Illustration2003 FORD EXPEDITION 5.4L EJECTION OF FACTORY SPARK PLUG FORM CYLINDER HEAD. *TR
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
What owners actually said
615 reportsDRIVING FROM LAS VEGAS TO PHX WE WERE AT WICKENBERG, AZ A LOUD POP OCCURRED AND KNOCKING SOUND FROM THE ENGINE. THE SMELL OF GAS WAS PRESENT AND WOULDN'T RUN PROPERLY. THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN WICKENBERG WAS LUCKILY OPEN AND INSTRUCTED US THAT THE SPARK PLUGS HAD BLOWN OUT IN THE 1ST AND 2ND CYLINDERS. THEY DID ALSO TELL US THAT T…
Read full complaint
DRIVING FROM LAS VEGAS TO PHX WE WERE AT WICKENBERG, AZ A LOUD POP OCCURRED AND KNOCKING SOUND FROM THE ENGINE. THE SMELL OF GAS WAS PRESENT AND WOULDN'T RUN PROPERLY. THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN WICKENBERG WAS LUCKILY OPEN AND INSTRUCTED US THAT THE SPARK PLUGS HAD BLOWN OUT IN THE 1ST AND 2ND CYLINDERS. THEY DID ALSO TELL US THAT THIS OCCURS OFTEN IN AND THERE IS A TEMP FIX FOR IT. THEY TAPPED OUT THE HEAD AND INSERTED A STEEL SLEEVE FOR THOSE 2 CYLINDERS. TAKING 2 HOURS IT WAS FIXED AND WE WERE ON OUR WAY VERY HAPPY TO HAVE IT FIXED BUT NOT HAPPY AT ALL AT FORD FOR HAVING SUCH A BLATANT DESIGN FLAW. THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED. *TR
FOR NO REASON, WHILE DRIVING MY VEHICLE THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. *TR
SPARK PLUG BLOW OUT ON 2003 FORD EXPEDITION 5.4 L ENGINE. *TR
WE YOU MAKE A TURN YOU HER A NOISE FROM THE REAR END. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE VEHICLE HAS CONTINENTAL CONTITRAC SUV TIRES, SIZE P265/70R17. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH, THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHIMMY AND SHAKE, FOLLOWED BY A CLICKING NOISE. THE DRIVER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE EXHIBITED TREAD SEPARA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE VEHICLE HAS CONTINENTAL CONTITRAC SUV TIRES, SIZE P265/70R17. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH, THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHIMMY AND SHAKE, FOLLOWED BY A CLICKING NOISE. THE DRIVER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE EXHIBITED TREAD SEPARATION. THE TIRE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPLACED. THE DOT NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 68,000.
WHILE DRIVING MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION EDDIE BAUER ONE OF THE EIGHT SPARK PLUGS BLEW OUT OF THE ENGINE. *TR
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WITH A 5.4,AND WHILE DRIVING AROUND TOWN WE NOTICED THE VEHICLE STARTED RUNNING ROUGH,SO WE TOOK IT TO A LOCAL SHOP TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT AND UPON INSPECTION WE FOUND THAT THE NUMBER 7 PLUG HAD BLOWN OUT AND CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE COIL WHICH CAUSED THE ROUGH RUNNING,THE MECHANIC AT THE SHOP SAID THIS IS…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WITH A 5.4,AND WHILE DRIVING AROUND TOWN WE NOTICED THE VEHICLE STARTED RUNNING ROUGH,SO WE TOOK IT TO A LOCAL SHOP TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT AND UPON INSPECTION WE FOUND THAT THE NUMBER 7 PLUG HAD BLOWN OUT AND CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE COIL WHICH CAUSED THE ROUGH RUNNING,THE MECHANIC AT THE SHOP SAID THIS IS VERY COMMON WITH THESE TRUCKS AND MOTORS,SO AT THE COST $700 I GOT IT FIXED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE WAY THESE MOTORS ARE MADE. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE VEHICLE HAS CONTINENTAL CONTITRAC TR TIRES, SIZE P265/70 R17. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. FROM THE DRIVER'S SIDE REARVIEW MIRROR, HE NOTICED A LARGE PORTION OF THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE SEPARATING. THE CONTACT PULL…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE VEHICLE HAS CONTINENTAL CONTITRAC TR TIRES, SIZE P265/70 R17. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. FROM THE DRIVER'S SIDE REARVIEW MIRROR, HE NOTICED A LARGE PORTION OF THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE SEPARATING. THE CONTACT PULLED THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROAD AND NOTICED THE TREAD OF THE TIRE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROADWAY. ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE ARRIVED AND REPLACED THE TIRE. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER OF THE TIRES AND IS WAITING ON SOME PAPERWORK. HE BELIEVES THAT A RECALL SHOULD BE ISSUED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 126,000. UPDATED 07/28/09 *BF UPDATED 07/30/09.*JB
WHILE DRIVING ON A LOCAL ROAD IN CLEAR WEATHER MY 03 EXPEDITION SUDDENLY THREW PLUG #7. IN SO DOING IT DESTROYED THE COIL ASSEMBLY, BUT THE IMPACT OF THE COIL ASSEMBLY ON THE FUEL RAIL SAVED THE CAR'S HOOD FROM FURTHER DAMAGE (THE TOP OF THE COIL ASSEMBLY CLEARLY EVIDENCED THE IMPACT MARK FROM CONTACT WITH THE FUEL RAIL). GIVE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON A LOCAL ROAD IN CLEAR WEATHER MY 03 EXPEDITION SUDDENLY THREW PLUG #7. IN SO DOING IT DESTROYED THE COIL ASSEMBLY, BUT THE IMPACT OF THE COIL ASSEMBLY ON THE FUEL RAIL SAVED THE CAR'S HOOD FROM FURTHER DAMAGE (THE TOP OF THE COIL ASSEMBLY CLEARLY EVIDENCED THE IMPACT MARK FROM CONTACT WITH THE FUEL RAIL). GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE DAMAGED COIL INSULATION WAS NOW ARCING ITS SPARK ACROSS THE ENGINE HEAD AND THAT THE FUEL MIXTURE WAS SPEWING OUT OF THE SPARK PLUG HOLE IT'S SURPRISING THAT WE AVOIDED AN ENGINE FIRE UNDER THE PLASTIC SHROUD. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE LOCAL INDEPENDENT SERVICE CENTER (PEP BOYS, LAUREL MD - THE SAME LOCATION THAT HAD CHANGED THE PLUGS A YEAR PRIOR). THEY EXAMINED ALL THE SPARK PLUG THREADS AND ADVISED THAT THEY APPEARED OK, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS ONE CYLINDER. TO EFFECT REPAIRS THEY ADVISED TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED TO ANOTHER OUTLET 36 MILES ($104 CHARGE) UP THE ROAD. THEY FURTHER ADVISED THAT THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMMON PROBLEM WITH THE 5.4 ENGINE AND THAT THIS MAY OCCUR IN OTHER CYLINDERS IN THE FUTURE. FORD CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE (800#) DISCLAIMS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THIS BEING A COMMON PROBLEM AND REFERRED ME TO THE LOCAL DEALER FOR TECHNICAL ADVICE. AT THE LOCAL DEALER, THE MECHANIC WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUE, PRONOUNCED IT RATHER COMMON AND ADVISED THAT FORD WOULD BE HAPPY TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER HIS ESTIMATE WOULD COST ME MORE THAN TWICE THE ESTIMATED FEE FROM THE INDEPENDENT (INCLUSIVE OF THE ADDITIONAL TOW COSTS). SUBSEQUENT GOOGLE SEARCHES FOR "FORD EXPEDITION THROWN SPARK PLUG REVEAL 11,200 WEB PAGE HITS. THE WEBPAGES AT THE 1ST HIT ALONE, WWW.CONSUMERAFFAIRS.COM/AUTOMOTIVE/FORD_SPARK.HTML REVEALS A LITANY OF VERY SIMILAR COMPLAINTS OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, SOME OF WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN MORE TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES. GIVEN THE DANGER REPRESENTED BY POTENTIAL ENGINE FIRES AND THE APPARENT FREQUENCY OF THE PROBLEM WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN A RECALL TO EFFECT THE CORRECTION OF THIS APPARENT DEFECT. *TR
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.