NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
32 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Jun 28, 2022
Air BagsSeat BeltsStructure
bought truck 3/2/22 from Gold cAuto In troy NY. 3/7/22 went to take kids to school 2.5 inches of water set in my weather guard mats. seats soaked console everything in front cab reversed to pull out spot and water starting pouring on my and my kids from sides in pass sides front and the front windshield area omgand the sun roo…
Read full complaint
bought truck 3/2/22 from Gold cAuto In troy NY. 3/7/22 went to take kids to school 2.5 inches of water set in my weather guard mats. seats soaked console everything in front cab reversed to pull out spot and water starting pouring on my and my kids from sides in pass sides front and the front windshield area omgand the sun roof was worst.kids had to go in myslef too it was snow still out.so that dayi oh sunroof needs to be blown out i said well that right frontdoor sounds open when its shut . same night i picked it up said all was good to go and his guy didn't hear any issues with door. the next snow it was worst this was about toward end of march. i called back around 3/15 said its still leaking dude i just want my money back for real and we are good, he said no doesnt work liek that said all his winshield guy he would take a lok at it and tell hijm ihe sent me. did that talked to the guy said he woudl call me the next day week went by so i called him back long story short he said he wasnt fixing it josh the dealer never pays him , i understood. called talked joshgoldstien told him he said well u just have to bring it in and let me have it for a few days he knows i could NOT NOT do that .leave because by now im having to leave apt and in hotel w/2 kids and im not even from here i know nobody. kids have to bev icked up ad dropped off no buses. i didnt and dont trust his people by this time so i didnt it comes out now the truck is dangerous the airbag on right side light has been von since i bought he said it was old truck it was fine no its busted the air bag. the right front seatbelt now is broke it would have to be completely replaced this in 2.5 months. then find truck is like flintstones the front cab from yrs i guess leaking is gone LITERALLY my 5 yr old fits the cab from underneath its should have never been inspec. the day i bought vthe refused to trade or give refund cussed and screamed at me whenever i came lights turnoff at night form damage nooil
NHTSA ODI #11471391
147,700 miles · Mar 26, 2018
Structure
FRAME ROT IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS, FRONT AND REAR
NHTSA ODI #11081307
92,851 miles · Jun 16, 2017
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING, THE MUFFLER DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO FZ PERFECTIONS AUTO BODY AND COLLISION (191 US-9W, CONGERS, NY 10920) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE CROSSMEMBER WAS CRACKED AND THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WAS ROTTED. THE SCHUTLZ FORD DEALER WAS CONTACTED AT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING, THE MUFFLER DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO FZ PERFECTIONS AUTO BODY AND COLLISION (191 US-9W, CONGERS, NY 10920) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE CROSSMEMBER WAS CRACKED AND THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WAS ROTTED. THE SCHUTLZ FORD DEALER WAS CONTACTED AT 1-877-724-8589 AND CONFIRMED THAT FORD EXPEDITIONS WERE KNOWN TO ROT FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 92,851.
NHTSA ODI #10995596
186,000 miles · May 16, 2016
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO VIBRATE. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SUBFRAME CORRODED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO VIBRATE. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SUBFRAME CORRODED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 186,000.
NHTSA ODI #10865072
Mileage unknown · Oct 26, 2015
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Structure
MY PASSENGER WINDOW AND BOTH BACK WINDOWS HAVE DROPPED SEVERAL TIMES. I HAVE HAD TO HAVE THIS FIXED MORE THAN ONCE ON THE BACK PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW, WHAT HAPPENS IS ILL TRY TO PUT THE WINDOW UP AND THE WINDOW MOTOR MAKES A STRUGGLING NOISE AND I AM UNABLE TO ROLL UP THE WINDOW. AT THIS POINT I'M SURE IT MUST BE A DEFECT BECAUSE…
Read full complaint
MY PASSENGER WINDOW AND BOTH BACK WINDOWS HAVE DROPPED SEVERAL TIMES. I HAVE HAD TO HAVE THIS FIXED MORE THAN ONCE ON THE BACK PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW, WHAT HAPPENS IS ILL TRY TO PUT THE WINDOW UP AND THE WINDOW MOTOR MAKES A STRUGGLING NOISE AND I AM UNABLE TO ROLL UP THE WINDOW. AT THIS POINT I'M SURE IT MUST BE A DEFECT BECAUSE OF HOW IT HAS HAPPENED TO EACH WINDOW MORE THAN ONCE. ALSO THE BUMPER THAT GOES AROUND THE ENTIRE CAR IS EXTREMELY FADED AND I AM UNABLE TO GET FIXED I HAVE GONE TO GET ESTIMATES FOR A PAIN JOB BUT HAVE BEEN TOLD DUE TO THE MATERIAL IT IS JUST GOING TO FADE I WOULD NEED TO GET IT SANDED AND HAVE THEM DO SOME SPECIAL TREATMENT I CANT AFFORD AND THEY WILL NOT JUST PAINT OVER IT FOR ME BECAUSE THEY GUARANTEE THERE WORK AND WOULD HAVE TO REDO IT TOO OFTEN. ALL THE EXPEDITIONS I SEE HAVE THE EXACT SAME ISSUE.
NHTSA ODI #10786046
100,000 miles · Oct 10, 2015
Structure
I OWNED THIS VEHICLE SINCE 2003. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I NOTICED SMALL PERFORATION/RUSTING ON THE TOP OF THE VEHICLE AND OVER TIME IT BECAME WORST. NOW THERE ARE NUMEROUS BADLY CORRODED AREAS . IT APPEARS THAT DUE TO THE DESIGN AND THE MATERIALS USED WATER REMAINS TRAPPED ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PARKED. ALSO POOR WORKMAN…
Read full complaint
I OWNED THIS VEHICLE SINCE 2003. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I NOTICED SMALL PERFORATION/RUSTING ON THE TOP OF THE VEHICLE AND OVER TIME IT BECAME WORST. NOW THERE ARE NUMEROUS BADLY CORRODED AREAS . IT APPEARS THAT DUE TO THE DESIGN AND THE MATERIALS USED WATER REMAINS TRAPPED ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PARKED. ALSO POOR WORKMANSHIP OR POOR MATERIALS ARE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. THIS MAY HAVE CAUSED THIS UNFORESEEN ISSUES. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE HOOD CAN BECOME WEAK IN THE AREAS AFFECTED BY THE CORROSION, THEREFORE I AM SEEKING GUIDANCE. I DID REACH OF TO THE FORD COMPANY WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS, THEY ONLY ADVISE THAT THIS WAS NOT A WARRANTY ISSUE. ON ANOTHER NOTE I AM THE ONLY OWNER AND I HAVE NOT LIVED CLOSE TO THE BEACHES OR EVEN WHERE YOU WOULD EXPECT CORROSION OF THIS MAGNITUDE.
NHTSA ODI #10781257
150,000 miles · Apr 22, 2014
Service Brakes, HydraulicStructure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, DECELERATION BECAME VERY DIFFICULT. THE VEHICLE WAS EXAMINED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE BRAKES LINES HAD RUSTED. THE MECHANIC ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THE ROCKER PANELS AND FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE MANUFACTURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, DECELERATION BECAME VERY DIFFICULT. THE VEHICLE WAS EXAMINED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE BRAKES LINES HAD RUSTED. THE MECHANIC ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THE ROCKER PANELS AND FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000. UPDATED 06/27/14*LJ
NHTSA ODI #10584189
Mileage unknown · May 9, 2013
Structure
THE PAINT HAS BEEN BUBBLING ON THE LIFTGATE OF MY FORD, EXPEDITION FOR YEARS. JUST RECENTLY, THAT PAINT HAS BEEN CHIPPING, WHICH I'M SURE IS GOING TO CAUSE RUST TO FORM. I'VE READ MANY SIMILAR COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER EXPEDITION OWNERS, BUT I CAN'T FIND A PLACE WHERE FORD HAS RESPONDED, EXCEPT TO SAY WHY IT IS HAPPENING. WILL FORD …
Read full complaint
THE PAINT HAS BEEN BUBBLING ON THE LIFTGATE OF MY FORD, EXPEDITION FOR YEARS. JUST RECENTLY, THAT PAINT HAS BEEN CHIPPING, WHICH I'M SURE IS GOING TO CAUSE RUST TO FORM. I'VE READ MANY SIMILAR COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER EXPEDITION OWNERS, BUT I CAN'T FIND A PLACE WHERE FORD HAS RESPONDED, EXCEPT TO SAY WHY IT IS HAPPENING. WILL FORD BE DOING ANYTHING TO REMEDY THIS FOR THEIR CONSUMERS? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10511219
88,000 miles · May 18, 2012
Structure
WHEN IT RAINS THE REAR DOORS OF THE VEHICLE FILL WITH WATER. I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE THE DOOR IS SEALED BUT IT STILL FILLS UP WITH WATER. IT HAS RAINED A LOT THIS WEEK AND THE DOORS ARE FULL AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10458931
108,000 miles · Jan 3, 2012
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE DRIVER'S DOOR OPENED WITHOUT WARNING AND WOULD NOT REMAIN LATCHED OR CLOSED. THE DEALER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE CURRENT AND THE FAIL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE DRIVER'S DOOR OPENED WITHOUT WARNING AND WOULD NOT REMAIN LATCHED OR CLOSED. THE DEALER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE CURRENT AND THE FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 108,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10442287
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.
Illustration