IllustrationREAR HATCHBACK PAINT BUBBLING FOR THE SECOND TIME. IT WAS REPAINTED AFTER 1 YEAR AND NOW IS DOING THE SAME THING.*AK
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 reportsWIFE WAS DRIVING THE 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WITH 73000 MILES ON IT WHEN LOUD POPPING NOISE WAS HEARD, UPON EXAMINATION SPARKPLUG WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE BLOCK REPAIR AT CLOSEST FORD DEALER WAS $3000. *AK
ON MARCH 13, 2007, OUR 2003 FORD EXPEDITION HAD A TREAD SEPARATION TIRE FAILURE. WE WERE PULLING A TRAVEL TRAILER AND BOTH VEHICLES ROLLED OVER TWICE. THE TIRES WERE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT CONTINENTAL TIRES. TWO OF THE FOUR PASSENGERS WERE INJURED ENOUGH TO REQUIRE EMERGENCY ROOM TREATMENT. ONE WAS AIRLIFTED TO THE HOSPITAL, THE…
Read full complaint
ON MARCH 13, 2007, OUR 2003 FORD EXPEDITION HAD A TREAD SEPARATION TIRE FAILURE. WE WERE PULLING A TRAVEL TRAILER AND BOTH VEHICLES ROLLED OVER TWICE. THE TIRES WERE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT CONTINENTAL TIRES. TWO OF THE FOUR PASSENGERS WERE INJURED ENOUGH TO REQUIRE EMERGENCY ROOM TREATMENT. ONE WAS AIRLIFTED TO THE HOSPITAL, THE OTHER DRIVEN TO THE HOSPITAL. BOTH WERE TREATED NAD RELEASED THE SAME DAY. CONTINENTAL TIRES ARE DANGEROUS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THIS VEHICLE BASED ON THE TIRE RECALLS THAT HAVE OCCURRRED. I WAS UNAWARE OF ANY SAFETY PROBLEMS WITH CONTINENTAL TIRES.*AK
THE VEHICLE WOULD RANDOMLY FAIL TO START OVER A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS, USUALLY IN THE MORNING. ALL LIGHTS, GAUGES, RADIO, AND HEATER WOULD WORK, BUT THE ENGINE WOULD NOT CRANK. AFTER TURNING THE KEY 4-5 TIMES, IT WOULD EVENTUALLY START. ONE TIME, NOTHING WORKED AND HAD TO JUMP START THE BATTERY. I REPLACED THE BATTERY AND 1 WEE…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE WOULD RANDOMLY FAIL TO START OVER A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS, USUALLY IN THE MORNING. ALL LIGHTS, GAUGES, RADIO, AND HEATER WOULD WORK, BUT THE ENGINE WOULD NOT CRANK. AFTER TURNING THE KEY 4-5 TIMES, IT WOULD EVENTUALLY START. ONE TIME, NOTHING WORKED AND HAD TO JUMP START THE BATTERY. I REPLACED THE BATTERY AND 1 WEEK LATER, IT DID NOT TURN OVER AGAIN AT ALL, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS WORKING. I LET IT SIT, AND TRIED IT LATER IN THE DAY, OF WHICH IT STARTED RIGHT AWAY. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY TESTED IT. THEY HAD THE PROBLEM HAPPEN TWICE ON THE FIRST DAY AND DETERMINED THE CAUSE TO BE THE STARTER TERMINAL WIRING PIGTAIL WAS CORRODED, AND THEY REPLACED IT WITH A NEW ONE. *JB
I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION AND I HAVE THE AUTOMATIC MIRRORS THAT ROTATE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE, THE RIGHT MIRROR WOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PLACED IN DRIVE THE MIRROR WAS SUPPOSE TO GO BACK TO THE PRE-…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION AND I HAVE THE AUTOMATIC MIRRORS THAT ROTATE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE, THE RIGHT MIRROR WOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PLACED IN DRIVE THE MIRROR WAS SUPPOSE TO GO BACK TO THE PRE-SERT POSITION BUT IT WOULD NOT. THE PROBLEM WAS FIXED WHEN I PICKED UP THE VEHICLE. ABOUT A YEAR LATER THE SAME PROBLEM RECURRED AND THE DEALER REPLACED BOTH LT AND RT MIRROR MOTORS. NOW THE PROBLEM HAS RECURRED AGAIN WITH LITTLE DIFFERENCE. NOW WHEN I UNLOCK THE DOORS WITH THE REMOTE BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE MIRRORS ROTATE IN AND DOWN AS IF THE VEHICLE IS IN REVERSE BUT THAT IS EVEN BEFORE THE DOORS AR OPEN. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS STARTED NEITHER MIRROR WILL GO BACK TO THE PRE-SET POSITIONS. SO NOW BEFORE I CAN DRIVE THE VEHICLE I HAVE TO ADJUST EACH MIRROR. THIS PROBLEM HAPPENS EACH TIME THE VEHICLE IS UNLOCKED WITH THE REMOTE. IF I USE THE KEY TO UNLOCK THE LEFT DOOR THE MIRRORS STAY AT THE PRE-SET POSITION UNTIL I PLACE THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE BUT THE MIRRORS WILL NOT MOVE BACK TO THE PRE-SET POSITION AFTER GOING TO THE DRIVE POSITION. WITH THE MIRRORS IN THE AUTOMATIC REVERSE POSITION, NEITHER WILL GO BACK TO THE PRE-SET POSITION. AFTER TURNING OFF THE AUTOMATIC REVERSE ON THE MESSAGE CENTER COMPUTER, BOTH MIRRORS WILL STILL DRIVE TO THE IN AND DOWN POSITION WHEN THE VEHICLE IS UNLOCKED AND BOTH HAVE TO BE SET AGAIN BEFORE DRIVING. *JB
I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION AND I HAVE THE AUTOMATIC MIRRORS THAT ROTATE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE, THE RIGHT MIRROR WOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PLACED IN DRIVE THE MIRROR WAS SUPPOSE TO GO BACK TO THE PRE-…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION AND I HAVE THE AUTOMATIC MIRRORS THAT ROTATE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE, THE RIGHT MIRROR WOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE IN AND DOWN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO REVERSE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PLACED IN DRIVE THE MIRROR WAS SUPPOSE TO GO BACK TO THE PRE-SERT POSITION BUT IT WOULD NOT. THE PROBLEM WAS FIXED WHEN I PICKED UP THE VEHICLE. ABOUT A YEAR LATER THE SAME PROBLEM RECURRED AND THE DEALER REPLACED BOTH LT AND RT MIRROR MOTORS. NOW THE PROBLEM HAS RECURRED AGAIN WITH A LITTLE DIFFERENCE. NOW WHEN I UNLOCK THE DOORS WITH THE REMOTE BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE MIRRORS ROTATE IN AND DOWN AS IF THE VEHICLE IS IN REVERSE BUT THAT IS EVEN BEFORE THE DOORS AR OPEN. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS STARTED NEITHER MIRROR WILL GO BACK TO THE PRE-SET POSITIONS. SO NOW BEFORE I CAN DRIVE THE VEHICLE I HAVE TO ADJUST EACH MIRROR. THIS PROBLEM HAPPENS EACH TIME THE VEHICLE IS UNLOCKED WITH THE REMOTE. IF I USE THE KEY TO UNLOCK THE LEFT DOOR THE MIRRORS STAY AT THE PRE=SET POSITION UNTIL I PLACE THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE BUT THE MIRRORS WILL NOT MOVE BACK TO THE PRE-SET POSITION AFTER GOING TO THE DRIVE POSITION. WITH THE MIRRORS IN THE AUTOMATIC REVERSE POSITION, NEITHER WILL GO BACK TO THE PRE-SET POSITION. AFTER TURNING OFF THE AUTOMATIC REVERSE ON THE MESSAGE CENTER COMPUTER, BOTH MIRRORS WILL STILL DRIVE TO THE IN AND DOWN POSITION WHEN THE VEHICLE IS UNLOCKED AND BOTH HAVE TO BE SET AGAIN BEFORE DRIVING. *JB
REAR HEATING/AC AIR BLEND DOOR ACTUATOR HAS FAILED. A DRIVE GEAR INSIDE THE ACTUATOR HAS STRIPPED AND IS MISSING TWO TEETH. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION IT APPEARS THAT THE MANUAL TEMPERATURE CONTROL CAUSES THE ACTUATOR TO REACH ONE END OF IT'S INTERNAL TRAVEL LIMIT PREMATURELY, STRAINING THE INTERNAL GEAR DRIVE. ALSO, THE AIR BLE…
Read full complaint
REAR HEATING/AC AIR BLEND DOOR ACTUATOR HAS FAILED. A DRIVE GEAR INSIDE THE ACTUATOR HAS STRIPPED AND IS MISSING TWO TEETH. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION IT APPEARS THAT THE MANUAL TEMPERATURE CONTROL CAUSES THE ACTUATOR TO REACH ONE END OF IT'S INTERNAL TRAVEL LIMIT PREMATURELY, STRAINING THE INTERNAL GEAR DRIVE. ALSO, THE AIR BLEND DOOR TRAVEL LIMITS ARE REACHED BEFORE THE ACTUATOR LIMITS, STRAINING THE INTERNAL GEAR DRIVE FURTHER AT BOTH ENDS OF TRAVEL. THE TWO ISSUES CAUSE THE EFFECTIVE ROTATION RANGE OF THE MANUAL TEMPERATURE CONTROL TO BE REDUCED FROM 300 DEGREES OF ROTATION TO 135 DEGREES OF ROTATION, AND ANY POSITIONING OF THE CONTROL OUTSIDE THE EFFECTIVE RANGE STRAINS AND STRIPS THE GEARS OF THE BLEND DOOR ACTUATOR.
ENGINE FAILURE ON MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION HAVING A 5.4 LITER TRITON V8 ENGINE. NUMBER 2 SPARK PLUG WAS BLOWN OUT AND THE COST TO REPAIR IS $3000. FORD HAS KNOWN OF THIS ISSUE FOR SOME TIME BUT WILL NOT ACCEPT BLAME. THE NUMBER OF THREADS TO HOLD THE SPARK PLUGS IS TOO FEW. *NM
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING AT 50 MPH THE CRUISE CONTROL BEGAN MAKING A GRINDING NOISE AND THE VEHICLE LOST POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY RISK AFTER VIEWING A NEWS REPORT RELATED TO THE CRUISE CONTROL.*AK
ROTORS NEEDING TO BE REPLACED AT LOW MILEAGE ON FORD EXPEDITION 2003- OR NEWER AND 2004 FORD F150'S 2003 OR NEWER. *JB
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.