NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
11 reports115,000 miles · Feb 16, 2011
Seat Belts
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER SEAT BELTS MALFUNCTIONED AND WOULD NOT SECURE ANYONE SITTING IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT SEAT BELTS FOR THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER SEAT BELTS MALFUNCTIONED AND WOULD NOT SECURE ANYONE SITTING IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT SEAT BELTS FOR THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 115,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10382999
90,050 miles · Jun 2, 2009
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel System, Gasoline
WE TOOK OUR 1998 6 CYLINDER MUSTANG IN FOR AN OIL CHANGE. IT HAS ABOUT 90,000 MILES ON IT. WE WERE TOLD THAT IT IS LEAKING FUEL AND THAT IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD. WE NOW HAVE TO SPEND $1000 TO REPLACE THE FUEL RAIL, BOTH VALVE GASKETS, VALVE COVER GASKETS AND FUEL INJECTOR O RINGS. PLUS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT ON LABOR. WE WER…
Read full complaint
WE TOOK OUR 1998 6 CYLINDER MUSTANG IN FOR AN OIL CHANGE. IT HAS ABOUT 90,000 MILES ON IT. WE WERE TOLD THAT IT IS LEAKING FUEL AND THAT IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD. WE NOW HAVE TO SPEND $1000 TO REPLACE THE FUEL RAIL, BOTH VALVE GASKETS, VALVE COVER GASKETS AND FUEL INJECTOR O RINGS. PLUS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT ON LABOR. WE WERE TOLD THAT OUR CAR/ENGINE WILL CATCH FIRE, IF WE DO NOT REPLACE THESE PARTS. THIS IS MY DAUGHTER WHO IS IN COLLEGE'S CAR. HOW CAN THEY HAVE SUCH A HORRIBLE DESIGN AND IF WE REPLACE THE PARTS IS THIS GOING TO BE REPEATED? THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THERE WAS NO WARNING FROM AN ENGINE LIGHT OR ANYTHING ELSE. THE TECHNICIAN CHECKED IT BECAUSE WHEN HE LOOKED UNDER THE HOOD, HE THOUGHT HE SMELLED GAS AND THEN FOUND THE LEAK. WE HADN'T NOTICED A LEAK. MY DAUGHTER COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED DRIVING BACK TO SCHOOL THIS WEEK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10272667
Mileage unknown · Mar 6, 2008
Seat Belts
PASSENGER AND REAR SEAT BELTS STOPPED WORKING....CANNOT PULL THEM OUT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10220303
13,000 miles · Nov 7, 2007
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
I WAS TRAVELING HOME FROM WORK AND WAS JUST STARTING TO BRAKE TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN INTO MY CRESCENT WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTED ACCELERATING UNCONTROLLABLY. I DROVE UP ONTO THE CURB AND TOOK OUT TWO SECTIONS OF FENCE AND TURNED MY WHEEL HARD TO AVOID HITTING A PARKED CAR, THE ACCELERATION FINALLY STOPPED WHEN I CRANKED THE WHEEL, …
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING HOME FROM WORK AND WAS JUST STARTING TO BRAKE TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN INTO MY CRESCENT WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTED ACCELERATING UNCONTROLLABLY. I DROVE UP ONTO THE CURB AND TOOK OUT TWO SECTIONS OF FENCE AND TURNED MY WHEEL HARD TO AVOID HITTING A PARKED CAR, THE ACCELERATION FINALLY STOPPED WHEN I CRANKED THE WHEEL, NO EFFECT WHEN I WAS BRAKING AT ALL! I HAVE INJURED MUSCLES IN MY NECK AND BACK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10208208
Mileage unknown · Jul 6, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A 98 FORD MUSTANG GT. THE CAR IS COVERED IN THE CLASS ACTION SUIT, BUT I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT 3 MONTHS AFTER IT EXPIRIED. (FORD VS. CHAMBERLIN). IT'S A MAJOR PROBLEM IN ALL CARS BETWEEN 96-99. I'M SURE YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON IT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10161699
90,000 miles · Jun 28, 2006
Engine And Engine CoolingPower TrainCrash
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED, THE ENGINE OVERHEATED DUE TO CRACKS IN THE HEAD GASKET, CAUSING THE TRANSMISSION TO SLIP. THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT ON 6/20/06 DUE TO THE TRANSMISSION SLIPPAGE. IT WAS RAINING AND THE RATE OF SPEED WAS 30MPH. NO INJURIES INCURRED BUT MINOR DAMAGE TO THE OTHER VEHICLE WAS REPORTED IN THE POLICE REPORT.
NHTSA ODI #10160961
104,920 miles · Aug 5, 2005
SteeringCrash
DT: WHEN MAKING A RIGHT TURN AT A SPEED OF ABOUT 20-25 MPH THE STEERING WHEEL KEPT TURNING BUT THE WHEELS WERE NOT MOVING. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYTHING LIKE THIS HAPPENED. THIS CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO HIT A PARKED CAR. THE CAR WAS EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED, BUT HAS NOT BEEN TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. INSURANCE COMPANY I…
Read full complaint
DT: WHEN MAKING A RIGHT TURN AT A SPEED OF ABOUT 20-25 MPH THE STEERING WHEEL KEPT TURNING BUT THE WHEELS WERE NOT MOVING. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYTHING LIKE THIS HAPPENED. THIS CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO HIT A PARKED CAR. THE CAR WAS EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED, BUT HAS NOT BEEN TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. INSURANCE COMPANY INSTRUCTED A MECHANIC TO INSPECT THE STEERING WHEEL, IT WAS NOTED THERE WAS PROBLEM WITH THE SHAFT WHICH BROKE AND THEREFORE CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. THE MECHANIC SAID HE HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE. IT WAS NOTED BY THE MECHANIC, AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS A DEFECTIVE STEERING ON THE CAR INVOLVING THE SHAFT. MECHANIC SAID HE MUST REPAIR VEHICLE TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS OTHER ISSUES WITHIN THE STEERING OR SUSPENSION. AS OF YET NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE. *AK THE CONSUMER STATED HE AND THE OWNER OF THE OTHER VEHICLE DID NOT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO FILE A POLICE REPORT SINCE THE DAMAGE WAS MINIMAL. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10129373
155,720 miles · Jun 1, 2004
Seats
1. I WAS DRIVING FROM SAN DIEGO TO FRESNO, ON I-5. ABOUT 70 MPH. I STRETCHED, AND LEANED BACK INTO THE SEAT, WHEN THE SEAT FLIPPED BACKWARDS FAR ENOUGH TO CAUSE ME TO LOOSE SIGHT OF THE ROAD. FORTUNATELY, I WAS HOLDING THE STEERING WHEEL TIGHTLY ENOUGH TO RAISE MYSELF QUICKLY AND REGAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.*AK 2. A METAL …
Read full complaint
1. I WAS DRIVING FROM SAN DIEGO TO FRESNO, ON I-5. ABOUT 70 MPH. I STRETCHED, AND LEANED BACK INTO THE SEAT, WHEN THE SEAT FLIPPED BACKWARDS FAR ENOUGH TO CAUSE ME TO LOOSE SIGHT OF THE ROAD. FORTUNATELY, I WAS HOLDING THE STEERING WHEEL TIGHTLY ENOUGH TO RAISE MYSELF QUICKLY AND REGAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.*AK 2. A METAL BRACKET THAT CONNECTS THE SEAT TO THE FLOOR TRACK BROKE, CAUSING A LOSS OF RIGIDITY OF THE SEAT. 3. I WILL HAVE TO REPLACE THE PART, OR GET IT WELDED, IN ORDER FOR THE VEHICLE TO BE SAFELY DRIVEN.
NHTSA ODI #10074598
62,000 miles · May 31, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I WAS DRIVING HOME WHEN I SMELLED COOLANT. WHEN I GOT HOME AND CHECKED FOR LEAKS I FOUND THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED AND LEAKING COOLANT IT TO THE ENGINE VALLEY. MY MOMS '96 COUGAR AND FRIENDS '98 MUSTANG DID THE SAME THING. THEY HAD TO HAVE THE MANIFOLD REPLACED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10074545
Mileage unknown · Sep 23, 2003
Seat Belts
DRIVER-SIDE SEAT BELT IS SEVERLY FRAYED/COMPROMISED. THE PORTION OF THE BELT THAT IS DAMAGED CAN BE SEEN WHEN THE BELT IS EXTENDED OUT AS IN USE (EXTENDED) AND LOOKING DOWN AT THE RETRACTOR ASSEMBLY. I BELIEVE THIS EXCESSIVE WEAR CONDITION IS PRODUCED BY NORMAL DRIVER MOVEMENTS THAT CAUSE THE BELT TO RUB AGAINST THE GUIDE LOCATE…
Read full complaint
DRIVER-SIDE SEAT BELT IS SEVERLY FRAYED/COMPROMISED. THE PORTION OF THE BELT THAT IS DAMAGED CAN BE SEEN WHEN THE BELT IS EXTENDED OUT AS IN USE (EXTENDED) AND LOOKING DOWN AT THE RETRACTOR ASSEMBLY. I BELIEVE THIS EXCESSIVE WEAR CONDITION IS PRODUCED BY NORMAL DRIVER MOVEMENTS THAT CAUSE THE BELT TO RUB AGAINST THE GUIDE LOCATED ON THE OUTBOARD BASE OF THE SEAT NEAR THE RETRACTOR ASSEMBLY. I CAN PROVIDE DIGITAL IMAGES OF THE PROBLEM, IF THAT IS HELPFUL TO YOU. STEPHENFUKS@HOTMAIL.COM
NHTSA ODI #10039375
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.
Illustration