NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Visibility complaints
14 reportsClear category filter120,000 miles · Feb 19, 2015
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR HAD TO BE REPLACED MULTIPLE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000. UPDATED 12/30/15*LJ THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED HIS VIN WAS NOT INCLU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR HAD TO BE REPLACED MULTIPLE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000. UPDATED 12/30/15*LJ THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED HIS VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. UPDATED 04/07/16.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10689399
96,000 miles · Aug 21, 2014
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH IN HEAVY RAIN, THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS ACTIVATED AND THEN SUDDENLY FAILED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS INTERMITTENT AND OCCURRED ON THREE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH IN HEAVY RAIN, THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS ACTIVATED AND THEN SUDDENLY FAILED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS INTERMITTENT AND OCCURRED ON THREE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 96,000.
NHTSA ODI #10627140
80,000 miles · May 8, 2013
VisibilityVisibility/wiper
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS STOPPED FUNCTIONING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE FUSES AND THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS STOPPED FUNCTIONING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE FUSES AND THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE CONTINUED. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 01V258000 (VISIBILITY) BUT WAS ADVISED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10511177
150,000 miles · May 2, 2012
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS WERE CONTINUOUSLY ON AND WOULD NOT SHUT OFF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE HAD TO SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND BACK ON IN ORDER TO STOP THE WIPERS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED A FEW MOMENTS LATER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN TO THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS WERE CONTINUOUSLY ON AND WOULD NOT SHUT OFF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE HAD TO SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND BACK ON IN ORDER TO STOP THE WIPERS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED A FEW MOMENTS LATER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN TO THE DEALER. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 150,000.
NHTSA ODI #10457112
43,000 miles · Dec 8, 2011
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS BEGAN TO FUNCTION ERRATICALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE MECHANIC ADVISED THAT THE MOTOR COULD POSSIBLY NEED REPLACING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT REFERE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS BEGAN TO FUNCTION ERRATICALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE MECHANIC ADVISED THAT THE MOTOR COULD POSSIBLY NEED REPLACING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 01V258000 (VISIBILITY:WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER:MOTOR) BUT WAS ADVISED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 43,000.
NHTSA ODI #10438984
Mileage unknown · Sep 14, 2011
Visibility
COMPLETE LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION WHICH CAUSES LOSS OF VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING DURING RAIN, SNOW, OR ICE AND INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH. *KB
NHTSA ODI #10425400
89,000 miles · Dec 24, 2009
Electrical SystemEquipmentService Brakes, Hydraulic
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWNCAR. THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS, AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATER HAVE FAILED. THE SPEEDOMETER SPORADICALLY FAILS. THE ABS LIGHT WAS CONSISTENTLY ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT CONTROL PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE WIPERS NEEDED TO BE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWNCAR. THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS, AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATER HAVE FAILED. THE SPEEDOMETER SPORADICALLY FAILS. THE ABS LIGHT WAS CONSISTENTLY ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT CONTROL PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE WIPERS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AT HIS EXPENSE. NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 100,000. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 89,000.
NHTSA ODI #10296911
33,200 miles · Jun 24, 2009
Visibility
MY COMPLIANT CONCERNS OUR 2001 LINCOLN TOWNCAR CARTIER. ON 14 JUNE 2009, WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM CHURCH, IT STARTED RAINING. I TURNED THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS ON AND THEY WORKED UP TO LEAVING THE RESTAURANT. WHILE DRIVING OFF THE WIPERS WOULD NOT WORK. I FOUND MYSELF DRIVING IN THE RAIN WITHOUT WIPERS. I PURCHASED OUR LINCOLN NEW …
Read full complaint
MY COMPLIANT CONCERNS OUR 2001 LINCOLN TOWNCAR CARTIER. ON 14 JUNE 2009, WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM CHURCH, IT STARTED RAINING. I TURNED THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS ON AND THEY WORKED UP TO LEAVING THE RESTAURANT. WHILE DRIVING OFF THE WIPERS WOULD NOT WORK. I FOUND MYSELF DRIVING IN THE RAIN WITHOUT WIPERS. I PURCHASED OUR LINCOLN NEW AND ONLY HAVE 33,200 MILES ON IT NOW. AFTER RESEARCHING THE INTERNET, I FOUND THERE HAD BEEN 1,083,000 RECALLS (01S24) ON 2001'S FOR WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER MOTOR. I PRINTED IT OFF AND TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND EXPLAIN WHAT HAD HAPPEN AND GAVE THEN A COPY OF THE RECALL NOTICE. I CALLED THAT AFTERNOON AND THE SERVICE REP SAID THEY COULDN'T FIND THE PROBLEM AND NEED TO KEEP IT OVERNIGHT. I AGREED. I RECEIVED A CALL JUNE 23RD AND WAS TOLD THEY FOUND THE PROBLEM AND IT WOULD COST ME $538.00 TO FIX. I ASKED WHY WASN'T IT COVERED UNDER THE RECALL AND HE TOLD ME THAT MY VIN WAS NOT LISTED AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT COVERED AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT. I DENIED THEM THE RIGHT TO FIX IT AT THAT COST AND TOOK IT TO MY PERSONAL MECHANIC. I CALLED THE FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONS DEPARTMENT AND TALKED WITH TWO INDIVIDUALS BEFORE RECEIVING A CALL FROM GUY WHO IS THERE SUPERVISOR. I EXPLAINED TO GUY MY FRUSTRATION AND DISSATISFACTION. HE EXPLAINED THAT ALL RECALLS ARE BASED ON INVESTIGATIONS AND IDENTIFIED WITH VIN OF THE VEHICLES. MY VIN WAS NOT LISTED AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO. THERE WERE 1,083,000 RECALLS FOR THIS PROBLEM. ALL VEHICLES WITH VIN MADE FROM FEB 15 THROUGH JULY 2000 WERE INCLUDED AND THE PLANT WHERE MY VEHICLE WAS MADE WAS ON THE LIST BUT THE MANUFACTURE DATES THAT WERE INCLUDED FOR THAT PLANT WAS FEB 15 THRU JULY 2000. MY VEHICLE WAS MADE AT WIXOM PLANT BUT IT WAS MADE SEPTEMBER 2000. I'M HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, MY CAR WAS MADE AT ONE OF THE SAME PLANTS BUT TWO MONTHS LATER. WHERE IS THE LOGIC? I COULD OF HAD AN ACCIDENT THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE LIFE OF SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THIS DEFAULT. WHERE IS THE LOGIC? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10274835
65,980 miles · Jan 23, 2009
Visibility
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT HER WINDSHIELD WIPERS FAILED AND COULD NOT BE REACTIVATED. SHE HEARD A LOUD NOISE COMING FROM THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR, WHICH INDICATED THAT THE WIPER MOTOR WAS FAILING. THE CONTACT IS IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT HER WINDSHIELD WIPERS FAILED AND COULD NOT BE REACTIVATED. SHE HEARD A LOUD NOISE COMING FROM THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR, WHICH INDICATED THAT THE WIPER MOTOR WAS FAILING. THE CONTACT IS IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL ON THE WIPER MOTOR THAT RELATED TO HER VIN; THEREFORE, NO COMPENSATION WOULD BE PROVIDED. NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 65,980 AND CURRENT MILEAGE IS 66,000. UPDATED 03/17/09. *LJ THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THERE WAS NO RECALLS THAT APPLIED TO HER VEHICLE. HOWEVER, THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED A RECALL, THAT DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM SHE EXPERIENCED. RECALL# 01V258000. UPDATED 03/18/09. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10256106
98,350 miles · Oct 13, 2007
Seat BeltsVisibility
CERTAIN 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CARS HAVE BEEN RECALLED FOR THE FOLLOWING FAILURES, AMONG OTHERS (1) WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR FAILURE, AND (2) SEAT BELT FAILURE TO LATCH. I CONTACTED FORD MOTORS BUT THEY TOLD ME MY CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL EVEN THOUGH I WAS EXPERIENCING THE SAME IDENTICAL PROBLEMS THESE TWO RECALLS WERE ISSUE…
Read full complaint
CERTAIN 2001 LINCOLN TOWN CARS HAVE BEEN RECALLED FOR THE FOLLOWING FAILURES, AMONG OTHERS (1) WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR FAILURE, AND (2) SEAT BELT FAILURE TO LATCH. I CONTACTED FORD MOTORS BUT THEY TOLD ME MY CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL EVEN THOUGH I WAS EXPERIENCING THE SAME IDENTICAL PROBLEMS THESE TWO RECALLS WERE ISSUED FOR. MY WIPER MOTOR HAS FAILED AND THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT BELT WILL NOT LOCK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10205572
Official recalls
5Aug 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Illustration