NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
23 reportsMileage unknown · Nov 1, 2011
Steering
AS I WAS MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROX. 15MPH, I HEARD A LOUD POP/CRACK COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. AT THIS TIME THE CAR STARTED TO DRIFT OFF TO THE RIGHT AND ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I TRIED TO TURN THE STEERING WHEEL LEFT TO COMPENSATE FOR THE CHANGE AND THE STEERING WHEEL CONTINUED TO TURN IN A…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROX. 15MPH, I HEARD A LOUD POP/CRACK COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. AT THIS TIME THE CAR STARTED TO DRIFT OFF TO THE RIGHT AND ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I TRIED TO TURN THE STEERING WHEEL LEFT TO COMPENSATE FOR THE CHANGE AND THE STEERING WHEEL CONTINUED TO TURN IN A 360 DEGREE ROTATION WITH NO CONTROL OF THE TIRES. AT THIS TIME I FELT SOMETHING HIT MY SHOE FROM ABOVE THE GAS PEDAL AND I REALIZED THAT SOMETHING HAD BROKE CAUSING ME TO HAVE ABSOLUTE NO CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE. AFTER INSPECTING THE STEERING COLUMN, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE SHAFT HAD COMPLETELY SEPARATED FROM THE COLUMN THAT GOES INTO THE FLOOR BOARD AND INTO THE FIREWALL TO THE ENGINE. NO BROKEN/SHARD PARTS OF METAL NOR ANY BROKEN PIECES THAT COULD HAVE FALLEN OFF WERE LAYING UNDERNEATH. IT WAS AS IF THE SHAFT WAS "PULLED" OUT OF THE COLUMN HOLE. AFTER FURTHER INSPECTION AT A BODY SHOP, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD NEVER BEEN INTO AN ACCIDENT (JUST LIKE THE CARFAX REPORT HAD INDICATED) BECAUSE THERE ARE NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGES. THE TECHNICIANS HAD NEVER SEEN AN ISSUE SUCH AS THIS AND HAVE NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW/WHY THE SHAFT WOULD JUST SEPARATE WITH SUCH EASE. I'VE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL MECHANICS AND DEALERSHIPS AND THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN/HEARD OF AN ISSUE SUCH AS THIS. I BOUGHT THE MUSTANG FROM A LOCAL USED CAR DEALERSHIP AND THEY HAVE NOT DISCLOSED ANY INFORMATION REGARDING STEERING ISSUES/IF THERE IS ANY TO DISCLOSE. I AM HAVING THE BODY SHOP COMPLETELY REPLACE THE SHAFT BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL SAFE OPERATING THE VEHICLE, IF THIS ISSUE IS TO HAPPEN AGAIN WITH SUCH EASE AND I LOOSE TOTAL CONTROL OF STEERING CAPABILITIES, WHO IS TO SAY IT WON'T HAPPEN ON THE FREEWAY WITH CHILDREN IN THE CAR? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10433866
125,000 miles · Jul 9, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
ENGINE WAS USING COOLANT/TOOK TO FORD DEALER & THEY ADVISED IT'S COMING FROM CRACK IN TOP OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL ON THESE DUE TO CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, BUT TIME TO FILE ENDED 4 MOS. AGO & WE'D HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10233672
Mileage unknown · Aug 7, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
MY INTAKE MANIFOLD HAS CRACKED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10198795
84,618 miles · Jul 4, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED WHILE DRIVING MY 1997 MUSTANG WITH 4.6L. COST $1020 PLUS TOWING, TO REPAIR AT LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP. FORD REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, CITING THE CHAMBERLAIN SETTLEMENT'S EXCLUSIONS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10161365
85,584 miles · Mar 9, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
TOOK CAR TO GARAGE TO CHECK FOR REASON FOR LOSS OF COOLANT. THEY FOUND THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON THE FORD 4.6 L ENGINE WAS LEAKING AND STATED THAT THIS WAS A KNOWN PROBLEM. COST TO REPAIR WAS ALMOST $1000 AND FORD HAS REFUSED CLAIM ON THE GROUNDS THAT THIS CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT THAT FORD RECENTLY A…
Read full complaint
TOOK CAR TO GARAGE TO CHECK FOR REASON FOR LOSS OF COOLANT. THEY FOUND THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON THE FORD 4.6 L ENGINE WAS LEAKING AND STATED THAT THIS WAS A KNOWN PROBLEM. COST TO REPAIR WAS ALMOST $1000 AND FORD HAS REFUSED CLAIM ON THE GROUNDS THAT THIS CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT THAT FORD RECENTLY AGREED TO SETTLE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10152264
124,289 miles · Oct 27, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
ORIGINAL OWNER OF A 1997 MUSTANG GT. CAR HAD 124,289 MILES ON IT AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT. I WAS AT A STOP LIGHT WITH ONE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. LIGHT TURNED GREEN AND WE PRECEDED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. I WAS STILL IN FIRST GEAR, CAR LET OUT A LOUD BANG. IT HONESTLY SOUNDED LIKE A GUN HAD FIRED. I WAS THROUGH THE INTERSECTIO…
Read full complaint
ORIGINAL OWNER OF A 1997 MUSTANG GT. CAR HAD 124,289 MILES ON IT AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT. I WAS AT A STOP LIGHT WITH ONE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. LIGHT TURNED GREEN AND WE PRECEDED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. I WAS STILL IN FIRST GEAR, CAR LET OUT A LOUD BANG. IT HONESTLY SOUNDED LIKE A GUN HAD FIRED. I WAS THROUGH THE INTERSECTION SO I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND COASTED TO THE SHOULDER. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO FORD. THEY TOLD ME THAT THE SPARK PLUG HAD EXPLODED AND CRACKED THE HEAD. REPAIRS BY FORD TOTALED $2956.91 AND IT TOOK THEM A WEEK TO FIX THE CAR. I HAVE THE RECEIPT FROM FORD SHOWING A DETAILED LIST OF PARTS REPLACED, WHICH INCLUDED REPLACING THE RIGHT CYLINDER HEAD, 8 NEW SPARK PLUGS AND GASKETS, OIL CHANGE, ENGINE COOLANT FLUSHED. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10140908
91,952 miles · Oct 4, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
I PURCHASED A 1997 FORD MUSTANG. THE 1ST INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED ON MAY 19, 2000 AND HANDLED UNDER WARRANTY. THE 2ND INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2005. FORD REFUSED TO HANDLE THIS UNDER WARRANTY AND I PAID 1187.07. I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. PLEASE HELP ME. THANK YOU. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10138473
110,000 miles · Jun 29, 2005
Engine And Engine CoolingParking BrakeCrashInjury
MY EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILS WHEN ENGANGED AND THE BRAKES ARE PROPERLY ADJUSTED.THE E-BRAKE POPS LOOSE CAUSING THE CAR TO ROLL EVEN IN 1ST GEAR.I HAVE BEEN RAN OVER BY THE FAILURE AND THE CAR WAS SOLD TO ME BY DUVAL FORD AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULDN'T FIX BEACAUSE OF THE 131,000 MILES BUT THEY CERTIFIED THE CAR AS PERFECT FOR SALE.N…
Read full complaint
MY EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILS WHEN ENGANGED AND THE BRAKES ARE PROPERLY ADJUSTED.THE E-BRAKE POPS LOOSE CAUSING THE CAR TO ROLL EVEN IN 1ST GEAR.I HAVE BEEN RAN OVER BY THE FAILURE AND THE CAR WAS SOLD TO ME BY DUVAL FORD AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULDN'T FIX BEACAUSE OF THE 131,000 MILES BUT THEY CERTIFIED THE CAR AS PERFECT FOR SALE.NOT TO INCLUDE THE REAR END NEEDED REBUILT THE INTAKE WAS CRACKED AND LEAKED INTO THE CYLINDER CAUSING THE ROD TO SPIN A BEARING.
NHTSA ODI #10127098
86,580 miles · Feb 4, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WAS INFORMED BY THE GARAGE I TOOK MY CAR TO THAT MY MASTER BRAKE CYLINDER AND HYDROBOOST WERE LEAKING. I WAS TALKING THIS OVER WITH A LAWYER FRIEND OF MINE AND SHE INFORMED ME OF A RECALL ON FEDERAL VEHICLES, POLICE, ETC. BUT THIS WAS NOT A GENERAL RECALL. BUT IF YOU HAD UNDER 100,000 MILES ON YOUR VEHICLE IT WOULD BE FIXED THRO…
Read full complaint
WAS INFORMED BY THE GARAGE I TOOK MY CAR TO THAT MY MASTER BRAKE CYLINDER AND HYDROBOOST WERE LEAKING. I WAS TALKING THIS OVER WITH A LAWYER FRIEND OF MINE AND SHE INFORMED ME OF A RECALL ON FEDERAL VEHICLES, POLICE, ETC. BUT THIS WAS NOT A GENERAL RECALL. BUT IF YOU HAD UNDER 100,000 MILES ON YOUR VEHICLE IT WOULD BE FIXED THROUGH FORD. I CALLED FORD AND THEY TOLD ME THERE WAS NO SUCH RECALL EVEN AFTER I TOLD THEM I COULD FURNISH THEM WITH CASE LAW NUMBERS IN FLORIDA. I AM NOT SURE WHAT I SHOULD DO AND HOPE YOU CAN HELP. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10109837
79,929 miles · Jan 21, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE VEHICLE HAD STEAM COMING OUT OF ENGINE, WHICH COULD CAUSE OVER HEATING. OWNER WAS INFORMED BY THE DEALER THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEED TO BE REPLACED. DEALER WOULD REPAIR AT OWNER'S EXPENSE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10108575
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