NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
25 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Apr 10, 2001
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO MY CAR WOULD STALL WHENEVER I WOULD SLOW DOWN (PRESSING THE CLUTCH AND BRAKE). I WOULD HAVE TO RESTART MY CAR WHILE COASTING, BECAUSE MY BRAKE PEDAL WOULD NOT GO DOWN TO ALLOW ME TO STOP. I TOOK IT TO AUDUBON FORD IN BATON ROUGE, LA FOR SERVICE. THEY REPLACED THE IDLE AIR CONTROL VALVE. THE PROBLEM DIDN'T …
Read full complaint
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO MY CAR WOULD STALL WHENEVER I WOULD SLOW DOWN (PRESSING THE CLUTCH AND BRAKE). I WOULD HAVE TO RESTART MY CAR WHILE COASTING, BECAUSE MY BRAKE PEDAL WOULD NOT GO DOWN TO ALLOW ME TO STOP. I TOOK IT TO AUDUBON FORD IN BATON ROUGE, LA FOR SERVICE. THEY REPLACED THE IDLE AIR CONTROL VALVE. THE PROBLEM DIDN'T DISAPPEAR, BUT BECAME MUCH LESS FREQUENT. TODAY, I WAS ON THE INTERSTATE AND HAD TO SLOW DOWN FOR TRAFFIC. IT STALLED AGAIN, AND WORSE, MY BRAKES STOPPED WORKING. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE AND NEEDS TO BE RECALLED.*AK
NHTSA ODI #743813
Mileage unknown · Apr 1, 2001
Vehicle Speed Control
THE CAR LURCHES FORWARD OR BACKWARD WITHOUT WARNING AFTER PLACING IN GEAR. RPMS GO DOWN, THEN SURGE CAUSING VEHICLE TO "LAUNCH" WHATEVER DIRECTION YOU'RE AIMED AT. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON OR 1 1/2 YEARS. 25 DAYS IN SHOP TO NO AVAIL. BLAINE @ FORD CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE, IS WELL AWARE OF IT (FILE # 203312)YET NOTHING IS BEING DONE…
Read full complaint
THE CAR LURCHES FORWARD OR BACKWARD WITHOUT WARNING AFTER PLACING IN GEAR. RPMS GO DOWN, THEN SURGE CAUSING VEHICLE TO "LAUNCH" WHATEVER DIRECTION YOU'RE AIMED AT. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON OR 1 1/2 YEARS. 25 DAYS IN SHOP TO NO AVAIL. BLAINE @ FORD CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE, IS WELL AWARE OF IT (FILE # 203312)YET NOTHING IS BEING DONE. THE CAR IS FAST, RUNS CLEAN, USES NO OIL, PERFORMS WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE LAUNCHING SITUATION. CA CONSUMER AFFAIRS CONTACTED AS WELL. I LOVE THE CAR, BUT WANT IT FIXED BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT!!*AK
NHTSA ODI #743396
Mileage unknown · Mar 22, 2001
Engine And Engine CoolingStructureUnknown Or Other
FORD MUSTANG CONV. 1999 3.8 LITER ENGINE. REPORTED ENGINE PROBLEMS/ACCELERATION PROBS 3 TIMES TO DEALERSHIPS ( ONE TIME TO ANOTHER DEALERSHIP OUTSIDE FORD JURISDICTION THAT NOTICED EXCESSIVE GASKET LEAKAGE) BEFORE 12,000 MILES. FINALLY, AFTER NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND PROBLEM ALL DEALERSHIP VISITS, FINALLY REPLACED W/ REFURBISHED…
Read full complaint
FORD MUSTANG CONV. 1999 3.8 LITER ENGINE. REPORTED ENGINE PROBLEMS/ACCELERATION PROBS 3 TIMES TO DEALERSHIPS ( ONE TIME TO ANOTHER DEALERSHIP OUTSIDE FORD JURISDICTION THAT NOTICED EXCESSIVE GASKET LEAKAGE) BEFORE 12,000 MILES. FINALLY, AFTER NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND PROBLEM ALL DEALERSHIP VISITS, FINALLY REPLACED W/ REFURBISHED ENGINE DEMONSTRATING SAME PROBLEM AT 31207 MILES APPROXIMATELY. (PLEASE NOTE- IT APPEARS AS THOUGH DEALERSHIP ON TWO OCCASIONS TRIED TO CHANGE THE PROBLEMS I NOTATED TO THE DEALERSHIP WHEN I TOLD THE REPRESENTATIVE MY COMPLAINTS. GAVE ME BACK INVOICE TWO TIMES WITH MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE NOT ORIGINAL COMPLAINT! ON THE SECOND TIME- TRACKED DOWN THE MANAGER AND COMPLAINED DIRECTLY AND ASKED WHY THE DEALERSHIP HAD DONE THIS. HE HAD NO ANSWER FOR THIS EMPLOYEES ACTION.) THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH THE NEW REFURBISHED ENGINE IS THAT THERE IS NO BURNING SMELL AND THE ENGINE UNEXPECTEDLY VIBRATES SO VIOLENTLY THAT THE WHOLE CAR SHAKES AND GEARSHIFT VIBRATES TO AND FRO VIOLENTLY- THE INITIAL ACCELERATION COMPLAINT REMAINS. THE VIOLENT ENGINE SHAKING DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. THIS NEW ENGINE HAS BEEN INSTALLED ONLY 3 DAYS. TRANSMISSION/ CLUTCH ASSEMBLY- GASKET REPLACEMENT (EXCESSIVE BURNING SMELL IN VEHICLE). NO COATING UNDER VEHICLE TO PROTECT INTERIOR COMPONENTS- DEALERSHIP FIXED. INSIDE OF WINDSHIELD CRACKED/ CHIPPED INTERNALLY- NO APPARENT REASON. VEHICLE IS GARAGE KEPT. BRAKE ASSEMBLY REPLACED PER RECALL. INTERIOR DASHBOARD LOSES COLOR- REPLACED TWO TIMES. CONVERTIBLE TOP APPARATUS-EXCESSIVE RUST- NEEDS REPLACEMENT. CD PLAYER STOPPED WORKING SINCE 20,000 MILES BUT HAD REPLACED DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AT 30,000 MILES. CONVERTIBLE ROOF GASKET- REPLACED DUE TO DEFECT. THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS BUT I AM SICK OF TYPING. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE WORST FORD PRODUCT I HAVE EVER PURCHASED. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE DELRAY LINCOLN/MERCURY REPAIR DEPARTMENT APPEARS CORRUPT. I WONDER IF THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE REPAIRS AND WHAT THEIR INCENTIVES ARE FOR LY
NHTSA ODI #742893
Mileage unknown · Jan 30, 2001
SteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
CONSUMER WAS TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN AT ABOUT 10-15 MPH, AND SUDDENLY WHEEL WOULD NOT TURN. VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND RAN INTO SOME TRASH CANS, AND SOME OTHER STUFF ON SIDEWALK. CONTACTED DEALER, AND DEALER TRIED TO FIX PROBLEM BUT WITH NO SUCCESS.*AK
NHTSA ODI #879312
Mileage unknown · Dec 31, 2000
Power TrainSeatsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITIONS: DAYLIGHT, RAINING, CAR STOPPED AT RED LIGHT. A FEW MINUTES PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT THE RED LIGHT THE DRIVER'S POWER SEAT MOVED ALL THE WAY FORWARD COMPLETLY ON ITS OWN ACCORD AFTER STOPPING AT THE RED LIGHT I RE-ADJUSTED THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN I PROCEEDED MAKING A RIGHT TURN IN MY…
Read full complaint
PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITIONS: DAYLIGHT, RAINING, CAR STOPPED AT RED LIGHT. A FEW MINUTES PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT THE RED LIGHT THE DRIVER'S POWER SEAT MOVED ALL THE WAY FORWARD COMPLETLY ON ITS OWN ACCORD AFTER STOPPING AT THE RED LIGHT I RE-ADJUSTED THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN I PROCEEDED MAKING A RIGHT TURN IN MY NORMAL "OLD LADY" FASHION. ABOUT 3/4 THROUGH THE 90 DEGREE TURN THE REAR WHEELS LOST TRACTION AND BEGAN TO SLIDE TO THE LEFT. I IMMEDIATELY HIT THE BRAKE AND TURNED THE WHEEL TO THE LEFT. (I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I ACCIDENTLY HIT THE CRUISE CONTROL BUTTON LOCATED ON THE WHEEL AT THIS TIME). ANYWAY THE CAR ENGINE CONTIUED TO REV AND THE REAR WHEELS CONTINUED TO SPIN, DRIVING ME INTO A COMPLETE 360 DEGREE TURN, ALL THE TIME WITH MY FOOD HARD ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. WHILE IN THIS SPIN THE REAR OF THE CAR JUMPED A MEDIAN CURB TWICE, CROSSED TWO LANES OF ASPHALT, JUMPED ANOTHER CURB AND FINALLY CRASH INTO A CONCRETE LIGHT POLE. ONLY THEN DID THE CAR STALL AND THE DRIVE WHEELS STOP SPINNING.*AK
NHTSA ODI #738545
Mileage unknown · Nov 15, 2000
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
LETTER WRITTEN FOR 1 1/2 YEARS, CRUISE CONTROL CABLES NOT INSTALLED, LIED ABOUT TRANSMISSION. *AK
NHTSA ODI #736364
Mileage unknown · Jul 18, 2000
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
THROTTLE PEDAL GETS STUCK AGAINST THE FLOOR MAT. DEALER SAYS IT'S NOT A COMMON PROBLEM .*AK HAPPENED 4 TIMES. LAST TIME CAUSED ACCIDENT. *YH
NHTSA ODI #865615
Mileage unknown · May 4, 2000
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. *SLC
NHTSA ODI #552124
Mileage unknown · Mar 27, 2000
Engine And Engine CoolingPower TrainService Brakes, Hydraulic
CRUISE CONTROL RECALL REPAIR 99V-062001 COMPLETED HOWEVER FAILS AND DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY CAUSING UNWANTED ACCELERATION ON OCCASSIONS. *MJS
NHTSA ODI #551546
Mileage unknown · Dec 3, 1999
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
I WAS DRIVING SOUTH ON I-85 WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL SET AT 65 ON A CLEAR DAY. THE VEHICLE WENT INTO A SKID, AND BEFORE I COULD STOP THE SKID I HIT THE GUARDRAIL. THERE HAS BEEN A RECALL ON THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR MY VEHICLE (RECALL 99S09) WHICH I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ACCIDENT.
NHTSA ODI #715597
Official recalls
3Oct 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.
Sep 20, 1999
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR MAY HAVE A PIN SHAFT IN THE SWITCHABLE ELR/ALR MECHANISM THAT IS INCORRECTLY FORMED. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SWITCHING MECHANISM COULD BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL, PREVENTING THE SEAT BELT WEBBING FROM BEING EXTRACTED FROM THE RETRACTOR. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT MALFUNCTION OF THE MECHANISM COULD PREVENT THE BELT FROM BEING SWITCHED INTO THE ALR MODE. THE ELR MECHANISM IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS CONDITION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE MECHANISM MALFUNCTIONS AND DOES NOT ALLOW THE WEBBING TO BE EXTRACTED, THE LAP AND SHOULDER BELT COULD NOT BE WORN BY A VEHICLE OCCUPANT. IN THE EVENT THAT THE MECHANISM DOES NOT ALLOW THE ALR MODE TO BE ENGAGED, THE OPERATOR MAY BE UNABLE TO PROPERLY INSTALL A CHILD SEAT IN THAT SEATING POSITION.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE LAP AND SHOULDER BELT ASSEMBLIES. ASSEMBLIES WITH JULIAN DATE CODES OF 200 THROUGH 223 ARE SUSPECT AND WILL BE REPLACED.
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.
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.
Illustration