IllustrationREAR WINDOW EXPLODED OVERNIGHT WHILE PARKED IN DRIVEWAY. WE LIVE IN SOUTHERN CA AND IT WAS A RARE COLD NIGHT WITH LOWS IN THE 30'S. SECURITY CAMERA'S VERIFIED NO ONE OR NO OBJECT DAMAGED THE WINDOW. IT JUST EXPLODED WHILE PARKED THE GLASS WAS STREWN ACROSS A 3 CAR DRIVEWAY.
2002 Ford Explorer Sport
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2002 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
140–25K
1725–50K
2150–75K
2775–100K
18100–150K
4150K+
101 reports with mileage · 32 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.
- Power Train. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 28 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Visibility. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
10 crash reports7 fire reports13 injury reports
Structure complaints
28 reportsBODY MOUNTS HAVE DETERIORATED , MECHANICS I HAVE HAD LOOK AT THIS SAID , SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN , IS UNSAFE AND THEY SEE IT ALL THE TIME ON THIS YEAR AND MODEL ALSO HAVE LEARNED THAT THIS PROBLEM CAUSE WINDSHIELD TO CRACK WHEN I APPLIED HARD BREAKING.
FORD EXPLORER CRACKED READ PANEL
I NOTICED THE REAR WINDOW LIFT GATE WAS SLIGHTLY AJAR, SO I CLOSED IT, AND SUDDENLY THE HINGE BRACKET ON THE RIGHT SIDE, CONNECTING THE WINDOW AT THE ROOF, POPPED LOOSE, EXTENDING THE WINDOW LIFT SUPPORT, MAKING IT NOW IMPOSSIBLE TO CLOSE THE BACK LIFT GATE GLASS. I CHECKED INTO THE ISSUE, AND FOUND A RECALL, CAMPAIGN # 04V44200…
Read full complaint
I NOTICED THE REAR WINDOW LIFT GATE WAS SLIGHTLY AJAR, SO I CLOSED IT, AND SUDDENLY THE HINGE BRACKET ON THE RIGHT SIDE, CONNECTING THE WINDOW AT THE ROOF, POPPED LOOSE, EXTENDING THE WINDOW LIFT SUPPORT, MAKING IT NOW IMPOSSIBLE TO CLOSE THE BACK LIFT GATE GLASS. I CHECKED INTO THE ISSUE, AND FOUND A RECALL, CAMPAIGN # 04V442000. THIS HINGE HAS NEVER BEEN REPLACED. I WANT TO HAVE THIS FIXED UNDER RECALL.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. MY REAR TAILGATE WINDOW EXPLODED. THE CAR HAD BEEN ON FOR ABOUT TEN MINUTES, WARMING UP. I LOADED MY ITEMS INTO THE CAR THROUGH THE TAILGATE WINDOW. WHEN I WAS DONE, I CLOSED THE WINDOW. BEFORE IT WAS EVEN CLOSED, THE WINDOW EXPLODED INTO THOUSANDS OF PIECES. THERE WAS GLASS ALL OVER. …
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. MY REAR TAILGATE WINDOW EXPLODED. THE CAR HAD BEEN ON FOR ABOUT TEN MINUTES, WARMING UP. I LOADED MY ITEMS INTO THE CAR THROUGH THE TAILGATE WINDOW. WHEN I WAS DONE, I CLOSED THE WINDOW. BEFORE IT WAS EVEN CLOSED, THE WINDOW EXPLODED INTO THOUSANDS OF PIECES. THERE WAS GLASS ALL OVER. THE WINDOW WAS RECENTLY REPLACED AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR GLASS HINGES WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE TAILGATE PROPERLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 215,260.
REAR DOOR GLASS HATCH HINGES CAME OFF.THIS WAS MY WIFES VEHICLE DRIVEN VERY LITTLE UNTIL SHE PASSED AWAY 2009.THEN IT WAS DRIVEN EVEN LESS. BACK HATCH GLASS WAS NEVER USED AS FAR AS I KNOW. SHE ALWAYS USED THE METAL DOOR. I DROVE IT TO GROCERY STORE,PUT GROCERIES IN BACK USING LARGE DOOR. WHEN I GOT HOME I JUST GRABBED GLASS HAT…
Read full complaint
REAR DOOR GLASS HATCH HINGES CAME OFF.THIS WAS MY WIFES VEHICLE DRIVEN VERY LITTLE UNTIL SHE PASSED AWAY 2009.THEN IT WAS DRIVEN EVEN LESS. BACK HATCH GLASS WAS NEVER USED AS FAR AS I KNOW. SHE ALWAYS USED THE METAL DOOR. I DROVE IT TO GROCERY STORE,PUT GROCERIES IN BACK USING LARGE DOOR. WHEN I GOT HOME I JUST GRABBED GLASS HATCH HANDLE BY MISTAKE,IT CAME OFF IN MY HAND.BOTH HINGES WERE BROKEN. I DON'T KNOW FOR HOW LONG,THE LATCH WAS ALL THAT KEPT IT IN PLACE.WHEN THE LATCH OPENED IT EXPLODED OUTWARD ,RESULTING IN BADLY DAMAGED PAINT AND BOTH REAR DEFROSTER WIRES TO BE TORN OFF GLASS.LUCKILY IT WAS ME AND NOT MY WIFE,COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE.LIFT CYLINDERS WERE SO STRONG I COULD NOT PUT IT BACK IN PLACE,HAD TO YELL FOR NEIGHBORS FOR HELP!HAD IT REPAIRED LOCAL FORD DEALER.TOLD ME ABOUT RECALL FOR MODELS EXCEPT SPORT.NO RECALL FOR IT.$150.50(NOT INCLUDING PAINT) FOR REPAIRS & 10 DAYS @ DEALER.IT NOW HAS 71,800 MILES GLASS HATCH NEVER USED,IT HAS BROKEN DRIVERS SIDE HINGE AGAIN.07/28/2014.HAVE NOT CONTACTED DEALER AGAIN AS OF THIS TIME. BUT I PLAN TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS FOR SUCH INADEQUATE REPLACEMENT PARTS. ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED.THIS VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED NEW, NEVER ABUSED AND WELL MAINTAINED. *JS
WHILE OPENING MY REAR HATCH WINDOW TO LOAD GROCERIES I NOTICED THE TOP RIGHT HINGE HAD DETACHED FROM THE CAR, LEAVING THE GLASS HATCH HANGING BY A SINGLE HINGE. WHEN I GOT HOME I GOOGLED THE PROBLEM AND DISCOVERED RECALL #04S20 AND MENTIONED IT TO MY DEALER WHEN I TOOK MY CAR IN FOR SERVICING. THEY SAID MY CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED, …
Read full complaint
WHILE OPENING MY REAR HATCH WINDOW TO LOAD GROCERIES I NOTICED THE TOP RIGHT HINGE HAD DETACHED FROM THE CAR, LEAVING THE GLASS HATCH HANGING BY A SINGLE HINGE. WHEN I GOT HOME I GOOGLED THE PROBLEM AND DISCOVERED RECALL #04S20 AND MENTIONED IT TO MY DEALER WHEN I TOOK MY CAR IN FOR SERVICING. THEY SAID MY CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED, SO I CALLED FORD AND THEY AGREED. EVEN THOUGH THE RECALL SPECIFIES "ALL FORD EXPLORER MODELS" THEY SAY MINE IS THE 2-DOOR "SPORT" EDITION AND SO ISN'T INCLUDED EVEN THOUGH THE HATCH IS IDENTICAL (I'VE OWNED BOTH). THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE REPAIR AND THIS IS THE 2ND TIME I'VE HAD THIS PROBLEM (THE OTHER HINGE BROKE 2 YEARS AGO). I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD DETERMINE IF THE 2-DOOR MODELS ARE SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT THAT THEY CAN BE EXEMPTED FROM THIS RECALL, AND IF THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED TELL ME HOW TO PROCEED. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
THE FORD EXPLORER SPORT HAS A REAR HATCH THAT INCLUDES A GLASS SECTION THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO BE OPENED TO LOAD ITEMS INTO THE TRUNK AREA OF THE VEHICLE. THREE SEPARATE TIMES THE REAR WINDSHIELD HAS BLOWN OUT AS IT HAS BEEN OPENED / CLOSED. THE REAR WINDSHIELD IS MADE OF TEMPERED GLASS AND WHEN IT BREAKS IT EXPLODES INTO THE PE…
Read full complaint
THE FORD EXPLORER SPORT HAS A REAR HATCH THAT INCLUDES A GLASS SECTION THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO BE OPENED TO LOAD ITEMS INTO THE TRUNK AREA OF THE VEHICLE. THREE SEPARATE TIMES THE REAR WINDSHIELD HAS BLOWN OUT AS IT HAS BEEN OPENED / CLOSED. THE REAR WINDSHIELD IS MADE OF TEMPERED GLASS AND WHEN IT BREAKS IT EXPLODES INTO THE PERSON OPERATING THE WINDOW. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY INJURIES BESIDES A FEW SMALL CUTS, BUT HAVING GLASS EXPLODE INTO A PERSON IS DANGEROUS. AFTER THE FIRST FAILURE THE GLASS WAS SIMPLY REPLACED. THE FIRST FAILURE OCCURRED AS THE REAR GLASS WAS OPENED. AFTER THE SECOND FAILURE, THE CAR WAS BROUGHT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP TO FIX THE ISSUE. THE SECOND FAILURE OCCURRED AS THE GLASS WAS CLOSED. THE THIRD FAILURE OCCURRED 12/1/2013, IT HAS YET TO BE FIXED. THIS MOST RECENT FAILURE OCCURRED AS THE GLASS WAS CLOSED. *TR
WHEN I OPEN THE BACK GLASS WINDOW, ONE HINGE BROKE OFF. I TRY TO SET THE WINDOW, THE OTHER HINGE BROKE. I HAVE TO TIE A ROPE TO KEEP THE GLASS FROM FALLING OFF. *TR I FIND ON LINE THERE IS A RECALL FOR 2002 - 2003 FORD EXPLORER LIFTGATE GLASS HINGE AND STRUT BRACKETS, NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 04V442000. WHEN I CONTACTED FOR…
Read full complaint
WHEN I OPEN THE BACK GLASS WINDOW, ONE HINGE BROKE OFF. I TRY TO SET THE WINDOW, THE OTHER HINGE BROKE. I HAVE TO TIE A ROPE TO KEEP THE GLASS FROM FALLING OFF. *TR I FIND ON LINE THERE IS A RECALL FOR 2002 - 2003 FORD EXPLORER LIFTGATE GLASS HINGE AND STRUT BRACKETS, NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 04V442000. WHEN I CONTACTED FORD DEALER AND FORD COMPANY, THEY SAY MY VEHICLE VIN IS NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL. IF OTHER FORD EXPOLORERS ARE COVERED, WHY MY VIN IS NOT COVERED? IS IT BECAUSE THERE ARE FEWER FORD EXPLORER SPORT BUILT, AND LESS PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PROBLEM? I THINK THE RECALL SHOULD EXPAND TO COVER ALL EXPLORER BUILD IN 2002 - 2003.
Official recalls
307V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
06V114000 · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
Apr 10, 2006
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS, THE UPPER BOLT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE HIGH BACK SEAT THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME, COULD FRACTURE. IF THE BOLT FRACTURES, THE SEAT BACK MAY RECLINE UNTIL IT MAKES CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT BEHIND THE SEAT, SUCH AS THE SECOND ROW SEAT CUSHION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE DRIVER COULD POTENTIALLY LOSE CONTACT WITH THE STEERING WHEEL OR FOOT PEDALS DURING SUCH AN EVENT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER SEAT UPPER BOLT WITH A METAL SPACER AND BOLT. IN ADDITION, SEATS WITH TUBULAR BACK FRAMES WILL HAVE THE FULLY THREADED LOWER RECLINER BOLT REPLACED WITH A PARTIALLY THREADED BOLT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 10, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. THIS IS A SUPPLEMENT TO A PREVIOUS RECALL CAMPAIGN (03V281).
03V281000 · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
Aug 5, 2003
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS, THE UPPER BOLT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE HIGH BACK SEAT, THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME, COULD FRACTURE. IF THE BOLT FRACTURES AND DOES NOT JAM IN THE SEAT BACK FRAME, THE SEAT BACK MAY RECLINE UNTIL IT MAKES CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT BEHIND THE SEAT, SUCH AS THE SECOND ROW SEAT CUSHION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE DRIVER COULD POTENTIALLY LOSE CONTACT WITH THE STEERING WHEEL OR FOOT PEDALS DURING SUCH AN EVENT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER SEAT UPPER BOLT WITH A METAL SPACER AND BOLT. IN ADDITION, SEATS WITH TUBULAR BACK FRAMES WILL HAVE THE FULLY THREADED LOWER RECLINER BOLT REPLACED WITH A PARTIALLY THREADED BOLT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON AUGUST 29, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
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
5PE09020 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Apr 21, 2009 · Closed Aug 19, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Steering:column
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
DP05005 · 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.
PE05037 · Stuck Engine Throttle
Opened Jul 7, 2005 · Closed Nov 2, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal; Vehicle Speed Control:cables
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Vehicle Speed Control:cables
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Vehicle Speed Control
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
PE04045 · Rear Liftgate Glass Assembly
Opened Jun 2, 2004 · Closed Sep 28, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
COMPLAINTS REPORT FAILURE OF THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS SUPPORT WHILE THE OPERATOR IS OPENING OR CLOSING THE GLASS.THE FALLING GLASS CAN STRIKE THE OPERATOR OR BYSTANDER.THE INJURIES REPORTED ARE BRUISES TO THE HEAD, NECK OR BACK, CUTS TO THE FACE, ARM OR HAND.ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT WILL RECALL APPROXIMATELY 955,732 MY 2002 AND 2003 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES TO REPLACE THE LIFTGATE GLASS STRUT BRACKETS AND/OR HINGES.SEE NHTSA RECALL 04V442 FOR DETAILS. THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
PE03020 · Front Seat Back Recliner Attachment
Opened May 21, 2003 · Closed Sep 5, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 2003, FORD NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT IS CONDUCTING A VOLUNTARY SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 03V281) INVOLVING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1998-2001 FORD EXPLORER / MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4-DOOR, MY 1998-2000 FORD EXPLORER 2-DOOR AND MY 2001-2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT AND SPORT TRAC VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS.COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE DRIVER'S SEAT BACK RECLINED WITHOUT WARNING.A BOLT BETWEEN THE UPPER SEAT RECLINER ATTACHMENT AND THE SEAT BACK FRAME MAY FRACTURE.FORD WILL REPLACE THE BOLT THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME ON THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT.BASED ON FORD'S SAFETY RECALL ACTION, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.