IllustrationROAD NOISE GOT SO LOUD THAT WALKER FORD TOLD ME TO GET NEW TIRES( DOT NUMBER: W2???? TIRE SIZE: P235/75R15 )
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
Tires complaints
669 reportsI HAD THREE TIRE FAILURES FROM 29 JUNE THRU JULY 22 2000. THE FIRST FAILURE WAS AT APPROXIMATELY 35000 MILES, ON THE RIGHT FRONT. THE TIRE DEALER STATED THERE WAS A HOLE BUT HE COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE. THE SECOND FAILURE WAS ON 19 JULY AND THE LEFT FRONT TIRE BLEW AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH. THE TIRE SHREDDED AND HAD TO BE …
Read full complaint
I HAD THREE TIRE FAILURES FROM 29 JUNE THRU JULY 22 2000. THE FIRST FAILURE WAS AT APPROXIMATELY 35000 MILES, ON THE RIGHT FRONT. THE TIRE DEALER STATED THERE WAS A HOLE BUT HE COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE. THE SECOND FAILURE WAS ON 19 JULY AND THE LEFT FRONT TIRE BLEW AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH. THE TIRE SHREDDED AND HAD TO BE REPLACED $94.03). I HAVE THE RECEIPT. THE THIRD WAS ON 22 JULY 2000 ON THE RIGHT REAR. THE TIRE WAS FLAT IN THE MORNING. I HAD IT REPAIRED AT THE SAME PLACE I BOUGHT THE OTHER ONE. I AM 59.5 YEARS OF AGE AND HAVE BEEN DRIVING AND OWNING CARS SINCE I WAS 16. I HAVE NEVER HAD SUCH TIRE PROBLEMS BEFORE AND I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THESE TIRES SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE TIRES FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. THEASE ARE NOT CHEAP TIRES!( DOT NUMBER: W2CU1PX496 TIRE SIZE: P255/70R16 )
NO SUMMARY( DOT NUMBER: TIRE SIZE: P255/70R16 )
THE TIRES WERE FACTORY INSTALLED TIRES, VEHICLE BOUGHT AT 26,000 MILES, AT 31,900 MILES THE FRONT TIRES DEVELOPED FLAT SPOTS AND WERE NOT SAFE TO OPERATE. ON SATURDAY 8/7/1999 I REPLACED THE FRONT TIRES WITH ANOTHER STYLE OF FIRESTONE TIRES. THE SAME AFTERNOON I HAD A BLOWOUT ON THE RIGHT REAR. SO MONDAY 8/9/1999 I REPLACED T…
Read full complaint
THE TIRES WERE FACTORY INSTALLED TIRES, VEHICLE BOUGHT AT 26,000 MILES, AT 31,900 MILES THE FRONT TIRES DEVELOPED FLAT SPOTS AND WERE NOT SAFE TO OPERATE. ON SATURDAY 8/7/1999 I REPLACED THE FRONT TIRES WITH ANOTHER STYLE OF FIRESTONE TIRES. THE SAME AFTERNOON I HAD A BLOWOUT ON THE RIGHT REAR. SO MONDAY 8/9/1999 I REPLACED THE BLOWN OUT TIRE AND THE REMAINING ORIGINAL REAR TIRE. THE FACTORY TIRES WERE NOT FROM THE DECATUR PLANT BUT WERE JUST AS DEFECTIVE AND UNSAFE. THE TIRES SHOULD HAVE LASTED LONGER THAN 31,900 MILES. I ASK FOR AN ADJUSTMENT FROM THE DEALER AND GOT NONE! I HAD TO REPLACE ALL 4 TIRES AT MY EXPENSE WHICH WAS NOT RIGHT. I DEMAND REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE 4 TIRE REPLACEMENT.( DOT NUMBER: W2HL TIRE SIZE: P235/75R15 )
TIRES HAVE A STRANGE LOOKING WEAR PATTERN DEVELOPING( DOT NUMBER: TIRE SIZE: 235/75R15 )
TWO OF THE THREE TIRES ON VEHICLE (VN DOT SERIAL #) SHOWING SAME SIGNS OF SEPARATION AS THE VD DOT SERIAL # RECALLED TIRES.( DOT NUMBER: VNHL1PY077 TIRE SIZE: RECALLED )
WHILE TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 40 AND SUDDENLY RIGHT REAR TIRE BLEWOUT. WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 60 MPH, AND WAS ABLE TO CONTROL VEHICLE.*AK THE ROAD WAS WET WITH LIGHT RAIN AT THE TIME OF TIRE BLOW OUT. CONSUMER REPLACED ALL TIRES. *YH
CONSUMER HAS A 1997 FORD, EXPLORER. ORIGINAL TIRES HAVE 31,000 MILES ON THEM. TIRES SIZE IS P235/75R15, AND DOT # VNHL. THERE WAS ABOUT 3/4 INCHES OF SEPARATION & CRACKING DOWN ON SIDEWALL TO FLAT TREAD. IN & OUTSIDE OF THE TIRES. *AK FIRESTONE WILDERNESS AT P235/75/R15 *MW
AFTER HAVING MY '97 FORD EXPLORER SPORT FIRESTONE WILDERNESS AT TIRES CHECKED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 22 AT 5:00 PM, I WAS GIVEN A PRINTOUT FROM BOB DAVIDSON FORD THAT CONFIRMED THAT MY WILDERNESS AT'S WERE NOT PART OF THE FIRESTONE RECALL AS THEY DID NOT HAVE THE NEEDED "VD" DOT CODE. THE DEALER'S REPORT READ, "NOT APPLICABLE TO REC…
Read full complaint
AFTER HAVING MY '97 FORD EXPLORER SPORT FIRESTONE WILDERNESS AT TIRES CHECKED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 22 AT 5:00 PM, I WAS GIVEN A PRINTOUT FROM BOB DAVIDSON FORD THAT CONFIRMED THAT MY WILDERNESS AT'S WERE NOT PART OF THE FIRESTONE RECALL AS THEY DID NOT HAVE THE NEEDED "VD" DOT CODE. THE DEALER'S REPORT READ, "NOT APPLICABLE TO RECALL. TIRES OF OK DOT (W2HL). I WAS LEARY ABOUT DRIVING THE EXPLORER ON INTERSTATE 95 FROM BALTIMORE TO DELAWARE BUT HAD TO JOIN MY WIFE WHO WAS ASSISTING HER 85 YEAR OLD MOTHER WHO IS RECOVERING FROM A BROKEN PELVIS IN WILMINGTON. RETURNING HOME AT ABOUT 10:15 PM FROM WILMINGTON, DEL. TO BALTIMORE, MD. ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, THE EXPLORER STARTED TO SWIM ON THE ROAD, NOTICEABLY SWERVING. JUST THEN A MAN IN A CAR ON MY RIGHT STARTED YELLING AT ME AND POINTING TO THE REAR OF MY VEHICLE. I REALIZED SOMETHING WAS VERY WRONG AND PULLED OVER IMMEDIATELY. THE TIRE WAS FLAT. ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT A "BLOWOUT" AS HAS CAUSED MANY ACCIDENTS IN EXPLORERS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, THE TIRE WENT FLAT QUICKLY, IN A COUPLE MINUTES AT MOST. WHEN I TOOK OFF THE TIRE AND LOOKED INSIDE, THERE WERE LARGE AIR BUBBLES INSIDE THE TIRE. IN ADDITION, THE TIRE WAS SHREDDED IN SEVERAL SECTIONS INSIDE. THE OUTSIDE OF THE TIRE WAS MUSHY AND SPONGEY. EARLY ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, I TOOK THE TIRE TO THE FIRESTONE TIRE CENTER AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT I HAD HIT SOMETHING ON THE ROAD THAT HAD CAUSED THE TIRE TO LOSE AIR. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO PUNCTURE AND THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE WAS OBVIOUSLY RIPPED APART RATHER EXTENSIVELY. WHEN WE CONSULTED WITH OTHER TIRE DEALERS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF OUR OTHER THREE TIRES ON THE VEHICLE THEY POINTED OUT THE CRACKS ALL ALONG THE EDGE OF THE TREAD, INDICATING THAT THE TREAD IS NOTICEABLY BEGINNING TO SEPARATE FROM THE REST OF THE TIRE. AS THE TIRES ARE IN "MID-LIFE" BUT NOT ON THE FORMAL RECALL LIST, WE ARE STUCK WITH TIRES UNSAFE TO DRIVE ON THE HIGHWAY. WE HOPE THE RECALL WILL BE EXPANDED SOON.
HAD A TIRE BLOWOUT ON 4/99 AND IT RAN OFF THE ROAD AND RUINED THE WHEEL, NO OTHER DAMAGE BUT TO THE TIRE AND THE WHEEL ITSELF. I PUT THE SPARE ON AND DROVE TO A SHOP TO HAVE THE TIRE AND WHEEL REPLACED. I THOUGHT I HIT SOMETHING IN THE ROAD, BUT I REMEMBER THE GUY TELLING ME THAT THE TIRE HAD SEPARATED. AT THE TIME THEY SAID…
Read full complaint
HAD A TIRE BLOWOUT ON 4/99 AND IT RAN OFF THE ROAD AND RUINED THE WHEEL, NO OTHER DAMAGE BUT TO THE TIRE AND THE WHEEL ITSELF. I PUT THE SPARE ON AND DROVE TO A SHOP TO HAVE THE TIRE AND WHEEL REPLACED. I THOUGHT I HIT SOMETHING IN THE ROAD, BUT I REMEMBER THE GUY TELLING ME THAT THE TIRE HAD SEPARATED. AT THE TIME THEY SAID THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO BUT REPLACE THE TIRE. NO WARRANTY APPLIED AS TO THAT. NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, IT MAKES ME WONDER IF IT COULD OF BEEN THE TIRES HAVING A DEFECT. IT ANGERS ME KNOWING I COULD OF BEEN HURT OR HAD HURT SOMEONE. I SENT AN E-MAIL TO FIRESTONE AND FORD AND GOT A GENERAL RESPONSE. I KNOW MY TIRES START WITH DOT# (W-2), BUT IF SOMEONE FROM FIRESTONE OR FORD WOULD EXAMINE MY TIRES THEY WOULD SEE THE OTHERS LOOK LIKE THEY ARE SEPARATING OR DRY ROTTING AT THE START OF THE TREADWALL. I HAVE LOOKED AT THEM MANY TIMES OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS, THEY LOOK HORRIBLE. ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED. I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO END UP AS A STATISTIC OF SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN KILLED. I HAVE MOVED TO FLORIDA AND DRIVE ON I-95 OR THE TURNPIKE WHERE THE SPEED IS NOW 70 MILES AN HOUR. THAT WILL IN ITSELF MAKE YOUR NERVOUS NOW. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU CAN HELP.( DOT NUMBER: W2 TIRE SIZE: 235/75R-15 )
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