NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
17 reportsClear category filter95,000 miles · Jul 25, 2011
Service Brakes, HydraulicFire
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE CONTACT SMELLED A BURNING ODOR. THE ABS LIGHT ALSO ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE MECHANIC STATED THE ABS COMPUTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE CONTACT SMELLED A BURNING ODOR. THE ABS LIGHT ALSO ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE MECHANIC STATED THE ABS COMPUTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 95,000.
NHTSA ODI #10415050
55,000 miles · Jun 15, 2009
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHEN BRAKES ARE APPLIED BRAKES HAVE SLOW REACTION TIME AND STALL CAUSING THE CAR TO RUN INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. WHEN DRIVING AND APPLYING BRAKES CAR VIBRATES ALMOST LIKE A PUMPING EFFECT AND THEN SKIDS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10273871
60,000 miles · Nov 6, 2006
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, SMOKE BEGAN TO ESCAPE FROM UNDER THE HOOD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER. UPON INSPECTION, AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE ABS ELECTRONIC CONTROL MODULE FAILED.
NHTSA ODI #10172691
40,000 miles · Dec 26, 2004
Parking BrakeService Brakes, Hydraulic
2 DAYS EARLIER HAD CAR AT MECHANIC AND HE SAID MY PADS WERE A LITTLE LOW SO THEY SHOOULD BE CHANGED. THE DAY I HAD THE APPOINTMNET TO REPLACE THE PADS THE REAR CALIPER FROZEN OPEN AND EMERGENCY BRAKE WOULD NOT WORK EITHER. WHILE IN MY DRIVEWAY WITH FOOT ON BRAKE PEDAL, CAR STARTED ROLLING FORWARD. HIT POST IN DRIVEWAY AND TORE…
Read full complaint
2 DAYS EARLIER HAD CAR AT MECHANIC AND HE SAID MY PADS WERE A LITTLE LOW SO THEY SHOOULD BE CHANGED. THE DAY I HAD THE APPOINTMNET TO REPLACE THE PADS THE REAR CALIPER FROZEN OPEN AND EMERGENCY BRAKE WOULD NOT WORK EITHER. WHILE IN MY DRIVEWAY WITH FOOT ON BRAKE PEDAL, CAR STARTED ROLLING FORWARD. HIT POST IN DRIVEWAY AND TORE OFF DRIVER MIRROR AND DENTED DOOR. BROUGHT CAR BACK TO MECHANIC THEN TOWED CAR TO DEALER AS I HAD EXTENDED WARRANTY AND DIDN'T WANT TO PAY MECHANIC FOR PARTS OR LABOR AS MECHANIC STATED CALIPER FROZEN. DEALER WOULD NOT FIX DAMAGE TO DOOR/MIRROR. THE PADS STILL HAD SOMETHING LEFT OTHERWISE ROTORS WOULD BE SCRATCHED UP WITH METAL DIGGING IN. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF METAL AGAINST METAL WHAT SO EVER. DEALER ALSO STATED MASTER CYLINDER NEEDED REPLACING AS IT HAD LEAKED ALL FLUID OUT OF SYSTEM. NEEDED TO BLEED SYSTEM AND REPLACE CALIPER. DEALER SAID NOBODY WOULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT DAMAGE AND IT WAS MY PROBLEM. I HAD THE DEALER PUT THE NEW PADS ON THAT MY MECHANIC HAD PURCHASED FOR DOING MY BRAKES. DEALER WANTED TO CHARGE ME $195.00 TO DO THIS. I KNEW SOMEONE THERE AND THEY WAIVED THE FEE BUT I HAD TO PAY $100.00 DEDUCTABLE FOR EXTENDED WARRANTY COVERAGE. DO NOT BUY A FORD!!!!!*AK
NHTSA ODI #10104498
Mileage unknown · Sep 17, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES PEDAL WENT THE FLOOR. CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, AND DROVE IT TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. MECHANIC INFORMED CONSUMER THAT THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10092628
Mileage unknown · Mar 31, 2004
Air BagsSeat BeltsService Brakes, HydraulicCrashInjury
WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH DRIVER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND HIT AN EMBANKMENT. DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT BECAME DETACHED. HOWEVER, BOTH AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. DRIVER SUSTAINED NECK AND BACK INJURIES AND WAS TRANSPORTED BY AMBULANCE TO A HOSPITAL. VEHICLE WAS TOTALED.…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH DRIVER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND HIT AN EMBANKMENT. DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT BECAME DETACHED. HOWEVER, BOTH AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. DRIVER SUSTAINED NECK AND BACK INJURIES AND WAS TRANSPORTED BY AMBULANCE TO A HOSPITAL. VEHICLE WAS TOTALED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10065372
Mileage unknown · Apr 16, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
FOLLOWING SAFETY REPORT WAS FILED WITH FORD MOTOR COMPANY ON-LINE: ========================================= THE FORD RIGHT FRONT INNER BREAK PAD SEPARATED FROM ITS METAL BASE AND CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ROTOR. I WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE BREAK PROBLEM WHEN I STARTED HEARING A ROUGH METAL SOUND. I HAD A PRIVATE TECHNICIAN TO REM…
Read full complaint
FOLLOWING SAFETY REPORT WAS FILED WITH FORD MOTOR COMPANY ON-LINE: ========================================= THE FORD RIGHT FRONT INNER BREAK PAD SEPARATED FROM ITS METAL BASE AND CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ROTOR. I WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE BREAK PROBLEM WHEN I STARTED HEARING A ROUGH METAL SOUND. I HAD A PRIVATE TECHNICIAN TO REMOVE THE BREAK PADS AND ROTOR IMMEDIATELY. THEN TOOK IT AND SHOWED IT TO THE FORD DEALER SWANSON FORD IN LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. THE DEALER WAS RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE BREAK PAD WAS SPLIT APART, HE HAS INSISTENT ON IT WAS PAD WEAR. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FORD DEALER TECHNICIAN, IT IS VISUAL AND VERY NOTICEABLE THAT THE BREAK PAD HAS SPLIT APART FROM ITS METAL BASE, IT WAS NOT A WEAR OUT DOWN TO THE METAL BASE. THIS IS UNSAFE AND MAY CAUSE UNNECESSARY ACCIDENTS. THE SAME PROBLEM MAY HAPPEN TO OTHER DRIVERS TOO. THIS IS WHY I AM INSISTING ON A FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE TO GET BACK TO ME IN A VERY SHORT TIME. DUE TO SAFETY REASON I WILL HAVE NO CHOICE TO TURN ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IF FORD CORPORATION DOES NOT COME FORWARD TO INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM AND PAY FOR THE ADDITIONAL DAMAGES CAUSED DUE TO MALFUNCTION OF THE BREAK PAD ASSEMBLY. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER PROPER IMMEDIATE ACTION REGARDING THIS MATTER, AND I WOULD LIKE A FORD FIELD ENGINEER TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER NOT A TECHNICIAN OR A MECHANIC FROM A FORD DEALER, SPECIALLY NOT ANYONE FROM THE SWANSON FORD IN LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA. YOUR IMMEDIATE REPLY IS EXPECTED UPON RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL. I RECOMMEND YOU CONTACTING MY FATHER [XXX] WHO IS THE CO-SIGNER ON THE CAR. HIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS: [XXX] AND HIS CELL NUMBER IS [XXX], HOME NUMBER IS THE SAME, THE CAR IS REGISTERED AT THE SAME ADDRESS, TO THE MY FATHER'S ADDRESS AT: [XXX]. SINCERELY, [XXX]. *NLM INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10014439
Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2002
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, Hydraulic
WHILE TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 45MPH AND DECREASING SPEED, THE ENGINE AND ALL POWER STEERING AND POWER BRAKES CEASED AT ABOUT 40MPH WHILE BRAKING. THIS HAS HAPPENED TWICE. FIRST TIME WAS SOMETIME IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR (2001).*AK
NHTSA ODI #765096
Mileage unknown · Mar 27, 2002
Engine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, HydraulicStructure
CONSUMER STATES THE VEHICLE ENGINE WOULD STALLS INTERMITTENTLY WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALER ON THREE OCCASIONS AND THEY ARE UNABLE TO LOCATE THE PROBLEM. NLM CONSUMER STATES STEERING WHEEL LOCKS WHEN ENGINE SHUTS DOWN AT HIGH OR LOW SPEED. VEHICLE VIBRATES AT SPEED OVER 65 MPH. WIPER MAKE A LOUD N…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER STATES THE VEHICLE ENGINE WOULD STALLS INTERMITTENTLY WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALER ON THREE OCCASIONS AND THEY ARE UNABLE TO LOCATE THE PROBLEM. NLM CONSUMER STATES STEERING WHEEL LOCKS WHEN ENGINE SHUTS DOWN AT HIGH OR LOW SPEED. VEHICLE VIBRATES AT SPEED OVER 65 MPH. WIPER MAKE A LOUD NOISE AT HIGH SPEEDS. CONVERTIBLE TOP HAD RUST ON PORTION THAT CONNECTS WITH FRONT WINDSHIELD. VEHICLE HAD BRAKE PULSATION. *YH
NHTSA ODI #8006492
Mileage unknown · Mar 7, 2002
Air BagsService Brakes, Hydraulic
DRIVING HOME, RAINY EVENING, SMALL ANIMAL RAN OUT IN FRONT OF CAR, HIT BRAKES, LOCKED UP, CAR PROCEEDED STRAIGHT, AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. DID NOT HIT OR RUN OVER ANYTHING. HAVE WITNESS TO EVENT. DEALER AND FORD INDICATE THAT THIS IS TYPICAL AND THE AIR BAG DID AS IT WAS SUPPOSE TO. UPON DEALER CHECKING FOR DAMAGE, SMALL DENT FOUN…
Read full complaint
DRIVING HOME, RAINY EVENING, SMALL ANIMAL RAN OUT IN FRONT OF CAR, HIT BRAKES, LOCKED UP, CAR PROCEEDED STRAIGHT, AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. DID NOT HIT OR RUN OVER ANYTHING. HAVE WITNESS TO EVENT. DEALER AND FORD INDICATE THAT THIS IS TYPICAL AND THE AIR BAG DID AS IT WAS SUPPOSE TO. UPON DEALER CHECKING FOR DAMAGE, SMALL DENT FOUND IN UNDERCARRIAGE OF CAR. NO ENTRANCE OR EXIT WOUNDS, JUST A DENT - OTHER PARTS OF CAR ARE LOWER.. DEALER PUT CAR UP ON JACK TO SHOW US, PLACED JACK IN WRONG PLACE, COVERING DAMAGE, HAD TO TAKE IT BACK DOWN. DAMAGE LINES UP PERFECTLY WITH JACK. DEALER DAMAGED W/ JACK AND FORD (WHO WOULDN'T EVEN COME IN TO LOOK AT CAR) AGREED W/ DEALER THAT THIS COULD CAUSE AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT. I DID NOT HIT ANYTHING, THE AIR BAGS MALFUNCTIONED, DEALER MADE DAMAGE - IT'S A COVER-UP.
NHTSA ODI #759066
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