NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
121 reportsMileage unknown · Apr 10, 2005
Electrical System
I TOOK MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP BECAUSE MY BRAKE LIGHTS WERE NOT WORKING (I CAN ONLY GUESS HOW LONG THEY WERE NOT OPERATING). AFTER DOING A DIAGNOSTIC THEY DETERMINED I HAD TO REPLACE MY (FORGIVE ME, AS I AM NOT MECHANICAL, BUT IT IS ALL ON MY RECEIPT) CRUISE CONTROL HARNESS AS THE COMPONENT HAD COMPLE…
Read full complaint
I TOOK MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP BECAUSE MY BRAKE LIGHTS WERE NOT WORKING (I CAN ONLY GUESS HOW LONG THEY WERE NOT OPERATING). AFTER DOING A DIAGNOSTIC THEY DETERMINED I HAD TO REPLACE MY (FORGIVE ME, AS I AM NOT MECHANICAL, BUT IT IS ALL ON MY RECEIPT) CRUISE CONTROL HARNESS AS THE COMPONENT HAD COMPLETELY MELTED. MY CRUISE CONTROL HAD STOPPED WORKING A COUPLE OF MONTHS EARLIER, BUT I HAD NOT BOTHERED TO FIX IT. THE CRUISE CONTROL HAD GOTTEN SO HOT THAT IT BURNED A HOLE THROUGH MY MASTER CYLINDER SO THAT IT ALSO NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. I AM NOTIFYING YOU BECAUSE I FEEL MY AND MY FAMILY'S SAFETY WERE JEOPARDIZED IN THREE WAYS: INOPERABLE BRAKE LIGHTS, THE FIRE HAZARD OF THE CRUISE CONTROL, AND CONSEQUENTLY POOR BRAKES.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10116695
2,826 miles · Apr 9, 2005
Visibility
REAR WIPER MOTOR HAS BEEN REPLACED TWICE BY DEALER UNDER WARRANTY. THIS IS KNOWN FAULTY DESIGN. WIPER JAMS AND HAS TO BE PHYSICALLY ROCKED TO UNJAM. PROBLEM IS YOU COULD BE DRIVING IN RAINSTORM & COULD NOT USE WIPER AT THAT CRITICAL TIME. THIS VEHICLE IS PAST WARRANTY NOW.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10116664
Mileage unknown · Mar 29, 2005
Exterior LightingInterior Lighting
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ON 3/29/05 WHILE DRIVING MY 1998 FORD EXPEDITION XLT THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT CAME ON AND THE INTERIOR LIGHTS CAME ON AND THE RUNNING BOARD LIGHTS CAME ON. I PULLED OVER AND PARKED THE VEHICLE AND CHECKED ALL DOORS, ALL DOOR WERE CLOSED PROPERLY. THE LIGHTS REMAINED ON. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND REMOVED T…
Read full complaint
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ON 3/29/05 WHILE DRIVING MY 1998 FORD EXPEDITION XLT THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT CAME ON AND THE INTERIOR LIGHTS CAME ON AND THE RUNNING BOARD LIGHTS CAME ON. I PULLED OVER AND PARKED THE VEHICLE AND CHECKED ALL DOORS, ALL DOOR WERE CLOSED PROPERLY. THE LIGHTS REMAINED ON. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND REMOVED THE KEY FROM THE IGNITION AND SHUT THE DOOR AND INTERIOR LIGHTS AND RUNNING BOARD LIGHTS REMAINED ON. I HAD TO REMOVE THE FUSE TO MAKE LIGHTS GO OUT, BUT WHEN I AM DRIVING I HAVE NO INTERIOR LIGHTS AND I CANNOT PUT DOWN WINDOWS
NHTSA ODI #10116051
80,000 miles · Mar 25, 2005
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
SPEED CONTROL SWITCH FAILED ON MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER, RESULTING IN CRUISE CONTROL FAILURE, MAJOR ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT, BLOWN 20A FUSE, NO TAIL LIGHTS, LEAKING BRAKE FLUID FROM MASTER CYLINDER THRU FAULTY SWITCH, AND WIRES, SWITCH AND CONNECTOR BURNED APPROXIMATLY SIX INCHES BACK FROM SWITCH. SWITCH WAS BURNED, ALSO. A NEW SW…
Read full complaint
SPEED CONTROL SWITCH FAILED ON MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER, RESULTING IN CRUISE CONTROL FAILURE, MAJOR ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT, BLOWN 20A FUSE, NO TAIL LIGHTS, LEAKING BRAKE FLUID FROM MASTER CYLINDER THRU FAULTY SWITCH, AND WIRES, SWITCH AND CONNECTOR BURNED APPROXIMATLY SIX INCHES BACK FROM SWITCH. SWITCH WAS BURNED, ALSO. A NEW SWITCH WAS PUT ON THE VEHICLE, ALONG WITH A PIGTAIL (WIRES & CONNECTOR), THE BRAKE SYSTEM HAD TO BE BLED AND A NEW FUSE INSTALLED. AT THAT TIME, I KNEW NOTHING OF A DEFECT. FORD SAID NOTHING OF THE PROBLEM. THE REPAIR WAS MADE 1/14/05. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEGE, THE DEFECT IS NOT CORRECTED, BUT ONLY REPAIRED AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY EQUIPPED. WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THE RECALL, IT DID NOT INCLUDE MY 1998, EXPLORER, SPORT. I HAVE SAVED THE OLD SWITCH. THE NEW SWITCH NUMBER IS SW-5945, F3TZ-9F924-BB. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10114708
100,000 miles · Mar 3, 2005
Electrical SystemFire
1998 FORD EXPLORER CAUGHT FIRE AT 4:30 AM,UNDER THE HOOD ENGULFED IN FLAMES CALLED FIRE DEPT THEY CAME AND PUT FIRE OUT. THE WHOLE ENTIRE MOTOR, AND FRONT OF TRUCK RUINED,NOT DRIVABLE. I FILED A CLAIM WITH FORD THE DAY AFTER FIRE,THEY STATED THAT THEY WERE LIABLE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO RECALLS ON 1998 EXPLORERS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10112486
Mileage unknown · Mar 2, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages
THE DOOR LOCKING MECHANISM OF MY DRIVER SIDE DOOR OF MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT IS BROKEN. A SMALL METAL PIN BROKE WHICH MAKES THIS LOCKING MECHANISM NOT WORK. SO SOMETIMES I HAVE TO CLIMB THROUGH TO THE PASSENGER SIDE TO GET OUT IF MY VARIOUS TECHNIQUES DO NOT WORK TO UNLOCK THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR. I BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS IS …
Read full complaint
THE DOOR LOCKING MECHANISM OF MY DRIVER SIDE DOOR OF MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT IS BROKEN. A SMALL METAL PIN BROKE WHICH MAKES THIS LOCKING MECHANISM NOT WORK. SO SOMETIMES I HAVE TO CLIMB THROUGH TO THE PASSENGER SIDE TO GET OUT IF MY VARIOUS TECHNIQUES DO NOT WORK TO UNLOCK THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR. I BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE METAL PIN WILL EVENTUALLY CORROD AND BREAK SO I HAVE NOT YET FIXED IT DUE TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE NO FAITH IN A PRODUCT THAT WILL MOST LIKELY BREAK AGAIN. I THOUGHT I WAS WAS JUST HAVING THIS PROBLEM UNTIL I VISITED THIS MESSAGE BOARD (HTTP://WWW.OFFROADEXCHANGE.COM/MODFORUMS/INDEX.PHP?BOARD=9;ACTION=DISPLAY;THREADID=1749;START=25). I REALLY HOPE YOU INVESTAGATE THIS PROBLEM BEFORE SOMEBODY IS IN A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION AND TRAPPED IN THEIR EXPLORER BECAUSE THE METAL PIN OF THE LOCKING MECHANISM BROKE. THANK YOU. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10112388
Mileage unknown · Feb 11, 2005
Latches/locks/linkagesStructure
DOOR LOCK WAS NOT WORKING WHEN IT WAS COLD. NOW, DOOR LOCK ON DRIVER'S SIDE IS COMPLETELY OUT, THE KEY JUST TURNS IN THE LOCK AND DOES NOT WORK. THE OTHER LOCKS (PASSENGER AND BACK WINDOW) DO NOT WORK EITHER. YOU HAVE TO TURN THE KEY MANY TIMES BEFORE LOCK WORKS, THEN YOU HAVE TO EITHER CRAWL OVER THE SEATS OR PRESS THE UNLO…
Read full complaint
DOOR LOCK WAS NOT WORKING WHEN IT WAS COLD. NOW, DOOR LOCK ON DRIVER'S SIDE IS COMPLETELY OUT, THE KEY JUST TURNS IN THE LOCK AND DOES NOT WORK. THE OTHER LOCKS (PASSENGER AND BACK WINDOW) DO NOT WORK EITHER. YOU HAVE TO TURN THE KEY MANY TIMES BEFORE LOCK WORKS, THEN YOU HAVE TO EITHER CRAWL OVER THE SEATS OR PRESS THE UNLOCK BUTTON SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE LOCK ENGAGES. I WAS OUTSIDE IN THE RAIN FOR AT LEAST 5 MINUTES TRYING TO GET THE LOCK TO WORK ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF CAR BECAUSE DRIVER'S SIDE IS BROKEN. ON GOING PROBLEM FOR AT LEAST 3 MONTHS.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10110345
Mileage unknown · Feb 1, 2005
Air BagsCrash
NEITHER AIR BAG DEPLOYED AFTER A HEAD-ON COLLISION. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10108365
135,000 miles · Jan 27, 2005
Electrical SystemFire
FIRE UNDER THE HOOD OF A 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN PARKED AND THE IGNITION TURNED OFF FOR OVER 4 HOURS. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED AND IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE FIRE BEGAN AS THE RESULT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT UNDER THE HOOD.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10108063
Mileage unknown · Jan 11, 2005
EquipmentFuel System, Gasoline
INTAKE MANIFOLD GASKET HAS FAILED ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ON MY VEHICLE. THIS PART WAS REPLACED BECAUSE IT WAS LEAKING ON BOTH OCCASIONS. THIS LEAKAGE AND PROBLEM IS DANGEROUS TO THE VEHICLE AND THE OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLE. THIS IS PART OF THE FUEL SYSTEM AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10106143
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