NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
162 reports133,240 miles · Mar 4, 2015
Exterior Lighting
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
NHTSA ODI #10692002
Mileage unknown · Jul 30, 2014
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting
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.
NHTSA ODI #10617542
128,325 miles · Jul 7, 2014
Exterior Lighting
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
NHTSA ODI #10608715
71,290 miles · Mar 22, 2014
Engine
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
NHTSA ODI #10574130
50,000 miles · Mar 20, 2014
Engine
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.
NHTSA ODI #10573805
71,500 miles · Oct 16, 2013
Exterior Lighting
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.
NHTSA ODI #10548144
163,000 miles · Sep 14, 2013
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting
I WAS DRIVING HOME ON A DARK COUNTRY ROAD WITH MY GRANDDAUGHTER IN THE BACK WHO IS 3 1/2. HAD THE HIGH BEAMS ON. LOST HEADLIGHTS, DASH LIGHTS, TAIL AND BRAKE LIGHTS. IF IT WASN'T FOR KNOWING THE ROAD AND NO OTHER VEHICLE WAS AROUND WOULD HAVE CAUSED A BAD WRECK. THERE ARE A LOT OF LAKES AND HILLS AROUND WHERE I DRIVE. HIT THE …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING HOME ON A DARK COUNTRY ROAD WITH MY GRANDDAUGHTER IN THE BACK WHO IS 3 1/2. HAD THE HIGH BEAMS ON. LOST HEADLIGHTS, DASH LIGHTS, TAIL AND BRAKE LIGHTS. IF IT WASN'T FOR KNOWING THE ROAD AND NO OTHER VEHICLE WAS AROUND WOULD HAVE CAUSED A BAD WRECK. THERE ARE A LOT OF LAKES AND HILLS AROUND WHERE I DRIVE. HIT THE BREAKS AN CAME TO A STOP FLIPPED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH A COUPLE OF TIMES AND CHANGED TO DIM LIGHTS AND EVERYTHING CAME BACK ON. THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE AND IT IS ONLY WHEN THE HIGH BEAMS ARE ON. IF THIS WOULD OF HAPPENED ON A HIGHWAY OR WITH OTHER VEHICLES AROUND HATE TO THINK OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. FORD SAYS THERE IS NO RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM. IT HAS HAPPENED A FEW TIMES BUT WITH THE PART BEING OVER 600.00 AND THEN PAYING SOMEONE TO PUT IT IN. I CAN'T AFFORD TO DO ANYTHING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10543584
132,208 miles · Apr 12, 2013
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH. THE CONTACT NOTICED FLUID LEAKING FROM UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A COOLANT LEAK. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THERE WERE THREE CRACKS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH. THE CONTACT NOTICED FLUID LEAKING FROM UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A COOLANT LEAK. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THERE WERE THREE CRACKS ON THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE MECHANIC REPLACED THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 132, 208. UPDATED 05/29/13*LJ UPDATED 06/13/2013 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10508080
165,656 miles · Nov 28, 2012
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN ON A MARYLAND SECONDARY ROAD AND THE ENTIRE LIGHTING SYSTEM FAILED. THE CAR CONTINUED TO OPERATE BUT WITH NO HEADLIGHTS, RUNNING LIGHTS OR INTERIOR LIGHTS. BASICALLY IT FORCED US TO FIND A QUICK SAFE PULL OFF USING A FLASHLIGHT FOR VISION. TOMORROW THE CAR IS RECEIVING A COMPLETE DIAGNOSTIC CHECK TO D…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN ON A MARYLAND SECONDARY ROAD AND THE ENTIRE LIGHTING SYSTEM FAILED. THE CAR CONTINUED TO OPERATE BUT WITH NO HEADLIGHTS, RUNNING LIGHTS OR INTERIOR LIGHTS. BASICALLY IT FORCED US TO FIND A QUICK SAFE PULL OFF USING A FLASHLIGHT FOR VISION. TOMORROW THE CAR IS RECEIVING A COMPLETE DIAGNOSTIC CHECK TO DETERMINE THE FAULT. IT SEEMS THE LIGHTING CONTROLS SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM AS THE BATTERY AND ALTERNATOR CHECKED OUT FINE. THIS IS A MAJOR LIFE SAFETY FINDING AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY FORD NOW WITH THE NUMBER OF THESE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10486390
78,000 miles · Sep 16, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion SystemStructure
PAINT IS PEELING, LIKE THERE WAS NEVER A PRIMER PUT ON THE VEHICLE. ALSO THE VEHICLE SURGES QUITE OFTEN. I HAVE REPLACED THE MANIFOLD SPARK PLUGS SEVERAL TIMES ALSO COILS. IS THERE A RECALL ON MERCURYS PAINT THAT I CAN GET SOME HELP WITH? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10475545
Official recalls
6Jul 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Illustration