NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Tires complaints
18 reportsClear category filter88,154 miles · Jun 6, 2008
Tires
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD F-250 SD. THE VEHICLE HAS FIRESTONE LT23585R16 TIRES. WHILE PULLING OUT OF A MEINEKE DEALER, THE CONTACT HEARD A NOISE COMING FROM HIS TIRES. THE TIRES DEFLATED AND THEN FLATTENED. HE DID NOT DRIVE OVER A POTHOLE OR ANY OTHER ROAD HAZARD. HE REMOVED THE TIRES FROM THE VEHICLE TO GET THEM PATC…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD F-250 SD. THE VEHICLE HAS FIRESTONE LT23585R16 TIRES. WHILE PULLING OUT OF A MEINEKE DEALER, THE CONTACT HEARD A NOISE COMING FROM HIS TIRES. THE TIRES DEFLATED AND THEN FLATTENED. HE DID NOT DRIVE OVER A POTHOLE OR ANY OTHER ROAD HAZARD. HE REMOVED THE TIRES FROM THE VEHICLE TO GET THEM PATCHED; HOWEVER, THERE WAS AN INCH LONG CRACK ON THE BOTTOM OF THE TREAD ON THE SIDEWALLS. THEREFORE, THE TIRES COULD NOT BE REPAIRED AND COULD NO LONGER BE USED. ON OCTOBER 26, 2007, HE PURCHASED THREE NEW TIRES FOR HIS VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 88,154.
NHTSA ODI #10230184
54,000 miles · Jun 11, 2007
Tires
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD F-250 SUPER DUTY TRUCK. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH THE TREAD SEPARATED COMPLETELY FROM THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE. THERE WAS $2100 WORTH OF DAMAGE TO THE BED OF THE TRUCK CAUSED BY THE TREAD SEPARATION. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 54,000. THE MANUFACTURER WILL REPLACE THE TIRE ONCE THE C…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD F-250 SUPER DUTY TRUCK. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH THE TREAD SEPARATED COMPLETELY FROM THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE. THERE WAS $2100 WORTH OF DAMAGE TO THE BED OF THE TRUCK CAUSED BY THE TREAD SEPARATION. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 54,000. THE MANUFACTURER WILL REPLACE THE TIRE ONCE THE CONTACT SUBMITS INSURANCE INFORMATION. THE PURCHASE DATE AND ENGINE SIZE ARE NOT AVAILABLE. SEVERAL OF THE TIRE DETAILS ARE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WERE 54000.
NHTSA ODI #10192938
16,100 miles · Dec 13, 2006
Tires
THREE CONTINENTAL GENERAL TIRE AMERITRAK'S HAVE FAILED ON MY 2003 F250 SUPERCAB (TIRE TREAD SEPARATION) SINCE JAN. 2006 AND NON-RESPONSIVE CONTINENTAL TIRE HAS FAILED TO CONTACT ME, AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD, TO EXPEDITE RESOLUTION OF MY CLAIM! HERE ARE THE ACTUAL FACTS: IN JAN 06, THE FIRST TIRE, FRONT PASSENGER, FAILED WITH TRE…
Read full complaint
THREE CONTINENTAL GENERAL TIRE AMERITRAK'S HAVE FAILED ON MY 2003 F250 SUPERCAB (TIRE TREAD SEPARATION) SINCE JAN. 2006 AND NON-RESPONSIVE CONTINENTAL TIRE HAS FAILED TO CONTACT ME, AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD, TO EXPEDITE RESOLUTION OF MY CLAIM! HERE ARE THE ACTUAL FACTS: IN JAN 06, THE FIRST TIRE, FRONT PASSENGER, FAILED WITH TREAD SEPARATED FROM TIRE WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. DURING DEALER VEHICLE/TIRE DAMAGE INSPECTION, IT REVEALED THE OTHER FRONT TIRE SHOWED SIGNS OF TREAD SEPARATION. UNDER WARRANTY, THE DEALER REPAIRED ALL BODY DAMAGE (OVER $3000.00) AND REPLACED THE TWO FAILED FRONT TIRES. MY VEHICLE HAD 9600 MILES ON IT. THE DEALER DID THE RIGHT THING. ON 10-26-06 AT 1:33 PM THE 3RD "GENERAL TIRE AMERITRAK" TIRE TREAD ON MY 2003 F250 SUPERCAB SEPARATED, CAUSING OVER $3000.00 IN BODY DAMAGE & AT 16,194 MILES ON THE VEHICLE/TIRES. ON 11-20-06, CONTINENTAL TIRE, NORTH CAROLINA, RECEIVED MY CLAIM (#6300003). ON 11-27-06, CONTINENTAL TIRE RECEIVED THE FAILED TIRE. ON 11-28-06, I E-MAILED AN INQUIRY TO CONTINENTAL. ON 11-29-06, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AND THE UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE STATED I SHOULD HEAR SOMETHING WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK. IT IS NOW 12-13-06 AND I HAVE HEARD NOTHING. MY VEHICLE REMAINS DAMAGED, AND IT IS UNBELIEVABLE TO ME THAT CONTINENTAL IS PERMITTED TO SELL DEFECTIVE "GENERAL" TIRES AND NOT EXPEDITIOUSLY SETTLE CLAIMS STEMMING FROM THOSE DEFECTIVE TIRE FAILURES. IT'S PAST TIME FOR CONTINENTAL TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND RESTORE MY VEHICLE BACK TO PRE-DAMAGE CONDITION. SINCE TIRE TREAD SEPARATION HAS BEEN WELL-ESTABLISHED, HISTORICALLY, CONTINENTAL NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE AFTER-AFFECTS OF THEIR DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS . THESE TIRES ARE DANGEROUS!!! I WAS DRIVING ON BOTH OCCASIONS. I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. CONTINENTAL IS DRAGGING THEIR FEET ON SETTLING THE DAMAGES. THESE TIRES SHOULD NOT BE ON THE MARKET! HOW CAN CONTINENTAL CONDUCT BUSINESS AS USUAL AND NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY FAILURES IN THEIR PRODUCT? *JB
NHTSA ODI #10176050
25,891 miles · Nov 6, 2006
Tires
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 50 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER TIRE BLEW CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO JOLT BACKWARDS. THIS CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE WHEEL WELL. THE SPARE TIRE WAS INSTALLED AND THEN THE TIRE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP. THERE WAS BODY DAMAGE REPAIRED. LATER, WHILE TRAVELING 55 MPH THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHIMMY UP AN…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 50 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER TIRE BLEW CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO JOLT BACKWARDS. THIS CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE WHEEL WELL. THE SPARE TIRE WAS INSTALLED AND THEN THE TIRE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP. THERE WAS BODY DAMAGE REPAIRED. LATER, WHILE TRAVELING 55 MPH THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHIMMY UP AND DOWN THEN LEFT TO RIGHT. THE DRIVER SIDE FRONT TIRE BLEW OUT, THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER AND WHEEL WELL DAMAGE OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP; THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN AT THE DEALERSHIP SINCE THE INCIDENT IN SEPTEMBER. THE MANUFACTURER OF THE TIRE WAS ALERTED. THE TIRES WERE SENT TO THE MANUFACTURER AND IT WAS DETERMINED THE BLOWOUTS WERE A RESULT OF IMPACT DAMAGE. UPDATED 07/17/07. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10172764
64,000 miles · Aug 15, 2006
Tires
MY WIFE AND I WERE TRAVELING IN OUR 2003 FORD F-250 SUPER DUTY LONG-BED PICKUP WITH 4 FIRESTONE STEELTEX R4S TIRES FILLED TO ABOUT 70PSI (COLD). THE TRUCK WAS CARRYING A LIGHT 8.5' POP-UP TRUCK-CAMPER (2500LBS) AND PULLING A SMALL 18' OPEN-BOW SKI BOAT (2300LBS) ON A SINGLE-AXLE TRAILER (850LBS - MEASURED TONGUE WEIGHT OF BOAT …
Read full complaint
MY WIFE AND I WERE TRAVELING IN OUR 2003 FORD F-250 SUPER DUTY LONG-BED PICKUP WITH 4 FIRESTONE STEELTEX R4S TIRES FILLED TO ABOUT 70PSI (COLD). THE TRUCK WAS CARRYING A LIGHT 8.5' POP-UP TRUCK-CAMPER (2500LBS) AND PULLING A SMALL 18' OPEN-BOW SKI BOAT (2300LBS) ON A SINGLE-AXLE TRAILER (850LBS - MEASURED TONGUE WEIGHT OF BOAT & TRAILER = 260 LBS. WE BEGAN FROM AN RV PARK IN RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA, AT APPROXIMATELY 10:30 AM, NORTHBOUND ON INTERSTATE 5. TRAFFIC MODERATE AND WEATHER WAS CLEAR, DRY APPROXIMATELY 95 DEG F. THIRTY MINUTES LATER, WE WERE ABOUT 1 MILE SOUTH OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA, DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 58 MPH IN THE RIGHT LANE, WHEN THE TRUCK SUDDENLY BEGAN TO SHUDDER. SECONDS LATER THERE WAS A LOUD THUD, AND ALL INDICATIONS OF A RIGHT REAR BLOWOUT. I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY PULL ONTO THE SHOULDER AND STOP. INVESTIGATION REVEALED A RIGHT REAR TIRE FAILURE. THE TREAD WAS SEPARATED FROM THE SIDEWALL AND ALL BUT WRAPPED AROUND THE AXLE. THE MUD FLAP AND WELL LINING WAS GONE. THE CHROME WHEEL-WELL TRIM WAS MANGLED, THE BED SIDE-PANEL SUPPORT ARM WAS RIPPED AWAY FROM THE BED BODY, AND THE OUTSIDE WALL OF THE TRUCK BED WAS FOLDED UNDER AND BENT AROUND THE EXHAUST PIPE. THERE WERE NUMEROUS SCRATCHES AND BLACK MARKS ALL OVER THE OUTSIDE BED BODY AND BUMPER. LATER INSPECTION REVEALED THAT THE RIGHT REAR SHOCK MOUNT WAS OUT OF ALIGNMENT AND THE SHOCK JAMMED CLOSED. AFTER REMOVING THE RIPPED TREAD, BLOWN TIRE AND OTHER BROKEN PIECES, I INSTALLED THE SPARE. WE WERE ABLE TO SAFELY PROCEED TO A NEARBY LES SCHWAB TIRE STORE A FEW MILES AWAY. I DECIDED THAT I COULD NOT TRUST THE REMAINING TIRES, SO I PURCHASED FOUR NEW TIRES, NEW REAR SHOCKS AND HAD THE SHOCK MOUNT REPAIRED AT A TOTAL COST OF $1000. I ASKED SEVERAL TECHNICIANS AS WELL AS THE TIRE STORE MANAGER TO INSPECT THE FAILED TIRE. THEY ALL AGREED THAT THE BLOWN TIRE APPEARED TO FAIL AS A RESULT OF TREAD SEPARATION, RATHER THAN A PUNCTURE OR SIDEWALL FAILURE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10165587
60,000 miles · Jul 2, 2006
Tires
TREAD SEPARATED FROM TIRE CAUSING A BIG DENT IN FENDER AND CAUSED ME TO LEAVE THE HIGHWAY AT A HIGH SPEED. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE SAME PROBLEM THAT FIRESTONE HAD WITH THEIR TIRES. I STILL HAVE THE TIRE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT FOR STUDY (GENERAL TIRE). *NM
NHTSA ODI #10161253
200 miles · May 17, 2004
Tires
ALL 4 TIRES HAD VERY POOR TRACTION WHICH RESULTED IN THE TRUCK SKIDDING ON WET ROADS. A TIRE SHOP INDICATED THE PROBLEM OCCURRED BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE RIBS OF THE TIRES HAD NO GROOVES IN THEM, SO THE RAIN, ETC., COULD DRAIN. THE LIQUID WAS TRAPPED, WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO HYDRO-PLANE. THE DEALERSHIP IS AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT I…
Read full complaint
ALL 4 TIRES HAD VERY POOR TRACTION WHICH RESULTED IN THE TRUCK SKIDDING ON WET ROADS. A TIRE SHOP INDICATED THE PROBLEM OCCURRED BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE RIBS OF THE TIRES HAD NO GROOVES IN THEM, SO THE RAIN, ETC., COULD DRAIN. THE LIQUID WAS TRAPPED, WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO HYDRO-PLANE. THE DEALERSHIP IS AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT IS NOT PROVIDING ANY ASSISTANCE. THESE ARE LOAD RANGE E TIRES. *JB *NM
NHTSA ODI #10064793
35,000 miles · May 27, 2003
Tires
TIRES ARE BUBBLING ON THE SIDEWALL. DEALER NOTIFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10021547
Official recalls
4Jul 13, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.
Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.
Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Oct 13, 2009
FORD IS RECALLING MODEL YEARS 1995-2003 WINDSTAR, 2000-2003 EXCURSION DIESEL, 1993-1997 AND 1999-2003 F-250 SD THROUGH F-550 SD DIESEL, 1992-2003 E-150 THROUGH E-550, 1995-2002 EXPLORER, 1997 AND 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, 1995-1997 AND 2001-2003 RANGER, AND 1994 F53 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS). THE SCDS MAY LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS THAT DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS IN LINE WITH THE SCDS. ON 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES WITH A LEAKING SCDS, DEALERS WILL ALSO INSPECT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE CONNECTOR AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. REPAIRS WILL BE COMPLETED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 27, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
Dec 5, 2007
ON CERTAIN HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 7.3L DIESEL ENGINES, THE CAMSHAFT POSITION SENSOR LOCATED ON THE ENGINE OF THE VEHICLE MAY FUNCTION INTERMITTENTLY, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN AN ENGINE STALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE STALL, A CRASH COULD RESULT WITHOUT WARNING.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE SENSOR AND REPLACE IT WITH AN IMPROVED CAMSHAFT POSITION SENSOR FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON DECEMBER 29, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Mar 6, 2007
ON CERTAIN TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL, GASOLINE OR NATURAL GAS ENGINES, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: OVERHEATING COULD RESULT IN SMOKE, BURN, OR AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS INTO THE SPEED CONTROL SYSTEM FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON MARCH 12, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. (NOTE: ALSO SEE RECALLS 05V017, 05V388, AND 06V286)
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
5EA06012 · 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.
Illustration