NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
53 reports61,250 miles · Nov 9, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
CRACKED COMPOSITE INTAKE MANIFOLD COOLANT CROSSOVER RESULTING IN COOLANT LEAK. MANIFOLD BEING REPLACED WITH NEW ALUMINUM MANIFOLD. I SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME AWARE OF SETTLEMENT IN CHAMBERLAN V. FORD. I NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AND MY VEHICLE WAS PAST THE 7 YEAR LIMIT AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT. I FEEL THAT FO…
Read full complaint
CRACKED COMPOSITE INTAKE MANIFOLD COOLANT CROSSOVER RESULTING IN COOLANT LEAK. MANIFOLD BEING REPLACED WITH NEW ALUMINUM MANIFOLD. I SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME AWARE OF SETTLEMENT IN CHAMBERLAN V. FORD. I NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AND MY VEHICLE WAS PAST THE 7 YEAR LIMIT AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT. I FEEL THAT FORD SHOULD EXTEND COVERAGE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10173031
Mileage unknown · Oct 19, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
LAST YEAR I RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. I HEARD NOTHING ELSE AFTERWARD, AND HAVE ONLY JUST REALIZED THAT I MISSED THE MARCH 16, 2006 DEADLINE. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF CAN DO IN THIS INSTANCE? *NM
NHTSA ODI #10171311
60,000 miles · Oct 17, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
1998 FORD MUSTANG GT INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED AND LEAKING ANTIFREEZE. MISSED THE SILENT RECALL BY 6 MONTHS. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10171134
82,000 miles · Oct 15, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
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 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,
NHTSA ODI #10170853
89,500 miles · Aug 22, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
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
NHTSA ODI #10166194
94,000 miles · May 12, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
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
NHTSA ODI #10157475
96,203 miles · Sep 22, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
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
NHTSA ODI #10137290
47,000 miles · Aug 30, 2005
Interior LightingService Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS A SAFETY HAZARD. I HOPE YOU WILL LET ME KNOW. I OWN A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. IT HAS 48,620 MILES ON IT. ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THE CRUISE CONTROL AND INSIDE LIGHTS STOPPED WORKING. I TOOK IT IN TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. THEY TOLD ME IT WAS SOME KIND OF SENSOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DO NOT REMEMBER SPECIFICS. TH…
Read full complaint
I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS A SAFETY HAZARD. I HOPE YOU WILL LET ME KNOW. I OWN A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. IT HAS 48,620 MILES ON IT. ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THE CRUISE CONTROL AND INSIDE LIGHTS STOPPED WORKING. I TOOK IT IN TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. THEY TOLD ME IT WAS SOME KIND OF SENSOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DO NOT REMEMBER SPECIFICS. THEY TOLD ME IT WOULD BE ABOUT $500.00 PLUS TO FIX IT. I COULD NOT AFFORD TO FIX. LAST MONTH THE ABS LIGHT CAME ON IN THE CAR. I TOOK IT IN LAST WEEK AND THEY TOLD ME THE HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT WAS BAD. IT WOULD BE $992.00 PLUS TO FIX IT. I SPENT $115.00 JUST SO THEY COULD TELL ME THIS. I AM FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, I DO NOT HAVE THIS KIND OF MONEY. THE CAR IS IN MINT CONDITION. YES, IT IS ABOUT 8 YEARS OLD BUT, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE MILES IT HAS HARDLY BEEN DRIVEN. FORD DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I DO NOT THINK ALL OF THESE SENSORS AND OTHER THINGS SHOULD BE GOING WRONG WITH IT. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A MANUFACTURING ERROR AND PROBLEMS ON FORDS END. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE FIXING THESE THINGS. I COULD SEE IF MY CARD HAD MORE MILES ON IT AND I HAD THESE PROBLEMS BUT, NOT AT 48,620 MILES. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF THE ABS UNIT IS NOT REPLACED. THE FORD DEALERSHIP WOULD NOT GO INTO DETAILS. SO, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR ME. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10134770
Mileage unknown · Jun 14, 2005
Engine And Engine CoolingCrashFireInjury
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.
NHTSA ODI #10125306
79,000 miles · May 27, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED UNDER NORMAL OPERATION WITH NO REAL REASON AS TO IT'S FAILURE OTHER THAN STRUCTURAL FLAWS IN IT'S ORIGINAL DESIGN.
NHTSA ODI #10122338
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