IllustrationSUNROOF LEAKS BADLY IT HAS FUSE BOX SHORTING OUT. WHEN IT RAINS MY WINDOWS GO UP DOWN ALONE. ALL LIGHTS SHORTED OUT AND NOTHING WORKING ANY LONGER
2003 Ford Expedition
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Expedition years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Ford Expedition are substantially higher than the model-year median of 155.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Expedition years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
960–25K
5325–50K
6950–75K
7175–100K
105100–150K
69150K+
463 reports with mileage · 152 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 127 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 104 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
57 crash reports36 fire reports39 injury reports
Seats complaints
11 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 30 MPH WHEN SHE NOTICED FIRE COMING FROM UNDER THE SEAT OF THE PASSENGER SIDE. NO ONE WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO HER HOME AND WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER RECALL AND THAT THEY W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 30 MPH WHEN SHE NOTICED FIRE COMING FROM UNDER THE SEAT OF THE PASSENGER SIDE. NO ONE WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO HER HOME AND WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER RECALL AND THAT THEY WOULD FURTHER INSPECT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 150,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AUTOMATIC DRIVER SEAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT COMMAND. THE CONTACT WOULD HAVE TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF FOR THE SEAT TO STOP MOVING FORWARD. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, BUT THEY DENIED ANY ASSISTANCE WITH REPAIRS TO THE DEFECT. THE MANU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AUTOMATIC DRIVER SEAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT COMMAND. THE CONTACT WOULD HAVE TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF FOR THE SEAT TO STOP MOVING FORWARD. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, BUT THEY DENIED ANY ASSISTANCE WITH REPAIRS TO THE DEFECT. THE MANUFACTURER TOLD THE CONTACT TO MAKE ANOTHER APPOINTMENT WITH THE DEALER TO GET A DIAGNOSIS ON THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,801 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 94,200.
HAVE A FORD EXPEDITION. THE 2ND ROW, MIDDLE SEAT WILL NOT STAY IN A LOCKED UPRIGHT POSITION. NOTIFIED FORD, AS THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY INFRACTION. ANY CHILD OR ADULT COULD BE SERIOUSLY HARMED IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, AS THE SEAT WOULD COLLAPSE FORWARD. FORD CLAIMS THE PART WHICH CONTROLS THE LATCHING OF THE SEAT INTO AN…
Read full complaint
HAVE A FORD EXPEDITION. THE 2ND ROW, MIDDLE SEAT WILL NOT STAY IN A LOCKED UPRIGHT POSITION. NOTIFIED FORD, AS THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY INFRACTION. ANY CHILD OR ADULT COULD BE SERIOUSLY HARMED IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, AS THE SEAT WOULD COLLAPSE FORWARD. FORD CLAIMS THE PART WHICH CONTROLS THE LATCHING OF THE SEAT INTO AN UPRIGHT POSITION (KNOWN AS A SEAT HANDLE RELEASE) IS TRIM AND THEREFORE UNCOVERED BY WARRANTY. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF FIXING A DOOR HANDLE OR A CRACKED PIECE OF PLASTIC, BUT TO CORRECT A SAFETY CONCERN THAT COULD CAUSE DAMAGE IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT. REPEATED PHONE CALLS TO FORD HAS YIELDED NO RESULTS AND WHILE THE FORD EMPLOYEES I SPOKE WITH CONCUR THAT THE ISSUE IS A SAFETY CONCERN, THEY ARE UNWILLING TO RE-CATEGORIZE THE PART OR ALLOW THE PART TO BE COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. *NM
WHILE BEING PARKED VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE FROM SEATS. WHEN BEING INSPECTED IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE SEAT HEATING SYSTEM.*AK
INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, STRUCK FROM THE REAR AND FRONT. AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY, AND DRIVERS SEAT BACK BROKE/TWISTED.*AK
CONSUMER COMPLAINED ABOUT FRONT BRAKE ROTORS. THE FRONT BRAKE ROTORS WERE CHECKED ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. *AK THE DEALER TOLD THE CONSUMER THE PROBLEM WAS DUE TO DUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TWO OUTSIDE SOURCES WHO CONCLUDED THAT THE BRAKES WERE BAD AND THAT THE ROTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE …
Read full complaint
CONSUMER COMPLAINED ABOUT FRONT BRAKE ROTORS. THE FRONT BRAKE ROTORS WERE CHECKED ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. *AK THE DEALER TOLD THE CONSUMER THE PROBLEM WAS DUE TO DUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TWO OUTSIDE SOURCES WHO CONCLUDED THAT THE BRAKES WERE BAD AND THAT THE ROTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CONSUMER HAS ALSO REPLACED THE STEERING RACK, SEAT MOTOR AND AUTOMATIC DOOR LOCK. *NM
FOUR YEAR CHILD SHOWED POSITIVE SIGNS OF SUFFOCATION AFTER BEING CRUSHED BY THE FOLDING THIRD ROW SEAT IN THE FORD EXPEDITION. *PH THE SEAT HAD BEEN IN FOR REPAIRS BEFORE BECAUSE IT WOULD FOLD WITHOUT THE USE OF THE SWITCH. *SC (THIS COMPLAINT WAS SENT IN BY THE FIRE CAPTAIN ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMER LOWELL SABISAGE.) *J…
Read full complaint
FOUR YEAR CHILD SHOWED POSITIVE SIGNS OF SUFFOCATION AFTER BEING CRUSHED BY THE FOLDING THIRD ROW SEAT IN THE FORD EXPEDITION. *PH THE SEAT HAD BEEN IN FOR REPAIRS BEFORE BECAUSE IT WOULD FOLD WITHOUT THE USE OF THE SWITCH. *SC (THIS COMPLAINT WAS SENT IN BY THE FIRE CAPTAIN ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMER LOWELL SABISAGE.) *JB
I AM A FIRE CAPTAIN WITH THE CITY OF VALLEJO. MY COMPANY TREATED A PATIENT THAT WAS CRUSHED BETWEEN THE ELECTRIC FOLDING 3RD ROW SEAT OF A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION EB. THE CHILD WAS 4 YEARS OLD AND SHOWED POSITIVE SIGNS OF NEAR SUFFOCATION. THE SEAT WAS CHECKED AFTER PATIENT TREATMENT AND IT WOULD NOT STOP FOLDING WHEN WE ATTEMPT…
Read full complaint
I AM A FIRE CAPTAIN WITH THE CITY OF VALLEJO. MY COMPANY TREATED A PATIENT THAT WAS CRUSHED BETWEEN THE ELECTRIC FOLDING 3RD ROW SEAT OF A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION EB. THE CHILD WAS 4 YEARS OLD AND SHOWED POSITIVE SIGNS OF NEAR SUFFOCATION. THE SEAT WAS CHECKED AFTER PATIENT TREATMENT AND IT WOULD NOT STOP FOLDING WHEN WE ATTEMPTED TO STOP IT USING OUR HAND TO PUSH AGAINST IT'S FORCE. THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE (LOWELL SABISAGE OF 176 COLOMA WAY, VALLEJO CALIFORNIA 94589) STATED THAT THE SEAT HAD BEEN IN FOR REPAIR IN THE PAST BECAUSE IT WOULD FOLD UP WITHOUT THE SWITCH BEING PUSHED. ACCORDING TO OTHERS ON SCENE, THE SEAT AGAIN FOLDED UP WITHOUT THE BUTTON BEING PUSHED. *AK MY CONCERN IS THAT OTHER CHILDREN ARE AT RISK OF SIMILAR INJURIES. LUCKY FOR THIS CHILD AN ADULT CAME OUT TO CHECK ON HER AND FOUND HER BEING CRUSHED BY THE SEAT. PLEASE FOLLOW UP WITH THIS INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE VIN # IS [XXX]. VALLEJO POLICE MADE A REPORT OF THE ABOVE INCIDENT. THERE REPORT NUMBER IS [XXX]. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
THE THIRD ROW SEATS ARE POWER SEATS. THE SEATS SHOULD HAVE NO MOVEMENT IF AN OBSTRUCTION OCCURRED, BUT FAILED TO DO SO, AND THE CHILD'S LEG BECAME CAUGHT IN THE SEAT. *AK THE CONSUMERS TWIN SONS CLIMBED OVER THE SEAT INTO THE BACK. ONE CHILD WAS NEXT TO THE 3RD ROW SEAT WITH HIS LEG AND KNEE NEXT TO THE WINDOW AND THE OTHE…
Read full complaint
THE THIRD ROW SEATS ARE POWER SEATS. THE SEATS SHOULD HAVE NO MOVEMENT IF AN OBSTRUCTION OCCURRED, BUT FAILED TO DO SO, AND THE CHILD'S LEG BECAME CAUGHT IN THE SEAT. *AK THE CONSUMERS TWIN SONS CLIMBED OVER THE SEAT INTO THE BACK. ONE CHILD WAS NEXT TO THE 3RD ROW SEAT WITH HIS LEG AND KNEE NEXT TO THE WINDOW AND THE OTHER CHILD PUSHED THE POWER SEAT BUTTON WHEN THE OTHER CHILD'S LEG HAD BECAME STUCK. (THE OWNERS MANUAL STATED THAT THE SEATS WOULD STOP WITHIN 1-10 SECONDS OF AN OBSTRUCTION) *SCC *JB
Official recalls
103V094000 · Structure
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.
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
1DP05005 · 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.