IllustrationI WAS TAKING MY COUSIN TO THE JACKSONVILLE AIRPORT. I WAS APPROXIMATELY 25 MILES OUTSIDE OF JACKSONVILLE WHEN MY TIRE BLEW OUT, CAUSING ME TO LOOSE CONTROL OF MY SUV. THE SUV ROLLOVER SIX OR SEVEN TIMES. THE TREAD PART OF THE TIRE SEPARATED FROM THE TIRE. MY AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY ALSO. *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 reportsI WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 15 MILES AN HOUR AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I HEARD A LOUD POP. I HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. THEY SAID THAT FROM WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING IT WAS A SPARK PLUG THAT BLEW OUT OF THE ENGINE. BUT SINCE IT WAS ALMOST 5:00 P.M. AND THEY WERE ABOUT TO CLOSE THEY WOULDN'T KNOW ANYTHING UNTIL THEY COULD LOOK…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 15 MILES AN HOUR AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I HEARD A LOUD POP. I HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. THEY SAID THAT FROM WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING IT WAS A SPARK PLUG THAT BLEW OUT OF THE ENGINE. BUT SINCE IT WAS ALMOST 5:00 P.M. AND THEY WERE ABOUT TO CLOSE THEY WOULDN'T KNOW ANYTHING UNTIL THEY COULD LOOK AT IT THE NEXT DAY. I DIDN'T DAMAGE THE HEADS BUT IT STILL COST ME OVER $400.00 TO FIX IT. *TR
ORIGINAL AND 2ND FORD ENGINE BLEW. 1ST THREW A ROD, 2ND BLOCK CRACKED AND RUINED ENGINE DUE TO RAPID COOLANT LOSS. DEALERS OFFERED NO WARRANTY AS BOTH ENGINES BLEW AT 112,000 AND 120,000 RESPECTIVELY. THIS CAR WAS VERY WELL MAINTAINED AND RECEIVED ROUTINE RECOMMENDED SERVICE FOR OIL AND FLUID CHANGES. *TR
1ST OCCURRENCE WAS A SIDE WALL BULGE COMBINATION FLAT IN THE FRONT RIGHT TIRE. TIRE WAS REPLACED WITH NEW. 2ND MOST RECENT OCCURRENCE (08-03-2008) WAS A COMPLETE TREAD SEPARATION ON THE FRONT RIGHT TIRE. DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 10 FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 HOURS FROM PHOENIX TO LOS ANGELES. SPEED WAS 65MPH TO MAXIMIZE GAS CONSUMPTION…
Read full complaint
1ST OCCURRENCE WAS A SIDE WALL BULGE COMBINATION FLAT IN THE FRONT RIGHT TIRE. TIRE WAS REPLACED WITH NEW. 2ND MOST RECENT OCCURRENCE (08-03-2008) WAS A COMPLETE TREAD SEPARATION ON THE FRONT RIGHT TIRE. DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 10 FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 HOURS FROM PHOENIX TO LOS ANGELES. SPEED WAS 65MPH TO MAXIMIZE GAS CONSUMPTION IN THE #2 LANE. *TR
FIRST, THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. I CONTINUED TO GO AROUND THE VEHICLE OPENING AND SHUTTING THE DOORS AND THE LIGHT REMAINED ON. CONSUMER COULD NOT START THE VEHICLE SINCE THE LIGHT CAME ON, AND HAD TO GET A JUMP TO START IT. AFTER A FEW DAYS OF THIS THE BATTERY WAS FINALLY RUINED, AND I WAS FORCED TO BUY A NEW …
Read full complaint
FIRST, THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. I CONTINUED TO GO AROUND THE VEHICLE OPENING AND SHUTTING THE DOORS AND THE LIGHT REMAINED ON. CONSUMER COULD NOT START THE VEHICLE SINCE THE LIGHT CAME ON, AND HAD TO GET A JUMP TO START IT. AFTER A FEW DAYS OF THIS THE BATTERY WAS FINALLY RUINED, AND I WAS FORCED TO BUY A NEW ONE. I USED LUBRICANTS TO TRY AND CLEAR DEBRIS FROM THE DOOR SENSORS AND THIS WORKED FOR 3 MONTHS. NOW IT WILL NOT WORK AT ALL. TALKED TO DEALER AND THEY WANT TO CHARGE 600 DOLLARS PER SENSORS. NOTHING WRONG WITH SENSOR ITS JUST DIRTY. SECOND, THE REAR AC IS MAKING A CLICKING NOISE AND WILL NOT CONTROL TEMPERATURE. I SENT IT UNDER WARRANTY TO THE DEALERSHIP AND REPLACED THE AC MECHANISM, STATED "THIS WAS A COMMON DEFECT WITH THE VEHICLE". 5 MONTHS LATER THIS PART WENT OUT AGAIN AND IT WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY AND THE DEALERSHIP WOULD NOT REPLACE THE PROBLEM AND WANTED TO CHARGE ME OVER 300 DOLLARS. THEY APPARENTLY REPLACED THE DEFECTIVE PART WITH THE SAME DEFECTIVE PART AND WOULD REPAIR IT AGAIN 5 MONTHS LATER!!!. THIRD, THE SIDE PANELS ON THE EXPEDITION EXTERIOR STARTED FADING AT ABOUT 20,000 MILES. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THEM UNDER WARRANTY. ABOUT 20,000 MILES LATER WE NOTICED THEY HAD FADED AGAIN. WE TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY WOULD NOT REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE PANELS THIS TIME BECAUSE IT WAS KNOW LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ANOTHER DEFECT REPLACED WITH A DEFECTIVE PART. FORTH, THE REAR PASSENGER EXTERIOR DOOR/WINDOW TRIM IS BUBBLING AND PEELING OFF. THIS LOOKS HORRIBLE! FIFTH, THE FRONT PASSENGER AND FONT DRIVER WINDOW SWITCHES THAT ROLL DOWN THE WINDOWS ARE HAVING ISSUES. I HAD THE MOTOR REPLACED FOR THE PASSENGER WINDOW AND IT FIXED THE ISSUE FOR A LITTLE BIT. NOW THE PASSENGER CAN NOT ROLL DOWN THE WINDOW. HOWEVER THE DRIVER CAN??? PLEASE HELP! I NEED HELP WITH ANY OR ALL OF THESE ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ELSE TO GO! *TR
TREAD SEPARATION- CONTINENTAL CONTITRAC SUV, P265/70 R17, DOT ADT6 45EW 2802, 2003 FORD EXPEDITION, 63,504 MILES, ALL TIRES HAD GOOD TREAD REMAINING, REPLACED ALL TIRES, LEFT REAR QUARTER PANEL BADLY DAMAGED. *TR
MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BURST INTO FLAMES ON SUNDAY, JUNE 22 AT 5AM. THE TRUCK HADN'T BEEN DRIVEN SINCE 7PM THE PREVIOUS EVENING. WHILE THE TRAVIS COUNTY FIRE MARSHALL IS STILL FINISHING UP THE INVESTIGATION, ALL SIGNS POINT TO THE FAULTY CRUISE CONTROL MODULE. MY CAR WAS GUTTED, IT ALSO TOTALED THE CAR NEXT TO IT AND MOST OF…
Read full complaint
MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BURST INTO FLAMES ON SUNDAY, JUNE 22 AT 5AM. THE TRUCK HADN'T BEEN DRIVEN SINCE 7PM THE PREVIOUS EVENING. WHILE THE TRAVIS COUNTY FIRE MARSHALL IS STILL FINISHING UP THE INVESTIGATION, ALL SIGNS POINT TO THE FAULTY CRUISE CONTROL MODULE. MY CAR WAS GUTTED, IT ALSO TOTALED THE CAR NEXT TO IT AND MOST OF MY GARAGE WENT UP IN FLAMES! FORD SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SEND OUT SERIOUS RECALL NOTICES TO ALL OWNERS ASAP! PEOPLE ARE DYING... JUST CHECK OUT WWW.FLAMINGFORDS.INFO. *TR
I HAVE A RUBBING / GRINDING NOISE COMING FROM MY REAR END ON MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. AND AS I LOOK ON THE INTERNET THERE ARE 100'S OF PEOPLE THAT ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAME PROBLEM. THIS HAS TO BE A KNOWN ISSUE WITH FORD AND THEY AREN'T STANDING BEHIND THERE PRODUCT. *TR
MY LOCKS HAVE FAILED ON MY VEHICLE DUE TO WATER INTRUSION INTO THE FUSE MODULE. THE PASSENGER DOOR LOCKS WILL NOT ENGAGE AND THE REAR HATCH AND WINDOW LOCKS WILL NOT DISENGAGE. DEALER SERVICE HAS INDICATED THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT OCCURS 2-3 TIMES A YEAR WITH MY MAKE AND MODEL VEHICLE. DURING A CRASH THE DOORS TO MY VEHICLE COU…
Read full complaint
MY LOCKS HAVE FAILED ON MY VEHICLE DUE TO WATER INTRUSION INTO THE FUSE MODULE. THE PASSENGER DOOR LOCKS WILL NOT ENGAGE AND THE REAR HATCH AND WINDOW LOCKS WILL NOT DISENGAGE. DEALER SERVICE HAS INDICATED THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT OCCURS 2-3 TIMES A YEAR WITH MY MAKE AND MODEL VEHICLE. DURING A CRASH THE DOORS TO MY VEHICLE COULD OPEN AND SUBJECT THE OCCUPANT TO INJURY. ALL TOLD THIS REPAIR WILL COST OVER $1000. *TR
CAR WOULD NOT START ON FIRST ATTEMPT. FORD DEALER (TED RUSSELL KINGSTON PIKE) SAID DEFECTIVE BATTERY WHICH WAS REPLACED. PROBLEM STILL PERSISTED. FORD DEALER (TED RUSSELL KINGSTON PIKE) THEN SAID IT WAS A DEFECTIVE FUEL PUMP. WENT TO PEP BOYS KINGSTON PIKE - THEY DIAGNOSED DEFECTIVE FUEL PUMP REGULATOR. WENT TO DIFFERENT CAR DEA…
Read full complaint
CAR WOULD NOT START ON FIRST ATTEMPT. FORD DEALER (TED RUSSELL KINGSTON PIKE) SAID DEFECTIVE BATTERY WHICH WAS REPLACED. PROBLEM STILL PERSISTED. FORD DEALER (TED RUSSELL KINGSTON PIKE) THEN SAID IT WAS A DEFECTIVE FUEL PUMP. WENT TO PEP BOYS KINGSTON PIKE - THEY DIAGNOSED DEFECTIVE FUEL PUMP REGULATOR. WENT TO DIFFERENT CAR DEALER LOCATION (TED RUSSELL PARKSIDE DRIVE) - THEY OBSERVED LEAK OF FUEL FROM FUEL RAIL ONTO EXHAUST MANIFOLD. REQUESTED THAT THEY HOLD PART FOR ME AFTER REPLACEMENT. *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.