IllustrationPASSENGER SEAT BELT FAILING EXTENDED AND LOCKED. UNUSABLE *TR
1998 Ford Mustang Gt
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1998 Ford Mustang Gt do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 51.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mustang Gt 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
20–25K
525–50K
1050–75K
1375–100K
7100–150K
1150K+
38 reports with mileage · 15 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 44 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Seat Belts. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
2 crash reports3 fire reports2 injury reports
What owners actually said
53 reportsTHE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED AND LEAKED COOLANT ONTO THE ENGINE AND OTHER RELATED COMPONENTS. CAR DIED ON FREEWAY. THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKS. THE COOLANT WILL LEAK ONTO THE TOP OF THE BLOCK AND THEN DOWN THE BACK OF THE ENGINE. THIS INTAKE DESIGN IS A KNOWN DEFECT BY FORD. BELOW IS AN "OWNER NOTIFICATION L…
Read full complaint
THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED AND LEAKED COOLANT ONTO THE ENGINE AND OTHER RELATED COMPONENTS. CAR DIED ON FREEWAY. THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKS. THE COOLANT WILL LEAK ONTO THE TOP OF THE BLOCK AND THEN DOWN THE BACK OF THE ENGINE. THIS INTAKE DESIGN IS A KNOWN DEFECT BY FORD. BELOW IS AN "OWNER NOTIFICATION LETTER" FROM FORD: 97M91 APRIL, 1999 FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS PROVIDING A NO-CHARGE SERVICE PROGRAM NUMBER 97M91, TO OWNERS OF CERTAIN 1996 THROUGH 1998 CROWN VICTORIA TAXI, TOWN CAR LIMO PREP & DELIVERY PACKAGE, 1996 AND 1997 THUNDERBIRD, COUGAR AND MUSTANG VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.6L SOHC ENGINES. THIS SERVICE PROGRAM PROVIDES ADDITIONAL COVERAGE FOR THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. REASON FOR THIS PROGRAM FATIGUE CRACKS MAY DEVELOP IN SOME OF THE COMPOSITE INTAKE MANIFOLDS USED ON THE 4.6L SOHC ENGINES INSTALLED IN THE AFFECTED CARS. THIS CONDITION MAY RESULT IN ENGINE COOLANT LEAKAGE WHICH, IF NOT DETECTED OR IGNORED, WILL CAUSE ENGINE OVERHEATING. COMPLETE LOSS OF COOLANT MAY RESULT IN ENGINE DAMAGE OR ENGINE FAILURE. WHAT WE WILL DO IF THE ENGINE OF YOUR CAR SHOULD DEVELOP A COOLANT LEAK AT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD CROSS OVER COOLANT PASSAGE, LOCATED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE ALTERNATOR, YOUR DEALER WILL VERIFY THE CONDITION. IF THE COOLANT LEAKAGE IS FROM THE LOCATION DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR DEALER WILL REPLACE THE ENGINE INTAKE MANIFOLD ASSEMBLY FREE OF CHARGE. THIS NO CHARGE COVERAGE IS AVAILABLE FOR 7 YEARS FROM THE VEHICLE'S WARRANTY START DATE (NO MILEAGE LIMITATION) AND IS AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. MY COMPLAINT IS THAT MY MUSTANG DID NOT LEAK AT THE GIVEN 7 YEARS AND NOW FORD MOTOR COMPANY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING. EVERYONE WHO OWNS THESE DEFECTIVE VEHICLES SHOULD HAVE A REPLACEMENT MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM REGARDLESS OF WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE, AS STATED IN ABOVE LETTER FROM FORD. *KB
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65MPH, THE INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED, SPRAYING COOLANT AND STEAM FROM THE HOT ENGINE OUT THE BACK OF THE HOOD. THIS COVERED THE WINDSHIELD, CAUSING ME TO LOSE ALL VISIBILITY. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS, HAD THERE BEEN SOMETHING IN FRONT OF ME, I WOULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. I SEE THAT THERE ARE NUM…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65MPH, THE INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED, SPRAYING COOLANT AND STEAM FROM THE HOT ENGINE OUT THE BACK OF THE HOOD. THIS COVERED THE WINDSHIELD, CAUSING ME TO LOSE ALL VISIBILITY. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS, HAD THERE BEEN SOMETHING IN FRONT OF ME, I WOULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. I SEE THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS RECALLS FOR THE SAME PART/ENGINE ON OTHER YEARS AND VEHICLES. THE DEALER ALSO REPLACES IT, WITH AN UPDATED VERSION TO AVOID FAILURE, AT A COST OF $900.00. IF IT IS RECALLED ON ONE CAR, WHY NOT THE REST. IT IS THE SAME PART NUMBER AND THE SAME ENGINE, IT SHOULDN'T MATTER WHAT MODEL VEHICLE IT IS IN. SOMEDAY THERE WILL BE A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT DUE TO THIS. *TR
INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE ON 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT / 4.6L / 2V PER CLASS ACTION SUIT US DISTRICT COURT / NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN MINUTES AFTER PARKING AND EXITING THE VEHICLE, THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT BECAME ENGULFED IN FLAMES. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THERE WAS DAMAGE TO ANOTHER VEHICLE AND TO A NEIGHBORING HOME; HOWEVER, THE CONTACT DID NOT KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE. A FIRE REPORT…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN MINUTES AFTER PARKING AND EXITING THE VEHICLE, THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT BECAME ENGULFED IN FLAMES. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THERE WAS DAMAGE TO ANOTHER VEHICLE AND TO A NEIGHBORING HOME; HOWEVER, THE CONTACT DID NOT KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE. A FIRE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VIN AND PURCHASE DATE WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 140,000. UPDATED 03-04-08 *BF UPDATED 03/04/08 *TR
MY COMPLAINT IS IN REGARDS TO THE 05N04 RECALL ON MY MOTHERS 1998 FORD MUSTANG. LAST FRIDAY MY 80 YEAR MOTHER GOT LOST AND I SENT MY NIECE TO PICK HER UP, AND ON THEIR WAY HOME THE CAR CAUGHT FIRE AND DIED, MY NIECE THINKING QUICKLY TURNED THE CAR INTO FIRE STATION AND WAS ABLE TO GET HELP FAST. I THANK GOD MY MOTHER WAS NOT DR…
Read full complaint
MY COMPLAINT IS IN REGARDS TO THE 05N04 RECALL ON MY MOTHERS 1998 FORD MUSTANG. LAST FRIDAY MY 80 YEAR MOTHER GOT LOST AND I SENT MY NIECE TO PICK HER UP, AND ON THEIR WAY HOME THE CAR CAUGHT FIRE AND DIED, MY NIECE THINKING QUICKLY TURNED THE CAR INTO FIRE STATION AND WAS ABLE TO GET HELP FAST. I THANK GOD MY MOTHER WAS NOT DRIVING WHEN THE HOOD FIRE STARTED, SHE WOULD HAVE WRECKED FOR SURE. I THEN HAD THE CAR TOWED TO WALT'S AUTO CARE THE NEXT DAY, WHICH WAS ON SATURDAY AND TESTS WERE RUN TO FIND THE REASON WHY THE CAR CAUGHT ON FIRE WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF PRIOR WARNING FROM THE CAR OBC. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THEN WE WERE INFORMED OF THE RECALL NOTICE AND TOLD THAT IT WAS COVERED UNDER THE RECALL NOTICE. HOWEVER, WE RECEIVED A CALL MONDAY FROM WALT'S STATING THAT THEY COULD NOT DO THE WORK AND THAT THEY HAD THE CAR TOWED TO ANOTHER SERVICE STATION NAMED RENTON AUTO REPAIR. I WAS CONTACTED BY THEM TO FIND OUT WHO WOULD BE PAYING FOR THE SERVICE REPAIRS AND IT WAS THEN I INFORMED HIM WITH THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WAS RELATED TO ME BY THE FIRST SERVICE STATION. UPON LOOKING IT UP, I WAS THEN TOLD THAT THEY COULD NOT DO THE WORK AND I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT TO A AUTHORIZED FORD REPAIR CENTER. I THEN CONTACTED SOUND FORD, THE PLACE OF PURCHASE AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS TOO LATE TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR REPAIRS, BECAUSE THE CAMPAIGN HAD CLOSED FOR OUR CAR YEAR IN 2006 AND IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO FAIL BEFORE THAT TIME. I THEN EXPLAINED THE CAR WAS BROUGHT IN FOR REPAIRS IN 2004 AND WE WERE NEVER INFORMED OF ANY SUCH ON-GOING REPAIRS, PART REPLACEMENTS OR RECALLS NOTICES. I TRULY FEEL THIS IS NOT JUST OR FAIR TREATMENT TO CONSUMERS AND CUSTOMERS. BECAUSE, WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED ABOUT THE RECALL AND THE PART FAILED AFTER THEIR CUT OFF DATE, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO INCUR THE COST, SPECIALLY WHEN THEY (FORD) HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROBLEM BUT FAILED TO INFORM US ABOUT THE DEFECT PART WHICH COULD HAVE KILL MY MOTHER IF SHE WERE DRIVING AT THAT TIME. *JB
SPARK PLUG SHOT OUT OF MY MUSTANG ENGINE THE DEALER SAID THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM BUT IT HAPPENED AGAIN. I PAID FOR THE REPAIRS TWICE AND THEN AGAIN FOR A 3RD TIME. IT SHOT OUT ON THE ROAD AND COULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. *JB
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH THE CONTACT SMELLED ANTI- FREEZE. THE CONTACT DID NOT REMEMBER IF THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS ON OR NOT. AFTER REMOVING THE THERMOSTAT SHE NOTICED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH THE CONTACT SMELLED ANTI- FREEZE. THE CONTACT DID NOT REMEMBER IF THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS ON OR NOT. AFTER REMOVING THE THERMOSTAT SHE NOTICED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THEY COULD DO. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 94,000, AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 95,427. *AK
OWNED CAR FOR OVER 5 YRS. ALMOST PAID OFF. DISCOVERED COOLANT LEAK. PUT IN NEW WATER PUMP, NEW PULLEYS, NEW THERMOSTAT, NEW THERMOSTAT HOUSING, NEW HOSES. ONLY TO DISCOVER THE JUNK PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACKED. NOW I FOUND OUT BY SEARCHING THE INTERNET THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON MY YEAR OF CAR. FORD IS AWARE OF …
Read full complaint
OWNED CAR FOR OVER 5 YRS. ALMOST PAID OFF. DISCOVERED COOLANT LEAK. PUT IN NEW WATER PUMP, NEW PULLEYS, NEW THERMOSTAT, NEW THERMOSTAT HOUSING, NEW HOSES. ONLY TO DISCOVER THE JUNK PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACKED. NOW I FOUND OUT BY SEARCHING THE INTERNET THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON MY YEAR OF CAR. FORD IS AWARE OF SAID PROBLEM DUE TO CRAPPY ENGINEERING AND REFUSES TO MAKE IT RIGHT WITH CONSUMERS. THEY MADE IT RIGHT WITH THE FLEET CARS THAT ARE 1998'S AND CARS OTHER THAN MY YEAR. *TR
1) PLASTIC MANIFOLD STARTED LEAKING. NO WARNING. 2) DUMPED ALL COOLANT ON MOTOR AND LEFT ME STRANDED. 3) WILL HAVE TO REPLACE AT A COST OF OVER $900. *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
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.