NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
36 reports53,564 miles · Jul 26, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
CRACK ON THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD AT THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING ALLOWING ANTI-FREEZE TO LEAK ON THE ENGINE. THE INTAKE MANIFOLD MUST BE REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND HAS RECALLED THE FAULTY INTAKE MANIFOLDS ON ALL FLEET VEHICLES BUT REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES. THIS IS NOT R…
Read full complaint
CRACK ON THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD AT THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING ALLOWING ANTI-FREEZE TO LEAK ON THE ENGINE. THE INTAKE MANIFOLD MUST BE REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND HAS RECALLED THE FAULTY INTAKE MANIFOLDS ON ALL FLEET VEHICLES BUT REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES. THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!!
NHTSA ODI #10130152
53,564 miles · Jul 26, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
CRACK ON THE PLASTIC INTAKE MINFOLD AT THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING ALLOWING ANTI-FREEZE TO LEAK ON THE ENGINE. THE INTAKE MANIFOLD MUST BE REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND HAS RECALLED THE FAULTY INTAKE MINIFOLDS ON ALL FLEET VEHICLES BUT REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES. THIS IS NOT RI…
Read full complaint
CRACK ON THE PLASTIC INTAKE MINFOLD AT THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING ALLOWING ANTI-FREEZE TO LEAK ON THE ENGINE. THE INTAKE MANIFOLD MUST BE REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND HAS RECALLED THE FAULTY INTAKE MINIFOLDS ON ALL FLEET VEHICLES BUT REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES. THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!!
NHTSA ODI #10130151
29,000 miles · Oct 19, 2004
Seat Belts
THE FRONT SEAT BELTS MALFUNCTIONED, THEY WILL EITHER NOT RELEASE FROM HOLSTER, OR WHEN RELEASED WILL NOT RETRACT BACK INTO THE HOLSTER WITHOUT EXCESSIVE FORCE BEING APPLIED. THIS CAUSED THE BELTS TO FRAY AT THE EDGES. DEALERSHIP WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY REMEDY OR CAUSE FOR THIS PROBLEM.*AK SEAT BELTS STARTED GETTING HARD TO PULLO…
Read full complaint
THE FRONT SEAT BELTS MALFUNCTIONED, THEY WILL EITHER NOT RELEASE FROM HOLSTER, OR WHEN RELEASED WILL NOT RETRACT BACK INTO THE HOLSTER WITHOUT EXCESSIVE FORCE BEING APPLIED. THIS CAUSED THE BELTS TO FRAY AT THE EDGES. DEALERSHIP WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY REMEDY OR CAUSE FOR THIS PROBLEM.*AK SEAT BELTS STARTED GETTING HARD TO PULLOUT AND WOULD NOT ROLL BACK UP . *TC
NHTSA ODI #10090104
75 miles · Sep 8, 2004
Power Train
REAR END HAS FAILED ON VEHICLE TWO TIMES WITHIN 4 YEARS. AFTER 1 YEAR, BEGIN TO HEAR A GRINDING SOUND COMING FROM THE REAR END. THE SECOND INCIDENT, I HEARD A SCRUBBING SOUND COMING FROM THE REAR END.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10090660
70,015 miles · Sep 6, 2004
Seats
THE INCIDENT OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING ON MY WAY TO WORK, ABOUT A BLOCK AWAY FROM MY RESIDENCE. THE SEAT BACK JUST UNEXPECTEDLY FELL TO A FULL RECLINE AGAINST THE BACK SEAT. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR BACK TO MY RESIDENCE SO I COULD EVALUATE WHAT HAD HAPPENED. I TRIED TO VISUALLY SEE IF I COULD IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM BY TRYING TO RE…
Read full complaint
THE INCIDENT OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING ON MY WAY TO WORK, ABOUT A BLOCK AWAY FROM MY RESIDENCE. THE SEAT BACK JUST UNEXPECTEDLY FELL TO A FULL RECLINE AGAINST THE BACK SEAT. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR BACK TO MY RESIDENCE SO I COULD EVALUATE WHAT HAD HAPPENED. I TRIED TO VISUALLY SEE IF I COULD IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM BY TRYING TO REPOSITION THE SEAT. I ENDED UP REMOVING THE BLACK PLASTIC COVER, WHICH IS FASTENED OVER THE LEVER/LATCH ASSEMBLY, TO EXPOSE THE INTERNAL MECHANISM OF THE LEVER/LATCH ASSEMBLY ON THE RECLINING SEAT BACK. UPON REMOVING THE PLASTIC COVER, I WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY A LOOSE BOLT IN THE MECHANISM. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THE BOLT OUT OF THE MECHANISM WITHOUT UNSCREWING IT. THE BOLT LITERALLY SLID STRAIGHT OUT. AS I INSPECTED THE LOCATION WHERE THE BOLT WAS SUPPOSED TO FASTEN INTO, I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS STILL A REMAINING PORTION OF THE BOLT LEFT IN THE MECHANISM. THE BOLT, WHICH FASTENS THE LATCH/LEVER SYSTEM OF THE RECLINING (SEAT BACK) PORTION OF THE FRONT DRIVER'S SEAT, ESSENTIALLY SHEARED IN HALF. THIS CAUSED THE RECLINING (SEAT BACK) PORTION OF THE FRONT DRIVER'S SEAT TO FALL AWAY FROM ITS UPRIGHT POSITION. WITHOUT THE BOLT FASTENED INTO THE LATCH/LEVER ASSEMBLY WHICH ALLOWS DRIVER TO MANIPULATE POSITION OF SEAT BACK THE SEAT BACK IS NOT ABLE TO BE POSITIONED UPRIGHT, ULTIMATELY MAKING DRIVING IMPOSSIBLE. BASICALLY, THE SEAT BACK SWIVELS LOOSELY FROM THE STEERING WHEEL TO THE BACK SEAT AND CANNOT BE SET SECURELY IN AN UPRIGHT DRIVABLE POSITION. THE BOLT IN QUESTION IS A M10 WITH 1.5MM PITCH (METRIC 10), WHICH IS CLOSE IN SIZE TO A 3/8 STANDARD BOLT. I HAVE ONLY OWNED THE CAR FOR 5 YEARS AND 4 MONTHS (I PURCHASED IT IN APRIL OF 1999). THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN SERIOUS INJURY AND OR DEATH. THE LOCAL RCHASED THE VEHICLE WOULD DO NOTHING TO HELP ME REMEDY THIS PROBLEM AND DID NOTHING TO RECOGNIZE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS KIND OF FAILURE. I WAS FORCED TO FIX THE SEAT ON MY OWN. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10090521
43,195 miles · Jan 17, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1999 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH A 4.6 L ENGINE. IT HAVE GAINED KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A COMMON DEFECT ON THIS ENGINE SINCE THE 1996 MODEL YEAR ON ALMOST EVERY FORD MOTORS VEHICLE WITH THIS ENGINE SETUP. FORD HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL ON THIS KNOWN DEFECTIVE PART AND DOES NOT ADMIT TO THIS P…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1999 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH A 4.6 L ENGINE. IT HAVE GAINED KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A COMMON DEFECT ON THIS ENGINE SINCE THE 1996 MODEL YEAR ON ALMOST EVERY FORD MOTORS VEHICLE WITH THIS ENGINE SETUP. FORD HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL ON THIS KNOWN DEFECTIVE PART AND DOES NOT ADMIT TO THIS PROBLEM IN THEIR VEHICLES. UPON CONTACTING THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE, THEY WILL NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE ON THE REPAIR THAT WILL COST THEIR INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS TO REPAIR AND REPLACE. I FIND THIS UNACCEPTABLE FROM A COMPANY THAT MARKETS THEIR QUALITY TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHILE NOT FESSING UP TO A MANUFACTURERS DEFECT THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS. * CB
NHTSA ODI #10054325
15,000 miles · Nov 5, 2003
Visibility
THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, BUT SOMETIMES WHEN I PUT MY TURN SIGNAL ON IN MY 1999 MUSTANG GT, MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS WILL COME ON. IF I GIGGLE THE HANDLE FROM THE OPPOSITE WAY I WAS TURNING, IT WILL STOP. SOME DAYS IT WILL ONLY DO IT ONCE, AND OTHERS IT DOES IT ALMOST NON STOP WHEN I HAVE THE CAR ON. IT IS A VERY ANNOYING…
Read full complaint
THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, BUT SOMETIMES WHEN I PUT MY TURN SIGNAL ON IN MY 1999 MUSTANG GT, MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS WILL COME ON. IF I GIGGLE THE HANDLE FROM THE OPPOSITE WAY I WAS TURNING, IT WILL STOP. SOME DAYS IT WILL ONLY DO IT ONCE, AND OTHERS IT DOES IT ALMOST NON STOP WHEN I HAVE THE CAR ON. IT IS A VERY ANNOYING MALFUNCTION, AND HAS COST ME IN REPLACING MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS NUMEROUS TIMES BECAUSE OF THEM RUNNING ON A DRY WINDSHIELD ALL THE TIME. I TALKED TO THE LOCAL FORD STORE HERE, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A BULLETIN ON IT, BUT NEVER ANY RECALL. I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN YOUR SERVICE BULLETINS, AND I REFUSE TO PAY THE $250 DOLLARS THEY TOLD ME IT WOULD COST TO REPLACE IT.
NHTSA ODI #10045506
53,000 miles · Oct 29, 2003
Seats
THERE WAS A SERIOUS MALFUNCTION IN THE DRIVERS SEAT ON MY 1999 FORD MUSTANG GT THAT COULD HAVE EASILY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY IN LAS VEGAS RETURNING FROM WORK WHEN WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE MECHANISM THAT HOLDS THE SEAT BACK UP FAILED AND THE SEAT BACK FAIL BACK ON THE REAR SEAT. LUCKILY, I HAD A FIRM…
Read full complaint
THERE WAS A SERIOUS MALFUNCTION IN THE DRIVERS SEAT ON MY 1999 FORD MUSTANG GT THAT COULD HAVE EASILY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY IN LAS VEGAS RETURNING FROM WORK WHEN WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE MECHANISM THAT HOLDS THE SEAT BACK UP FAILED AND THE SEAT BACK FAIL BACK ON THE REAR SEAT. LUCKILY, I HAD A FIRM GRIP ON THE STEERING WHEEL AND WAS ABLE TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT. I HAD NEVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH THIS SEAT BEFORE, AND IT WAS SUBJECT TO NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. WHEN I CONTACTED FORD, THEY SAID THAT IT WAS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. WAS OUT OF WARRANTY SO THEY WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT SUCH A FAILURE COULD EASILY RESULT IN A LOSS OF CONTROL OF ANOTHER MUSTANG WITH A SIMILAR SEAT, RESULTING IN INJURIES AND FATILITIES.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10043898
26,960 miles · Oct 29, 2003
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
WHEN SLOWING DOWN VEHICLE IDLE SPEED DROPS,AND SUDDENLY PICKS UP, CAUSING CAR TO LURCH FORWARD. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10043895
56,650 miles · Oct 6, 2003
Engine And Engine Cooling
CAR STALLS WHEN SLOWING TO A STOP AND HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES. TOOK THE CAR TO FORD AND CLEANED THE THROTTLE BODY AND REFLASHED THE COMPUTER. THE PROBLEM CAME BACK SEVERAL DAYS LATER AND CHANGED THE IDLE AIR CONTROL VALVE YET THE PROBLEM STILL ARISES. WHEN SLOWING TO A STOP THE RPM DROP TO 500 RPM AND THEN BOUNCED BACK U…
Read full complaint
CAR STALLS WHEN SLOWING TO A STOP AND HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES. TOOK THE CAR TO FORD AND CLEANED THE THROTTLE BODY AND REFLASHED THE COMPUTER. THE PROBLEM CAME BACK SEVERAL DAYS LATER AND CHANGED THE IDLE AIR CONTROL VALVE YET THE PROBLEM STILL ARISES. WHEN SLOWING TO A STOP THE RPM DROP TO 500 RPM AND THEN BOUNCED BACK UP TO AN IDLE AT 700 RPM. OTHER TIMES THAT IT WILL DROP BELOW 500 RPM, AND THE CAR STARTS TO STALL. *LA
NHTSA ODI #10041289
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