NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
13 reportsClear category filter157,812 miles · Apr 19, 2011
Engine And Engine CoolingUnknown Or Other
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, P.O. BOX 1904, DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48121, CHOSE TO NOT WARN A SEGMENT OF THEIR FULL-SIZE CAR OWNERS WHO ARE "CIVILIAN" THAT THEIR CARS WERE PRODUCED WITH A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT WAS FAILING AND CAUSING ENORMOUS COOLANT PROBLEMS FOR THEIR 4.6L V-8 ENGINES AND OTHER COMPONENT ENGINE PARTS. BECAUSE FORD D…
Read full complaint
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, P.O. BOX 1904, DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48121, CHOSE TO NOT WARN A SEGMENT OF THEIR FULL-SIZE CAR OWNERS WHO ARE "CIVILIAN" THAT THEIR CARS WERE PRODUCED WITH A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT WAS FAILING AND CAUSING ENORMOUS COOLANT PROBLEMS FOR THEIR 4.6L V-8 ENGINES AND OTHER COMPONENT ENGINE PARTS. BECAUSE FORD DID NOT NOTIFY ME OF THEIR KNOWN PROBLEMS WITH THE INTAKE MANIFOLD THE DEFECTED PART CAUSED MY CAR TO REPEATEDLY LOOSE COOLANT AND CAUSE MY CAR TO OVERHEAT AND FINALLY BLOW MY INTAKE MANIFOLD GASKET CAUSING ME TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLD (COPY OF SHOP BILL ATTACHED) AND CAUSING UNKNOWN DAMAGES TO MY ENGINE. I AM REQUESTING A REFUND FOR THESE REPAIRS.
NHTSA ODI #10397689
150,000 miles · Jan 19, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED ABOUT THE FORD RECALLS ON INTAKE MANIFOLD, I RECENTLY FOUND OUT THAT MY MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED AND THAT PRIOR TO IT BRAKING FORD HAD SETTLE A LAWSUIT REGARDING SAID PROBLEM. I HAVE NEVER NOR HAS MY GODFATHER BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE RECALL ITEM. KNOWN FORD RECALLS: 97M91, 99M01, 01M02 DID NOT APPLY TO PRIVATELY …
Read full complaint
I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED ABOUT THE FORD RECALLS ON INTAKE MANIFOLD, I RECENTLY FOUND OUT THAT MY MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED AND THAT PRIOR TO IT BRAKING FORD HAD SETTLE A LAWSUIT REGARDING SAID PROBLEM. I HAVE NEVER NOR HAS MY GODFATHER BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE RECALL ITEM. KNOWN FORD RECALLS: 97M91, 99M01, 01M02 DID NOT APPLY TO PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES WHY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10377897
111,500 miles · Oct 6, 2010
Engine And Engine CoolingSuspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD CRACK. HE PULLED OVER BUT DID NOT FIND THE CAUSE OF THE NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE FRONT BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD CRACK. HE PULLED OVER BUT DID NOT FIND THE CAUSE OF THE NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE FRONT BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER IN REGARDS TO RECALL 98V322000 (SUSPENSION: FRONT: CONTROL ARM: LOWER BALL JOINT) BUT WAS TOLD THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THERE WAS A CRACK IN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND A MECHANIC TOLD HIM THAT IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 111,500.
NHTSA ODI #10359462
165,000 miles · Jun 7, 2010
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR IS LEAKING COOLANT. MY WIFE NOTICED A NOISE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD, WHEN I TURNED ON HER CAR TO LISTEN TO THE NOISE I COULD TELL IT WAS THE FAN BELT SQUEAKING. WHILE THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING I OPENED THE HOOD AND I COULD SEE THE COOLANT RUNNING OUT OF THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING. I TH…
Read full complaint
THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR IS LEAKING COOLANT. MY WIFE NOTICED A NOISE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD, WHEN I TURNED ON HER CAR TO LISTEN TO THE NOISE I COULD TELL IT WAS THE FAN BELT SQUEAKING. WHILE THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING I OPENED THE HOOD AND I COULD SEE THE COOLANT RUNNING OUT OF THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING. I THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD THERMOSTAT SO I BOUGHT A NEW ONE AND REPLACED IT MYSELF. IT WASN'T UNTIL I TURNED THE CAR ON FOLLOWING THE REPAIRS THAT I SAW THE COOLANT COMING FROM CRACKS IN THE MANIFOLD. I DID NOT KNOW OF THE FORD RECALLS 97M91, 99M01, 01M02 UNTIL I WAS RESEARCHING TO BUY A NEW MANIFOLD ON THE INTERNET. I BOUGHT THIS CAR BACK IN 2000 AND NEVER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE RECALL. THIS VEHICLE HAS 160,000 MILES ON IT AND STILL RUNS GREAT, UNTIL NOW. I FEEL I SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS RECALL AND FORD MOTOR CO. SHOULD REIMBURSE FOR MY EXPENSES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10335145
112,177 miles · Nov 27, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR, CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. MY HUSBAND, LEWIS BARBER, JR., SPOKE WITH FORD TODAY AND WAS TOLD THAT FORD WOULD NOT REIMBURSE REPLACEMENT COST. EVEN THOUGH FORD TOLD MY HUSBAND THAT THEY MAILED NOTICE TO ME IN JULY 2005, I NEVER RECEIVED ANY SUCH NOTICE. I KEEP VERY GOOD RECORDS, AND MY CAR HAS BEEN IN AN AU…
Read full complaint
1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR, CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. MY HUSBAND, LEWIS BARBER, JR., SPOKE WITH FORD TODAY AND WAS TOLD THAT FORD WOULD NOT REIMBURSE REPLACEMENT COST. EVEN THOUGH FORD TOLD MY HUSBAND THAT THEY MAILED NOTICE TO ME IN JULY 2005, I NEVER RECEIVED ANY SUCH NOTICE. I KEEP VERY GOOD RECORDS, AND MY CAR HAS BEEN IN AN AUTHORIZED DEALERS REPAIR SHOP BUT NO ONE TOLD ME ABOUT THE CRACKING INTAKE MANIFOLD PROBLEM OR ANY LAWSUIT "SETTLEMENT". I FOUND FORDS NUMBER FROM A LETTER THEY SENT ME DATED AUGUST 2000, WHICH CONCERNED A PROBLEM WITH TIRE JACKS --AT THAT TIME I LIVED IN OKLAHOMA CITY. THERE MAY BE HUNDREDS OF OTHERS WHO ARE SIMILAR SITUATED. AGAIN, FORD DID NOT GIVE ME ANY NOTICE OF THIS PROBLEM. I PAID $1,179.56 TO C&F AUTOMOTIVE (2439 N. DECATUR BLVD, LAS VEGAS, NV 89108-0000 - 702-647-7787) TO REPLACE THE CRACKED MANIFOLD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10210084
124,592 miles · Aug 25, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
(1)NORMAL DRIVING; NOTHING UNUSUAL (2)LEAKING OF COOLANT INTO AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM; OILY SUBSTANCE ON INSIDE OF WINDSHIELD (3)HEATER CORE REPLACED 3 TIMES IN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS; FIRST TIME AT MY EXPENSE. 3RD TIME I WAS TOLD THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY HAD 'FOUND A SOLUTION' TO KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN...AT AN ADDITIONAL CO…
Read full complaint
(1)NORMAL DRIVING; NOTHING UNUSUAL (2)LEAKING OF COOLANT INTO AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM; OILY SUBSTANCE ON INSIDE OF WINDSHIELD (3)HEATER CORE REPLACED 3 TIMES IN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS; FIRST TIME AT MY EXPENSE. 3RD TIME I WAS TOLD THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY HAD 'FOUND A SOLUTION' TO KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN...AT AN ADDITIONAL COST OF $464.27
NHTSA ODI #10134216
100,000 miles · Nov 10, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
FORD MOTOR CO. CAR SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT COME ON.
NHTSA ODI #10098624
100,000 miles · Oct 12, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING, THE VEHICLE STARTED TO SHAKE VIBRATE. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE FOR AN INSPECTION AND THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE CONSUMER THE MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10096585
92,000 miles · Apr 8, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
CONSUMER NOTICED COOLANT LEVELS WERE DROPPING. DEALERSHIP INDICATED THAT BECAUSE THE LEVELS WERE DROPPING AT A SLOW PACE IT WAS NORMAL. THREE MONTHS LATER, COOLANT LEVEL DROPPED AT A RAPID PACE. DEALERSHIP THEN INDICATED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS LEAKING ENGINE COOLANT. CONSUMER INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A TSB ON THIS IS…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER NOTICED COOLANT LEVELS WERE DROPPING. DEALERSHIP INDICATED THAT BECAUSE THE LEVELS WERE DROPPING AT A SLOW PACE IT WAS NORMAL. THREE MONTHS LATER, COOLANT LEVEL DROPPED AT A RAPID PACE. DEALERSHIP THEN INDICATED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS LEAKING ENGINE COOLANT. CONSUMER INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A TSB ON THIS ISSUE THAT INDICATED THAT THE COOLANT LEAKED AND SPRAYED ONTO THE ALTERNATOR, CAUSING A SHORT. THIS TSB ONLY APPLIED TO POLICE VEHICLES AND LIMOUSINES BECAUSE THEIR MILEAGE WAS HIGHER. TSB NOT FOUND IN ARTEMIS.*AK *MR
NHTSA ODI #10061690
53,000 miles · Jan 15, 2004
Engine And Engine CoolingEquipmentService Brakes
WE PURCHASED TWO NEW TOWNCARS FROM GERMAIN LINC.-MERC., NAPLES, FL, IN 1999 AND 2000 MY CAR'S,VIN [XXX], 1999 TOWN CAR, AND MY WIFE'S 2000 TOWN CAR, VIN [XXX]. MY FIRST COMPLAINT IS REGARDING MY CAR THAT DEVELOPED ELECTRONIC PROBLEMS RIGHT AFTER IT RAN OUT OF WARRANTY, AND NEEDED A $500 REPAIR. A WEEK LATER, IT DEVELOPED A LEAK…
Read full complaint
WE PURCHASED TWO NEW TOWNCARS FROM GERMAIN LINC.-MERC., NAPLES, FL, IN 1999 AND 2000 MY CAR'S,VIN [XXX], 1999 TOWN CAR, AND MY WIFE'S 2000 TOWN CAR, VIN [XXX]. MY FIRST COMPLAINT IS REGARDING MY CAR THAT DEVELOPED ELECTRONIC PROBLEMS RIGHT AFTER IT RAN OUT OF WARRANTY, AND NEEDED A $500 REPAIR. A WEEK LATER, IT DEVELOPED A LEAK, AND WAS REPAIRED AT $1000. IS THIS PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE? THIS WAS AT 56,000 MILES OF USE. SHOULDN'T THE DEALER CHECK BASIC SYSTEMS AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE WELL MAINTAINED? MY WIFE'S TOWNCAR HAS A FAR MORE SERIOUS AND HAZARDOUS HISTORY. SHE, ALONG WITH OUR GRANDSONS, EXPERIENCED A TIRE BLOWOUT AT 33,000 MILES. AFTER THE TIRE WAS CHANGED TO THE SPARE, SHE DROVE TO THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD THAT BOTH REAR TIRES SHOULD BE REPLACED FOR SAFETY. SHE AGREED. WHEN SHE PICKED UP THE CAR, ALL 4 TIRES (!)HAD BEEN REPLACED AT THE COST OF $548. THERE WAS NO PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR ANY OF THE 4 TIRES REMOVED. ON 12-23-02 (3 DAYS LATER) SHE REPORTED TO THE DEALER THAT THE BRAKES WERE NOISY (SQUEAKED). WHEN SHE GOT THE CAR, THE BILL FOR THE BRAKES WAS $420. WHEN DRIVING OUR 2 DAUGHTERS AND 2 GRANDSONS THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE BRAKES DID NOT HOLD, AND SHE WAS UNABLE TO STOP AT A RED LIGHT, NEARLY HITTING THE CAR IN FRONT OF HER. ONLY BY FORCED PUMPING WITH BOTH FEET, AND SWERVING INTO THE TURN LANE, DID SHE AVOID A CRASH. HAD CARS BEEN COMING IN THAT TURN LANE, ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY IN OUR FAMILY, COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. SHOULDN'T THE CUSTOMER "ADVISOR" ADVISE A MINOR BRAKE-PAD REPLACEMENT RATHER THAN WAIT FOR A MAJOR EXPENSIVE/DANGEROUS PROBLEM? WE STRONGLY DOUBT THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER ANOTHER FORD PRODUCT. THIS IS A SHORT HISTORY OF 2 REGULARLY-DEALER-MAINTAINED LUXURY CARS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10070362
Official recalls
5Dec 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN LIMOUSINES STRETCHED OVER 60 INCHES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 109, "NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES," AND NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE VEHICLE WEIGHT COULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LOAD RATING FOR THE TIRE, INCREASING THE RISK OF PREMATURE TIRE WEAR OR BLOWOUT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE ALL 5 TIRES (INCLUDING THE SPARE TIRE) WITH MICHELIN TIRES (225/70R16 107T REINFORCED WHITE SIDEWALL) WITH A SUFFICIENTLY HIGHER LOAD RATING. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN JANUARY 10, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-248-0186.
Jul 18, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE VEHICLES HAVE JACKING INSTRUCTIONS WHICH, IF FOLLOWED, COULD CAUSE THE VEHICLE OPERATOR TO PLACE THE JACK ON A FRAME WELD WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RAISE A REAR WHEEL. IF THE VEHICLE IS JACKED UP WITH THE JACK PLACED ON THE FRAME WELD AND IF THE VEHICLE IS FREE TO ROLL (WHEELS NOT BLOCKED OR CHOCKED), THE JACK COULD YIELD AND THE VEHICLE MAY DROP SUDDENLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS AND ANY PORTION OF THE OPERATOR'S BODY IS UNDER THE VEHICLE, THE POTENTIAL FOR PERSONAL INJURY EXISTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A REVISED JACK INSTRUCTION AND STOWAGE CARD AND JACK WARNING LABEL, AS WELL AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE OWNER GUIDE.
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET DRIVER'S SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Dec 16, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1996-1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, NATURAL GAS, AND 1996-1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT WERE PRODUCED WITH A LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CONTAINING A ONE PIECE BEARING; AND 1990-1996 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, AND NGV VEHICLES AND 1990-1996 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN SERVICED WITH EITHER A BALL JOINT CONTAINING THE ONE-PIECE BEARING OR A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM CONTAINING A BALL JOINT WITH A ONE-PIECE BEARING. THE ONE-PIECE BEARING WITHIN THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CAN WEAKEN SLOWLY DURING USE AND EVENTUALLY CRACK. THIS COULD RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE BALL AND CAP OF THE JOINT, ALLOWING THE CONTROL ARM TO DROP TO THE GROUND.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS WHILE THE VEHICLE IS MOVING, REDUCED STEERING CONTROL COULD OCCUR, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS (2).
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
4DP05005 · 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.
PE03011 · Inadvertent Side Air Bag Deployment
Opened Mar 14, 2003 · Closed Aug 22, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:side/window
ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 173 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INADVERTENT OR NON-CRASH DEPLOYMENT OF SIDE AIR BAGS ON MODEL YEAR (MY) 1999-2003 LINCOLN TOWN CARS.MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT ONE OF THE SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WHILE DRIVING WITHOUT ANY IMPACT.ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT MY 2001 THROUGH EARLY MY 2003 TOWN CARS HAVE MUCH HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM RATES (138 COMPLAINTS AND 120 WARRANTY CLAIMS) THAN THE REMAINING VEHICLES (35 COMPLAINTS AND 32 WARRANTY CLAIMS).FORD CHANGED ITS SUPPLIER OF THE SIDE CRASH SENSORS FOR THE MY 2001 TOWN CARS.FORD STATES THAT THE ALGORITHM IN THE MY 2001 TOWN CARS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS MODEL YEAR'S DESIGN, AND THAT IT IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE IMPROVED OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN MODERATE SPEED SIDE POLE IMPACTS.IN DECEMBER 2002 (I.E., EARLY MY 2003 VEHICLE PRODUCTION), THE CRASH SENSORS WERE MOVED FROM THE FLOOR OF VEHICLE TO NEAR THE BASE OF B-PILLARS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE INCIDENTS OF INADVERTENT SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENTS.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA03-014) FOR MY 2001-2003 TOWN CARS BUILT BEFORE DECEMBER 2002.
DP02007 · FUEL-FED Fires
Opened Aug 22, 2002 · Closed Dec 4, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
THE FARS DATA SHOWS THAT THE RISK OF FIRE FROM IMPACT IN ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS THE SAME AS ALL OTHER SEDANS.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT OVER REPRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE RISK OF FIRE IN REAL-WORLD HIGH-ENERGY CRASHES.A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO POST CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS SET OUT IN THE CLOSING REPORT FOR SQ 01-014 AND THAT REPORT IS IN THE DOCKET FOR THIS PETITION.AFTER REVIEWING THE PETITION AND ITS SUPPORTING MATERIALS, AS WELL AS INFORMATION FURNISHED BY FORD AND GM, AND INFORMATION WITHIN THE AGENCY'S POSSESSION FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS,NHTSA HAS CONCLUDED THAT FUTHER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING POST-CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO A DECISION THAT THE VEHICLES CONTAIN A SAFETY DEFECT.
SQ01014 · Post Rear End Collision Fires
Opened Nov 27, 2001 · Closed Oct 3, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
There is no summary currently available
Illustration