IllustrationWHILE DRIVING THE METAL PIECE HOLDING THE DRIVER SIDE SHOCK ABSORBER TORE AWAY FROM THE WALL IT WAS MOUNTED TO. THE PIECE THEN TORE INTO THE INNER WHEEL WELL CUTTING IT LIKE RIBBON. THE DAMAGE WAS APPARENTLY CAUSED BY HITTING A BUMP IN ROUGH ROAD BUT THERE WAS NO SINGLE HIT OF A LARGE POT HOLE. JUST NORMAL DRIVING. *TR
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mustang Cobra years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 11 of 14 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Suspension. Review the 5 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Seat Belts. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports
What owners actually said
14 reportsHIGH IDLE SPEED AFTER USING THE CRUISE CONTROL ON 5.11.2008. THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN ON-GOING WITHOUT THE USE OF THE CRUISE CONTROL. THE CRUISE CONTROL CABLE WAS SOON DETACHED AND THE CONDITION DISAPPEARED. THE IDLE IS NOW FINE,BUT CANNOT USE THE CRUISE CONTROL BECAUSE THE CONDITION WILL RETURN. THE PROBLEM IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE…
Read full complaint
HIGH IDLE SPEED AFTER USING THE CRUISE CONTROL ON 5.11.2008. THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN ON-GOING WITHOUT THE USE OF THE CRUISE CONTROL. THE CRUISE CONTROL CABLE WAS SOON DETACHED AND THE CONDITION DISAPPEARED. THE IDLE IS NOW FINE,BUT CANNOT USE THE CRUISE CONTROL BECAUSE THE CONDITION WILL RETURN. THE PROBLEM IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FORD RECALL NUMBER 99V-062.001, BUT AFTER CONTACTING FORD SERVICE LINE ON 5.25.2008, I WAS TOLD MY VEHICLE (1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA 4.6 4VDOHC) WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE COLLAPSED ONTO THE FRONT TIRE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE LOCK NUT THAT HELD THE FRONT WHEEL SPINDLE ASSEMBLY DETACHED BECAUSE IT WAS IMPROPERLY TIGHTENED AND FELL OFF . THE DEALER REPLACED THE FRONT LOWER BALL JOINT ASS…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE COLLAPSED ONTO THE FRONT TIRE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE LOCK NUT THAT HELD THE FRONT WHEEL SPINDLE ASSEMBLY DETACHED BECAUSE IT WAS IMPROPERLY TIGHTENED AND FELL OFF . THE DEALER REPLACED THE FRONT LOWER BALL JOINT ASSEMBLY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 4,165 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 4,170. UPDATED 12/12/2007 *BF
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE PASSENGER'S SIDE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR WILL NOT PULL OUT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHICH DETERMINED THE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN ALERTED, NO REPAIRS WERE MADE.
A SPARK PLUG BLEW IN MY 99 MUSTANG COBRA. IT ONLY HAS 41,800 MILES. THE SPARK PLUGS WERE LAST CHANGED 3 YEARS AGO. I HAVE NOT HAD IT REPAIRED YET. THE THREADS ARE STRIPPED AND THE IGNITION COIL WAS DESTROYED. I BOUGHT A NEW IGNITION COIL AT AN AUTO PARTS STORE. *NM
ACCELERATOR STICKING WOT ON CARPET ON 1999 MUSTANG COBRA COUPE. DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE. CAR WAS TRADED. I THOUGHT IT WAS SPECIFIC TO MY CAR. I BROKE 3 ACCELERATOR PEDALS DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD. I THOUGHT THE PEDAL WAS JUST CHEAP. NOW REALIZE THE CARPET BEING TORN WAS DUE TO PEDAL AND NOT ME BASED ON SOME OF THE INF…
Read full complaint
ACCELERATOR STICKING WOT ON CARPET ON 1999 MUSTANG COBRA COUPE. DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE. CAR WAS TRADED. I THOUGHT IT WAS SPECIFIC TO MY CAR. I BROKE 3 ACCELERATOR PEDALS DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD. I THOUGHT THE PEDAL WAS JUST CHEAP. NOW REALIZE THE CARPET BEING TORN WAS DUE TO PEDAL AND NOT ME BASED ON SOME OF THE INFORMATION I HAVE SEEN ON THE NET.
THE SEAT BELT FRONT RETRACTOR ON OUR 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA IS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. IT HAD HAPPEND ABOUT 1 YEAR AND 3 MONTHS AGO AND THE FORD DEALERSHIP HAD FIXED IT AT NO COST THAT TIME. NOW IT IS NOT FUNCTIONING AGAIN. I HAVE CALLED FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THE FORD DEALERSHIP BOTH WHICH ARE TELLING US THAT IT IS OUT OF WA…
Read full complaint
THE SEAT BELT FRONT RETRACTOR ON OUR 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA IS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. IT HAD HAPPEND ABOUT 1 YEAR AND 3 MONTHS AGO AND THE FORD DEALERSHIP HAD FIXED IT AT NO COST THAT TIME. NOW IT IS NOT FUNCTIONING AGAIN. I HAVE CALLED FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THE FORD DEALERSHIP BOTH WHICH ARE TELLING US THAT IT IS OUT OF WARRANTY AND WILL BE AT OUR COST. THIS IS A PROBLEM DUE TO BEING PART OF THE SAFETY RESTRAINT OF THE VEHICLE, AND SHOULD BE FIXED AT NO CHARGE. IT WAS NOT FIXED PROPERLY THE FIRST TIME AND FORD SHOULD TAKE CARE THE ISSUE.
PURCHASED A USED 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA SVT WITH 29,000 MILES ON THE ODOMETER. SINCE OWNING THE CAR, I HAD SEVERAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS FAULTY CHASIS WIRING SYSTEM, CAR SHUTDOWN WHEN HOT AND WOULD NOT RESTART, FAULTY IAC VALVE AND THROTTLE POSITION SENSOR HAD TO BE REPLACED, NO BACK-UP LIGHTS DUE TO MANUAL TRANSMISSION REVERSE SWIT…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED A USED 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA SVT WITH 29,000 MILES ON THE ODOMETER. SINCE OWNING THE CAR, I HAD SEVERAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS FAULTY CHASIS WIRING SYSTEM, CAR SHUTDOWN WHEN HOT AND WOULD NOT RESTART, FAULTY IAC VALVE AND THROTTLE POSITION SENSOR HAD TO BE REPLACED, NO BACK-UP LIGHTS DUE TO MANUAL TRANSMISSION REVERSE SWITCH FAILURE, AND BRAKE LIGHTS SWITCH FAILURE. AT APPROXIMATELY 55,000 MILES I HAD NOTICED THE CAR HAD RAN LOW ON COOLANT AND EXCESSIVE OIL CONSUMPTION BETWEEN OIL CHANGE INTERVALS. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT BEGAN TO ILLUMINATE AT 58,000 MILES ALONG WITH BLUE SMOKE EMANATING FROM THE DUAL EXHAUST. MY MECHANIC REPLACED BOTH THE IAC VALVE AND THROTTLE POSITION SENSOR CITING THE BLUE SMOKE WAS ATTRIBUTED TO A RICH IDLE CONDITION. A FEW MONTHS LATER, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT RETURNED. AN EXHAUST LEAK WAS DETECTED AND CORRECTED AT THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD AND HEADER CONNECTION POINT. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WENT AWAY, HOWEVER, THE RICH IDLE CONDITION REMAINED. AT A LITTLE OVER 64,000 WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK THE CAR SUDDENLY STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF CITY TRAFFIC. WHEN I RESTARTED THE CAR, A LOUD NOISE CAME FROM UNDER-THE-HOOD NOT UNLIKE THE SOUND OF A THROWN ROD. I HAD THE MUSTANG TOWED TO MY MECHANIC WHOM DETERMINED FROM THE 3.5 QUARTS OF OIL SLUDGE RECOVERED FROM THE ENGINE, AND THE MILK LIKE FLUID IN THE VALVE COVER PAN, THE VEHICLE HEAD GASKET FAILURE WAS THE MOST PROBABLE CAUSE OF THE EVENT. ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY, I INTEND TO APPROACH FORD MOTOR COMPANY FOR SOME LEVEL OF RELIEF SINCE I AM NOW CONVINCED THE HEAD GASKET FAILURE WAS A SYSTEMIC ENGINE PROBLEM DURING THE 1980'S AND 1990'S. *AK
FRONT END SHOOK DUE TO DEFECTIV EBALL JOINTS, AND BLUE SMOKE CAME OUT OF THE TAIL PIPE. *AK
HELLO, TSB 99S26 STATES THAT THERE IS A RECALL ON THE SAFTEY BELT RETRACTOR ON THE 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA. I HAVE HAD THE DRIVERS SIDE REPAIRED AT MY COST THEN FOUND THIS RECALL NOTE. HOWEVER THE DEALER AND FORD BOTH CLAIN THAT THIS IS NOT A RECALL FOR MY PARTICULAR VIN#. I FIND THIS HARD TO BELIEVE AS NOW THE PASSENGER SIDE SE…
Read full complaint
HELLO, TSB 99S26 STATES THAT THERE IS A RECALL ON THE SAFTEY BELT RETRACTOR ON THE 1999 FORD MUSTANG COBRA. I HAVE HAD THE DRIVERS SIDE REPAIRED AT MY COST THEN FOUND THIS RECALL NOTE. HOWEVER THE DEALER AND FORD BOTH CLAIN THAT THIS IS NOT A RECALL FOR MY PARTICULAR VIN#. I FIND THIS HARD TO BELIEVE AS NOW THE PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR IS NOT WORKING. IS THERE A WAY TO FIND OUT IF MY CAR IS COVERED BY THIS SAFETY ISSUE? FORD AND THE DEALER STATE THAT THEY DO NOT SHOW ANYTHING AND THAT THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT THAT CAN HELP OUT.THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. JOHN MILLER. *AK
Official recalls
101V121000 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
Apr 11, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. IF THE BALL JOINT ASSEMBLY IN THE REAR KNUCKLE, WHERE THE LOWER CONTROL ARM ATTACHES, IS DISPLACED LONGITUDINALLY FROM ITS INSTALLED POSITION, IT CAN CAUSE HIGHER STRESS LEVELS IN THE KNUCKLE CASTING. IF THIS OCCURS, THE CASTING COULD FRACTURE, ALLOWING THE CORNER OF THE VEHICLE TO DROP, AND THE LOWER CONTROL ARM COULD CONTACT THE INSIDE OF THE REAR WHEEL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN SOME CASES, DIRECTIONAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE COULD BE REDUCED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE BOTH REAR SUSPENSION KNUCKLES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN APRIL 19, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.