IllustrationCAR BEGAN STUTTERING ON ACCELERATION. DIAGNOSED AS A FAILURE OF THE TORQUE CONVERTER. UNIT REPLACED. *TR
2003 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
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
130–25K
325–50K
150–75K
375–100K
2100–150K
0150K+
22 reports with mileage · 13 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 5 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 reports1 injury reports
What owners actually said
35 reportsJULY 2007 THROUGH CURRENT DATE. CAR STALLS WHEN PUSHING IN CLUTCH TO STOP OR MAKE TURNS. THERE IS A TSB (17542)ON THIS ISSUE BUT NO RECALL. THIS IS A DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH COULD BE FATAL TO A NOVICE DRIVER; ESPECIALLY WHEN CAR STALLS DURING A LEFT HAND TURN. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE WHEELS BEGAN TO SPIN. THE ENGINE STALLED MOMENTARILY. THE CONTACT REMOVED HER FOOT FROM THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THEN ACCELERATED AGAIN. THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE WHEELS BEGAN TO SPIN. THE ENGINE STALLED MOMENTARILY. THE CONTACT REMOVED HER FOOT FROM THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THEN ACCELERATED AGAIN. THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND HAD IT RECOMPUTERIZED. A MECHANIC AT A GARAGE SENT THE VEHICLE TO FORD FOR INVESTIGATION, BUT NO FAILURES WERE FOUND. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE BEARING MAY HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 28,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 27,750. UPDATED 12-12-07. *KB UPDATED
2003 MUSTANG SVT COBRA CONVERTIBLE. REAR WHEEL HOP WITH TRACTION CONTROL ON OR OFF. DEALER SAID THIS IS THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. I FEEL THIS COULD CREATE A HAZARD OR OTHER DAMAGE TO AUTO PARTS. *TR
VEHICLE HAS DEVELOPED A FRONT END SHIMMY WHEN CAR IS TRAVELING BETWEEN 60-65 MPH. THIS IS A 2003 MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE. NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. *JB
ACCELERATOR CAUGHT ON THE CARPET OF CAR, HOLDING THE ACCELERATOR DOWN. I WAS ABLE TO GET IT TO COME BACK UP BY BANGING ON THE ACCELERATOR, HOWEVER SEVERAL SECONDS PASSED. THIS HAPPENED WHILE MERGING ONTO I-69 NEAR CHARLOTTE, MI. NO MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THIS CAR. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED, BUT MY FI…
Read full complaint
ACCELERATOR CAUGHT ON THE CARPET OF CAR, HOLDING THE ACCELERATOR DOWN. I WAS ABLE TO GET IT TO COME BACK UP BY BANGING ON THE ACCELERATOR, HOWEVER SEVERAL SECONDS PASSED. THIS HAPPENED WHILE MERGING ONTO I-69 NEAR CHARLOTTE, MI. NO MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THIS CAR. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED, BUT MY FIRST REPORT. THIS IS A FORD MUSTANG COBRA CONVERTIBLE. THESE ARE NOT LISTED UNDER VEHICLE. *JB
I PURCHASED A BRAND NEW 2003 FORD MUSTANG COBRA CONVERTIBLE IN PLACENTIA, CA AND WAS VERY EXCITED TO HAVE MY FIRST MUSTANG. I AM 32 AND MARRIED WITH TWO CHILDREN AGES 13 AND 5 SO OUR OTHER CAR IS A MINIVAN. IN THE END, AS YOU WILL SEE IN THIS DESCRIPTION, THIS WAS THE WORST PURCHASE I HAVE EVER MADE IN REGARDS TO A VEHICLE. …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A BRAND NEW 2003 FORD MUSTANG COBRA CONVERTIBLE IN PLACENTIA, CA AND WAS VERY EXCITED TO HAVE MY FIRST MUSTANG. I AM 32 AND MARRIED WITH TWO CHILDREN AGES 13 AND 5 SO OUR OTHER CAR IS A MINIVAN. IN THE END, AS YOU WILL SEE IN THIS DESCRIPTION, THIS WAS THE WORST PURCHASE I HAVE EVER MADE IN REGARDS TO A VEHICLE. AFTER AROUND 7,000-9,000 MILES ( I WOULD HAVE TO PULL THE PAPERWORK AS I AM AT WORK NOW) THE CAR OVER-HEATED ON THE FREEWAY AND DURING THE OVERHEATING THE CAR SHUT DOWN FORCING ME TO LOSE POWER STEERING AND THE CAR BEGAN TO DRIFT LEFT IN TO THE OTHER LANE. I PUMPED THE CLUTCH SEVERAL TIMES AND SUCCESSFULLY WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR RUNNING JUST FAR ENOUGH TO PULL OVER TO THE SHOULDER AND CALL A TOW TRUCK. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE SINCE TRAFFIC WAS MOVING AROUND 65-70 MPH. THE CAR WAS SENT TO FRITTS FORD IN RIVERSIDE, CA AND I FOUND OUT THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE RADIATOR CAP CRACKED AS WELL AS THE RADIATOR BUT THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER (I KNOW MY SPELLING IS WRONG HERE) NEEDED TO BE REPLACED FOR SOME REASON. I BELIEVE THEY SAID IT HAD A HOLE IN IT WHICH I CAN'T BELIEVE AFTER ONLY 7K-9K MILES. I ALSO BELIEVE THEY REPLACED THE THERMOSTAT. IT WAS TOO LONG AFTER I RECEIVED THE CAR BACK (ABOUT 3K-5K MILES) THAT THE OVERHEATING HAPPENED AGAIN, THE ENGINE SHUT DOWN, ETC AND I WAS FORCED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND AGAIN LUCKILY WAS NOT HIT BY ANOTHER CAR. THE CAR WAS BACK AT THE DEALER AND THE RADIATOR AND THERMOSTAT WERE REPLACED I BELIEVE. SINCE THEN I HAVE MOVED TO TEXAS AND THE SAME THING HAS OCCURRED THREE TIMES IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS. EACH TIME (WELL THE FIRST TWO SINCE THE LAST ONE JUST HAPPENED LAST NIGHT) I WAS TOLD THE THERMOSTAT WAS BAD AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. I GUARANTEE NOW THAT THE CAR IS AT BOB TOMES FORD IN MCKINNEY TEXAS FOR THE 3RD TIME WITH ONLY 22,000 TOTAL MILES THAT THE THERMOSTAT WAS BAD AGAIN AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *NM
2003 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE REAR WHEELS WOULD BOUNCE UP AND DOWN WHEN GOING AROUND CORNERS AND WHEN PULLING OFF FAST.*MR THE CONSUMER STATED THE PROBLEM OCCURRED WHEN THE TRACTION CONTROL WAS ON OR OFF. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE WHEEL HOPPING WAS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE VEHICLE AND SUGGESTED THAT THE CONSUMER GO TO AN AFTER …
Read full complaint
2003 FORD MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE REAR WHEELS WOULD BOUNCE UP AND DOWN WHEN GOING AROUND CORNERS AND WHEN PULLING OFF FAST.*MR THE CONSUMER STATED THE PROBLEM OCCURRED WHEN THE TRACTION CONTROL WAS ON OR OFF. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE WHEEL HOPPING WAS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE VEHICLE AND SUGGESTED THAT THE CONSUMER GO TO AN AFTER MARKET SUPPLIER. THE CONSUMER BELIEVES THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE REAR SUSPENSION. *JB
WHEN THE REAR SEAT BELT RETRACTS, AND IT HAS A TWIST IN THE BELT MATERIAL (WEBBING), THE RETRACTING MECHANISM WILL LOCK PREVENTING THE BELT FROM BEING PULLED BACK OUT. THIS LOCK IS SIMILAR TO THE LOCKING WHICH THE RETRACTOR DOES, AS IT IS DESIGNED TO DO, DURING RAPID DECELERATION. THE BELT (WEBBING) "GUIDE" ALLOWS THE BELT TO …
Read full complaint
WHEN THE REAR SEAT BELT RETRACTS, AND IT HAS A TWIST IN THE BELT MATERIAL (WEBBING), THE RETRACTING MECHANISM WILL LOCK PREVENTING THE BELT FROM BEING PULLED BACK OUT. THIS LOCK IS SIMILAR TO THE LOCKING WHICH THE RETRACTOR DOES, AS IT IS DESIGNED TO DO, DURING RAPID DECELERATION. THE BELT (WEBBING) "GUIDE" ALLOWS THE BELT TO RETRACT WITH ONE OR MORE TWISTS IN THE WEBBING JUST AS EASILY AS IT DOES WHEN THERE IS NO TWISTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE "GUIDE" DOESN'T PREVENT THE BELT FROM RETRACTING WHEN THERE IS A TWIST IN THE WEBBING, AND THUS DOESN'T PREVENT THE RETRACTOR LOCK UP PROBLEM. THE RETRACTOR LOCKS WITH THE BELT IN THE FULLY RETRACTED POSITION (THE WEBBING IS FULLY WOUND UP INTO THE RETRACTOR). WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THIS PROBLEM MAKES THE SEAT BELT UNAVAILABLE FOR USAGE BY THE PASSENGER (CHILD) IN THAT SEAT POSITION. THIS LEAVES THIS PASSENGER (CHILD) WITH NO SEAT BELT TO USE, AND OF COURSE, NOW LEAVES THEM VULNERABLE FOR SERIOUS INJURY IF THERE IS AN ACCIDENT. THIS IS NOT A UNIT FAILURE, BUT AN UNFORTUNATE SIDE EFFECT OF THE (POOR) DESIGN. SOMETIMES YOU CAN "TEASE" THE RETRACTING MECHANISM INTO RELEASING THE LOCK. HOWEVER, MANY TIMES YOU NEED TO DISASSEMBLE THE MECHANISM TO RELEASE THE LOCK. AGAIN, THIS MAKES THE SEAT BELT UNAVAILABLE FOR USAGE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE DISASSEMBLY CAN BE SCHEDULED AND COMPLETED. IN OTHER WORDS, UNTIL THE UNIT CAN BE REPAIRED. SEAT BELTS SHOULD ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE FOR USAGE. ANYTHING OTHER THAN 100% AVAILABILITY FOR A SEAT BELT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
CONVERTIBLE TOP IS LEAKING CAUSING WATER DAMAGE ON INSIDE OF CAR. *NM
Official recalls
0No 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
2DP05005 · 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.
PE05038 · Accelerator Pedal Interference
Opened Jul 7, 2005 · Closed Sep 13, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
PE05-038 WAS OPENED ON JULY 7, 2005, WITH 11 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS TO ODI ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF THROTTLE STICKING DUE TO ACCELERATOR PEDAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE CARPET.ODI HAS RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL 24 COMPLAINTS SINCE THE PE WAS OPENED.DURING PE05-038, FORD SUPPLIED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY INFORMATION REGARDING 86 ADDITIONAL INCIDENTS OF ACCELERATOR PEDAL INTERFERENCE IN MODEL YEAR 2003 TO 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES.EIGHTY-FIVE OF THESE HAD CONCERNS OF ACCELERATOR PEDAL STICKING, 70 OF WHICH WERE ANALYZED AS BEING RELATED TO CARPET INTERFERENCE.ODI IS CONTINUING ITS ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSAL FACTORS IN THE REMAINING 15 INCIDENTS.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.