IllustrationTHE VEHICLE ROLLED OVER ON ITS SIDE ON DRY PAVEMENT ON THE FWY AT THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN GOOD WEATHER CONDITIONS. NO OTHER VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED, THE CAR SKIDED WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE LANES. I WENT INTO A SKID AND THE CAR TURNED ON ITS SIDE.
2001 Ford Explorer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2001 Ford Explorer do not stand out strongly from 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
100–25K
2325–50K
1750–75K
1775–100K
30100–150K
17150K+
114 reports with mileage · 261 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Tires. Review the 62 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 43 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 42 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
64 crash reports21 fire reports43 injury reports
Suspension complaints
43 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD EXPLORER. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL SEIZED AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO HEAD TOWARDS ONCOMING TRAFFIC. THERE WAS NO CRASH INVOLVED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DRIVEN AND WAS TOWED. IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL BEARING DISINTEGRATED. THE VEHICLE WAS R…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD EXPLORER. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL SEIZED AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO HEAD TOWARDS ONCOMING TRAFFIC. THERE WAS NO CRASH INVOLVED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DRIVEN AND WAS TOWED. IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL BEARING DISINTEGRATED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AND THE WHEEL BEARING WAS REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 128,600.
MAIN PROBLEM AT THE MOMENT IS A CLICKING, KNOCKING NOISE THAT SOUNDS LIKE IS COMING FROM UNDERNEATH TRUCK IN THE MIDDLE. YOU CAN FEEL TRUCK SHAKE/VIBRATE WHEN YOU HEAR THE NOISE. PREVIOUS PROBLEMS LUG BOLTS CAME LOOSE AND ALMOST CAUSE TIRE TO FALL OFF. OTHER PROBLEM TRUCK STARTED OFF SOUNDING LIKE THE BRAKE PADS WERE GOING THE…
Read full complaint
MAIN PROBLEM AT THE MOMENT IS A CLICKING, KNOCKING NOISE THAT SOUNDS LIKE IS COMING FROM UNDERNEATH TRUCK IN THE MIDDLE. YOU CAN FEEL TRUCK SHAKE/VIBRATE WHEN YOU HEAR THE NOISE. PREVIOUS PROBLEMS LUG BOLTS CAME LOOSE AND ALMOST CAUSE TIRE TO FALL OFF. OTHER PROBLEM TRUCK STARTED OFF SOUNDING LIKE THE BRAKE PADS WERE GOING THEN THE TRUCK STARTED MAKING A HORRIBLE GRINDING NOISE . FELT LIKE THE ENGINE WAS GOING TO FALL OUT. ENDED UP BEING FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE. RIM HAD STATTERED.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD EXPLORER. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE SHOOK VIOLENTLY. THE FAILURE RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 119,699.
REAR END OF CAR THUMPED EVERY TIME YOU WOULD GO OVER THE SMALLEST SEPARATION IN THE ROAD AND ALSO ON A BUMPY ROAD. REPLACED REAR END SHOCKS. STILL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM OF THUMPING. SOME TIMES IT FEELS LIKE I'M GOING TO LOOSE THE REAR END OF THE VEHICLE. I WAS TOLD POSSIBLY NOW THAT BACK BUSHINGS HOLDING THE BODY TO THE F…
Read full complaint
REAR END OF CAR THUMPED EVERY TIME YOU WOULD GO OVER THE SMALLEST SEPARATION IN THE ROAD AND ALSO ON A BUMPY ROAD. REPLACED REAR END SHOCKS. STILL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM OF THUMPING. SOME TIMES IT FEELS LIKE I'M GOING TO LOOSE THE REAR END OF THE VEHICLE. I WAS TOLD POSSIBLY NOW THAT BACK BUSHINGS HOLDING THE BODY TO THE FRAME MAY BE DISINTEGRATED. VEHICLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED AND GARAGED. I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS OCCURRING NOW WITH THIS 2001 MODEL. YOU WOULD THINK THERE WOULD BE A SAFETY RECALL BY FORD TO FIX THESE BUSHING PROBLEMS. *TR
FORD EXPLORERS MANUFACTURED IN 2001 WERE EQUIPPED WITH DEFECTIVE ENGINEERED BODY TO FRAME BUSHINGS WHICH HAVE COMPLETELY DETERIORATE AND JUST AS EASILY CRUMBLED IN YOUR HAND, NOW, BUT BEGIN DETERIORATING ONLY A FEW SHORT YEARS FROM WHEN NEW. FORD STOPPED USING THIS STYLE MANUFACTURED MOUNT BUSHINGS AFTER THESE FEW MANUFACTURING…
Read full complaint
FORD EXPLORERS MANUFACTURED IN 2001 WERE EQUIPPED WITH DEFECTIVE ENGINEERED BODY TO FRAME BUSHINGS WHICH HAVE COMPLETELY DETERIORATE AND JUST AS EASILY CRUMBLED IN YOUR HAND, NOW, BUT BEGIN DETERIORATING ONLY A FEW SHORT YEARS FROM WHEN NEW. FORD STOPPED USING THIS STYLE MANUFACTURED MOUNT BUSHINGS AFTER THESE FEW MANUFACTURING YEARS BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE DEFECTIVE. I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY EXPLORER OWNERS WHO HAVE THIS EXACT SAME PROBLEM , AND THOSE I ASK TO LOOK UNDER THEIR VEHICLES, WHICH ARE NOT A VISIBLE DEFECT UNLESS UNDER THE CAR AND HANDS-ON INSPECTION, ALSO FOUND THIS PROBLEM. MY VEHICLE IS IN LIKE-NEW CONDITION OTHERWISE AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN GARAGED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THESE BODY TO MOUNT BUSHINGS, WHEN DETERIORATED CAUSE SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEMS TO EXPLORER DRIVERS AND ALL OTHERS DRIVING IN OTHER VEHICLES, DUE TO UNEXPECTED SWAYING AND OR BOUNCING POSSIBLY CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO CRASH AND CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY TO ANYONE DRIVING NEAR THE EXPLORERS. I BELIEVE, AND AM SURE, THAT THE MATERIAL MIX OF THE RUBBER/SILICONE BUSHINGS WAS COMPROMISED DURING MANUFACTURING AND THESE VEHICLES SHOULD IMMEDIATELY RECALLED TO REPLACE THESE BUSHINGS WHICH SHOULD LAST THE LIFETIME OF THE VEHICLE. CARS 40 PLUS YEARS OLD HAVE BODY TO FRAME BUSHINGS STILL IN GOOD CONDITION. FOR THESE BUSHINGS TO START DETERIORATING AFTER ONLY A FEW YEARS AND BEING COMPLETELY USELESS AT THIS AGE AND CONDITION OF VEHICLE IS UNHEARD OF. NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE SURE ALL EXPLORER SPORT OWNERS IN THE 2001 PLUS OR MINUS VICINITY BE NOTIFIED BY FORD OF THIS DEFECT. PLEASE LOOK UNDER ANY EXPLORER SPORT MADE IN 2001 , AND YOU CAN CONFIRM MY FINDINGS. ALSO, HAVE A PRIVATE ENGINEER TEST THE BUSHING RUBBER/SILICONE MATERIALS USED IN THIS YEAR RANGE, AND I ASSURE YOU THEY WILL BACK MY CLAIM. *TR
BODY MOUNTS DETERIORATE BEFORE THEIR TIME AND BALL JOINT FAIL. *TR
CPSC#I12A0111A. 2001 FORD EXPLORER. CONSUMER STATED THAT A DAY AFTER SHE BROUGHT THE CAR IT BROKE DOWN. *LN THE CONSUMER STATED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE ENGINE, AS WELL AS A HOLE IN GAS TANK, WHICH HAD RUSTED OUT, THE BEARINGS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, THE TIRE WERE DRY ROTTED, AS THEY KEPT GOING FLAT, THE DRIVER'S DOOR DID N…
Read full complaint
CPSC#I12A0111A. 2001 FORD EXPLORER. CONSUMER STATED THAT A DAY AFTER SHE BROUGHT THE CAR IT BROKE DOWN. *LN THE CONSUMER STATED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE ENGINE, AS WELL AS A HOLE IN GAS TANK, WHICH HAD RUSTED OUT, THE BEARINGS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, THE TIRE WERE DRY ROTTED, AS THEY KEPT GOING FLAT, THE DRIVER'S DOOR DID NOT LOCK, THE REAR DOORS DID NOT OPEN FROM THE INSIDE, THE REAR DRIVER'S DOOR DID NOT OPEN AT ALL, THE OUTSIDE HANDLE WAS BROKE, THE REAR HATCH WOULD NOT CLOSE, AND MOST OF THE TIME IT HAD TO BE SLAMMED SHUT.
AT 37,741 MILES,MY 2001 FORD VEHICLE HAD TO HAVE ITS LOWER RIGHT AND LEFT BALL JOINTS REPLACED BECAUSE THEY WERE IN DANGEROUS CONDITION ACCORDING TO THE FORD REPAIR SHOP. IT SEEMS TO ME THEY HAD TO BE DEFECTIVE FROM DAY ONE IN ORDER TO BOTH FAIL AT THIS LOW MILEAGE. JEEP LIBERTY ALSO DODGE DURANGO VEHICLES HAD SIMILAR FAILURES.…
Read full complaint
AT 37,741 MILES,MY 2001 FORD VEHICLE HAD TO HAVE ITS LOWER RIGHT AND LEFT BALL JOINTS REPLACED BECAUSE THEY WERE IN DANGEROUS CONDITION ACCORDING TO THE FORD REPAIR SHOP. IT SEEMS TO ME THEY HAD TO BE DEFECTIVE FROM DAY ONE IN ORDER TO BOTH FAIL AT THIS LOW MILEAGE. JEEP LIBERTY ALSO DODGE DURANGO VEHICLES HAD SIMILAR FAILURES. FORD TOLD ME THEY ARE BACKING UP THEIR PRODUCT AS NORMAL FAILURE WHILE THE GARAGE FOREMAN HAS SAID HE HAS HAD MANY SIMILAR CASES. *JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED SINCE OWNERSHIP, THE LOWER BALL JOINTS HAVE BEEN REPLACED THREE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AT 44,159 MILES AND HAS BEEN DRIVEN 22,530 MILES SINCE PURCHASE. THE BREAKDOWN ON THE REPAIRS ARE; ON 12/13/03 AT 28,676 MILES BOTH LOWER BALL JOINTS WERE REPLACED, ON 08/05/04 AT 35,260 MILES-THE LEFT LOWER…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED SINCE OWNERSHIP, THE LOWER BALL JOINTS HAVE BEEN REPLACED THREE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AT 44,159 MILES AND HAS BEEN DRIVEN 22,530 MILES SINCE PURCHASE. THE BREAKDOWN ON THE REPAIRS ARE; ON 12/13/03 AT 28,676 MILES BOTH LOWER BALL JOINTS WERE REPLACED, ON 08/05/04 AT 35,260 MILES-THE LEFT LOWER BALL JOINT AND SPINDLE ARM WERE REPLACED, THIS WAS ONLY 6,584 MILES SINCE THE PREVIOUS BALL JOINT REPLACEMENT, AND ON 12/26/05 AT 44,159 MILES-BOTH LOWER BALL JOINTS AND THE RIGHT UPPER CONTROL ARM WERE REPLACED AT ONLY 9,331 MILES FROM PREVIOUS REPLACEMENT. THE CONTACT EXPRESSED CONCERNS REGARDING THE CONTINUOUS REPAIRS TO THE SERVICE MANAGER AT THE DEALERSHIP WHO DETERMINED THE NIAGARA FALLS AREA HAS THE HIGHEST RATE OF FAILURE FOR BALL JOINTS IN THE COUNTRY. THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EXTREME RATE OF FAILURE. MOST OF THE MILES ON THE TRUCK ARE THRUWAY MILES. THIS VEHICLE HAS NEVER BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT OR DRIVEN IN A MANNER TO CAUSE OR AGGRAVATE THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM.
Official recalls
609V399000 · 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.
07V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
03V280000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cables
Aug 5, 2003
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL AND 4.0L SOHC ENGINES, IF THE STRAND COVER ON THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE BECOMES FLARED AT THE END, THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE MAY BIND WHEN THE SPEED CONTROL IS ACTIVATED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE THROTTLE RETURN SPRING FORCE MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE BINDING CONDITION WHEN THE SPEED CONTROL IS DISENGAGED. BRAKING FUNCTION WOULD BE MAINTAINED THOUGH STOPPING DISTANCES MAY BE INCREASED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE IT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 29, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
03V281000 · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
Aug 5, 2003
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS, THE UPPER BOLT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE HIGH BACK SEAT, THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME, COULD FRACTURE. IF THE BOLT FRACTURES AND DOES NOT JAM IN THE SEAT BACK FRAME, THE SEAT BACK MAY RECLINE UNTIL IT MAKES CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT BEHIND THE SEAT, SUCH AS THE SECOND ROW SEAT CUSHION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE DRIVER COULD POTENTIALLY LOSE CONTACT WITH THE STEERING WHEEL OR FOOT PEDALS DURING SUCH AN EVENT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER SEAT UPPER BOLT WITH A METAL SPACER AND BOLT. IN ADDITION, SEATS WITH TUBULAR BACK FRAMES WILL HAVE THE FULLY THREADED LOWER RECLINER BOLT REPLACED WITH A PARTIALLY THREADED BOLT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON AUGUST 29, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
03V094000 · Structure
Mar 7, 2003
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK, VAN, AND MINI VAN CONVERSIONS EQUIPPED WITH SOUTHERN COMFORT BUILT RUNNING BOARDS THAT CONTAIN CERTAIN COURTESY LIGHTS MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS, INC. THESE UNITS CONTAIN A COURTESY LIGHT OR LIGHTS THAT MIGHT OVERHEAT WHEN THE WIRE HARNESS IS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE MOISTURE AND ROAD SALT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS OVERHEATING CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE RUNNING BOARD TO MELT OR CAUSE A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE WIRING HARNESS ON THESE RUNNING BOARDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 7, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHERN COMFORT AT 1-800-745-6096.
00V313000 · Equipment:other:labels
Oct 17, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PART 567.4, "CERTIFICATION." THESE VEHICLES WERE SHIPPED FROM THE ASSEMBLY PLANT WITHOUT SAFETY CERTIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: INCORRECT TIRE INFLATION PRESSURE COULD RESULT IN TIRE TREAD SEPARATION, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE CERTIFICATION LABELS.
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
2DP05005 · 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.
PE03020 · Front Seat Back Recliner Attachment
Opened May 21, 2003 · Closed Sep 5, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 2003, FORD NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT IS CONDUCTING A VOLUNTARY SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 03V281) INVOLVING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1998-2001 FORD EXPLORER / MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4-DOOR, MY 1998-2000 FORD EXPLORER 2-DOOR AND MY 2001-2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT AND SPORT TRAC VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS.COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE DRIVER'S SEAT BACK RECLINED WITHOUT WARNING.A BOLT BETWEEN THE UPPER SEAT RECLINER ATTACHMENT AND THE SEAT BACK FRAME MAY FRACTURE.FORD WILL REPLACE THE BOLT THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME ON THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT.BASED ON FORD'S SAFETY RECALL ACTION, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.