NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
162 reports98,520 miles · Jun 22, 2012
Tires
SUSPECTED A TIRE RUNOUT PROBLEM ON RIGHT FRONT TIRE. HAD TIRES INSPECTED AND ROTATED BY RESPECTED TIRE COMPANY BEFORE 500 MILE DRIVE TO MONTEREY, CA. WHILE THERE, FELT A SLIGHT WOBBLE IN THE REAR OF THE CAR. DURING RETURN TRIP TO SOUTHERN OREGON, A VIBRATION BEGAN AND WORSENED AS TIME WENT ON. AT 11 MILES FROM OUR DESTINATION WH…
Read full complaint
SUSPECTED A TIRE RUNOUT PROBLEM ON RIGHT FRONT TIRE. HAD TIRES INSPECTED AND ROTATED BY RESPECTED TIRE COMPANY BEFORE 500 MILE DRIVE TO MONTEREY, CA. WHILE THERE, FELT A SLIGHT WOBBLE IN THE REAR OF THE CAR. DURING RETURN TRIP TO SOUTHERN OREGON, A VIBRATION BEGAN AND WORSENED AS TIME WENT ON. AT 11 MILES FROM OUR DESTINATION WHILE TRAVELLING AT 70 MPH, THE LEFT REAR TIRE BLEW. AFTER STOPPING AND EXPECTING TO SEE A FLAT TIRE, I SAW NOTHING WRONG. I INSPECTED ALL OF THE TIRES AND ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE THE CAR. AT 45 MPH A SEVERE VIBRATION OCCURRED. WE TRAVELLED HOME AT 40 MPH ON AN ALTERNATE ROUTE. AFTER ARRIVING HOME, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE TREAD HAD SEPARATED FROM THE STEEL BELTING. *TT
NHTSA ODI #10462784
150,000 miles · Apr 20, 2012
Engine And Engine Cooling
I BOUGHT THIS CAR TO REPLACE MY CHEVROLET CAPRICE(GREAT CAR) ON 719 07 THIS CAR HAS MAJOR ISSUES THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY REFUSES TO ADDRESS. JULY 2011 FUEL TANK FILLER NECK RUSTED CAUSING A FIRE HAZARD DEC20 11 REAR AXLE CONTROL ARM CRACKED CAUSING CAR TO SWAY FEB 2012 PLASTIC INTAKE CRACKED CAUSING COOLANT TO SPRAY A…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT THIS CAR TO REPLACE MY CHEVROLET CAPRICE(GREAT CAR) ON 719 07 THIS CAR HAS MAJOR ISSUES THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY REFUSES TO ADDRESS. JULY 2011 FUEL TANK FILLER NECK RUSTED CAUSING A FIRE HAZARD DEC20 11 REAR AXLE CONTROL ARM CRACKED CAUSING CAR TO SWAY FEB 2012 PLASTIC INTAKE CRACKED CAUSING COOLANT TO SPRAY ALL OVER ENGINE. FORD ISSUED A RECALL FOR THIS I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER ABOUT THIS THEY TOLD ME IT EXPIRED SO IM STUCK TO REPAIR THE CAR MYSELF FRONT END PARTS NOT SERVICEABLE AND WEAR OUT (NO GREASE FITTING TO LUBE) THIS HAS BEEN THE WORST CAR I HAVE EVER OWNED. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10455939
100,000 miles · Jan 24, 2012
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 25 MPH WHEN THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE VIN FAILED TO QUALIFY FOR REPAIRS UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 00V138000(VISIBILITY:WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER). THE V…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 25 MPH WHEN THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE VIN FAILED TO QUALIFY FOR REPAIRS UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 00V138000(VISIBILITY:WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER). THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 100,000.
NHTSA ODI #10445012
146,000 miles · Dec 13, 2011
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 35 MPH WHEN HE STARTED HAVING DIFFICULTIES TURNING THE STEERING WHEEL. AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, HE NOTICED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE LOWER CONTROL ARM WAS CRACKED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 35 MPH WHEN HE STARTED HAVING DIFFICULTIES TURNING THE STEERING WHEEL. AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, HE NOTICED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE LOWER CONTROL ARM WAS CRACKED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 146,000.
NHTSA ODI #10439703
100,000 miles · Jun 15, 2011
Engine And Engine CoolingFire
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THE HE SMELLED A BURNING ODOR. THE CONTACT LOOKED AT THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE WHICH INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD OVERHEATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS MADE OF PLASTIC AND WAS LEAKING. …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THE HE SMELLED A BURNING ODOR. THE CONTACT LOOKED AT THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE WHICH INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD OVERHEATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS MADE OF PLASTIC AND WAS LEAKING. THE LEAK WAS SEALED, BUT THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE REPAIR MAY NOT HOLD UP FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 103,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10406925
67,000 miles · Apr 22, 2011
Seat Belts
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT SEAT BELT WOULD NOT RETRACT. THE FAILURE STARTED INTERMITTENTLY BUT BECAME PROGRESSIVELY WORSE OVER TIME. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALLS ASSOCIATED WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUM…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT SEAT BELT WOULD NOT RETRACT. THE FAILURE STARTED INTERMITTENTLY BUT BECAME PROGRESSIVELY WORSE OVER TIME. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALLS ASSOCIATED WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBERS: 00V083000 (SEAT BELTS: FRONT: RETRACTOR) OR 00V157001 (SEAT BELTS: FRONT: ANCHORAGE). THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 117,000 AND THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 67,000.
NHTSA ODI #10397114
98,900 miles · Mar 4, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS DRIVING WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ACTIVATED. AS HE APPROACHED A TRAFFIC STOP AND APPLIED THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT WAS ACCELERATING TOWARD TRAFFIC AND IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE, HE VEERED OFF THE HIGHWAY AND SHUT …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS DRIVING WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ACTIVATED. AS HE APPROACHED A TRAFFIC STOP AND APPLIED THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT WAS ACCELERATING TOWARD TRAFFIC AND IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE, HE VEERED OFF THE HIGHWAY AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. HE RESTARTED THE VEHICLE SEVERAL MINUTES LATER AS IT RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THE CONTACT TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN FOR INSPECTION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 98,900. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10386406
200,000 miles · Feb 23, 2011
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE SITTING IN AN INTERSECTION WITH THE BRAKES DEPRESSED, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED AND LIGHTLY CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS THEN DEPLOYED ABNORMALLY, SEVERAL MOMENTS AFTER THE CRASH OCCURRED. THE CONTACT WAS INJURED BY THE AIR BA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE SITTING IN AN INTERSECTION WITH THE BRAKES DEPRESSED, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED AND LIGHTLY CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS THEN DEPLOYED ABNORMALLY, SEVERAL MOMENTS AFTER THE CRASH OCCURRED. THE CONTACT WAS INJURED BY THE AIR BAG AND SUSTAINED LACERATIONS TO HIS LEFT ARM. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY A DEALER AND THEY ADVISED THAT THE AIR BAGS SHOULD NOT HAVE DEPLOYED WITHOUT A FORCEFUL IMPACT. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 200,000. UPDATED 03/29/11 *BF UPDATED 12/28/2011 *LN
NHTSA ODI #10384186
46,000 miles · Feb 7, 2011
Unknown Or Other
THE BLOWER FAN OF THE HEATER & DEFROSTER FAILED TO OPERATE. WINDSHIELD FROST ON THE OUTSIDE AND FOG ON THE INSIDE COULD NOT BE REMOVED THUS MAKING DRIVING VERY HAZARDOUS. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS THE PROBLEM RESOLVED ITSELF BUT REOCCURRED EVERY YEAR OR TWO. I RESEARCHED THE PROBLEM RECENTLY DURING THE LAST FAILURE (2/6/2011) AND FEE…
Read full complaint
THE BLOWER FAN OF THE HEATER & DEFROSTER FAILED TO OPERATE. WINDSHIELD FROST ON THE OUTSIDE AND FOG ON THE INSIDE COULD NOT BE REMOVED THUS MAKING DRIVING VERY HAZARDOUS. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS THE PROBLEM RESOLVED ITSELF BUT REOCCURRED EVERY YEAR OR TWO. I RESEARCHED THE PROBLEM RECENTLY DURING THE LAST FAILURE (2/6/2011) AND FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE INTERMITTENT FAILING PART IS THE BLOWER MOTOR SPEED CONTROLLER, PART NUMBER XW1H-19E624-AB. FORTUNATELY, THE MOTOR AND BLOWER WILL OPERATE (FOR NOW) AFTER I HIT IT A COUPLE TIMES WITH A HAMMER. SEVERAL WEB SITES DESCRIBE THIS PART INCLUDING PHOTOS. REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION. IF THIS ITEM HAS NOT BEEN RECALLED AS A SAFETY ISSUE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE.
NHTSA ODI #10381950
90,700 miles · Jan 17, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF #8 CYLINDER WITHOUT WARNING MERGING ONTO HIGHWAY. IF THIS HAPPENS ON A DIFFERENT CYLINDER IT COULD PUNCTURE THE FUEL RAIL; ULTIMATELY CAUSING A FIRE FROM THE IGNITION COIL SPARK.
NHTSA ODI #10377752
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