IllustrationTHE LIGHTS WENT OUT WHEN I WAS DRIVING
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
Exterior Lighting complaints
21 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING, THE HEADLIGHTS AND TAIL LIGHTS FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. THE CONTACT COASTED THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WAITED A FEW MINUTES UNTIL THE LIGHTS ILLUMINATED AGAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODUL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING, THE HEADLIGHTS AND TAIL LIGHTS FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. THE CONTACT COASTED THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WAITED A FEW MINUTES UNTIL THE LIGHTS ILLUMINATED AGAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN AN UNKNOWN RECALL. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 240,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE STATIONARY, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START WHEN PROMPTED. UPON STARTING THE VEHICLE, A CLICKING NOISE OCCURRED AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO START. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEADLAMP MODULE WAS FAULTY AND DRAINED THE BATTERY.…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE STATIONARY, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START WHEN PROMPTED. UPON STARTING THE VEHICLE, A CLICKING NOISE OCCURRED AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO START. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEADLAMP MODULE WAS FAULTY AND DRAINED THE BATTERY. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO NHTSA. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 124,000. UPDATED 11/07/17*LJ UPDATED 11/13/2017*JS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE HEADLIGHTS SHUT OFF WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED TWICE SINCE APRIL OF 2017. IN ADDITION, THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE FAILED. A DEALER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND ST…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE HEADLIGHTS SHUT OFF WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED TWICE SINCE APRIL OF 2017. IN ADDITION, THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE FAILED. A DEALER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND STATED THAT NO ASSISTANCE COULD BE PROVIDED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RECALL ON THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 120,000.
TL* THE CONTACT'S FATHER OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE INTERIOR LIGHTING AND HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF AND ON WITHOUT WARNING AND A CLICKING SOUND COULD BE HEARD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND THE VEHICLE WAS REP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT'S FATHER OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE INTERIOR LIGHTING AND HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF AND ON WITHOUT WARNING AND A CLICKING SOUND COULD BE HEARD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED; HOWEVER THE DIAGNOSIS AND REPAIRS WERE UNKNOWN. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 100,000. UPDATED 06/13/17*LJ *CN
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, BOTH FRONT HEADLIGHTS INTERMITTENTLY ILLUMINATED AND SUDDENLY FAILED. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 237,000.
HEADLIGHTS KEEP CUTTING IN AND OUT. TURNING ON AND OFF WHILE DRIVING. GOING 65 DOWN AN EXPRESSWAY AND HAVING YOUR HEADLIGHTS JUST SHUT OFF IS NOT THE SAFEST OF CONDITIONS. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THE HEADLIGHT MODULE HAS A NOTED ISSUE ON OTHER FORD VEHICLES AND ITS VERY DANGEROUS. I HAD MY 5 YEAR OLD NIECE IN THE CAR WITH ME WHEN THIS …
Read full complaint
HEADLIGHTS KEEP CUTTING IN AND OUT. TURNING ON AND OFF WHILE DRIVING. GOING 65 DOWN AN EXPRESSWAY AND HAVING YOUR HEADLIGHTS JUST SHUT OFF IS NOT THE SAFEST OF CONDITIONS. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THE HEADLIGHT MODULE HAS A NOTED ISSUE ON OTHER FORD VEHICLES AND ITS VERY DANGEROUS. I HAD MY 5 YEAR OLD NIECE IN THE CAR WITH ME WHEN THIS HAPPENED. *TR
T* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH WITH THE HIGH BEAM HEADLIGHTS ACTIVATED, THE INSTRUMENT PANEL INDICATORS, HEADLIGHTS, AND BRAKE LIGHTS FLASHED CONTINUOUSLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
I WAS DRIVING ON A TWO LANE ROAD AFTER DARK WHEN SUDDENLY THE HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AND A VERY LOUD BUZZING NOISE OCCURRED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE DASH. I WAS ABLE TO SLOW DOWN SAFELY BECAUSE TWO CARS WERE MEETING US AND THEIR LIGHTS AFFORDED ENOUGH VISION TO KEEP MY CAR IN MY LANE. I PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND TRIED VARIOUS POSITION…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON A TWO LANE ROAD AFTER DARK WHEN SUDDENLY THE HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AND A VERY LOUD BUZZING NOISE OCCURRED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE DASH. I WAS ABLE TO SLOW DOWN SAFELY BECAUSE TWO CARS WERE MEETING US AND THEIR LIGHTS AFFORDED ENOUGH VISION TO KEEP MY CAR IN MY LANE. I PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND TRIED VARIOUS POSITIONS WITH THE LIGHT SWITCH AND HIGH AND LOW BEAM SWITCH. ALL THE LIGHTING SEEMED TO WORK EXCEPT THE HEADLIGHTS. FINALLY, I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION. WHEN I RESTARTED THE CAR THE LIGHTS CAME BACK ON AND WE DROVE ON HOME VERY CAREFULLY. THEY HAVE WORKED SINCE BUT I AM VERY WARY OF DRIVING AFTER DARK. THE BUZZING NOISE QUIT, ALSO, AND HAS NOT RETURNED. *JS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. THE CONTACT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND FOUND THAT THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE WIRES WERE DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. THE CONTACT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND FOUND THAT THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE WIRES WERE DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 71,500.
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