IllustrationThere was a loud pop after I got gas. My car wouldn't stay running. I couldn't figure out what was going on. My husband looked under the hood and the spark plug still attached to the ignition coil had popped out of the engine. All of the screws holding the ignition coils had backed out.
2001 Lincoln Town Car
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2001 Lincoln Town Car do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 86.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Town Car 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
100–25K
1525–50K
1750–75K
2175–100K
19100–150K
9150K+
91 reports with mileage · 70 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 54 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Visibility. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
21 crash reports4 fire reports16 injury reports
What owners actually said
161 reportsMy car has been making a weird whistling noise for a few months. My husband found it was coming from the rear intake manifold hose. He started my car and next the car started smoking and he looked under the hood the nipple where the hose connected had broke off and there is a crack all the way down the intake manifold.
The contact owns a 2001 Lincoln Town Car. The contact stated while driving 35 mph, the passenger’s side curtain air bag inadvertently deployed without warning. While the contact was startled by the deployment of the air bag, there was no injury sustained. The vehicle was driven to the residence. The local dealer was contacted an…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2001 Lincoln Town Car. The contact stated while driving 35 mph, the passenger’s side curtain air bag inadvertently deployed without warning. While the contact was startled by the deployment of the air bag, there was no injury sustained. The vehicle was driven to the residence. The local dealer was contacted and confirmed that the vehicle was not under recall. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was 50,930.
PASSENGER SEAT AIRBAG DEPLOYED OVERNIGHT. CAR WAS TURNED OFF AND PARKED IN DRIVEWAY, 50' FROM STREET. *TR
" TAKATA RECALL " WHEN I DRIVE OVER A POT HOLE MY CAR WANTS 2 GO ALL OVER THE ROAD THE STEERING IS LOOSECAN'T HARTLEY HOLE IT STRAIGHT ON THE ROAD I CANNT. AND ALSO MY WINDSHIELD FLUID DOESN'T COME OUT WHEN PUSH.STEERING COULD IS LOOSE.ALL IN MOTION EVEN.ON THE HWY I CANNOT GO ON. I CANNOT TAKE PIC IT IS UNDER THE …
Read full complaint
" TAKATA RECALL " WHEN I DRIVE OVER A POT HOLE MY CAR WANTS 2 GO ALL OVER THE ROAD THE STEERING IS LOOSECAN'T HARTLEY HOLE IT STRAIGHT ON THE ROAD I CANNT. AND ALSO MY WINDSHIELD FLUID DOESN'T COME OUT WHEN PUSH.STEERING COULD IS LOOSE.ALL IN MOTION EVEN.ON THE HWY I CANNOT GO ON. I CANNOT TAKE PIC IT IS UNDER THE CAR
ON JULY 16, 2017, I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 70 EAST, NEAR WASHINGTON, PA. ALL OF A SUDDEN MY 2001 LINCOLN STARTED SHAKING VERY VIOLENTLY. I MANAGED TO PULL INTO A REST STOP A FEW MILES AWAY, AND NOTICED THAT THE REAR PORTION OF MY LINCOLN WAS VERY LOW TO THE GROUND. I MANAGED TO DRIVE INTO WASHINGTON, PA, AND A LOCAL MECHANI…
Read full complaint
ON JULY 16, 2017, I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 70 EAST, NEAR WASHINGTON, PA. ALL OF A SUDDEN MY 2001 LINCOLN STARTED SHAKING VERY VIOLENTLY. I MANAGED TO PULL INTO A REST STOP A FEW MILES AWAY, AND NOTICED THAT THE REAR PORTION OF MY LINCOLN WAS VERY LOW TO THE GROUND. I MANAGED TO DRIVE INTO WASHINGTON, PA, AND A LOCAL MECHANIC TOLD ME THAT HE SUSPECTED THAT THE AIR SUSPENSION COMPRESSOR, WHICH CONTROLS THE REAR AIR SUSPENSION BAGS, WAS DEFECTIVE. A FEW WEEKS EARLIER, THE "AIR BAGS" WARNING LIGHT RELATING TO THE REAR AIR SUSPENSION BAGS HAD COME ON; MY MECHANIC CHECKED THEM OUT AND STATED THAT THEY WERE FINE, AS HE HAD REPLACED BOTH OF THEM, IN 2013. HOWEVER, IN RETROSPECT, THE COMPUTER WAS REFERRING TO THE AIR SUSPENSION COMPRESSOR AND PROBABLY TO THE AIR SUSPENSION HEIGHT SENSOR. I HAD MY MECHANIC REPLACE BOTH OF THOSE PARTS. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE LINCOLN PERSONNEL SHOULD HAVE WARNED THE LINCOLN TOWN CAR OWNERS THAT THE AIR SUSPENSION SYSTEM, WHICH IS USED ON THE LINCOLN TOWN CARS, IS PRONE TO FAILURE; AND, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A WARNING BUILT INTO THE COMPUTER TO WARN DRIVERS OF AN IMPENDING LOSS TO THAT SYSTEM. A LIGHT COMING ON JUST STATING "AIR BAGS" IS NOT SUFFICIENT. PRIOR TO THAT PROBLEM, I HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS AN AIR SUSPENSION COMPRESSOR, OR AN AIR SUSPENSION HEIGHT SENSOR TO CONTROL THE REAR AIR SUSPENSION BAGS. SINCE THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF LINCOLN TOWN CARS ON THE ROAD, THE NHTSA SHOULD AT LEAST WARN OWNERS OF THOSE CARS, ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SUSPENSION PROBLEM, WHICH CAN CAUSE A SERIOUS ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO LOSE POWER WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE OCCURRED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER TO THE ROAD SHOULDER AND WAS RESTARTED AFTER TEN MINUTES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO LOSE POWER WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE OCCURRED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER TO THE ROAD SHOULDER AND WAS RESTARTED AFTER TEN MINUTES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 104,250.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE AT A STOP LIGHT, THE VEHICLE SPONTANEOUSLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT HAD TO SHUT OFF THE VEHICLE IN ORDER TO STOP. NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED ONE OTHER TIME AND HAD TO DEPRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL COM…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE AT A STOP LIGHT, THE VEHICLE SPONTANEOUSLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT HAD TO SHUT OFF THE VEHICLE IN ORDER TO STOP. NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED ONE OTHER TIME AND HAD TO DEPRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL COMING TO A SCREECHING STOP. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED BY A DEALER OR AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 98,000.
I HAVE REPLACED ALL STEERING COMPONENTS. AND THE STEERING STILL WONDERS TO BAD TO DRIVE.
MY 2001 LINCOLN TOWNCAR SIGNATURE ,. GAS IN FUEL AND DROVE 3 MILES IN PARK. THE CAR LITTLE EXHAUST, I PROCEEDED TO THE LIGHT AND THERMOSTATS HEATING NEEDLE TO HOT. I MOVE TO NEXT, LIGHT, AIR CONDITION ON TO COOL DOWN. IMMEDIATELY LEFT TURN INTO CYPRESS RESTAURANT. PARKING, TURN OFF, COOL DOWN, AND NEXT OPEN BY FRIEND WHO NEEDED…
Read full complaint
MY 2001 LINCOLN TOWNCAR SIGNATURE ,. GAS IN FUEL AND DROVE 3 MILES IN PARK. THE CAR LITTLE EXHAUST, I PROCEEDED TO THE LIGHT AND THERMOSTATS HEATING NEEDLE TO HOT. I MOVE TO NEXT, LIGHT, AIR CONDITION ON TO COOL DOWN. IMMEDIATELY LEFT TURN INTO CYPRESS RESTAURANT. PARKING, TURN OFF, COOL DOWN, AND NEXT OPEN BY FRIEND WHO NEEDED GO THE DOCTOR. CALLED AAA PULL TO THE SHOP. ESTIMATED , CAN NOT REPAIRED THIS...DAY. SO, IF IT WAS MANUFACTURED DEFECEITS. I LOOK UP ...
Official recalls
501V258000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer:motor
Aug 8, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND LIGHT AND MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS. A SWITCH LOCATED IN THE PLASTIC COVER OF THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COULD MALFUNCTION AND OVERHEAT, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF INTERMITTENT WIPER FUNCTION, LOSS OF WIPER PARK FUNCTION, COMPLETE LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION, OR IGNITION OF THE PLASTIC COVER MATERIAL. SWITCH MALFUNCTION IS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THE INTERMITTENT SETTING OF THE WIPERS IS BEING USED, OR WHEN SNOW OR ICE OBSTRUCTS THE BLADES FROM RETURNING TO THE "PARKED" POSITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDSHIELD. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT AT THE FOLLOWING ASSEMBLY PLANTS: ATLANTA PLANT FROM 2/11/00 THROUGH 7/31/00; CHICAGO PLANT FROM 2/14/00 THROUGH 8/4/00; KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 2/26/00 TO 9/4/00; KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/18/00 TO 8/31/00; MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/23/00 THROUGH 8/3/00; NORFOLK PLANT FROM 2/21/00 THROUGH 7/27/00; WAYNE STAMPING AND ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 2/25/00 THROUGH 8/15/00; AND WIXOM PLANT FROM 2/15/00 THROUGH 8/8/00.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: LOSS OF VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON THE WIPER MOTOR. MOTORS BUILT WITH THE SUSPECT TIME FRAME WILL HAVE THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COVER REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 20, 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 1-866-436-7332.
01V227001 · Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
Jul 16, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS, AND MINIVANS. EQUIPPED WITH SEAT BELTS SUPPLIED BY TRW. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE DRIVER'S AND/OR FRONT PASSENGER'S OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE MAY NOT FULLY LATCH. FORD CROWN VICTORIA BUILT AT ST. THOMAS ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 5/29/01 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS BUILT AT ST. THOMAS ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 5/29/01. LINCOLN TOWN CARS BUILT AT WIXOM ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 3/27/00 - 5/30/01. LINCOLN NAVIGATORS BUILT AT MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 4/11/00 - 5/31/01. FORD WINDSTARS BUILT AT OAKVILLE ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 3/23/00 - 5/30/01. FORD RANGERS BUILT AT TWIN CITIES PLANT FROM 3/28/00 - 5/30/01, AND ALSO AT THE EDISON PLANT FROM 3/13/00 - 5/25/01. FORD F-150 TRUCK BUILT AT NORFOLK PLANT FROM 4/18/00 - 5/25/00; AT ONTARIO PLANT FROM 5/10/00 - 5/28/01; AT KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 9/11/99 - 5/25/01; AND AT CUAUTITLAN PLANT FROM 5/16/00 - 6/9/01. FORD SUPER DUTY F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS BUILT AT KENTUCKY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 5/27/01; AND AT CUAUTITLAN PLANT FROM 5/16/00 - 6/19/01. FORD EXCURSIONS BUILT AT KENTUCKY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 10/2/00. FORD EXPEDITIONS BUILT AT MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 4/11/00 - 5/31/01.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM MAY NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OCCUPANT PROTECTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY TO THE SEAT OCCUPANT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE FRONT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLES AND IF THE BUCKLE FAILS THE INSPECTION PROCESS, IT WILL BE REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN JULY 25, 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 1-866-436-7332.
00V356000 · Tires
Dec 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.
00V412000 · Air Bags:frontal:sensor/control MODULE-INACTIVE
Dec 6, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MINIVANS AND PASSENGER VEHICLES. A RESTRAINT CONTROL MODULE (RCM) OR A SIDE OR FRONT CRASH SENSOR MAY HAVE BEEN ASSEMBLED WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE SCREWS THAT MOUNT THE CIRCUIT BOARD IN THE HOUSING MISSING. IF SOME OR ALL OF THE SCREWS ARE MISSING, THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINS COULD BE AFFECTED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN SOME CASES, LESS THAN THE INTENDED LEVEL OF PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE RCM AND CRASH SENSORS AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THEM.
00V270000 · Air Bags
Sep 13, 2000
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, LIMOUSINES, AND MINI VANS WERE BUILT WITH A NEWLY DESIGNED RESTRAINT CONTROL MODULE (RCM). IN SOME CASES, THE RCM DOES NOT RECOGNIZE CERTAIN SYSTEM FAULTS THAT COULD RESULT IN AN AIR BAG OR SEAT BELT PRE-TENSIONER UNEXPECTEDLY ACTIVATING DURING THE SELF-TEST SEQUENCE AT VEHICLE START-UP.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION COULD RESULT IN PERSONAL INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE RCM IN THESE VEHICLES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN SEPTEMBER 14, 2000. 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 1-800-392-3673.
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
6DP05005 · 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.
EA05004 · Front Seat Belt Buckle Assembly
Opened Feb 17, 2005 · Closed Jul 6, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts; Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Seat Belts
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
RQ04011 · Front Seat Belt Buckle Assembly
Opened Oct 22, 2004 · Closed Feb 17, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
UNDER RECALL CAMPAIGN (01V227), FORD RECALLED APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILLION VEHICLES TO INSPECT AND IF NECESSARY REPLACE THE FRONT DRIVER AND/OR PASSENGER SEAT BELT BUCKLE.APPROXIMATELY 1.1 MILLION OWNERS RESPONDED BY TAKING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION OF THE BUCKLE USING A SPECIALIZED BUCKLE TEST TOOL.FORD REPORTED THAT 829,927 VEHICLES HAD BOTH BUCKLES PASS THE TOOL TEST AND ANOTHER 167,336 VEHICLES HAD ONE BUCKLE PASS.ODI AND FORD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ALLEGING SEAT BELT BUCKLE FAILURE SHORTLY AFTER PASSING THE ORIGINAL RECALL INSPECTION SERVICE.COMPLAINANTS ALLEGED THAT THE BUCKLE FAILED BY EITHER NOT LATCHING OR FALSE-LATCHING (PARTIAL ENGAGEMENT OF THE LATCH TO THE LATCH PLATE).A FALSE-LATCHED BUCKLE MAY RELEASE WITH MINOR MOVEMENT OR IMPACT AGAINST THE BUCKLE HOUSING INCLUDING INADVERTENT RELEASE WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.ODI IS UPGRADING THIS RECALL QUERY TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA05-004) TO FURTHER ANALYZE THE FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THOSE VEHICLES THAT FORD DEALERS PASSED (ONE OR BOTH BUCKLES) USING FORD'S INSPECTION TEST (997,263 VEHICLES).
EA03014 · Inadvertent Side Air Bag Deployment
Opened Aug 22, 2003 · Closed Aug 12, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:side/window
THIS INVESTIGATION IDENTIFIED A TOTAL OF 182 REPORTS ALLEGING INADVERTENT OR NON-CRASH DEPLOYMENT OF THE SIDE AIR BAGS.THE DATA EXAMINED DURING THE INVESTIGATION SUGGEST THAT THE SIDE AIR BAG CRASH SENSING SYSTEM'S ALGORITHM MAY RECOGNIZE CERTAIN NON-CRASH INCIDENTS AS DEPLOYABLE EVENTS.ODI HAS NOT, HOWEVER, IDENTIFIED ANY FAILED COMPONENT THAT RELATES TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ALSO, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY TREND IN THE MANUFACTURE DATES OF COMPLAINT VEHICLES THAT MAY INDICATE A COMPONENT OR VEHICLE-MANUFACTURING PROBLEM.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
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.
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