HAPPENED UPON THIS (NHTSA) WEBSITE. I'VE READ ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS (EXPEDITION ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS) AND REALIZED THAT MINE IS NOT AN ISOLATED CASE, BUT QUITE COMMON. I WENT ON TO READ ( EA05015) BY THE ODI AND DOCUMENTS. UNLESS THEY WERE NOT PUBLISHED, THERE ARE SEVERAL FLAWS IN THE REPORT. 1. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WIPERS FAILING IS NOT WIDESPREAD; BUT, THE RESULT OF FAULTY PRODUCTION AT ONE PLANT? THE REPORT I SAW DOESN'T INDICATE THAT ANY DISCERNMENT WAS ATTEMPTED IN THIS REGARD. 2. THE LEAK WAS IN THE UPPER LEFT CORNER OF THE WINDSHIELD BEHIND THE SUPPORT COLUMN. IT WAS OUT OF SIGHT, CONTRARY TO FORD'S ASCERTION. 3. ODI'S RATIONAL FOR NOT RECOMMENDING A RECALL IS THAT NOT ENOUGH PERCENTAGE COULD BE ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF SERVICE RECORDS AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS TO NHSTA. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO CONTACT SOME OF THE OWNERS THAT HAD GEM PROBLEMS AND LEAKS; AND ASK THEM IF THEY HAD THEIR WIPERS STOP... BECAUSE, THOUGH I REPORTED THE WIPERS TO THE SERVICE MANAGER, WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE REPAIR ORDER IS, "...A C/S THE BLOWER FAN RUNS ON HIGH WHEN THE KEY IS SHUT OFF. HEARD CLICKING NOISE FROM THE ABS WHEN THE VEH IS SHUT OFF..." MAYBE JUST A MISTAKE, MAYBE NOT. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10179522
105,000 miles · Jan 21, 2007
Electrical System
1. VEHICLE OPERATING NORMALLY, STALLED AND WOULD NOT START ON INTERSTATE. 2. GEM FAILED DUE TO WATER, CARPET AND BEHIND FIREWALL WET. POTENTIALLY FATAL DUE TO TOTAL IMMOBILIZATION OF VEHICLE. TOWED. 3. GEM AND FUSE BOX REPLACED, SEE BELOW LOOKS LIKE NHTSA INVESTIGATION AND ENGINEERING STUDY STARTED. 39 CASES REPORTED …
Read full complaint
1. VEHICLE OPERATING NORMALLY, STALLED AND WOULD NOT START ON INTERSTATE. 2. GEM FAILED DUE TO WATER, CARPET AND BEHIND FIREWALL WET. POTENTIALLY FATAL DUE TO TOTAL IMMOBILIZATION OF VEHICLE. TOWED. 3. GEM AND FUSE BOX REPLACED, SEE BELOW LOOKS LIKE NHTSA INVESTIGATION AND ENGINEERING STUDY STARTED. 39 CASES REPORTED NHTSA ACTION NUMBER : PE05033 NHTSA RECALL CAMPAIGN NUMBER : N/A MAKE : FORD MODEL: EXPEDITION MANUFACTURER : FORD MOTOR COMPANY YEAR : 2000 COMPONENT : ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DATE INVESTIGATION OPENED : JUNE 15, 2005 DATE INVESTIGATION CLOSED : OPEN SUMMARY: COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT WHEN IT RAINS OR SNOWS, WATER LEAKS INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD. THE WATER SEEPS INTO THE FUSE BOX AND FORD'S GEM (GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE) CAUSING THE WIPERS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS TO MALFUNCTION. THE GEM CONTROLS MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WIPERS AND LIGHTING. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10179295
52,990 miles · Jan 20, 2007
Electrical SystemVisibility
ON JANUARY 16, 2007 MY WIFE DROVE OUR 2000 EDDIE BAUER EXPEDITION TO WORK AS USUAL PARKED N A COVERED PARKING GARAGE AND WENT TO WORK. AT THE END OF THE DAY SHE ATTEMPTED TO START HER CAR AND IT WAS TOTALLY DEAD AND WOULD NOT START. SHE THEREFORE HAD TO GET JUMP STARTED IN ORDER TO GET HOME. ON 1-17-07 I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A…
Read full complaint
ON JANUARY 16, 2007 MY WIFE DROVE OUR 2000 EDDIE BAUER EXPEDITION TO WORK AS USUAL PARKED N A COVERED PARKING GARAGE AND WENT TO WORK. AT THE END OF THE DAY SHE ATTEMPTED TO START HER CAR AND IT WAS TOTALLY DEAD AND WOULD NOT START. SHE THEREFORE HAD TO GET JUMP STARTED IN ORDER TO GET HOME. ON 1-17-07 I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A CERTIFIED FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND HAD THEM EVALUATE AND DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. SEEMS THAT THE GEM AND CJB WERE WATER DAMAGED AND CREATING SIGNIFICANT ELECTRICAL SHORTS THROUGHOUT THE VEHICLES OPERATING SYSTEM. WHEN THE CAR WAS TURNED OFF THE FAN MOTOR WOULD ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO BLOW EVEN WITH THE KEYS OUT OF THE IGNITION. ALSO THE CAR AT TIMES WOULD NOT TURN OFF WITH THE KEY. YOU CAN TAKE THE KEY OUT OF THE IGNITION AND THE CAR WOULD STILL RUN. ANYWAY, THE DEALER INDICATES THAT THE WINDSHIELD WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED AND SEALED AS THIS WAS THE SOURCE OF THE WATER DAMAGE. I QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE DIAGNOSIS AND THE SERVICE ADVISOR INDICATED THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON 2 MORE TRUCKS WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. THE TOTAL COST OF THE REPAIR IS GOING TO BE $1150 TO REPLACE THE WINDSHIELD THE GEM AND CJB. I HAVE BEEN READING UP ON THIS PROBLEM AND FINE THAT THIS PROBLEM IS PRETTY WIDE SPREAD IN FORD EXPEDITIONS AND WANT TO MAKE MY PARTICULAR SITUATION A MATTER OF RECORD WITH THE NHTSA IN AN EFFORT TO ADD TO THE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS EXPERIENCING THIS PROBLEM. MY VEHICLE HAS A LONG HISTORY OF ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WHICH WERE CORRECTED UNDER A EXTENDED WARRANTY. I AM CERTAIN THAT THIS WINDSHIELD LEAK PROBLEM IS THE SOURCE OF MY LONG STANDING PROBLEMS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10179230
70,000 miles · Dec 15, 2006
Electrical System
IT STARTED LAST WINTER THE WIPERS WOULD FAIL WHEN IT RAINED AND THEN WE CAME OUT AND THE RADIO AND DASH WAS ON AND THE KEYS WERE NO WHERE NEAR THE IGNITION. NOW AFTER THE LAST RAIN MY HUSBAND TURNED ON THE HEADLIGHTS AND MY CAR TRIED TO TURN OVER!!! WHAT NEXT, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW TO CORRECT IT BUT IM AFRAID TO DRIVE IT. WHAT…
Read full complaint
IT STARTED LAST WINTER THE WIPERS WOULD FAIL WHEN IT RAINED AND THEN WE CAME OUT AND THE RADIO AND DASH WAS ON AND THE KEYS WERE NO WHERE NEAR THE IGNITION. NOW AFTER THE LAST RAIN MY HUSBAND TURNED ON THE HEADLIGHTS AND MY CAR TRIED TO TURN OVER!!! WHAT NEXT, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW TO CORRECT IT BUT IM AFRAID TO DRIVE IT. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE WIPERS FAIL AND I HAVE NO VISIBILITY. IT IS A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION, FORD REALLY NEEDS A RECALL THIS IS DANGEROUS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10176249
Official recalls
7Sep 7, 2005
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FIRE AT THE SWITCH COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2005, OWNERS WERE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. OWNERS WHO HAVE HAD THEIR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATED ARE BEING NOTIFIED THAT PARTS WILL BE AVAILABLE AND ADVISED TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO RECONNECT THE SPEED CONTROL BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2006. OWNERS WHO DID NOT HAVE THEIR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATED ARE BEING NOTIFIED TO HAVE THEIR SYSTEM REMEDIED BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2006. OWNERS ARE URGED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE FREE DISCONNECT SERVICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT RISK OF FIRE. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. (NOTE: ALSO SEE RECALLS 05V017 AND 06V286)
Jan 27, 2005
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND PICKUP TRUCKS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION COULD LEAD TO A FIRE. FIRES HAVE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLES WERE PARKED WITH THE IGNITION 'OFF.'
Remedy: AS AN INTERIM REPAIR, OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. AS SOON AS REPLACEMENT PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EARLY APRIL 2005), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A NEW SWITCH FREE OF CHARGE. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. (NOTE: ALSO SEE RECALLS 05V388 AND 06V286)
Mar 7, 2003
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK, VAN, AND MINI VAN CONVERSIONS EQUIPPED WITH SOUTHERN COMFORT BUILT RUNNING BOARDS THAT CONTAIN CERTAIN COURTESY LIGHTS MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS, INC. THESE UNITS CONTAIN A COURTESY LIGHT OR LIGHTS THAT MIGHT OVERHEAT WHEN THE WIRE HARNESS IS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE MOISTURE AND ROAD SALT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS OVERHEATING CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE RUNNING BOARD TO MELT OR CAUSE A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE WIRING HARNESS ON THESE RUNNING BOARDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 7, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHERN COMFORT AT 1-800-745-6096.
Sep 9, 2002
CERTAIN 4X2 SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS." THE REAR TIRE PRESSURE IS INCORRECTLY LISTED ON THE LABEL FOR 4.2 VEHICLES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: CUSTOMERS MAY INFLATE THEIR REAR TIRES BASED ON THE INCORRECT TIRE PRESSURE INFORMATION ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL.
Remedy: A SUPPLEMENTARY LABEL WILL BE SENT TO CUSTOMERS TO PLACE NEAR THE CERTIFICATION LABEL TO IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE REAR TIRE PRESSURE. THE CUSTOMER MAY ALSO HAVE THE DEALER INSTALL THE LABEL ON THE VEHICLE, IF THEY SO DESIRE. OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER 2002. OWNERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE LABEL AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Aug 8, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND LIGHT AND MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS. A SWITCH LOCATED IN THE PLASTIC COVER OF THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COULD MALFUNCTION AND OVERHEAT, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF INTERMITTENT WIPER FUNCTION, LOSS OF WIPER PARK FUNCTION, COMPLETE LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION, OR IGNITION OF THE PLASTIC COVER MATERIAL. SWITCH MALFUNCTION IS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THE INTERMITTENT SETTING OF THE WIPERS IS BEING USED, OR WHEN SNOW OR ICE OBSTRUCTS THE BLADES FROM RETURNING TO THE "PARKED" POSITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDSHIELD. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT AT THE FOLLOWING ASSEMBLY PLANTS: ATLANTA PLANT FROM 2/11/00 THROUGH 7/31/00; CHICAGO PLANT FROM 2/14/00 THROUGH 8/4/00; KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 2/26/00 TO 9/4/00; KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/18/00 TO 8/31/00; MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/23/00 THROUGH 8/3/00; NORFOLK PLANT FROM 2/21/00 THROUGH 7/27/00; WAYNE STAMPING AND ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 2/25/00 THROUGH 8/15/00; AND WIXOM PLANT FROM 2/15/00 THROUGH 8/8/00.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: LOSS OF VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON THE WIPER MOTOR. MOTORS BUILT WITH THE SUSPECT TIME FRAME WILL HAVE THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COVER REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 20, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Nov 28, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS, AND PASSENGER VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS." THE AFFECTED EXPEDITION/NAVIGATOR OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SEATING POSITIONS EQUIPPED WITH TETHER ANCHORAGES, AND DO NOT PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THESE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE F150 SC OWNER GUIDES DO NOT PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE TAURUS/SABLE OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE CENTER REAR SEATING POSITION AS HAVING LATCH COMPATIBLE LOWER ANCHORAGES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE CHILD SEAT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY ATTACHED INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE CHILD.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH OWNER GUIDE INSERTS REVISED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIXING THESE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES. CUSTOMERS WILL ALSO BE ADVISED THAT IF THEY PREFER, THEIR DEALER WILL AFFIX THE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES.
Mar 7, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLES. THE TRAILER HITCH ASSEMBLY TO THE FRAME ATTACHING BOLTS COULD LOSE THE CLAMP LOAD.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE TRAILER HITCH COULD THEN SEPARATE FROM THE VEHICLE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE TRAILER HITCH MOUNTING BOLTS AND NUT PLATES.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
5EA05015 · Windshield Leak Causes Electric Failures
Opened Oct 13, 2005 · Closed Dec 6, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Exterior Lighting; Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer
CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Electrical System
CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
Exterior Lighting
CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer
CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
PE05033 · Electrical System Failure
Opened Jun 15, 2005 · Closed Oct 13, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Equipment:electrical; Visibility:windshield
ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Electrical System
ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.
Equipment:electrical
ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.
Visibility:windshield
ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.
PE04078 · Speed Control Deactivation Switch Fire
Opened Nov 19, 2004 · Closed Mar 22, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
IN ITS LETTER DATED JANUARY 27, 2005 TO ODI, FORD INDICATED THAT IT WOULD CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL # 05V-017) TO REMEDY AN OVERHEATING SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH IN APPROXIMATELY 738,490 SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE VEHICLES AFFECTED BY THE RECALL ARE CERTAIN 2000 MODEL YEAR (MY) FORD F150, FORD EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL AND CERTAIN 2001 MODEL YEAR F150 SUPERCREW VEHICLES BUILT THROUGH AUGUST 7, 2000.SINCE OPENING PE04-078, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED OTHER REPORTS OF KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES IN FORD VEHICLES WITH SIMILAR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES THAT WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OR FORD'S RECALL 05V-017.FORD'S RESPONSE TO THE ODI INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3, 2004, PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL 107 ALLEGATIONS OF KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES THAT WERE ALSO IN VEHICLES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS INVESTIGATION OR INCLUDED IN THE FORD RECALL 05V-017.AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) IS WARRANTED TO DETERMINE IF A SAFETY DEFECT TREND EXISTS RELATING TO KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES IN VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.ODI WILL EXPAND THE SCOPE OF IT'S INVESTIGATION AT THE EA PHASE TO INCLUDE THE 1995 THROUGH 2002 MODEL YEARS OF THE FORD F150, FORD EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR VEHICLES.
SQ00016 · Wheel Stud And Nut
Opened Sep 15, 2000 · Closed Dec 6, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Wheels
IN DECEMBER 1999, FORD ISSUED TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN 99-26-3, ENTITLED INCREASED WHEEL NUT AND STUD SIZE-SERVICE TIP,FOR 2000 MODEL YEAR EXPEDITION, NAVIGATOR, AND CERTAIN F-150 VEHICLES, BUILT ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 27, 1999.THESE VEHICLES HAVE INCREASED WHEEL STUD AND NUT DIAMETERS FROM 12MM TO 14MM.THE WHEEL NUT TORQUE WAS INCREASED FROM 100 FT-LB. TO 150 FT-LB., RESPECTIVELY.ODI HAS RECEIVED THREE REPORTS OF WHEELS SEPARATING FROM 2000 MODEL YEAR EXPEDITION VEHICLES, INCLUDING TWO CRASHES.TWO ADDITIONAL REPORTS ALLEGE BROKEN STUDS AND/OR LOOSE WHEEL NUTS.LOOSE WHEEL NUTS CAN ALLOW THE WHEEL TO WOBBLE AND CAUSE WHEEL STUD BREAKAGE.THERE ARE NO SIMILAR ODI REPORTS ON 2000 MODEL YEAR LINCOLN NAVIGATOR VEHICLES.THE FAILURES APPEAR TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER WHEEL NUT TORQUE; HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE TORQUE QUALITY DEFICIENCIES AT THE ASSEMBLY PLANTS.DUE TO THE MILEAGES THE INCIDENTS OCCURRED, IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT IMPROPER WHEEL NUT TORQUES WERE APPLIED DURING SERVICING, BECAUSE IN ALL CASES WHEN LOOSE WHEELS WERE RE-TORQUED TO A LEAST 100 FT-LB., THERE WERE NO FAILURE RE-OCCURRENCES.
Illustration