IllustrationINTAKE MANIFOLD IS MADE OF PLASTIC, THIS LEAD TO IT CRACKING AND ANTI-FREEZE COMING OUT. COULD NOT SEE WHILE DRIVING.*AK
1998 Ford Mustang
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Mustang years
Owner complaints for the 1998 Ford Mustang are substantially higher than the model-year median of 81.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mustang 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
Limited mileage data: 31 of 236 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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 40 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
44 crash reports12 fire reports22 injury reports
Fuel System, Gasoline complaints
29 reportsINTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACKED IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE ON THE EXACT SAME PART THAT HAD RECALLS THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS. RECALL NUMBER 97M91. I CALLED FORD AND THEY SAID MY VIN ISN'T COVERED. OBVIOUSLY, WHATEVER THEY DID TO "FIX" THE PROBLEM DIDN'T WORK. THERE ARE ALSO SELECT VIN'S THAT ARE COVERED FOR THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM IN MY YEA…
Read full complaint
INTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACKED IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE ON THE EXACT SAME PART THAT HAD RECALLS THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS. RECALL NUMBER 97M91. I CALLED FORD AND THEY SAID MY VIN ISN'T COVERED. OBVIOUSLY, WHATEVER THEY DID TO "FIX" THE PROBLEM DIDN'T WORK. THERE ARE ALSO SELECT VIN'S THAT ARE COVERED FOR THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM IN MY YEAR CAR. WHY WOULD THEY ONLY REPLACE CERTAIN MANIFOLDS? THEY COULD HAVE HAD LEFT OVER INTAKES FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS FAULTY BATCH THAT THEY INSTALLED ON VARIOUS CARS FROM MY YEAR, AND THINK THEY WILL GET AWAY WITH NOT REPLACING IT BECAUSE MY VIN ISN'T SHOWING UP AS MADE IN FACTORY "X" WHICH HAD FAULTY PARTS MADE FROM A BAD CASTING. CURIOUSLY, THE INTAKES FROM THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS HAVE A 7 YEAR NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED REPLACMENT PROGRAM GOING ON FOR THE SAME CAR, SAME MODEL, SAME ENGINE. WHAT DID FORD DO TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM FOR MY YEAR CAR? MY GUESS IS NOTHING. ALSO, THE WAY WE FOUND THE CRACK INITIALLY WAS BY A SUGGESTION FROM A FORD PARTS/SERVICE TECH WHO SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME TO "CHECK THE INTAKE FOR A CRACK UNDER THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING". ISN'T THAT A LITTLE TOO COINCIDENTAL????*AK
CONSUMER FILLED TANK UP, AND APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES LATER FUEL STARTED LEAKING OUT. FUEL OVERFLOWED, PASSING BY RUBBER GROMMET AND SPILLING OUT. CONSUMER IS HAVING VEHICLE INSPECTED. *PLEASE ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE FORM.**AK
CONSUMER HAD BEEN SMELLING FUEL. TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER WHO FOUND A LEAK IN FUEL LINES, AND ALL 6 INJECTORS WERE LEAKING. *AK
HAD A SHORT IN THE GAS TANK DUE TO A WIRE CHAFFED DUE TO THE FACTORY INSTALLATION.*AK
VEHICLE WOULD HESITATE, CUT OFF OR NOT START BACK UP. DEALER HAD TO REPLACE FUEL PUMP BECAUSE NO GAS WAS GETTING TO FUEL INJECTORS. CONSUMER HAS HAD THE VEHICLE FOR 2 YEARS, AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR $607.19.*AK *TT
WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 40-50MPH LOW FLUID LIGHT CAME ON. THEN, CONSUMER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SMOKE COMING FROM ENGINE. WHEN HE PULLED OVER THERE WAS ANTI-FREEZE POURING OUT ONTO FLOOR. CONTACTED DEALER, AND DEALER DID NOT WANT TO FIX PROBLEM. *AK
RAW FUEL SMELL RANDOMLY ENTERS CAB OF CAR. THIS ONLY HAPPENS WHEN IT IS 85 OR OR HOTTER. IT BURNS MY EYES AND GETS ME VERY SICK. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS FORME AND MY FAMILY AND OTHER PEOPLE ON THE ROAD FOR THIS CAN CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. OR MY CAR CATCH ON FIRE. *AK
MY HUSBAND I PURCHASED A 1998 ROUCH MUSTANG GT. THE CONVERSION KIT INCLUDES SIDE PIPES, COMPUTER CHIP, DIFFERENT SUSPENSION, AND SOME THINGS IM NOT SURE OF. I HAVE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH RAW FUEL SMELL COMING INTO CAB OF CAR. IT GET'S VERY BAD. IT ONLY HAPPENS WHEN IT IS 85 DEGREES OR ABOVE. AND ONLY HAPPENS RANDEMLY. O…
Read full complaint
MY HUSBAND I PURCHASED A 1998 ROUCH MUSTANG GT. THE CONVERSION KIT INCLUDES SIDE PIPES, COMPUTER CHIP, DIFFERENT SUSPENSION, AND SOME THINGS IM NOT SURE OF. I HAVE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH RAW FUEL SMELL COMING INTO CAB OF CAR. IT GET'S VERY BAD. IT ONLY HAPPENS WHEN IT IS 85 DEGREES OR ABOVE. AND ONLY HAPPENS RANDEMLY. ONE DAY WHILE DRIVING MY DAUGHTER FROM SCHOOL, FUEL SMELL CAME INTO CAB. DAUGHTER AND I GAGED. PULLED OVER AND SHUT CAR OFF. TOOK CAR TO DEALER, THEY SAID THEY WERE WAITING FOR NEW FUEL LINE FROM THE ROUSH COMPANY. I WAS TOLD THAT THE ROUCH CARS NEEDED DIFFERENT FUEL LINE THEN THAT OF THE MANUFACTURER. THEY SAID THEY FIXED THE PROBLEM. THEN MY HUSBAND AND I WERE GOING TO DAYTONA. IT HAPPENED AGAIN. PULLED INTO DEALERSHIP SHUT CAR OFF WITH WINDOWS DOWN. TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES GONE BY BEFORE GEORGE NAGEL THE SERVICE MANAGER SAT IN IT. HE KEPT CAR DO TO HE SMELL OF FUEL. AND THAT IS AFTER THE CAR SITTING THERE AIRING OUT. HE SMELLED IT COMING FROM THE VENTS. THEY SAID THEY FIXED IT . HAPPENED AGAIN. NOW GOERGE IS SAYING THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW IF IT WAS GAS OR EMMISIONS THAT HE SMELLED. MY CAR KNOW SITS IN MY DRIVEWAY, I AM RENTING A CAR. I AM DOING LEMON LAW. I WAS TOLD BY AN ATTORNEY IF I CAN NOT PROVE MY CASE THEY WILL LEAN TOWARDS THE MANUFACURE. THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH MY CAR. I AM AFRAID OF THIS CAR. I HAVE OWNED MUSTANGS FOR MANY YEARS NOW. THATS ALL I HAVE OWNED. I LOVE MY CAR. I'M AFRAID TO DRIVE IT. BUT MY SAFETY IS AT RISK. PLEASE HELP ME. *AK
ON TWO OCCASIONS NOTICED FUEL ON GROUND, AND VEHICLE WAS OUT OF GAS. VEHICLE BEEN TO THE DEALER'S SHOP, AND CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THAT NOTHING COULD BE FOUND. LEAKS WERE NOTICED ON DRIVER'S SIDE UNDERNEATH VEHICLE WITH OTHER WITNESS. CAN NHTSA HELP IN THIS MATTER THIS CAN BE A POTTENIAL FIRE HAZARD IF COME IN CONTACT TO A IGN…
Read full complaint
ON TWO OCCASIONS NOTICED FUEL ON GROUND, AND VEHICLE WAS OUT OF GAS. VEHICLE BEEN TO THE DEALER'S SHOP, AND CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THAT NOTHING COULD BE FOUND. LEAKS WERE NOTICED ON DRIVER'S SIDE UNDERNEATH VEHICLE WITH OTHER WITNESS. CAN NHTSA HELP IN THIS MATTER THIS CAN BE A POTTENIAL FIRE HAZARD IF COME IN CONTACT TO A IGNITION SOURCE. *AK
Official recalls
400V349000 · Parking Brake:conventional
Oct 30, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH MANUAL TRANSMISSIONS. IF A VEHICLE IS PARKED WITH THE PARKING BRAKE NOT FULLY APPLIED AND NOT IN FIRST GEAR, AS DIRECTED IN THE OWNER GUIDE, AND THE SELF ADJUSTMENT PAWL SUBSEQUENTLY SKIPS ONE OR TWO TEETH, THE VEHICLE COULD MOVE ON SOME GRADES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AND A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MODIFY THE PARKING BRAKE CONTROL AND INSTALL A PLATE OR OVER-BRACKET TO THE CONTROL TO LOCK THE SELF ADJUST MECHANISM IN POSITION FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENT.
99V062001 · Vehicle Speed Control
Mar 30, 1999
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1997-1999 RHD EXPLORER EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L OHV/SOHC ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MAY 29, 1996 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1998-1999 EXPLORER/MOUNTAINEERS EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L OHV/SOHC OR 5.0L ENGINES OR 1998-1999 RANGERS EQUIPPED WITH 2.5L, 3.0L FFV/EFI OR 4.0L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM JANUARY 5, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1998-1999 MUSTANGS EQUIPPED WITH 3.8L, 4.6L 2-VALVE OR 4-VALVE ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1999 F250/F350/F450/F550 (OVER 8,500 LBS.) TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 5.4L OR 6.8L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; AND 1999 F-53 STRIPPED CHASSIS EQUIPPED WITH 5.4L OR 6.8L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999. A CRUISE CONTROL CABLE CAN INTERFERE WITH THE SPEED CONTROL SERVO PULLEY AND NOT ALLOW THE THROTTLE TO RETURN TO IDLE WHEN DISENGAGING THE CRUISE CONTROL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE CRUISE CONTROL IS USED AND THIS CONDITION IS PRESENT, A STUCK THROTTLE COULD RESULT, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE CRUISE CONTROL CABLES. AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE REPLACEMENT CABLES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. CUSTOMERS ARE BEING ADVISED NOT TO USE THE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEM UNTIL A REPLACEMENT CAN BE MADE.
97V216000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:fuel Injection System
Nov 24, 1997
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.6L ENGINES. SOME OF THESE VEHICLES HAS MISSING OR INADEQUATE BRAZE JOINTS BETWEEN THE FUEL RAIL BODY AND THE FUEL RAIL MOUNTING BRACKET(S).
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE BRACKET SEPARATES FROM THE RAIL, THE RAIL CAN LIFT ONE OR MORE OF THE INJECTORS, AND FUEL LEAKAGE WILL RESULT. IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, A FIRE COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FUEL RAIL ON THESE VEHICLES.
97V165000 · Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector
Sep 30, 1997
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES AND MINI-VANS. THE RACK AND PINION STEERING GEARS MAY HAVE DAMAGED INPUT SHAFT BEARINGS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION CAN INCREASE STEERING EFFORTS, AFFECTING STEERING CONTROL.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON THE RACK AND PINION STEERING GEAR, AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THOSE RACK AND PINION ASSEMBLIES THAT FALL WITHIN THE SUSPECT DATE CODE RANGE. THE DATE CODES FOR WINDSTAR MODEL VEHICLES ARE 97JB09 OR 97JC08; THE DATE CODES FOR MUSTANG MODEL VEHICLES ARE 97J09B OR 97J08B.
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
2DP05005 · 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.
PE99029 · Fires In The Center Console
Opened May 3, 1999 · Closed Jul 27, 1999
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System
There is no summary currently available