IllustrationWHILE REVERSING PEDAL STUCK TO THE FLOOR, AND VEHICLE EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. *AK
2003 Lincoln Navigator
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Navigator years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Lincoln Navigator are substantially higher than the model-year median of 30.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Navigator 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
200–25K
1325–50K
1350–75K
1775–100K
20100–150K
8150K+
91 reports with mileage · 36 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.
- Suspension. Review the 38 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
6 crash reports3 fire reports11 injury reports
What owners actually said
127 reportsWHILE DRIVING 50 MPH CONSUMER'S VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN HEAD ON COLLISION. UPON IMPACT, DUAL AIR BAG COVERS POPPED OPEN, BUT THEY DID NOT DEPLOY. *AK *LA
EXCESSIVE WIND NOISE IN CAB. REPORTED AT LEAST THREE TIMES TO DEALER. ON THIRD COMPLAINT, TOLD BY DEALER THAT "THIS IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS TRUCK".*AK
AUTOMATIC RUNNING BOARDS HAD DELAYED DEPLOYMENT OR WOULDN'T DEPLOY AT ALL. *PH THE CONSUMER WAS EXITING THE FROM THE REAR SEAT WHEN THE BOARDS DID NOT DEPLOY BUT AS SHE STEPPED OUT OF THE VEHICLE IT DEPLOYED STRIKING THE CONSUMER IN THE BACK OF HER LEGS. *SC
WHEN BACKING UP IN DRIVEWAY, 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR ACCELERATED EXTREMELY WITH WHEELS "PEELING" AND CAR WOULD NOT BRAKE. CAR CAME TO REST AFTER GLANCING OFF A TREE AND PLOUGHING OVER COLUMNS IN FRONT OF HOME. CAR WOULD NOT START SUBSEQUENTLY.
CONSUMER COMPLAINED ABOUT A RUNNING BOARD PROBLEM. THE RUNNING BOARDS EXTENDED WHEN OPENING THE DOOR, AND RETRACTED WHEN CLOSING THE DOOR. *AK
ON 7/31 I HAD A TIRE PRESSURE SYSTEM FAULT ERROR AND TOOK IN FOR PROBLEM TO BE FIXED. ON 8/17 WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE I WAS SHOVED INTO STEERING WHEEL AS FAR UP AS IT WOULD GO AND MIRRORS WERE GOING CRAZY ON OUTSIDE. I 'M THREE MONTHS PREGNANT AND I ALREADY LOST 2 OF THE 3 TRIPLETS I FOUND OUT ON 8/25. NOT SURE IF THIS IS WHY O…
Read full complaint
ON 7/31 I HAD A TIRE PRESSURE SYSTEM FAULT ERROR AND TOOK IN FOR PROBLEM TO BE FIXED. ON 8/17 WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE I WAS SHOVED INTO STEERING WHEEL AS FAR UP AS IT WOULD GO AND MIRRORS WERE GOING CRAZY ON OUTSIDE. I 'M THREE MONTHS PREGNANT AND I ALREADY LOST 2 OF THE 3 TRIPLETS I FOUND OUT ON 8/25. NOT SURE IF THIS IS WHY OR NOT. ON TOP OF THAT HAD ANOTHER TIRE PRESSURE SYSTEM FAULT ERROR. THEY PUT ON MACHINE AND FOUND 7 ERROR CODES AND SAID THEY FIXED, IF IT HAPPENED AGAIN TO BRING IT BACK. ON 8/30 THE LIGHTS WENT NUTS, THE BACK LIFTGATE ALMOST CRUSHED ME IN IT. LUCKILY, I GOT MY HEAD OUT FROM THE BOTTOM JUST IN TIME BEFORE GATE CLOSED. THE SENSORS/ELECTRICAL SYSTEM WERE NOT WORKING. THIS IS MAJOR TO ME, IF ONE OF MY CHILDREN HAD BEEN BACK THERE AND DIDN'T THINK FAST ENOUGH - I CRINGE TO THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. I HAVE A CASE OPEN WITH FORD RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK. I'M SO SCARED TO GET THIS VEHICLE BACK BECAUSE THAT LIFT GATE COULD HAVE KILLED ME AND WHAT IF I GET THIS BACK AND THEY FIX THESE 5 ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS THEY ARE WORKING ON NOW AND THEN I FIND OUT THE HARD WAY THAT THERE ARE MORE. IT SEEMS THEY FIX ONE PROBLEM AND I HAVE MORE. IT'S LIKE ONE FIX AND IT TRIGGERS MORE. PLEASE ASSIST ME ANYWAY POSSIBLE. I RESEARCHED AND ACCORDING TO OHIO LAW THEY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO FIX THE LIFTGATE AND IF IT DOESN'T THEN IT IS A LEMON. HOWEVER, I'M AFRAID THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIX THE ELECTRICAL MESS IN THIS VEHICLE. ALL I WANT IS MY PURCHASE PRICE BACK. I'M PAYING OVER $1000 A MONTH ON THIS VEHICLE (WHICH IS MORE THAN MY RENT) AND THIS IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE CAR I HAVE EVER PURCHASED AND IT IS ALSO THE MOST DANGEROUS. PLEASE HELP. SINCERELY, [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
WITHOUT WARNING THE VEHICLE STALLED WHILE THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING AT AN UNDETERMINED SPEED. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS AND THE PROBLEM STILL CONTINUED. *AK WHEN IDLING THE VEHICLE MADE A PRESSURE LIKE NOISE THAT WOULD GET LOUDER, THE LOW OIL INDICATOR LIGHT WOULD COME ON, THE VALVES HAD A…
Read full complaint
WITHOUT WARNING THE VEHICLE STALLED WHILE THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING AT AN UNDETERMINED SPEED. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS AND THE PROBLEM STILL CONTINUED. *AK WHEN IDLING THE VEHICLE MADE A PRESSURE LIKE NOISE THAT WOULD GET LOUDER, THE LOW OIL INDICATOR LIGHT WOULD COME ON, THE VALVES HAD A TAPPING SOUND THAT WAS ABNORMAL, THERE WAS A METAL SCRAPING SOUND WHICH AS IF THE BOTTOM WAS GOING TO DROP OUT, THERE WERE EXHAUST NOISES ALONG WITH A POPPING SOUND, AND THERE WAS CONTINUOUS STALLING. *SC THE CONSUMER STATED THERE WAS AN ONGOING DISPUTE REGARDING THE ODOMETER READING. ALSO THE BRAKES AND DOOR LOCKED NEVER WORKED. *JB
WITHIN TWO WEEKS, A SQUEAK AND A CLUNK DEVELOPED IN THE REAR-END OF MY NEW VEHICLE. THE DEALER TOLD ME THAT THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL WAS MISSING TWO OF THE FOUR BOLTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE AND THAT THE TWO BOLTS THAT WERE INSTALLED WERE LOOSE. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAD SEEN A LOT OF THAT, BECAUSE THE PLANTS HAD TO MANUFACTURE…
Read full complaint
WITHIN TWO WEEKS, A SQUEAK AND A CLUNK DEVELOPED IN THE REAR-END OF MY NEW VEHICLE. THE DEALER TOLD ME THAT THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL WAS MISSING TWO OF THE FOUR BOLTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE AND THAT THE TWO BOLTS THAT WERE INSTALLED WERE LOOSE. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAD SEEN A LOT OF THAT, BECAUSE THE PLANTS HAD TO MANUFACTURE A LOT OF NAVIGATORS IN A HURRY. *LA
THE DRIVER HAD A HARD TIME READING THE DASHBOARD PANEL. THE DEALER WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. *AK THE LIGHTS ON THE DASH WERE TOO DIM TO READ IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT AND VISIBLE IN THE SHADE. THIS PROBLEM CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO MISS THE "DOOR AJAR/TAILGATE" FOR THIRTY MINUTES WHICH ALLOWED EXHAUST FUMES TO ENTER THE VEHICLE. *…
Read full complaint
THE DRIVER HAD A HARD TIME READING THE DASHBOARD PANEL. THE DEALER WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. *AK THE LIGHTS ON THE DASH WERE TOO DIM TO READ IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT AND VISIBLE IN THE SHADE. THIS PROBLEM CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO MISS THE "DOOR AJAR/TAILGATE" FOR THIRTY MINUTES WHICH ALLOWED EXHAUST FUMES TO ENTER THE VEHICLE. *SCC *JB
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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.