NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
10 reports65,000 miles · Jan 15, 2015
Seat Belts
WHILE SHIFTING ABOUT IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT TO BACK UP AND LOOK REARWARD TO GUIDE THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE, THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT UNEXPECTEDLY CAME UNBUCKLED AND BEGAN TO RETRACT. I THOUGHT THAT I MUST HAVE BEEN AT FAULT AND NOT PROPERLY BUCKLED IT EVEN THOUGH THE NORMAL WARNING LITE AND SOUNDS INDICATING AN UNBUCKLED SEAT BELT WE…
Read full complaint
WHILE SHIFTING ABOUT IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT TO BACK UP AND LOOK REARWARD TO GUIDE THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE, THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT UNEXPECTEDLY CAME UNBUCKLED AND BEGAN TO RETRACT. I THOUGHT THAT I MUST HAVE BEEN AT FAULT AND NOT PROPERLY BUCKLED IT EVEN THOUGH THE NORMAL WARNING LITE AND SOUNDS INDICATING AN UNBUCKLED SEAT BELT WERE NOT EVIDENT. OWNERS BEGAN TO "TUG" THE BELT AFTER LATCHING IT EACH TIME TO ENSURE PROPER CLOSURE AND VERIFY BUCKLE ENGAGED. THE SAME EVENTS, USUALLY ENCOUNTERED WHILE SHIFTING POSITION IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT, HAPPENED REPEATEDLY EVEN THOUGH BUCKLES INITIAL ENGAGEMENT HAD BEEN TEST VERIFIED BY THE DRIVER EACH TIME. WE WERE OBVIOUSLY CONCERNED THAT IN ANY ACCIDENT, THAT BELT MIGHT DISENGAGE AND CAUSE US INCREASED HARM AS A RESULT. WE TOOK TO DEALERSHIP AND ASKED IF ANY RECALLS OR CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS HAD PROMPTED THE MANUFACTURER TO FIX STATED ISSUE WITH SAFETY EQUIPMENT. CHAMPION FORD (AN AUTONATION DEALERSHIP) IN HOUSTON ON KATY FREEWAY STATED NO KNOWN ISSUES OR COMPLAINTS. BEING A MASTER CERTIFIED TECHNICIAN FOR OVER 20 YEARS MYSELF, I ASKED THEM TO CONTACT MANUFACTURER ON OUR BEHALF ASK FOR ASSISTANCE TO PREVENT THESE ISSUES, WHICH WAS DENIED BY FORD AND NO ASSISTANCE PROVIDED. I THEORIZED AND INSPECTED THE MECHANISMS MYSELF AND REQUESTED THEY PROVIDE ME, AT OUR COST, THE DRIVER'S SIDE BUCKLE MECHANISM THAT BOLTS TO THE FLOOR ON THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT. I INSTALLED THE COMPONENT MYSELF AND HAVE NOT HAD A SINGLE ISSUE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT INSTALLATION PROVING BEYOND A SHADOW THE BUCKLE MECHANISM IS DEFECTIVE, BOTH IN NOT WARNING US AND PHYSICALLY NOT ENGAGING 100%. I WAITED THIS LONG TO ENSURE THE ISSUE WAS RESOLVED, AND HAVING MOVED OUR HOME, TO AGAIN LOCATE THAT REPLACEMENT PART WHICH WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO NHTSA AT NO COST, OR FORD (AT REPLACEMENT VALUE I PAID) FOR INSPECTION. PART NUMBER 1L7Z 7861203 AAG. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10672621
125,000 miles · Dec 5, 2012
Electrical SystemEngineFire
2001 FORD F150 WAS SITTING OUT IN DRIVEWAY OF OWNER'S HOME. HE HAD BEEN HOME APPROX 1/2 HOURS WHEN OWNERS VEHICLE WAS ON FIRE COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. NO FIRE DAMAGE TO THE INSIDE CAB OF OWNERS VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10487498
80,500 miles · Feb 1, 2012
Engine And Engine Cooling
ATTEMPTED TO START A 2001 FORD F-150 SUPER CREW THAT HAS A 5.4LITER ENGINE AND ONLY 80,500 AND HEARD A BANG. ENGINE STARTED BUT MADE A LOT OF NOISE. I SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE AND CHECKED UNDER HOOD. ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF ENGINE FOUND A PLUG WIRE AND COIL DESTROYED WHICH INDICATED A SPARK PLUG EXPLODED OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD. REPAI…
Read full complaint
ATTEMPTED TO START A 2001 FORD F-150 SUPER CREW THAT HAS A 5.4LITER ENGINE AND ONLY 80,500 AND HEARD A BANG. ENGINE STARTED BUT MADE A LOT OF NOISE. I SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE AND CHECKED UNDER HOOD. ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF ENGINE FOUND A PLUG WIRE AND COIL DESTROYED WHICH INDICATED A SPARK PLUG EXPLODED OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD. REPAIR SHOP SAID DO NOT DRIVE IT AS FUEL WILL SPRAY ON HOT MANIFOLD AND WILL CAUSE A FIRE. THEY SAID I WAS LUCKY ENGINE WAS NOT HOT. THESE WERE THE FACTORY INSTALLED PLUGS AS ORIGINAL WINDOW STICKER SAYS 100K MILE TUNE-UPS. ESTIMATE OF REPAIR IS $4,000. FORD ACCRONIM APPLIES HERE "FOUND ON ROAD DEAD OR, FIX OR REPAIR DAILY." UPON INTERNET SEARCH THIS APPEARS TO BE A COMMON OCCURANCE AND NEITHER FORD OR NHITSA ARE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. FORD HAS EVEN PUT OUT A TSB07-15-2 AUTHORIZING A SPECIFIC TOOL AND REPAIR PROCEDURE FOR ALUMINUM HEADS FOR THE 5.4 1997 TO 2004 FSERIES. FORD KNOWS IT IS AN ENGINEERING DEFECT AND NHITSA KNOWS IT IS A FIRE HAZARD AS SOME VEHICLES HAVE CAUGHT ON FIRE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10446103
116,000 miles · Jan 18, 2012
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A 2001 FORD PICKUP WITH 116,000 MILES THAT I HAVE BABIED SINCE I PURCHASED IT JUST THIS WEEK I HAD A SPARK PLUG BLOW OUT OF THE HEAD, JUST SO HAPPENED I WAS 45 MILES AWAY FROM HOME, SO A WRECKER CHARGE WAS DUE, TOOK MY TRUCK TO MY USUAL REPAIR SHOP BUT THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. SO I THEN HAD TO FIND SOMEONE…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2001 FORD PICKUP WITH 116,000 MILES THAT I HAVE BABIED SINCE I PURCHASED IT JUST THIS WEEK I HAD A SPARK PLUG BLOW OUT OF THE HEAD, JUST SO HAPPENED I WAS 45 MILES AWAY FROM HOME, SO A WRECKER CHARGE WAS DUE, TOOK MY TRUCK TO MY USUAL REPAIR SHOP BUT THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. SO I THEN HAD TO FIND SOMEONE ELSE, ANOTHE WRECKER CHARGE. FORD MUST KNOW FROM ALL THE COMPLAINTS THAT THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM AND VERY COSTLY. FORD SHOULD RECALL ALL VEHICLES WITH ALUMINUM HEADS AND INSTALL A STEEL SLEEVE IN ALL SPARK PLUGS TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM, THEY ARE SAVING TONS OF MONEY WITH THIS TYPE OF FAULTY ENGINE. I HAD CONSIDERED BUYING A NEW FORD PICKUP, BUT THIS JUST MIGHT HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. THE PRICE OF VEHICLES THESE DAYS, MANY PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF HAVE TO DRIVE THEIR VEHICLES SERVERAL YEARS, WE CAN'T AFFORD A NEW VEHICLE WITH THE PRICE OF GAS. THE POOR MIDDLE CLASS IS ALMOST A THING OF THE PAST, IF YOU'RE NOT MAKING 100,000 A YEAR YOU'RE HARD PRESSED TO KEEP YOUR HEAD ABOVE WATER. SOMEONE NEEDS TO STOP THE THINGS THAT RAGAN STARTED WITH HIS TRICKLE DOWN POLICIES AND FIX THE PROBLEM. KEEP THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF OFFICE AND LET SOME GOOD PEOPLE WORK FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS FOR ONCE.
NHTSA ODI #10444443
160,000 miles · Feb 26, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
SPARK PLUG BLOWOUT FORD 4.6 ENGINE AND COIL DAMAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10260013
130,000 miles · Mar 31, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
# 6 SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF THE HOLE IN CYLINDER HEAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10222989
Mileage unknown · Mar 8, 2008
Seat Belts
PASSENGER SEAT BELT LOCKS FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. PASSENGER MUST UNLATCH BELT, LET IT GO ALL THE WAY BACK IN, THEN PUT IT BACK ON IN ORDER TO "RESET" THE LOCK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10220464
67,200 miles · May 25, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
POWER BRAKES FAILED (ABS UNIT), PEDAL IS VERY SOFT AND LOSS OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS TO SLOW/STOP VEHICLE SAFELY. OWNER REPLACED MASTER CYLINDER(REBUILT UNIT), BLEED BRAKES, SAME CONDITION, TOOK TO CERTIFIED MECHANIC REPLACED MASTER CYL. WITH (NEW UNIT) SAME CONDITION, VEHICLE THEN TAKEN TO DEALER FOR ABS HYDRAULIC UNIT REPLACEM…
Read full complaint
POWER BRAKES FAILED (ABS UNIT), PEDAL IS VERY SOFT AND LOSS OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS TO SLOW/STOP VEHICLE SAFELY. OWNER REPLACED MASTER CYLINDER(REBUILT UNIT), BLEED BRAKES, SAME CONDITION, TOOK TO CERTIFIED MECHANIC REPLACED MASTER CYL. WITH (NEW UNIT) SAME CONDITION, VEHICLE THEN TAKEN TO DEALER FOR ABS HYDRAULIC UNIT REPLACEMENT AT COST OF OVER $800 TO THE OWNER. TOLD THERE WAS A STUCK VALVE IN ABS UNIT. VEHICLE IS 2001 WITH 68,000 MILES AT TIME OF FAILURE, VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO BE DRIVEN AND OWNER HAS 2 SMALL CHILDREN
NHTSA ODI #10122153
26,500 miles · Jun 29, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON THIS DATE I WAS SUMMONED TO PICK UP MY 2001 FORD SVT F 150 PICKUP FROM MC GILVRAY FORD IN ATHENS, TX AFTER REPLACEMENT OF MY ENGINE VALVE LASH ADJUSTERS HAD BEEN MADE IN AN ATTEMPT TO STOP RIGHT SIDE ENGINE TICKING. THE VEHICLE STILL MADE THE NOISE AND I GOT THE MECHANIC TO LISTEN. I ASKED HIM IF THEY CHECKED THE SPARK PLUGS…
Read full complaint
ON THIS DATE I WAS SUMMONED TO PICK UP MY 2001 FORD SVT F 150 PICKUP FROM MC GILVRAY FORD IN ATHENS, TX AFTER REPLACEMENT OF MY ENGINE VALVE LASH ADJUSTERS HAD BEEN MADE IN AN ATTEMPT TO STOP RIGHT SIDE ENGINE TICKING. THE VEHICLE STILL MADE THE NOISE AND I GOT THE MECHANIC TO LISTEN. I ASKED HIM IF THEY CHECKED THE SPARK PLUGS BECAUSE THEY ARE KNOWN TO LOOSEN ON THIS TYPE ENGINE DUE TO POOR ENGINEERING. THE MECHANIC DISMISSED MY CONCERN AND INFORMED ME OF THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE NOISE WAS AND THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DRIVE IT A WHILE AND SEE IF THE NOISE LESSENS. 1 WEEK LATER THIS SAME VEHICLE BLEW A SPARK PLUG OUT THUS STRANDING ME ON THE HIGHWAY. I BELIEVE IT TO BE UNJUST THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CAN SELL A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT TO THEIR CUSTOMER AND NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. THIS IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM IN THE ENGINE AND IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO REPLACE THE PRODUCT WITH ONE THAT WILL NOT FAIL AGAIN. SUPPOSEDLY THERE IS AN IMPROVED VERSION OF THIS ENGINE HEAD, BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT MY HEAD WILL BE REPLACED WITH THIS NEWER TYPE. THE OTHER HEAD NOW WILL ALSO BE SITTING THERE WAITING TO BLOW ALSO. *NLM
NHTSA ODI #10023966
Mileage unknown · Apr 9, 2003
Air BagsCrashInjury
VEHICLE IS A 2001 FORD F150 PICKUP INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON INTO A TREE DUE TO BAD ROAD CONDITIONS, VEHICLE WAS GOING APPROXIMATELY. 15-20 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE HIT A TREE, AND THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY, THE DRIVER PLUNGED INTO WINDSHIELD WHICH SHATTERED . THIS RESULTED IN HEAD INJURY, DRIVER ALSO SUFFERED HIP AND KNEE DAMAGE WHIC…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE IS A 2001 FORD F150 PICKUP INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON INTO A TREE DUE TO BAD ROAD CONDITIONS, VEHICLE WAS GOING APPROXIMATELY. 15-20 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE HIT A TREE, AND THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY, THE DRIVER PLUNGED INTO WINDSHIELD WHICH SHATTERED . THIS RESULTED IN HEAD INJURY, DRIVER ALSO SUFFERED HIP AND KNEE DAMAGE WHICH SHOULD TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS TO HEAL. VEHICLE SUFFERED MAJOR DAMAGE TO FRONT END AND FRAME WINDSHIELD AND DASH BOARD. VEHICLE CURRENTLY IN BODY SHOP DAMAGE APPRAISED AT APPROXIMATELY.$8000 MAJOR COMPLAINT IS OBVIOUSLY CONCERNING AIR BAGS NOT DEPLOYING WHICH I BELIEVED CAUSED THE EXTENSIVE PHYSICAL INJURIES. I INTEND TO CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10014197
NHTSA investigations
3DP05005 · 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.
EA05004 · Front Seat Belt Buckle Assembly
Opened Feb 17, 2005 · Closed Jul 6, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts; Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Seat Belts
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
RQ04011 · Front Seat Belt Buckle Assembly
Opened Oct 22, 2004 · Closed Feb 17, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
UNDER RECALL CAMPAIGN (01V227), FORD RECALLED APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILLION VEHICLES TO INSPECT AND IF NECESSARY REPLACE THE FRONT DRIVER AND/OR PASSENGER SEAT BELT BUCKLE.APPROXIMATELY 1.1 MILLION OWNERS RESPONDED BY TAKING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION OF THE BUCKLE USING A SPECIALIZED BUCKLE TEST TOOL.FORD REPORTED THAT 829,927 VEHICLES HAD BOTH BUCKLES PASS THE TOOL TEST AND ANOTHER 167,336 VEHICLES HAD ONE BUCKLE PASS.ODI AND FORD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ALLEGING SEAT BELT BUCKLE FAILURE SHORTLY AFTER PASSING THE ORIGINAL RECALL INSPECTION SERVICE.COMPLAINANTS ALLEGED THAT THE BUCKLE FAILED BY EITHER NOT LATCHING OR FALSE-LATCHING (PARTIAL ENGAGEMENT OF THE LATCH TO THE LATCH PLATE).A FALSE-LATCHED BUCKLE MAY RELEASE WITH MINOR MOVEMENT OR IMPACT AGAINST THE BUCKLE HOUSING INCLUDING INADVERTENT RELEASE WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.ODI IS UPGRADING THIS RECALL QUERY TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA05-004) TO FURTHER ANALYZE THE FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THOSE VEHICLES THAT FORD DEALERS PASSED (ONE OR BOTH BUCKLES) USING FORD'S INSPECTION TEST (997,263 VEHICLES).
Illustration