Illustration1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. CONSUMER WOULD LIKE INFORMATION REGARDING AN ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED IN SEPT 2010. *TA
1997 Ford Explorer Sport
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1997 Ford Explorer Sport do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 68.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Explorer Sport 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
10–25K
325–50K
350–75K
375–100K
7100–150K
3150K+
20 reports with mileage · 17 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 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Seats. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
4 crash reports5 fire reports3 injury reports
What owners actually said
37 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED ON AN INCLINE WHEN IT ROLLED FORWARD AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DESTROYED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND THE REPAIR SHOP STATED THAT THE TRANSFER CASE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED ON AN INCLINE WHEN IT ROLLED FORWARD AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DESTROYED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND THE REPAIR SHOP STATED THAT THE TRANSFER CASE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 148,600 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 148,700.
1997 FORD EXPLORER AND BEGAN TO BACK OUT OF MY PARENTS DRIVEWAY ON THE WAY TO WORK. I USED THE ELECTRICAL SEAT MOVER BUTTON TO MOVE MY SEAT BACK A FEW INCHES AND WITHIN ONLY 10 SECONDS SMOKE WAS IN MY FACE. I JUMPED OUT OF THE CAR, TURNED THE CAR OFF, AND RAN IN MY HOUSE. I GOT WATER TO TRY AND EXTINGUISH THE SMOKE AND OPENED…
Read full complaint
1997 FORD EXPLORER AND BEGAN TO BACK OUT OF MY PARENTS DRIVEWAY ON THE WAY TO WORK. I USED THE ELECTRICAL SEAT MOVER BUTTON TO MOVE MY SEAT BACK A FEW INCHES AND WITHIN ONLY 10 SECONDS SMOKE WAS IN MY FACE. I JUMPED OUT OF THE CAR, TURNED THE CAR OFF, AND RAN IN MY HOUSE. I GOT WATER TO TRY AND EXTINGUISH THE SMOKE AND OPENED MY BACK DOOR AND LOOKED UNDER THE SEAT AND THERE WAS INTENSE SPARKING WHICH TURNED INTO FLAMES AND WITHIN MINUTES MY ENTIRE VEHICLE WAS ENGULFED IN FLAMES. FIRE AND POLICE CAME AND EXTINGUISHED IT AFTER FLAMES REACHED ABOUT 20 FEET. THERE WAS PROPERTY DAMAGE, WITH ALONG LOSING THE ENTIRE VEHICLE (ENGINE WAS SOMEHOW IN FINE SHAPE), BUT LUCKILY, IT HAPPENED WHEN I WAS IN MY DRIVEWAY AND NOT ON THE HIGHWAY AS I AM ALIVE. I SENT FORD 40 PICTURES, POLICE REPORT, VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT THAT WE CAUGHT, TITLE OF VEHICLE, ETC. IT HAS CAUSED ME AN INCREDIBLE INCONVENIENCE IN MY LIFE, I NOW WALK A MILE TO A SUBWAY STATION WHICH TAKES ME TO A TRAIN STATION WHICH THEN GETS ME TO WORK. KNOWING IT WAS AN OLDER CAR, BUT A POPULAR ONE AT THAT, I FIGURED THAT FORD WOULD REIMBURSE ME WITH A USED CAR AND THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN HOW LUCKY THAT NO DEATH OR INJURIES RESULTED. THEY INFORMED TODAY THEY WOULDN'T GIVE ME A DIME BECAUSE THEY DON'T DEEM THAT A DEFECT THROUGH THEIR ANALYSIS (THOUGH THE CAR SITS LIKE A TOXIC WASTELAND IN MY DRIVEWAY WITH NO ONE FROM FORD EVEN INSPECTING IT). THEY CAME TO THEIR DECISION WITHIN ONE DAY OF HAVING MY MATERIALS. *KB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH SHE HEARD A TICKING NOISE. SHE WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY WHERE THE NOISE WAS LOCATED. SHE STATED THAT NO WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED ON THE DASHBOARD OF THE VEHICLE. SHE CONTINUED TO DRIVE HOME AND PARKED THE VEHICLE. TWO HOURS LATER SHE STARTED THE V…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH SHE HEARD A TICKING NOISE. SHE WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY WHERE THE NOISE WAS LOCATED. SHE STATED THAT NO WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED ON THE DASHBOARD OF THE VEHICLE. SHE CONTINUED TO DRIVE HOME AND PARKED THE VEHICLE. TWO HOURS LATER SHE STARTED THE VEHICLE, SHIFTED INTO REVERSE AND IT CONTINUED TO MAKE A NOISE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTED THE NOISE WAS NOT THERE BUT AS SOON AS SHE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO REVERSE, NEUTRAL OR ANY GEAR THE NOISE BEGAN AGAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER OR LOCAL MECHANIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2010. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 229,000.
FRONT DRIVERS SIDE SEAT TILT LEVER BROKE OFF, PASSENGER SIDE BENT. THERE ARE OTHER REPORTS OF THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO OTHER OWNERS.
BOTH SEAT TILT LEVERS BEND AND THEN BREAK OFF AFTER ATTEMPTING TO STRAIGHTEN THEM ONCE TOO MANY TIMES. NEW DESIGN STRENGTHENS THE BRACKETS. IF THE BRACKETS BREAK OFF AND THERE IS A SMALL CHILD IN THE BACK, ADULTS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REMOVE SMALL CHILDREN QUICKLY DURING AN EMERGENCY SINCE THEY CAN'T TILT THE SEATS FORWARD OUT OF …
Read full complaint
BOTH SEAT TILT LEVERS BEND AND THEN BREAK OFF AFTER ATTEMPTING TO STRAIGHTEN THEM ONCE TOO MANY TIMES. NEW DESIGN STRENGTHENS THE BRACKETS. IF THE BRACKETS BREAK OFF AND THERE IS A SMALL CHILD IN THE BACK, ADULTS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REMOVE SMALL CHILDREN QUICKLY DURING AN EMERGENCY SINCE THEY CAN'T TILT THE SEATS FORWARD OUT OF THE WAY. *TR
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE TRAVELING 30 MPH SHE SMELLED SOMETHING BURNING IN THE VEHICLE. SHE THEN SAW A BIT OF SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF THE VEHICLE. SHE PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER AND A PERSON CAME UP TO THE VEHICLE AND ADVISED HER TO GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS ON FIR…
Read full complaint
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE TRAVELING 30 MPH SHE SMELLED SOMETHING BURNING IN THE VEHICLE. SHE THEN SAW A BIT OF SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF THE VEHICLE. SHE PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER AND A PERSON CAME UP TO THE VEHICLE AND ADVISED HER TO GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS ON FIRE. ANOTHER PERSON APPROACHED THE SCENE WITH A FIRE EXTINGUISHER, BUT BY THIS TIME THE FLAMES COMING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD. THEY USED UP THE ENTIRE FIRE EXTINGUISHER, BUT COULD NOT PUT THE FIRE OUT. THE TIRES EXPLODED AND ALL OF THE WINDOWS BLEW OUT. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAME, THEY TRIED TO PUT OUT THE FIRE, BUT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH WATER PRESSURE BY THE TIME THE SECOND FIRE TRUCK CAME OUT THE FIRE WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE GASOLINE TANK. LUCKILY THEY WERE ABLE TO PUT THE FIRE OUT BEFORE IT GOT TO THE GAS TANK, BUT THE THING THAT IS LEFT OF THE VEHICLE IS THE METAL FRAME. SHE HAS NOT YET CALLED FORD, BUT BELIEVES THIS IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THERE WERE NO INJURIES SUSTAINED. THE DAMAGES WERE SO SEVERE THEY WERE UNABLE TO TELL WHAT CAUSED THE FIRE. ALL SHE KNEW WAS THAT THE FIRE STARTED UNDERNEATH THE HOOD OF THE VEHICLE ON THE DRIVER SIDE. THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN VERY WELL MAINTAINED AND SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TRIGGERED THE FIRE. SHE NEVER RECEIVED ANY SORT OF RECALL NOTICE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 95,000. UPDATED 5/18/09 *CN ACCORDING TO THE FIRE INSPECTOR, A FUEL TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ENGINE FROM RETURN HOSE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE. UPDATED 05/20/09*JB
DRIVING ALONG EVERYTHING IS FINE, LOSE POWER PULL OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE VEHICLE I SEE BLACK SMOKE AND THEN FLAMES, COULDN'T GET OUT BECAUSE OF POWER WINDOWS AND LOCKS. WENT TO THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE AND KICKED MY WAY OUT AND THE VEHICLE WAS ENGULFED IN FLAMES IN MINUTES AND BURNED TO THE GROUND. *TR
TIRE FAILURE RESULTING IN A BLOWOUT.*JB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH HE DEPRESSED THE BRAKE AND THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT DOWN TO THE FLOORBOARD. HE NOTICED BRAKE FLUID LEAKING. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE BRAKE LINE ON THE REAR DRIVER SIDE RUSTED AND CAUSED THE LEAK. THE DEALER REPLACED THE REAR BRAKE LINE, AND THE REAR BRAKE HOS…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH HE DEPRESSED THE BRAKE AND THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT DOWN TO THE FLOORBOARD. HE NOTICED BRAKE FLUID LEAKING. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE BRAKE LINE ON THE REAR DRIVER SIDE RUSTED AND CAUSED THE LEAK. THE DEALER REPLACED THE REAR BRAKE LINE, AND THE REAR BRAKE HOSE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE REMAINING BRAKE LINES ON THE VEHICLE WERE RUSTED, HOWEVER THEY WERE NOT LEAKING. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 36,200 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 35,663.
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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.