NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
79 reportsClear category filter70,000 miles · Feb 23, 2011
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A FRACTURE IN THE PANEL OF THE REAR LIFTGATE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOW TO THE BASE OF THE LIFTGATE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS OR REPAIRS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR LIFTGATE WAS INOPERABLE. THE FAILURE AND CUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A FRACTURE IN THE PANEL OF THE REAR LIFTGATE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOW TO THE BASE OF THE LIFTGATE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS OR REPAIRS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR LIFTGATE WAS INOPERABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 70,000.
NHTSA ODI #10384168
108,808 miles · Feb 22, 2011
Power TrainStructure
REAR DOOR PANEL CRACKED, VISUAL, THEN FOUND SEVERAL MORE 2004 MOUNTAINEERS WITH THE SAME CRACK, NOW A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED AS CLASS ACTION, I HEAR A NOISE MECHANICAL GRIND FROM REAR OF VEHICLE, STOP BY A FORD DEALER TO GET A TRADE IN PRICE, AND SEE IF ANYTHING IS MENTIONED, THEY TELL ME TO GET MY CAR FIXED, !! NO MENTI…
Read full complaint
REAR DOOR PANEL CRACKED, VISUAL, THEN FOUND SEVERAL MORE 2004 MOUNTAINEERS WITH THE SAME CRACK, NOW A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED AS CLASS ACTION, I HEAR A NOISE MECHANICAL GRIND FROM REAR OF VEHICLE, STOP BY A FORD DEALER TO GET A TRADE IN PRICE, AND SEE IF ANYTHING IS MENTIONED, THEY TELL ME TO GET MY CAR FIXED, !! NO MENTION THEY KNEW OF THE PROBLEMS, NOW I READ TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS, GLASS VISIBILITY PROBLEMS, CRUISE CONTROL FIRE, PROBLEMS MY CAR'S CRUISE QUIT WORKING, ON AND ON IT GOES, LISTS OF LISTS OF PROBLEMS, I KNOW CARS WEAR OUT BUT TO KNOW THERE ARE PROBLEMS AND HIDE THEM, NEEDS ACTION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10384070
45,000 miles · Feb 15, 2011
Structure
I HAVE TWO COMPLAINTS INVOLVING THE BACK LIFTGATE ON MY 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. IN 2008, WITH APPROX 45K MILES ON IT, A CRACK DEVELOPED ABOVE AND BELOW THE EMBLEM ON THE LIFTGATE (LIKE SEVERAL OTHERS I'VE NOTICED ON THIS WEBSITE). THE DEALER DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT IT BUT SAID THEY WERE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND IT WOULD COST ME …
Read full complaint
I HAVE TWO COMPLAINTS INVOLVING THE BACK LIFTGATE ON MY 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. IN 2008, WITH APPROX 45K MILES ON IT, A CRACK DEVELOPED ABOVE AND BELOW THE EMBLEM ON THE LIFTGATE (LIKE SEVERAL OTHERS I'VE NOTICED ON THIS WEBSITE). THE DEALER DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT IT BUT SAID THEY WERE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND IT WOULD COST ME $500 FOR A NEW LIFTGATE! I DECLINED AT THAT TIME. MORE RECENTLY, THE BACK WINDOW HINGES BROKE AND MY WIFE WAS THERE TO CATCH IT. SHE SPOKE TO THE DEALER AND THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR IT AND, ONCE AGAIN THEY WANTED TO SELL A NEW HATCH TO US FOR OVER $1000 INCLUDING PARTS AND LABOR. WE TOOK IT TO OUR LOCAL BODY SHOP AND THEY FIXED IT FOR $183 AND GOT THE NEW HINGES DIRECTLY FROM THE MERCURY DEALER WE SPOKE TO EARLIER. THESE ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECALLED AND PEOPLE REIMBURSED FOR THEIR EXPENSES RELATING TO GETTING THEM FIXED ON THEIR OWN. I CANNOT BRING MYSELF TO BUY ANOTHER FORD PRODUCT IF THEY DON'T ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR DEFECTS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10382797
55,000 miles · Jan 25, 2011
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A HAIRLINE FRACTURE BELOW THE REAR WINDOW NEAR THE REAR LIFTGATE LATCH. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED OR REPAIRED FOR THE DEFECT. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 55,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10378560
48,500 miles · Dec 6, 2010
Structure
I OWN A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. ABOUT A WEEK AGO I NOTICED A CRACK IN THE REAR LIFTGATE PANEL OF MY VEHICLE. THE CRACK CURVES AROUND THE MERCURY LOGO LOCATED ON THE REAR PANEL. I CONTACTED THE DEALER AND HE SAID FORD IS VERY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND HE REPAIRS MANY CRACKED LIFTGATES ON FORD/MERCURY SUV'S, ESPECIALLY IN THE WI…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. ABOUT A WEEK AGO I NOTICED A CRACK IN THE REAR LIFTGATE PANEL OF MY VEHICLE. THE CRACK CURVES AROUND THE MERCURY LOGO LOCATED ON THE REAR PANEL. I CONTACTED THE DEALER AND HE SAID FORD IS VERY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND HE REPAIRS MANY CRACKED LIFTGATES ON FORD/MERCURY SUV'S, ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER DUE TO EXPANDING AND CONTRACTING OF PLASTIC. IT IS ALMOST HALFWAY DOWN THE BACK AND AM AFRAID THAT THE WINDOW WILL POP OUT WHILE DRIVING AND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT OR INJURE SOMEONE. IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD. FORD NEEDS TO RECALL THESE VEHICLES AND FIX THIS PROBLEM. IT SHOULD NOT BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSUMER, SINCE IT IS A DEFECT OF THE SUV. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10369317
4,000 miles · Oct 13, 2010
Structure
I OWN A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER HAS FOUR THOUSAND MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS STORAGE IN GARAGE FOR FOUR AND HALF YEARS. I STARTED TO USE THE VEHICLE ON LAST FALL OF 2009. ON SEPTEMBER I SEE THE TAILGATE DEVELOPED A CRACK AROUND THE EMBLEM AND THE REAR GLASS. THE HEATER IS NOT WORKING ALSO. THIS IS OBVIOUS MANUFACTURE DEFECTS! …
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER HAS FOUR THOUSAND MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS STORAGE IN GARAGE FOR FOUR AND HALF YEARS. I STARTED TO USE THE VEHICLE ON LAST FALL OF 2009. ON SEPTEMBER I SEE THE TAILGATE DEVELOPED A CRACK AROUND THE EMBLEM AND THE REAR GLASS. THE HEATER IS NOT WORKING ALSO. THIS IS OBVIOUS MANUFACTURE DEFECTS! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10360395
78,000 miles · Sep 15, 2010
Structure
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. WHILE PARKED HE NOTICED THERE WAS A CRACK BELOW THE MERCURY EMBLEM ON THE REAR LIFT GATE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO BE EXAMINED FOR THE CAUSE OF FAILURE AND WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 78,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 79,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10355697
37,000 miles · Aug 17, 2010
Structure
IN JULY 2008 FILED MY FIRST COMPLAINT WHEN THE ENTIRE BACK LIFT GATE AND WINDOW BLEW OUT WHILE VEHICLE WAS PARKED. INSURANCE REPAIRED IT, I PAID A 200.00 DEDUCTIBLE. AGAIN THE MEDALLION HAS CRACKED 3/4 OF THE WAY AND I AM WONDERING IF THIS IS THE START OF ANOTHER LIFT GATE BLOW OUT/GLASS ALL OVER, ETD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10349930
Mileage unknown · Jul 16, 2010
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, THE CONTACT MANUALLY CLOSED THE REAR HATCHBACK AND THE WINDOW GLASS SHATTERED UNEXPECTEDLY ONTO HER ARM. THE SMALL PIECES OF GLASS SCATTERED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THERE WAS NO PERSONAL INJURY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, THE CONTACT MANUALLY CLOSED THE REAR HATCHBACK AND THE WINDOW GLASS SHATTERED UNEXPECTEDLY ONTO HER ARM. THE SMALL PIECES OF GLASS SCATTERED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THERE WAS NO PERSONAL INJURY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN INFORMED THAT THE CAUSE OF FAILURE WAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE HATCHBACK DEFECTIVE LATCH. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED AT THE TIME OF THE COMPLAINT. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
NHTSA ODI #10343657
92,360 miles · May 22, 2010
Structure
GLASS LIFT GATE STRUT FROZE WHEN IT WAS OPENED WHEN I TRIED TO CLOSE IT, THE FORCE BROKE THE HINGE AT THE TOP. IF I HAD NOT IMMEDIATELY SUPPORTED THE LIFT GATE IT WOULD HAVE FALLEN. THE HINGE ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS CRACKED AND BENT AND ABOUT TO GIVE. THE EMBLEM ON THE GATE HAS ALSO BEEN CRACKED FOR QUITE AWHILE. I DID HAVE THE TR…
Read full complaint
GLASS LIFT GATE STRUT FROZE WHEN IT WAS OPENED WHEN I TRIED TO CLOSE IT, THE FORCE BROKE THE HINGE AT THE TOP. IF I HAD NOT IMMEDIATELY SUPPORTED THE LIFT GATE IT WOULD HAVE FALLEN. THE HINGE ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS CRACKED AND BENT AND ABOUT TO GIVE. THE EMBLEM ON THE GATE HAS ALSO BEEN CRACKED FOR QUITE AWHILE. I DID HAVE THE TRANSMISSION FLUID ISSUE ADDRESSED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY, BUT STILL EXPERIENCE TRANSMISSION SLAMMING INTO GEAR IN REVERSE AT VARIOUS TIMES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10331669
NHTSA investigations
3EA09013 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Aug 18, 2009 · Closed Feb 12, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl); Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift; Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl)
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
RQ08003 · Rear Liftgate Glass Hatch Failure
Opened Jun 23, 2008 · Closed Oct 24, 2008
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
DP05005 · 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