IllustrationFRONT DRIVERS SIDE SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF ENGINE AND DESTROYED COIL PACK RIPPING THE THREADS OUT OF THE HEAD. *TR
1997 Ford F Series (Light)
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all F Series (light) 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: 14 of 15 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 5 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
0 crash reports2 fire reports0 injury reports
What owners actually said
15 reportsOUR MECHANIC NOTICED THAT ONE OF THE STRAPS AT THE REAR OF THE GAS TANK WAS MISSING, AND WHEN FILLING UP OUR 1997 FORD F150, THE TANK WAS GETTING CLOSE TO BEING FILLED, GAS STARTED SPEWING OUT OF THE FILL TUBE. WE LOOKED UNDER THE TRUCK AND NOTICED THAT THE FILL TUBE HAD SHIFTED DUE TO THE REAR STRAP BEING BROKEN. *TR
1997 FORD F-150 . THE GAS TANK STRAPS HAVE BEGUN TO ROT AND HAVE CHAFFED THE GAS TANK TO THE POINT THERE ARE SOME GAS VAPORS ESCAPING. NOT A FULL BLOWN LEAK AT THIS POINT. I WILL BEGIN THE PROCESS OF REPAIRING TO AVOID FIRE/EXPLOSION. *TR
ONE GAS TANK STRAP BROKE ON MY 97 FORD F150 A FEW MONTHS LATER THE OTHER ONE BROKE. I DROPPED AND DRAGGED THE GAS TANK WHICH BEGAN TO LEAK. I DON'T DRIVE THAT VEHICLE TOO MUCH. I WAS VERY LUCKY THERE WAS NO FIRE OR EXPLOSION. *TR
THE FRONT BRAKES ON MY 1997 FORD F150 LOCK UP. WHILE DRIVING THE BRAKES GRADUALLY OVERHEAT FROM A FAILURE OF THE CALIPERS TO RETURN TO THEIR NON-BRAKING POSITION. I HAVE REPLACED THE RUBBER BRAKE LINES, REPLACED THE DISK BRAKE PADS. TURNED THE ROTORS, LUBRICATED THE SLIDING PORTIONS OF THE CALIPERS WITH HIGH-TEMPERATURE GREASE…
Read full complaint
THE FRONT BRAKES ON MY 1997 FORD F150 LOCK UP. WHILE DRIVING THE BRAKES GRADUALLY OVERHEAT FROM A FAILURE OF THE CALIPERS TO RETURN TO THEIR NON-BRAKING POSITION. I HAVE REPLACED THE RUBBER BRAKE LINES, REPLACED THE DISK BRAKE PADS. TURNED THE ROTORS, LUBRICATED THE SLIDING PORTIONS OF THE CALIPERS WITH HIGH-TEMPERATURE GREASE AND TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO MY NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE THE BRAKES COMPUTER CHECKED AND REPAIRED. NEVER-THE-LESS, THE BRAKES CONTINUE TO LOCK UP DURING NORMAL DRIVING CONDITIONS. THIS PRESENTS AN EXTREME SAFETY RISK. WHEN DRIVING TO A SAFE LOCATION TO ALLOW THE BRAKES TO COOL DOWN, THE VEHICLE LOSES MOST OF IT'S BRAKING ABILITY AND I HAVE SUFFERED TIRE FAILURE DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE HEAT BUILD UP IN THE BRAKES WHICH TRANSFERS IT'S HEAT INTO THE WHEEL CAUSING TIRE FAILURE. ALSO, THE ENGINE HAS TO WORK IN AN UNSAFE TEMPERATURE AREA IN ORDER TO DRIVE TO SUCH A SAFE LOCATION. THIS AFFECTS THE GAS MILEAGE, ENGINE RELIABILITY AND ENDURANCE, WHILE PRESENTING, YET, ANOTHER POSSIBLE SAFETY HAZARD. THE VEHICLE IS EQUIPPED WITH ANTI-LOCK BRAKES AND CRUISE CONTROL. THIS ADVERSELY AFFECTS THESE SAFETY APPOINTMENTS, ALSO. I HAVE CONTINUALLY ASKED IF THERE IS A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE RELATING TO THIS PROBLEM OR A SERVICE BULLETIN WHICH MIGHT PROVIDED A SOLUTION FOR THIS PROBLEM FROM THE SERVICE MANAGER AT MY NEAREST DEALERSHIP, ANDALUSIA FORD-LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC. AND I AM TOLD THERE ARE NO RECALLS OR BULLETINS DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM. THEY HAVE GIVEN ME FALSE INFORMATION IN THE PAST. THEREFORE, I HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THEIR HONESTY WITH THESE ISSUES, ESPECIALLY DEALING WITH SHOP BULLETINS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT I AM THE ONLY OWNER OF ONE OF THESE VEHICLE WHO HAS INCURRED THIS PROBLEM. FOR THAT REASON I AM LODGING A COMPLAINT TO YOUR DEPARTMENT. SINCERELY, RON THOMPSON *TR
V6 4.2L ENGINE: GASKET FAILURE CAUSING WATER/FLUID FILL UP THE CYLINDER WHICH CAUSES THE ROD TO BLOW.*AK
THE TRUCK STARTED HAVING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS, WHICH WOULD COME AND GO. THESE PROBLEMS BECAME MORE SEVERE AND NUMEROUS AS TIME WENT BY. AT FIRST IT WAS JUST THE WARNING LIGHTS COMING ON AND THEN THINGS LIKE THE RADIO COMING ON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND NO ONE HAD THE KEY EVEN IN. IT WOULD ALSO SHIFT INTO 4-WHEEL FOR NO REASO…
Read full complaint
THE TRUCK STARTED HAVING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS, WHICH WOULD COME AND GO. THESE PROBLEMS BECAME MORE SEVERE AND NUMEROUS AS TIME WENT BY. AT FIRST IT WAS JUST THE WARNING LIGHTS COMING ON AND THEN THINGS LIKE THE RADIO COMING ON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND NO ONE HAD THE KEY EVEN IN. IT WOULD ALSO SHIFT INTO 4-WHEEL FOR NO REASON. THESE WOULD ONLY HAPPEN ONCE IN A WHILE. THEN ONE DAY WHEN I WENT TO GO TO WORK I OPENED THE DOOR AND EVERYTHING CAME ON JUST OPENING THE DOOR. I GOT IN AND PUT THE KEY IN AND TRIED TO START THE TRUCK BUT THERE WAS NOTHING. I THEN NOTICED THE SMELL OF ELECTRICAL ITEMS BURNING AND IMMEDIATELY TOOK OUT THE KEY. I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER AND ASK IF THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. THEY IMMEDIATELY REPLIED THAT THESE TRUCKS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WINDSHIELD LEAKING ON THE GEM MODULE AND FUSE BOX. WHEN I TOOK THE TRUCK IN TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT THEY SAID THE STARTER, SOLENOID, AND FUSE HAD ALL BURNED UP. THE FUSE BOX ALSO HAD BURNED AT SEVERAL FUSE LOCATIONS AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. WHEN THE NEW PARTS CAME THE MECHANIC NOTICED THAT THEY NOW HAD PLASTIC COVERS ON THEM TO HELP PREVENT MOISTURE FROM GETTING TO THEM. NOW ALL THIS STUFF BURNED UP IN MY TRUCK WHILE SITTING IN MY GARAGE AT NIGHT WITHOUT IT EVEN HAVING THE KEY IN THE IGNITION. I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS COULD HAVE BURNED MY HOUSE DOWN WITH ME AND MY FAMILY IN SLEEPING. NOW IF THE DEALERSHIP KNEW THIS WAS A PROBLEM HOW COME THIS WAS NOT A RECALL ITEM. IT COST ME JUST UNDER A GRAND TO FIX NOT TO MENTION MY WIFE WON'T LET ME PARK IT IN THE GARAGE ANYMORE BECAUSE SHE'S AFRAID OF A FIRE.
UPON STARTING ONE MORNING, THE ENGINE MADE A LOUD BANGING NOISE. HAD THE ENGINE INSPECTED AND FOUND THAT AN INTAKE MANIFOLD GASKET HAD FAILED. THE ENGINE HAD TO BE REPLACED. *NM
I USED TO BE A PROUD OWNER OF A 1997 FORD F150 4.2 LITER V6. THAT WAS UNTIL TODAY WHEN MY ENGINE HYDROLOCKED FOR THE THIRD TIME. THE TRUCK NOW HAS 164000 MILES ON IT, HOWEVER, THE FIRST TIME HAPPENED AT APPROX. 110000 MILES. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE V6 ENGINES, AND THAT F…
Read full complaint
I USED TO BE A PROUD OWNER OF A 1997 FORD F150 4.2 LITER V6. THAT WAS UNTIL TODAY WHEN MY ENGINE HYDROLOCKED FOR THE THIRD TIME. THE TRUCK NOW HAS 164000 MILES ON IT, HOWEVER, THE FIRST TIME HAPPENED AT APPROX. 110000 MILES. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE V6 ENGINES, AND THAT FORD WILL NOT DO ANYTHING DO TO THE "HIGH" MILES. I REPLACED THE ENGINE WITH A COMPLETE NEW SHORT BOCK,AND THE RECOMMENDED BY FORD 4MM HEAD GASKETS INSTEAD OF THE 3MM THAT THEY ORIGINALLY INSTALLED. THIS ENGINE LASTED ANOTHER APPROX 20000 MILES BEFORE IT HYDROLOCKED AGAIN. THIS TIME IT WAS REPAIRED UNDER THE WARRANTY FROM THE ENGINE SUPPLIER...THANKFULLY. NOW, HOWEVER THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO DO BUT REPLACE THE ENGINE AGAIN. IT'S NOT WORTH MUCH AS A RUNNING VEHICLE DO TO IT'S AGE, BUT AS A NON-RUNNING ONE IT'S REALLY WORTHLESS. I JUST HOPE THE SOMEDAY FORD WILL BE PRESSURED INTO MAKING SOME KIND OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THESE ENGINES AND AT THE VERY LEAST OFFER ADVICE THAT TRULY HELPS THE CONSUMER NOT JUST BAND-AIDS THE ISSUE UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. ON A SIDE NOT I'M NOT A DISGRUNTLED FORD OWNER I CURRENTLY OWN FOUR OTHER FORD VEHICLES DATING FROM 2003 BACK TO 1986. I JUST HOPE MAYBE I CAN HELP GET SOMETHING DONE BY WRITING THIS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. *NM
OWN A 1997 FORD F150 THAT CAUGHT FIRE AS A RESULT OF A DEFECTIVE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
1DP05005 · 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.