IllustrationI WAS TOWING AN ULTRA LIGHT CAMPING TRAILER WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED WHEN I SMELLED WHAT APPEARED TO BE AN ELECTRICAL FIRE THEN THE ENGINE IMMEDIATELY FAILED . I REPLACED THE ENTIRE ENGINE AT A COST OF $ 4000.00 AND HAVE HAD AT LEAST 10 MORE INSTANCES WHERE THE CRUISE CONTROL STOPPED WORKING ON THE INTERSTATE. *JB
1998 Ford F Series
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 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: 16 of 20 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 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 4 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 reports0 fire reports0 injury reports
What owners actually said
20 reportsALARM GOES OFF FOR NO REASON. DOOR OPEN, LIGHT IS ON ALL THE TIME. ALSO, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON THEN GOES OFF. LOUD NOISE IN REAR END WHEN STARTING OFF.*AK
I WAS DRIVING AN HEARD A LOUD SQUEALING NOISE FROM UNDER THE HOOD. LOST POWER AND LIGHTS DIMMED FOR A BRIEF PERIOD. I PULLED OVER AND SMELLED ANTIFREEZE BEFORE I OPENED THE HOOD. I CHECKED THE COOLANT RECOVERY TANK LEVEL AND IT WAS SLIGHTLY LOW. LOOKED FOR A LEAK AND FOUND A 1/16TH" PINHOLE APPROXIMATELY ONE INCH BELOW THE TH…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AN HEARD A LOUD SQUEALING NOISE FROM UNDER THE HOOD. LOST POWER AND LIGHTS DIMMED FOR A BRIEF PERIOD. I PULLED OVER AND SMELLED ANTIFREEZE BEFORE I OPENED THE HOOD. I CHECKED THE COOLANT RECOVERY TANK LEVEL AND IT WAS SLIGHTLY LOW. LOOKED FOR A LEAK AND FOUND A 1/16TH" PINHOLE APPROXIMATELY ONE INCH BELOW THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING GASKET LINE PRODUCING A STEADY STREAM OF ANTIFREEZE DIRECTLY ONTO THE SERPENTINE BELT. THIS STRONG LEAK CONTINUES AS LONG AS THE PROPER FLUID LEVEL IS MAINTAINED, AND STOPS ONCE THE LEVEL FALLS BELOW THE HOLE. TO REFILL THE TANK TO IT'S PROPER LEVEL TAKES APPROXIMATELY ONE US GALLON OF COOLANT, WHICH IMMEDIATELY BEGINS TO SQUIRT OUT THE HOLE, WHETHER THE ENGINE IS RUNNING OR NOT; HOT OR COLD. TOOK IT TO MY MECHANIC WHO TOLD ME ALL HE COULD DO IS REPLACE THE ENGINE, WHICH I HAVE NOT DONE. I WILL BE TAKING IT TO THE CLOSEST FORD DEALER, AS SEVERAL OTHER PROFESSIONAL MECHANICS HAVE LOOKED AT IT AND ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS A DEFECT IN THE CASTING, SINCE THERE WAS NO CRACKING- JUST A ROUND PIN HOLE IN AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE NO MOVING PARTS THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED SUCH DAMAGE.*AK
THE ANTI- THEFT ALARM GOES OFF FOR NO REASON AT ALL HOURS FOR NO REASON. ROGERS FORD HCHECKED IT & COULDN'T GET IT TO GO OFF. I TOLD THEM THEY COULDN'T MAKE IT GO OFF. IT DOES IT WHENEVER. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR TWO YEARS NOW & IT'S A REAL PAIN IN THE NECK. I SEE I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS. BUT THERE ARE PROBA…
Read full complaint
THE ANTI- THEFT ALARM GOES OFF FOR NO REASON AT ALL HOURS FOR NO REASON. ROGERS FORD HCHECKED IT & COULDN'T GET IT TO GO OFF. I TOLD THEM THEY COULDN'T MAKE IT GO OFF. IT DOES IT WHENEVER. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR TWO YEARS NOW & IT'S A REAL PAIN IN THE NECK. I SEE I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS. BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY THOUSANDS WHO HAVE NOT SENT IN A COMPLAINT TO YOU. I'VE EMAILED FORD MOTOR COMPANY ABOUT IT & NEVER GOT A REPLY.*AK
I'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE DOORS CRACKING ON BOTH SIDE AND FORD TRYED TO FIX THEM , BUT ONE SIDE HAS CRCKED AGAIN AND THE FINSH "SUCKS". THEY PUT FILLER (BONDO)IN THE DOORS AND THE PASSENGER SIDE HAS CRCKED AGAIN.I WAS NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE FILLER BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY FILLER WHEN I BOUGHT THE TRUCK. NOW THE PAINT ON T…
Read full complaint
I'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE DOORS CRACKING ON BOTH SIDE AND FORD TRYED TO FIX THEM , BUT ONE SIDE HAS CRCKED AGAIN AND THE FINSH "SUCKS". THEY PUT FILLER (BONDO)IN THE DOORS AND THE PASSENGER SIDE HAS CRCKED AGAIN.I WAS NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE FILLER BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY FILLER WHEN I BOUGHT THE TRUCK. NOW THE PAINT ON THE ROOF IS CRACKING AND PEELING OFF THE METAL AND STARTING TO RUSH BAD AT THE TOP OF THE WINDSHIELD AREA. I TOOK IT IN AND THE DEALER TOLD ME OR THE FACTORY REP. SAID OH WELL WE WON'T FIX IT. I WAS TOLD THE TRUCK WAS NOT UNDER ANY WARRANTY.I HAVE FOUND SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS ON THESE PROBLEMS BUT I GUESS FORD DOESN'T STAND BEHIND THERE PRODUCT. I DON'T CARE HOW OLD A TRUCK IS OR HOW LONG YOU HAVE HAD IT , THE PAINT SHOULD NEVER CRACK AND PEEL OFF THE METAL LIKE MINE IS DOING .I'VE SEEN CARS IN JUNK YARDS WITH BETTER PAINT THEN MINE HAS.
THIS CASE INVOLVES CONTINENTAL TIRES THAT FAIL SUDDENLY (UNEXPECTED BLOWOUTS), AND DESTABILIZE THE VEHICLE. THIS IS THE 2ND VERY SIMILAR FAILURE I'VE HAD WITH THESE OEM TIRES, THEY FAILED SIMILARLY BY RUPTURE AND TREAD SEPARATION, WITH THE RUPTURED AND FAILED STEEL BELTS CLEARLY VISIBLE UNDER THE SEPARATED TREAD. I'VE SENT THE …
Read full complaint
THIS CASE INVOLVES CONTINENTAL TIRES THAT FAIL SUDDENLY (UNEXPECTED BLOWOUTS), AND DESTABILIZE THE VEHICLE. THIS IS THE 2ND VERY SIMILAR FAILURE I'VE HAD WITH THESE OEM TIRES, THEY FAILED SIMILARLY BY RUPTURE AND TREAD SEPARATION, WITH THE RUPTURED AND FAILED STEEL BELTS CLEARLY VISIBLE UNDER THE SEPARATED TREAD. I'VE SENT THE TIRE TO CONTINENTAL, THEY HAVE LIKELY PUT A PUNCTURE IN IT THAT DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE TIRE WAS SENT TO THEM, AND CLAIMED THAT THIS PUNCTURE HAD CAUSED OVERHEATING AND FAILURE. THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO COVER UP THESE DEFECTS, JUST AS THEY ATTEMPTED TO COVER UP THE DEFECTS IN THE FIRST TIRE THAT FAILED. SEE A COPY OF THE LETTER BELOW THAT I SENT TO THEM RECENTLY. PLEASE CONTACT ME [XXX] [XXX], [XXX] CONTINENTAL TIRE NORTH AMERICA, INC., CHARLOTTE, NC 28273 REF: CLAIM #: [XXX] VIA CERTIFIED MAIL: [XXX] DEAR [XXX], I HAVE RECEIVED YOUR 4-9-03 LETTER, IN WHICH YOU DENY MY 3-28-03 CLAIM FOR VEHICLE AND TIRE DAMAGE DUE TO YOUR DEFECTIVE TIRE PRODUCT.: 1.THIS IS A NOTICE TO YOU NOT TO DESTROY, DISCARD, ALTER, OR CONCEAL IN ANY OTHER WAY MY TIRE, DOT NUMBER [XXX], WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS CLAIM AND WHICH I SENT TO YOU ON 3-28-03 VIA UPS. THIS TIRE IS THE SUBJECT OF THE IMPENDING LITIGATION. PLEASE NOTE SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES FOR DESTROYING OR DISPOSING OF EVIDENCE IN A IMPENDING LEGAL ACTION, ONCE THE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU VIA THIS LETTER. I DEMAND THAT YOU PROMPTLY RETURN TO ME THIS TIRE [XXX], AND THAT YOU IDENTIFY IN WRITING ALL THE ALTERATIONS YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE TO THIS TIRE. 2.THE TIRE IN THE PICTURE YOU SENT TO ME WITH YOUR 4-9-03 LETTER IS CLEARLY NOT MY TIRE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS CLAIM, AND THAT I SENT TO YOU ON 3-28-03. 3.THERE WERE NO PUNCTURES OF ANY KIND IN THE FAILED TIRE, DOT NUMBER [XXX], I SENT TO YOU ON 3-28-03 FOR THIS CLAIM. THE CONDITION AND APPEARANCE OF THIS TIRE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY DOCUMENTED AND WITNESSED BEFORE IT WAS SENT TO YOU. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
PAINT SHOWING CROWSFOOT ALL OVER THE BODY, THIS VEHICLE CAME FROM KANSAS CITY PLANT WHERE THERE WAS A FAULT WITH THE PAINTING EQUIPMENT( A FACTORY DEFECT). FORD ASWELL AS THE DEALERSHIP ( FRANKLIN FORD,FRANKLIN N.C.)WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT. I NEED TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS EQUIPMENT FAULT, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME.
I OWN A 1998 FORD F150 XLT TRUCK. I MAINTAIN MY TRUCK AS REQUIRED (OIL, ETC). ON OCT. 25,2003 WHEN GOING TO TURN THE TRUCK ON I HEARD A LOUD NOISE IN THE ENGINE AND THE TRUCK SEEM TO STALL. I LOOKED UNDER THE TRUCK AND NOTICED A HOLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE OIL PAN PANEL AND OIL CAME OUT. ONCE I GOT IT TO TALK TO MY MECHANI…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 1998 FORD F150 XLT TRUCK. I MAINTAIN MY TRUCK AS REQUIRED (OIL, ETC). ON OCT. 25,2003 WHEN GOING TO TURN THE TRUCK ON I HEARD A LOUD NOISE IN THE ENGINE AND THE TRUCK SEEM TO STALL. I LOOKED UNDER THE TRUCK AND NOTICED A HOLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE OIL PAN PANEL AND OIL CAME OUT. ONCE I GOT IT TO TALK TO MY MECHANIC HE INFORMED ME THAT HE KNEW OF THE 'NOTORIUS' OR 'INFAMOUS' REPUTATION THE (4.2L FORD ENGINES) HAVE. IT SEEMS DISTURBING TO ME THAT FORD WOULD USE ENGINES LIKE THIS ON VEICHLES AND US CONSUMERS SPENDING ARE HARD EARNED MONEY HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT NO MATTER HOW GOOD YOU MAINTAIN WILL EVENTUALLY BREAK DOWN. I CAME TO FIND OUT THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH CARS (MECHANICS AND MANAGERS OF WELL KNOWN PART STORES) CALL THIS TYPE OF MOTOR ENGINE. NOW I NEED TO PUT A NEW ENGINE INTO A TRUCK THAT OTHERWISE RAN FINE. I WILL NEVER EVER BUY A FORD AGAIN AND WARN ALL MY CLOSE FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.
I CURRENTLY HAVE A 1998 FORD F150 4.2L ENGINE THAT HAS 65000 MILES AND AM EXPERIENCING HEAD GASKET FAILURE. FORD MOCO STATS THERE IS NO TSP'S OR RECALLS REGUARDING THIS. I PULLED THE OWNERS NOTIFICATION 98B33 OFF YOUR WEB SITE. MY ENGINE BUILD DATE IS NOV 1997 AT THE ESSEX PLANT. I AM IN THE ARMY AND AM STATIONED IN GERMANY…
Read full complaint
I CURRENTLY HAVE A 1998 FORD F150 4.2L ENGINE THAT HAS 65000 MILES AND AM EXPERIENCING HEAD GASKET FAILURE. FORD MOCO STATS THERE IS NO TSP'S OR RECALLS REGUARDING THIS. I PULLED THE OWNERS NOTIFICATION 98B33 OFF YOUR WEB SITE. MY ENGINE BUILD DATE IS NOV 1997 AT THE ESSEX PLANT. I AM IN THE ARMY AND AM STATIONED IN GERMANY. THE DEALERSHIP HERE QUOTED ME 2500.00 FOR THE ESTIMATE. AT THIS TIME THEY WILL NOT HONOR THE U.S. ESP PURCHASED FROM THE ORIGINAL DEALER. I AM CURRENTLY TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED. FORD WILL NOT GIVE PART TO ME AT NO COST TO FIX THERE DEFECTIVE HEAD GASKETS AND LOWER INTAKE MANIDOLS GASKETS AND ENGINE FRONT COVER GASKETS. THEY ARE GIVING ME THE RUN AROUND AND CAN'T GET ME STRAIGHT ANSWERS. I AM CONTINUING WORKING WITH MY DEALERSHIP. I AM AFRAID THEY WILL SIT ON THIS UNTIL MY WARRANTY RUNS OUT ON THE 22 JANUARY 2003.
ACCELERATOR STICKS WHEN THE VEHICLE IS FIRST STARTED IN COLD WEATHER. FORD WAS CONTACTED AND IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, BUT CANNOT REMEDY THE PROBLEM. PROBLEM STILL EXISTS. PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION. *AK
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.