Illustration1998 FORD MUSTANG GT INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED AND LEAKING ANTIFREEZE. MISSED THE SILENT RECALL BY 6 MONTHS. *NM
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
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
44 reportsFORD RECALL PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLDS.I HAVE PURCHASED A 1998 MUSTANG FROM A NON FORD DEALER THERE IS A DEFINITE LEAKING INTAKE ON THIS MOTOR,I HAVE CONTACTED A FORD DEALER IN MY AREA THEY SAID THE RECALL TIME HAS EXPIRED.THE PLACE OF PURCHASE AND MY SELF NEW OF NO RECALL UNTILL I STARTED LOOKING ON THE INTERNET,AND STARTED TO KE…
Read full complaint
FORD RECALL PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLDS.I HAVE PURCHASED A 1998 MUSTANG FROM A NON FORD DEALER THERE IS A DEFINITE LEAKING INTAKE ON THIS MOTOR,I HAVE CONTACTED A FORD DEALER IN MY AREA THEY SAID THE RECALL TIME HAS EXPIRED.THE PLACE OF PURCHASE AND MY SELF NEW OF NO RECALL UNTILL I STARTED LOOKING ON THE INTERNET,AND STARTED TO KEEP ADDING ANTIFREEZE TO THE SYSTEM,YOU CAN SEE THE LEAKING INTAKE,
MY 98 GT MUSTANG PLASTIC RADIATOR INTAKE HAS RUPTURED AT 89,000 MILES. IT SEEMS ALL OF FORD'S EQUIPPED WITH FORD'S 4.6L V-8 CONTAIN AN INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT IS PRONE TO FAILURE. DUE TO ORIGINAL DESIGN, THIS PART HAS A TENDENCY TO CRACK RESULTING IN SOMETIMES OVER HEATING, ENGINE FAILURE AND WORSE CASE DAMAGE TO OTHER PARTS OF T…
Read full complaint
MY 98 GT MUSTANG PLASTIC RADIATOR INTAKE HAS RUPTURED AT 89,000 MILES. IT SEEMS ALL OF FORD'S EQUIPPED WITH FORD'S 4.6L V-8 CONTAIN AN INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT IS PRONE TO FAILURE. DUE TO ORIGINAL DESIGN, THIS PART HAS A TENDENCY TO CRACK RESULTING IN SOMETIMES OVER HEATING, ENGINE FAILURE AND WORSE CASE DAMAGE TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CAR'S ENGINE. FORD RECOGNIZES THIS PROBLEM BUT WILL NOT RECALL MOST CARS OTHER THAN FLEET VEHICLES AND THOSE LISTED IN THE TSB #97M91. 1. 1998 MUSTANG WAS OVERHEATING WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY. 2. WHEN CAR WAS TAKEN TO A REPAIR SHOP THE MECHANIC NOTICED A CRACK IN THE MANIFOLD AND ADVISED ME TO TAKE IT TO MY LOCAL DEALER. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT IF THIS PART WAS NOT CORRECTED ENGINE FAILURE COULD OCCUR DUE TO COOLANT LOSS RESULTING IN SEVERE DAMAGE. 3. CAR WAS TAKEN TO LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND I GAVE THEM THE TSB #97M91 AND TOLD THEM TO REPLACE THE PART. 1998 MUSTANG WAS NOT LISTED AND THE CAR AND CAN'T BE FIXED AT DEALER'S COST ONLY CONSUMER'S. I CALLED FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND HAVE NOT HAD ANY LUCK TALKING TO CUSTOMER SERVICE ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. FORD OWNERS BE AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM.*AK
FORD MOTOR COMPANY SETTLED THE LAWSUIT WITH THE DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT WAS TO CRACKING BUT DID NOT INCLUDE ALL VEHICLES AND I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THEM. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR DEFECTIVE PARTS. THEY EXTENDED THE WARRANTIES OR SEVEN YEARS BUT ONLY AFTER A CERTAIN DATE AND MANY FORD OWNERS WERE LEFT OUT IN THE CO…
Read full complaint
FORD MOTOR COMPANY SETTLED THE LAWSUIT WITH THE DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT WAS TO CRACKING BUT DID NOT INCLUDE ALL VEHICLES AND I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THEM. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR DEFECTIVE PARTS. THEY EXTENDED THE WARRANTIES OR SEVEN YEARS BUT ONLY AFTER A CERTAIN DATE AND MANY FORD OWNERS WERE LEFT OUT IN THE COLD. THEY SHOULD REPLACE ALL OF THEM NO MATTER WHAT!! *NM
AFTER SERVICE OF MY 4.6 MUSTANG GT, MY CAR BEGAN MISSING AND I HAD THE DIAGNOSTIC COMPLETE IT REPORTED A MISFIRE ON PLUG 7 & 8, SO I HAD THE PLUGS REPLACED. DURING THE REPLACEMENT, I SAW COOLANT UNDER BOTH THE 7 & 8 PLUG. THE MISFIRE CONTINUES, AND I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER THEY TOLD ME THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD FAILED AND THAT TH…
Read full complaint
AFTER SERVICE OF MY 4.6 MUSTANG GT, MY CAR BEGAN MISSING AND I HAD THE DIAGNOSTIC COMPLETE IT REPORTED A MISFIRE ON PLUG 7 & 8, SO I HAD THE PLUGS REPLACED. DURING THE REPLACEMENT, I SAW COOLANT UNDER BOTH THE 7 & 8 PLUG. THE MISFIRE CONTINUES, AND I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER THEY TOLD ME THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD FAILED AND THAT THERE IS NO REMEDY FOR THE CONSUMER EVEN THOUGH FORD IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND HAS A KIT TO SELL TO THE CONSUMER FOR 900+ DOLLARS. FLEET CARS TAXI, CROWN VIC'S USED BY SHERIFF DEPARTMENTS WERE CLEARED FOR REPLACEMENT, BUT NO THE CONSUMER CIVILIAN. WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? IF THE ENGINEERING IS BAD, AND IT IS, THE REPLACEMENT SHOULD BE FOR ALL OWNERS OF THE 4.6 LITER ENGINE. HOW IS THE SEGREGATION OF FLEET CARS FROM PERSONAL USE VEHICLES LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY? EVERYONE WHO OWNS THESE DEFECTIVE VEHICLES SHOULD HAVE A REPLACEMENT MADE AVAILABLE REGARDLESS OF WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED, AND WHAT OTHER DAMAGE CAN I EXPECT TO FIND? WILL THIS HAVE A DAISY CHAIN OF FAILURES DUE TO THE BAD DESIGN? I UNDERSTAND THE COST TO REPLACE WILL BE $1,200.00 + WITH THE DEALERSHIP ESTIMATE PARTS AND LABOR. *JB
INTAKE MANIFOLD DEFECTS.. IT'S MADE FROM PLASTIC AND IT CAN NOT WITHSTAND ALL THE PRESSORE AND HEAT THAT IT WILL CRACK VERY EALRY AND CAUSE COOLING FLUID TO LEAK , AND WITH ALL THAT STEM COMING FROM THE HOOD IT WILL BE SO HARD TO SEE THE ROAD AND WILL CAUSE A FIRE FROM THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM SHORTING OUT FROM THE FLUID.
INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED UNDER NORMAL OPERATION WITH NO REAL REASON AS TO IT'S FAILURE OTHER THAN STRUCTURAL FLAWS IN IT'S ORIGINAL DESIGN.
RE: 1998 FORD MUSTANG 4.6 LITRE. DEFECTIVE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD SPLIT NEAR THERMOSTAT HOUSING. FOUND OUT THROUGH INTERNET RESEARCH THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM, WITH RECALLS TO ALMOST EVERY VEHICLE MADE WITH A 4.6 LITER ENGINE EXCEPT FOR MY YEAR, THUS WE HAD TO FIND OUT THE HARD WAY. WE NOW FACE REPLACING THIS PART, AT OUR OW…
Read full complaint
RE: 1998 FORD MUSTANG 4.6 LITRE. DEFECTIVE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD SPLIT NEAR THERMOSTAT HOUSING. FOUND OUT THROUGH INTERNET RESEARCH THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM, WITH RECALLS TO ALMOST EVERY VEHICLE MADE WITH A 4.6 LITER ENGINE EXCEPT FOR MY YEAR, THUS WE HAD TO FIND OUT THE HARD WAY. WE NOW FACE REPLACING THIS PART, AT OUR OWN EXPENSE, BECAUSE FORD REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE REPLACEMENT. WE WERE TREATED RUDELY AT THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP, WHO EVEN REFUSED TO TELL US WHETHER A UPGRADED REPLACEMENT PART WAS AVAILABLE. THUS THE INTERNET RESEARCH. THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET!!
COOLANT WAS LEAKING SLOWLY FOR ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS, THEN BEGAN TO LEAK A LOT THE END OF DECEMBER, SO THE CAR WAS UNDRIVEABLE BECAUSE OF RISK OF OVERHEATING, AND HAD TO BE TOWED TO DEALER. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE LEAK RESULTED FROM A CRACK IN THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD WHERE THE THERMOSTAT SITS. THE DEALER REPLACED THE MANIF…
Read full complaint
COOLANT WAS LEAKING SLOWLY FOR ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS, THEN BEGAN TO LEAK A LOT THE END OF DECEMBER, SO THE CAR WAS UNDRIVEABLE BECAUSE OF RISK OF OVERHEATING, AND HAD TO BE TOWED TO DEALER. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE LEAK RESULTED FROM A CRACK IN THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD WHERE THE THERMOSTAT SITS. THE DEALER REPLACED THE MANIFOLD WITH A NEW MANIFOLD THAT IS METAL WHERE THE CRACK OCCURRED (AN INDICATION OF FORD'S AWARENESS OF THE PROBLEM). THE COST TO REPLACE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS $1,070 AND I HAVE KEPT MY OLD MANIFOLD. THROUGH MY RESEARCH, I DISCOVERED THAT FORD WILL REPLACE THIS PART ON THE 1996-1997 MUSTANGS AND POLICE AND FLEET CARS. A MEMORANDUM TO THE DEALERSHIPS SHOWS THAT THE 1996-1998 MUSTANGS HAVE THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD PART NUMBER, SO FORD SHOULD REIMBURSE ME FOR THE COST TO REPLACE MY INTAKE MANIFOLD. *JB
THERE IS COOLANT LEAKING FROM THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE DUE TO A DEFECT THAT THE INTAKE HAS. *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.