NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
17 reportsClear category filter58,000 miles · Jul 17, 2025
EngineService BrakesVehicle Speed Control
The contact owns a 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis. The contact stated while driving 50 MPH at night, the cruise control mode malfunctioned, and the speed of the vehicle increased independently. The contact stated that the brake pedal was depressed several times to the floor, but the vehicle failed to stop. The contact turned off the…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis. The contact stated while driving 50 MPH at night, the cruise control mode malfunctioned, and the speed of the vehicle increased independently. The contact stated that the brake pedal was depressed several times to the floor, but the vehicle failed to stop. The contact turned off the vehicle, and the vehicle came to a stop. The vehicle was towed to the contact's residence. The contact stated that he was afraid of driving the vehicle again. The contact unregistered the vehicle and turned the license plates of the vehicle to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. Additionally, the contact stated that the check engine and the low oil pressure warning lights had illuminated two days prior to the failure. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and a case was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 58,000.
NHTSA ODI #11674238
Mileage unknown · Jul 18, 2022
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
?yrs.ago While backing out of parking space at Calaveras Lumber, after shifting into reverse, & removing my foot from the brake; the engine appeared to receive a huge burst of fuel which shot me backward like a rocket slamming my vehicle into and wedging it under the frame of a pickup truck parked in the same lot. I am glad I w…
Read full complaint
?yrs.ago While backing out of parking space at Calaveras Lumber, after shifting into reverse, & removing my foot from the brake; the engine appeared to receive a huge burst of fuel which shot me backward like a rocket slamming my vehicle into and wedging it under the frame of a pickup truck parked in the same lot. I am glad I was parked and had my foot on the brake prior to this unit or system malfunction otherwise the injuries could easily have been fatal on the highway. I think this defect may be a contributing factor to the car dying recently while on my way to a Wedding Reception in Roseville, which left me stranded after dark for 41/2hrs and 71/2hrs. 2days later. I have not been able to start vehicle since and mechanics unable to diagnose why the engine is fuel starved when system parts tested appear to be in good working order. Something seems to be shutting off power or preventing power to the fuel pump and it is not the inertia switch, relays, fuses etc.. Components have been previously inspected by numerous others including dealer. No Recognizable Alert/Warning Prior to Incidents!
NHTSA ODI #11474583
50,000 miles · Aug 10, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
LEAVING WORK, APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET FROM PARKING PLACE TO PARKING LOT EXIT INTO ROAD. WHEN BRAKING TO STOP BEFORE ENTERING ROADWAY, VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD WITH ENGINE RACING AT A HIGH RPM. PUSHED INTO NEUTRAL UNTIL STOPPED THEN PARK WITH ENGINE STILL RACING. TURNED OFF AND SAT STILL FOR A MINUTE THEN RESTARTED WITH NO FURTHER …
Read full complaint
LEAVING WORK, APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET FROM PARKING PLACE TO PARKING LOT EXIT INTO ROAD. WHEN BRAKING TO STOP BEFORE ENTERING ROADWAY, VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD WITH ENGINE RACING AT A HIGH RPM. PUSHED INTO NEUTRAL UNTIL STOPPED THEN PARK WITH ENGINE STILL RACING. TURNED OFF AND SAT STILL FOR A MINUTE THEN RESTARTED WITH NO FURTHER PROBLEM. MECHANIC CANNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. NOT THE FIRST TIME IT HAS HAPPENED BUT WAS THE WORST INCIDENT WITH ENGINE BEING UNCONTROLLABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10534684
85,000 miles · Mar 29, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION AND THEY STATED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL NEEDED TO BE DISCONNECTED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION AND THEY STATED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL NEEDED TO BE DISCONNECTED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED BUT PROVIDED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000. ..UPDATED 05/01/13 *BF UPDATED 05/06/13
NHTSA ODI #10504951
Mileage unknown · Aug 10, 2012
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHENEVER THE AIR CONDITIONER OR CRUISE CONTROL WAS RUNNING, THE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE SUDDEN ACCELERATION FAILURES. THE FAILURE ALSO OCCURRED WHEN BRAKING TO A COMPLETE STOP. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE SHIFTED INTO NEUTRAL IN ORDER TO STOP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHENEVER THE AIR CONDITIONER OR CRUISE CONTROL WAS RUNNING, THE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE SUDDEN ACCELERATION FAILURES. THE FAILURE ALSO OCCURRED WHEN BRAKING TO A COMPLETE STOP. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE SHIFTED INTO NEUTRAL IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE BY APPLYING THE BRAKES. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A MECHANIC, BUT THEY WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 50,000 AND THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10470149
115,100 miles · May 3, 2012
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WAS AT A COMPLETE STOP WHEN THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A WATER HEATER IN THE CONTACT'S GARAGE. THE CONTACT DID NOT SUSTAIN ANY INJURIES BUT THERE WERE MAJOR DAMAGES TO THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WAS AT A COMPLETE STOP WHEN THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A WATER HEATER IN THE CONTACT'S GARAGE. THE CONTACT DID NOT SUSTAIN ANY INJURIES BUT THERE WERE MAJOR DAMAGES TO THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 115,100.
NHTSA ODI #10457405
155,000 miles · Nov 10, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control
2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LUNGES FORWARD (INCREASE RPM @1000, AND LOUD GROWL FROM ENGINE COMPARTMENT) WHEN I LET OFF THE ACCELERATOR, I.E. APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT. ONCE I RELEASE THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATE AGAIN, ALL GOES BACK TO NORMAL. THERE IS NO "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT, AND NO OTHER NOTABLE PROBLEMS. IT IS INTERMITTENT AND A…
Read full complaint
2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LUNGES FORWARD (INCREASE RPM @1000, AND LOUD GROWL FROM ENGINE COMPARTMENT) WHEN I LET OFF THE ACCELERATOR, I.E. APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT. ONCE I RELEASE THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATE AGAIN, ALL GOES BACK TO NORMAL. THERE IS NO "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT, AND NO OTHER NOTABLE PROBLEMS. IT IS INTERMITTENT AND ANNOYING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10365287
47,000 miles · May 22, 2009
Vehicle Speed Control
I HAVE A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE STOPPED AT A LIGHT THE VEHICLE HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN ACCELERATED AT HIGH SPEED UNCONTROLLABLY. MY HUSBAND HAD BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKES AND SHIFTED THE CAR INTO NEUTRAL AS THE REAR TIRES SPUN WILDLY WITH BLACK SMOKE ROLLING OFF OF THEM. THIS WAS TERRIFYING. WE TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE STOPPED AT A LIGHT THE VEHICLE HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN ACCELERATED AT HIGH SPEED UNCONTROLLABLY. MY HUSBAND HAD BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKES AND SHIFTED THE CAR INTO NEUTRAL AS THE REAR TIRES SPUN WILDLY WITH BLACK SMOKE ROLLING OFF OF THEM. THIS WAS TERRIFYING. WE TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER CONTACTING FORD AND THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG SO THEY DISENGAGED THE CRUISE CONTROL THINKING THAT MAY BE THE PROBLEM. THE CAR CONTINUES TO DO THIS AND YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN. IT CAN BE ONE MONTH OR FOUR MONTHS LATER THAT THIS HAPPENS. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO GET RID OF THE CAR BUT WE ARE AFRAID OF IT. THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF RECOURSE OR ALLOWANCE FOR US TO GET RID OF THIS VEHICLE. PLEASE HELP US! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10269717
24,998 miles · Dec 28, 2005
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE DID NOT ALWAYS START. WHEN IT DID START THE ENGINE STALLED WHILE IDLING. TO ALLEVIATE STALLING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL MUST BE PUMPED HARD WHILE STARTING THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP MULTIPLE TIMES AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE IAC VALVE WAS REPLACE…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE DID NOT ALWAYS START. WHEN IT DID START THE ENGINE STALLED WHILE IDLING. TO ALLEVIATE STALLING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL MUST BE PUMPED HARD WHILE STARTING THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP MULTIPLE TIMES AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE IAC VALVE WAS REPLACED, AND THE COMPUTER WAS REPROGRAMMED. NEITHER OF THESE EFFORTS REPAIRED THE PROBLEM. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10146217
40,000 miles · Apr 28, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE OFF OF CARWASH CONVEYOR, THE ENGINE RACED TO FULL SPEED. I HAD TO US BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKE, AND SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL TO STOP THE CAR. WITH THE FRONT TIRES LOCKED, THE CAR STILL ACCELLERATED OVER TWO SPEED BUMPS BEFORE STOPPING.
NHTSA ODI #10067960
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · 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.
Illustration