IllustrationDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT 35 MPH ANOTHER VEHICLE RAN A STOP SIGN AND STRUCK THE DRIVERS SIDE OF THE VEHICLE CAUSING A ROLLOVER. IN THE ACCIDENT THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. NO ONE WAS INJURED, SEATBELTS WERE WORN AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED.
2000 Mercury Mountaineer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 117.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mountaineer 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
70–25K
1325–50K
1250–75K
875–100K
10100–150K
10150K+
60 reports with mileage · 63 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.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 28 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 19 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
15 crash reports12 fire reports10 injury reports
Air Bags complaints
9 reportsOCTOBER 18, 2005 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION NVS-210, 400 7TH STREET SW WASHINGTON, DC 20590 DEAR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: I AM WRITING BECAUSE OF A SAFETY CONCERN WITH MERCURY 2000 MOUNTAINEER. MY MOUNTAINEER, VIN #[XXX], H…
Read full complaint
OCTOBER 18, 2005 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION NVS-210, 400 7TH STREET SW WASHINGTON, DC 20590 DEAR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: I AM WRITING BECAUSE OF A SAFETY CONCERN WITH MERCURY 2000 MOUNTAINEER. MY MOUNTAINEER, VIN #[XXX], HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE AIRBAG SAFETY SYSTEM. I BELIEVE THIS PROBLEM IS CAUSED BY A DESIGN DEFICIENCY. THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT ON MY INSTRUMENT PANEL FLASHES SEVERAL TIMES AND THEN COMES ON STEADY. I TOOK IT IN FOR REPAIR AND THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE FORD DEALER TOLD ME THE WIRING HARNESS WAS BAD. THEY SAID THAT TESTS SHOWED THAT THE HARNESS WAS CORRODED. SINCE THE HARNESS RUNS UNDER THE CARPET ON THE FLOOR, WATER AND SALT HAD PROBABLY ENTERED THE HARNESS AND CORRODED IT. THEY SAID THAT MY AIRBAG SYSTEM WAS UNRELIABLE. I BELIEVE IT IS UNREASONABLE AND DANGEROUS TO INSTALL A CRITICAL SAFETY SYSTEM COMPONENT IN A KNOWN LOCATION OF CORROSIVES AND MOISTURE, UNLESS THAT COMPONENT IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST THOSE HAZARDS. IT APPEARS THAT THE AIRBAG WIRING HARNESS IS NOT SO DESIGNED. AS THESE VEHICLES AGE, THIS COULD BECOME MORE AND MORE OF A PROBLEM. THE REPAIR IS EXPENSIVE, I WAS QUOTED $970. THE TRADE IN VALUE OF MY VEHICLE IS ABOUT $8600. AS THESE VEHICLES AGE THEY WILL HAVE LESS AND LESS VALUE AND THE COST OF REPAIR WILL BECOME A LARGER AND LARGER PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLE VALUE. I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD QUERY FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND FIND OUT HOW PREVALENT THIS PROBLEM IS AND SEE IF THE FREQUENCY OF THE PROBLEM IS INCREASING. IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE MONITORED AS THESE VEHICLES AGE. PERHAPS MERCURY SHOULD ACT TO REPLACE THESE HARNESSES BEFORE THEY BECOME INOPERATIVE. [XXX] *NM UPDATED 07/18/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
INTERMITTENT AIRBAG LIGHT WOULD COME ON. WHEN I TOOK TO DEALERSHIP, IT WAS ALWAYS OUT, AND INSTEAD OF PAYING EXTRAVAGANT DIAGNOSTIC FEES THEY SAID MAY NOT SHOW PROBLEM, I DID NOT GET IT LOOKED AT. IT WAS REPAIRED TODAY....A HARNESS ELECTRICAL SHORTAGE WHICH I FEEL SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED TO THE CUSTOMER. THE SHORT IS FOR SOMETH…
Read full complaint
INTERMITTENT AIRBAG LIGHT WOULD COME ON. WHEN I TOOK TO DEALERSHIP, IT WAS ALWAYS OUT, AND INSTEAD OF PAYING EXTRAVAGANT DIAGNOSTIC FEES THEY SAID MAY NOT SHOW PROBLEM, I DID NOT GET IT LOOKED AT. IT WAS REPAIRED TODAY....A HARNESS ELECTRICAL SHORTAGE WHICH I FEEL SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED TO THE CUSTOMER. THE SHORT IS FOR SOMETHING THAT ONLY A CERTIFIED TECH REPAIRS. AIRBAGS HARNESSES ON THIS VEHICLE PER THE REPAIR TECH GO OUT REGULARLY, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE A DEFECT TO ME. THE REPAIR PASSED ON TO ME WAS MORE THAN $300! ALSO, IAC ATTACHED WITH TOO LITTLE SILICONE, WHICH CAUSES THE IAC TO BURN AND MALFUNCTION. IT WAS ALSO REPAIRED. I DO NOT HAVE PARTS.....DEALERSHIP KEPT THEM. *NM
DT: AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY GOING AT 35-40MPH.STATES HE DID HAVE AN ACCIDENT WHICH TOTALED HIS FRONT END, BUT NEITHER AIR BAG (L OR R) DEPLOYED.
WE WERE REAR ENDED AND BOTH SEATS BROKE, FLINGING US INTO THE BACK SEAT. WE THEN WENT INTO THE ONCOMING LANE (BECAUSE MY WIFE COULD NO LONGER REACH THE STEERING WHEEL OR THE BRAKES) AND WERE HIT HEAD ON. COMPLAINT #1 - THE SEATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BROKEN. COMPLAINT #2 - THE AIRBAGS NEVER DEPLOYED.*AK
WITH BRAKES APPLIED ATTEMPTING TO PUT VEHICLE IN PARK, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD AND WAS OUT OF CONTROL AND STRUCK A LIGHT POLE, WENT OVER CONCRETE BARRIER ONTO NEXT STREET, AND NEITHER AIR BAG DEPLOYED. *AK CONSUMER ALSO COMPALINED SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THE BRAKES. *TT
WHILE LEAVING PARKING LOT, ACCELERATER PEDAL BECAME STUCK. DRIVER CAME TO A STOP BY HITTING OTHER CARS. AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. CAUSE UNKNOWN. *AK *TT
THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY DURING THE ACCIDENT. YH
CONSUMER'S DAUGHTER WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 35MPH AND WAS PROCEEDING INTO THE INTERSECTION WHILE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, ANOTHER VEHICLE VEERED INTO THE RIGHT SIDE OF CONSUMER'S VEHICLE. VEHICLE FLIPPED TWICE ONTO THE ROAD, AND LANDED UPSIDE DOWN. DAUGHTER HAD TO CRAWL OUT OF DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW. UPON IMPACT, DRIVER'S AIR BAG…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER'S DAUGHTER WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 35MPH AND WAS PROCEEDING INTO THE INTERSECTION WHILE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, ANOTHER VEHICLE VEERED INTO THE RIGHT SIDE OF CONSUMER'S VEHICLE. VEHICLE FLIPPED TWICE ONTO THE ROAD, AND LANDED UPSIDE DOWN. DAUGHTER HAD TO CRAWL OUT OF DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW. UPON IMPACT, DRIVER'S AIR BAG FAILED TO DEPLOY. *AK
Official recalls
607V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
03V280000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cables
Aug 5, 2003
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL AND 4.0L SOHC ENGINES, IF THE STRAND COVER ON THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE BECOMES FLARED AT THE END, THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE MAY BIND WHEN THE SPEED CONTROL IS ACTIVATED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE THROTTLE RETURN SPRING FORCE MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE BINDING CONDITION WHEN THE SPEED CONTROL IS DISENGAGED. BRAKING FUNCTION WOULD BE MAINTAINED THOUGH STOPPING DISTANCES MAY BE INCREASED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE IT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 29, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
03V281000 · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
Aug 5, 2003
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS, THE UPPER BOLT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE HIGH BACK SEAT, THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME, COULD FRACTURE. IF THE BOLT FRACTURES AND DOES NOT JAM IN THE SEAT BACK FRAME, THE SEAT BACK MAY RECLINE UNTIL IT MAKES CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT BEHIND THE SEAT, SUCH AS THE SECOND ROW SEAT CUSHION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE DRIVER COULD POTENTIALLY LOSE CONTACT WITH THE STEERING WHEEL OR FOOT PEDALS DURING SUCH AN EVENT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER SEAT UPPER BOLT WITH A METAL SPACER AND BOLT. IN ADDITION, SEATS WITH TUBULAR BACK FRAMES WILL HAVE THE FULLY THREADED LOWER RECLINER BOLT REPLACED WITH A PARTIALLY THREADED BOLT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON AUGUST 29, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
00V228001 · Seat Belts
Aug 18, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES, LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MINI VANS EQUIPPED WITH TRW SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLIES. THE BUCKLE BASE OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES WERE NOT PROPERLY HEAT TREATED AND THEREFORE DO NOT PASS THE LOAD BEARING REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A VEHICLE CRASH, THE OCCUPANT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON CERTAIN SEAT BELT BUCKLES OF YOUR VEHICLE AND REPLACE ALL SEAT BELT BUCKLES THAT FALL WITHIN THE SUSPECT DATE CODE RANGE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN OCTOBER 26, 2000. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
00V179000 · Air Bags:side/window
Jul 5, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: 4-DOOR SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SIDE AIR BAGS. THE SUBJECT VEHICLES HAVE A REVISED LEVEL SIDE CRASH SENSOR THAT COULD DEPLOY THE SIDE AIR BAG IF THE IGNITION KEY IS IN THE "RUN" POSITION AND THE SEATBELT WEBBING IS FORCIBLY EXTRACTED FROM A LOCKED RETRACTOR WITH A JERKING MOTION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: INADVERTENT SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT COULD CAUSE PERSONAL INJURY TO THE SEAT OCCUPANT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SIDE CRASH SENSORS WITH A REVISED DESIGN THAT WILL REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN UNEXPECTED SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT.
00V072000 · Electrical System:wiring:fuses And Circuit Breakers
Mar 7, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L ENGINES AND ALL-TIME 4-WHEEL DRIVE (A4WD) POWERTRAINS. THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) COULD EXPERIENCE A CONDITION REFERRED TO AS "LOCK-UP" IN WHICH THE GEM CONTROLLED ELECTRONIC FUNCTIONS (E.G., FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS, INTERIOR LIGHTS, 4X4 SYSTEM, ETC.) COULD NOT BE TURNED ON OR, IN SOME CASES IF THE FUNCTION IS ON, COULD NOT BE TURNED OFF.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AN INOPERATIVE WINDSHIELD WIPER SYSTEM COULD AFFECT DRIVER VISIBILITY, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A RESISTOR IN THE GEM CIRCUIT.
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
2DP05005 · 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.
PE03020 · Front Seat Back Recliner Attachment
Opened May 21, 2003 · Closed Sep 5, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 2003, FORD NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT IS CONDUCTING A VOLUNTARY SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 03V281) INVOLVING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1998-2001 FORD EXPLORER / MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4-DOOR, MY 1998-2000 FORD EXPLORER 2-DOOR AND MY 2001-2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT AND SPORT TRAC VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS.COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE DRIVER'S SEAT BACK RECLINED WITHOUT WARNING.A BOLT BETWEEN THE UPPER SEAT RECLINER ATTACHMENT AND THE SEAT BACK FRAME MAY FRACTURE.FORD WILL REPLACE THE BOLT THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME ON THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT.BASED ON FORD'S SAFETY RECALL ACTION, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.