IllustrationTHE FRAME IN BACK IS RUSTING THROUGH. THE BACK CROSS MEMBER AT THE REAR BUMPER IS RUSTED BAD. IT RATTLES ALL THE TIME.BACK SWAY BARS ARE RUSTED BAD.
2001 Mercury Mountaineer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2001 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
Limited mileage data: 13 of 22 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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.
- Suspension. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
2 crash reports1 fire reports3 injury reports
What owners actually said
22 reportsI OPENED THE REAR GLASS AND WHILE THE GLASS WAS BEING RAISED BY THE PISTONS, I HEARD A LOUD BANG. THE GLASS SUDDENLY SHATTERED ALL OVER ME AND THE BACK OF THE MOUNTAINEER. I GOT GLASS IN MY FACE AND ARMS AND FEET. I HAD LACERATIONS TO MY ARMS FROM THE GLASS AND GLASS SPLINTERS IN MY FEET WHERE THE GLASS GOT INTO MY SHOES. …
Read full complaint
I OPENED THE REAR GLASS AND WHILE THE GLASS WAS BEING RAISED BY THE PISTONS, I HEARD A LOUD BANG. THE GLASS SUDDENLY SHATTERED ALL OVER ME AND THE BACK OF THE MOUNTAINEER. I GOT GLASS IN MY FACE AND ARMS AND FEET. I HAD LACERATIONS TO MY ARMS FROM THE GLASS AND GLASS SPLINTERS IN MY FEET WHERE THE GLASS GOT INTO MY SHOES. THE GLASS DID NOT HIT ANYTHING AS WAS ONLY PART OF THE WAY UP WHEN IT SHATTERED. I DID NOT OPEN THE FULL REAR GATE, JUST THE GLASS PANEL WHICH IS UNLOCKED WITH A PUSH BUTTON TO THE RIGHT OF THE REAR GATE HANDLE LATCH. THE DAY WAS HOT AND I HAD THE AC RUNNING SO THERE WAS TEMPERATURE GRADIENT INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE TO THE OUTSIDE. THIS IS A DANGEROUS DEFECT AS I WAS INJURED AND OTHER COULD BE MORE SEVERELY INJURED BY THIS DEFECT.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING, SMOKE EMITTED FROM THE HOOD AND THE VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A TOW YARD. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 130,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
SEATS:FRONT ASSEMBLY:RECLINER ON MY 2001 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 5.0 SUV. THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT NO LONGER WORKS. CANNOT MOVE IT, ADJUST IT, ETC. THERE IS A RECALL FOR THIS BUT THE FORD DEALERSHIP SAYS IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MY VEHICLE. *TR
TL*-THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, AND WHEN THE CONTACTS DAUGHTER, SEATED IN THE PASSENGERS SEAT SECURED THE SAFETY SEAT BELT.AN INADVERTENT DEPLOYMENT OF THE AIRBAG OCCURRED. THE PASSENGER SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES AND WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. THE AUTHORIZED DEALER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE MALF…
Read full complaint
TL*-THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, AND WHEN THE CONTACTS DAUGHTER, SEATED IN THE PASSENGERS SEAT SECURED THE SAFETY SEAT BELT.AN INADVERTENT DEPLOYMENT OF THE AIRBAG OCCURRED. THE PASSENGER SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES AND WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. THE AUTHORIZED DEALER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE MALFUNCTIONS WHICH THERE WERE NO RESOLUTIONS. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN DRIVEN SINCE OCTOBER 9, 2009 DUE TO THE SAFETY HAZARD. THE CONTACT CONTINUES TO WAIT FOR A RESPONSE FROM THE AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED AT THIS TIME. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 75,000. UPDATED 11/16/10. *LJ
I RECEIVED A RECALL FROM FORD IN AUGUST 2007 AND THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE A PART AVAILABLE FOR MY VEHICLE. *TR
THIS IS NOT A SAFETY COMPLAINT BUT RATHER ABOUT SERVICE RECEIVED ON RECALL OF SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH FOR A 2001 MOUNTAINEER, 05S28. WE RECEIVED NOTICE IN SEP 2007 & CALLED AND SETUP AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THE PART REPLACE ON OCT 11 2007. UPON ARRIVAL WE WERE TOLD THAT PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BUT THEY WOULD DISCONNEC…
Read full complaint
THIS IS NOT A SAFETY COMPLAINT BUT RATHER ABOUT SERVICE RECEIVED ON RECALL OF SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH FOR A 2001 MOUNTAINEER, 05S28. WE RECEIVED NOTICE IN SEP 2007 & CALLED AND SETUP AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THE PART REPLACE ON OCT 11 2007. UPON ARRIVAL WE WERE TOLD THAT PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BUT THEY WOULD DISCONNECT CRUISE CONTROL. WE WAITED OVER AN HOUR TO HAVE THIS DONE WHICH WAS FRUSTRATING. PLUS FORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPFRONT AND TOLD US WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE TWO TRIPS TO HAVE PROBLEM CORRECTED. WE TRAVELED 90 MILES ROUND TRIP. ON FEB 24TH, I SENT THE DEALERSHIP AN EMAIL CONCERNING THE STATUS OF REPLACEMENT PARTS SINCE IT HAD BEEN NEARLY 6 MONTHS SINCE THE CRUISE CONTROL HAD BEEN DISABLED. THE NEXT DAY THE DEALERSHIP CALLED BACK AND SAID THAT THE PARTS HAD COME IN FRIDAY, FEB 22 AND SET UP A 2:00PM APPOINTMENT TO INSTALL NEW PARTS. WHEN WE GOT TO THE DEALERSHIP, WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE PARTS FOR THE MOUNTAINEER WERE NOT IN. ANOTHER 90 MILES FOR NOTHING. IN ADDITION, THEY CANNOT TELL US WHEN THE PARTS WILL BE IN! *TR
LEFT FRONT SIDE OF THE SUV WAS SQUEAKING. JUST WITHIN A WEEK, IT BECAME EXTREMELY LOUD AND EMBARRASSING TO DRIVE. I BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID IT'S THE BALL JOINTS WHICH IS VERY COMMON FOR THIS TYPE OF VEHICLE. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE VEHICLE HAS COOPER DISCOVERER H/T, SIZE P235/75/R15 TIRES. THE CORRECT TIRE SIZE WAS UNAVAILABLE IN THE DROP DOWN MENU AT THE TIME OF THIS COMPLAINT. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE TREAD SEPARATED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE. THE TIRES WERE INSPECTED AND FOUND TO HAVE DIMPL…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE VEHICLE HAS COOPER DISCOVERER H/T, SIZE P235/75/R15 TIRES. THE CORRECT TIRE SIZE WAS UNAVAILABLE IN THE DROP DOWN MENU AT THE TIME OF THIS COMPLAINT. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE TREAD SEPARATED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE. THE TIRES WERE INSPECTED AND FOUND TO HAVE DIMPLES ON THE SIDEWALLS AT ONLY 33,000 MILES. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TREAD EXPLODED OFF THE TIRE AND HE LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THE PLACE WHERE THE TIRES WERE PURCHASED STATED THAT THEY HAVE SOLD HUNDREDS OF THESE TIRES AND HAVE NOT HAD ANY FAILURES. THEY OFFERED TO GIVE HIM NEW TIRES AT $20.00 OFF SINCE HE HAD A RANDOM SET OF DEFECTIVE TIRES. THE CONTACT DID NOT ACCEPT THEIR OFFER. HE STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED AS SCHEDULED AND HE JUST HAD THE TIRES ROTATED. THE VIN AND ENGINE SIZE WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 107,000.
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, WHILE DRIVING AT A SPEED15 MPH THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES THE REAR WHEEL LOCKED, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO SPIN OUT INTO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE REAR END OF THE VEHICLE HIT A PHONE BOOTH. AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT THERE WERE LIGHT FLURRIES FALLING. THE CONTACT ST…
Read full complaint
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, WHILE DRIVING AT A SPEED15 MPH THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES THE REAR WHEEL LOCKED, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO SPIN OUT INTO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE REAR END OF THE VEHICLE HIT A PHONE BOOTH. AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT THERE WERE LIGHT FLURRIES FALLING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD BRAKE SERVICE WORK DONE IN DECEMBER 2006. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WERE 70000.*AK
Official recalls
307V336000 · 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.
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.