NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Visibility complaints
16 reportsClear category filter116,677 miles · Feb 1, 2015
StructureVisibility
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
NHTSA ODI #10680401
120,000 miles · Dec 2, 2013
StructureVisibilityInjury
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
NHTSA ODI #10554309
89,100 miles · Nov 6, 2013
StructureVisibility
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.
NHTSA ODI #10551072
40,000 miles · Oct 11, 2011
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR WINDOW HINGE WAS BROKEN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED A TOTAL OF THREE TIMES PRIOR TO THE MOST RECENT FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE WINDOW HINGE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTAC…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR WINDOW HINGE WAS BROKEN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED A TOTAL OF THREE TIMES PRIOR TO THE MOST RECENT FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE WINDOW HINGE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY RECALLS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 82,000.
NHTSA ODI #10429489
88,676 miles · Jun 26, 2011
StructureVisibilityInjury
I WAS OPENING THE REAR GLASS ON MY 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT WHEN THE HINGE BROKE AND THE GLASS FELL ON MY ARM. I WAS LUCKY TO CATCH IT BEFORE IT HIT THE GROUND. I NOW HAVE A HUGE BRUISE ON MY ARM. I CONTACTED FORD THE SAID MY TRUCK WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL BECAUSE OF WHERE IT WAS BUILT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10408959
110,000 miles · Feb 15, 2010
Visibility
I WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT IN MY 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT IN 43 DEGREE WEATHER WITH NO TEMPERATURE CONTROLS BEING USED WHEN MY REAR WINDSHIELD SHATTERED INTO THE VEHICLE. I THEN PULLED OVER TO A SAFE LOCATION AND INSPECTED THE BROKEN GLASS. THERE WERE NO FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THE BACK OF MY VEHICLE INDICATING MALICE. AFTER DOING …
Read full complaint
I WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT IN MY 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT IN 43 DEGREE WEATHER WITH NO TEMPERATURE CONTROLS BEING USED WHEN MY REAR WINDSHIELD SHATTERED INTO THE VEHICLE. I THEN PULLED OVER TO A SAFE LOCATION AND INSPECTED THE BROKEN GLASS. THERE WERE NO FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THE BACK OF MY VEHICLE INDICATING MALICE. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH IT SEEMS THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT A 2000-2004 FORD VEHICLE HAS HAD THIS KIND OF AN ISSUE. AGAIN, THE TEMPERATURE WAS ONLY 43 DEGREES, MY VEHICLE WAS AT A COMPLETE STOP, AND NO TEMPERATURE CONTROLS WERE BEING USED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10310433
80,000 miles · Nov 2, 2009
VisibilityInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE STANDING BEHIND THE VEHICLE, THE REAR WINDOW EXPLODED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR WARNINGS. SHE SUSTAINED MINOR TO MODERATE INJURIES. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE DEALER ADVISED HER THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT. HOWEVER SHE HAS TO PAY…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. WHILE STANDING BEHIND THE VEHICLE, THE REAR WINDOW EXPLODED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR WARNINGS. SHE SUSTAINED MINOR TO MODERATE INJURIES. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE DEALER ADVISED HER THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT. HOWEVER SHE HAS TO PAY THE DEDUCTIBLE OUT OF POCKET BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A RECALL, AND THE WARRANTY EXPIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000. THE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10290693
70,000 miles · Oct 28, 2008
Visibility
MY HUSBAND AND I OWN A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. FRIDAY, OCT. 24TH, 2008 WE HAD TRAVELED OUT OF TOWN ABOUT 2 HOURS AWAY FROM OUR HOME. WE WERE ON OUR WAY HOME AND WE WERE COMPLETELY STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HEARD A HUGE BOOM AND THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS SHATTERED. WE DID HAVE THE POLICE COME OUT AND INSPECT …
Read full complaint
MY HUSBAND AND I OWN A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. FRIDAY, OCT. 24TH, 2008 WE HAD TRAVELED OUT OF TOWN ABOUT 2 HOURS AWAY FROM OUR HOME. WE WERE ON OUR WAY HOME AND WE WERE COMPLETELY STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HEARD A HUGE BOOM AND THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS SHATTERED. WE DID HAVE THE POLICE COME OUT AND INSPECT THE VEHICLE FOR ANY INDICATIONS AS TO WHAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE GLASS TO SHATTER. THEY DID NOT FIND ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE PROBLEM. WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I GOT HOME WE DID SOME RESEARCH ONLINE TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM. WE DID FIND THAT IN 2001 FORD RECALLED THOUSANDS OF FORD EXPLORERS FOR A SIMILAR ISSUE. WE CONTACTED FORD AND WERE TOLD THAT OUR VEHICLE WAS NOT PART OF THAT RECALL. THEY DIRECTED US TO NHTSA TO FILE A COMPLAINT DUE TO OUR ISSUE BEING ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THIS RECALL. WE FEEL THAT THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND THAT OUR VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS RECALL. WE HAVE THE VEHICLE IN THE SHOP RIGHT NOW AND AT THIS TIME WE BELIEVE THAT THE GLASS, HINGES, REAR WINDSHIELD WIPER MECHANISM, STRUTS AND ANY OTHER PARTS AFFECTED ARE BEING REPLACED. WE HAVE A $500 DEDUCTIBLE AND OUR INSURANCE IS COVERING THE BALANCE OF THE COST AT THIS TIME, WHICH IS OVER $1000. WE WOULD LIKE TO FILE A COMPLAINT AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE DO FEEL THAT OUR VEHICLE EXHIBITED THE SAME MALFUNCTIONS AS THE 2001 RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10247093
50,000 miles · Nov 27, 2007
EquipmentVisibility
AIR CONDITIONING/FAN CONTROLS KNOBS & FACE OF CD PLAYER ON DASH GETS INCREASINGLY HOTTER AS THE VEHICLE RUNS. THE PANEL WITH THE CONTROL KNOBS IS VERY, VERY HOT TO THE TOUCH AND BEGINS TO SMELL VERY HOT WHEN VEHICLE IS RUNNING. I AM CONCERNED OF A FIRE AS MY SON IS A PARAPLEGIC AND I HAVE READ THAT THE FORD EXPLORER HAS FIRES. …
Read full complaint
AIR CONDITIONING/FAN CONTROLS KNOBS & FACE OF CD PLAYER ON DASH GETS INCREASINGLY HOTTER AS THE VEHICLE RUNS. THE PANEL WITH THE CONTROL KNOBS IS VERY, VERY HOT TO THE TOUCH AND BEGINS TO SMELL VERY HOT WHEN VEHICLE IS RUNNING. I AM CONCERNED OF A FIRE AS MY SON IS A PARAPLEGIC AND I HAVE READ THAT THE FORD EXPLORER HAS FIRES. I ASKED THE DEALER ABOUT THIS POSSIBLE ELECTRICAL PROBLEM AND THEY DON'T SEEM CONCERNED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10210091
35,000 miles · May 28, 2007
StructureVisibility
THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS FELL OFF THE HINGES. THE FALLING GLASS DAMAGED THE REAR DEFROSTER WIRES (CAN NO LONGER BE USED) THE HINGE HOLDING THE GLASS BROKE OFF FROM THE VEHICLE CAUSING THE GLASS TO FALL TO THE GROUND. IT COST $130 AT THE FORD DEALER. NHTSE RECALL 04V442 INVESTIGATED THIS EXACT COMPLAINT AND A RECALL WAS ISSUED …
Read full complaint
THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS FELL OFF THE HINGES. THE FALLING GLASS DAMAGED THE REAR DEFROSTER WIRES (CAN NO LONGER BE USED) THE HINGE HOLDING THE GLASS BROKE OFF FROM THE VEHICLE CAUSING THE GLASS TO FALL TO THE GROUND. IT COST $130 AT THE FORD DEALER. NHTSE RECALL 04V442 INVESTIGATED THIS EXACT COMPLAINT AND A RECALL WAS ISSUED BUT FORD INFORMED ME THAT MY 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE RECALL BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT IN A FACTORY NOT AFFECTED BY THE RECALL. THE NHTSE SHOULD CONSIDER RE-OPENING THIS CASE AS IT IS THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM AS THE RECALL ON THE SAME EXACT MAKE AND MODEL. ALL INCIDENTS OF THIS FAILURE OF THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HINGES SHOULD BE COVERED BY FORD. THANK YOU *TR
NHTSA ODI #10191842
Official recalls
3Aug 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.
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).
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.
Illustration