IllustrationCHECK ENGINE LIGHT HAS COME ON 4 TIMES SINCE I HAVE OWNED THE CAR FIRST TIME MY MACHANIC CLEARED P0460 CODE. 2ND TIME FORD CLEARED P0460 CODE 3 RD TIME I UNHOOKED NEGETIVE BATTERY POST AND CLEARED
2003 Ford Mustang
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Ford Mustang do not stand out strongly from 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
580–25K
1925–50K
750–75K
575–100K
5100–150K
4150K+
98 reports with mileage · 47 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 39 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Seat Belts. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
19 crash reports4 fire reports10 injury reports
What owners actually said
145 reportsI WAS DOING SOME ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ON MY 2003 JACK ROUSH EDITION SVT COBRA COUPE WHEN I NOTICED SOMETHING REALLY SCARY. THE INSIDE SIDEWALL SEAM OF A FRONT AND REAR TIRE WAS SPLITTING AROUND ITS CIRCUMFERENCE. I'M CERTAIN THAT HAD I BEEN DRIVING AT SPEED OR ON A HOT ROAD SURFACE THAT PRESSURES WOULD HAVE BUILT TO THE POINT OF …
Read full complaint
I WAS DOING SOME ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ON MY 2003 JACK ROUSH EDITION SVT COBRA COUPE WHEN I NOTICED SOMETHING REALLY SCARY. THE INSIDE SIDEWALL SEAM OF A FRONT AND REAR TIRE WAS SPLITTING AROUND ITS CIRCUMFERENCE. I'M CERTAIN THAT HAD I BEEN DRIVING AT SPEED OR ON A HOT ROAD SURFACE THAT PRESSURES WOULD HAVE BUILT TO THE POINT OF CAUSING A BLOW-OUT. I HAD A SIMILAR TIRE DEFECT, COINCIDENTALLY, WITH ANOTHER SET OF BFG-KD'S THAT WERE ON MY ROUSH CONVERTIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY FOR ME THAT TIRE BLEW OUT WHILE I WAS ON THE ROAD FROM THE PORT IN FLORIDA TO MY NEW DUTY STATION IN TEXAS. ANYWAY, I GOT IN TOUCH WITH BF GOODRICH CORPORATE AND INITIALLY ONLY OFFERED 50% REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL FOUR TIRES. LATER THAT CHANGE TO 75% THEN THEY AGREED TO REPLACE THEM WITH 4 NEW BFG-KDS IN MY ROUSH-OEM SIZES. THEY CLAIM THAT DUE TO TREAD WEAR THEIR WARRANTY ALLOWS FOR THAT COMPENSATION. MY POSITION WAS THAT I SHOULD RECEIVE 100% REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE WHETHER OR NOT THE TIRES HAD X% OF TREAD REMAINING OR WERE NEW, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THEY WERE STILL DEFECTIVE. THE FIRST TIME I WAS UNLUCKY BECAUSE THE TIRE BLEW-OUT RIGHT I WAS GOING TO PUT MORE AIR IN IT. THIS TIME I CAUGHT THE DEFECT BEFORE THE TIRES COULD BLOW-OUT. ONE CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESULT IF A BLOW-OUT OCCURRED ESPECIALLY IF IT HAPPENED WHILE I WAS TRAVELING AT MY "NORMAL" SPEEDS. SINCE THIS CLAIM I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH AND DISCOVERED THAT OTHER OWNERS OF BFG TIRES HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME DEFECT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN TIRE FAILURE. ADDITIONALLY THE BFG TIRE DISTRIBUTOR IN MY AREA (T.O. HAUS, OMAHA NE) CONFIRMED THAT THEY TOO HAVE SEEN THESE FAILURES BEFORE IN MY EXACT TYPE OF TIRE. BFG CORPORATE KNOWS THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM AND HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT AND ONLY OFFERS PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOSS. I'M CERTAIN THAT IT WILL TAKE MORE TRAGEDIES AND FATALITIES BEFORE THEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. *JB
I WAS DOING SOME ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ON MY 2003 JACK ROUSH EDITION SVT COBRA COUPE WHEN I NOTICED SOMETHING REALLY SCARY. THE INSIDE SIDEWALL SEAM OF A FRONT AND REAR TIRE WAS SPLITTING AROUND ITS CIRCUMFERENCE. I'M CERTAIN THAT HAD I BEEN DRIVING AT SPEED OR ON A HOT ROAD SURFACE THAT PRESSURES WOULD HAVE BUILT TO THE POINT O…
Read full complaint
I WAS DOING SOME ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ON MY 2003 JACK ROUSH EDITION SVT COBRA COUPE WHEN I NOTICED SOMETHING REALLY SCARY. THE INSIDE SIDEWALL SEAM OF A FRONT AND REAR TIRE WAS SPLITTING AROUND ITS CIRCUMFERENCE. I'M CERTAIN THAT HAD I BEEN DRIVING AT SPEED OR ON A HOT ROAD SURFACE THAT PRESSURES WOULD HAVE BUILT TO THE POINT OF CAUSING A BLOW-OUT. I HAD A SIMILAR TIRE DEFECT, COINCIDENTALLY, WITH ANOTHER SET OF BFG-KD'S THAT WERE ON MY ROUSH CONVERTIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY FOR ME THAT TIRE BLEW OUT WHILE I WAS ON THE ROAD FROM THE PORT IN FLORIDA TO MY NEW DUTY STATION IN TEXAS. ANYWAY, I GOT IN TOUCH WITH BF GOODRICH CORPORATE AND INITIALLY ONLY OFFERED 50% REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL FOUR TIRES. LATER THAT CHANGE TO 75% THEN THEY AGREED TO REPLACE THEM WITH 4 NEW BFG-KDS IN MY ROUSH-OEM SIZES. THEY CLAIM THAT DUE TO TREAD WEAR THEIR WARRANTY ALLOWS FOR THAT COMPENSATION. MY POSITION WAS THAT I SHOULD RECEIVE 100% REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE WHETHER OR NOT THE TIRES HAD X% OF TREAD REMAINING OR WERE NEW, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THEY WERE STILL DEFECTIVE. THE FIRST TIME I WAS UNLUCKY BECAUSE THE TIRE BLEW-OUT RIGHT I WAS GOING TO PUT MORE AIR IN IT. THIS TIME I CAUGHT THE DEFECT BEFORE THE TIRES COULD BLOW-OUT. ONE CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESULT IF A BLOW-OUT OCCURRED ESPECIALLY IF IT HAPPENED WHILE I WAS TRAVELING AT MY "NORMAL" SPEEDS. SINCE THIS CLAIM I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH AND DISCOVERED THAT OTHER OWNERS OF BFG TIRES HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME DEFECT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN TIRE FAILURE. ADDITIONALLY THE BFG TIRE DISTRIBUTOR IN MY AREA (T.O. HAUS, OMAHA NE) CONFIRMED THAT THEY TOO HAVE SEEN THESE FAILURES BEFORE IN MY EXACT TYPE OF TIRE. BFG CORPORATE KNOWS THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM AND HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT AND ONLY OFFERS PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOSS. I'M CERTAIN THAT IT WILL TAKE MORE TRAGEDIES AND FATALITIES BEFORE THEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. *NM
DT: THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE ACCELERATOR STUCK ON 2003, FORD MUSTANG. CONSUMER WAS PARKED IN A PARKING LOT WHEN HE PUT THE CAR INTO REVERSE AND BACKED UP. THE MOTOR STARTED RACING , AND THE ACCELERATOR STUCK WHILE THE DRIVER WAS BACKING, AND HE CRASHED INTO A MOVING CAR. THE POLICE CAME AND WROTE THE CONSUMER A TICKET FOR …
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE ACCELERATOR STUCK ON 2003, FORD MUSTANG. CONSUMER WAS PARKED IN A PARKING LOT WHEN HE PUT THE CAR INTO REVERSE AND BACKED UP. THE MOTOR STARTED RACING , AND THE ACCELERATOR STUCK WHILE THE DRIVER WAS BACKING, AND HE CRASHED INTO A MOVING CAR. THE POLICE CAME AND WROTE THE CONSUMER A TICKET FOR IMPROPER BACKING, BUT DID NOT WRITE A POLICE REPORT ON THE ACCIDENT. THE OWNER HAD NO PRIOR PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE, BUT THE OWNER HAS ONLY OWNED THE CAR SINCE APRIL 10.. CONSUMER WAS STILL DRIVING THE CAR. THE OWNER HAS NOT HAD THE CAR CHECKED FOR ANY MALFUNCTION. CONSUMER HAS NOT TALKED TO THE DEALERSHIP, OR THE MANUFACTURER. ALSO, HERE WAS NO INSURANCE REPORT ON THE ACCIDENT. THE OWNER WAS TRAVELING AT A 10 MPH WHEN THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED. OWNER PLANNED TO HAVE THE CAR LOOKED AT TODAY FOR COSMETIC DAMAGES, AND THE ACCELERATOR CHECKED. THERE WERE NO INJURIES TO REPORT. *AK *TT
SECOND TIME FOR CONTROL ARMS NEEDING REPLACED. IN LESS THAN 4,000 HAD REAR CONTROL REPLACED AND NOW 4,000 MILES LATER NEEDS REPLACED AGAIN.HEARD A SCREECHING NOISE IN REAR OF CAR AND GARAGE COULDN'T HEAR THE PROBLEM TWICE BEFORE SO ITS NOTICABLE NOW. THEY ORDERED THE NEW PARTS FOR MONDAY 25 TO BE REPLACED
ACCELLERATOR PEDAL STICKS DOWN (AT FULL THROTTLE) BECAUSE IT GETS ENTANGLED IN FACTORY CARPETING THAT IS INCORRECTLY INSTALLED OR ATTACHED AT TIME OF MANUFACTURE OF VEHICLE.
DRIVERS SIDE FLOOR MATT IS CAUSING THE GAS PEDAL TO STICK AT FULL THROTTLE
I HAVE A 2003 FORD MUSTANG COBRA THAT HAD THE THROTTLE GET STUCK IN A WIDE OPEN MODE THAT COULD ONLY BE STOPPED BY TURNING THE KEY TO THE OFF POSITION. THIS WAS EXTREMELY SCARY AS I ALMOST REAR END ANOTHER CAR.
I AM WRITING THIS BECAUSE OF THE RESEARCH REGARDING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL INTERFERANCE WITH THE CARPET WITH MY 2003 FORD MUSTANG. THE CARPET FREES ITSELF FROM THE HOLDER AND LODGES ITSELF BETWEEN THE PEDALS. TO DATE THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DAMAGES OCCURED BY THIS, HOWEVER IT DOES INTEREFERE WITH THE GAS PEDAL.
GAS PEDAL STUCK UNDER CARPET
Official recalls
106V108000 · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
Apr 7, 2006
ON CERTAIN MUSTANG COBRA PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE REAR SURFACE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL MAY COME INTO CONTACT WITH FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION. THE UNIQUE SURFACE PROFILE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL MAY CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN TO AN IDLE POSITION. UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION AND/OR INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES MAY OCCUR WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A SHIELD OVER THE CUTOUT IN THE CARPET BEHIND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 26, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
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
3DP05005 · 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.
EA05014 · Accelerator Pedal Interference
Opened Sep 13, 2005 · Closed Apr 10, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
ON APRIL 3, 2006, FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO NHTSA CONCERNING A DEFECT CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND FLOOR CARPETING IN APPROXIMATELY 19,140 MODEL YEAR 2003 AND 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES (FORD RECALL NO. 06S43/NHTSA RECALL 06V-108, COPY ATTACHED).FORD WILL RECALL THE VEHICLES TO INSTALL A SHIELD BENEATH THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO PREVENT THE PIVOT PIN ON THE REAR SURFACE OF THE PEDAL FROM COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION.IN THOSE VEHICLES WHERE THE FLOOR CARPETING DOES NOT FIT FLUSH WITH THE SHEET METAL, THE UNIQUE REAR SURFACE PROFILE OF THE MUSTANG COBRA PEDAL MAY ALLOW THE PIVOT PIN OF THE PEDAL TO CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE PEDAL, INTERFERING WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN; THE RESULT OF WHICH COULD BE UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION.DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ALSO EXAMINED THE POSSIBLITY OF THE SAME PHENOMENA OCCURING IN NON-COBRA MUSTANGS.HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENT DESIGN OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDALS ON THE NON-COBRA MUSTANGS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE CARPETING, WITH THE BASE OF THE PEDAL PAD ACTING TO FORCE THE CARPET AWAY FROM THE PIVOT PIN.THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN CLOSED.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
ON APRIL 3, 2006, FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO NHTSA CONCERNING A DEFECT CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND FLOOR CARPETING IN APPROXIMATELY 19,140 MODEL YEAR 2003 AND 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES (FORD RECALL NO. 06S43/NHTSA RECALL 06V-108, COPY ATTACHED).FORD WILL RECALL THE VEHICLES TO INSTALL A SHIELD BENEATH THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO PREVENT THE PIVOT PIN ON THE REAR SURFACE OF THE PEDAL FROM COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION.IN THOSE VEHICLES WHERE THE FLOOR CARPETING DOES NOT FIT FLUSH WITH THE SHEET METAL, THE UNIQUE REAR SURFACE PROFILE OF THE MUSTANG COBRA PEDAL MAY ALLOW THE PIVOT PIN OF THE PEDAL TO CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE PEDAL, INTERFERING WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN; THE RESULT OF WHICH COULD BE UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION.DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ALSO EXAMINED THE POSSIBLITY OF THE SAME PHENOMENA OCCURING IN NON-COBRA MUSTANGS.HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENT DESIGN OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDALS ON THE NON-COBRA MUSTANGS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE CARPETING, WITH THE BASE OF THE PEDAL PAD ACTING TO FORCE THE CARPET AWAY FROM THE PIVOT PIN.THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN CLOSED.
Vehicle Speed Control
ON APRIL 3, 2006, FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO NHTSA CONCERNING A DEFECT CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND FLOOR CARPETING IN APPROXIMATELY 19,140 MODEL YEAR 2003 AND 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES (FORD RECALL NO. 06S43/NHTSA RECALL 06V-108, COPY ATTACHED).FORD WILL RECALL THE VEHICLES TO INSTALL A SHIELD BENEATH THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO PREVENT THE PIVOT PIN ON THE REAR SURFACE OF THE PEDAL FROM COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION.IN THOSE VEHICLES WHERE THE FLOOR CARPETING DOES NOT FIT FLUSH WITH THE SHEET METAL, THE UNIQUE REAR SURFACE PROFILE OF THE MUSTANG COBRA PEDAL MAY ALLOW THE PIVOT PIN OF THE PEDAL TO CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE PEDAL, INTERFERING WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN; THE RESULT OF WHICH COULD BE UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION.DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ALSO EXAMINED THE POSSIBLITY OF THE SAME PHENOMENA OCCURING IN NON-COBRA MUSTANGS.HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENT DESIGN OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDALS ON THE NON-COBRA MUSTANGS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE CARPETING, WITH THE BASE OF THE PEDAL PAD ACTING TO FORCE THE CARPET AWAY FROM THE PIVOT PIN.THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN CLOSED.
PE05038 · Accelerator Pedal Interference
Opened Jul 7, 2005 · Closed Sep 13, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
PE05-038 WAS OPENED ON JULY 7, 2005, WITH 11 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS TO ODI ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF THROTTLE STICKING DUE TO ACCELERATOR PEDAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE CARPET.ODI HAS RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL 24 COMPLAINTS SINCE THE PE WAS OPENED.DURING PE05-038, FORD SUPPLIED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY INFORMATION REGARDING 86 ADDITIONAL INCIDENTS OF ACCELERATOR PEDAL INTERFERENCE IN MODEL YEAR 2003 TO 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES.EIGHTY-FIVE OF THESE HAD CONCERNS OF ACCELERATOR PEDAL STICKING, 70 OF WHICH WERE ANALYZED AS BEING RELATED TO CARPET INTERFERENCE.ODI IS CONTINUING ITS ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSAL FACTORS IN THE REMAINING 15 INCIDENTS.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.