IllustrationSPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF ALUMINUM HEAD CAUSING UNBURNED FUEL TO IGNITE FROM COIL IGNITION. *TR
2003 Ford F Super Duty
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 Super Duty 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
40–25K
125–50K
350–75K
475–100K
6100–150K
2150K+
20 reports with mileage · 7 unknown
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. Review the 9 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Diesel. 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 reports3 fire reports2 injury reports
What owners actually said
27 reportsSPARK PLUG BLEW OUT WHILE TRAVELING ON NARROW MOUNTAIN ROAD CAUSING ENGINE TO STALL LOSING POWER STEERING. STEERED INTO THE MOUNTAIN SIDE TO PREVENT HEAD ON COLLISION. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL ENGINE FIRES DUE TO PLUG BLOWING OUT OF CYLINDER HEAD AND FUEL NOT PROPERLY BURNING. *TR
THE PROBLEM: 6.0L HEAD BOLTS. PROBABLY THE MOST WELL-KNOWN AND PROBLEMATIC IS THE ISSUE WITH THE FACTORY HEAD BOLTS. ESSENTIALLY, THE BOLTS STRETCH, WHICH RESULTS IN A BLOWN HEAD GASKET. FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM IS WHY THERE IS A LAWSUITE PENDING DUE TO THIS ISSUE AND OTHERS WITH THIS 6.0L ENGINE. THE PROBLEM: EGR COOLE…
Read full complaint
THE PROBLEM: 6.0L HEAD BOLTS. PROBABLY THE MOST WELL-KNOWN AND PROBLEMATIC IS THE ISSUE WITH THE FACTORY HEAD BOLTS. ESSENTIALLY, THE BOLTS STRETCH, WHICH RESULTS IN A BLOWN HEAD GASKET. FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM IS WHY THERE IS A LAWSUITE PENDING DUE TO THIS ISSUE AND OTHERS WITH THIS 6.0L ENGINE. THE PROBLEM: EGR COOLER THE 6.0L DIESEL HAS A BAD REPUTATION FOR BLOWN HEAD GASKETS AND STICKING EGR (EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION) VALVE. WHILE STRETCHING HEAD BOLTS ARE PARTLY TO BLAME FOR THE HEAD GASKET ISSUE, PROGRAMMERS THAT TURN UP THE POWER IN YOUR 6.0L TRUCK ARE GUILTY CULPRITS AS WELL. SIMPLY PUT, THE STOCK EGR COOLER CANNOT KEEP UP WITH FILTERING A MODIFIED 6.0L. A FAILING EGR COOLER CAN CAUSE YOUR TRUCK TO OVERHEAT, RUN POORLY, AND ADD TO THE POTENTIAL FOR HEAD GASKET FAILURE. THE PROBLEM: VACUUM LEAK ALTHOUGH THE SUPER DUTY USES UNIT BEARINGS UP FRONT FROM THE FACTORY, THE TRUCKS ARE STILL EQUIPPED WITH SELECTABLE HUBS. MANY OF THE EARLY TRUCKS WERE EQUIPPED WITH FORD-SPECIFIC HUBS WHICH HAD AN AUTO AND ON SETTING ONLY. THESE HUBS WERE VACUUM-ASSISTED AND KNOWN TO BE PROBLEMATIC. A LEAKING OR DRY-ROTTED VACUUM LINE IS NOT UNCOMMON TO FIND, NOR IS A DAMAGED HUB ACTUATOR. PICTURED HERE IS A QUICK TRAIL FIX THAT USES A STICK TO PLUG A VACUUM LINE THAT WAS LEAKING AND NO LONGER NEEDED BECAUSE THE TRUCK WAS OUTFITTED WITH AFTERMARKET HUBS. THE PROBLEM: FRONT UNIT BEARINGS BIG TIRES AND UNIT BEARINGS DON'T ALWAYS MIX WELL. EVEN IN THE FACTORY CONFIGURATION, THE NON-SERVICEABLE UNIT BEARINGS HAVE A LIMITED LIFE CYCLE. THE EASY WAY TO CHECK FOR A BAD UNIT BEARING IS BY JACKING UP THE FRONT AXLE, ONE SIDE AT A TIME. YOU'LL WANT TO RAISE THE TIRE OFF OF THE GROUND ENOUGH SO THAT A PRYBAR CAN BE PLACED UNDER THE BOTTOM OF THE TIRE. YOU CAN ALSO USE YOUR HANDS TO TEST THIS, BUT THE PRYBAR WILL GIVE YOU EXTRA LEVERAGE. ISSUE RECALL. *TR
WAS DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY AT 50MPH WITH NO LOAD AND HEARD LOAD POP UNDER HEAD AND THEN A CONSTANT BLOWING NOISE. PULLED OVER AND FOUND THAT THE THIRD SPARK PLUG ON PASSENGERS SIDE HAD BLOWN OUT AND WAS LAYING ON TOP OF MOTOR ALONG WITH COIL PACK HAD BROKE OFF. HAD TO USE A KIT TO TAP OUT HOLE AND INSTALL INSERT. PROBABLY WILL BE…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY AT 50MPH WITH NO LOAD AND HEARD LOAD POP UNDER HEAD AND THEN A CONSTANT BLOWING NOISE. PULLED OVER AND FOUND THAT THE THIRD SPARK PLUG ON PASSENGERS SIDE HAD BLOWN OUT AND WAS LAYING ON TOP OF MOTOR ALONG WITH COIL PACK HAD BROKE OFF. HAD TO USE A KIT TO TAP OUT HOLE AND INSTALL INSERT. PROBABLY WILL BE MORE PROBLEMS IN FUTURE BUT WE WILL SEE. JUST DON'T SEEM SAFE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN WITH THE FIRE THREAT THAT COULD CAUSE. AS A LOCAL FIRE CHIEF I HAVE SCENE HOW FAST A VEHICLE FIRE CAN SPREAD. *TR
OIL FROM LEAKING HEAD GASKET ,PASSENGER SIDE,DRIPPING ON TO HOT EXHAUST SYSTEM .OIL COLLECTS IN BRUSH SHIELD ON EXHAUST Y-CONNECTION. *TR
NOTICED GAS TANK SAGGING - INSPECTION FOUND REAR STRAP CORRODED AND BROKEN. RESEARCH FOUND THAT THERE IS A RECALL ON SEVERAL BRANDS OF FORD CARS AND F150 TRUCKS (1999-2003 MODELS) FOR THIS EXACT PROBLEM BUT THE F250 IS NOT COVERED. IF THE SAME PROBLEMS OCCUR ON A DIFFERENT MODEL (E.G. F250) YOU WOULD THINK THE RECALL SHOULD APPL…
Read full complaint
NOTICED GAS TANK SAGGING - INSPECTION FOUND REAR STRAP CORRODED AND BROKEN. RESEARCH FOUND THAT THERE IS A RECALL ON SEVERAL BRANDS OF FORD CARS AND F150 TRUCKS (1999-2003 MODELS) FOR THIS EXACT PROBLEM BUT THE F250 IS NOT COVERED. IF THE SAME PROBLEMS OCCUR ON A DIFFERENT MODEL (E.G. F250) YOU WOULD THINK THE RECALL SHOULD APPLY. *TR
VEHICLE HAS SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER DUE TO FUEL TANK LINING COMING OFF AND CLOGGING THE PICK- UP SCREEN. THIS PROBLEM FIRST OCCURRED ON 05-22-06. THE TRUCK WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, AND FORD REPLACED THE FUEL TANK. THE SERVICE MANAGER TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TANK WOULD NOT COME APART BECAUSE IT HAD A NEW DESIGN. TODAY MY…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE HAS SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER DUE TO FUEL TANK LINING COMING OFF AND CLOGGING THE PICK- UP SCREEN. THIS PROBLEM FIRST OCCURRED ON 05-22-06. THE TRUCK WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, AND FORD REPLACED THE FUEL TANK. THE SERVICE MANAGER TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TANK WOULD NOT COME APART BECAUSE IT HAD A NEW DESIGN. TODAY MY TRUCK HAD A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER ON THE FREEWAY GOING UP A STEEP GRADE AND I ALMOST CAUSED A BAD ACCIDENT. WHEN I FINALLY GOT THE TRUCK HOME I PULLED THE SENDING UNIT FROM THE TOP OF THE TANK SO I COULD LOOK INSIDE. THE LINING ON THE TANK WAS FLOATING IN THE DIESEL FUEL. FORD SHOULD RECALL THESE TRUCKS BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM. *TR
WE HAVE HAD 4 SPARK PLUGS BLOW ON THE MOTOR IN 4 YEARS AND TWICE JUST THIS YEARS OF 2011. LEAVING US STRANDED TWICE, ONCE 1/2 MILE FROM HOME SO WE DROVE HOME, AND ONCE IN WYOMING(1,101 MILES AWAY FROM HOME, AT 46 BELOW ZERO SO WE HAD TO UNPLUG THE FUEL INJECTOR SO WE COULD GET TO HELP ON X-MAS DAY AFTER WE HAD DRIVING TO MY DA…
Read full complaint
WE HAVE HAD 4 SPARK PLUGS BLOW ON THE MOTOR IN 4 YEARS AND TWICE JUST THIS YEARS OF 2011. LEAVING US STRANDED TWICE, ONCE 1/2 MILE FROM HOME SO WE DROVE HOME, AND ONCE IN WYOMING(1,101 MILES AWAY FROM HOME, AT 46 BELOW ZERO SO WE HAD TO UNPLUG THE FUEL INJECTOR SO WE COULD GET TO HELP ON X-MAS DAY AFTER WE HAD DRIVING TO MY DADS FUNERAL ALREADY FOR 14 HOURS TRYING TO GET THERE, WE STILL HAD 9 MORE TO GO AND IT WAS 5:30 A.M. BUT NOW WE COULD NOT DRIVE OVER 50 MILES PER HOUR FOR FEAR OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN. SNOW STORM AND HOLIDAY NOTHING OPEN..... SOMETIMES YOU HAVE NO CHOICE OF WHAT IS SAFE AND WHAT IS THE SMART THING TO DO, WE HAD TO KEEP MOVING DO TO THE SNOW STORM AND THE COLD. THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME WE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE SPARK PLUGS..... IF THIS IS SUCH A DANGEROUS THING TO HAVE HAPPEN ON A FORD VEHICLE WHY IS IT NOT BEEN RECALLED AT ALL??????????????? I AM SO DISGUSTED WITH FORD NOW BECAUSE IT JUST HAPPEN AGAIN TODAY BUT IT WAS FINALLY HERE CLOSE TO HOME AND WE WERE NOT LEFT 110-1,000 MILES FROM HOME FOR ONCE.........BUT NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH EITHER ANOTHER EXPENSIVE REPAIR AND POSSIBLY UNFIXABLE, (THIS MAY BE A REBLOW AND IF IT IS NON FIXABLE) OR OUT A TRACK AND IN OUR BUSINESS, AND WHERE WE LIVE WE HAVE TO HAVE A HEAVY DUTY TRUCK. THIS ONE WAS BOUGHT BRAND NEW , PAID OFF 2 YEARS EARLY, FULLY INSURED, MAINTENANCE DONE FAITHFULLY AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GET. *TR
2003 F350 PU TRUCK 06 DIESEL ENGINE. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON STARTING THE TRUCK AND THE IDLE SPEED WAS AT 600RPM THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE TRUCK ACCELERATED TO 1100RPM. I HAD PUT THE TRUCK IN DRIVE JUST AS THE JUMP IN IDLE SPEED AND THE TRUCK LUNGED FORWARD. THE IDLE SPEED WENT BACK TO NORMAL. AS WE STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN,…
Read full complaint
2003 F350 PU TRUCK 06 DIESEL ENGINE. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON STARTING THE TRUCK AND THE IDLE SPEED WAS AT 600RPM THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE TRUCK ACCELERATED TO 1100RPM. I HAD PUT THE TRUCK IN DRIVE JUST AS THE JUMP IN IDLE SPEED AND THE TRUCK LUNGED FORWARD. THE IDLE SPEED WENT BACK TO NORMAL. AS WE STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN, THE IDLE SPEED JUMPED AGAIN CAUSING THE TRUCK TO RUN ALMOST INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC. HAD I NOT HAD THE BREAK ON, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT. THIS PROBLEM PERSISTED EACH TIME THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED AND WOULD LAST UNTIL THE MOTOR WORMED. EACH TIME, WEATHER IN DRIVE OR REVERSE, THE IDLE WOULD JUMP AND THE TRUCK WOULD LEAP, WITHOUT WARNING. I TOOK THE TRUCK TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE I WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS A WELL KNOWN PROBLEM AND THEY HAD REPLACED A LOT OF THE 3C3Z 9F838 INJECTOR SENSORS AND THE 37130 PIGTAIL HARNESS. THE SENSOR LEAKS OIL INTO THE CONNECTOR AND CAUSES THE CONNECTOR TO SHORT. THEY REPLACED THE ICP SENSOR AND CONNECTOR AND THIS CORRECTED THE PROBLEM. THE SYSTEM CODES SCAN SHOWED P0603 AND P2285 AS THE PROBLEM. THIS IS AN OBVIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM KNOWN TO FORD FOR YEARS AND THEY HAVE NOT ADDRESSED IT. I CHECKED THE WEB AND FOUND HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS ON THIS SPECIFIC PROBLEM AND HOW TO CORRECT IT. I ALSO FOUND THAT FORD CHANGED THE PLACEMENT OF THE SENSOR WHEN THEY FOUND THE DESIGN FLAW, BUT DID NOTHING TO CORRECT IT ON THE EXISTING VEHICLES. I GUESS SOMEONE HAS TO DIE FRO FORD TO ADMIT THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR TRUCKS. *TR
WHILE DRIVING MY 2003 FORD F250 P-UP W/ 5.4L ENGINE, I HEARD A LOUD POP AND SUDDENLY MY TRUCK WILL HARDLY GO AND IT CATCHES FIRE. I WAS INFORMED IT WAS A SPARK PLUG THAT BLEW OUT, WHICH I HAD NEVER CHANGED. FORD SAYS THEY WILL NOT FIX IT, AND OTHER PEOPLE WANT $2000 TO FIX IT. I HAVE SINCE HEARD THAT THIS IS A NORMAL PROBLEM …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY 2003 FORD F250 P-UP W/ 5.4L ENGINE, I HEARD A LOUD POP AND SUDDENLY MY TRUCK WILL HARDLY GO AND IT CATCHES FIRE. I WAS INFORMED IT WAS A SPARK PLUG THAT BLEW OUT, WHICH I HAD NEVER CHANGED. FORD SAYS THEY WILL NOT FIX IT, AND OTHER PEOPLE WANT $2000 TO FIX IT. I HAVE SINCE HEARD THAT THIS IS A NORMAL PROBLEM WITH THESE ENGINE. I HAVE 5 KIDS AND NOW ONLY 1 VEHICLE, CAUSE I DO NOT HAVE THE $2000 TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT FORD CREATED. *TR
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
6EA06012 · Engine Stalling
Opened Jun 22, 2006 · Closed Dec 7, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
IN A DECEMBER 3, 2007 LETTER, FORD ADVISED NHTSA THAT IT WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL TO REPLACE THE CAM POSITION SENSOR (CPS) IN APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION SUBJECT VEHICLES TO ADDRESS REPORTS OF ENGINE STALLING.A NEW DESIGN CPS WITH IMPROVED PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY WILL BE INSTALLED AS A REMEDY.OWNER NOTIFICATIONS WILL BEGIN IN DECEMBER 2007. THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE DURABLE, FULL-SIZED, MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS COMMONLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, RESCUE/EMERGENCY RESPONSE, AND COMMERCIAL OR RECREATIONAL TOWING.CPS FAILURE IS COMPARABLE TO UNEXPECTEDLY TURNING THE KEY OFF SINCE THE SIGNAL IT PRODUCES IS VITAL TO THE ELECTRONIC ENGINE CONTROL SYSTEM.CPS SIGNAL LOSS TERMINATES FUEL INJECTION RESULTING IN AN ENGINE STALL.ONCE STALLED, THE ENGINE MAY RESTART RIGHT AWAY, OR MAY RESTART AFTER A DELAY (TYPICALLY 5 TO 10 MINUTES), OR MAY NOT RESTART AT ALL.IN ADDITION TO EXPOSING THE DRIVER AND OTHER MOTORISTS TO CRASH RISK DUE TO LOSS OF MOTIVE POWER OR VEHICLE DISABLEMENT, ENGINE STALLING ALSO EFFECTS THE POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING. THROUGH CONSUMER INTERVIEWS, ODI DETERMINED THAT CPS FAILURES OCCURRED WITHOUT ANY FORM OF WARNING, AT ANY VEHICLE SPEED (50% AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS), AND UNDER ANY DRIVING CONDITION, SUCH AS ACCELERATING.CONSUMERS REPORTED THAT ABOUT A THIRD OF THE VEHICLES FAILED TO RESTART, WITH ANOTHER THIRD REPORTING DELAYED RESTARTING.HALF THE VEHICLES THAT DID RESTART EXPERIENCED ANOTHER STALL ON THE SAME OR A SUBSEQUENT DRIVE CYCLE (BEFORE CPS REPLACEMENT) RE-EXPOSING THOSE CONSUMERS TO THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH A STALLING EVENT.IN THEIR VOQ REPORTS, HALF OF THE ODI COMPLAINANTS DESCRIBED DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING THE VEHICLE DUE TO LOSE OF POWER ASSIST SYSTEMS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WERE TOWING AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. THE ONE ALLEGED INJURY INCIDENT OCCURRED IN AN INTERSECTION WHEN A SUBJECT VEHICLE STALLED WHILE TURNING ACROSS ONCOMING LANES OF TRAFFIC.ALTHOUGH UNSUBSTANTIATED, THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED AN INJURY TO A CHILD OCCUPANT DURING ODI'S INTERVIEW.THE OTHER CRASH ALLEGATIONS MOSTLY INVOLVED LOW SPEED, LOSS OF CONTROL INCIDENTS OFTEN CAUSED BY LACK OF POWER ASSIST; NO INJURIES ARE REPORTED IN THESE INCIDENTS, AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, IF ANY, WAS MINIMAL.CONSUMERS ALSO REPORTED OTHER INCIDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT SAFETY RISKS, SUCH AS DISABLEMENT IN A LANE OR ON A SHOULDER OF A HIGH-SPEED ROADWAY OR INTERSTATE, OR EXTENDED DISABLEMENT IN REMOTE AREAS DURING SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS. THE POPULATION ABOVE IS FORD'S ESTIMATE OF THE 1.4 MILLION SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED THAT ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED.THE FORD COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS NOTED ABOVE ARE CURRENT AS OF FORD'S LAST SUBMISSION DATED JUNE 21, 2007; THEY DO NOT INCLUDE F-450, F-550, OR ECONOLINE COUNTS AS THESE PRODUCTS WERE NOT FORMALLY WITHIN SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION WHEN FAILURE INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED.WARRANTY DATA ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT ABOUT HALF THE CLAIMS INVOLVED A STALL WHILE DRIVING EVENT ( FORD'S ASSESSMENT) AND THAT POOR CPS DURABILITY WAS A LONGSTANDING CONCERN.FORD REPORTED THAT THE NEW CPS DESIGN SHOULD MEET OR EXCEED THEIR 10 YEAR, 150K MILE LIFE EXPECTANCY DESIGN REQUIREMENT.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
IN A DECEMBER 3, 2007 LETTER, FORD ADVISED NHTSA THAT IT WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL TO REPLACE THE CAM POSITION SENSOR (CPS) IN APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION SUBJECT VEHICLES TO ADDRESS REPORTS OF ENGINE STALLING.A NEW DESIGN CPS WITH IMPROVED PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY WILL BE INSTALLED AS A REMEDY.OWNER NOTIFICATIONS WILL BEGIN IN DECEMBER 2007. THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE DURABLE, FULL-SIZED, MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS COMMONLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, RESCUE/EMERGENCY RESPONSE, AND COMMERCIAL OR RECREATIONAL TOWING.CPS FAILURE IS COMPARABLE TO UNEXPECTEDLY TURNING THE KEY OFF SINCE THE SIGNAL IT PRODUCES IS VITAL TO THE ELECTRONIC ENGINE CONTROL SYSTEM.CPS SIGNAL LOSS TERMINATES FUEL INJECTION RESULTING IN AN ENGINE STALL.ONCE STALLED, THE ENGINE MAY RESTART RIGHT AWAY, OR MAY RESTART AFTER A DELAY (TYPICALLY 5 TO 10 MINUTES), OR MAY NOT RESTART AT ALL.IN ADDITION TO EXPOSING THE DRIVER AND OTHER MOTORISTS TO CRASH RISK DUE TO LOSS OF MOTIVE POWER OR VEHICLE DISABLEMENT, ENGINE STALLING ALSO EFFECTS THE POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING. THROUGH CONSUMER INTERVIEWS, ODI DETERMINED THAT CPS FAILURES OCCURRED WITHOUT ANY FORM OF WARNING, AT ANY VEHICLE SPEED (50% AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS), AND UNDER ANY DRIVING CONDITION, SUCH AS ACCELERATING.CONSUMERS REPORTED THAT ABOUT A THIRD OF THE VEHICLES FAILED TO RESTART, WITH ANOTHER THIRD REPORTING DELAYED RESTARTING.HALF THE VEHICLES THAT DID RESTART EXPERIENCED ANOTHER STALL ON THE SAME OR A SUBSEQUENT DRIVE CYCLE (BEFORE CPS REPLACEMENT) RE-EXPOSING THOSE CONSUMERS TO THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH A STALLING EVENT.IN THEIR VOQ REPORTS, HALF OF THE ODI COMPLAINANTS DESCRIBED DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING THE VEHICLE DUE TO LOSE OF POWER ASSIST SYSTEMS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WERE TOWING AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. THE ONE ALLEGED INJURY INCIDENT OCCURRED IN AN INTERSECTION WHEN A SUBJECT VEHICLE STALLED WHILE TURNING ACROSS ONCOMING LANES OF TRAFFIC.ALTHOUGH UNSUBSTANTIATED, THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED AN INJURY TO A CHILD OCCUPANT DURING ODI'S INTERVIEW.THE OTHER CRASH ALLEGATIONS MOSTLY INVOLVED LOW SPEED, LOSS OF CONTROL INCIDENTS OFTEN CAUSED BY LACK OF POWER ASSIST; NO INJURIES ARE REPORTED IN THESE INCIDENTS, AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, IF ANY, WAS MINIMAL.CONSUMERS ALSO REPORTED OTHER INCIDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT SAFETY RISKS, SUCH AS DISABLEMENT IN A LANE OR ON A SHOULDER OF A HIGH-SPEED ROADWAY OR INTERSTATE, OR EXTENDED DISABLEMENT IN REMOTE AREAS DURING SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS. THE POPULATION ABOVE IS FORD'S ESTIMATE OF THE 1.4 MILLION SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED THAT ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED.THE FORD COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS NOTED ABOVE ARE CURRENT AS OF FORD'S LAST SUBMISSION DATED JUNE 21, 2007; THEY DO NOT INCLUDE F-450, F-550, OR ECONOLINE COUNTS AS THESE PRODUCTS WERE NOT FORMALLY WITHIN SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION WHEN FAILURE INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED.WARRANTY DATA ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT ABOUT HALF THE CLAIMS INVOLVED A STALL WHILE DRIVING EVENT ( FORD'S ASSESSMENT) AND THAT POOR CPS DURABILITY WAS A LONGSTANDING CONCERN.FORD REPORTED THAT THE NEW CPS DESIGN SHOULD MEET OR EXCEED THEIR 10 YEAR, 150K MILE LIFE EXPECTANCY DESIGN REQUIREMENT.
Engine And Engine Cooling
IN A DECEMBER 3, 2007 LETTER, FORD ADVISED NHTSA THAT IT WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL TO REPLACE THE CAM POSITION SENSOR (CPS) IN APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION SUBJECT VEHICLES TO ADDRESS REPORTS OF ENGINE STALLING.A NEW DESIGN CPS WITH IMPROVED PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY WILL BE INSTALLED AS A REMEDY.OWNER NOTIFICATIONS WILL BEGIN IN DECEMBER 2007. THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE DURABLE, FULL-SIZED, MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS COMMONLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, RESCUE/EMERGENCY RESPONSE, AND COMMERCIAL OR RECREATIONAL TOWING.CPS FAILURE IS COMPARABLE TO UNEXPECTEDLY TURNING THE KEY OFF SINCE THE SIGNAL IT PRODUCES IS VITAL TO THE ELECTRONIC ENGINE CONTROL SYSTEM.CPS SIGNAL LOSS TERMINATES FUEL INJECTION RESULTING IN AN ENGINE STALL.ONCE STALLED, THE ENGINE MAY RESTART RIGHT AWAY, OR MAY RESTART AFTER A DELAY (TYPICALLY 5 TO 10 MINUTES), OR MAY NOT RESTART AT ALL.IN ADDITION TO EXPOSING THE DRIVER AND OTHER MOTORISTS TO CRASH RISK DUE TO LOSS OF MOTIVE POWER OR VEHICLE DISABLEMENT, ENGINE STALLING ALSO EFFECTS THE POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING. THROUGH CONSUMER INTERVIEWS, ODI DETERMINED THAT CPS FAILURES OCCURRED WITHOUT ANY FORM OF WARNING, AT ANY VEHICLE SPEED (50% AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS), AND UNDER ANY DRIVING CONDITION, SUCH AS ACCELERATING.CONSUMERS REPORTED THAT ABOUT A THIRD OF THE VEHICLES FAILED TO RESTART, WITH ANOTHER THIRD REPORTING DELAYED RESTARTING.HALF THE VEHICLES THAT DID RESTART EXPERIENCED ANOTHER STALL ON THE SAME OR A SUBSEQUENT DRIVE CYCLE (BEFORE CPS REPLACEMENT) RE-EXPOSING THOSE CONSUMERS TO THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH A STALLING EVENT.IN THEIR VOQ REPORTS, HALF OF THE ODI COMPLAINANTS DESCRIBED DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING THE VEHICLE DUE TO LOSE OF POWER ASSIST SYSTEMS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WERE TOWING AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. THE ONE ALLEGED INJURY INCIDENT OCCURRED IN AN INTERSECTION WHEN A SUBJECT VEHICLE STALLED WHILE TURNING ACROSS ONCOMING LANES OF TRAFFIC.ALTHOUGH UNSUBSTANTIATED, THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED AN INJURY TO A CHILD OCCUPANT DURING ODI'S INTERVIEW.THE OTHER CRASH ALLEGATIONS MOSTLY INVOLVED LOW SPEED, LOSS OF CONTROL INCIDENTS OFTEN CAUSED BY LACK OF POWER ASSIST; NO INJURIES ARE REPORTED IN THESE INCIDENTS, AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, IF ANY, WAS MINIMAL.CONSUMERS ALSO REPORTED OTHER INCIDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT SAFETY RISKS, SUCH AS DISABLEMENT IN A LANE OR ON A SHOULDER OF A HIGH-SPEED ROADWAY OR INTERSTATE, OR EXTENDED DISABLEMENT IN REMOTE AREAS DURING SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS. THE POPULATION ABOVE IS FORD'S ESTIMATE OF THE 1.4 MILLION SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED THAT ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED.THE FORD COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS NOTED ABOVE ARE CURRENT AS OF FORD'S LAST SUBMISSION DATED JUNE 21, 2007; THEY DO NOT INCLUDE F-450, F-550, OR ECONOLINE COUNTS AS THESE PRODUCTS WERE NOT FORMALLY WITHIN SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION WHEN FAILURE INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED.WARRANTY DATA ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT ABOUT HALF THE CLAIMS INVOLVED A STALL WHILE DRIVING EVENT ( FORD'S ASSESSMENT) AND THAT POOR CPS DURABILITY WAS A LONGSTANDING CONCERN.FORD REPORTED THAT THE NEW CPS DESIGN SHOULD MEET OR EXCEED THEIR 10 YEAR, 150K MILE LIFE EXPECTANCY DESIGN REQUIREMENT.
DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
EA05003 · Engine Stalling
Opened Feb 15, 2005 · Closed Nov 2, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:wiring:front Underhood; Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Electrical System:wiring:front Underhood
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Engine And Engine Cooling
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
PE04070 · Engine Stalling
Opened Oct 7, 2004 · Closed Feb 15, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
TWENTY FIVE OF THE ODI FAILURE REPORTS ARE DUPLICATIVE OF FORD COMPLAINTS.TWENTY ODI REPORTS DO NOT CONTAIN A VIN (AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE DUPLICATIVE OF FORD REPORTS).THE 14 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 2 ALLEGED INJURIES WERE ALL MINOR.SUBMITTED DURING PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-070, FORD'S RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER CONTAINED ABOUT 5,000 CONSUMER REPORTS (MORS) AND 8,700 FIELD REPORTS (CQIS).FORD REVIEWED THE COMPLAINTS AND CATEGORIZED THEM.THE MANUFACTURER REPORTS SHOWN ABOVE REPRESENT A COUNT OF UNIQUE VEHICLES THAT FORD CATEGORIZED AS ALLEGEDLY STALLING DUE TO A SUBJECT ENGINE COMPONENT ('A' CATEGORY, SEE FORD'S IR RESPONSE LETTER FOR FURTHER DETAIL); SOME OF THESE VEHICLES RECEIVED MULTIPLE REPORTS.ODI HAS NOT YET CONFIRMED FORD'S CATEGORIZATION OF THESE REPORTS, NOR HAS ODI CONFIRMED FORD'S CATEGORIZATION OF THE REMAINING REPORTS (WHICH FORD STATES DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT).FORD SUBMITTED NEARLY 19,000 WARRANTY CLAIMS, MANY OF WHICH INVOLVED CLAIMS FOR A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB 04-13-08) AND FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA 03B05) WHICH FORD IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL REMEDIES FOR STALLING COMPLAINTS.ODI HAS NOT CONFIRMED THAT EITHER OF THESE ARE A REMEDY FOR ENGINE STALLING COMPLAINTS.SEVERAL OTHER DEALER COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO ENGINE STALL WERE ALSO SUBMITTED AS WELL AS OVER 50 PRODUCT MODIFICATIONS, 15 OF WHICH INVOLVE REVISIONS TO THE SOFTWARE FOR THE ELECTRONIC ENGINE CONTROL UNIT.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED AND ODI IS UPGRADING PE04-070 TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, ODI WILL ESTABLISH AND UPDATE MANUFACTURER FAILURE REPORT COUNTS, FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FREQUENCY AND TREND OF STALLING COMPLAINTS, AND DETERMINE THE SCOPE AND SAFETY IMPLICATION OF STALLING EVENTS.ODI WILL ALSO INVESTIGATE FORD'S REMEDIES, THEIR EFFECTIVENESS, AND WHETHER FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED.
EA04006 · Accelerator Pedal Sensor (etc)
Opened Feb 23, 2004 · Closed Feb 10, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal; Vehicle Speed Control:cables; Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
FAILURE COUNTS FROM ODI?S ANALYSIS ARE STATED ABOVE; SEE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION IN THE SUMMARY REPORT.FORD DATA CONTAINED DUPLICATIVE REPORTS FOR 4 ODI COMPLAINTS AND 1 CRASH.THREE CRASHES WERE ALLEGEDLY DUE TO INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) PEDAL, ONE CRASH OCCURRED WHEN AN ETC DISABLED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER MOTORIST, ONE REPORT CONTAINED NO DETAIL.THE INJURIES WERE MINOR.AN ISSUE INVOLVING FIXED ETC PEDALS WAS INVESTIGATED ALSO, HOWEVER FAILURE REPORTS AND POPULATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN ABOVE; SEE SUMMARY REPORT FOR DETAIL.ALTHOUGH FORD HAS USED ETC BASED THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MANY YEARS, THE PAP FEATURE WAS NEW FOR MY 2002.THE SUBJECT ETC SENSOR PRODUCES TWO OUTPUT SIGNALS WHICH THE ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) UTILIZES TO:1) DETERMINE FUELING REQUIREMENTS; AND 2) PERFORM SENSOR DIAGNOSTICS.ONE SIGNAL IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL TO THROTTLE PEDAL POSITION; THE SECOND IS A DIGITAL SIGNAL.BY DESIGN, THE DETECTION OF A SENSOR FAULT RESULTS IN THE ENGINE RETURNING TO (OR REMAINING AT) THE IDLE STATE.FORD IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE PAP ETC SENSOR WHICH PREMATURELY AFFECTED AN OUTPUT SIGNAL; THE MIGRATION OF INTERNAL SENSOR LUBRICANT CAUSED A LOSS OF PROPORTIONAL SIGNAL.THE FAILURE MECHANISM IS PROGRESSIVE AND AS THE SENSOR DETERIORATES, THE EMS WILL DETECT A FAULT, STORE A FAULT CODE, ILLUMINATE A WARNING LAMP, AND THE ENGINE MAY REMAIN AT/RETURN TO IDLE.IN THE EARLY STAGES, NORMAL OPERATION CAN BE REGAINED BY PEDAL RE-APPLICATION.THE FAILURE PROGRESSES UNTIL THE ENGINE REMAINS AT IDLE.THE ENGINE DOES NOT STALL, POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING SYSTEMS ARE UNAFFECTED. FORD CORRECTED THE ETC SENSOR DEFECT AND CONDUCTED FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 TO REPLACE ETC PEDALS, ADDRESSING 50% OF VEHICLES.AT AGENCY REQUEST TO IMPROVE COMPLETION RATE, FORD EXTENDED FSA 03B03 FOR 6 MONTHS.BASED ON ODI'S ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA, FORD'S ACTION HAS APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED THE ETC SENSOR PROPLEM IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE CLOSING OF THE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ANY PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OR EFFECT BINDING THE AGENCY IN FUTURE DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS. SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
FAILURE COUNTS FROM ODI?S ANALYSIS ARE STATED ABOVE; SEE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION IN THE SUMMARY REPORT.FORD DATA CONTAINED DUPLICATIVE REPORTS FOR 4 ODI COMPLAINTS AND 1 CRASH.THREE CRASHES WERE ALLEGEDLY DUE TO INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) PEDAL, ONE CRASH OCCURRED WHEN AN ETC DISABLED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER MOTORIST, ONE REPORT CONTAINED NO DETAIL.THE INJURIES WERE MINOR.AN ISSUE INVOLVING FIXED ETC PEDALS WAS INVESTIGATED ALSO, HOWEVER FAILURE REPORTS AND POPULATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN ABOVE; SEE SUMMARY REPORT FOR DETAIL.ALTHOUGH FORD HAS USED ETC BASED THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MANY YEARS, THE PAP FEATURE WAS NEW FOR MY 2002.THE SUBJECT ETC SENSOR PRODUCES TWO OUTPUT SIGNALS WHICH THE ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) UTILIZES TO:1) DETERMINE FUELING REQUIREMENTS; AND 2) PERFORM SENSOR DIAGNOSTICS.ONE SIGNAL IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL TO THROTTLE PEDAL POSITION; THE SECOND IS A DIGITAL SIGNAL.BY DESIGN, THE DETECTION OF A SENSOR FAULT RESULTS IN THE ENGINE RETURNING TO (OR REMAINING AT) THE IDLE STATE.FORD IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE PAP ETC SENSOR WHICH PREMATURELY AFFECTED AN OUTPUT SIGNAL; THE MIGRATION OF INTERNAL SENSOR LUBRICANT CAUSED A LOSS OF PROPORTIONAL SIGNAL.THE FAILURE MECHANISM IS PROGRESSIVE AND AS THE SENSOR DETERIORATES, THE EMS WILL DETECT A FAULT, STORE A FAULT CODE, ILLUMINATE A WARNING LAMP, AND THE ENGINE MAY REMAIN AT/RETURN TO IDLE.IN THE EARLY STAGES, NORMAL OPERATION CAN BE REGAINED BY PEDAL RE-APPLICATION.THE FAILURE PROGRESSES UNTIL THE ENGINE REMAINS AT IDLE.THE ENGINE DOES NOT STALL, POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING SYSTEMS ARE UNAFFECTED. FORD CORRECTED THE ETC SENSOR DEFECT AND CONDUCTED FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 TO REPLACE ETC PEDALS, ADDRESSING 50% OF VEHICLES.AT AGENCY REQUEST TO IMPROVE COMPLETION RATE, FORD EXTENDED FSA 03B03 FOR 6 MONTHS.BASED ON ODI'S ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA, FORD'S ACTION HAS APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED THE ETC SENSOR PROPLEM IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE CLOSING OF THE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ANY PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OR EFFECT BINDING THE AGENCY IN FUTURE DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS. SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Vehicle Speed Control:cables
FAILURE COUNTS FROM ODI?S ANALYSIS ARE STATED ABOVE; SEE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION IN THE SUMMARY REPORT.FORD DATA CONTAINED DUPLICATIVE REPORTS FOR 4 ODI COMPLAINTS AND 1 CRASH.THREE CRASHES WERE ALLEGEDLY DUE TO INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) PEDAL, ONE CRASH OCCURRED WHEN AN ETC DISABLED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER MOTORIST, ONE REPORT CONTAINED NO DETAIL.THE INJURIES WERE MINOR.AN ISSUE INVOLVING FIXED ETC PEDALS WAS INVESTIGATED ALSO, HOWEVER FAILURE REPORTS AND POPULATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN ABOVE; SEE SUMMARY REPORT FOR DETAIL.ALTHOUGH FORD HAS USED ETC BASED THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MANY YEARS, THE PAP FEATURE WAS NEW FOR MY 2002.THE SUBJECT ETC SENSOR PRODUCES TWO OUTPUT SIGNALS WHICH THE ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) UTILIZES TO:1) DETERMINE FUELING REQUIREMENTS; AND 2) PERFORM SENSOR DIAGNOSTICS.ONE SIGNAL IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL TO THROTTLE PEDAL POSITION; THE SECOND IS A DIGITAL SIGNAL.BY DESIGN, THE DETECTION OF A SENSOR FAULT RESULTS IN THE ENGINE RETURNING TO (OR REMAINING AT) THE IDLE STATE.FORD IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE PAP ETC SENSOR WHICH PREMATURELY AFFECTED AN OUTPUT SIGNAL; THE MIGRATION OF INTERNAL SENSOR LUBRICANT CAUSED A LOSS OF PROPORTIONAL SIGNAL.THE FAILURE MECHANISM IS PROGRESSIVE AND AS THE SENSOR DETERIORATES, THE EMS WILL DETECT A FAULT, STORE A FAULT CODE, ILLUMINATE A WARNING LAMP, AND THE ENGINE MAY REMAIN AT/RETURN TO IDLE.IN THE EARLY STAGES, NORMAL OPERATION CAN BE REGAINED BY PEDAL RE-APPLICATION.THE FAILURE PROGRESSES UNTIL THE ENGINE REMAINS AT IDLE.THE ENGINE DOES NOT STALL, POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING SYSTEMS ARE UNAFFECTED. FORD CORRECTED THE ETC SENSOR DEFECT AND CONDUCTED FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 TO REPLACE ETC PEDALS, ADDRESSING 50% OF VEHICLES.AT AGENCY REQUEST TO IMPROVE COMPLETION RATE, FORD EXTENDED FSA 03B03 FOR 6 MONTHS.BASED ON ODI'S ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA, FORD'S ACTION HAS APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED THE ETC SENSOR PROPLEM IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE CLOSING OF THE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ANY PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OR EFFECT BINDING THE AGENCY IN FUTURE DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS. SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Vehicle Speed Control
FAILURE COUNTS FROM ODI?S ANALYSIS ARE STATED ABOVE; SEE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION IN THE SUMMARY REPORT.FORD DATA CONTAINED DUPLICATIVE REPORTS FOR 4 ODI COMPLAINTS AND 1 CRASH.THREE CRASHES WERE ALLEGEDLY DUE TO INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) PEDAL, ONE CRASH OCCURRED WHEN AN ETC DISABLED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER MOTORIST, ONE REPORT CONTAINED NO DETAIL.THE INJURIES WERE MINOR.AN ISSUE INVOLVING FIXED ETC PEDALS WAS INVESTIGATED ALSO, HOWEVER FAILURE REPORTS AND POPULATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN ABOVE; SEE SUMMARY REPORT FOR DETAIL.ALTHOUGH FORD HAS USED ETC BASED THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MANY YEARS, THE PAP FEATURE WAS NEW FOR MY 2002.THE SUBJECT ETC SENSOR PRODUCES TWO OUTPUT SIGNALS WHICH THE ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) UTILIZES TO:1) DETERMINE FUELING REQUIREMENTS; AND 2) PERFORM SENSOR DIAGNOSTICS.ONE SIGNAL IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL TO THROTTLE PEDAL POSITION; THE SECOND IS A DIGITAL SIGNAL.BY DESIGN, THE DETECTION OF A SENSOR FAULT RESULTS IN THE ENGINE RETURNING TO (OR REMAINING AT) THE IDLE STATE.FORD IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE PAP ETC SENSOR WHICH PREMATURELY AFFECTED AN OUTPUT SIGNAL; THE MIGRATION OF INTERNAL SENSOR LUBRICANT CAUSED A LOSS OF PROPORTIONAL SIGNAL.THE FAILURE MECHANISM IS PROGRESSIVE AND AS THE SENSOR DETERIORATES, THE EMS WILL DETECT A FAULT, STORE A FAULT CODE, ILLUMINATE A WARNING LAMP, AND THE ENGINE MAY REMAIN AT/RETURN TO IDLE.IN THE EARLY STAGES, NORMAL OPERATION CAN BE REGAINED BY PEDAL RE-APPLICATION.THE FAILURE PROGRESSES UNTIL THE ENGINE REMAINS AT IDLE.THE ENGINE DOES NOT STALL, POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING SYSTEMS ARE UNAFFECTED. FORD CORRECTED THE ETC SENSOR DEFECT AND CONDUCTED FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 TO REPLACE ETC PEDALS, ADDRESSING 50% OF VEHICLES.AT AGENCY REQUEST TO IMPROVE COMPLETION RATE, FORD EXTENDED FSA 03B03 FOR 6 MONTHS.BASED ON ODI'S ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA, FORD'S ACTION HAS APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED THE ETC SENSOR PROPLEM IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE CLOSING OF THE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ANY PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OR EFFECT BINDING THE AGENCY IN FUTURE DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS. SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
FAILURE COUNTS FROM ODI?S ANALYSIS ARE STATED ABOVE; SEE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION IN THE SUMMARY REPORT.FORD DATA CONTAINED DUPLICATIVE REPORTS FOR 4 ODI COMPLAINTS AND 1 CRASH.THREE CRASHES WERE ALLEGEDLY DUE TO INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) PEDAL, ONE CRASH OCCURRED WHEN AN ETC DISABLED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER MOTORIST, ONE REPORT CONTAINED NO DETAIL.THE INJURIES WERE MINOR.AN ISSUE INVOLVING FIXED ETC PEDALS WAS INVESTIGATED ALSO, HOWEVER FAILURE REPORTS AND POPULATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN ABOVE; SEE SUMMARY REPORT FOR DETAIL.ALTHOUGH FORD HAS USED ETC BASED THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MANY YEARS, THE PAP FEATURE WAS NEW FOR MY 2002.THE SUBJECT ETC SENSOR PRODUCES TWO OUTPUT SIGNALS WHICH THE ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) UTILIZES TO:1) DETERMINE FUELING REQUIREMENTS; AND 2) PERFORM SENSOR DIAGNOSTICS.ONE SIGNAL IS LINEARLY PROPORTIONAL TO THROTTLE PEDAL POSITION; THE SECOND IS A DIGITAL SIGNAL.BY DESIGN, THE DETECTION OF A SENSOR FAULT RESULTS IN THE ENGINE RETURNING TO (OR REMAINING AT) THE IDLE STATE.FORD IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE PAP ETC SENSOR WHICH PREMATURELY AFFECTED AN OUTPUT SIGNAL; THE MIGRATION OF INTERNAL SENSOR LUBRICANT CAUSED A LOSS OF PROPORTIONAL SIGNAL.THE FAILURE MECHANISM IS PROGRESSIVE AND AS THE SENSOR DETERIORATES, THE EMS WILL DETECT A FAULT, STORE A FAULT CODE, ILLUMINATE A WARNING LAMP, AND THE ENGINE MAY REMAIN AT/RETURN TO IDLE.IN THE EARLY STAGES, NORMAL OPERATION CAN BE REGAINED BY PEDAL RE-APPLICATION.THE FAILURE PROGRESSES UNTIL THE ENGINE REMAINS AT IDLE.THE ENGINE DOES NOT STALL, POWER ASSISTED STEERING AND BRAKING SYSTEMS ARE UNAFFECTED. FORD CORRECTED THE ETC SENSOR DEFECT AND CONDUCTED FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 TO REPLACE ETC PEDALS, ADDRESSING 50% OF VEHICLES.AT AGENCY REQUEST TO IMPROVE COMPLETION RATE, FORD EXTENDED FSA 03B03 FOR 6 MONTHS.BASED ON ODI'S ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA, FORD'S ACTION HAS APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED THE ETC SENSOR PROPLEM IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE CLOSING OF THE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ANY PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OR EFFECT BINDING THE AGENCY IN FUTURE DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS. SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
PE03044 · Accelerator Pedal Sensor Failure (etc)
Opened Sep 26, 2003 · Closed Feb 18, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES FOR THIS INVESTIGATION INCLUDE MODEL YEAR 2002 AND 2003 EXCURSION AND F SUPER DUTY TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 7.3L DIESEL ENGINES AND AN OPTIONAL POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDAL (PAP) FEATURE.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES UTILIZE AN ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) SYSTEM TO CONTROL ENGINE SPEED AND POWER.THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL POSITION SENSOR OF THE ETC SYSTEM WAS REPLACED UNDER FORD'S FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 (ANNOUNCED IN FEBRUARY 2003) DUE TO CONCERNS THAT IT MAY NOT OPERATE AS DESIGNED AND AS A RESULT, MAY CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO CONTINUE TO IDLE OR UNEXPECTEDLY SLOW WHEN THE ACCELERATOR IS APPLIED.CERTAIN COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FSA 03B03 HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY FORD, AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN FORD'S RESPONSE LETTER (DATED DECEMBER 2, 2003) TO ODI'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATION INFORMATION REQUEST.THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT, WILL BE OBTAINED AND ANALYZED DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS PHASE OF THE INVESTIGATION.THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE REPORT COUNTS WILL BE DETERMINED AT THAT TIME.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES FOR THIS INVESTIGATION INCLUDE MODEL YEAR 2002 AND 2003 EXCURSION AND F SUPER DUTY TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 7.3L DIESEL ENGINES AND AN OPTIONAL POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDAL (PAP) FEATURE.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES UTILIZE AN ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) SYSTEM TO CONTROL ENGINE SPEED AND POWER.THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL POSITION SENSOR OF THE ETC SYSTEM WAS REPLACED UNDER FORD'S FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 (ANNOUNCED IN FEBRUARY 2003) DUE TO CONCERNS THAT IT MAY NOT OPERATE AS DESIGNED AND AS A RESULT, MAY CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO CONTINUE TO IDLE OR UNEXPECTEDLY SLOW WHEN THE ACCELERATOR IS APPLIED.CERTAIN COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FSA 03B03 HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY FORD, AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN FORD'S RESPONSE LETTER (DATED DECEMBER 2, 2003) TO ODI'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATION INFORMATION REQUEST.THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT, WILL BE OBTAINED AND ANALYZED DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS PHASE OF THE INVESTIGATION.THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE REPORT COUNTS WILL BE DETERMINED AT THAT TIME.
Vehicle Speed Control
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES FOR THIS INVESTIGATION INCLUDE MODEL YEAR 2002 AND 2003 EXCURSION AND F SUPER DUTY TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 7.3L DIESEL ENGINES AND AN OPTIONAL POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDAL (PAP) FEATURE.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES UTILIZE AN ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) SYSTEM TO CONTROL ENGINE SPEED AND POWER.THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL POSITION SENSOR OF THE ETC SYSTEM WAS REPLACED UNDER FORD'S FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA) 03B03 (ANNOUNCED IN FEBRUARY 2003) DUE TO CONCERNS THAT IT MAY NOT OPERATE AS DESIGNED AND AS A RESULT, MAY CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO CONTINUE TO IDLE OR UNEXPECTEDLY SLOW WHEN THE ACCELERATOR IS APPLIED.CERTAIN COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FSA 03B03 HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY FORD, AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN FORD'S RESPONSE LETTER (DATED DECEMBER 2, 2003) TO ODI'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATION INFORMATION REQUEST.THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT, WILL BE OBTAINED AND ANALYZED DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS PHASE OF THE INVESTIGATION.THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE REPORT COUNTS WILL BE DETERMINED AT THAT TIME.