IllustrationHEAD GASKET - LEAKING ANTI FREEZE
1997 Ford Explorer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Explorer years
Owner complaints for the 1997 Ford Explorer are substantially higher than the model-year median of 609.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Explorer 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
Limited mileage data: 231 of 1,731 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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.
- Tires. Review the 669 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 202 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 198 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
155 crash reports53 fire reports124 injury reports
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
198 reportsBACKED OUT OF DRIVEWAY AND PROCEEDED DOWN STREET AT ABOUT 10 MPH. ENGINE MADE A "THUNK" NOISE AND WENT INTO A "NO START" CONDITION. MY '97 EXPLORER WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A SNAPPED CRANKSHAFT. AT 103K MILES THE DEALER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAS ANY SORT OF MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND EMPHATI…
Read full complaint
BACKED OUT OF DRIVEWAY AND PROCEEDED DOWN STREET AT ABOUT 10 MPH. ENGINE MADE A "THUNK" NOISE AND WENT INTO A "NO START" CONDITION. MY '97 EXPLORER WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A SNAPPED CRANKSHAFT. AT 103K MILES THE DEALER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAS ANY SORT OF MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT THEY'D NEVER HEARD OF THIS PROBLEM. THEY REFUSED CUSTOMER REQUEST THAT THEY REVIEW NHTSA WEBISTE FOR HISTORY OF PRIOR REPORTS. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE ENGINE WAS ONLY DESIGNED TO LAST 100K MILES BUT THAT MIGHT BE EXTENDED WITH REGULAR OIL CHANGES. THIS CUSTOMER ASKED IF ENGINE REPLACEMENT AT 100K MILES WAS AN EXPECTED EVENT AND THE DEALER REPEATED THAT IT COULD BE. FORD'S NATIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE WAS NO HELP. THE ZONE MANAGER WOULD NOT MEET TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEM. CUSTOMER PAID $4,800 TO REPLACE THE ENGINE. CUSTOMER KEPT THE BROKEN SHAFT WHICH SHOWS MULTIPLE INTERNAL SURFACE TEXTURES. TO DATE THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS SAME PROBLEM WITHOUT A RESPONSE ON THIS SAFETY AND MANUFACTURING ISSUE FROM FORD. OTHER WEBSITES REPORT FORD EMPLOYEES AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, LOOSELY REFERRED TO AS A "STACKING OF TOLERENCES" WHEREBY THE TOLERENCES EXERT PRESSURE ON THE CRANKSHAFT JUST BEHIND THE KEY WHERE IT ATTACHES TO THE DAMPNER. THIS IS REPORTEDLY NOT A CONDITION THAT THE OWNER CAN PREVENT, DIAGNOSE OR OTHERWISE BE AWARE OF UNTIL THE CRANKSHAFT BREAKS. FORD REPORTEDLY CANNOT MAKE A PRIOR DETERMINATION EITHER, SEEMINGLY LEAVING IT TO CHANCE WHETHER A VEHICLE WILL HAVE PROBLEMS. CERTAIN ENGINE COMPNENTS ARE EXPECTED TO FAIL DURING ENGINE LIFE SUCH AS WATER PUMPS, ALTERNATORS AND SO FORTH BUT MAJOR COMPONENTS SHOULD NOT. FORD SHOULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BY REVEALING THE DESIGN LIFE OF THE CRANKSHAFT. J.D. POWERS RELAYED TO THIS CUSTOMER THAT CRANKSHAFTS ARE ROUTINELY DESIGNED TO LAST 200 - 250K MILES, CONTRARY TO DEALER ASSERTATIONS. THE NHTSA NEEDS TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
BROKEN CRANKSHAFT ON A 97 FORD EXPLORER.CRANK BROKE WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 55 MPH. ALL DASH LIGHTS CAME ON AND ENGINE QUIT.FORD DEALER CONFIRMED CRANK WAS BROKEN AND NEW ENGINE WAS NEEDED AT A COST OF $4400.00.
ENGINE IS A 1997 4.0L SOHC. THERE IS A VERY NOTICIBLE MISS IN THE TIMING AT IDLE. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS SITTING STILL, IT BUCKS AND SHUDDERS THE WHOLE TRUCK, BUT THE IDLE SPEED NEVER VARIES MORE THAN 100 RPM. HAD SAME PROBLEM WITH 1991 EXPLORER 4.0L. DEALER RAN ON THE VEHICLE AND COULD NOT FIND ANY PROBLEMS. MECHANIC SAID THIS IS…
Read full complaint
ENGINE IS A 1997 4.0L SOHC. THERE IS A VERY NOTICIBLE MISS IN THE TIMING AT IDLE. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS SITTING STILL, IT BUCKS AND SHUDDERS THE WHOLE TRUCK, BUT THE IDLE SPEED NEVER VARIES MORE THAN 100 RPM. HAD SAME PROBLEM WITH 1991 EXPLORER 4.0L. DEALER RAN ON THE VEHICLE AND COULD NOT FIND ANY PROBLEMS. MECHANIC SAID THIS IS COMMON WITH THESE ENGINES. DT
THE CONSUMER STATED, WHILE DRIVING, THE CRANKSHAFT SHEARED OFF. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THEY CAN DO.*SCC
MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STARTED ACCELERATING WHEN I WAS PROCEEDING DOWN THE INTERSTATE. I COULD SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN SOMEWHAT BY AGGRESSIVELY APPLYING THE BRAKES. HOWEVER, THIS WOULD JUST GET ME SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE UNTIL I WOULD RELEASE THE BRAKE. THE VEHICLE WOULD SUDDENLY SPEED UP AGAIN. I WAS TRAVELING ON A FAIRLY BUSY STRE…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STARTED ACCELERATING WHEN I WAS PROCEEDING DOWN THE INTERSTATE. I COULD SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN SOMEWHAT BY AGGRESSIVELY APPLYING THE BRAKES. HOWEVER, THIS WOULD JUST GET ME SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE UNTIL I WOULD RELEASE THE BRAKE. THE VEHICLE WOULD SUDDENLY SPEED UP AGAIN. I WAS TRAVELING ON A FAIRLY BUSY STRETCH OF INTERSTATE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. I LUCKILY DID NOT HAVE A NEED TO STOP QUICKLY WHILE THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED. I TRIED HITTING THE ACCELERATOR A FEW TIMES TO GET IT TO STOP STICKING IN THE "WIDE OPEN" POSITION. I EVEN TRIED MANIPULATING THE CRUISE CONTROL (WHICH WAS OFF). AFTER SEVERAL FAILED ATTEMPTS TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, I STARTED TRYING TO THINK OF A QUICK GAME PLAN TO GET OUT OF THIS POTENTIAL DISASTER. I AM VERY THANKFUL THAT MY WIFE WAS NOT DRIVING AT THE TIME AND THAT I DID NOT HAVE OTHERS IN THE CAR DURING THIS NIGHTMARE. I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO FIND A SHOULDER WHERE I COULD PULL OFF THE ROAD. AS I SAID, THE ROAD WAS EXTREMELY BUSY AND I WAS VERY WORRIED ABOUT GETTING OFF THE ROAD SAFELY WITH A SEMI-TRUCK NOT FAR BEHIND ME. I PULLED TOWARD THE SHOULDER AND PUT THE CAR INTO "NEUTRAL". THE RPM'S, WHICH HAD BEEN RUNNING EXTREMELY HIGH FOR ABOUT 3 MINUTES, MOVED EVEN HIGHER AT THIS POINT. THE RPM'S WERE PEGGED TO THE TOP OF THE GAUGE FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS. AS SOON AS I FELT I WAS OFF OF THE ROADWAY ENOUGH, I TURNED THE KEY TO THE "OFF" POSITION. WHEN I GOT OUT OF THE CAR THERE WAS A HORRIBLE BURNING ODOR COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE CAR. I AM NOT ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROBLEM THAT MAY HAVE TRIGGERED THIS INCIDENT, BUT I AM ALSO VERY WORRIED ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE THAT THIS UNDOUBTEDLY CAUSED. I FEEL THAT THIS CAUSED AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF WEAR AND TEAR TO THE ENGINE AND THE BRAKING SYSTEM. ON TOP OF ALL OF THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE DONE TO THE CAR, THE EXPERIENCE WAS SCARY TO SAY THE LEAST. MY WIFE REFUSES TO EVEN GET IN THE CAR AT THIS POINT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, SHE DOESN'T WANT MY KIDS TO RIDE IN IT EITHER.
WHEN STARTING UP THE CAR, A LOUD NOISE CAME FROM ENGINE. MY PERSONAL MECHANIC ADVISED IT WAS A TIMING CHAIN. FORD TOWED IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND I FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL WARRANTY COVERAGE FOR THIS PART. IT WAS A FAILED TIMING CHAIN GUIDE. THEY ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING IT FOR FORD TO PAY FOR REPAIRS. ENTIR…
Read full complaint
WHEN STARTING UP THE CAR, A LOUD NOISE CAME FROM ENGINE. MY PERSONAL MECHANIC ADVISED IT WAS A TIMING CHAIN. FORD TOWED IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND I FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL WARRANTY COVERAGE FOR THIS PART. IT WAS A FAILED TIMING CHAIN GUIDE. THEY ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING IT FOR FORD TO PAY FOR REPAIRS. ENTIRE ENGINE MAY NEED REPLACED.*AK
TIMING CHAIN WAS MAKING A RATTLE NOISE AND WE HAD IT CHECKED OUT AND THEY SAID THAT THEY HAD A SAFETY RECALL .*AK
THERE IS A CONSTANT RATTLING NOISE WHEN DRIVING. DEALER DETERMINED IT WAS THE TIMING CHAIN. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.*AK
NO SUMMARY LISTED FOR ABOVE VEHICLE. *AK
Official recalls
709V399000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Oct 13, 2009
FORD IS RECALLING MODEL YEARS 1995-2003 WINDSTAR, 2000-2003 EXCURSION DIESEL, 1993-1997 AND 1999-2003 F-250 SD THROUGH F-550 SD DIESEL, 1992-2003 E-150 THROUGH E-550, 1995-2002 EXPLORER, 1997 AND 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, 1995-1997 AND 2001-2003 RANGER, AND 1994 F53 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS). THE SCDS MAY LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS THAT DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS IN LINE WITH THE SCDS. ON 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES WITH A LEAKING SCDS, DEALERS WILL ALSO INSPECT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE CONNECTOR AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. REPAIRS WILL BE COMPLETED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 27, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
00V422000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Dec 27, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L SOHC ENGINES AND STILL RETAIN THE ORIGINAL THROTTLE BODY (PART NUMBERS 97JF-9E926AB OR 97JF-9E926-AC). SOME OF THE ORIGINAL THROTTLE BODIES INSTALLED ALLOWED A GAP BETWEEN THE PLATE AND BORE TO BE BUILT TOO NARROW. THIS REDUCED CLEARANCE ALLOWED THE ENGINE DEPOSITS NORMALLY PRESENT IN THE THROTTLE BODY TO CONTACT OR BRIDGE THE GAP. IF THE ENGINE DEPOSITS BRIDGED THE GAP BETWEEN THE THROTTLE PLATE AND BORE AND THEN HARDENED, ON THE INITIAL APPLICATION OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AFTER THE ENGINE HAS COOLED, THE OPERATOR WOULD NEED TO APPLY ADDITIONAL FORCE TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO BREAK THE BRIDGE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN ENGINE SURGE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BREAKS FREE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE ORIGINAL THROTTLE BODIES.
00V402000 · Suspension
Nov 28, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, A FRONT SWAY BAR LINK CAN FRACTURE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: VEHICLE HANDLING COULD BE AFFECTED, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT SWAY BAR LINKS.
00V168000 · Exterior Lighting
Jun 19, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MINI VANS, LIGHT PICKUP TRUCKS, AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. OFF LEASE CANADIAN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS WHICH MEET CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS AND NOT THE PHOTOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." ACCORDING TO FORD, THE VEHICLES WERE IMPORTED INTO THE U.S. ERRONEOUSLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE LIGHT GIVEN OFF FROM THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS IS BRIGHTER THAN ALLOWED BY U.S. STANDARDS.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL BE ADVISED TO DEACTIVATE THE RUNNING LIGHT FUNCTION AND TO COMPLETE ANY OUTSTANDING SAFETY RECALLS ON THESE VEHICLES.
99V062001 · Vehicle Speed Control
Mar 30, 1999
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1997-1999 RHD EXPLORER EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L OHV/SOHC ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MAY 29, 1996 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1998-1999 EXPLORER/MOUNTAINEERS EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L OHV/SOHC OR 5.0L ENGINES OR 1998-1999 RANGERS EQUIPPED WITH 2.5L, 3.0L FFV/EFI OR 4.0L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM JANUARY 5, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1998-1999 MUSTANGS EQUIPPED WITH 3.8L, 4.6L 2-VALVE OR 4-VALVE ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1999 F250/F350/F450/F550 (OVER 8,500 LBS.) TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 5.4L OR 6.8L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; AND 1999 F-53 STRIPPED CHASSIS EQUIPPED WITH 5.4L OR 6.8L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999. A CRUISE CONTROL CABLE CAN INTERFERE WITH THE SPEED CONTROL SERVO PULLEY AND NOT ALLOW THE THROTTLE TO RETURN TO IDLE WHEN DISENGAGING THE CRUISE CONTROL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE CRUISE CONTROL IS USED AND THIS CONDITION IS PRESENT, A STUCK THROTTLE COULD RESULT, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE CRUISE CONTROL CABLES. AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE REPLACEMENT CABLES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. CUSTOMERS ARE BEING ADVISED NOT TO USE THE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEM UNTIL A REPLACEMENT CAN BE MADE.
98V060000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
Mar 19, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L SINGLE OVERHEAD CAM ENGINES. THE ENGINE FUEL LINES CAN BE DAMAGED IF THE VEHICLE IS JUMP STARTED AND THE GROUND CABLE IS ATTACHED TO THE FUEL LINE BRACKET THAT IS LOCATED NEAR THE BATTERY. SINCE THE BRACKET IS NOT GROUNDED, THE STAINLESS STEEL FUEL LINE BRAID COULD ACT AS A GROUND POTENTIALLY OVERHEATING THE PTFE INNER LINER OF THE FUEL LINE RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE FUEL LINE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE FUEL LINES CAN LEAK, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, A FIRE COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A WARNING LABEL ON THE FUEL LINE BRACKET ADVISING OWNERS NOT TO USE IT FOR A JUMP START GROUND. ALSO A REVISED BOLT WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE ALTERNATOR BRACKET TO PROVIDE A CONVENIENT JUMP START GROUND LOCATION.
97V074000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Apr 30, 1997
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 5.0L ENGINES ORIGINALLY SOLD OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATES OF ALASKA, IDAHO, IOWA, MAINE, MICHIGAN (UPPER PENINSULA ONLY), MINNESOTA, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW YORK, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, VERMONT, WISCONSIN, AND WYOMING. THESE VEHICLES, WHEN OPERATED FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS AND TEMPERATURES BELOW -20 DEGREES FARENHEIT, DO NOT RETURN TO IDLE DUE TO ICE IN THE THROTTLE BODY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE CAN BE CONTROLLED BY EITHER APPLYING THE SERVICE BRAKES OR SHIFTING THE TRANSMISSION TO NEUTRAL, INCREASED BRAKE PEDAL EFFORTS OR SOME INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCE CAN RESULT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A REVISED PCV SYSTEM WITH WATER HEATED VACUUM SOURCE.
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
6DP05005 · 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.
PE99049 · Windshield Wiper Malfunction
Opened Jul 28, 1999 · Closed Apr 24, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Visibility
There is no summary currently available
PE99045 · Steering Knuckle Separations
Opened Jul 6, 1999 · Closed Oct 29, 1999
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering
There is no summary currently available
EA99001 · Throttle Sticking
Opened Jan 7, 1999 · Closed Feb 9, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
ON JANUARY 23, 1997, FORD MOTOR COMPANY ISSUED SPECIAL SERVICE MESSAGE (SSM) 10240, ANNOUNCING THAT A REVISED THROTTLE BODY WOULD BE AVAILABLE DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1997 FOR 1997 MODEL YEAR FORD EXPLORERS EQUIPPED WITH THE 4.0L SINGLE OVERHEAD CAM (SOHC) ENGINE.THE SSM STATED THE REVISED THROTTLE BODY WOULD ADDRESS INCREASED THROTTLE EFFORTS THAT HAD BEEN EXPERIENCED ON THESE VEHICLES.ON JULY 31, 1998, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED SERVICE QUERY SQ98-014 TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SAFETY RECALL WAS WARRANTED FOR THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY SSM 10240.AT THAT TIME ODI HAD 14 REPORTS ALLEGING THROTTLES STICKING OPEN, INCLUDING THREE CRASHES, ON 1997 EXPLORERS WITH THE 4.0L SOHC ENGINE.EA99-001 INVESTIGATED ALLEGED THROTTLE BODY STICKING, AND LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL, IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ON DECEMBER 22, 2000, FORD MOTOR COMPANY FILED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT CONCERNING THROTTLE BODY STICKING IN 1997-1998 MODEL YEAR EXPLORER AND MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES WITH 4.0 SOHC ENGINES THAT STILL RETAIN THE ORIGINAL THROTTLE BODY; SAFETY RECALL 00V-422.THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CLOSING REPORT IS ATTACHED.
RQ98020 · Fuel Line Damage From Jump Starting
Opened Nov 3, 1998 · Closed Nov 15, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
There is no summary currently available
SQ98014 · Throttle Sticking
Opened Jul 31, 1998 · Closed Jan 7, 1999
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
There is no summary currently available