NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,131 reports148,000 miles · Oct 19, 2008
Visibility
WHILE OUT OF TOWN, VACATIONING AND TOURING FOR FALL COLORS, I LOST ALL POWER TO THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM AFTER A SHORT COFFEE STOP. WHEN I STARTED MY EXPLORER I NOTICE I HAD NO HEAT, FANS, DEFROSTER OR POWER TO THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM. THINKING I HAD BLOWN A FUSE, I OPENED THE OWNERS MANUAL AND CHECKED THE FUSE DIAGRAM PAG…
Read full complaint
WHILE OUT OF TOWN, VACATIONING AND TOURING FOR FALL COLORS, I LOST ALL POWER TO THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM AFTER A SHORT COFFEE STOP. WHEN I STARTED MY EXPLORER I NOTICE I HAD NO HEAT, FANS, DEFROSTER OR POWER TO THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM. THINKING I HAD BLOWN A FUSE, I OPENED THE OWNERS MANUAL AND CHECKED THE FUSE DIAGRAM PAGES FOR THE SYSTEM THAT WAS NOT WORKING. I CHECKED ALL THE FUSES INDICATED BUT, I FOUND NONE OF THEM HAD BLOWN. AFTER DETOURING AND HEADING FOR THE LOCAL SMALL TOWN, I PURCHASED AN EMERGENCY FUSE REPLACEMENT AND TESTER KIT AS IT WAS NOW GETTING DARK, TRYING TO CONTINUE RE-CHECKING ANY FUSES (WHILE IN THE CONFINED AND MOST AWKWARD PLACE TO INSTALL A FUSE CONTROL PANEL UNDER THE DASH BOARD ON THE DRIVERS SIDE) WAS GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT TILL DAYLIGHT. ON MY RETURN TO MY CAMPSITE I CHANGE THE HEAD LIGHTING FROM AUTO TO MANUAL AND PULLED OUT ON THE KNOB TO TURN ON THE FOG LIGHT SYSTEM. AS I DID THIS ALL POWER TO MY CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM RETURNED AND WAS WORKING NORMAL AGAIN. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A REAL PROBLEM AS THE NEXT MORNING I WOKE UP TO FROST AND 0` TEMPERATURE AND OVERCAST FOR THE DAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10246025
43,000 miles · Oct 15, 2008
Structure
FACTORY PAINT BLISTERING ON HOOD. VEHICLE IS 5 YEARS OLD AND HAS 44,000 MILES. THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS PROBLEM ON A LONG LIST OF INTERNET SITES. FORD IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THIS ISSUE. APPARENTLY THIS IS AFFECTING 2000-2005 VEHICLES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10245514
84,000 miles · Oct 2, 2008
Power Train
I HAVE A 2003 4WD 4.0 6 CYL. FORD EXPLORER WITH 84,000 MILES ON IT. MY OVER DRIVE LIGHT STARTS FLASHING AND THE TRANSMISSION IS SLIPPING. I HAVE JUST SEEN ONLINE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WITH THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM AND FORD IS NOT RECALLING OR DOING ANYTHING TO HELP WITH REPAIRS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10244199
124,000 miles · Oct 2, 2008
Power Train
2003 FORD EXPLORER PURCHASED NEW. OUT OF THE BLUE CHECK TRANSMISSION AND O/D OFF LIGHT STARTS FLASHING. AT DEALERSHIP NOW FOR REPAIR ESTIMATE. WHILE RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET I WAS AMAZED TO SEE THE NUMBER OF IDENTICAL COMPLAINTS FOR THE EXACT PROBLEM ON THE EXACT SAME CAR. I SPOKE WITH FORD TODAY & THEY TOLD ME SORRY AND …
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPLORER PURCHASED NEW. OUT OF THE BLUE CHECK TRANSMISSION AND O/D OFF LIGHT STARTS FLASHING. AT DEALERSHIP NOW FOR REPAIR ESTIMATE. WHILE RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET I WAS AMAZED TO SEE THE NUMBER OF IDENTICAL COMPLAINTS FOR THE EXACT PROBLEM ON THE EXACT SAME CAR. I SPOKE WITH FORD TODAY & THEY TOLD ME SORRY AND TO "HAVE A GOOD DAY". I AM MORTIFIED AT THE PROBLEM AND THE LACK OF ASSISTANCE FORD IS WILLING TO PROVIDE WITH THIS OBVIOUSLY LARGE SPREAD PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10244192
70,000 miles · Sep 30, 2008
Power Train
I CAN'T SEEM TO GET THE FRONT DIFFERENTIAL TO STOP LEAKING - NEITHER CAN MY MECHANIC. MY MECHANIC HAS REPLACED THE "CRUSH WASHER" (WHERE THE DRIVELINE CONNECTS TO THE DIFFERENTIAL) A COUPLE OF TIMES. I WAS TOLD THE DIFFERENTIAL WAS MANUFACTURED BY DANA. I DON'T WANT TO REPLACE THE DIFFERENTIAL BECAUSE MY DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT HALF…
Read full complaint
I CAN'T SEEM TO GET THE FRONT DIFFERENTIAL TO STOP LEAKING - NEITHER CAN MY MECHANIC. MY MECHANIC HAS REPLACED THE "CRUSH WASHER" (WHERE THE DRIVELINE CONNECTS TO THE DIFFERENTIAL) A COUPLE OF TIMES. I WAS TOLD THE DIFFERENTIAL WAS MANUFACTURED BY DANA. I DON'T WANT TO REPLACE THE DIFFERENTIAL BECAUSE MY DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT HALF-SHAFT WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE REPLACED ALSO... THE THREADS ON THE END OF THE SPINDLE HAVE RUSTED OFF. I'LL PROBABLY ALSO HAVE TO REPLACE THE (LF) WHEEL BEARING. (I THINK I'LL HAVE TO BECAUSE I HAD TO HAVE THE FORD DEALERSHIP REPLACE BOTH REAR WHEEL BEARINGS BACK WHEN THE VEHICLE ONLY HAD 36,000 MILES ON IT) NOT CRITICAL STUFF HERE - JUST A NUISANCE. THANKS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10244008
65,000 miles · Sep 26, 2008
Visibility
2003 FORD EXPLORER - 65K MILES - BLEND DOOR ACTUATOR 7.6HP FAILED CAUSING A/C TO REMAIN IN ON POSITION WITH NO HEAT OR DEFROSTER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10243568
58,600 miles · Sep 24, 2008
Structure
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPLORER. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, THE CONTACT PRESSED THE BUTTON ON HER KEY FOB TO OPEN THE GLASS ON THE REAR HATCH. AS A RESULT, ONE OF THE TWO HINGES FRACTURED AS THE WINDOW WAS OPENING. SHE ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE GLASS, BUT APPARENTLY IT WAS MISALIGNED. DUE TO EXCESSIVE PRESSURE, THE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPLORER. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, THE CONTACT PRESSED THE BUTTON ON HER KEY FOB TO OPEN THE GLASS ON THE REAR HATCH. AS A RESULT, ONE OF THE TWO HINGES FRACTURED AS THE WINDOW WAS OPENING. SHE ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE GLASS, BUT APPARENTLY IT WAS MISALIGNED. DUE TO EXCESSIVE PRESSURE, THE GLASS SHATTERED AND DEBRIS FELL ONTO THE CONTACT AND THE GROUND. SHE CALLED THE DEALER IN REFERENCE TO NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 04V442000 (STRUCTURE:BODY:HATCHBACK/LIFTGATE:HINGE AND ATTACHMENTS) AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE COVERAGE DATE FOR THE RECALL EXPIRED. THE DEALER WOULD HAVE TO PERSONALLY PETITION TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR THE VEHICLE TO BE REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT ASSUME FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REPAIR. THE CONTACT'S INSURANCE COMPANY IS IN THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING THE MANUFACTURER ON HER BEHALF. AS OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008, THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 58,600 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 59,600.
NHTSA ODI #10243309
Mileage unknown · Sep 22, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
AS MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING STALL, MY VEHICLE ALL OF A SUDDEN CAUGHT OFF. WE WERE UNABLE TO GET IT RESTARTED. AFTER MECHANICS CHECKED IT OUT, I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE MOTOR. DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WE HAVE ONLY 38,208 MILES ON OUR 2003 FORD EXPLORER; AND A WEEK BEFORE THAT WE HAD A COMPLETE OIL CHANG…
Read full complaint
AS MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING STALL, MY VEHICLE ALL OF A SUDDEN CAUGHT OFF. WE WERE UNABLE TO GET IT RESTARTED. AFTER MECHANICS CHECKED IT OUT, I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE MOTOR. DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WE HAVE ONLY 38,208 MILES ON OUR 2003 FORD EXPLORER; AND A WEEK BEFORE THAT WE HAD A COMPLETE OIL CHANGE. I CONTACTED OUR LOCAL FORD DEALER AS WELL AS FORD IN DETROIT AND EXPLAINED THE PROBLEM TO THEM. I TOLD THEM WE HAD NO WARNING OF A PROBLEM, THE INDICATOR NEVER CAME ON AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION AT ALL THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM, NO NOISE OR ANY SIGNS OF TROUBLE. WITH ONLY A FEW MILES ON THE CAR, I TOLD THEM I FELT IT WAS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT. BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY CALLS SINCE MY COMPLAINTS, THEY FELT IT WAS NOT A FORD'S PROBLEM AND THAT IT WAS A SITUATION I HAD TO TAKE CARE OF. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE AND I THINK FORD SHOULD HANDLE THIS PROBLEM. NO WAY SHOULD I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY MOTOR WITH LESS THAN 40,000 MILES. IT'S NOT FAIR THAT I HAVE TO PAY FOR A JOB THAT I BELIEVE FORD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. TELL ME, WHAT DO I DO? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10243098
81,103 miles · Sep 19, 2008
Wheels
ONE OF THE RIMS ON OUR FORD EXPLORER FELL OFF THE CAR AT HIGH SPEED AND, ACCORDING TO FORD, IT CAME WITHIN SECONDS OF FALLING OFF ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION (ALSO AT HIGH SPEED). THESE ARE THE FACTORY RIMS THAT CAME WITH THE CAR WHEN WE BOUGHT IT NEW IN 2003. THE DEALER HAS NOW DETERMINED THAT THE RIMS ARE SO RUSTED THAT WHEN THEY…
Read full complaint
ONE OF THE RIMS ON OUR FORD EXPLORER FELL OFF THE CAR AT HIGH SPEED AND, ACCORDING TO FORD, IT CAME WITHIN SECONDS OF FALLING OFF ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION (ALSO AT HIGH SPEED). THESE ARE THE FACTORY RIMS THAT CAME WITH THE CAR WHEN WE BOUGHT IT NEW IN 2003. THE DEALER HAS NOW DETERMINED THAT THE RIMS ARE SO RUSTED THAT WHEN THEY ARE REMOVED FOR SERVICE AND THEN REPLACED WITHOUT HAVING THE RUST REMOVED, THE SURFACE OF THE RIM IS ROUGH AND DOES NOT "MATE" PROPERLY AGAINST THE HUB. EVENTUALLY, THE RUSTED MATERIAL STARTS TO FLAKE OFF, WHICH CAUSES THE RIM TO LOOSEN AGAINST THE HUB AND THE LUGS TO SNAP OFF. THE CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM WAS NOT IDENTIFIED BY FORD UNTIL AFTER THE MOST RECENT INCIDENT (JULY 4, 2008). THE RIMS HAVE BEEN CAUSING PROBLEMS SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 2005, WHEN THE CAR WAS TWO YEARS OLD AND UNDER THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY (WE ALSO HAD AN EXTENDED WARRANTY THAT EXPIRED A FEW MONTHS AGO). DESPITE HAVING THE CAR SERVICED AT FORD DEALERS AT LEAST 11 TIMES BETWEEN SEPTEMBER OF 2005 AND JULY OF THIS YEAR, NOBODY EVER TOLD US THAT THE RIMS WERE SO DEFECTIVE THAT THEY COULD FALL OFF AT ANY TIME. OUR DEALER HAS OFFERED TO PAY HALF THE COST OF NEW RIMS, BUT WE REFUSE TO PAY A SINGLE CENT. WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROBLEM, WHICH COULD HAVE KILLED OUR FAMILY TWICE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10242979
50,000 miles · Sep 16, 2008
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingPower Train
I PURCHASED A 2003 EXPLORER IN AUGUST 2006; MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 45,000. BY OCTOBER THE CAR WOULD NOT START AND THE ALTERNATOR WAS REPLACED. A FEW WEEKS LATER, I WAS BACK BECAUSE MY CAR WAS JERKING. NOTHING SHOWED UP ON THE DIAGNOSTIC TOOL AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, I WAS TOLD THE STARTER WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED AS WOULD THE …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2003 EXPLORER IN AUGUST 2006; MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 45,000. BY OCTOBER THE CAR WOULD NOT START AND THE ALTERNATOR WAS REPLACED. A FEW WEEKS LATER, I WAS BACK BECAUSE MY CAR WAS JERKING. NOTHING SHOWED UP ON THE DIAGNOSTIC TOOL AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, I WAS TOLD THE STARTER WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED AS WOULD THE RECENTLY INSTALLED ALTERNATOR. I RETURNED LESS THAN A MONTH LATER WITH THE SAME JERKING ISSUE, ONLY THIS TIME I NOTIFIED THE REPAIR SHOP THAT THE O/D LIGHT HAD BEEN COMING ON. FURTHERMORE, MY CAR HAD ACTUALLY STALLED IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC. AGAIN, NOTHING WAS FOUND. BY EARLY DECEMBER, I WAS BACK. MY CAR HAD STALLED ON A FEW MORE OCCASIONS AND WOULD NOT "PICK UP". THAT IS, EVEN THOUGH THE RPM'S WOULD REACH ANYWHERE FROM 2500 - 4000, MY CAR COULD NOT ACCELERATE ABOVE 25 - 30 MPH. SEVERAL DAYS LATER I WAS TOLD THAT THE TRANSMISSION NEEDED WORK. I GOT MY CAR BACK A FEW DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND DECIDED LAST MINUTE TO HEAD TO THE MOUNTAINS. AS SOON AS I REACH A SLIGHT ELEVATION, THE CAR CEASED TO ACCELERATE AND WHAT'S MORE, A THICK HEAVY CLOUD OF BLACK SMOKE CAME OUT OF THE REAR AND PERSISTED FOR AT LEAST TWO MILES. I HEADED BACK DOWN THE MOUNTAIN FOR HOME. I TOOK THE CAR BACK AND THEY KEPT IT FOR AT LEAST A WEEK AND A HALF TO REPAIR THE TORQUE CONVERTER AND OTHER TRANSMISSION RELATED ISSUE. IN EARLY FALL 2007, I TOOK THE CAR TO MY LOCAL FORD DEALER FOR SOME STRANGE NOISE COMING FROM THE ENGINE. IT ENDED UP COSTING $2500.00 TO REPAIR. I RETURNED IN NOVEMBER FOR MORE WORK, THIS TIME FOR THE SAME TORQUE CONVERTER AND SOLENOID ISSUE AS A YEAR AGO. DURING THIS TWO YEAR PERIOD, MY VEHICLE WAS UNDER EXTENDED WARRANTY. THE TOTAL REPAIR COST FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF OWNERSHIP IS ANYWHERE FROM $5000 - $9000, OF WHICH I PAID AT LEAST $2500 OUT OF POCKET. MY WARRANTY HAS SINCE EXPIRED AND I AM WORRIED THAT THESE SAME ISSUES WILL RECUR, AS I HAVE READ THEY HAVE. THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT AND SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND A RECALL ISSUED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10242371
NHTSA investigations
3EA09013 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Aug 18, 2009 · Closed Feb 12, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl); Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift; Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl)
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
PE09020 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Apr 21, 2009 · Closed Aug 19, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Steering:column
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.