NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
59 reports55,000 miles · Jun 7, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
I STARTED MY VEHICLE IN THE MORNING AND I HEARD A LOUD NOISE IN THE ENGINE. I LEFT THE CAR LIKE THAT AND CALLED MY MECHANIC. WHEN HE CHECKED THE CAR, HE FOUND OUT THAT THE SPARK PLUG WAS LOOSE, HE JUST PUT BACK. A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, I HEARD THE NOISE IN THE ENGINE AGAIN, I KNEW WHAT THE POBLEM WAS SO I PUT THE PLUG BACK IN.…
Read full complaint
I STARTED MY VEHICLE IN THE MORNING AND I HEARD A LOUD NOISE IN THE ENGINE. I LEFT THE CAR LIKE THAT AND CALLED MY MECHANIC. WHEN HE CHECKED THE CAR, HE FOUND OUT THAT THE SPARK PLUG WAS LOOSE, HE JUST PUT BACK. A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, I HEARD THE NOISE IN THE ENGINE AGAIN, I KNEW WHAT THE POBLEM WAS SO I PUT THE PLUG BACK IN. SOME MONTHS LATER (12/04) I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, BUT THIS TIME THE PLUG WOULDN'T TIGHTEN, SO I CALLED MY MECHANIC AGAIN. HE CHECKED THE CAR AND FOUND OUT THAT THE THREAD IN THE SPARK PLUG HOLE HAD STRIPPED. I BOUGHT A SPARK PLUG THREAD KIT AND HE WAS ABLE TO FIX THE ENGINE, BUT THE ENGINE DIDN'T PERFORM THE SAME. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10159165
55,000 miles · Feb 10, 2006
Service Brakes, HydraulicSuspension
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH THE REAR END OF THE VEHICLE FISHTAILED FROM SIDE TO SIDE WHICH MADE THE VEHICLE DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. IT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION; HOWEVER THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THE RIGHT …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH THE REAR END OF THE VEHICLE FISHTAILED FROM SIDE TO SIDE WHICH MADE THE VEHICLE DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. IT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION; HOWEVER THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THE RIGHT REAR BRAKE LINE AND THE LATERAL ARM SUPPORT BRACKET NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED HOWEVER, NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE.
NHTSA ODI #10149968
45,000 miles · Oct 14, 2005
Seat Belts
DRIVERS SIDE SEAT BELT GETS TWISTED IN WALL, AND DOES NOT RETRACT PROPERLY AS A RESULT. THOROUGHBRED FORD UNTWISTED, AND THEN THE SEAT BELT TWISTED UP AGAIN. THOROUGHBRED FORD STATES IS UNDER WARRANTY, NOT DEFECTIVE, HOWEVER STATE FORD REFUSES TO REPLACE UNIT AS THIS IS NOT A DEFECT. EVEN REFUSED AFTER REMINDING THEM IT DOES …
Read full complaint
DRIVERS SIDE SEAT BELT GETS TWISTED IN WALL, AND DOES NOT RETRACT PROPERLY AS A RESULT. THOROUGHBRED FORD UNTWISTED, AND THEN THE SEAT BELT TWISTED UP AGAIN. THOROUGHBRED FORD STATES IS UNDER WARRANTY, NOT DEFECTIVE, HOWEVER STATE FORD REFUSES TO REPLACE UNIT AS THIS IS NOT A DEFECT. EVEN REFUSED AFTER REMINDING THEM IT DOES NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY WHICH COULD RESULT IN DEATH DURING COLLISION. FIRST REPAIR ON OR ABOUT 8-29-05, SECOND ATTEMPT TO HAVE REPLACED APPROX. 2 WEEKS LATER. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10139698
7,000 miles · Jun 7, 2005
Air BagsService Brakes, HydraulicCrash
DT: 2001 FORD MUSTANG GT, AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY AND THE BRAKES WOULD NOT WORK, CAUSING CONSUMER $6,840.60 WORTH OF DAMAGE TO FRONT OF VEHICLE, BUMPER AND OTHER MATERIALS WAS REPLACED. *TT
NHTSA ODI #10124515
Mileage unknown · Jan 14, 2005
Power TrainVisibility
DEFECTIVE WINDOW CHANNEL - DRIVER SIDE. REPLACED 2/1/02. NOW THE WINDOW WILL NOT GO UP NOR DOWN (AFTER WARRANTY HAS RUN). ALSO CLUNKING NOISE UNDER HOOD WHEN STOPPING OR ACCELERATING 1/02. CAUSE PER DEALER: REAR TRANSMISSION MOUNT BOLTS LOOSE. THEY WERE TIGHTENED AND THE PROBLEM WAS RESOLVED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10106341
1,000 miles · Jan 3, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
CONSUMER'S VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING AT 35 MPH WHEN IT WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE. UPON IMPACT, AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. CONSUMER SUSTAINED HEAD AND BACK INJURIES. MANUFACTURER SENT AN INSPECTOR, WHO STATED AIR BAGS SHOULD NOT HAVE DEPLOYED.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10106633
Mileage unknown · Oct 28, 2004
Structure
STOPPING FOR RED LIGHT AND BRAKES FAILED, BRAKE PAD TO FLOOR NO INJURIES. OUR MECHANIC DIAGNOSED BRAKE LINE WAS SEVERED FROM REAR RIGHT UPPER CONTROL ARM WELD FAILURE CAUSED BRACKET TO BREAK, CUTTING BREAK LINE. TOOK CAR TO DEALERSHIP WHERE PURCHASED 2 MONTHS EARLIER. AFTER DEALERSHIP SAID IT WAS FAULT OF DRIVER (SAID WARRANT…
Read full complaint
STOPPING FOR RED LIGHT AND BRAKES FAILED, BRAKE PAD TO FLOOR NO INJURIES. OUR MECHANIC DIAGNOSED BRAKE LINE WAS SEVERED FROM REAR RIGHT UPPER CONTROL ARM WELD FAILURE CAUSED BRACKET TO BREAK, CUTTING BREAK LINE. TOOK CAR TO DEALERSHIP WHERE PURCHASED 2 MONTHS EARLIER. AFTER DEALERSHIP SAID IT WAS FAULT OF DRIVER (SAID WARRANTY WOULD NOT COVER) WE INVESTIGATED THIS MATTER AND FOUND 2 OTHER REPORTS ON NHTSA, THEN DEALERSHIP AGREED TO FIX PROBLEM. WE ARE VERY DISSATIFIED WITH THE HANDLING OF THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM FROM DEALERSHIP. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10097963
34,857 miles · Jul 3, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
STARTED HEARING A TICKING NOISE COMING FROM TOP PART OF THE ENGINE VERY NEXT DAY THE SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD NUMBER 3, RESULTING IN A CYLINDER HEAD REPLACEMENT .AFTER READING ALL OF THE FORUM COMPLAINTS THAT THIS IS A DEFECT, THANK GOD MINE WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, STILL LEFT WITH OUT A CAR FOR A WEEK , NO LO…
Read full complaint
STARTED HEARING A TICKING NOISE COMING FROM TOP PART OF THE ENGINE VERY NEXT DAY THE SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD NUMBER 3, RESULTING IN A CYLINDER HEAD REPLACEMENT .AFTER READING ALL OF THE FORUM COMPLAINTS THAT THIS IS A DEFECT, THANK GOD MINE WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, STILL LEFT WITH OUT A CAR FOR A WEEK , NO LOANER OR ENTAL PROVIDED BY DEALER AND I COULDNT AFFORD ONE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10079220
25,000 miles · Mar 8, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
THE REAR TIRES OF MY 2001 FORD MUSTANG GT CONVERTIBLE BEGAN TO SKID, SINCE THE ROAD WAS WET. THIS IS UNDERSTANDABLE, SO I EASED OFF THE GAS TO ALLOW THE TIRES TO CATCH, BUT THE TRACTION CONTROL MUST HAVE TURNED ON, AND CAUSED MY CAR TO BEGIN SPINNING IN CIRCLES. THIS MADE MY CAR GO OFF THE ROAD AND INTO A TREE. I BELIEVE THE …
Read full complaint
THE REAR TIRES OF MY 2001 FORD MUSTANG GT CONVERTIBLE BEGAN TO SKID, SINCE THE ROAD WAS WET. THIS IS UNDERSTANDABLE, SO I EASED OFF THE GAS TO ALLOW THE TIRES TO CATCH, BUT THE TRACTION CONTROL MUST HAVE TURNED ON, AND CAUSED MY CAR TO BEGIN SPINNING IN CIRCLES. THIS MADE MY CAR GO OFF THE ROAD AND INTO A TREE. I BELIEVE THE TRACTION CONTRL SYSTEM IS FAULTY.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10060720
43,500 miles · Mar 5, 2004
Electrical System
WE HAD A DEEP SNOW STORM LAST MONTH AND I GOT MY 2001 MUSTANG GT CONVERTIBLE STUCK IN THE SNOW IN MY DRIVEWAY. EACH TIME I TRIED TO ROCK THE VEHICLE BACK AND FORTH TO FREE IT FROM THE DEEP SNOW, THE ENGINE WOULD POWER DOWN. I FINALLY REALIZED THAT THE "ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL" WAS CAUSING THIS. I TURNED IT OFF AND WAS ABL…
Read full complaint
WE HAD A DEEP SNOW STORM LAST MONTH AND I GOT MY 2001 MUSTANG GT CONVERTIBLE STUCK IN THE SNOW IN MY DRIVEWAY. EACH TIME I TRIED TO ROCK THE VEHICLE BACK AND FORTH TO FREE IT FROM THE DEEP SNOW, THE ENGINE WOULD POWER DOWN. I FINALLY REALIZED THAT THE "ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL" WAS CAUSING THIS. I TURNED IT OFF AND WAS ABLE TO FREE THE VEHICLE. I THINK THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS AND THE BRAKE PROBLEM I DESCRIBED BEFORE WHICH CAUSED ME TO HYDRO-PLANE AND SPIN OUT IN HEAVY RAIN. I WROTE TO YOU 12-24-03 WITH THAT COMPLAINT. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10060475
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