IllustrationTHE PLASTIC INTAKE ON THE ENGINE (4.6 SOHC), CRACKED IN THE WATER JACKET AREA CAUSING, AN ANTI-FREEZE FLUID LEAK. *JB
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 reportsPLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. HAPPENS ON MOST 1996-1998 MUSTANG GT 4.6. NEW PART FROM FORD REPLACES PLASTIC PART PRONE TO CRACKING WITH ALUMINUM PART. FORD HAS A SERVICE PROGRAM # 97M91 RELATED TO 4.6 ENGINES FOR CARS BUILT 07/1995 - 06/1997. CARS BUILT AFTER THIS END DATE STILL EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS DUE TO DEFECTIVE PART. *AK
1) VEHICLE STARTED LOSING RADIATOR FLUID THEN 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT CAME ON. 2) TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC WHO STATED THERE IS A CRACK IN THE FRONT PLASTIC PART ON THE ENGINE. MECHANIC STATED HE HAS REPLACED A COUPLE DOZEN OF THESE PARTS ON OTHER NEWER MUSTANGS AND IT WAS COVERED BY WARRANTY. MECHANIC STATED TO TAKE TO THE FORD D…
Read full complaint
1) VEHICLE STARTED LOSING RADIATOR FLUID THEN 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT CAME ON. 2) TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC WHO STATED THERE IS A CRACK IN THE FRONT PLASTIC PART ON THE ENGINE. MECHANIC STATED HE HAS REPLACED A COUPLE DOZEN OF THESE PARTS ON OTHER NEWER MUSTANGS AND IT WAS COVERED BY WARRANTY. MECHANIC STATED TO TAKE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, THIS WAS A DEFECTIVE PART AND IS BEING REPLACED WITH AN ALUMINUM PART INSTEAD OF PLASTIC BECAUSE OF THIS DEFECT. 3) TOOK VEHICLE TO COLUMBIA, SC DEALERSHIP. THEY STATED OTHER MECHANIC WAS CORRECT AND WOULD IT COST $780 TO REPLACE PART. 4) I FEEL FORD SHOULD PAY FOR THIS SINCE IT IS A DEFECTIVE PART. *AK
CAR IS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH THE SOHC 4.6L ENGINE. AT AROUND 105K MILES, COOLANT LEVELS STARTED DROPPING RAPIDLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ENGINE WAS REVVED ABOVE 3000 RPMS. EVENTUALLY, LEVELS DROPPED MORE QUICKLY THAN COOLANT COULD BE REPLACED AND CAR OVERHEATED. FOUND A LARGE POOL OF COOLANT IN ENGINE VALLEY BETWEEN CYLINDERS…
Read full complaint
CAR IS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH THE SOHC 4.6L ENGINE. AT AROUND 105K MILES, COOLANT LEVELS STARTED DROPPING RAPIDLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ENGINE WAS REVVED ABOVE 3000 RPMS. EVENTUALLY, LEVELS DROPPED MORE QUICKLY THAN COOLANT COULD BE REPLACED AND CAR OVERHEATED. FOUND A LARGE POOL OF COOLANT IN ENGINE VALLEY BETWEEN CYLINDERS. FOUND RECALL ON COMPOSITE INTAKES FOR 1996 AND 1997 MUSTANG GT'S WITH 4.6L SOHC ENGINE BUT NOT ON 1998 VEHICLES. INTAKE WAS REPLACED WITH NEW VERSION WITH CAST ALUMINUM CROSSOVER TUBE AT OWNER'S EXPENSE. *AK
I HAVE LOST 1 QUART OF OIL PER 1000 MILES SINCE 40,000 MILES. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A POOL OF OIL UNDER MY CAR BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE LEAK. MULTIPLE VISITS TO THE DEALERSHIP HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THIS LEAK. MY NEW MECHANIC FINALLY FOUND THE LEAK TO BE A CRACKED TIMING CHAIN COVER. THERE IS A V-SHAPED CRACK ON TH…
Read full complaint
I HAVE LOST 1 QUART OF OIL PER 1000 MILES SINCE 40,000 MILES. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A POOL OF OIL UNDER MY CAR BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE LEAK. MULTIPLE VISITS TO THE DEALERSHIP HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THIS LEAK. MY NEW MECHANIC FINALLY FOUND THE LEAK TO BE A CRACKED TIMING CHAIN COVER. THERE IS A V-SHAPED CRACK ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE COVER. HE SAYS IT'S PROBABLY A CASTING ERROR. THE CAR NOW HAS 90,000 MILES AND OF COURSE IS NOT UNDER ANY WARRANTY. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD AND TWO SETS OF WORN REAR-END BEARINGS.*AK
A USED VEHICLE ('98 MUSTANG GT) WAS FINANCED FROM A USED CAR DEALERSHIP BY MY DAUGHTER APPROX. 3 WEEKS AGO. THE SALESMAN WHO CLOSED THE DEAL STATED THAT THE ONLY ITEMS TO BE COVERED UNDER ANY KIND OF WARRANTY WOULD BE THOSE REGARDED AS SAFETY ITEMS. ENGINE FAILURE OR COSMETIC FEATURES WOULD NOT BE COVERED. APPROX. 17 DAYS AFTER …
Read full complaint
A USED VEHICLE ('98 MUSTANG GT) WAS FINANCED FROM A USED CAR DEALERSHIP BY MY DAUGHTER APPROX. 3 WEEKS AGO. THE SALESMAN WHO CLOSED THE DEAL STATED THAT THE ONLY ITEMS TO BE COVERED UNDER ANY KIND OF WARRANTY WOULD BE THOSE REGARDED AS SAFETY ITEMS. ENGINE FAILURE OR COSMETIC FEATURES WOULD NOT BE COVERED. APPROX. 17 DAYS AFTER FINANCING THE VEHICLE, THE REAR SWAY BAR BROKE WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING IT. THE CAR WAS IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THE DEALERSHIP TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM WHERE IT SAT WITHOUT NOTIFICATION FOR ANOTHER 2 OR 3 DAYS. WE WERE INFORMED BY A REPRESENTATIVE (I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE OWNER OR THE MANAGER, DUE TO THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE 4 OR 5 PEOPLE I SPOKE TO, NO ONE WOULD CLAIM MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY) THAT THE PART DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A SAFETY ITEM WHICH MEANS MY DAUGHTER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF THE PART AND THE LABOR. THE SWAY BAR WAS REMOVED BY THE DEALERSHIP MECHANIC AND I CURRENTLY HAVE IT IN MY POSSESSION. THERE ARE DEFINITE SIGNS THAT THE PART WAS CRACKED AND READY TO BREAK LONG BEFORE THE PURCHASE WAS MADE. I ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH THE MANAGER AND/OR THE OWNER TO GET SOME RESOLUTION. I HAD OFFERED TO REPLACE THE PART MYSELF IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SIMPLY PURCHASE IT. THE MANAGER SAID THE ONLY THING HE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IS COVER HALF THE COST OF PARTS AND LABOR ($150). I FEEL THAT THIS PART SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE SAFETY CLAUSE THAT THE SALESMAN ORIGINALLY TOLD MY DAUGHTER WOULD BE IN EFFECT. THE COST OF THE PART AND LABOR DOESN'T BOTHER ME NEARLY AS MUCH AS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO STAND BEHIND THE VEHICLES THEY SELL. THEREFORE, I AM REQUESTING THAT A COMPLAINT BE FILED AGAINST BAJA MOTORS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY INSIST A FULL SAFETY INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED ON THIS VEHICLE, BUT THAT THEY REFUSE TO STAND BEHIND A SAFETY ITEM WHICH WAS CLEARLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO MY DAUGHTER TAKING DELIVERY. SINCERELY, [XXX]. *AK INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. MANIFOLD DEVELOPED CRACK FOR NO REASON. I FOUND OUT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM FROM FORD AND FORD WILL NOT RECALL THE CARS. THE NEW REPLACMENT INTAKE MANIFOLD IS METAL IN THE AREA THAT DEVELOPS A CRACK AND FORD CHARGES ALOT OF MONEY FOR THE REPLACMENT THAT WAS A BAD DESIGN IN THE FIRST P…
Read full complaint
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. MANIFOLD DEVELOPED CRACK FOR NO REASON. I FOUND OUT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM FROM FORD AND FORD WILL NOT RECALL THE CARS. THE NEW REPLACMENT INTAKE MANIFOLD IS METAL IN THE AREA THAT DEVELOPS A CRACK AND FORD CHARGES ALOT OF MONEY FOR THE REPLACMENT THAT WAS A BAD DESIGN IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT REFUSES TO RECALL THIS PROBLEM OR REFUND THE COST OF A NEW INTAKE MANIFOLD. *AK
INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. NOTICED NEW ONE WAS REDESIGNED. WHY REDESIGN IT UNLESS THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE OLD ONE? AND IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE OLD ONE WHY NOT A RECALL?
1998 FORD MUSTANG GT - INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACK. ISSUE REFERENCED IN TSB #02-2-2 FROM FORD. FORD IS WILLING TO REPLACE '96-97 MUSTANGS BUT NOT '98 ALTHOUGH IT'S THE SAME PART NUMBER (OWNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS 97M91, 01M02, 99M01). SEVERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ISSUED (ALABAMA/CALIFORNIA). SPOKE WITH LOCAL DEALERSHIP AND FORD…
Read full complaint
1998 FORD MUSTANG GT - INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACK. ISSUE REFERENCED IN TSB #02-2-2 FROM FORD. FORD IS WILLING TO REPLACE '96-97 MUSTANGS BUT NOT '98 ALTHOUGH IT'S THE SAME PART NUMBER (OWNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS 97M91, 01M02, 99M01). SEVERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ISSUED (ALABAMA/CALIFORNIA). SPOKE WITH LOCAL DEALERSHIP AND FORD CUSTOMER CARE CENTER (REF#1366271768) - BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE PROBLEM BUT TELL ME '98 MUSTANG NOT COVERED ALTHOUGH MEMORANDUM TO ALL FORD DEALERSHIPS DATED DECEMBER OF 2001 SHOWS 1996-1998 MUSTANG WITH THE REPLACEMENT MANIFOLD PART NUMBER. SEARCHES ON INTERNET REVEAL A DISTURBING TREND. FORD RECALLED FLEET AND POLICE UNITS WITH THIS SAME ISSUE BUT LEFT THE CONSUMER TO PAY FOR FORD'S POOR DESIGN. NEW MANIFOLD DESIGN USES A METAL ALLOY INSIDE INTAKE MANIFOLD WHERE COOLANT TRANSFERS - SO THEY KNOW IT'S A DESIGN DEFECT. *LA
INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED, CAUSING ANTIFREEZE TO LEAK. THIS PROBLEM MAKES IT HARD FOR CONSUMER TO START VEHICLE. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT THE PROBLEM WAS NOT RESOLVED.*AK
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.