NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
63 reportsClear category filter65,000 miles · May 16, 2006
Suspension
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH THE VEHICLE VEERED TO THE LEFT, IT ALSO RATTLED ON BUMPY ROADS AT ANY SPEED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THE FRONT LOWER BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER HAS BEEN CONTACTED. THE SHOCKS WERE ALSO LOOSE. UPDATED ON 05/30/0…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH THE VEHICLE VEERED TO THE LEFT, IT ALSO RATTLED ON BUMPY ROADS AT ANY SPEED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THE FRONT LOWER BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER HAS BEEN CONTACTED. THE SHOCKS WERE ALSO LOOSE. UPDATED ON 05/30/06. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10157652
51,390 miles · Feb 1, 2006
SteeringSuspension
IN EARLY JAN 2006, WE HAVE A POPPING SOUND AND MOVEMENT IN THE STEERING WHEEL OF OUR 2000 EXPEDITION. WE COULD FEEL IT MOVING IN THE STEERING WHEN DRIVING AND WERE CONCERNED. WE HAVE AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON OUR EXPEDITION SO WE TOOK IT TO GERMAIN FORD IN COLUMBUS, OHIO. THEY SAID THE LEFT FRONT STABILIZER LINK BOLT HAD BROKE …
Read full complaint
IN EARLY JAN 2006, WE HAVE A POPPING SOUND AND MOVEMENT IN THE STEERING WHEEL OF OUR 2000 EXPEDITION. WE COULD FEEL IT MOVING IN THE STEERING WHEN DRIVING AND WERE CONCERNED. WE HAVE AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON OUR EXPEDITION SO WE TOOK IT TO GERMAIN FORD IN COLUMBUS, OHIO. THEY SAID THE LEFT FRONT STABILIZER LINK BOLT HAD BROKE IN HALF AND THE STABILIZER BAR WAS SLIPPING ON AND OFF CAUSING THE MOVEMENT AND SOUND. THEY TOLD ME THIS WAS NOT A WARRANTY ITEM. MY EXPEDITION HAS ONLY 51,000 MILES AND IS DRIVEN BY MY WIFE TO WORK. AT THE SAME TIME THE DEALER TOLD ME BY BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. I SAID HOW CAN A STEEL BOLT IN THE STEERING LINKAGE ACTUALLY BRAKE AND NOT BE COVERED? I ASKED FOR THE SERVICE MGR AND HE ACTUALLY SAID TO ME "THEY DON'T MAKE THINGS LIKE THEY USE TO". I THEN RECALLED A SERVICE NOTICE SOME TIME BACK ABOUT SOMETHING IN THE FRONT END OF EXPEDITIONS SO I LOOKED THROUGH MY FILES. SURE ENOUGH, FORD SENT OUT A SERVICE BULLETIN IN 6-04 "TITLED TIE ROD INSPECTION PROCEDURE". WHILE THE SERVICE BULLETIN COVERS A COUPLE ITEMS IT BELIEVE IT SHOWS FORD KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT ENDS AND SENT OUT A SERVICE NOTICE TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES AND TO AVOID PAYING FOR REPAIRS. WHEN THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THEY WOULD NOT COVER, I CALLED THE WARRANTY HOTLINE. THE REPRESENTATIVE TOLD ME "BALL JOINTS ARE WEARING OUT SOONER THEN THEY WOULD EXPECT" BUT IT WAS NOT A WARRANTY ITEM SO I HAD TO GET THOSE REPAIRED AS WELL. IN SUMMARY, I BELIEVE THE BOLT BREAKING COULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE AND THAT FOR A CUSTOMER TO SPEND $800 TO REPLACE A BROKEN BOLT IN THE FRONT LINKAGE AND BALL JOINTS ON AN EXCELLENT CONDITION VEHICLE WITH ONLY 51,000 MILES IS OUTRAGEOUS. I AM GUESSING OTHER EXPEDITION OWNERS ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM AND WOULD LIKE TO FILE A COMPLAINT FOR GETTING FORD TO REIMBURSE THE $800 I HAD TO SPEND IN REPAIR. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10149195
46,436 miles · Nov 16, 2005
Suspension
LTR FM PATRICIA BLUE-BILAL (NC) REQUEST RECALL OF THE 2000 FORD EXPEDITION AIR RIDE SUSPENSION SYSTEM, ALSO REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIRS. *TS THE REAR AIR RIDE SUSPENSION HAS BEEN REPLACED ON 8 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10143215
55,481 miles · Sep 7, 2005
Suspension
ON MAY 28TH, 2005 I WAS PERFORMING A PRE-VACATION SAFETY INSPECTION OF MY 2000 FORD EXPEDITION WHEN I NOTICED THAT THE FRONT ANTI SWAY BAR ENDS WERE NOT CONNECTED TO ANYTHING ON MY VEHICLE. I CALLED SHAWNEE MISSION FORD IN SHAWNEE, KS FOR ADVICE. THEY DIRECTED ME TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN FOR IMMEDIATE REPAIR. AFTER ARRIVAL AT …
Read full complaint
ON MAY 28TH, 2005 I WAS PERFORMING A PRE-VACATION SAFETY INSPECTION OF MY 2000 FORD EXPEDITION WHEN I NOTICED THAT THE FRONT ANTI SWAY BAR ENDS WERE NOT CONNECTED TO ANYTHING ON MY VEHICLE. I CALLED SHAWNEE MISSION FORD IN SHAWNEE, KS FOR ADVICE. THEY DIRECTED ME TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN FOR IMMEDIATE REPAIR. AFTER ARRIVAL AT THE DEALER, I STAYED WITH THE MECHANIC TO OBSERVE REPAIRS. HE SHOWED ME TWO RUSTED AND BROKEN HALVES OF LINK THAT HAD SNAPPED IN TWO FROM CORROSION AND METAL FATIGUE. HE SAID THAT HE GETS SEVERAL OF THESE EACH WEEK ON F150S, EXPEDITIONS AND EXPLORERS. HE REFERRED TO IT AS A DESIGN FLAW THAT HAS BEEN RECTIFIED BY A RECALL ON THE EXPLORER WITH A LARGER OR REINFORCED LINK, BUT NOT ON THE EXPEDITION OR THE F150. I DECIDED THIS SHOULD BE REPORTED FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, SOMEONE COULD BE INJURED OR HAVE THEIR VEHICLE DAMAGED BY THE BOTTOM HALF OF THESE LINKS FALLING OF ONTO THE ROADWAY. SECOND, I SUSPECT THE PREMATURE AND CHOPPY WEAR OF MY FRONT TIRES IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS DEFECT. SOMEONE EQUIPPED THIS VEHICLE WITH THAT ITEM FOR A REASON. IT ISN'T PERFORMING ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. IT SHOULD BE RECALLED AND FIXED WITH AN ACCEPTABLE AND SAFE PART.1 *JB
NHTSA ODI #10135761
87,400 miles · Jun 3, 2005
SteeringSuspension
CONSUMER STATES THE SUSPENSION ON THE FRONT END PASSENGERS SIDE FAILED. THE TIE ROD END BROKE AND THE WHEELS WERE UNCONTROLLABLE. WHEN THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED THERE WEREN'T ANY LIGHTS OR WARNINGS. THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED 800 MILES AGO AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF A FUTURE PROBLEM. *JB THE OUTER RIGHT TIE ROD CAME APART. TH…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER STATES THE SUSPENSION ON THE FRONT END PASSENGERS SIDE FAILED. THE TIE ROD END BROKE AND THE WHEELS WERE UNCONTROLLABLE. WHEN THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED THERE WEREN'T ANY LIGHTS OR WARNINGS. THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED 800 MILES AGO AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF A FUTURE PROBLEM. *JB THE OUTER RIGHT TIE ROD CAME APART. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE RIGHT INNER AND OUTER TIE ROD. THE BROKEN PART OF THE ROD DID NOT SHOW ANY SIGNS OF RUST/CORROSION OR LACK OF LUBRICANT.*SB *NM
NHTSA ODI #10121205
Mileage unknown · Oct 5, 2004
Suspension
UPON LOOKING UNDER MY TRUCK I NOTICES THE ANTI SWAY BAR WAS NOT CONNECTED ON EITHER END OF THE BAR TO ANYTHING. I HAVE THE TRUCK AT MILLER FORD WHERE THEY HAVE TOLD ME THEY SEE SEVERAL OF THESE WEEKLY. I ASKED HOW COULD IT BE? THE REPLY WAS THEY SIMPLY BREAK OFF. I ASKED WOULDN'T THEY BE ANY REMNANTS OF THE CONNECTION LEFT? THE …
Read full complaint
UPON LOOKING UNDER MY TRUCK I NOTICES THE ANTI SWAY BAR WAS NOT CONNECTED ON EITHER END OF THE BAR TO ANYTHING. I HAVE THE TRUCK AT MILLER FORD WHERE THEY HAVE TOLD ME THEY SEE SEVERAL OF THESE WEEKLY. I ASKED HOW COULD IT BE? THE REPLY WAS THEY SIMPLY BREAK OFF. I ASKED WOULDN'T THEY BE ANY REMNANTS OF THE CONNECTION LEFT? THE REPLY WAS "NO" THEY SIMPLY FALL OFF ONTO THE ROAD. COULD THIS BE A DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR NOT ONLY A ROLLOVER BUT A PROJECTILE BEING LAUNCHED ONTO THE HYWAY? SEEING AS THEY SEE "AT LEAST SIX CASES A WEEK.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10093635
Mileage unknown · Aug 31, 2004
Power TrainSuspension
PRIOR TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL TIRES PURCHASED ON THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE SAFETY RECALL OF TIRES, I HAD NO APPARENT PROBLEMS WITH MY TRANSMISSION OR REAR SUSPENSION. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE TIRE REPLACEMENT I NOTICED A SCRUBBING OR DRAGGING NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND QUEST…
Read full complaint
PRIOR TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL TIRES PURCHASED ON THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE SAFETY RECALL OF TIRES, I HAD NO APPARENT PROBLEMS WITH MY TRANSMISSION OR REAR SUSPENSION. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE TIRE REPLACEMENT I NOTICED A SCRUBBING OR DRAGGING NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND QUESTIONED AS TO WHY THE VEHICLE WAS NOW MAKING A NOISE THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE. I WAS TOLD THAT THE TIRES WERE A LITTLE LARGER THAN THE ORIGINAL ONES AND THAT THE NOISE WOULD SUBSIDE. THE NOISE DID NOT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK AGAIN AND I ASKED WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE EXPEDITION BECAUSE THE NOISE WAS VERY ANNOYING AND APPEARED TO GET WORST. I WAS WORRIED THAT THE REAR SUSPENSION WAS HAVING PROBLEMS. THE EXPEDITION WAS PLACED ON THE RACK AND EXAMINED BY THE SAME FORD DEALERSHIP, I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG. THE NOISE CONTINUED AND THEN THE TRANSMISSION BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS. WE TOOK THE TRANSMISSION TO HAVE IT FLUSHED AND THEN STARTED EXPERIENCING INCREASED PROBLEMS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER HAVING IT FLUSHED. SO MUCH SO THAT IT WAS RETURNED TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT THE SAME DAY BECAUSE WE THOUGHT MAYBE THEY HAD FORGOTTEN TO PUT SOMETHING BACK TOGETHER. WE WERE REFERRED TO A TRANSMISSION REPAIR SHOP TO CHECK. AT THAT TIME, THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE REPAIR MAN SAID THAT HE HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT ON HIS MACHINE. WHEN WE RETURNED HOME, WE NOTICED THAT THE PROBLEM APPEARED TO WORSEN SO WE DID NOT DRIVE THE EXP FOR ABOUT A MONTH HOPING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RESEARCH THE PROBLEM AND FIND SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAD EXPERIENCED AND FIXED IT. TO NO AVAIL, WE DID NOT. THE EXP WILL NOT EVEN MOVE ANYMORE. THESE PROBLEMS DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE TIRES WERE REPLACED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10088922
47,000 miles · Jul 13, 2004
Suspension
THE FRONT SWAY BAR LINKAGE BOLTS RUSTED AND BROKE ON BOTH SIDES. I ONLY HAD 47K MILES ON MY VEHICLE. I NOTICED THE VEHICLE JERKED AFTER HITTING POT HOLES ALMOST BEING UNCONTROLLABLE IF I WAS NOT HOLDING ON THE STEERING WHEEL WITH BOTH HANDS. *LA
NHTSA ODI #10080952
108,835 miles · Jul 12, 2004
SteeringSuspension
WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN IT FELT LIKE THE TRUCK WAS SKIPPING. CONSUMER THEN PULLED OF THE ROAD. UPON EXITING THE TRUCK CONSUMER NOTICED THAT 3 OF THE WHEELS WERE FACING FORWARD, AND THE RIGHT PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL WAS TURNED INWARDS. THE TRUCK WAS THEN TOWED TO DEALERSHIP BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DRIVABLE. DEALERSHIP INSPECTED THE ST…
Read full complaint
WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN IT FELT LIKE THE TRUCK WAS SKIPPING. CONSUMER THEN PULLED OF THE ROAD. UPON EXITING THE TRUCK CONSUMER NOTICED THAT 3 OF THE WHEELS WERE FACING FORWARD, AND THE RIGHT PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL WAS TURNED INWARDS. THE TRUCK WAS THEN TOWED TO DEALERSHIP BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DRIVABLE. DEALERSHIP INSPECTED THE STEERING LINKAGE, AND INDICATED THAT A TIE ROD HAD FALLEN OFF, AND THE OTHERS WERE LOOSE, ALL 4 TIE RODS NEED TO BE REPLACED. THEY ALSO HAD TO REPLACED THE LOWER BALL JOINTS. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10081688
50 miles · Jun 4, 2004
Suspension
WHEN TURNING THE FRONT TIRES ARE RUBBING AGAINST THE AXLE. DEALERSHIP IS PUZZLED AS TO HOW TO REPAIR THE DEFECT. *AK THE CONSUMER BELIEVES THIS IS A DESIGN DEFECT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10072022
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