NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
44 reportsClear category filter89,700 miles · Dec 27, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I CURRENTLY OWN A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 90,000 MILES ON THE ENGINE. IAM THE SRCOND OWNER. IT HAS THE 4.6 V-8 ENGINE. AT APPROXIMATELY 88,000 MILES THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DEVELOPED A CRACK AND STARTED LEAKING ANTIFREEZE. IT HAS CONTINUALLY GOTTEN WORSE AND IS NOW TO THE POINT THAT THE VEHICLE IS INOPERABLE. I CO…
Read full complaint
I CURRENTLY OWN A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 90,000 MILES ON THE ENGINE. IAM THE SRCOND OWNER. IT HAS THE 4.6 V-8 ENGINE. AT APPROXIMATELY 88,000 MILES THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DEVELOPED A CRACK AND STARTED LEAKING ANTIFREEZE. IT HAS CONTINUALLY GOTTEN WORSE AND IS NOW TO THE POINT THAT THE VEHICLE IS INOPERABLE. I CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE ON 12/27/2004 REGARDING 3 CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION LETTERS I FOUND ON LINE REGARDING THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURES AND WAS TOLD THAT MY VIN #'S WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE RECALL FOR REPLACEMENT. I HAVE ALSO LEARNED THAT THIS IS VERY COMMON FAILURE. I CONTEND THAT FORD SHOULD REPLACE ALL DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLDS AS THEY OCCUR INSTEAD OF DESIGNATING ONLY CERTAIN VIN #'S AS A FAILURE IS A FAILURE.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10104556
84,782 miles · Nov 27, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
FORD AUTOMOBILES 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 O…
Read full complaint
FORD AUTOMOBILES 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
NHTSA ODI #10100596
111,000 miles · Nov 20, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
(1) FORD MADE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD OUT OF PLASTIC. (2) MANIFOLD CRACKED, AND CAUSED LOSS OF ENGINE COOLANT. (3) REPLACED MANIFOLD.OLD PART IS AVAILABLE. NOTES: NEW ONE IS MADE OF ALUMINUM IN CRACK AREA! FORD HAS ISSUED A RECALL BUT ONLY FOR FLEET VEHICLES. INTERNET IS FULL OF LIKE STORIES. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10100262
91,700 miles · Nov 9, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
HELLO, MY FORD MUSTANG OVERHEATED AND DEVELOPED A CRACK IN THE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH RESULTED IN ENGINE COOLANT LEAK AND IT HAD TO BE REPLACED. I READ THAT A RECALL ON THIS PART THAT WAS CALLED BY FORD BECAUSE THE SAME EXACT ENGINE ON THE CROWN VICTORIA GIVES THE SAME PROBLEMS AND A RECALL IS IN EFFECT ON IT. WHY WOULD THEY…
Read full complaint
HELLO, MY FORD MUSTANG OVERHEATED AND DEVELOPED A CRACK IN THE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH RESULTED IN ENGINE COOLANT LEAK AND IT HAD TO BE REPLACED. I READ THAT A RECALL ON THIS PART THAT WAS CALLED BY FORD BECAUSE THE SAME EXACT ENGINE ON THE CROWN VICTORIA GIVES THE SAME PROBLEMS AND A RECALL IS IN EFFECT ON IT. WHY WOULD THEY NOT HAVE A RECALL ON ALL ENGINES IF IT IS ECACTLY THE SAME? I WOULD HONESTLY APPRECIATE AN ANSWER IF IT CAN BE PROVIDED. BEST REGARDS. MUNAZZAR TAPAL.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10098520
Mileage unknown · Oct 19, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD VALVE HAS CRACKED AND WILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED. I HAVE DONE QUITE A BIT OF INTERENT RESEARCH AND FOUND THIS SEEMS TO BE A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THIS PLASTIC PART THAT FORD REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10096000
109,430 miles · Sep 28, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
MY 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH A 4.6 LITER ENGINE SUFFERED A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH WAS REPLACED COSTING APPROXIMATELY $600,00, HAS CRACKED ONCE AGAIN. I HAVE CONTACTED NUMEROUS FORD DEALERSHIPS ABOUT THE PROBLEM, TO WHICH THEY REPLIED IT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. I FEEL THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN RECALLED ON OTHER SIMILAR…
Read full complaint
MY 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH A 4.6 LITER ENGINE SUFFERED A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH WAS REPLACED COSTING APPROXIMATELY $600,00, HAS CRACKED ONCE AGAIN. I HAVE CONTACTED NUMEROUS FORD DEALERSHIPS ABOUT THE PROBLEM, TO WHICH THEY REPLIED IT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. I FEEL THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN RECALLED ON OTHER SIMILAR VEHICLES SHOULD ALSO BE RECALLED AND REPLACED WITH A WORKING PART ON MINE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10093272
Mileage unknown · Sep 27, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH VEHICLE OVERHEATED. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE INDEPENDENT SHOP, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED, AND COOLANT SPILLED INSIDE THE ENGINE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10094368
67,000 miles · Aug 25, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
VEHICLE CONTAINS A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFORD THAT CRACKS DUE TO THE HEAT AND CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN STANDARD ENGINE USE. THE CRACKS ALLOW THE ESCAPE OF RADIATOR FLUID/ANTIFREEZE ... WHICH WILL THEN CAUSE PERMENANT DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE/VEHICLE.*AK FORD IN FACT KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM, AND WARRANTIES CERTAIN VEHICLE STYLES/YEARS AS…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE CONTAINS A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFORD THAT CRACKS DUE TO THE HEAT AND CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN STANDARD ENGINE USE. THE CRACKS ALLOW THE ESCAPE OF RADIATOR FLUID/ANTIFREEZE ... WHICH WILL THEN CAUSE PERMENANT DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE/VEHICLE.*AK FORD IN FACT KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM, AND WARRANTIES CERTAIN VEHICLE STYLES/YEARS AS WELL AS VEHICLES USED AS FLEET/POLICE/TAXI VEHICLES ... BUT NOT ALL AFFECTED VEHICLES FOR CONSUMERS THAT CONTAIN THE IDENTICAL PART IN QUESTION. LATER VEHICLE YEARS WERE FITTED WITH INTAKES WITH EITHER ALUMINUM CROSSOVERS, OR MADE ALL OF ALUMINUM. VEHICLES THAT CONTAIN THE FAILED PART HAVE THE PART REPLACED WITH THE ALUMINUM-CROSSOVER PART AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. 1.) PART FAILS UNDER REGULAR USE OF VEHICLE. 2.) DEFECTIVE PART MUST BE REPLACED AT HIGH COST OF LABOR - DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO REPAIR PART DESPITE TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLITIN #97M91. 3.) NOTHING. - DEALER WILL NOT REPLACE - I CANNOT AFORD REPLACEMENT CURRENTLY.
NHTSA ODI #10088568
103,513 miles · Aug 16, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. I NOW HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. FORD MOTOR COMPANY KNOWS THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLDS ARE SUBJECT TO FAILURE. THEY ALSO RECALLED SOME OF THE VEHICLES WITH THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT I HAVE IN MY CAR. I WAS TOLD, BY FORD THAT SINCE MY CAR WAS MADE A FEW MONTHS AFTER THOSE BEING RECALLED THAT …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. I NOW HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. FORD MOTOR COMPANY KNOWS THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLDS ARE SUBJECT TO FAILURE. THEY ALSO RECALLED SOME OF THE VEHICLES WITH THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT I HAVE IN MY CAR. I WAS TOLD, BY FORD THAT SINCE MY CAR WAS MADE A FEW MONTHS AFTER THOSE BEING RECALLED THAT I DO NOT QUALIFY. THE PART IN QUESTION IS AN INTAKE MANIFOLD MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. THE MANIFOLDS THAT WERE REPLACED BY FORD NOW HAVE ALUMINUM IN PLACE OF THE PLASTIC IN THE AREA OF THE CRACK. I LEARNED OF A FORD DOCUMENT # 97M91 WHICH SHOWS THAT FORD KNOWS OF THE PROBLEM. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT I CAN DO TO TRY AND GET FORD TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10086959
82,000 miles · Aug 14, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. WAS TOLD NEW ONE WAS REDESIGNED. SPOKE WITH SEVERAL AUTO PARTS DEALERS AND FOUND THIS COMPONENT BREAKS IN SAME LOCATION ON ALL. THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND FORD WILL NOT REPLACE FOR FREE OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10086853
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