IllustrationFUEL PUMP BROKE DOWN. *NM
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
What owners actually said
236 reportsTHE SPEEDOMETER IN 1998 MUSTANG STOPPED WORKING INTERMITTENTLY. IT WILL SOMETIMES GAUGE SPEED INCORRECTLY, AND TELL I AM GOING ABOUT 85 MPH WHEN I AM DOING ANYWHERE FROM 15-30 MPH. THEN IT WILL ALL OF A SUDDEN STAY ON 0 MPH. SOMETIMES TURNING THE CAR OFF AND RESTARTING IT RESETS IT, OTHER TIMES IT DOES NOT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE …
Read full complaint
THE SPEEDOMETER IN 1998 MUSTANG STOPPED WORKING INTERMITTENTLY. IT WILL SOMETIMES GAUGE SPEED INCORRECTLY, AND TELL I AM GOING ABOUT 85 MPH WHEN I AM DOING ANYWHERE FROM 15-30 MPH. THEN IT WILL ALL OF A SUDDEN STAY ON 0 MPH. SOMETIMES TURNING THE CAR OFF AND RESTARTING IT RESETS IT, OTHER TIMES IT DOES NOT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE SPEEDOMETER DOESN'T WORK ACCURATELY ABOUT 50% OF THE TIME. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT LEAD UP TO THIS HAPPENING, IT JUST STARTED ONE DAY. THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL IF IT IS GOING TO WORK WHEN I TURN IT ON OR NOT. SOMETIMES IT WILL GET STUCK ON 0 MPH FOR DAYS, AND THE ONLY TIME IT WILL RESET ITSELF IS WHEN I GET ON A HIGHWAY AND DO ABOUT 65 MPH. SO FAR, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. *JB
DT: 1998 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONSUMER STATES THE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD HAS CRACKED. THE ENGINE STARTED SMOKING AND THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING HOT. THE ENGINE COOLANT WOULD RUN OUT. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY A MECHANIC AND THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN FIXED. THE CONSUMER CALLED FORD. THERE WAS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, IF THE SE…
Read full complaint
DT: 1998 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONSUMER STATES THE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD HAS CRACKED. THE ENGINE STARTED SMOKING AND THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING HOT. THE ENGINE COOLANT WOULD RUN OUT. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY A MECHANIC AND THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN FIXED. THE CONSUMER CALLED FORD. THERE WAS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, IF THE SETTLEMENT GOES THROUGH IT WILL BE APPEALED. THEREFORE, FORD WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM.*AK
CHECK ENGINE LIGHT REMAINS ON. WAS TOLD FAULTY HEAD GASKET. LOSING COOLANT WITH NO VISABLE LEAKS. ESTIMATED $1200.00 REPAIR AT LEAST. WITH THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE FORD 3.8 C.I. ENGINE WHY HAVE THERE BEEN NO RECALLS FOR THE MUSTANG UNLIKE THE TAURIS? (SAME ENGINE)
CONSUMER STATES THAT THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. AS A RESULT, THE COOLANT LEAKED ONTO THE ENGINE. *AK
1998 FORD MUSTANG GT HAS FUMES ENTERING THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT OF THE VEHICLE. *MR THIS CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO HAVE BREATHING PROBLEMS. *SC *JB
THE SEAT BELTS IN THE FRONT DO NOT OPERATE PROPERLY BECAUSE THEY HANG DOWN AND DO NOT RETRACT, MAKING IT DANGEROUS IF THE VEHICLE WERE TO BE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. MANUFACTURER WILL CONTACTED BY CONSUMER.*AK THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE SEAT BELTS WERE HARD TO PULL OUT AND WILL NOT RETRACT ALL THE WAY BACK. THE SEAT BELTS F…
Read full complaint
THE SEAT BELTS IN THE FRONT DO NOT OPERATE PROPERLY BECAUSE THEY HANG DOWN AND DO NOT RETRACT, MAKING IT DANGEROUS IF THE VEHICLE WERE TO BE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. MANUFACTURER WILL CONTACTED BY CONSUMER.*AK THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE SEAT BELTS WERE HARD TO PULL OUT AND WILL NOT RETRACT ALL THE WAY BACK. THE SEAT BELTS FIT LOOSE ON THE BODY OF THE PERSON USING IT. *TC
CONSUMER SMELLED ANTIFREEZE. LOOKED UNDER THE HOOD AND DISCOVERED A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT OPERABLE. *AK
I HIT A TREE AFTER DRIVING OFF THE ROAD AND THE CAR BECAME INGULFED IN FLAMES AND SOON BURNED THE CAR TO NUTHING BUT STRAIGHT METAL LOSS OF EVERYTHING EVEN RIMS WERE MELTED AND WINDOWS TOO ALL THAT WAS LEFT WAS HARD METAL SURFACES I WAS ALMOST BURNED ALIVE PLUS THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED TO LATE AND MY HEAD ACTUALLY IMPACTED THE STEER…
Read full complaint
I HIT A TREE AFTER DRIVING OFF THE ROAD AND THE CAR BECAME INGULFED IN FLAMES AND SOON BURNED THE CAR TO NUTHING BUT STRAIGHT METAL LOSS OF EVERYTHING EVEN RIMS WERE MELTED AND WINDOWS TOO ALL THAT WAS LEFT WAS HARD METAL SURFACES I WAS ALMOST BURNED ALIVE PLUS THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED TO LATE AND MY HEAD ACTUALLY IMPACTED THE STEERING WHEEL BREAKING MY NOSE AND SPLITTING MY FOREHEAD OPEN AND ALMOST LOST MY LEFT EYE DUE TO THE IMPACT THE SEATBELT WORKED TOO GOOD IT SPERATED MY LEFT SHOULDER AND BROKE MY COLLAR BONE STRETCHING ALL MY TENDONS IN MY LEFT SHOULDER BREAKING MY CLAVICAL AND SHOULDER BLADE.*AK
<PAGE 3> I'VE ALSO SEEKED LEGAL ADVICE, AND THEY ADVISED ME THAT I WAS FRAUDED, AND THAT I DO HAVE A CASE, HOWEVER THEY COULDN'T FURTHER ASSIST ME DUE TO THE FACT MY INSURANCE COMPANY PAID OFF MY LOAN ON THE VEHICLE, AND THAT THE VEHICLE IS NO LONGER IN MY POSSESSION. NOW THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SAID, MY QUESTION TO YOU …
Read full complaint
<PAGE 3> I'VE ALSO SEEKED LEGAL ADVICE, AND THEY ADVISED ME THAT I WAS FRAUDED, AND THAT I DO HAVE A CASE, HOWEVER THEY COULDN'T FURTHER ASSIST ME DUE TO THE FACT MY INSURANCE COMPANY PAID OFF MY LOAN ON THE VEHICLE, AND THAT THE VEHICLE IS NO LONGER IN MY POSSESSION. NOW THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SAID, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT I CAN FURTHER DO AS A CONSUMER??? PLEASE ADVISE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE, IVA D. OKLOBDZIJA . MOST OFOUR COMMENTS ARE MISSING. *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