IllustrationThe brakes are burning while driving & the emergency brakes are not applied. The power windows are failing 1 by 1.
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
Service Brakes complaints
14 reportsEXPERIENCED A COMPLETE BRAKE FAILURE AFTER A 6 HOUR DRIVE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC FROM NJ TO VA. PARKED THE CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY FOR 30 MINUTES, AND UPON BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. PARKED THE CAR AND FOUND BRAKE FLUID ON THE GROUND. FOUND BRAKE LINE RUSTED THROUGH ON THE CROSS SUPPORT UNDER THE ENGIN…
Read full complaint
EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE BRAKE FAILURE AFTER A 6 HOUR DRIVE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC FROM NJ TO VA. PARKED THE CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY FOR 30 MINUTES, AND UPON BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. PARKED THE CAR AND FOUND BRAKE FLUID ON THE GROUND. FOUND BRAKE LINE RUSTED THROUGH ON THE CROSS SUPPORT UNDER THE ENGINE. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT AND MAJOR INJURY HAD THIS OCCURRED ON THE DRIVE IN HEAVY CITY TRAFFIC. THE VEHICLE HAS 113000 MILES ON IT. WE HAVE HAD OTHER MANUFACTURERS VEHICLES WITH OVER 200000 MILES AND NO BRAKE LINE ISSUES. THIS IS CLEARLY A DEFECTIVE PART/DESIGN ISSUE AND DUE TO THE SAFETY RISK, FORD SHOULD TAKE ACTION. WE HAD A 1990 F150 THAT HAD THE SAME ISSUE IN 2002 AT 100000 MILES. WE WILL BE CHECKING OUR 2004 F150 VERY CAREFULLY.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH AND MAKING A SHARP RIGHT TURN, THE BRAKES AND EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO TWO PARKED VEHICLES. THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. ONE PASSENGER LOCATED IN THE REAR SEAT SUSTAINED A FRACTURED NECK, WHICH REQUIRED…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH AND MAKING A SHARP RIGHT TURN, THE BRAKES AND EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO TWO PARKED VEHICLES. THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. ONE PASSENGER LOCATED IN THE REAR SEAT SUSTAINED A FRACTURED NECK, WHICH REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A HOTEL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 169,000.
2003 FOR EXPEDITION NOT RUNNING PROPERLY SHUTTING DOWN WHILE DRIVING PASSENGER WINDOW STUCK BRAKES NOT WORKING PROPERLY WHEN VEHICLE SHUTS DOWN.
OWNER HAS REPLACED BRAKES AND ROTORS SEVERAL TIMES. WHEN DRIVING, THE DRIVER FEELS AS IF THEY ARE PUSHING AGAINST RESISTANCE, LIKE THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IS ENGAGED. VEHICLE IS ABLE TO MOVE WITH EMERGENCY BRAKE FULLY ENGAGED. WHEN BRAKING, A PULSE IS FELT, BUT ROTORS ARE NEW.
THE BRAKE LINE THAT IS ROUTED TO THE REAR BRAKES RUSTED COMPLETELY THROUGH, CAUSING ME TO LOSE ALL BRAKING FUNCTION HENCE, CONTROL OF MY VEHICLE. I HAD TO RUN OFF INTO A DITCH TO MISS A SLOWING VEHICLE. AFTER I HAD COME TO REST IN THE DITCH THERE WAS AN ENGINE FIRE CAUSED BY BRAKE FLUID SPRAYING ONTO THE HOT ENGINE EXHAUST MAN…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKE LINE THAT IS ROUTED TO THE REAR BRAKES RUSTED COMPLETELY THROUGH, CAUSING ME TO LOSE ALL BRAKING FUNCTION HENCE, CONTROL OF MY VEHICLE. I HAD TO RUN OFF INTO A DITCH TO MISS A SLOWING VEHICLE. AFTER I HAD COME TO REST IN THE DITCH THERE WAS AN ENGINE FIRE CAUSED BY BRAKE FLUID SPRAYING ONTO THE HOT ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLD. FORTUNATELY, I HAD A FIRE EXTINGUISHER ON BOARD, SO I WAS ABLE TO PUT THE FIRE OUT BEFORE THERE WAS ANY DAMAGE. THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS INCIDENT IS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER LINE THAT RUNS PARALLEL WITH THE DEFECTIVE LINE THAT SHOWS ZERO EVIDENCE OF CORROSION.
MY VEHICLE EXPERIENCED TOTAL BRAKE FAILURE AS I APPROACHED A FOUR-WAY STOP INTERSECTION ON A RURAL COUNTY HIGHWAY. INSPECTION BY AUTO REPAIR TECHNICIANS REVEALED MY BRAKE LINES HAD RUSTED AND HAD EXPERIENCED SEVERAL RUPTURES. THE TECHNICIANS SAID THE RUST WAS THE RESULT OF FORD'S DECISION TO INSTALL STEEL BRAKE LINES IN THE VEHI…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE EXPERIENCED TOTAL BRAKE FAILURE AS I APPROACHED A FOUR-WAY STOP INTERSECTION ON A RURAL COUNTY HIGHWAY. INSPECTION BY AUTO REPAIR TECHNICIANS REVEALED MY BRAKE LINES HAD RUSTED AND HAD EXPERIENCED SEVERAL RUPTURES. THE TECHNICIANS SAID THE RUST WAS THE RESULT OF FORD'S DECISION TO INSTALL STEEL BRAKE LINES IN THE VEHICLE, RATHER THAN ALUMINUM. WHEN EXPOSED TO THE SALT PREVALENT ON LOCAL ROADWAYS IN THE WINTER, THEY EASILY RUST OUT LONG BEFORE THE VEHICLE EVEN APPROACHES THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF ITS LIFE.
ABRUPT, NO WARNING(ON DIGITAL DASH) LOSS OF BRAKING ABILITY. ON STOPPING WHILE PULLING IN A PARKING SPACE IN A PARKING GARAGE, BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. VEHICLE DID STOP WITHOUT HITTING CONCRETE WALL. VERY SCARY GETTING THE VEHICLE OUT OF THE GARAGE FROM THE 5TH FLOOR TO BE PLACED ON A ROLL BACK. DEALER STATES BRAKE LIN…
Read full complaint
ABRUPT, NO WARNING(ON DIGITAL DASH) LOSS OF BRAKING ABILITY. ON STOPPING WHILE PULLING IN A PARKING SPACE IN A PARKING GARAGE, BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. VEHICLE DID STOP WITHOUT HITTING CONCRETE WALL. VERY SCARY GETTING THE VEHICLE OUT OF THE GARAGE FROM THE 5TH FLOOR TO BE PLACED ON A ROLL BACK. DEALER STATES BRAKE LINES HAVE RUSTED AND DRAINED BRAKE FLUID CAUSING CATASTROPHIC BRAKE FAILURE. STATED THEY HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND SMOKE EMITTED INTO THE VEHICLE FROM THE AIR CONDITIONING VENTS. THE CONTACT ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WERE FLAMES UNDER THE HOOD. THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND SMOKE EMITTED INTO THE VEHICLE FROM THE AIR CONDITIONING VENTS. THE CONTACT ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WERE FLAMES UNDER THE HOOD. THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000.
TRUCK SHUT OFF AT 60MPH TOWING A CAMPER BECAUSE MY FUEL PUMP RELAY BLEW BECAUSE OF A DEFECT IN THE FUSE BOX!! ALMOST KILLED US........ NOT HAPPY AT ALL. I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY MECHANICS AND BEEN ON MANY FORUMS AND THIS SEEMS TO BE A WIDE SPREAD AND DANGEROUS ISSUE FORD SHOULD TAKE CARE OF. SPOKE WITH THE LOCAL FORD PARTS DEPARTMENT…
Read full complaint
TRUCK SHUT OFF AT 60MPH TOWING A CAMPER BECAUSE MY FUEL PUMP RELAY BLEW BECAUSE OF A DEFECT IN THE FUSE BOX!! ALMOST KILLED US........ NOT HAPPY AT ALL. I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY MECHANICS AND BEEN ON MANY FORUMS AND THIS SEEMS TO BE A WIDE SPREAD AND DANGEROUS ISSUE FORD SHOULD TAKE CARE OF. SPOKE WITH THE LOCAL FORD PARTS DEPARTMENT AND THEY ARE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A CHEAP PART BY ANY MEANS, BUT ON TOP OF THAT IT ALMOST KILLED MY WIFE AND FAMILY! PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS DEFECT. I CAN SEND YOU PICTURES OF THE FUSE BOX BOARD SO YOU CAN SEE THE BURNS.
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.