IllustrationCATASTROPHIC FAILURE AND TREAD SEPARATION. BELTS WERE RUSTY UPON INSPECTION (IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FAILURE). REMAINING WIRECOAT SHOWED RUST REMNANTS IMPREGNATING RUBBER WHERE THE WIRE PREVIOUSLY WAS. TIRE SHOWED NO SIGNS OF IMMINENT FAILURE PRIOR TO INCIDENT. *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 reportsCRACKS ON 3 OF 4 TIRES. NO ACTION TAKEN. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE DRIVER OBSERVED THAT THE TRAILER TIRE APPARATUS WAS NOT SECURED AND WAS HANGING OFF OF THE VEHICLE AFTER DRIVING 135 MILES. THE RISK OF A CRASH WAS INCREASED DUE TO THE HANGING TIRE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE TIRE HOLDER WAS A HALL-MASTER, PART NUMBER 93341. THE CONTACT STA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE DRIVER OBSERVED THAT THE TRAILER TIRE APPARATUS WAS NOT SECURED AND WAS HANGING OFF OF THE VEHICLE AFTER DRIVING 135 MILES. THE RISK OF A CRASH WAS INCREASED DUE TO THE HANGING TIRE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE TIRE HOLDER WAS A HALL-MASTER, PART NUMBER 93341. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HARBORFREIGHT.COM SELLS THE SAME PRODUCT AS PART NUMBER 93341-0ZGA. THE VIN AND MILEAGES WERE UNKNOWN.
2003 FORD EXPEDITION- AFTER IT RAINS I AM HAVING MANY DIFFERENT THINGS HAPPENING WITHIN THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE DOORS WON'T LOCK, THE RADIO WON'T LIGHT UP ANY MORE, THE INTERIOR LIGHTS WON'T SHUT OFF, THE FRONT WINDOWS WON'T WORK, MILDEW SMELL IN THE CAR. THE ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS ALONE CAN CAUSE A FIRE BUT WITH THE DOORS NOT B…
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPEDITION- AFTER IT RAINS I AM HAVING MANY DIFFERENT THINGS HAPPENING WITHIN THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE DOORS WON'T LOCK, THE RADIO WON'T LIGHT UP ANY MORE, THE INTERIOR LIGHTS WON'T SHUT OFF, THE FRONT WINDOWS WON'T WORK, MILDEW SMELL IN THE CAR. THE ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS ALONE CAN CAUSE A FIRE BUT WITH THE DOORS NOT BEING ABLE TO BE LOCKED IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY AND I AM CONCERNED FOR MY FAMILIES SAFETY. I HEARD FROM THE DEALER AND OTHERS THAT FORD WILL NOT ISSUE A RECALL FOR THIS ONGOING PROBLEM. *TR
I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WITH A 5.4L ENGINE. WAS DRIVING THE TRUCK WHEN I HEARD A POP AND THE ENGINE STARTED TO MISFIRE. SPARK PLUG NO. 7 HAD BEEN EJECTED BREAKING THE COIL. I HAVE OWNED THE TRUCK SINCE IT WAS NEW AND IT HAS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED, ONLY 65000 MILES. I HAVE READ MANY OF THE OTHER COMPLAINTS ONLINE AND I'M A…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WITH A 5.4L ENGINE. WAS DRIVING THE TRUCK WHEN I HEARD A POP AND THE ENGINE STARTED TO MISFIRE. SPARK PLUG NO. 7 HAD BEEN EJECTED BREAKING THE COIL. I HAVE OWNED THE TRUCK SINCE IT WAS NEW AND IT HAS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED, ONLY 65000 MILES. I HAVE READ MANY OF THE OTHER COMPLAINTS ONLINE AND I'M AMAZED AT THE NUMBERS OF ISSUES WITH THIS ENGINE. THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY A BAD DESIGN THAT SPANS A NUMBER OF YEARS. *TR
MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BLEW A SPARK PLUG COMPLETELY OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD WITHOUT WARNING. THIS HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING AT ALMOST 65 MPH, AND THE ENGINE STALLED, CAUSING A VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION. THE VEHICLE HAD LESS THAN 59K MILES AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. IT COST ME OVER $4K TO REPAIR, AND I NOW FIND OUT THAT THIS HAS …
Read full complaint
MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BLEW A SPARK PLUG COMPLETELY OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD WITHOUT WARNING. THIS HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING AT ALMOST 65 MPH, AND THE ENGINE STALLED, CAUSING A VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION. THE VEHICLE HAD LESS THAN 59K MILES AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. IT COST ME OVER $4K TO REPAIR, AND I NOW FIND OUT THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO THOUSANDS OF OWNERS WITH FORD TRITON MOTORS FROM 1999 TO 2004. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE TIRE SUDDENLY LOST TIRE PRESSURE. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, THE CONTACT EXPERIENCED AN IDENTICAL FAILURE WITH THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE. A LOCAL TECHNICIAN IDENTIFIED THE VALVE STEM AS BEING THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE AND THEY …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE TIRE SUDDENLY LOST TIRE PRESSURE. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, THE CONTACT EXPERIENCED AN IDENTICAL FAILURE WITH THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE. A LOCAL TECHNICIAN IDENTIFIED THE VALVE STEM AS BEING THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE AND THEY MADE THE REPLACEMENT. AFTERWARDS, THE FAILURE RECURRED. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE NEW SET OF VALVE STEMS WERE CORRODED AND DEFECTIVE. SHE CURRENTLY HAS POSSESSION OF THE VALVE STEMS. THE VALVE STEM INFORMATION WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 33,000.
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE WASHING MY SUV, I RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT OF THE SLOTS ON THE ROOF BETWEEN THE LUGGAGE RACKS HAVE RUST BUBBLING UP THROUGH THE PAINT. THERE IS NO APPARENT DAMAGE IN THIS AREA AND 3 OF THE TRACKS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM AT VARYING STAGES OF PROGRESSION. I WAS INFORMED BY FORD THAT THIS…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE WASHING MY SUV, I RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT OF THE SLOTS ON THE ROOF BETWEEN THE LUGGAGE RACKS HAVE RUST BUBBLING UP THROUGH THE PAINT. THERE IS NO APPARENT DAMAGE IN THIS AREA AND 3 OF THE TRACKS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM AT VARYING STAGES OF PROGRESSION. I WAS INFORMED BY FORD THAT THIS WAS NOT COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD (WOULD) DO FOR ME. I CALLED THE FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE HOT LINE AND WAS TOLD THE SAME. *TR
THE SPARK PLUG COIL ON MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WAS EJECTED FROM THE CYLINDER CAUSING MY VEHICLE TO BECOME DISABLED. MY WIFE WAS STRANDED ALONE IN AN UNFAMILIAR NEIGHBORHOOD. AFTER RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM I HAVE FOUND THAT I AM ONLY ONE OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD SIMILAR PROBLEMS REGARDING THE STABILITY OF THE SPARK PLUG…
Read full complaint
THE SPARK PLUG COIL ON MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WAS EJECTED FROM THE CYLINDER CAUSING MY VEHICLE TO BECOME DISABLED. MY WIFE WAS STRANDED ALONE IN AN UNFAMILIAR NEIGHBORHOOD. AFTER RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM I HAVE FOUND THAT I AM ONLY ONE OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD SIMILAR PROBLEMS REGARDING THE STABILITY OF THE SPARK PLUG AND THE PROBLEMS THAT CAN OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE UNEXPECTED AND TOTALLY SUDDEN EJECTION OF THE COIL. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE FORCED TO SUBMIT TO THE PREDATORY PRACTICES OF MOST REPAIR SHOPS UNTIL SOMETHING IS DONE? THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR PROBLEM HERE AND ACTION MUST BE TAKEN. SO FAR THIS HAS COST ME ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH IT WILL COST TO FOX IT RIGHT. THE WAY IS SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN IT WAS MANUFACTURED. I HAVE READ THIS IS BELIEVED TO BE A RESULT OF A FLAW IN THE DESIGN OF THE CYLINDER HEADS AND THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS SHOULD WARRANT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DESIGN AND FORD'S RESPONSE TO THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES DISABLED BY THIS ERROR. *TR
I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION AND HAVE HAD 3 SPARK PLUGS BLOW CAUSING THE CYLINDERS TO MISFIRE. IN EACH CASE, I HAVE THE CAR REPAIRED AND EACH TIME IT WAS A DIFFERENT SPARK PLUG TO BLOW, NOT A PREVIOUSLY FIXED ONE. *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.