IllustrationDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT 65 MPH, THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE ROSE QUICKLY AND THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED. HOT WATER LEAKED OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD AND THE UNDERSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE REPAIR SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED. UPDATED 8/30/2006 - *NM
1997 Mercury Grand Marquis
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Grand Marquis years
Owner complaints for the 1997 Mercury Grand Marquis are substantially higher than the model-year median of 78.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Grand Marquis 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
10–25K
1225–50K
3550–75K
4375–100K
27100–150K
7150K+
125 reports with mileage · 191 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 124 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
11 crash reports6 fire reports9 injury reports
What owners actually said
316 reportsDURING A RECENT TRIP THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DEVELOPED A CRACK CAUSING ANTI-FREEZE TO LEAK. THE MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED AND THE COOLANT PASSAGE IS NOW ALUM. INSTEAD OF PLASTIC. SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE AND A RECALL NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE. *JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK THE VEHICLE THE BRAKES FAILED. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SPONGY AND HAD TO BE DEPRESSED TO THE FLOOR TO STOP THE VEHICLE WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP FOR INSPECTION. UPON INSPECTION IT WAS DETERMINED THE BRAKE LINES FRACTURED CAUSING THE BRAK…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK THE VEHICLE THE BRAKES FAILED. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SPONGY AND HAD TO BE DEPRESSED TO THE FLOOR TO STOP THE VEHICLE WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP FOR INSPECTION. UPON INSPECTION IT WAS DETERMINED THE BRAKE LINES FRACTURED CAUSING THE BRAKE FLUID LEAKED OUT ONTO THE GROUND. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, # 05V086000, REGARDING THE SERVICE BRAKES, HOSES, LINES AND FITTINGS. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED. THE BRAKE LINES HAD RUSTED. UPDATED 07/05/06. *JB
RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ON SUSAN CHAMBERLAN ET AL. V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, CASE NO.[XXX] TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I AM THE OWNER OF A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, [XXX], THAT EXPERIENCED CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IN QUESTION. I OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROVISION FO…
Read full complaint
RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ON SUSAN CHAMBERLAN ET AL. V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, CASE NO.[XXX] TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I AM THE OWNER OF A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, [XXX], THAT EXPERIENCED CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IN QUESTION. I OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THE ADDITIONAL DAMAGE THAT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THERE IS CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THIS PART. AFTER HAVING THE INTAKE MANIFOLD REPLACED WE EXPERIENCED ABNORMAL PERFORMANCE, WHICH INCLUDED ABNORMALLY HIGH COOLANT TEMPERATURES DURING A ROAD TRIP, WHICH CAUSED US TO HAVE TO HAVE THE CAR TOWED FROM OUT OF THE AREA TO THE LOCAL MERCURY DEALER. THEY DISCOVERED NO PROBLEM WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD, BUT THE HEADS AND BLOCK HAD WARPED AT THE TIME OF THE FAILURE REQUIRING A COMPLETE ENGINE REPLACEMENT. IF THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN UNDER WARRANTY THEN THE TOTAL COST OF ENGINE REPLACEMENT AND THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED. FOR THIS REASON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF JUST RETROACTIVELY PROVIDING AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE MANIFOLD ALONE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IF THE VEHICLE WARRANTY HAD BEEN IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE FAILURE THEN ALL REPAIR COSTS WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED. AS A RESULT OF POOR ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND LACK OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DEFECT BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY IT HAS COST ME $6082.00, NOT INCLUDING THE AGGRAVATION, TOWING, AND OTHER FEES ASSOCIATED WITH FORD'S NEGLIGENCE. PLEASE ADVISE ME HOW I CAN GET THE REIMBURSEMENT I DESERVE. *NM UPDATED 07/16/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
I HAVE 3 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, 1997, 1996, & 1992. WITHIN THE LAST 14 MONTHS, 5 OF THE 12 WINDOW REGULATORS HAVE FAILED. ALL VEHICLES HAVE BEEN GARAGE KEPT FOR THE MOST. NO UNUSUAL OR EXCESSIVE USAGE TO ANY OF THESE WINDOWS. 1992-HAS ~162K MILES-HAD 2 WINDOW REGULATORS FAIL-DRIVER & FRONT PASSENGER SIDE 1996-HAS ~33K MIL…
Read full complaint
I HAVE 3 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, 1997, 1996, & 1992. WITHIN THE LAST 14 MONTHS, 5 OF THE 12 WINDOW REGULATORS HAVE FAILED. ALL VEHICLES HAVE BEEN GARAGE KEPT FOR THE MOST. NO UNUSUAL OR EXCESSIVE USAGE TO ANY OF THESE WINDOWS. 1992-HAS ~162K MILES-HAD 2 WINDOW REGULATORS FAIL-DRIVER & FRONT PASSENGER SIDE 1996-HAS ~33K MILES-HAD 1 WINDOW REGULATOR FAIL-DRIVER DOOR 1997-HAS ~62K MILES-HAD 2 WINDOW REGULATORS FAIL-DRIVER DOOR & REAR DRIVER SIDE TWO OF THESE WINDOWS (1997) HAVE BEEN REPAIRED BY A LOCAL FORD DEALER AT APPROX $190.00 EACH. THIS IS A VERY POOR RECORD (42% FAILURE RATE) FOR THESE PARTS AND I BELIEVE THERE MUST BE A MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND SOME MEDIATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. *JB
PLASTIC HEADLIGHT COVERS HAVE DEVELOPED A DEEP HAZE, SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING LIGHT OUTPUT. *JB
I HAVE A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS [XXX]THE BRAKES FAILED EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED IN THEIR RECALL 04B26 FOR 97 MERC MARQUIS. THE DEALER AND FORD MOTOR CO. REP CURLINE #2139 SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FAILURE IS EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED IN THE RECALL, AND THAT MY MODEL AND YEAR MATCHES THE RECALL, THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS [XXX]THE BRAKES FAILED EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED IN THEIR RECALL 04B26 FOR 97 MERC MARQUIS. THE DEALER AND FORD MOTOR CO. REP CURLINE #2139 SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FAILURE IS EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED IN THE RECALL, AND THAT MY MODEL AND YEAR MATCHES THE RECALL, THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR. I SUGGEST THAT THE PROBLEM IS WIDER THAN THEY WILL ADMIT AND THINK MY REPAIR FALLS UNDER THIS RECALL. *NM UPDATED 07/17/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
RE-FORD INTAKE MANIFOLDS: THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS FAILED ON 12/23/05. ONLY THEN DID I LEARN OF THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FORD JUST LOST. MY CAR IS OUTSIDE THE ARBITRARY 7 YEAR LIMIT AND THEREFORE IT COST ME $711.12 TO HAVE IT REPLACED. I WAS ON THE ROAD TRAVELING FROM GEORGETOWN TEXAS TO PHOENIX FOR C…
Read full complaint
RE-FORD INTAKE MANIFOLDS: THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS FAILED ON 12/23/05. ONLY THEN DID I LEARN OF THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FORD JUST LOST. MY CAR IS OUTSIDE THE ARBITRARY 7 YEAR LIMIT AND THEREFORE IT COST ME $711.12 TO HAVE IT REPLACED. I WAS ON THE ROAD TRAVELING FROM GEORGETOWN TEXAS TO PHOENIX FOR CHRISTMAS. THE PART IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE. FORD KNEW THAT. IT REPLACED ALL MANIFOLDS, EVEN THOSE THAT HAD NOT FAILED YET, ON SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLES AS FAR BACK AS 2002. I THINK MY VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED. I THINK FORD SHOULD REIMBURSE ME FOR THE REPAIR. THERE MUST BE MANY OTHERS IN MY SITUATION. *JB
DT: THE CONSUMER OWNS A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AND USING THE STEERING WHEEL THERE WAS A SQUEAKING NOISE. THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE MECHANIC WHO SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS NO LUBRICATION ON THE BALL JOINTS NOR WAS THERE ANY WAY TO LUBRICATED THEM DUE TO THE DESIGN. THE MECHANIC SAID THAT THE B…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONSUMER OWNS A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AND USING THE STEERING WHEEL THERE WAS A SQUEAKING NOISE. THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE MECHANIC WHO SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS NO LUBRICATION ON THE BALL JOINTS NOR WAS THERE ANY WAY TO LUBRICATED THEM DUE TO THE DESIGN. THE MECHANIC SAID THAT THE BALL JOINTS SHOULD BE ALRIGHT FOR A WHILE. NO REPAIRS OR CORRECTIONS WERE MADE AT THAT TIME. ON ANOTHER OCCASION WHILE DRIVING 29 MPH UPHILL, THE LEFT FRONT BALL JOINT CRACKED AND DROPPED TO THE GROUND DAMAGING THE TIE ROD AND BALL JOINT ASSEMBLY AND THE LEFT FRONT TIRE. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO TRAVEL FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 30 FEET AFTER THE VEHICLE DROPPED TO THE GROUND AND THE DRIVER LOST DIRECTIONAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THIS HAPPENED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE DEALER SAID THAT THE OTHER SIDE WAS AFFECTED AS WELL. THE DEALER REPAIRED BOTH FRONT BALL JOINTS ALONG WITH THE TIE ROD ASSEMBLY. *AK NOTE: FAILED COMPONENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION UPON REQUEST. *MJJ (11/211/05) THE CONSUMER FOUND THE COOLANT CROSSOVER CRACKED ON INTAKE. *SC *NM
DROVE APPROX. SIX MILES FROM HOME TO CHRISTMAS EVE. CHURCH SERVICE WITH FAMILY. WHEN ARRIVED, STEAM AND SMOKE WERE COMING FROM FRONT GRILLE, AND AROUND ENGINE HOOD. THOUGHT THE CAR WAS GOING TO START ON FIRE. ALSO MAKING A HISSING AND GURGLING NOISE. WAS QUITE AN "EVENT" IN THE PARKING LOT! HAD INSPECTED TWO DAYS LATER (AFT…
Read full complaint
DROVE APPROX. SIX MILES FROM HOME TO CHRISTMAS EVE. CHURCH SERVICE WITH FAMILY. WHEN ARRIVED, STEAM AND SMOKE WERE COMING FROM FRONT GRILLE, AND AROUND ENGINE HOOD. THOUGHT THE CAR WAS GOING TO START ON FIRE. ALSO MAKING A HISSING AND GURGLING NOISE. WAS QUITE AN "EVENT" IN THE PARKING LOT! HAD INSPECTED TWO DAYS LATER (AFTER CHRISTMAS) AND FOUND FRONT INTAKE MANIFOLD (PLASTIC?) PASSAGE CRACKED AND LEAKING ENGINE COOLANT ONTO TOP OF ENGINE BLOCK. ALSO COOLING FAN WAS BLOWING LEAKING COOLANT OVER THE PASSENGER SIDE, ENTIRE TOP OF ENGINE. NO COOLANT LEFT IN COOLANT RESERVOIR AND NO COOLANT FLOW THROUGH ENGINE; DUE TO AIR BUBBLE / LOSS OF VACUUM? I NOW HEAR MERCURY HAS A "SECRET RECALL" ADMITTING THIS IS A COMMON FAILURE AND REPAIRING VEHICLES LESS THAN SEVER YEARS OLD FOR FREE, ALSO HAVE READ THAT "FLEET" VEHICLES ARE BEING REPAIRED FOR FREE, BUT DENYING OWNER ASSISTANCE TO SAME VEHICLE, ENGINE AND INTAKE MANIFOLD TYPE TO "OLDER" MODELS. *NM
Official recalls
408V051000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
Feb 4, 2008
FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
07V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
00V157001 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
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.
00V157002 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
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.
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
7DP05005 · 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.
EA03012 · Rear Brake Line Failure
Opened Jul 25, 2003 · Closed Apr 11, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
RQ03004 · Rear Brake Line Failure
Opened Mar 11, 2003 · Closed Jul 25, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
RQ03002 · Ball Joint Separation
Opened Jan 3, 2003 · Closed Jun 3, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
SEE ATTACHED REPORT.
EA02025 · Speed Control Deactivation Switch Fires
Opened Sep 6, 2002 · Closed Jun 30, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling
BASED ON THE LOW RATE OF FIRE INCIDENTS (2.5 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES SOLD) WHERE FAILURE OF THE SCDS IS INVOLVED AND THE AGE OF THE VEHICLES ? 7 TO 11 YEARS ? A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
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