NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
23 reports73,500 miles · Nov 8, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING IN A 55 MPH ZONE, I ATTEMPTED TO SET MY CRUISE CONTROL. I DID THIS SUCCESSFULLY. HOWEVER, ABOUT 5 MINUTES LATER, THE CAR BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN AS IF THE CONTROL WAS DISENGAGED. AFTER I REALIZED THIS, I PUMPED THE BRAKES TO DISENGAGE THE C/C. IT TOOK SEVERAL ATTEMPTS OF PUMPING THE BRAKES TO RELEASE CONTROL. ONCE …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING IN A 55 MPH ZONE, I ATTEMPTED TO SET MY CRUISE CONTROL. I DID THIS SUCCESSFULLY. HOWEVER, ABOUT 5 MINUTES LATER, THE CAR BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN AS IF THE CONTROL WAS DISENGAGED. AFTER I REALIZED THIS, I PUMPED THE BRAKES TO DISENGAGE THE C/C. IT TOOK SEVERAL ATTEMPTS OF PUMPING THE BRAKES TO RELEASE CONTROL. ONCE DONE, I WAS TOO PARANOID TO TRY USING THE C/C UNTIL RECENTLY. I DECIDED TO TRY IT WITH NO TRAFFIC AROUND IN A 35 MPH ZONE ON A STRAIGHT AWAY. THE CRUISE CONTROL SIMPLY WOULD NOT ENGAGE. I TOOK IT TO AN ASE CERTIFIED SHOP IN ELLSWORTH, MAINE TO HAVE THE PROBLEM DIAGNOSED. THE SHOP SAID IT WAS A RELAY THAT WAS BURNED OUT. THE RELAY WAS REPLACED AT A COST OF 48 DOLLARS FOR PARTS AND LABOR. AFTER REPLACING THE RELAY, THE C/C STILL DOES NOT WORK. I AM MORE CONCERNED WITH THE SUDDEN SLOW DOWN AND NON-RELEASE OF SPEED CONTROL TO THE DRIVER THAN WITH GETTING MY C/C TO WORK AGAIN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT HAPPENED ON A MAINE HIGHWAY IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. THANK YOU.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10098450
23,000 miles · Oct 27, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
(1) EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FAILURE: FORD POORLY DESIGNED AN INTAKE MANIFOLD SO THAT THE COOLANT RUNNING THROUGH IT ACTUALLY EATS AWAY THE PLASTIC. *AK (2) FAILURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES: THE INTAKE CRACKED AND SPRAYED COOLANT THROUGHOUT THE ENGINE BAY. THIS RENDERED THE CAR UNDRIVEABLE. (3) WHAT WAS DONE TO CORRECT THE …
Read full complaint
(1) EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FAILURE: FORD POORLY DESIGNED AN INTAKE MANIFOLD SO THAT THE COOLANT RUNNING THROUGH IT ACTUALLY EATS AWAY THE PLASTIC. *AK (2) FAILURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES: THE INTAKE CRACKED AND SPRAYED COOLANT THROUGHOUT THE ENGINE BAY. THIS RENDERED THE CAR UNDRIVEABLE. (3) WHAT WAS DONE TO CORRECT THE FAILURE: NOTHING WAS DONE TO CORRECT THE FAILURE. FORD HAS A PROGRAM (97M91) WHEREIN WHEN THE PART FAILS(REGARDLESS OF MILEAGE), THE DEALERSHIP WILL REPAIR IT AT NO COST TO THE CUSTOMER. THIS PROGRAM STATED THAT IT WAS COVERED FROM 7 YEARS OF THE START OF THE WARRANTY OF THE VEHICLE. MY INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED AT 7 YEARS AND 59 DAYS WITH ONLY 23000 MILES ON THE CAR.
NHTSA ODI #10096485
Mileage unknown · Jul 14, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE'S ENGINE STARTED RACING AND BRAKES DID NOT RESPOND TO STOP VEHICLE.*MR THE DEALER TOLD THE CONSUMER THEY COULD NOT FIND A PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AN OUTSIDE MECHANIC WHO DISCONNECTED THE CRUISE CONTROL AND THE CONSUMER HAS NOT EXPERIENCED ANYMORE PROBLEMS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10081941
101,000 miles · Jun 30, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED CONSUMER NOTICED THAT VEHICLE LEAKED DUE TO A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. THERE WAS A RECALL FOR VEHICLES PRODUCED PRIOR TO CONSUMER'S VEHICLE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10080236
97,397 miles · Mar 12, 2004
Fuel System, Other
ON 2/3/04 I FILLED UP THE GAS TANK ON MY 1997 FORD MUSTANG GT. I THEN DROVE 2-3 MILES TO WORK. ON THE WAY TO WORK I SMELLED A GASOLINE ODOR. WHEN I PULLED INTO THE PARKING LOT OF MY OFFICE THE SMELL WAS VERY STRONG. UPON EXITING MY CAR I SAW GASOLINE STREAMING OUT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE CAR. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO GWINNETT PL…
Read full complaint
ON 2/3/04 I FILLED UP THE GAS TANK ON MY 1997 FORD MUSTANG GT. I THEN DROVE 2-3 MILES TO WORK. ON THE WAY TO WORK I SMELLED A GASOLINE ODOR. WHEN I PULLED INTO THE PARKING LOT OF MY OFFICE THE SMELL WAS VERY STRONG. UPON EXITING MY CAR I SAW GASOLINE STREAMING OUT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE CAR. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO GWINNETT PLACE FORD. THEY CALLED BACK AND TOLD ME THAT THE GROMMET WHERE THE FILLER NECK ENTERS THE GAS TANK HAD DRY ROTTED AND FAILED. THIS REPAIR COST OVER $300 EXCLUDING TOWING. HAD SOMEONE BEHIND MY CAR TOSSED OUT A CIGARETTE OR A SPARK OCCURRED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LARGE FIRE ENDANGERING BOTH MYSELF AND OTHER MOTORISTS. I CONTACTED FORD ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES WERE VERY ABRUPT AND RUDE ABOUT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS SEVERE SAFETY ISSUE.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10061989
106,000 miles · Feb 9, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A 1997 FORD MUTANG GT WITH 106,000 MILES, AND FORD MADE IT CLEAR ABOUT A RECALL ON CRACKED PLASTIC MANIFOLDS. MY MANIFOLD IS CURRENTLY LEAKING AROUND THE PLASTIC INTAKE WHICH WAS CLEARLY ADDRESSED IN THE RECALL. I RECEIVED NO NOTIFICATION FROM FORD. I THINK FORD SHOULD REPLACE THIS AT NO COST.
NHTSA ODI #10056810
75,000 miles · Dec 31, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE VEHICLE'S INTAKE MANIFOLD HAS CRACKED. A RECALL WAS ISSUED, HOWEVER THE DEALER STATED THE PART CRACKED IN THE WRONG PLACE. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10052227
Mileage unknown · Dec 27, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling
INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED, CAUSING COOLANT TO BE SPRAYED ON ENGINE. A $245 EXPENSE JUST FOR THE PLASTIC PART THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PUT INTO PRODUCTION, NOT TO MENTION THE SAFETY CONCERNS SHOULD THE CRACK HAD HAPPENED RAPIDLY AND STEAMED UP THE WINDSHIELD. HOWEVER, AFTER TRYING MULITPLE TIMES TO GET THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING TO …
Read full complaint
INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED, CAUSING COOLANT TO BE SPRAYED ON ENGINE. A $245 EXPENSE JUST FOR THE PLASTIC PART THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PUT INTO PRODUCTION, NOT TO MENTION THE SAFETY CONCERNS SHOULD THE CRACK HAD HAPPENED RAPIDLY AND STEAMED UP THE WINDSHIELD. HOWEVER, AFTER TRYING MULITPLE TIMES TO GET THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING TO QUIT LEAKING (USING RTV ON THE POORLY DESIGNED O-RING SEAL), MY SON NOTICED THE CRACK IN THE INTAKE NEXT TO ONE OF THE BOLT HOLES USED TO SECURE THE THERMOSTAT ELBOW. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE HOW SUCH A MATURE CAR COMPANY CAN PUT SUCH A DESIGN IN PRODUCTION; AND TO MAKE IT WORSE REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER TO CORRECT THEIR ERROR.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10051184
70,971 miles · Dec 7, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling
I WAS DRIVING MY 1997 FORD MUSTANG GT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE COOLANT LIGHT TURNED ON AND THE WHOLE COCKPIT FILLED UP WITH SMOKE. UPON NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE AND THE COOLANT LIGHT TURNING ON I IMMEDIATELY HAD TO PULL OVER. AFTER TOWING THE CAR HOME I NOTICED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DEVELOPED A CRACK AND ANTI-FREEZE WAS SPRAYED…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 1997 FORD MUSTANG GT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE COOLANT LIGHT TURNED ON AND THE WHOLE COCKPIT FILLED UP WITH SMOKE. UPON NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE AND THE COOLANT LIGHT TURNING ON I IMMEDIATELY HAD TO PULL OVER. AFTER TOWING THE CAR HOME I NOTICED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DEVELOPED A CRACK AND ANTI-FREEZE WAS SPRAYED EVERYWHERE. AN INTAKE MANIFOLD IS A PART THAT SHOULD LAST THE LIFE OF A CAR WITH PROPER MANUFACTURING. I DID SOME FURTHER RESEARCH AND FOUND THAT FOOD CHANGED THE MANIFOLD STYLE IN 1999 AND CHANGED TO A ALUMINUM FRONT RUNNER OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD INSTEAD OF THE PLASTIC RESIN THAT THE ANTI-FREEZE CAN EAT THROUGH. I ALSO FOUND A TSB ABOUT IT #0222. DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS AND THEN NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING IS NOT A VERY PLEASANT EXPERIENCE. ESPECIALLY NOW THAT I HAVE A VERY INCONVENIENT AND COSTLY PROBLEM THAT I FEEL FORD SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR. *LA
NHTSA ODI #10049375
59,138 miles · Sep 25, 2003
Power Train
MANUAL TANSMISSION. NO 5TH OR REVERSE. CLUTCH/TRANMISSION MESSED UP WHILE ON INTERSTATE.
NHTSA ODI #10039526
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