THIS TRUCK HAS ONLY BEEN USED THREE TIMES IN FIVE MONTHS. IT WAS PARKED ON A PARKING PAD UNATTENDED FOR THREE DAYS AN 10 HOURS. THE MAIN ELECTRICAL WIRING STARTED A FIRE INSIDE OF THE TRUCK ON ITS OWN. IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOUND AT 3:00 AM IT WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY KILL TWO PEOPLE IN THEIR BEDS. UPDATED 03/12/12 *BF *TR
2004 Ford F-150
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most F-150 years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Ford F-150 are substantially higher than the model-year median of 676.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all F-150 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
1,749 reports with mileage · 280 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.
- Visibility. Review the 841 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 232 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 167 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
99 reportsTRUCK WAS PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT AT 5:45 AM ON 12/17/2011 AT MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. AT APPROXIMATELY 4 PM SEVERAL EMPLOYEES AND I HEARD WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS SOMEONE'S ALARM GOING OFF. THEY WENT TO PARKING LOT TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND SAW FLAMES INSIDE MY TRUCK AROUND THE DASHBOARD ON THE DRIVERS SIDE. THE NOISE WAS ACT…
Read full complaint
TRUCK WAS PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT AT 5:45 AM ON 12/17/2011 AT MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. AT APPROXIMATELY 4 PM SEVERAL EMPLOYEES AND I HEARD WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS SOMEONE'S ALARM GOING OFF. THEY WENT TO PARKING LOT TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND SAW FLAMES INSIDE MY TRUCK AROUND THE DASHBOARD ON THE DRIVERS SIDE. THE NOISE WAS ACTUALLY THE HORN BLOWING. WE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO OPEN THE DOOR, WE CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. UPON ARRIVAL THEY PUT THE FIRE OUT. THE TRUCK HAD BEEN PARKED ALL DAY & I NEVER ENTERED IT AFTER I ARRIVED AT WORK. THE TRUCK IS DESTROYED. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F150. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 55 MPH WHEN THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED. THE CONTACT MERGED THE VEHICLE OFF THE HIGHWAY, TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED THIRTY MINUTES BEFORE RESTARTING. THE VEHICLE RESUMED AS NORMAL. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE UPPER AND LOWER…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F150. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 55 MPH WHEN THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED. THE CONTACT MERGED THE VEHICLE OFF THE HIGHWAY, TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED THIRTY MINUTES BEFORE RESTARTING. THE VEHICLE RESUMED AS NORMAL. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE UPPER AND LOWER STEERING SHAFT HAD RUSTED TOGETHER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 103,188. THE ALTERNATOR WAS REPLACED. UPDATED 02/28/12
DRIVING AT 50 MPH MY TRUCK DIES. TOW TO A FORD DEALERSHIP (THOMAS FORD, BEVERLY MA.). DIAGNOSTICS SHOW BLOWN PCU. DEALER REPLACES PCU AT MY EXPENSE. FINDS THAT, OR SAYS THAT, THE PCU WAS BLOWN BY THE FPDM. FORD DOES NOT HAVE ANY IN STOCK AND 3 MONTHS BEHIND IN PRODUCTION DUE TO BAD ECONOMY. DEALER PRESSURES ME INTO BUYING USED F…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AT 50 MPH MY TRUCK DIES. TOW TO A FORD DEALERSHIP (THOMAS FORD, BEVERLY MA.). DIAGNOSTICS SHOW BLOWN PCU. DEALER REPLACES PCU AT MY EXPENSE. FINDS THAT, OR SAYS THAT, THE PCU WAS BLOWN BY THE FPDM. FORD DOES NOT HAVE ANY IN STOCK AND 3 MONTHS BEHIND IN PRODUCTION DUE TO BAD ECONOMY. DEALER PRESSURES ME INTO BUYING USED FPDM BECAUSE 3 OTHER TRUCKS ON LOT HAS SAME PROBLEM AND THEY WILL BUY PART IF I DON'T. 3 MONTHS WITHOUT TRUCK IF I DON'T. DEALER ALSO SAYS I SHOULD COMPLAIN TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY DIRECT BECAUSE (THEY BELIEVE) IT SHOULD BE A RECALL. FMC DID NOTHING. NOT EVEN EXPEDITE A NEW PART. PCM WAS $970 PART ONLY AND FPCM WAS $343 PART ONLY. FPCM CRACKED BECAUSE MOUNTED ON DISSIMILAR METAL UNDER SPARE TIRE.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A SPARK PLUG SHORTAGE AND THAT THE WIRES WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A SPARK PLUG SHORTAGE AND THAT THE WIRES WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
I WAS TRAVELING ON A MAIN BOULEVARD WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW SLID DOWN WITH A LOUD SOUNDING BANG. THE WINDOW DID NOT BREAK. HOWEVER, WHAT SEEMS TO BE A SPRING LOADED MECHANISM, MUST HAVE BROKEN CAUSING THE WINDOW TO COLLAPSE DOWN INSIDE THE DOOR. THE SOUND WAS SO LOUD, IT CAUSED A NERVOUS REACTION IN ME WH…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING ON A MAIN BOULEVARD WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW SLID DOWN WITH A LOUD SOUNDING BANG. THE WINDOW DID NOT BREAK. HOWEVER, WHAT SEEMS TO BE A SPRING LOADED MECHANISM, MUST HAVE BROKEN CAUSING THE WINDOW TO COLLAPSE DOWN INSIDE THE DOOR. THE SOUND WAS SO LOUD, IT CAUSED A NERVOUS REACTION IN ME WHICH RESULTED IN PULLING ON THE STEERING WHEEL TO ONE SIDE. THANKFULLY, THERE WERE NO VEHICLES TO THAT SIDE AND I WAS ABLE TO CORRECT MY STEERING TO GET BACK INTO MY LANE. AS IF ONE EXPERIENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, IT HAPPENED AGAIN 9/1/11. THIS TIME ON THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR. THE SAME EXACT EXPERIENCE REPEATED EXCEPT THAT THIS TIME I WAS DRIVING AT 75MPH ON I-25. I EXPECTED TO FIND A RECALL TO THIS DIS-FUNCTIONAL MECHANISM. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THIS HAPPENING ALMOST BACK TO BACK WITHIN A 6 WEEK PERIOD? *TR
THE POWER WINDOW ON THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE JUST ABRUPTLY STOPPED WORKING AND THE WINDOW FELL DOWN INTO THE DOOR. THIS APPEARS TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY FORD. *TR
ALL 4 WINDOWS REGULATORS BROKE WITHIN A SPAN OF 4 MONTHS. WINDOW REGULATORS HAVE A STEEL CABLE WHICH ADHERES TO A PLASTIC PULLEY--WHO DESIGNED THIS POOR COMPATIBILITY? COMMON SENSE WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO WEAR AND TEAR FOR ELECTRIC WINDOWS. VEHICLE IS IN EXCELLENT SHAPE ACCEPT FOR THIS PROBLEM WHICH AS A C…
Read full complaint
ALL 4 WINDOWS REGULATORS BROKE WITHIN A SPAN OF 4 MONTHS. WINDOW REGULATORS HAVE A STEEL CABLE WHICH ADHERES TO A PLASTIC PULLEY--WHO DESIGNED THIS POOR COMPATIBILITY? COMMON SENSE WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO WEAR AND TEAR FOR ELECTRIC WINDOWS. VEHICLE IS IN EXCELLENT SHAPE ACCEPT FOR THIS PROBLEM WHICH AS A CONSUMER IS UNACCEPTABLE DUE TO INFERIOR PRODUCTS USED. ALUMINUM OR ANOTHER TYPE OF METAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PULLEY--DEFINITELY NOT PLASTIC. REPORTED TO FORD--CAN'T AND WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS BUT TELL ME TO TAKE TO FORD DEALER FOR REPAIRS AND PAY AN OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNT FOR THE LABOR AND REGULATOR. I SPOKE WITH A LOCAL FORD SERVICE MANAGER AND HE REVEALED TO ME THAT FORD KNOWS THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH SEVERAL OF THEIR VEHICLES AND ALSO THE LINCOLNS BUT BECAUSE OF THE COST INCURRED BY ISSUING A RECALL THAT THEY CHOSE TO "WASH IT UNDER THE RUG". THIS IS AN UNACCEPTABLE EXCUSE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED. 4 WINDOW REGULATORS IN A 4 MONTH SPAN TO BREAK--SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND BROUGHT TO FORD'S MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN DEPARTMENTS. *KB
IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE THREE WINDOWS IN MY 2004 F-150. THE WINDOWS WOULD JUST FALL INSIDE THE DOOR AND THE MECHANISM NO LONGER WORKED. AS I RESEARCHED ONLINE, I NOTICED THERE WERE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FOR THIS MAKE, MODEL AND YEAR. I FEEL THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RECALL. I HOPE FORD MOTOR COMPANY LOOKS INT…
Read full complaint
IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE THREE WINDOWS IN MY 2004 F-150. THE WINDOWS WOULD JUST FALL INSIDE THE DOOR AND THE MECHANISM NO LONGER WORKED. AS I RESEARCHED ONLINE, I NOTICED THERE WERE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FOR THIS MAKE, MODEL AND YEAR. I FEEL THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RECALL. I HOPE FORD MOTOR COMPANY LOOKS INTO THIS AND WE WILL ALL BE REIMBURSED FOR OUR EXPENSES. THANK YOU. *TR
FAILURE OF SECOND WINDOW REGULATOR IN TWO YEARS. DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THIS TIME AND NEARLY SWERVED OFF THE ROADWAY AFTER I THOUGHT THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR WINDOW HAD BEEN SHOT OUT. TURNS OUT IT WAS THE REGULATOR FAILING. FORD NEEDS TO RECALL THIS PART AS A SAFETY HAZARD BEFORE SOMEBODY IS HURT IN A CRASH CAUSED BY THE F…
Read full complaint
FAILURE OF SECOND WINDOW REGULATOR IN TWO YEARS. DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THIS TIME AND NEARLY SWERVED OFF THE ROADWAY AFTER I THOUGHT THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR WINDOW HAD BEEN SHOT OUT. TURNS OUT IT WAS THE REGULATOR FAILING. FORD NEEDS TO RECALL THIS PART AS A SAFETY HAZARD BEFORE SOMEBODY IS HURT IN A CRASH CAUSED BY THE FAILURE OF THE REGULATORS. FORD KNOWS THEY HAVE A PROBLEM BUT APPARENTLY WILL NOT RECALL OR OFFER A FIX. *TR
Official recalls
511V385000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly:mounting
Jul 29, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN 1997 THROUGH 2003 MODEL YEAR FORD F-150, 2004 MODEL YEAR FORD F-150 HERITAGE, 1997 THROUGH 1999 MODEL YEAR F-250 LESS THAN 8,500 LBS. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING (GVWR), AND 2002 AND 2003 LINCOLN BLACKWOOD VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 20, 1995, THROUGH AUGUST 4, 2004, ORIGINALLY SOLD, OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO ROAD DEICING CHEMICALS MAY CAUSE SEVERE CORROSION OF THE FUEL TANK STRAPS WHICH SECURE THE TANK TO THE VEHICLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT OF THE CORROSION, ONE OR BOTH STRAPS MAY FAIL ALLOWING THE FUEL LINES TO SEPARATE FROM THE TANK, OR IN SOME CASES, CAUSING THE TANK TO CONTACT THE GROUND. EITHER SCENARIO MAY RESULT IN A FUEL LEAK PRESENTING A FIRE HAZARD.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND INSTRUCT THEM TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A FORD OR LINCOLN DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL TANK STRAPS REPLACED WITH STRAPS THAT HAVE INCREASED CORROSION PROTECTION. EARLY IN THIS CAMPAIGN, IF REPLACEMENT STRAPS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, DEALERS MAY INSTALL A CABLE SUPPORT UNDER THE STRAP AS AN INTERIM REPAIR OR A STEEL REINFORCEMENT OVER THE EXISTING STRAP AS A PERMANENT REPAIR. ANY REPAIRS WILL BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332. FORD'S RECALL CAMPAIGN NUMBER IS 11S21
11V107000 · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
Feb 23, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004-2006 F-150 PICK UP TRUCKS AS WELL AS CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2006 LINCOLN MARK LT VEHICLES. IF THE CLOCKSPRING JUMPER WIRE COMES IN CONTACT WITH THE DRIVER SIDE FRONTAL AIR BAG LOWER HORN PLATE, THE WIRE INSULATION MAY BECOME CHAFED, CREATING A POTENTIAL FOR A SHORT CIRCUIT. IF THIS OCCURS THE AIR BAG WARNING LAMP MAY ILLUMINATE INDICATING THAT SERVICE IS REQUIRED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE DRIVER SIDE FRONTAL AIR BAG COULD INADVERTENTLY DEPLOY INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY OR LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL IF OCCURRING WHILE IN MOTION.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND INSTRUCT THEM TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A FORD OR LINCOLN/MERCURY DEALER TO HAVE A NEW CLOCKSPRING JUMPER WIRE INSTALLED THAT INCORPORATES A PROTECTIVE MESH COVER. REPAIRS WILL BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THIS SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON SOME VEHICLES IN MARCH 2011. THE RECALL CAMPAIGN ON THE EXPANDED POPULATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON OR ABOUT MAY 9, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
07V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
04V443000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly:mounting
Sep 13, 2004
ON CERTAIN TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 4.2L, 4.6L AND 5.4L GASOLINE ENGINES, THE FUEL TANK MAY HAVE A DEPRESSION AT THE SEAM BETWEEN THE TOP AND BOTTOM HALVES OF THE TANK. IF A DEPRESSION IS LARGE ENOUGH, FUEL MAY PERMEATE THE FUEL TANK WALL RESULTING IN A FUEL ODOR, ILLUMINATION, OF THE "SERVICE ENGINE SOON" INDICATOR LIGHT, OR A FUEL LEAK.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: FUEL LEAKAGE, IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FUEL TANK. THE RECALL BEGAN SEPTEMBER 17, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
04V200000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
Apr 26, 2004
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS MAY HAVE A FUEL TANK WITH LOCALIZED DEPRESSIONS IN THE FUEL TANK WALL AT THE SEAM BETWEEN TOP AND BOTTOM HALVES OF THE TANK. IF A DEPRESSION IS LARGE ENOUGH, FUEL MAY PERMEATE THE FUEL TANK WALL RESULTING IN A FUEL ODOR, OR THE "SERVICE ENGINE SOON" INDICATOR LIGHT IN THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER MAY ILLUMINATE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF LEFT UNCORRECTED, A FUEL LEAK COULD EVENTUALLY DEVELOP.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FUEL TANK ON THESE VEHICLES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON MAY 6, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-248-0186.
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
4EA11006 · Fuel Tank Strap Failure Due To Corrosion
Opened May 4, 2011 · Closed Aug 19, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly; Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly:mounting; Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly; Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly:mounting
One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and fail (break or separate).If one strap fails, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.In some cases the weight of the tank sufficiently strained the hoses and fittings and caused separation and subsequent fuel leaks from those connections.The fire hazard created by leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.Corrosion of the straps appears to be caused by prolonged exposure to road deicers, frequently road salt, used to treat snow or ice covered roads.States in which large quantities of deicers are applied to roads during the winter season (salt belt states) account for the predominant portion of strap failures.Vehicles in these salt belt states are prone to experience corrosion related failures more frequently and earlier in a vehicle?s life cycle.Ford reports approximately 97 percent of reports it received relating to strap failure involve vehicles that were operated in these high corrosion areas, and 95 percent of the reports to NHTSA involved such vehicles.Approximately one-third of F-150 U.S. production was sold in salt belt states.ODI has included in the above counts reports it has received from consumers and reports it has received from Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's assessment of available information suggests corrosion caused the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to NHTSA, 441 involved one or both straps failing due to corrosion, 353 involved the fuel tank dropping and/or dragging on the ground, and 180 involved fuel leakage.ODI has received four reports of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished, and one incident in which fire destroyed the vehicle and injured its driver.Ford reported the same injury incident and three other unique fire incidents, including two in which the leaking fuel ignited and fire destroyed the vehicle.There were no injuries associated with the three unique Ford incidents.Ford has agreed to conduct a recall to repair the subject vehicles.The recall will cover vehicles that were originally sold or are currently registered in salt belt states (regardless of vehicle age).The vehiclesincluded in the recall are those subject vehicles that are, or have ever been, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or the District of Columbia.Ford's recall action appears to adequately address the problem at this time.The above vehicle population (1,340,349) includes subject vehicles originally delivered or sold in salt belt states.ODI does not know the current or historical locations of all subject vehicles.According to Ford approximately 73% of the recall population is currently registered (a 27% attrition rate).Ford is also recalling certain MY 1997-1999 F-250 vehicles (under 8,500 GVWR), and MY2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood vehicles for the same condition, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million total vehicles
Additional source detail variants (4)
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and fail (break or separate).If one strap fails, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.In some cases the weight of the tank sufficiently strained the hoses and fittings and caused separation and subsequent fuel leaks from those connections.The fire hazard created by leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.Corrosion of the straps appears to be caused by prolonged exposure to road deicers, frequently road salt, used to treat snow or ice covered roads.States in which large quantities of deicers are applied to roads during the winter season (salt belt states) account for the predominant portion of strap failures.Vehicles in these salt belt states are prone to experience corrosion related failures more frequently and earlier in a vehicle?s life cycle.Ford reports approximately 97 percent of reports it received relating to strap failure involve vehicles that were operated in these high corrosion areas, and 95 percent of the reports to NHTSA involved such vehicles.Approximately one-third of F-150 U.S. production was sold in salt belt states.ODI has included in the above counts reports it has received from consumers and reports it has received from Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's assessment of available information suggests corrosion caused the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to NHTSA, 441 involved one or both straps failing due to corrosion, 353 involved the fuel tank dropping and/or dragging on the ground, and 180 involved fuel leakage.ODI has received four reports of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished, and one incident in which fire destroyed the vehicle and injured its driver.Ford reported the same injury incident and three other unique fire incidents, including two in which the leaking fuel ignited and fire destroyed the vehicle.There were no injuries associated with the three unique Ford incidents.Ford has agreed to conduct a recall to repair the subject vehicles.The recall will cover vehicles that were originally sold or are currently registered in salt belt states (regardless of vehicle age).The vehiclesincluded in the recall are those subject vehicles that are, or have ever been, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or the District of Columbia.Ford's recall action appears to adequately address the problem at this time.The above vehicle population (1,340,349) includes subject vehicles originally delivered or sold in salt belt states.ODI does not know the current or historical locations of all subject vehicles.According to Ford approximately 73% of the recall population is currently registered (a 27% attrition rate).Ford is also recalling certain MY 1997-1999 F-250 vehicles (under 8,500 GVWR), and MY2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood vehicles for the same condition, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million total vehicles
Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly:mounting
One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and fail (break or separate).If one strap fails, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.In some cases the weight of the tank sufficiently strained the hoses and fittings and caused separation and subsequent fuel leaks from those connections.The fire hazard created by leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.Corrosion of the straps appears to be caused by prolonged exposure to road deicers, frequently road salt, used to treat snow or ice covered roads.States in which large quantities of deicers are applied to roads during the winter season (salt belt states) account for the predominant portion of strap failures.Vehicles in these salt belt states are prone to experience corrosion related failures more frequently and earlier in a vehicle?s life cycle.Ford reports approximately 97 percent of reports it received relating to strap failure involve vehicles that were operated in these high corrosion areas, and 95 percent of the reports to NHTSA involved such vehicles.Approximately one-third of F-150 U.S. production was sold in salt belt states.ODI has included in the above counts reports it has received from consumers and reports it has received from Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's assessment of available information suggests corrosion caused the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to NHTSA, 441 involved one or both straps failing due to corrosion, 353 involved the fuel tank dropping and/or dragging on the ground, and 180 involved fuel leakage.ODI has received four reports of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished, and one incident in which fire destroyed the vehicle and injured its driver.Ford reported the same injury incident and three other unique fire incidents, including two in which the leaking fuel ignited and fire destroyed the vehicle.There were no injuries associated with the three unique Ford incidents.Ford has agreed to conduct a recall to repair the subject vehicles.The recall will cover vehicles that were originally sold or are currently registered in salt belt states (regardless of vehicle age).The vehiclesincluded in the recall are those subject vehicles that are, or have ever been, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or the District of Columbia.Ford's recall action appears to adequately address the problem at this time.The above vehicle population (1,340,349) includes subject vehicles originally delivered or sold in salt belt states.ODI does not know the current or historical locations of all subject vehicles.According to Ford approximately 73% of the recall population is currently registered (a 27% attrition rate).Ford is also recalling certain MY 1997-1999 F-250 vehicles (under 8,500 GVWR), and MY2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood vehicles for the same condition, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million total vehicles
Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly
One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and fail (break or separate).If one strap fails, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.In some cases the weight of the tank sufficiently strained the hoses and fittings and caused separation and subsequent fuel leaks from those connections.The fire hazard created by leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.Corrosion of the straps appears to be caused by prolonged exposure to road deicers, frequently road salt, used to treat snow or ice covered roads.States in which large quantities of deicers are applied to roads during the winter season (salt belt states) account for the predominant portion of strap failures.Vehicles in these salt belt states are prone to experience corrosion related failures more frequently and earlier in a vehicle?s life cycle.Ford reports approximately 97 percent of reports it received relating to strap failure involve vehicles that were operated in these high corrosion areas, and 95 percent of the reports to NHTSA involved such vehicles.Approximately one-third of F-150 U.S. production was sold in salt belt states.ODI has included in the above counts reports it has received from consumers and reports it has received from Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's assessment of available information suggests corrosion caused the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to NHTSA, 441 involved one or both straps failing due to corrosion, 353 involved the fuel tank dropping and/or dragging on the ground, and 180 involved fuel leakage.ODI has received four reports of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished, and one incident in which fire destroyed the vehicle and injured its driver.Ford reported the same injury incident and three other unique fire incidents, including two in which the leaking fuel ignited and fire destroyed the vehicle.There were no injuries associated with the three unique Ford incidents.Ford has agreed to conduct a recall to repair the subject vehicles.The recall will cover vehicles that were originally sold or are currently registered in salt belt states (regardless of vehicle age).The vehiclesincluded in the recall are those subject vehicles that are, or have ever been, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or the District of Columbia.Ford's recall action appears to adequately address the problem at this time.The above vehicle population (1,340,349) includes subject vehicles originally delivered or sold in salt belt states.ODI does not know the current or historical locations of all subject vehicles.According to Ford approximately 73% of the recall population is currently registered (a 27% attrition rate).Ford is also recalling certain MY 1997-1999 F-250 vehicles (under 8,500 GVWR), and MY2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood vehicles for the same condition, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million total vehicles
Fuel System, Other:storage:tank Assembly:mounting
One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and fail (break or separate).If one strap fails, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.In some cases the weight of the tank sufficiently strained the hoses and fittings and caused separation and subsequent fuel leaks from those connections.The fire hazard created by leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.Corrosion of the straps appears to be caused by prolonged exposure to road deicers, frequently road salt, used to treat snow or ice covered roads.States in which large quantities of deicers are applied to roads during the winter season (salt belt states) account for the predominant portion of strap failures.Vehicles in these salt belt states are prone to experience corrosion related failures more frequently and earlier in a vehicle?s life cycle.Ford reports approximately 97 percent of reports it received relating to strap failure involve vehicles that were operated in these high corrosion areas, and 95 percent of the reports to NHTSA involved such vehicles.Approximately one-third of F-150 U.S. production was sold in salt belt states.ODI has included in the above counts reports it has received from consumers and reports it has received from Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's assessment of available information suggests corrosion caused the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to NHTSA, 441 involved one or both straps failing due to corrosion, 353 involved the fuel tank dropping and/or dragging on the ground, and 180 involved fuel leakage.ODI has received four reports of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished, and one incident in which fire destroyed the vehicle and injured its driver.Ford reported the same injury incident and three other unique fire incidents, including two in which the leaking fuel ignited and fire destroyed the vehicle.There were no injuries associated with the three unique Ford incidents.Ford has agreed to conduct a recall to repair the subject vehicles.The recall will cover vehicles that were originally sold or are currently registered in salt belt states (regardless of vehicle age).The vehiclesincluded in the recall are those subject vehicles that are, or have ever been, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or the District of Columbia.Ford's recall action appears to adequately address the problem at this time.The above vehicle population (1,340,349) includes subject vehicles originally delivered or sold in salt belt states.ODI does not know the current or historical locations of all subject vehicles.According to Ford approximately 73% of the recall population is currently registered (a 27% attrition rate).Ford is also recalling certain MY 1997-1999 F-250 vehicles (under 8,500 GVWR), and MY2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood vehicles for the same condition, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million total vehicles
EA10001 · Inadvertent Airbag Deployment
Opened Jan 13, 2010 · Closed Apr 25, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags; Air Bags:frontal; Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:sensor/control MODULE-INACTIVE
ODI opened this investigation based on reports of inadvertent airbag deployment.Data provided by Ford indicated that the airbag clockspring jumper wire, which is situated inside the steering wheel assembly, was installed in a manner that would allow it to rub (abrade) against a sharp metal edge on the nearby horn plate.Because the horn plate is electrically grounded the abrasion of an airbag wire on the sharp edge could cause a short circuit condition.As a result the airbag light may illuminate and/or the airbag may inadvertently deploy.Inadvertent deployments are most likely to occur during the airbag system's self-diagnostic test that initiates when the ignition switch is turned on.Ford modified the vehicle design in late January 2006 adding a protective tape over the sharp metal edge of the horn plate.Ford made additional design changes on MY 2007 vehicles to the horn plate, the clockspring jumper, and the connector layouts to further address this issue.ODI identified 318 deployment incidents with 121 alleged injury reports from subject vehicles.All but one of the incident and injury reports occurred in vehicles built before the January 2006 modification.In addition, there was one incident and alleged injury reported in the MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles that share the same design. In letters dated February 21 and April 11, 2011, Ford announced a recall of all of the approximately 1.3 million MY 2004-2006 F-150 vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006, the date the initial vehicle modification was made.In addition, approximately 14,000 MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006 will also be recalled.Vehicles built after that date, which contain the modification, are not within the recall scope.Accordingly the investigation is closed.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Air Bags
ODI opened this investigation based on reports of inadvertent airbag deployment.Data provided by Ford indicated that the airbag clockspring jumper wire, which is situated inside the steering wheel assembly, was installed in a manner that would allow it to rub (abrade) against a sharp metal edge on the nearby horn plate.Because the horn plate is electrically grounded the abrasion of an airbag wire on the sharp edge could cause a short circuit condition.As a result the airbag light may illuminate and/or the airbag may inadvertently deploy.Inadvertent deployments are most likely to occur during the airbag system's self-diagnostic test that initiates when the ignition switch is turned on.Ford modified the vehicle design in late January 2006 adding a protective tape over the sharp metal edge of the horn plate.Ford made additional design changes on MY 2007 vehicles to the horn plate, the clockspring jumper, and the connector layouts to further address this issue.ODI identified 318 deployment incidents with 121 alleged injury reports from subject vehicles.All but one of the incident and injury reports occurred in vehicles built before the January 2006 modification.In addition, there was one incident and alleged injury reported in the MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles that share the same design. In letters dated February 21 and April 11, 2011, Ford announced a recall of all of the approximately 1.3 million MY 2004-2006 F-150 vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006, the date the initial vehicle modification was made.In addition, approximately 14,000 MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006 will also be recalled.Vehicles built after that date, which contain the modification, are not within the recall scope.Accordingly the investigation is closed.
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
ODI opened this investigation based on reports of inadvertent airbag deployment.Data provided by Ford indicated that the airbag clockspring jumper wire, which is situated inside the steering wheel assembly, was installed in a manner that would allow it to rub (abrade) against a sharp metal edge on the nearby horn plate.Because the horn plate is electrically grounded the abrasion of an airbag wire on the sharp edge could cause a short circuit condition.As a result the airbag light may illuminate and/or the airbag may inadvertently deploy.Inadvertent deployments are most likely to occur during the airbag system's self-diagnostic test that initiates when the ignition switch is turned on.Ford modified the vehicle design in late January 2006 adding a protective tape over the sharp metal edge of the horn plate.Ford made additional design changes on MY 2007 vehicles to the horn plate, the clockspring jumper, and the connector layouts to further address this issue.ODI identified 318 deployment incidents with 121 alleged injury reports from subject vehicles.All but one of the incident and injury reports occurred in vehicles built before the January 2006 modification.In addition, there was one incident and alleged injury reported in the MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles that share the same design. In letters dated February 21 and April 11, 2011, Ford announced a recall of all of the approximately 1.3 million MY 2004-2006 F-150 vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006, the date the initial vehicle modification was made.In addition, approximately 14,000 MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006 will also be recalled.Vehicles built after that date, which contain the modification, are not within the recall scope.Accordingly the investigation is closed.
Air Bags:frontal
ODI opened this investigation based on reports of inadvertent airbag deployment.Data provided by Ford indicated that the airbag clockspring jumper wire, which is situated inside the steering wheel assembly, was installed in a manner that would allow it to rub (abrade) against a sharp metal edge on the nearby horn plate.Because the horn plate is electrically grounded the abrasion of an airbag wire on the sharp edge could cause a short circuit condition.As a result the airbag light may illuminate and/or the airbag may inadvertently deploy.Inadvertent deployments are most likely to occur during the airbag system's self-diagnostic test that initiates when the ignition switch is turned on.Ford modified the vehicle design in late January 2006 adding a protective tape over the sharp metal edge of the horn plate.Ford made additional design changes on MY 2007 vehicles to the horn plate, the clockspring jumper, and the connector layouts to further address this issue.ODI identified 318 deployment incidents with 121 alleged injury reports from subject vehicles.All but one of the incident and injury reports occurred in vehicles built before the January 2006 modification.In addition, there was one incident and alleged injury reported in the MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles that share the same design. In letters dated February 21 and April 11, 2011, Ford announced a recall of all of the approximately 1.3 million MY 2004-2006 F-150 vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006, the date the initial vehicle modification was made.In addition, approximately 14,000 MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006 will also be recalled.Vehicles built after that date, which contain the modification, are not within the recall scope.Accordingly the investigation is closed.
Air Bags:frontal:sensor/control MODULE-INACTIVE
ODI opened this investigation based on reports of inadvertent airbag deployment.Data provided by Ford indicated that the airbag clockspring jumper wire, which is situated inside the steering wheel assembly, was installed in a manner that would allow it to rub (abrade) against a sharp metal edge on the nearby horn plate.Because the horn plate is electrically grounded the abrasion of an airbag wire on the sharp edge could cause a short circuit condition.As a result the airbag light may illuminate and/or the airbag may inadvertently deploy.Inadvertent deployments are most likely to occur during the airbag system's self-diagnostic test that initiates when the ignition switch is turned on.Ford modified the vehicle design in late January 2006 adding a protective tape over the sharp metal edge of the horn plate.Ford made additional design changes on MY 2007 vehicles to the horn plate, the clockspring jumper, and the connector layouts to further address this issue.ODI identified 318 deployment incidents with 121 alleged injury reports from subject vehicles.All but one of the incident and injury reports occurred in vehicles built before the January 2006 modification.In addition, there was one incident and alleged injury reported in the MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles that share the same design. In letters dated February 21 and April 11, 2011, Ford announced a recall of all of the approximately 1.3 million MY 2004-2006 F-150 vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006, the date the initial vehicle modification was made.In addition, approximately 14,000 MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006 will also be recalled.Vehicles built after that date, which contain the modification, are not within the recall scope.Accordingly the investigation is closed.
PE08063 · Cng Regulator Leak
Opened Oct 31, 2008 · Closed Feb 27, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Other; Fuel System, Other:delivery; Fuel System, Other:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings; Fuel System, Other:fuel Injection System
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPLAINANTS AND FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCKS AND ARE NATURAL GAS VEHICLES (NGV) THAT ARE FUELED BY GASOLINE OR COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS.THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED REPORTS ALLEGING IMPROPER OPERATION OF THE NATURAL GAS FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ALLOWING RELEASE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS OF NATURAL GAS INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT.FORD REPORTS THAT THE REGULATOR CONTAINS AN OVER PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE THAT WILL VENT NATURAL GAS SHOULD THE PRESSURE EXCEED A SET THRESHOLD.THE COMPLAINT REPORTS AND DATA REVIEWED BY THE AGENCY INDICATE THAT AN IMPROPERLY OPERATING PRESSURE REGULATOR CAN RESULT IN AN OVERPRESSURE CONDITION AND ACTIVATE THE REGULATOR PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE.THE RELEASED NATURAL GAS IS DIRECTED THROUGH A VENT HOSE THAT DISCHARGES THE NATURAL GAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL HOUSE AND AWAY FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT'S EXTREMELY HOT AREAS/SURFACES.OWNERS ARE NORMALLY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM BY THE PRESENCE OF AN ILLUMINATED WARNING LIGHT INSIDE THE VEHICLE, ODOR OF NATURAL GAS OR THE SOUND OF VENTING GAS.WHEN THE OPERATOR TURNS THE ENGINE OFF, THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY TANK SOLENOID WILL CLOSE AND THE REGULATOR WILL NOT RELEASE NATURAL GAS.AT VEHICLE RESTART, THE SOLENOID VALVE WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE AND THE VEHICLE WILL ONLY OPERATE IN THE GASOLINE MODE.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Fuel System, Other:delivery
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPLAINANTS AND FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCKS AND ARE NATURAL GAS VEHICLES (NGV) THAT ARE FUELED BY GASOLINE OR COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS.THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED REPORTS ALLEGING IMPROPER OPERATION OF THE NATURAL GAS FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ALLOWING RELEASE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS OF NATURAL GAS INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT.FORD REPORTS THAT THE REGULATOR CONTAINS AN OVER PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE THAT WILL VENT NATURAL GAS SHOULD THE PRESSURE EXCEED A SET THRESHOLD.THE COMPLAINT REPORTS AND DATA REVIEWED BY THE AGENCY INDICATE THAT AN IMPROPERLY OPERATING PRESSURE REGULATOR CAN RESULT IN AN OVERPRESSURE CONDITION AND ACTIVATE THE REGULATOR PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE.THE RELEASED NATURAL GAS IS DIRECTED THROUGH A VENT HOSE THAT DISCHARGES THE NATURAL GAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL HOUSE AND AWAY FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT'S EXTREMELY HOT AREAS/SURFACES.OWNERS ARE NORMALLY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM BY THE PRESENCE OF AN ILLUMINATED WARNING LIGHT INSIDE THE VEHICLE, ODOR OF NATURAL GAS OR THE SOUND OF VENTING GAS.WHEN THE OPERATOR TURNS THE ENGINE OFF, THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY TANK SOLENOID WILL CLOSE AND THE REGULATOR WILL NOT RELEASE NATURAL GAS.AT VEHICLE RESTART, THE SOLENOID VALVE WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE AND THE VEHICLE WILL ONLY OPERATE IN THE GASOLINE MODE.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fuel System, Other:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPLAINANTS AND FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCKS AND ARE NATURAL GAS VEHICLES (NGV) THAT ARE FUELED BY GASOLINE OR COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS.THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED REPORTS ALLEGING IMPROPER OPERATION OF THE NATURAL GAS FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ALLOWING RELEASE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS OF NATURAL GAS INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT.FORD REPORTS THAT THE REGULATOR CONTAINS AN OVER PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE THAT WILL VENT NATURAL GAS SHOULD THE PRESSURE EXCEED A SET THRESHOLD.THE COMPLAINT REPORTS AND DATA REVIEWED BY THE AGENCY INDICATE THAT AN IMPROPERLY OPERATING PRESSURE REGULATOR CAN RESULT IN AN OVERPRESSURE CONDITION AND ACTIVATE THE REGULATOR PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE.THE RELEASED NATURAL GAS IS DIRECTED THROUGH A VENT HOSE THAT DISCHARGES THE NATURAL GAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL HOUSE AND AWAY FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT'S EXTREMELY HOT AREAS/SURFACES.OWNERS ARE NORMALLY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM BY THE PRESENCE OF AN ILLUMINATED WARNING LIGHT INSIDE THE VEHICLE, ODOR OF NATURAL GAS OR THE SOUND OF VENTING GAS.WHEN THE OPERATOR TURNS THE ENGINE OFF, THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY TANK SOLENOID WILL CLOSE AND THE REGULATOR WILL NOT RELEASE NATURAL GAS.AT VEHICLE RESTART, THE SOLENOID VALVE WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE AND THE VEHICLE WILL ONLY OPERATE IN THE GASOLINE MODE.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fuel System, Other
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPLAINANTS AND FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCKS AND ARE NATURAL GAS VEHICLES (NGV) THAT ARE FUELED BY GASOLINE OR COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS.THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED REPORTS ALLEGING IMPROPER OPERATION OF THE NATURAL GAS FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ALLOWING RELEASE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS OF NATURAL GAS INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT.FORD REPORTS THAT THE REGULATOR CONTAINS AN OVER PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE THAT WILL VENT NATURAL GAS SHOULD THE PRESSURE EXCEED A SET THRESHOLD.THE COMPLAINT REPORTS AND DATA REVIEWED BY THE AGENCY INDICATE THAT AN IMPROPERLY OPERATING PRESSURE REGULATOR CAN RESULT IN AN OVERPRESSURE CONDITION AND ACTIVATE THE REGULATOR PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE.THE RELEASED NATURAL GAS IS DIRECTED THROUGH A VENT HOSE THAT DISCHARGES THE NATURAL GAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL HOUSE AND AWAY FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT'S EXTREMELY HOT AREAS/SURFACES.OWNERS ARE NORMALLY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM BY THE PRESENCE OF AN ILLUMINATED WARNING LIGHT INSIDE THE VEHICLE, ODOR OF NATURAL GAS OR THE SOUND OF VENTING GAS.WHEN THE OPERATOR TURNS THE ENGINE OFF, THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY TANK SOLENOID WILL CLOSE AND THE REGULATOR WILL NOT RELEASE NATURAL GAS.AT VEHICLE RESTART, THE SOLENOID VALVE WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE AND THE VEHICLE WILL ONLY OPERATE IN THE GASOLINE MODE.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fuel System, Other:fuel Injection System
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPLAINANTS AND FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCKS AND ARE NATURAL GAS VEHICLES (NGV) THAT ARE FUELED BY GASOLINE OR COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS.THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED REPORTS ALLEGING IMPROPER OPERATION OF THE NATURAL GAS FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ALLOWING RELEASE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS OF NATURAL GAS INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT.FORD REPORTS THAT THE REGULATOR CONTAINS AN OVER PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE THAT WILL VENT NATURAL GAS SHOULD THE PRESSURE EXCEED A SET THRESHOLD.THE COMPLAINT REPORTS AND DATA REVIEWED BY THE AGENCY INDICATE THAT AN IMPROPERLY OPERATING PRESSURE REGULATOR CAN RESULT IN AN OVERPRESSURE CONDITION AND ACTIVATE THE REGULATOR PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE.THE RELEASED NATURAL GAS IS DIRECTED THROUGH A VENT HOSE THAT DISCHARGES THE NATURAL GAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL HOUSE AND AWAY FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT'S EXTREMELY HOT AREAS/SURFACES.OWNERS ARE NORMALLY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM BY THE PRESENCE OF AN ILLUMINATED WARNING LIGHT INSIDE THE VEHICLE, ODOR OF NATURAL GAS OR THE SOUND OF VENTING GAS.WHEN THE OPERATOR TURNS THE ENGINE OFF, THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY TANK SOLENOID WILL CLOSE AND THE REGULATOR WILL NOT RELEASE NATURAL GAS.AT VEHICLE RESTART, THE SOLENOID VALVE WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE AND THE VEHICLE WILL ONLY OPERATE IN THE GASOLINE MODE.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
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.
Illustration