IllustrationMileage unknown · Jun 15, 2023
EngineForward Collision AvoidanceUnknown Or Other
Unknown
NHTSA ODI #11527305
2000 Mercury Grand Marquis
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Grand Marquis years
Owner complaints for the 2000 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
110–25K
1625–50K
1850–75K
1675–100K
16100–150K
12150K+
89 reports with mileage · 73 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.
- Exterior Lighting. Review the 21 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
14 crash reports5 fire reports7 injury reports
Engine complaints
8 reportsUnknown
AIR LEAK IN INTAKE MANIFOLD OR EGR OR PCM SYSTEM CYLINDER 3 MISFIRE DIRTY FUEL INJECTION
THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACK
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE HESITATED TO ACCELERATE. THE FAILURE OCCURRED MOST FREQUENTLY WHEN TRAVELING UP HILL. THE FAILURE WAS INTERMITTENT AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE HESITATED TO ACCELERATE. THE FAILURE OCCURRED MOST FREQUENTLY WHEN TRAVELING UP HILL. THE FAILURE WAS INTERMITTENT AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT SPRAYED CARBURETOR FLUID ON THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND NOTICED A CRACK. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 118,000.
I BELIEVE THIS ISSUE EFFECTS MILLIONS OF FORD AND MERCURY VEHICLES, MANY OF WHICH ARE TAXI, GOVERNMENT, AND POLICE CARS. APPARENTLY, THE COMPUTER (PCM) THAT CONTROLS THE ENGINE CAN SHUT THE ENGINE DOWN WHILE THE VEHICLE IS DRIVING WHEN CERTAIN SENSORS FAIL (AT LEAST 2 KNOWN SENSORS PER MY RESEARCH). I FOUND THIS OUT AT 65 MPH, 2…
Read full complaint
I BELIEVE THIS ISSUE EFFECTS MILLIONS OF FORD AND MERCURY VEHICLES, MANY OF WHICH ARE TAXI, GOVERNMENT, AND POLICE CARS. APPARENTLY, THE COMPUTER (PCM) THAT CONTROLS THE ENGINE CAN SHUT THE ENGINE DOWN WHILE THE VEHICLE IS DRIVING WHEN CERTAIN SENSORS FAIL (AT LEAST 2 KNOWN SENSORS PER MY RESEARCH). I FOUND THIS OUT AT 65 MPH, 2 HOURS FROM HOME. I WAS TOLD BY THE DEALER THAT THERE ARE NO NEW PCMS MADE FOR MY 2000 CAR, AND THAT I HAD TO RELY ON A REBUILT AFTER MARKET PCM. THE AFTERMARKET SELLER RELATED THAT THESE COMPUTERS LAST APPROXIMATELY 10 YEARS. EVEN IF I REPLACE THIS PART, I BELIEVE THIS EFFECTIVELY MAKES MY (AND ANY SUCH) CAR A RISK TO DRIVE, AS MOST REBUILT AUTO PARTS ARE CREATED BY SIMPLY REPLACING ANY FAILED COMPONENTS OUT OF THE MANY COMPONENTS IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE PART, AND LEAVING OTHERS STILL OLD AND WORN. WHEN WOULD THE OTHER PARTS FAIL, AND IF THE CAR IS OPERATING IS A HIGH RISK UNKNOWN. ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT THIS CREATES A SPECTACULAR HAZARD TO MOTORISTS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR TO CONSUMERS. I CAN DEMONSTRATE WHAT THIS CAR DOES, AND GO OVER THE OEM FACTORY MANUALS WHERE THEY CITE "REPLACE THE PCM". ALSO, WHY DO THESE SENSORS FAIL TO A VERY UNSAFE CONDITION, HAVE NO LOGIC CHECK (SUCH AS TESTING OTHER SENSORS TO SEE IF THEY CONCUR BEFORE AN ENGINE SHUT DOWN) AND WHY CAN'T THEY BE DISCONNECTED TO ALLOW THE ENGINE TO KEEP WORKING TILL YOU CAN GET TO THE REPAIR?
A SPARK WAS BLOWN OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD. THE PROBLEM OCCURRED 3 TIMES (2010, 2014, 2014), EACH TIME A DIFFERENT CYLINDER. ONE OF THESE TIMES, IT OCCURRED TO MY WIFE 140 KM AWAY FROM HOME. I HAD TO GUESS THAT IT WAS A BLOWN SPARK PLUG AND INSTRUCTED HER TO DRIVE THE CAR TO TORONTO IN THIS CONDITION. CONCERN: ASIDE FROM TH…
Read full complaint
A SPARK WAS BLOWN OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD. THE PROBLEM OCCURRED 3 TIMES (2010, 2014, 2014), EACH TIME A DIFFERENT CYLINDER. ONE OF THESE TIMES, IT OCCURRED TO MY WIFE 140 KM AWAY FROM HOME. I HAD TO GUESS THAT IT WAS A BLOWN SPARK PLUG AND INSTRUCTED HER TO DRIVE THE CAR TO TORONTO IN THIS CONDITION. CONCERN: ASIDE FROM THE COSTLY REPAIR, I AM AFRAID TO USE THE CAR ON A LONG TRIP FOR FEAR THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN AT A PLACE WHERE A REPAIR IS NOT AVAILABLE. I SUSPECT THAT THE FORD COMPANY HAS MODIFIED THE ENGINE ALONG THE WAY, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ON A PREVIOUS MODEL I HAD OWNED FOR A LONG TIME (1993 GRAND MARQUIS), THE PROBLEM HAD NEVER OCCURRED. *TR
WHILE REPLACING THE THERMOSTAT, A CRACK DEVELOPED IN THE PLASTIC CROSSOVER CHANNEL IN THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD ALLOWING THE ENGINE COOLANT TO LEAK WHEN THE THERMOSTAT OPENED. FORD KNOWS THIS TO BE DEFECTIVE AND HAS REPLACED THE ALL PLASTIC MANIFOLD WITH AN ALUMINUM CROSSOVER FOR THE COOLANT. THE VEHICLE HAS 71,290 MILES. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE THERMOSTAT WAS LEAKING. THE THERMOSTAT WAS REPLACED HOWEVER, THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED AND FELL INTO THE THERMOSTAT AFTER THE REPLACEMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE SENSOR COOLANT TEMPERATURE SENSOR AREA WHICH WAS REPAIRED WITH A SEALING …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE THERMOSTAT WAS LEAKING. THE THERMOSTAT WAS REPLACED HOWEVER, THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED AND FELL INTO THE THERMOSTAT AFTER THE REPLACEMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE SENSOR COOLANT TEMPERATURE SENSOR AREA WHICH WAS REPAIRED WITH A SEALING SOLUTION AND THE THERMOSTAT WAS REPLACED BECAUSE THE PLASTIC INSIDE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS DETERIORATED. THE DEFECT WAS NOT REPAIRED OR DIAGNOSED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 170,000. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000.
Official recalls
600V200000 · Equipment:mechanical:integrated Jack/leveler/stabilizer
Jul 18, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE VEHICLES HAVE JACKING INSTRUCTIONS WHICH, IF FOLLOWED, COULD CAUSE THE VEHICLE OPERATOR TO PLACE THE JACK ON A FRAME WELD WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RAISE A REAR WHEEL. IF THE VEHICLE IS JACKED UP WITH THE JACK PLACED ON THE FRAME WELD AND IF THE VEHICLE IS FREE TO ROLL (WHEELS NOT BLOCKED OR CHOCKED), THE JACK COULD YIELD AND THE VEHICLE MAY DROP SUDDENLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS AND ANY PORTION OF THE OPERATOR'S BODY IS UNDER THE VEHICLE, THE POTENTIAL FOR PERSONAL INJURY EXISTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A REVISED JACK INSTRUCTION AND STOWAGE CARD AND JACK WARNING LABEL, AS WELL AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE OWNER GUIDE.
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.
00V138000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer
May 17, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: A WINDSHIELD WIPER CONTROL MODULE MAY NOT BE CAPABLE OF CARRYING THE CURRENT REQUIRED DURING HIGH LOAD CONDITIONS ON THE WIPERS (I.E., ICE, SNOW, OR OTHER DEBRIS).
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION COULD RESULT IN INOPERATIVE WIPERS WITH NO ADVANCE WARNING.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE WIPER CONTROL MODULES AND REPLACE IF NECESSARY.
00V083000 · Seat Belts:front:retractor
Mar 20, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE VEHICLES MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT WITH THE LEFT REAR SEAT BELT RETRACTOR ATTACHING BOLTS INCORRECTLY TIGHTENED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE VEHICLE OCCUPANT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED, INCREASING THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL TIGHTEN THE RETRACTOR MOUNTING BOLTS TO THE SPECIFIED TORQUE.
00V050000 · Air Bags:frontal
Feb 17, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE VEHICLES MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT WITH LOWER THAN THE INTENDED LEVEL OF TORQUE ON THE BOLTS THAT ATTACH THE AIR BAG ELECTRONIC CRASH SENSOR MODULE TO THE VEHICLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A LOOSE MODULE COULD RESULT IN A DELAYED AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT IN THE EVENT OF A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL TIGHTEN THE AIR BAG ELECTRONIC CRASH SENSOR ATTACHING BOLTS.
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
3DP05005 · 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.
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