NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel System, Gasoline complaints
53 reportsClear category filter234,000 miles · Jan 28, 2011
Fuel System, GasolineFire
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH WHEN HE WAS INFORMED THAT A FIRE HAD ERUPTED FROM UNDER THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO MOVE THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROADWAY AND EXIT THE VEHICLE JUST AS IT BURST INTO FLAMES. THE POLICE ARRIVED TO ASSIST AND A POLICE REPORT WAS AVAILABLE. T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH WHEN HE WAS INFORMED THAT A FIRE HAD ERUPTED FROM UNDER THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO MOVE THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROADWAY AND EXIT THE VEHICLE JUST AS IT BURST INTO FLAMES. THE POLICE ARRIVED TO ASSIST AND A POLICE REPORT WAS AVAILABLE. THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED AND THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THE CONTACT TO TAKE PICTURES OF THE FAILURE AND DAMAGES. THE CONTACT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNDER RECALL UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 98V060000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:DELIVERY:HOSES, LINES/PIPING, AND FITTINGS), WHICH COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 234,000.
NHTSA ODI #10379463
118,304 miles · Jan 13, 2011
Fuel System, Gasoline
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER. THE CONTACT SMELLED GASOLINE IN THE VEHICLE AND AFTER LOOKING UNDERNEATH THE HOOD HE NOTICED THAT THE FUEL LINE WAS LEAKING FROM A BRACKET BEHIND THE MOTOR. THE CONTACT SPOKE TO THE MANUFACTURER ABOUT RECALL CAMPAIGN 98V060000, FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:DELIVERY:HOSES, LINES/PIPING, AND FITT…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER. THE CONTACT SMELLED GASOLINE IN THE VEHICLE AND AFTER LOOKING UNDERNEATH THE HOOD HE NOTICED THAT THE FUEL LINE WAS LEAKING FROM A BRACKET BEHIND THE MOTOR. THE CONTACT SPOKE TO THE MANUFACTURER ABOUT RECALL CAMPAIGN 98V060000, FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:DELIVERY:HOSES, LINES/PIPING, AND FITTINGS, BUT THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE RECALL HAD CLOSED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 118,034.
NHTSA ODI #10376549
58,000 miles · Mar 15, 2010
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
STUCK ACCELERATOR ON 1997 FORD EXPLORER WITH 58,000 MILES. WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 287/78 IN NJ I TRIED TO TURN OFF THE CRUISE CONTROL BUT INSTEAD THE CAR ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY TO OVER 85 MPH. I GAINED CONTROL BY TURNING THE ENGINE ON AND OFF UNTIL REACHING A SAFE PLACE TO STOP. AN NJDOT TRUCK HELPED ME AND LATER THAT…
Read full complaint
STUCK ACCELERATOR ON 1997 FORD EXPLORER WITH 58,000 MILES. WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 287/78 IN NJ I TRIED TO TURN OFF THE CRUISE CONTROL BUT INSTEAD THE CAR ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY TO OVER 85 MPH. I GAINED CONTROL BY TURNING THE ENGINE ON AND OFF UNTIL REACHING A SAFE PLACE TO STOP. AN NJDOT TRUCK HELPED ME AND LATER THAT DAY I EMAILED WHAT HAPPENED TO FORD'S CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE. I WANTED THEM TO HAVE A DEALER EXAMINE MY EXPLORER TO SEE IF THIS WAS CAUSED BY A MATERIAL DEFECT OF NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR, IN WHICH CASE I WOULD REPAIR IT. THEY REFUSED TO HELP SO I WROTE A LETTER TO DEARBORN AND RECEIVED A RESPONSE SAYING THE MATTER WAS CLOSED (CASE # 1510510480). MY WIFE SAID (AND I BELIEVE HER) THAT IF SHE WERE DRIVING IT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A CRASH. I NOTED THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE 2002 ESCAPE THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE SAME PROBLEM. I JUST WANT TO PREVENT POTENTIAL LOSS OF LIFE DUE TO THIS, IN MY OPINION, FAULTY DESIGN OR MANUFACTURER GLITCH. NJDOT DOCUMENTED THE CASE SINCE I SENT THEM A "THANK YOU" AND THEY RESPONDED. THE VEHICLE PUT ME AND OTHERS ON THE HIGHWAY IN A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION (VIZ A VIZ TOYOTA) BUT FORD IS UNWILLING TO CONSIDER THE CASE. THEY WANT TO TREAT THIS AS AN "OUT OF WARRANTY" CONDITION BUT I BELIEVE IT IS POTENTIALLY A PRODUCT LIABILITY THAT IF NOT CORRECTED WILL COST LIVES AND DAMAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10319929
102,266 miles · Oct 8, 2008
Fuel System, Gasoline
I BOUGHT A 1997 FORD EXPLORER ON FEBRUARY 23, 2008. ON OCTOBER 3, 2008 I USED MY EXPLORER TO JUMP ANOTHER VEHICLE. I HAD THE NEGATIVE CABLE GROUNDED TO A BRACKET RIGHT NEXT TO THE BATTERY (THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACE TO GROUND TO). WHILE TRYING TO JUMP THE OTHER VEHICLE FUEL STARTED LEAKING FROM THE FUEL LINES THAT ARE ATTACHED TO TH…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT A 1997 FORD EXPLORER ON FEBRUARY 23, 2008. ON OCTOBER 3, 2008 I USED MY EXPLORER TO JUMP ANOTHER VEHICLE. I HAD THE NEGATIVE CABLE GROUNDED TO A BRACKET RIGHT NEXT TO THE BATTERY (THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACE TO GROUND TO). WHILE TRYING TO JUMP THE OTHER VEHICLE FUEL STARTED LEAKING FROM THE FUEL LINES THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THAT BRACKET. THE FUEL LINES WERE MELTED BECAUSE OF JUMPING ON THAT BRACKET AND THERE WAS FUEL RUNNING OVER THE JUMPER CABLES AND DOWN THE SIDE OF THE ENGINE. I COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED BUT MOST LIKELY KILLED IF THE JUMPER CABLES SPARKED. I WAS LOOKING ON THE INTERNET TO SEE HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO HAVE THE FUEL LINES REPLACED AND I STUMBLED ACROSS A RECALL STATING THAT ON MY SPECIFIC EXPLORER " 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: 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." I WENT AND CHECKED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY KIND OF WARNING AND THERE WAS, BUT IT WAS NOT ON THE FUEL LINE BRACKET LIKE THE RECALL SAID THE DEALERSHIP SHOULD DO, IT WAS ON THE FUEL LINES AND TUCKED UP BEHIND THAT BRACKET WHERE IT WAS IN NO WAY VISIBLE UNLESS YOU KNEW IT WAS THERE. SO NOW IM GOING TO HAVE TO PAY $608.05 FOR FUEL LINES BECAUSE FAULKNER-CIACCO FORD DEALERSHIP DID NOT SERVICE MY EXPLORER CORRECTLY. I CALLED FORD MOTOR COMPANY ASKING IF THEY WOULD PAY FOR IT AND THEY SAID THAT THEY CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I BELIEVE FORD, OR THE DEALER SHOULD HAVE TO PAY SINCE THE WARNING LABEL WAS NOT CORRECTLY PLACED ON MY VEHICLE. THE FORD RECALL # IS 98S09. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10244907
102,266 miles · Oct 8, 2008
Fuel System, Gasoline
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD EXPLORER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON HIS VEHICLE (NUMBER 98S09) REGARDING THE WARNING LABEL THAT WAS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL BRACKET; HOWEVER, HIS WAS INSTALLED ON THE FUEL LINE ITSELF. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE LESS THAN 102,266.
NHTSA ODI #10244762
130,000 miles · May 8, 2008
Fuel System, GasolineSuspensionTires
THE FRONT SUSPENSION BAR LINKS ARE BROKEN, THE FOG LIGHTS OF THE EXTERIOR DOES NOT WORK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10227083
Mileage unknown · Dec 21, 2007
Fuel System, GasolineFire
1997 FORD EXPLORER CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD. FIRE CHIEF STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS ON RECALL AND THE FIRE WAS DUE TO A FUEL LEAK. *KB
NHTSA ODI #10212810
Mileage unknown · Aug 5, 2006
Fuel System, GasolineSuspension
I SEE ALL OF THE RECALLS ON THE FORD EXPLORER DATE 1997 BUT I OWN A FORD EXPLORER 1997 AND THE ONLY RECALL NOTICE THAT I RECEIVED IS THE ONE FOR THE TIRES BACK IN 2000. I NEVER RECEIVED THE OTHERS AND I KNOW THE FORD COMPANY IS AWARE OF ME OWNING THIS VEHICLE FOR I GET NOTICES IN THE MAIL CONSTANTLY ABOUT SELLING IT BACK TO FOR…
Read full complaint
I SEE ALL OF THE RECALLS ON THE FORD EXPLORER DATE 1997 BUT I OWN A FORD EXPLORER 1997 AND THE ONLY RECALL NOTICE THAT I RECEIVED IS THE ONE FOR THE TIRES BACK IN 2000. I NEVER RECEIVED THE OTHERS AND I KNOW THE FORD COMPANY IS AWARE OF ME OWNING THIS VEHICLE FOR I GET NOTICES IN THE MAIL CONSTANTLY ABOUT SELLING IT BACK TO FORD. WHY ARE NOT MY SUSPENSION LINES OR GAS LINES BEING REPAIRED LIKE THE OTHER FORDS WITH THE 4.0 LITER ENGINE? *JB
NHTSA ODI #10164618
103,000 miles · Jun 15, 2006
Fuel System, Gasoline
I JUMPED A CAR AND GROUNDED THE CABLES ON THE BRACKET AT THE TOP OF THE ENGINE. IMMEDIATELY AFTER JUMPING THE CAR, A STRONG FUEL ODOR WAS NOTED. THE LAKE BLUFF POLICE WITNESSED THE ENTIRE EVENT. LATER THAT NIGHT AFTER DRIVING THE CAR, I NOTED A FUEL LEAK FROM THE LINES ADJACENT TO THE BRACKET. I BROUGHT THE CAR INTO MY LOCAL…
Read full complaint
I JUMPED A CAR AND GROUNDED THE CABLES ON THE BRACKET AT THE TOP OF THE ENGINE. IMMEDIATELY AFTER JUMPING THE CAR, A STRONG FUEL ODOR WAS NOTED. THE LAKE BLUFF POLICE WITNESSED THE ENTIRE EVENT. LATER THAT NIGHT AFTER DRIVING THE CAR, I NOTED A FUEL LEAK FROM THE LINES ADJACENT TO THE BRACKET. I BROUGHT THE CAR INTO MY LOCAL SHOP FOR REPAIRS. THE COINCIDENCE OF THE CAR JUMP AND FUEL LEAK MADE ME SUSPICIOUS AND I FOUND THAT MY CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECALLED UNDER ID NO. 98V060000 FOR A WARNING LABEL AND NEW GROUNDING BOLT. I CALLED ED MATEO AT HIGHLAND PARK FORD IN IL AND GAVE HIM MY VIN, [XXX]. HE AGREED THAT THE CAR WAS SUBJECT TO THE RECALL AND THEY WOULD REPLACE THE FUEL LINE(S) AND INSTALL THE WARNING AND NEW GROUNDING BOLT. I PICKED UP ME CAR FROM MY LOCAL REPAIRMAN THIS MORNING AND DROPPED IT OFF WITH ED AT HIGHLAND PARK FORD. HE SAID THAT THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING UNDER THE FORD RECALL NO. 98S09. HE CALLED ME A HALF HOUR LATER AND SAID THAT HIS MANAGER WOULD NOT LET HIM REPAIR THE CAR UNDER THE RECALL SINCE IT DIDN'T COME UP IN THEIR SYSTEM UNDER MY VIN - EVEN THOUGH WE HAD ALREADY CLEARED THIS EARLIER. I CALLED JESSIE FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE, 800-392-FORD, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THE REASON IT DIDN'T COME UP UNDER MY VIN WAS BECAUSE THE RECALL WORK (WARNING AND NEW BOLT) WAS ALREADY PERFORMED ON MY CAR, BUT SHE COULDN'T TELL ME WHO DID IT. THIS WORK WAS NEVER PERFORMED ON MY CAR AND NOW FORD IS REFUSING TO HONOR THE RECALL. *NM UPDATED 0716/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #10159924
104,735 miles · Oct 21, 2005
Fuel System, Gasoline
DT: THE CONTACT STATE VEHICLE HAD BEEN REPAIR UNDER NHTSA RECALL 98V060000/ MANUFACTURER'S RECALL 98S09 BEFORE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. WHEN SHE CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP THEY SAID THE RECALL REPAIRS WERE DONE ON JANUARY 9, 2001. SHE WAS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM AS STATED IN THE RECALL. THE CONTACT'S HUSBAND HAD TO JUMP STA…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT STATE VEHICLE HAD BEEN REPAIR UNDER NHTSA RECALL 98V060000/ MANUFACTURER'S RECALL 98S09 BEFORE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. WHEN SHE CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP THEY SAID THE RECALL REPAIRS WERE DONE ON JANUARY 9, 2001. SHE WAS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM AS STATED IN THE RECALL. THE CONTACT'S HUSBAND HAD TO JUMP START THE VEHICLE ON JANUARY 24, 2005. IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE HAD DONE SO HE SMELLED FUEL INSIDE THE VEHICLE. WHEN HE TOOK VEHICLE TO A DEALERSHIP THEY FOUND TWO HOLES IN THE FUEL LINE. THEY HAD THE FUEL LINE REPLACED AT THEIR EXPENSE. THE PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN ON OCTOBER 15, 2005. THE CONTACT'S HUSBAND HAD TO JUMP START THE VEHICLE AGAIN. AFTER EXAMINING THE FUEL LINE HE FOUND THERE WERE TWO HOLES IN THE EXACT SAME SPOTS. SHE TOOK IT TO A FORD DEALER, AND THEY TOLD HER THAT THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL ON THE VEHICLE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10140471
Official recalls
7Oct 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Illustration