IllustrationWHEN DOOR LOCK SWITCH IS DEPRESSED THE LOCKS FAIL TO RESPOND. CONSUMER MUST PUSH THE DOOR LOCK DOWN MANUALLY FOR SYSTEM TO ENGAGE. MANUALLY LOCKING DOORS WOULD CAUSE THE LOCKING SYSTEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A DOOR IS OPEN. THE SWITCH HAS BEEN REPLACED THREE TIMES. *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 reportsWHEN SHIFTING VEHICLE FROM REVERSE TO DRIVE BOTH OUTSIDE MIRRORS WOULD ROTATE OUTWARD OR POINT TOWARD THE GROUND. MANUFACTURER IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, BUT CANNOT RESOLVE IT. *AK
FRONT BRAKES PRODUCE EXCESSIVE DUST ONTO THE RIMS. *AK
A RECURRENT AND UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM WITH THE POWER EXTERIOR MIRRORS ON A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE PASSENGER MIRROR IS INCAPABLE OF RETURNING TO ITS PRE-SET POSITION. THIS OCCURS WHETHER OR NOT THE "REVERSE AID" FEATURE IS ON OR OFF AND ALSO OCCURS WHETHER OR NOT THE "MEMORY" FEATURE FOR DRIVER 1 OR DRIVER 2 IS ACTIVATED. IT …
Read full complaint
A RECURRENT AND UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM WITH THE POWER EXTERIOR MIRRORS ON A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE PASSENGER MIRROR IS INCAPABLE OF RETURNING TO ITS PRE-SET POSITION. THIS OCCURS WHETHER OR NOT THE "REVERSE AID" FEATURE IS ON OR OFF AND ALSO OCCURS WHETHER OR NOT THE "MEMORY" FEATURE FOR DRIVER 1 OR DRIVER 2 IS ACTIVATED. IT OCCURS ROUGHLY ONE-HALF OF THE TIME THE VEHICLE IS UNLOCKED EVEN BY THE SAME DRIVER (DRIVER 1) IN SUCCESSION. DUE TO THE FORD INSTALLED ALARM FEATURE, THE UNLOCKING FOB (OR THE DOOR MOUNTED KEYPAD) MUST BE USED. EACH TRIGGERS THE MIRROR FAILURE. TWO DEALERS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, EVEN AFTER MULTIPLE VISITS, HAVING THE VEHICLE FOR SEVERAL DAYS IN SUCCESSION, AND HAVING THE AVAILABLE FORD TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION. FORD MOTOR COMPANY (ON LETTERHEAD CORRESPONDENCE) NOW DENIES THAT ANY PROBLEM EXIST WITH MY VEHICLE (AFTER DETAILED TELEPHONE AND WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE). TWO NEIGHBORING ACQUAINTENCES WITH THE SAME YEAR AND MODEL VEHICLE HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME FAILURE WITHOUT RESOLUTION AS WELL. MULTIPLE POSTINGS ON THE NTSHA WEBSITE MAKE REFERENCE TO THIS SAME PROBLEM AND SPEAK OF FORD'S "PROMISE" TO RESOLVE. THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY DEFECT. EITHER A SOLUTION TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY FORD OR THE VEHICLES SHOUDL BE RECALLED AND A MIRROR SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO FUNCTION PROPERLY SHOULD BE INSTALLED.*AK
I AM A FIRE CAPTAIN WITH THE CITY OF VALLEJO. MY COMPANY TREATED A PATIENT THAT WAS CRUSHED BETWEEN THE ELECTRIC FOLDING 3RD ROW SEAT OF A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION EB. THE CHILD WAS 4 YEARS OLD AND SHOWED POSITIVE SIGNS OF NEAR SUFFOCATION. THE SEAT WAS CHECKED AFTER PATIENT TREATMENT AND IT WOULD NOT STOP FOLDING WHEN WE ATTEMPT…
Read full complaint
I AM A FIRE CAPTAIN WITH THE CITY OF VALLEJO. MY COMPANY TREATED A PATIENT THAT WAS CRUSHED BETWEEN THE ELECTRIC FOLDING 3RD ROW SEAT OF A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION EB. THE CHILD WAS 4 YEARS OLD AND SHOWED POSITIVE SIGNS OF NEAR SUFFOCATION. THE SEAT WAS CHECKED AFTER PATIENT TREATMENT AND IT WOULD NOT STOP FOLDING WHEN WE ATTEMPTED TO STOP IT USING OUR HAND TO PUSH AGAINST IT'S FORCE. THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE (LOWELL SABISAGE OF 176 COLOMA WAY, VALLEJO CALIFORNIA 94589) STATED THAT THE SEAT HAD BEEN IN FOR REPAIR IN THE PAST BECAUSE IT WOULD FOLD UP WITHOUT THE SWITCH BEING PUSHED. ACCORDING TO OTHERS ON SCENE, THE SEAT AGAIN FOLDED UP WITHOUT THE BUTTON BEING PUSHED. *AK MY CONCERN IS THAT OTHER CHILDREN ARE AT RISK OF SIMILAR INJURIES. LUCKY FOR THIS CHILD AN ADULT CAME OUT TO CHECK ON HER AND FOUND HER BEING CRUSHED BY THE SEAT. PLEASE FOLLOW UP WITH THIS INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE VIN # IS [XXX]. VALLEJO POLICE MADE A REPORT OF THE ABOVE INCIDENT. THERE REPORT NUMBER IS [XXX]. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
REAR BRAKES NEEDED REPLACEMENT. (NAR) *PH *CB
PURCHASED 2003 EXPEDITION XLT IN 9/03 AND HAD THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS WITHIN ONE WEEK OF PURCHASE: A/C NOISE & DECREASED VOLUME WHEN MAX A/C IS ON; RATTLING NOISE FROM SIDE PANELS (WHICH ALSO SHOWED FADING WITHIN 3 MONTHS AND WERE REPLACED); WASHER FLUID LIGHT SHOWED LOW WHEN FULL; FOAM LOOSE AROUND DEFROSTER. BY 12/03, STEREO S…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED 2003 EXPEDITION XLT IN 9/03 AND HAD THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS WITHIN ONE WEEK OF PURCHASE: A/C NOISE & DECREASED VOLUME WHEN MAX A/C IS ON; RATTLING NOISE FROM SIDE PANELS (WHICH ALSO SHOWED FADING WITHIN 3 MONTHS AND WERE REPLACED); WASHER FLUID LIGHT SHOWED LOW WHEN FULL; FOAM LOOSE AROUND DEFROSTER. BY 12/03, STEREO SYSTEM REPLACED DUE TO LOUD WHINING NOISE; HAS BEEN REPLACED 3 TIMES (PROBLEM STILL RECURRING); 2/04 SUN ROOF LEAKING PROFUSELY INTO 2ND ROW SEAT AREA (SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED A MONTH LATER THOUGH REPAIRED). WHEN DEALER'S SUBCONTRACTOR REPAIRED MOONROOF THE SECOND TIME, THE TECHNICAN NEGLECTED TO SCREW REAR SEATBELT BOLT TIGHTLY BACK TO SIDE PANEL. SEATBELT BOLT BROKE AWAY FROM SIDE PANEL WHILE CHILD WAS SITTING IN SEAT! DEALER REPAIRED AND CHECKED ALL SEAT BELT ATTACHMENTS AT MY REQUEST BUT DID NOT OFFER TO DETERMINE SOURCE OF PROBLEM UNTIL I INSISTED. SERVICE MGR INITIALLY REPORTED HE THOUGHT IT WAS A FACTORY DEFECT, UNTIL THEY RESEARCHED THE PROBLEM IN DETAIL. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT FORD HAVE A POLICY THAT ANY SAFETY DEVICES REMOVED OR TAMPERED WITH DURING ANY REPAIR SHOULD BE DOUBLE CHECKED FOR PROPER OPERATION PRIOR TO RETURNING VEHICLE TO OWNER. *AK
2003 FORD EXPEDITION . FORD INFORMS ME AFTER ONLY 30,000 MILES THE TYPES OF BRAKE PADS USED DESTROYED THE ROTORS; MUST BUY NEW ROTORS AND PURCHASE THE NEWLY DESIGNED FORD BRAKE PADS WITH SPECIAL SPRINGS AND SUCH TO PREVENT THE FUTURE PROBLEMS WITH PADS THAT EAT ROTORS. BUT , THIS FORD DOES NOT CONSIDERED THIS TO BE DEFECTIVE.…
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPEDITION . FORD INFORMS ME AFTER ONLY 30,000 MILES THE TYPES OF BRAKE PADS USED DESTROYED THE ROTORS; MUST BUY NEW ROTORS AND PURCHASE THE NEWLY DESIGNED FORD BRAKE PADS WITH SPECIAL SPRINGS AND SUCH TO PREVENT THE FUTURE PROBLEMS WITH PADS THAT EAT ROTORS. BUT , THIS FORD DOES NOT CONSIDERED THIS TO BE DEFECTIVE. TOTAL COST FOR BRAKES ONLY - $ 909.00. *AK
ACCORDING TO DEALERSHIP AND MANUFACTURER REPS, THE PROBLEM WITH THE SIDE MIRRORS AND THEIR PROPENSITY TO MOVE WITHOUT WARNING OR "POP" WHEN USING THE VEHICLES' REVERSE MIRROR FUNCTION, IS DUE TO POOR DESIGN FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT I AM JUST TOO TALL (6'3"), AND THAT THE LOCATION THAT I HAVE THE MIRRORS ADJ…
Read full complaint
ACCORDING TO DEALERSHIP AND MANUFACTURER REPS, THE PROBLEM WITH THE SIDE MIRRORS AND THEIR PROPENSITY TO MOVE WITHOUT WARNING OR "POP" WHEN USING THE VEHICLES' REVERSE MIRROR FUNCTION, IS DUE TO POOR DESIGN FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT I AM JUST TOO TALL (6'3"), AND THAT THE LOCATION THAT I HAVE THE MIRRORS ADJUSTED IN, CAUSES THE HOUSING TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE TILTING ASSEMBLY! I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT FORD WOULD PRODUCE A VEHICLE THAT WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO ADJUST THE MIRROS PROPERLY SO THAT YOU CAN SEE TRAFFIC BEHIND YOU, AND STILL BE ABLE TO USE A FUNCTION THAT WAS DESIGNED INTO THE VEHICLE! THE MIRROS MODULES HAVE BEEN REPLACED TWICE ON BOTH SIDES AS WELL AS THE MOTORS. I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH FORD AND HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT DUE TO THE DESIGN FLAW, THE VEHICLE IS AS IT WAS DESIGNED AND THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO REPAIR. GOOD LUCK SEEING TRAFFIC ON EITHER SIDE.*AK
MY BRAKES HAVE WORE DOWN VERY QUICKLY AND UNEVENLY SO I TRIED TO REPLACE MY BREAK PADS AND WHEN I REMOVED THE OLD PAD AND REPLACED THE NEW PAD THE CALIPER WON'T GO BACK INTO PLACE. AS IF IT'S STUCK. AND PRIOR TO CHANGING MY PADS AND MY BRAKES WEARING DOWN, I'VE ALWAYS HAD A LOUD SCRAPING SOUND DOWN NEAR MY BRAKE, ESPECIALLY WHEN…
Read full complaint
MY BRAKES HAVE WORE DOWN VERY QUICKLY AND UNEVENLY SO I TRIED TO REPLACE MY BREAK PADS AND WHEN I REMOVED THE OLD PAD AND REPLACED THE NEW PAD THE CALIPER WON'T GO BACK INTO PLACE. AS IF IT'S STUCK. AND PRIOR TO CHANGING MY PADS AND MY BRAKES WEARING DOWN, I'VE ALWAYS HAD A LOUD SCRAPING SOUND DOWN NEAR MY BRAKE, ESPECIALLY WHEN EVER I TURN LEFT. I CHECKED WITH SEVERAL LOCAL AUTO PART DEALERS AND THEY SAID THEY'RE ALL SOLD OUT OF BRAKES DUE TO THAT PROBLEM. THEY HAVE BEEN HEARING A LOT OF THE SAME COMPLAINT. IN ADDITION, THERE HAS ALWAYS BE AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF BRAKE DUST THAT ACCUMULATES VERY QUICKLY,(OVER 6HRS). *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.