Illustration1.) I WAS JUST DRIVING THE VEHICLE AND THE SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF THE ENGINE. 2.) I HAVE A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION 5.4 L TRITON V8 WITH 78,000 MILES AND THE SPARK PLUG BLOW OUT OF THE ENGINE. 3.) A FORD DEALER IS REPLACING THE HEAD ON MY EXPEDITION, COST $3000. *JB
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 reportsTHE BRAKES ON THE 2003 EXPEDITION ISN'T DESIGNED TO HOLD THE HEAVY WEIGHT OF THE EXPEDITION. THIS CAUSE THE BRAKES TO NEED TO BE REPLACED NUMEROUS TIMES. FORD NEEDS TO RECALL THE BRAKES AND PUT BIGGER BRAKE PADS IN THEM. I HAVE HAD TO EVEN REPLACE THEM METAL TO METAL IN THE FRONT 7 TIMES IN 3 YEARS AND UNDER 45,000 MILES. I EVEN…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKES ON THE 2003 EXPEDITION ISN'T DESIGNED TO HOLD THE HEAVY WEIGHT OF THE EXPEDITION. THIS CAUSE THE BRAKES TO NEED TO BE REPLACED NUMEROUS TIMES. FORD NEEDS TO RECALL THE BRAKES AND PUT BIGGER BRAKE PADS IN THEM. I HAVE HAD TO EVEN REPLACE THEM METAL TO METAL IN THE FRONT 7 TIMES IN 3 YEARS AND UNDER 45,000 MILES. I EVEN HAD TO REPLACE THE MASTER CYLINDER DUE TO LEAKAGE AT 45,000 MILES. ALSO DUE TO ELECTRONIC PROBLEMS I HAVE HAD I WAS UNABLE TO LOCK THE SUV AND HAD THE ALARM SOUND BECAUSE OF IT AND WINDOWS DON'T GO UP AND DOWN CORRECTLY. *JB
2003 EXPEDITION RELAY JUNCTION BOX BURNED. *TS ***NAR*** THE VEHICLE STALLED WHILE BEING DRIVEN. THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS A RELAY PROBLEM AND REPLACED THE RELAY. AFTER REPAIR THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SHIFT INTO OVERDRIVE. THE DEALER PERFORMED DIAGNOSTIC TEST WHICH DETERMINED THAT THE JUNCTION HAD MELTED. THE JUNCTION BOX W…
Read full complaint
2003 EXPEDITION RELAY JUNCTION BOX BURNED. *TS ***NAR*** THE VEHICLE STALLED WHILE BEING DRIVEN. THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS A RELAY PROBLEM AND REPLACED THE RELAY. AFTER REPAIR THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SHIFT INTO OVERDRIVE. THE DEALER PERFORMED DIAGNOSTIC TEST WHICH DETERMINED THAT THE JUNCTION HAD MELTED. THE JUNCTION BOX WAS REPLACED BUT THE VEHICLE STILL HAD NO OVERDRIVE NOR THIRD GEAR. THE DEALER REMOVED THE TRANSMISSION PAN AND FOUND INTERNAL TRANSMISSION DAMAGE. THE CONSUMER FEELS THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS DESTROY WHEN THE JUNCTION BOX BURNED OUT. THE CONSUMER HAS THE BURNED JUNCTION BOX IN HIS POSSESSION. PRIOR TO THIS FAILED THE VEHICLE ALTERNATOR HAD TO BE REPLACED. *NM
I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE FROM JOE MYERS FORD ON 12/22/04. I HAD MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE SALESPERSON WHO IS JERRY DELGADO. HE LIED TO ME. JOE TOLD ME THAT I WAS GOING TO MAKE A CERTAIN PAYMENT AND REALITY I ENDED MAKING ANOTHER PAYMENT. HE ALSO PUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT INSURANCES THAT I DIDN'T ASK FOR OR WAS ASKED TO IF I WANTED. I …
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE FROM JOE MYERS FORD ON 12/22/04. I HAD MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE SALESPERSON WHO IS JERRY DELGADO. HE LIED TO ME. JOE TOLD ME THAT I WAS GOING TO MAKE A CERTAIN PAYMENT AND REALITY I ENDED MAKING ANOTHER PAYMENT. HE ALSO PUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT INSURANCES THAT I DIDN'T ASK FOR OR WAS ASKED TO IF I WANTED. I TRIED TO CANCEL THE BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO. THE SALESPERSON WAS NO HELP AT ALL. HE DIDN'T EXPLAIN TO ME EVERYTHING THAT WAS NEEDED TO EXPLAIN LIKE HOW LONG I WAS GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THE SUV. *JB
AFTER MY 100,000 MILE SERVICE WHICH INCLUDED A SPARK PLUG CHANGE, TWO SPARK PLUGS BLEW OUT, CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE CYLINDER HEAD AND MAJOR REPAIR COST. *JB
COIL PACK WENT OUT ON MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION @ 36,200 MILES, 200 MILES OUT OF WARRANTY. DEALER WOULD NOT MAKE EXCEPTION AND COVER. *NM
WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, THE ENGINE WOULD QUIT WITH NO PROCEEDING SYMPTOMS OR INDICATIONS. SHIFTING TO NEUTRAL AND TRYING TO RE-START WOULD NOT WORK. SHIFTING TO NEUTRAL, TURNING OFF THE IGNITION AND THEN TURNING THE KEY TO START DID CAUSE A RE-START. THIS PROBLEM CAUSES THE "SERVICE ENGINE SOON" LIGHT ON THE DASH T…
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, THE ENGINE WOULD QUIT WITH NO PROCEEDING SYMPTOMS OR INDICATIONS. SHIFTING TO NEUTRAL AND TRYING TO RE-START WOULD NOT WORK. SHIFTING TO NEUTRAL, TURNING OFF THE IGNITION AND THEN TURNING THE KEY TO START DID CAUSE A RE-START. THIS PROBLEM CAUSES THE "SERVICE ENGINE SOON" LIGHT ON THE DASH TO LIGHT, SO A CODE IS BEING GENERATED. FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, SINCE IT HAS ISSUED A NOTICE (NOT A RECALL) TO IT'S SERVICE DEPARTMENTS. THE REPAIR IS THE REPLACEMENT OF A WIRING HARNESS AND REPROGRAMMING OF THE PROCESSOR. FORD HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL FOR THIS VERY UNSAFE PROBLEM, SO THE CHARGE FOR THE WORK IS $ 358.18. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED AND THE RPM'S SURGED TO 6000. THE VEHICLE WAS PUT IN PARK AND THE ENGINE RETURNED TO NORMAL. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN TO A DEALERSHIP.
FUEL PUMP COULD NOT MAINTAIN PROPER FUEL PRESSURE. WHEN IT WAS REPLACED, DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPT. DISCOVERED NECK ON FUEL TANK WAS WARPED WHERE FUEL PUMP CONNECTS TO FUEL TANK. EVIDENCE OF FUEL LEAK DUE TO THIS PROBLEM WAS DISCOVERED. *NM
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION THAT HAS BEEN GIVING ME PROBLEMS SINCE DAY ONE. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE CAUSING THE LIGHTS TO REMAIN ON AT ALL TIMES AND MY BATTERY TO RUN DOWN TWICE. THE DOORS ALL SEEM TO LOCK AND UNLOCK ONLY WHEN THEY WANT TO AND THE MOST RECENT OF MY COMPLAINTS IS THE REAR PASSEN…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION THAT HAS BEEN GIVING ME PROBLEMS SINCE DAY ONE. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE CAUSING THE LIGHTS TO REMAIN ON AT ALL TIMES AND MY BATTERY TO RUN DOWN TWICE. THE DOORS ALL SEEM TO LOCK AND UNLOCK ONLY WHEN THEY WANT TO AND THE MOST RECENT OF MY COMPLAINTS IS THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR HAS BEGUN OPENING ON ITS OWN WHILE BEING DRIVEN. MY 10 MONTH OLD DAUGHTER AND I WERE OUT SHOPPING AT A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER A FEW WEEKS AGO AND WHILE MAKING A TURN AND PREPARING TO PARK IN A SPACE THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR FLUNG COMPLETELY OPEN. I WAS STUNNED. MY DAUGHTER LUCKILY WAS SAFELY BELTED IN HER CAR SEAT IN THE MIDDLE SEAT. I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED IF MY OTHER TWO CHILDREN HAD OF BEEN WITH ME AT THE TIME AND HAD BEEN SITTING BY THAT DOOR WHICH MY 5 YEAR OLD USUALLY DOES ON A DAILY BASIS. I CONTACTED FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THEY TOLD ME TO HAVE IT EVALUATED BY A FORD DEALERSHIP WHICH I DID AND IT WAS PROVEN TO BE A FAULTY LATCH AND SWITCH. I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO MORE WARRANTY ON THE VEHICLE AND THAT NO EXTENDED WARRANTY WOULD COVER IT. IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. I HAVE OWNED THE VEHICLE LESS THAN 3 YEARS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A FAULTY LATCH AND SWITCH COULD END UP BEING MY FAULT. I HAVE AUTHORIZED THE DEALERSHIP TO REPAIR NEEDLESS TO SAY IT IS NOT WORTH THE SAFETY OF MY CHILDREN, BUT I AM STILL UNSURE HOW A FAULTY PART IS DEEMED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSUMER. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL SWITCHES FIXED FOR TWO OTHER DOORS WHILE UNDER WARRANTY BUT THE PROBLEM JUST SEEMS TO BE CONTINUING. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE REPAIR WILL RUN ME $257.00. *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.