Illustration4.6 LITER V8. SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF CYLINDER HEAD. COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A FIRE BUT LUCKILY DID NOT. SPARK PLUGS WERE LAST CHANGED OVER 30,000 MILES PREVIOUSLY. *TR
2001 Ford Mustang
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Mustang years
Owner complaints for the 2001 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
150–25K
1025–50K
2150–75K
775–100K
5100–150K
5150K+
63 reports with mileage · 110 unknown
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.
- Air Bags. Review the 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 24 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Seat Belts. 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.
37 crash reports2 fire reports28 injury reports
What owners actually said
173 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. THE CONTACT STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED A HOSE WAS DETACHED FROM THE ENGINE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTICS. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE BYPASS HOSE WOULD …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. THE CONTACT STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED A HOSE WAS DETACHED FROM THE ENGINE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTICS. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE BYPASS HOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE RECURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS STILL AT THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN THEN STATED THAT THE MANIFOLD WAS FRACTURED AND THE HEAD GASKET WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED BUT NOT THE HEAD GASKET. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT FURTHER REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 53,000. UPDATED 12/06/11*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE REPAIR TECHNICIAN WAS INJURED WHILE REPAIRING THE CRACKE MANIFOLD INTAKE. UPDATED 06/13/2012 *JS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SEAT BELT WAS STUCK IN A PARTIALLY RETRACTED POSITION. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE SEAT BELT WOULD NOT PULL OUT ANY FURTHER OR RETRACT ANY FURTHER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO HAVE THE FAILURE DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SEAT BELT WAS STUCK IN A PARTIALLY RETRACTED POSITION. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE SEAT BELT WOULD NOT PULL OUT ANY FURTHER OR RETRACT ANY FURTHER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO HAVE THE FAILURE DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 11,000.
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.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING FUEL ABNORMALLY. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE FUEL TANK FILLER NECK WAS RUSTED AND A HOLE WAS IN THE FILLER PIPE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER OR LOCAL MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION OR REPAIRS. THE CONTACT STATE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING FUEL ABNORMALLY. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE FUEL TANK FILLER NECK WAS RUSTED AND A HOLE WAS IN THE FILLER PIPE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER OR LOCAL MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION OR REPAIRS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 92,000.
THE FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTORS ARE DEFECTIVE IN DESIGN. THE SEAT BELT TWISTS INSIDE THE RETRACTOR, MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO USE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. THE SEAT BELTS WILL NOT RETRACT PROPERLY AND GET STUCK CAUSING PASSENGERS NOT TO BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR WARRANTY REPAIR, HOWEVER THE DE…
Read full complaint
THE FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTORS ARE DEFECTIVE IN DESIGN. THE SEAT BELT TWISTS INSIDE THE RETRACTOR, MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO USE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. THE SEAT BELTS WILL NOT RETRACT PROPERLY AND GET STUCK CAUSING PASSENGERS NOT TO BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR WARRANTY REPAIR, HOWEVER THE DEALER REFUSED TO REPAIR VEHICLE UNDER WARRANTY. THE FAILURE BEGAN APPROXIMATELY 1-2 MONTHS AFTER PURCHASE AND HAS WORSENED OVER TIME. PROBLEM HAS GONE UNREMEDIED BY MANUFACTURER OR DEALER. *TR
WENT TO FILL UP WITH GAS, NOTICED GAS LEAK. UPON INSPECTION FOUND FUEL FILLER NECK RUSTED THROUGH TO POINT WHERE IT BECAME TWO PIECES. REPLACED FUEL FILLER NECK @ $230 PLUS LABOR, ISSUE SOLVED. 2001 FORD MUSTANG 3.8L PICTURES AVAILABLE. *TR
HEADLIGHTS ARE COLLECTING MOISTURE I CAN BAREJY SEE AT NIGHT FORD MANUFACTURE SAYS ITS MY PROBLEM
MY WIFE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A HIT AND RUN INCIDENT WHILE TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON I-75 JUST SOUTH OF DELK ROAD IN MARIETTA GA. THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER CAR CAUSED US TO BEGIN A SERIES OF OVERSTEER CORRECTIONS WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE CAR LOOSING COMPLETE TRACTION AND MAKING TWO COMPLETE REVOLUTIONS WHILE EXITING THE ROAD TO…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A HIT AND RUN INCIDENT WHILE TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON I-75 JUST SOUTH OF DELK ROAD IN MARIETTA GA. THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER CAR CAUSED US TO BEGIN A SERIES OF OVERSTEER CORRECTIONS WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE CAR LOOSING COMPLETE TRACTION AND MAKING TWO COMPLETE REVOLUTIONS WHILE EXITING THE ROAD TOWARDS THE GRASS SHOULDER. WE EXITED THE ROAD GOING BACKWARDS AND PROCEEDED TO HIT A 6' DEEP CULVERT AND CAUSE THE CAR TO BECOME AIRBORNE. UPON THE INITIAL IMPACT MY WIFE'S SAFETY BELT WHICH HAD BEEN PROPERLY SECURED UNTIL THE IMPACT, RELEASED AND CAUSED HER TO COME OUT OF HER SEAT. AFTER LANDING AND THEN COMING TO REST VIOLENTLY I IMMEDIATELY CHECKED TO MAKE SURE SHE WAS ALRIGHT AND WAS IN QUESTION OF WHY HER BELT HAD DETACHED FROM THE RECEIVER. THE WAS NO VISIBLE DAMAGE TO THE MECHANISM, HOWEVER UPON INITIAL IMPACT I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER HEARING A METALLIC "CLINK" NOISE FOLLOWED BY MY WIFE COMING OUT OF HER PASSENGER SEAT. THIS WAS NOTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND WAS DESCRIBED TO ALL FIRST RESPONDERS ON SITE. *TR
2001 V6 FORD MUSTANG SUDDENLY STARTED TO MISS-FIRE. I HAVE BEEN SMELLING EXHAUST ODORS FOR SOME TIME, BUT COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AS SOON AS IT STARTED TO MISS-FIRE. THEY DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A SENSOR WITH MOISTURE IN IT AND BOTH EXHAUST MANIFOLDS WERE CRACKED. IT'S NO WONDER I WAS SMELLING…
Read full complaint
2001 V6 FORD MUSTANG SUDDENLY STARTED TO MISS-FIRE. I HAVE BEEN SMELLING EXHAUST ODORS FOR SOME TIME, BUT COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AS SOON AS IT STARTED TO MISS-FIRE. THEY DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A SENSOR WITH MOISTURE IN IT AND BOTH EXHAUST MANIFOLDS WERE CRACKED. IT'S NO WONDER I WAS SMELLING EXHAUST FUMES. I WAS LUCKY NOT TO BE OVERCOME WITH CARBON MONOXIDE WHILE DRIVING. THERE WAS NO APPARENT REASON FOR THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD FAILURE. THE DEALERS REP SAID: " WE HAVE REPLACED QUITE A FEW OF THEM AND THE NEW ONES ARE BETTER". *TR
Official recalls
100V349000 · 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.
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.