NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
615 reports71,880 miles · Jan 11, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING ALONG I SUDDENLY HEARD A LOUD 'BANG'. THINKING IT MUST BE A FLAT TIRE I PULLED OVER TO INSPECT MY TIRES. AFTER I FOUND NO ISSUES WITH MY TIRES, I NOTICED THAT THE NOISE WAS IN FACT COMING FROM MY ENGINE WHICH ALSO SMELLED AS IF SOMETHING WAS BURNING. AFTER HAVING THE VEHICLE TOWED TO BE INSPECTED, I WAS ADVISE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ALONG I SUDDENLY HEARD A LOUD 'BANG'. THINKING IT MUST BE A FLAT TIRE I PULLED OVER TO INSPECT MY TIRES. AFTER I FOUND NO ISSUES WITH MY TIRES, I NOTICED THAT THE NOISE WAS IN FACT COMING FROM MY ENGINE WHICH ALSO SMELLED AS IF SOMETHING WAS BURNING. AFTER HAVING THE VEHICLE TOWED TO BE INSPECTED, I WAS ADVISED THAT THE ALUMINUM AROUND THE SPARK PLUG HAD MELTED AND I NEEDED A NEW HEAD REPLACED WHICH WILL COST OVER 3000 DOLLARS. THEY INITIALLY THOUGHT THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO HAVE FORD STAND BEHIND THEIR VEHICLES? *JB
NHTSA ODI #10178438
55,300 miles · Dec 29, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
DRIVING NORMALLY. #3 SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT DAMAGING IGNITION COIL AND RUINING THREADS. THIS SEEMS TO BE A FREQUENT PROBLEM WITH THESE FORD TRUCK ENGINES.
NHTSA ODI #10177297
20,800 miles · Dec 28, 2006
Electrical SystemInterior LightingLatches/locks/linkages
REAR VIEW MIRRORS FAIL TO RETURN TO CORRECT POSITION AFTER BACKING UP CAUSING A DRIVING HAZARD. THIS HAS BEEN AN ON-GOING PROBLEMS SINCE PURCHASING THIS VEHICLE - NEW IN 2003. DEALER HAS LOOKED AT IT AND STATED THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM AND NO SERVICE BULLETINS EXISTED AS OF MARCH 2006. OTHER INTERMITTENT ELECTRI…
Read full complaint
REAR VIEW MIRRORS FAIL TO RETURN TO CORRECT POSITION AFTER BACKING UP CAUSING A DRIVING HAZARD. THIS HAS BEEN AN ON-GOING PROBLEMS SINCE PURCHASING THIS VEHICLE - NEW IN 2003. DEALER HAS LOOKED AT IT AND STATED THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM AND NO SERVICE BULLETINS EXISTED AS OF MARCH 2006. OTHER INTERMITTENT ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS EXIST - 1. PASSENGER SIDE REAR DOOR - AUTOMATIC LOCK DOESN'T ALWAYS OPERATE. 2. INTERIOR LIGHTS STAY ON AS IF A DOOR HAS BEEN LEFT OPEN, EVEN WHEN ALL DOORS AND HATCHES HAVE BEEN CHECKED TO ENSURE THEY ARE COMPLETELY CLOSED. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10177218
50,600 miles · Dec 20, 2006
Air Bags
TL*- THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 75 MPH. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE AIRBAGS ON THE RIGHT FRONT AND REAR SIDE DOOR, AS WELL AS, THE LEFT FRONT DOOR AND REAR FRONT DOOR DEPLOYED. BEFORE INCIDENT CONTACT DID NOT HAVE ANY PRIOR NOTIFICATION REGARDING HIS AIRBAGS. HE DID GET A WARNING LIGHT REGARDING HIS AIRBAGS AFTER THE I…
Read full complaint
TL*- THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 75 MPH. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE AIRBAGS ON THE RIGHT FRONT AND REAR SIDE DOOR, AS WELL AS, THE LEFT FRONT DOOR AND REAR FRONT DOOR DEPLOYED. BEFORE INCIDENT CONTACT DID NOT HAVE ANY PRIOR NOTIFICATION REGARDING HIS AIRBAGS. HE DID GET A WARNING LIGHT REGARDING HIS AIRBAGS AFTER THE INCIDENT. IF NEEDED CONTACT CAN PROVIDE PICTURES OF HID DEPLOYED AIRBAGS
NHTSA ODI #10176645
53,070 miles · Dec 6, 2006
Tires
FORD EXPEDITION 2003 XLT, 53700 MILES, CONTINENTAL CONTITRAC SUV TIRES, TREAD SEPARATION ON LEFT REAR TIRE, DAMAGE TO THE WHEEL WELL AREA, REPLACED ALL 5 ORIG. TIRES WITH MICHELIN TIRES FOR ABOUT $1.000.00, KEPT ALL TIRES. MANAGED TO STOP CAR BEFORE ROLL OVER. NO RECALL RECEIVED FROM FORD. WHAT SHOULD I DO?*JB
NHTSA ODI #10175269
Mileage unknown · Dec 4, 2006
Air BagsCrashInjury
MY WIFE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A DIRECT FRONTAL ACCIDENT IN OUR 2003 FORD EXPEDITION ON DEC. 1, 2006 AND OUR AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THIS WAS A RELATIVELY HIGH SPEED ACCIDENT. I SPOKE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF FORD AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS THEY WOULD GIVE ME A WRITTEN RESPONSE WITHIN 10 DAYS. I TOLD THEM THAT I WAS UNSURE IF M…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A DIRECT FRONTAL ACCIDENT IN OUR 2003 FORD EXPEDITION ON DEC. 1, 2006 AND OUR AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THIS WAS A RELATIVELY HIGH SPEED ACCIDENT. I SPOKE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF FORD AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS THEY WOULD GIVE ME A WRITTEN RESPONSE WITHIN 10 DAYS. I TOLD THEM THAT I WAS UNSURE IF MY AUTO WAS REPAIRABLE BUT IF IT WAS I HAD NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CURRENT AIRBAG SYSTEM AND FELT IT SHOULD BE REPLACED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10175084
Mileage unknown · Nov 8, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH ON NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS, A LOUD POPPING SOUND WAS HEARD. THE CONTACT PULLED THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD IT TOWED TO A LOCAL DEALER. UPON EXAMINATION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE SPARK PLUGS BLEW DUE TO INADEQUATE ENGINE DESIGN OF THE THREADING. THE VEHICLE WAS NO…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH ON NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS, A LOUD POPPING SOUND WAS HEARD. THE CONTACT PULLED THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD IT TOWED TO A LOCAL DEALER. UPON EXAMINATION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE SPARK PLUGS BLEW DUE TO INADEQUATE ENGINE DESIGN OF THE THREADING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. THE DEALER REPLACED THE SPARK PLUGS AND THREADING. THE CONTACT ENCOUNTERED SIMILAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE THAT RELATED TO THE CONTACT'S ISSUE.
NHTSA ODI #10172968
Mileage unknown · Nov 2, 2006
Electrical System
2003 FORD EXPEDITION LOST ALL POWER AND ALMOST GOT REAR ENDED. *KB ***NAR*** THE VEHICLE CROSSED INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND WAS ALMOST INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION. THE VEHICLE FINALLY STOPPED AND WAS ABLE TO BE RESTARTED AND DRIVEN TO THE CONSUMER'S HOME. THE NEXT DAY THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE DEALER WAS UNAB…
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPEDITION LOST ALL POWER AND ALMOST GOT REAR ENDED. *KB ***NAR*** THE VEHICLE CROSSED INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND WAS ALMOST INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION. THE VEHICLE FINALLY STOPPED AND WAS ABLE TO BE RESTARTED AND DRIVEN TO THE CONSUMER'S HOME. THE NEXT DAY THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM AND RETURNED THE VEHICLE TO THE CONSUMER. ABOUT A WEEK LATER THE VEHICLE STALLED AGAIN WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER A LEFT FOR A FEW DAYS SO THEY COULD TRY TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. UNFORTUNATELY THEY WERE UNABLE TO AND THE VEHICLE WAS AGAIN RETURNED TO THE CONSUMER. THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO LONGER FELT SAFE DRIVING THE CAR ESPECIALLY SINCE SHE TRANSPORTED HER CHILDREN IN IT. THE CONSUMER READ SOMEWHERE THAT THE WIRING HARNESS WAS THE CAUSED OF THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER TOLD THE DEALER OF HIS FINDINGS BUT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED. THEY TOLD HIM THAT THE COULD NOT FIX IT UNLESS THEY FOUND THE PROBLEM. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10173284
40,000 miles · Oct 31, 2006
Power TrainSuspension
I KEPT FEELING A "SLIPPING FEELING" IN THE REAR OF MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. LIKE A GEAR AND NOTCHES OF THE GEAR WERE NOT LINING UP PROPERLY TO INTER-LOCK AND TURN. IT WOULD FEEL LIKE A JUMPING, SLIPPING. I TOOK IT LOCAL DEALERSHIP, THEY REPLACED THE REAR CLUTCHES. SINCE THAT TIME, IT HAS BEEN IN TWO DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS IN …
Read full complaint
I KEPT FEELING A "SLIPPING FEELING" IN THE REAR OF MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. LIKE A GEAR AND NOTCHES OF THE GEAR WERE NOT LINING UP PROPERLY TO INTER-LOCK AND TURN. IT WOULD FEEL LIKE A JUMPING, SLIPPING. I TOOK IT LOCAL DEALERSHIP, THEY REPLACED THE REAR CLUTCHES. SINCE THAT TIME, IT HAS BEEN IN TWO DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS IN LESS THAN A YEAR AND THE REAR CLUTCHES HAVE BEEN REPLACED FIVE TIMES AND NOW I AM ABOUT TO TAKE IN FOR NUMBER SIX. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10172281
57,357 miles · Oct 26, 2006
Service Brakes, HydraulicSteering
ON AUGUST 26,2006 TOOK MY SUV TO DEALER TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BECAUSE THE FRONT END WAS SHAKING REALLY BAD. WAS TOLD THAT IT NEEDED TO HAVE FRONT AND REAR ROTORS REPLACED HAD ANOTHER DEALER CHECK OUT ONLY NEED FRONT ROTORS REPLACED HAD THEM REPLACED. ON SEPT 8, 2006 TOOK BACK TO DEALER BECAUSE I HEARD A WHINNING NOISE THOUGHT I…
Read full complaint
ON AUGUST 26,2006 TOOK MY SUV TO DEALER TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BECAUSE THE FRONT END WAS SHAKING REALLY BAD. WAS TOLD THAT IT NEEDED TO HAVE FRONT AND REAR ROTORS REPLACED HAD ANOTHER DEALER CHECK OUT ONLY NEED FRONT ROTORS REPLACED HAD THEM REPLACED. ON SEPT 8, 2006 TOOK BACK TO DEALER BECAUSE I HEARD A WHINNING NOISE THOUGHT IT WAS THE POWER STEERING FLUID LOW. IT CHECKED OUT OKAY DEALER CHECK IT AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE POWER STEERING PUMP WAS BAD HAD IT REPLACE. PICKED UP MY SUV AND IT WAS STILL MAKING THE SAME NOISE. WAS TOLD TO DRIVE FOR TWO WEEKS TO LET AIR BLEED OUT LINE AND BRING BACK IN TWO WEEKS CALL THEM TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THE NOISE WAS STILL THERE TOOK TO DEALER. NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. CALL THE FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE AND MAILED THEM A LETTER ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. THEY TOLD ME TO TAKE MY SUV TO ANOTHER FORD DEALER DID THAT WAS TOLD THAT THE POWER STEERING PUMP WAS BAD THAT I HAD PUT ON IN AUG. AND THAT SOMETHING WAS CAUSING THEM TO GO BAD. THE STEERING RACK IS THE PROBLEM. I CALL THE DEALER WHERE I'VE ALL OF MY WORK DONE ON MY SUV AND TALK TO THE GENERAL MANAGER. HE WAS RUDE AND HUNG UP IN MY FACE I CALL BACK I'M GOING TO TAKE MY SUV TO THEM TOMORROW OCT 27,2006 AND SEE IF WE CAN COME TO TERMS TO GET MY SUV FIX. BUT I'VE SEE MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SAME PROBLEM THAT 'M HAVING. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10171938
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Illustration