← New search

2000 Ford Mustang Convertible

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

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Mustang Convertible 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: 15 of 20 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.

  • Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 5 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Tires. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

1 crash reports3 fire reports0 injury reports

What owners actually said

20 reports
98,818 miles · Jan 17, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling

I AM ABOUT TO INSTALL, FOR THE THIRD TIME, A SECOND DAY AIR PUMP INTO MY 2000 FORD MUSTANG. THIS IS AN EMISSIONS PART AND THE MUSTANG IS DESIGNED TO PASS CALIFORNIA EMISSION STANDARDS. I LIVE IN WISCONSIN AND THIS PART HAS GONE OUT 3 TIMES. ALSO IT CAN ONLY BE PURCHASED DIRECTLY FROM FORD FOR AROUND 300 DOLLARS. IT ALWAYS MANAGE…

Read full complaint

I AM ABOUT TO INSTALL, FOR THE THIRD TIME, A SECOND DAY AIR PUMP INTO MY 2000 FORD MUSTANG. THIS IS AN EMISSIONS PART AND THE MUSTANG IS DESIGNED TO PASS CALIFORNIA EMISSION STANDARDS. I LIVE IN WISCONSIN AND THIS PART HAS GONE OUT 3 TIMES. ALSO IT CAN ONLY BE PURCHASED DIRECTLY FROM FORD FOR AROUND 300 DOLLARS. IT ALWAYS MANAGES TO MAKE IT JUST PAST THE PART WARRANTY PERIOD THEN GOES OUT. FORD WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO HELP ME EXCEPT TAKE MORE OF MY MONEY. I LOOKED INTO IT AND THEY ONLY USED THIS PART IN 1999-2000 MUSTANGS AND LINCOLN 2000-2001. I CAN NOT FIND A RECALL ON IT BUT THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A PROBLEM. FORD WILL NOT RESPOND TO MY INQUIRIES AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT ELSE I CAN DO. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10106476

Mileage unknown · Dec 5, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling

RE#1448617 EMISSIONS THE SAME SECONDARY AIR PUMP WAS REPLACED ON 7/19/2002 BY FORD UNDER WARRANTEY. WHEN IT FAILED AGAIN ON OR ABOUT 11/10/2003 , THE DEALER CLAIMED IT WAS NOW NOT COVERED. THIS PUMP IS SO NESSESARY,THE NEWER MUSTANGS DO NOT HAVE IT.*AK

NHTSA ODI #10102193

110,000 miles · Nov 9, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic

NOTICED CAR NOSE DIVED A LITTLE BIT MORE WHEN BRAKING, PLUS EXTRA DISTANCE REQUIRED TO COME TO FULL STOP. REAR BRAKES WERE RECENTLY REPLACED DUE TO THE ARMATURE GUIDE PIN(S) IN THE REAR BRAKE CALIPER ASSEMBLY BECOMING FROZEN. ONE PIN IN EACH REAR ASSEMBLY (THE SAME PIN IN BOTH). EXTRA BRAKING STRESS PUT ON FRONT BRAKES REQUIRED …

Read full complaint

NOTICED CAR NOSE DIVED A LITTLE BIT MORE WHEN BRAKING, PLUS EXTRA DISTANCE REQUIRED TO COME TO FULL STOP. REAR BRAKES WERE RECENTLY REPLACED DUE TO THE ARMATURE GUIDE PIN(S) IN THE REAR BRAKE CALIPER ASSEMBLY BECOMING FROZEN. ONE PIN IN EACH REAR ASSEMBLY (THE SAME PIN IN BOTH). EXTRA BRAKING STRESS PUT ON FRONT BRAKES REQUIRED REPLACEMENT OF ROTORS DUE TO LOSS OF MINIMAL THICKNES (NOT DUE TO GOUGING AND TURNING).*AK

NHTSA ODI #10098525

61,154 miles · Feb 25, 2004
Power Train

2000 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE.AFTER LEASING THE NEW CAR FOR 3YRS,WE DECIDED TO BUY. THE CAR WAS AT 50K MILES.IT IS NOW AT 61K MILES. BEGINNING FEB.20TH 2004,THE CLUTCH MADE A HORRIBLE SOUND WHEN ENGAGED.NOT COVERED BY FORD EXTENDED WARRANTY PURCHASED AT TIME OF SALE.BUISINESS MGR. AT JACK SCHMITT FORD IN COLLINSVILLE,IL SAID," C…

Read full complaint

2000 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE.AFTER LEASING THE NEW CAR FOR 3YRS,WE DECIDED TO BUY. THE CAR WAS AT 50K MILES.IT IS NOW AT 61K MILES. BEGINNING FEB.20TH 2004,THE CLUTCH MADE A HORRIBLE SOUND WHEN ENGAGED.NOT COVERED BY FORD EXTENDED WARRANTY PURCHASED AT TIME OF SALE.BUISINESS MGR. AT JACK SCHMITT FORD IN COLLINSVILLE,IL SAID," CARS AREN'T BUILT TO LAST FOREVER".THIS VEHICHLE IS ONLY 4YRS. OLD.IT IS DRIVEN GINGERLY BY A RESPONSIBLE 55YR. OLD RN.I KNOW CARS ARE NOT MADE TO LAST FOREVER,BUT YOU WOULD THINK THE CLUTCH WOULD LAST A BIT LONGER THAN 4YRS. DRIVEN PROPERLY. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CAR SEEMS TO SHIMMIE AT 60 TO 68 MPH.*AK

NHTSA ODI #10058979

29,375 miles · Nov 18, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling

AT 29,000 MILES AND 46 MONTH OLD, SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT IS ON. SUNCOAST FORD CLAIMS CODES SAY SOMEONE WAS INTO COMPUTER ON SUN.11/9. NOT TRUE! AND PO411 CODE = 'SECONDARY 'AIR PUMP IS NEEDED. PART IS $242.50 PLUS LABOR. NEITHER FORD NOR WARRANTY DIRECT WILL COVER THIS REPAIR. *LA

NHTSA ODI #10047087

11,500 miles · Jun 28, 2003
Suspension

THE VEHICLE SHIMMIES AT ABOUT 62 OR 63 MPH, THEN SMOOTHES OUT AT HIGHER SPEEDS. YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE REAR END SHIMMY SIDE TO SIDE. YOU CAN FEEL THE ROOF MOVE. THE DEALER ACKNOWLEDGED THE SHIMMY, BUT WAS UNABLE TO CORRECT AND STATED ALL NEW MUSTANG CONVERTIBLES SHIMMY. *NLM

NHTSA ODI #10023947

Mileage unknown · Mar 24, 2003
Steering

DESPITE A NEW SET OF MICHELIN'S, OUR 2000 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE TENDS TO LOSE CONTROL IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF STANDING OR FLOWING WATER ON THE ROAD. DUE TO POOR SURFACE DRAINAGE IN SOUTH TEXAS, WITH A HEAVY RAIN IT IS TYPICAL TO FIND A THIN FILM OF FLOWING WATER BEFORE AND AFTER A BRIDGE. ALTHOUGH OTHER TRAFFIC APPEARS UNAF…

Read full complaint

DESPITE A NEW SET OF MICHELIN'S, OUR 2000 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE TENDS TO LOSE CONTROL IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF STANDING OR FLOWING WATER ON THE ROAD. DUE TO POOR SURFACE DRAINAGE IN SOUTH TEXAS, WITH A HEAVY RAIN IT IS TYPICAL TO FIND A THIN FILM OF FLOWING WATER BEFORE AND AFTER A BRIDGE. ALTHOUGH OTHER TRAFFIC APPEARS UNAFFECTED, THE MUSTANG OFTEN LOSES CONTROL AS IT PASSES THROUGH THE WATER. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10010954

75,226 miles · Jan 26, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling

CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. TAKEN TO LOCAL DEALER FOR DIANOIS OF ENGINE MISS. CHARGED $65.00 COULD NOT FIND PROBLEM WHY CAR WAS MISSING. OKAYED FOR TEAR DOWN ADDITIONAL AN $135.00. WAS TOLD PUSH ROD BENT. VALVE AND VALVE SPRING BROKEN. POSSIBLE HEAD DAMAGE. WAS CALLED TO OKAY AN ADDITIONAL $625.00 CHARGE FOR LOOK FOR POSSIBL…

Read full complaint

CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. TAKEN TO LOCAL DEALER FOR DIANOIS OF ENGINE MISS. CHARGED $65.00 COULD NOT FIND PROBLEM WHY CAR WAS MISSING. OKAYED FOR TEAR DOWN ADDITIONAL AN $135.00. WAS TOLD PUSH ROD BENT. VALVE AND VALVE SPRING BROKEN. POSSIBLE HEAD DAMAGE. WAS CALLED TO OKAY AN ADDITIONAL $625.00 CHARGE FOR LOOK FOR POSSIBLE PISTON DAMAGE. ALL PROBLEMS STEMING FROM NUMBER 6 CYCLINDER.

NHTSA ODI #10003439

5,812 miles · Dec 13, 2002
Structure

VEHICLE ON TWO OCCASIONS HAS REQUIRED EXTENSIVE REWELDING IN THE A PILLAR AREA.

NHTSA ODI #10000017

5,000 miles · Nov 5, 2002
Unknown Or Other

2000 FORD CONVERTIBLE. MUSTANG. *JB ****DIMSII IVOQ ENTRY POSTED AFTER 12/12/02 CUT-OVER TO ARTEMIS****769319

NHTSA ODI #10007130

Official recalls

0

No recalls in this snapshot.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

1

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.