NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
41 reports43,000 miles · Jan 15, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicSuspension
STRONG VEHICLE VIBRATION DURING BRAKE APPLICATION, ESPECIALLY DURING DOWN HILL BRAKING. CALLED CORNING FORD DEALERSHIP, WHERE I BOUGHT TRUCK NEW. THEY REFUSED TO HONOR ANY WARRANTY WORK ON BRAKE PROBLEMS WITH THAT MANY MILES ON TRUCK. CALLED CUSTOMER 800# - THEY ALSO REFUSED REPAIR COVERAGE. TOOK TRUCK TO SCHWAB TIRE IN REDDING,…
Read full complaint
STRONG VEHICLE VIBRATION DURING BRAKE APPLICATION, ESPECIALLY DURING DOWN HILL BRAKING. CALLED CORNING FORD DEALERSHIP, WHERE I BOUGHT TRUCK NEW. THEY REFUSED TO HONOR ANY WARRANTY WORK ON BRAKE PROBLEMS WITH THAT MANY MILES ON TRUCK. CALLED CUSTOMER 800# - THEY ALSO REFUSED REPAIR COVERAGE. TOOK TRUCK TO SCHWAB TIRE IN REDDING, CA.( IT'S THIRTY+ MILES TO SCHWAB TIRE FROM MY HOME. IT?S ALMOST EIGHTY MILES ONE WAY TO CORNING FORD FROM MY HOUSE.)SCHWAB TELLS ME THAT VEHICLE VIBRATION ON BRAKE APPLICATION INDICATES WARPED ROTORS. AFTER FIVE TRIPS TO SCWAB TIRE FOR ROTOR TURNS, THEN COMPLETELY REPLACING ALL FOUR ROTORS....NOTHING STOPPED VIBRATION. BY NOW THE VIBRATION IS MUCH MORE SEVERE THAN WHEN IT FIRST STARTED. DURING THE WHOLE HISTORY, FROM 43,958 MILES TO THE PRESENT 74,762 THE VIBRATION/SHAKING HAS NEVER GONE TOTALLY AWAY. THE LAST THING SCHWAB DID WAS REPLACE ALL FOUR SETS OF BRAKE PADS, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T NEED IT. BY THEN SCHWAB WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF IDEAS. I FINALLY TOOK THE TRUCK TO CORNING FORD, HOPING IT WAS POSSIBLY COVERED UNDER MY EXTENDED WARRANTY. IT WAS. CORNING FORD SERVICE MANAGER, STEVE LOWERY, SAT ME DOWN AND EXPLAINED TO ME WHAT WAS WRONG!!! FORD MOTOR CO. REFUSES TO ADMIT THEY HAVE A DESIGN FLAW IN THEIR BRAKE SYSTEM. CORNING FORD DOES NOT DENY THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKING DESIGN. FIRST, THE BALL JOINTS WORE OUT. THEN, AND MORE IMPORTANT, THE PROBLEM IS THE FRONT WHEEL HUBS/BACKING PLATES ARE TOTALY SEALED AFTER ASSEMBLY. THERE ISN'T ANY WAY TO LUBRICATE/SERVICE THE BEARINGS AT REGULAR INTERVALS. THE SEALS EVENTUALLY DRY OUT AND THE BEARING LUBRICANT/GREASE SEEPS ON TO THE HUB ASSEMBLY ON ONLY THE INBOARD BRAKE PAD. THIS THEN MEANS THAT DURING BRAKE APPLICATION, THE INBOARD PAD IS SLIPPING AND ONLY THE OUTSIDE PAD IS APPLYING PRESSURE TO THE ROTOR. THE OUTSIDE ROTOR IS HAVING TO WORK HARDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND IS CREATING UNNECESSARY HEAT ON THE ROTOR, THUS WARPING THE ROTOR.
NHTSA ODI #10070099
30,000 miles · Jan 15, 2004
Engine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, HydraulicSteering
1. BRAKE ROTORS SERVICED 7 TIMES(THE 3RD. NEW SET OF ROTORS IS CURRENTLY ON FRONT). 2. EXTERIOR PAINT FAILED AND REQUIRED REPAINTING. 3. FRONT BALL JOINTS FAILED. 4. FRONT HUBS FAILED. 5. POWER STEERING PUMP FAILED. 6. WATER PUMP FAILED. 7. SUSPENSION BUSHING FAILED. 8. 3 OF 4 STOCK TIRES DEVELOPED BULGES. 9. CURRENTLY THERE ARE…
Read full complaint
1. BRAKE ROTORS SERVICED 7 TIMES(THE 3RD. NEW SET OF ROTORS IS CURRENTLY ON FRONT). 2. EXTERIOR PAINT FAILED AND REQUIRED REPAINTING. 3. FRONT BALL JOINTS FAILED. 4. FRONT HUBS FAILED. 5. POWER STEERING PUMP FAILED. 6. WATER PUMP FAILED. 7. SUSPENSION BUSHING FAILED. 8. 3 OF 4 STOCK TIRES DEVELOPED BULGES. 9. CURRENTLY THERE ARE SUSPENSION PROBLEMS DEVELOPING IN THE FRONT AND THE HUBS DO NOT ENGAGE AUTOMATICALLY.
NHTSA ODI #10070038
Mileage unknown · Dec 4, 2003
Air BagsTiresCrashInjury
DRIVING UP TO INTERSECTION, APPLIED BREAKS NEXT THING AWARE OF WAS THE CAB WAS SMOKEY AND AIRBAG HAD DEPLOYED AND VEHICLE WAS STOPPED AGAINST A TREE IN THE DITCH. NO KNOWLEDGE OF TIRE FAILURE, POTHOLE, OR ANYTHING LEADING TO A DEPLOYMENT OF THE AIRBAG. CONCERN WITH UNNECESSARY DEPLOYMENT OF AIRBAG VERSES STEERING/BREAKING/TIRE …
Read full complaint
DRIVING UP TO INTERSECTION, APPLIED BREAKS NEXT THING AWARE OF WAS THE CAB WAS SMOKEY AND AIRBAG HAD DEPLOYED AND VEHICLE WAS STOPPED AGAINST A TREE IN THE DITCH. NO KNOWLEDGE OF TIRE FAILURE, POTHOLE, OR ANYTHING LEADING TO A DEPLOYMENT OF THE AIRBAG. CONCERN WITH UNNECESSARY DEPLOYMENT OF AIRBAG VERSES STEERING/BREAKING/TIRE PROBLEM. THE AIR BAG KNOCKED ME UNCONSCIOUS AND I WAS UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO AVOID THE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED TO THE TRUCK. *NLM
NHTSA ODI #10049182
69,800 miles · Nov 18, 2003
Engine And Engine CoolingEquipment
I HAVE A WELL MAINTAINED 2000 F-150 5.4L WITH 69,800 MILES THAT SPUN A BEARING LAST WEEK. AFTER PULLING THE MOTOR AND REMOVING THE OIL PAN, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THE 'BROKEN RODS' THAT ARE USED IN THIS MOTOR ARE OF VERY POOR QUALITY. I CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS, "I…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A WELL MAINTAINED 2000 F-150 5.4L WITH 69,800 MILES THAT SPUN A BEARING LAST WEEK. AFTER PULLING THE MOTOR AND REMOVING THE OIL PAN, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THE 'BROKEN RODS' THAT ARE USED IN THIS MOTOR ARE OF VERY POOR QUALITY. I CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS, "I AM SORRY ABOUT YOUR LUCK, BUT YOUR VEHICLE IS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY". PLEASE ADVISE. *LA
NHTSA ODI #10047120
Mileage unknown · Nov 3, 2003
Tires
WHILE DRIVING ON I-35 SOUTH OF FT WORTH, THE LEFT REAR TIRE OF MY FORD F-250 BLEW WITHOUT WARNING, DISINTEGRATING AND CAUSING MAJOR DAMAGE TO THE LR FENDER AND FENDER LINER. TIRES WERE FIRESTONE STEELTEX ATS WITH APPROXIMATELY 55,000 MILES. I HAVE FRIEND WHO HAD A SIMILAR EVENT WITH HIS FORD EXPEDITION. THESE ARE NOT GOOD TIRE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON I-35 SOUTH OF FT WORTH, THE LEFT REAR TIRE OF MY FORD F-250 BLEW WITHOUT WARNING, DISINTEGRATING AND CAUSING MAJOR DAMAGE TO THE LR FENDER AND FENDER LINER. TIRES WERE FIRESTONE STEELTEX ATS WITH APPROXIMATELY 55,000 MILES. I HAVE FRIEND WHO HAD A SIMILAR EVENT WITH HIS FORD EXPEDITION. THESE ARE NOT GOOD TIRES! *LA
NHTSA ODI #10045311
49,750 miles · Oct 23, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling
RIGHT SIDE HEAD GASKET LEAKING OIL. REPLACED BY FORD AT 24,000 MILES (JAN 2002). TRUCK NOW HAS 49,000 AND IS OUT OF WARRANTY. RIGHT SIDE HEAD GASKET LEAKING OIL AGAIN. COMMON PROBLEM WITH 5.4L FORD DEALERS ACKNOWLEDGE A PROBLEM AND SAY THEY HAVE COMPLETED NUMEROUS REPEAT REPAIRS AT THE CONSUMERS EXPENSE DUE TO FORD'S UNWILLINGNE…
Read full complaint
RIGHT SIDE HEAD GASKET LEAKING OIL. REPLACED BY FORD AT 24,000 MILES (JAN 2002). TRUCK NOW HAS 49,000 AND IS OUT OF WARRANTY. RIGHT SIDE HEAD GASKET LEAKING OIL AGAIN. COMMON PROBLEM WITH 5.4L FORD DEALERS ACKNOWLEDGE A PROBLEM AND SAY THEY HAVE COMPLETED NUMEROUS REPEAT REPAIRS AT THE CONSUMERS EXPENSE DUE TO FORD'S UNWILLINGNESS TO RECALL. *LA
NHTSA ODI #10043470
37,807 miles · Mar 2, 2003
Power Train
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION FAILED 1,700 MILES OVER 36,000 MILE WARRANTY. PULLED OUT OF STOP STREET, NO 3RD GEAR, VEHICLE RACED AS IF IN NEUTRAL. FIRST AND SECOND GEAR OK, REVERSE OK. PULLED TRANS OIL DIPSTICK, NO DARK DEPOSITS ON STICK, OIL NOT BURNT.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10008344
Mileage unknown · Feb 5, 2003
Parking Brake
BRAKE HAS BEEN REPLACED THREE OR MORE TIMES FOR A KNOCKING AND GRINDING NOISE. PLEASE FURNISH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. DEALER IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. PH
NHTSA ODI #10006620
99,000 miles · Jan 23, 2003
Electrical SystemFire
FORD TRUCK WAS PARKED FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND THEN BURST INTO FLAMES UNDER HOOD
NHTSA ODI #10003268
Mileage unknown · Dec 19, 2002
Structure
DOOR CRACK IN DRIVER SIDE DOOR, NEAR THE WINDOW, NEAR PLASTIC MOLDING.
NHTSA ODI #10000281
NHTSA investigations
4DP05005 · 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.
RQ02002 · Tire Valve Stem
Opened Jan 14, 2002 · Closed Aug 19, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Tires
There is no summary currently available
SQ00002 · Pulls Under Hard Braking
Opened May 4, 2000 · Closed Jan 22, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic
There is no summary currently available
PE00003 · Front Center Lap Belt Anchorage
Opened Jan 13, 2000 · Closed Apr 20, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
ALLEGED THAT THE FRONT SAFETY BELT REPORTEDLY WAS NOT MOUNTED TO THE VEHICLE
Illustration