IllustrationFUEL NECK OF 2001 MUSTANG GT RUSTED THROUGH BENEATH A PLASTIC BLACK SHEET POSSIBLY BECAUSE OF ROAD SALT BUILD UP. THIS LEAD TO FUEL LEAKAGE AND EMISSION CODE FAILURE DUE TO LOW TANK PRESSURE. THE FUEL NECK AND FUEL NECK GASKET WERE CHANGED. *TR
2001 Ford Mustang Gt
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2001 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
70–25K
1325–50K
1350–75K
575–100K
4100–150K
1150K+
43 reports with mileage · 16 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 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 9 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
11 crash reports0 fire reports5 injury reports
Fuel System, Gasoline complaints
9 reportsENGINE IDLES ABOUT 3000 RPM AT START UP UNTIL ENGINE IS SHUT OFF. *TR
FUEL PUMP BREAKS FREE FROM IN-TANK ATTACHMENT POINT RESULTING IN FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR MALFUNCTION AND FUEL STARVATION WHEN CORNING, ACCELERATION OR ABRUPT DECELERATION. CAUSES UNEXPECTED LAG IN ACCELERATION OR VEHICLE MAY STALL AT INOPPORTUNE TIMES. SINCE ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT OF ENTIRE FUEL TANK ASSEMBLY BY FORD THE FUEL SENDER…
Read full complaint
FUEL PUMP BREAKS FREE FROM IN-TANK ATTACHMENT POINT RESULTING IN FUEL LEVEL INDICATOR MALFUNCTION AND FUEL STARVATION WHEN CORNING, ACCELERATION OR ABRUPT DECELERATION. CAUSES UNEXPECTED LAG IN ACCELERATION OR VEHICLE MAY STALL AT INOPPORTUNE TIMES. SINCE ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT OF ENTIRE FUEL TANK ASSEMBLY BY FORD THE FUEL SENDER IN THIS VEHICLE HAS BEEN REPAIRED/REPLACED 2 ADDITIONAL TIMES. DEALERSHIP NOTED THAT THE PLASTIC RING SENDER ATTACHES TO CRACKS AND ONLY WAY TO REPAIR IS TO REPLACE ENTIRE FUEL TANK AT COST OF APPROX $900. MOST RECENT 2 REPLACEMENTS OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF EXTENDED WARRANTY BY A FEW DAYS AND FORD REFUSED TO REPLACE UNDER WARRANTY EVEN THOUGH THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN PARKED OVER THE WINTER AND ISSUE WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL VEHICLE CAME OUT OF STORAGE AFTER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED. REPAIR HAD OCCURRED IN FALL BEFORE VEHICLE WENT INTO STORAGE. EACH TIME FUEL TANK IS REPLACE RING CRACKS AGAIN, USUALLY WITHIN 30-90DAYS. THIS IS A HAZARD AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHEN THE VEHICLE WILL EXPERIENCE FUEL STARVATION OR STALLING, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN ACCIDENT OR INJURY OUTSIDE DRIVERS ABILITY TO AVOID. *TR
SINCE IT HAS GOTTEN COLDER, THE CAR START AND YOU HAVE TO SIT WITH YOUR FOOT ON THE GAS PEDAL FOR 5 OR 10 MINS OR THE CAR WILL STALL OUT WHEN YOU TRY TO PUT OUT OF WHERE EVER YOU ARE. DANGEROUS! MECHANIC CAN'T SEEM TO FIND THE PROBLEM, THEY THINK ITS A SENSOR BUT ARE NOT SURE. *TR
WHEN I FILLED MY CAR WITH GAS IT STARTED TO OVERFLOW OUT OF THE TOP THROUGH THE GAS CAP AREA AND POUR OUT OF THE BOTTOM. I HAD MY FATHER CHECK IT ABOUT AN HOUR LATER WHILE IT WAS PARKED AND HE COULDN'T FIND A LEAK. WE DETERMINED THE AUTOMATIC STOP ON THE PUMP MUST HAVE FAILED. I WENT TO PUT $20 OF GAS IN IT TWO DAYS AGO AND O…
Read full complaint
WHEN I FILLED MY CAR WITH GAS IT STARTED TO OVERFLOW OUT OF THE TOP THROUGH THE GAS CAP AREA AND POUR OUT OF THE BOTTOM. I HAD MY FATHER CHECK IT ABOUT AN HOUR LATER WHILE IT WAS PARKED AND HE COULDN'T FIND A LEAK. WE DETERMINED THE AUTOMATIC STOP ON THE PUMP MUST HAVE FAILED. I WENT TO PUT $20 OF GAS IN IT TWO DAYS AGO AND ONCE AGAIN IT WAS POURING OUT OF THE BOTTOM. SINCE I DIDN'T FILL IT UP THIS TIME, I KNEW IT HAD TO BE MY CAR AND NOT THE PUMP. I HAD MY MECHANIC LOOK AT IT AND HE DETERMINED THE FUEL FILLER HOSE HAS RUSTED THROUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE PLASTIC COVER AROUND IT. HE TOLD ME MY CAR IS SAFE TO BE DRIVEN BUT NOT TO PUT GAS IN. I'VE ORDERED THE $184 PART TO REPAIR IT AND AM CURRENTLY WAITING FOR IT TO COME IN TO THE DEALER. I FOUND MANY COMPLAINTS OF THIS INCIDENT BUT NO OFFICIAL RECALLS BY FORD. DID I MISS SOMETHING SOMEWHERE? IT SEEMS TO ME IF THERE ARE THAT MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE CAR, FORD WOULD HAVE DONE A RECALL. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG GT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THE GAS TANK WAS FILLED, FUEL WOULD LEAK BACK OUT OF THE VEHICLE. FUEL WOULD ALSO LEAK ONTO THE TAIL PIPES AND THE SHIELD SURROUNDING THE FUEL TANK. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FUEL TANK SHIELD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED IN ORDER TO KEEP THE GASOLINE FROM LEAK…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG GT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THE GAS TANK WAS FILLED, FUEL WOULD LEAK BACK OUT OF THE VEHICLE. FUEL WOULD ALSO LEAK ONTO THE TAIL PIPES AND THE SHIELD SURROUNDING THE FUEL TANK. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FUEL TANK SHIELD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED IN ORDER TO KEEP THE GASOLINE FROM LEAKING OUT OF THE VEHICLE AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $200. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 58,000. UPDATED 09/13/08.*LJ UPDATED 09/16/08 *JB
FUEL NECK BEGAN TO LEAK, WITHIN 2 WEEKS IT WAS LOOSING ALMOST A GALLON OF FUEL ON A $20.00 FILL. I CONTACTED FORD TWICE, I WAS TOLD TO TAKE IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP, I GOT AN ATTITUDE FROM THE DEALERSHIP SO I SPENT THE $110.00 ON A FORD PART AND $180.00 ON THE LABOR AT ANOTHER SERVICE STATION. ADVISED FORD OF THE SAFETY HAZARD, A…
Read full complaint
FUEL NECK BEGAN TO LEAK, WITHIN 2 WEEKS IT WAS LOOSING ALMOST A GALLON OF FUEL ON A $20.00 FILL. I CONTACTED FORD TWICE, I WAS TOLD TO TAKE IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP, I GOT AN ATTITUDE FROM THE DEALERSHIP SO I SPENT THE $110.00 ON A FORD PART AND $180.00 ON THE LABOR AT ANOTHER SERVICE STATION. ADVISED FORD OF THE SAFETY HAZARD, APPARENTLY DIDN'T CONCERN THEM ENOUGH TO CONTACT ME AND MAKE GOOD ON THE REPAIRS. *TR
2 WEEKS AFTER I BOUGHT THE CAR, I HAD REPORTED PROBLEMS WITH ENGINE AND TRANS AND REAR-END. THEY KNEW ABOUT IT, BUT SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO WORK ON A SELEEN, WHICH THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD I WAS BUYING AT THE TIME. COME TO FIND OUT IT IS NO. BIG DIFFERENCE IN PRICE. ON OR ABOUT FEB 15TH 2006 THE ENGINE BLEW, I H…
Read full complaint
2 WEEKS AFTER I BOUGHT THE CAR, I HAD REPORTED PROBLEMS WITH ENGINE AND TRANS AND REAR-END. THEY KNEW ABOUT IT, BUT SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO WORK ON A SELEEN, WHICH THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD I WAS BUYING AT THE TIME. COME TO FIND OUT IT IS NO. BIG DIFFERENCE IN PRICE. ON OR ABOUT FEB 15TH 2006 THE ENGINE BLEW, I HAD PARKED IT IN THEIR PARKING LOT. THEY HAD MY CAR FOR A TOTAL OF 45 DAYS. STILL NO TRANS WORK OR REAR-END, THEY SAID TO BRING IT BACK IN 30 DAYS. ADDING ON THE LINKAGE WAS DAMAGED WHEN THEY HAD IT. I HAD TO PAY OTHER SHOP TO FIX. ALONG WITH ENGINE PROBLEMS, ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON. SINCE JUNE OF 2006 MY CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP 10 TIMES , TOTALING 55 MORE DAYS. RENTAL CAR COST OVER 2500.00 AND TIME AND MENTAL ANGUISH . LUZZI REFUSED ME THE 2ND TIME ENGINE BLEW BECAUSE THE FACT I AM MARRIED TO DAVID HARDING. HE IS NOT ON ANY CONTRACT WITH ME. THEY REFUSE TO DO ANY WARRANTY WORK ON THE ENGINE THEY INSTALLED 9 MONTHS AGO. I PAID FOR A WARRANTY WITH THEM FOR 1800.00 AND I WAS CANCELLED BECAUSE OF THE MONEY ALREADY PAID FOR THE CAR. 10 MONTHS , WHERE'S THE OTHER 2 YEAR PRORATED FEES? THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 23 MPH ON A RECENTLY FILLED FUEL TANK, THERE WAS A STRONG SMELL OF GASOLINE IN THE CAB OF THE VEHICLE. A PRIVATE REPAIR SHOP INSPECTED THE VEHICLE, AND DETERMINED THAT THE FILLER NECK GASKET HAD SPLIT, CAUSING GASOLINE TO LEAK FROM THE UNDERSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO IMMEDIATE REP…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 23 MPH ON A RECENTLY FILLED FUEL TANK, THERE WAS A STRONG SMELL OF GASOLINE IN THE CAB OF THE VEHICLE. A PRIVATE REPAIR SHOP INSPECTED THE VEHICLE, AND DETERMINED THAT THE FILLER NECK GASKET HAD SPLIT, CAUSING GASOLINE TO LEAK FROM THE UNDERSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO IMMEDIATE REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE.
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.