NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
25 reportsClear category filter69,500 miles · Sep 26, 2007
Power Train
NOISE IN REAR OF CAR. WHEN I LOOKED AT RIGHT REAR WHEEL I SAW OIL. I THEN TOOK IT TO THE CLOSES AUTO REPAIR SHOP IN MIDLAND TEXAS WHICH WAS ALLEN S AUTO REPAIR. THEY TORE THE REAR END DOWN AND FOUND THAT BOTH REAR AXLES WERE WORN CONSIDERABLY THEY ALSO TOLD ME THERE WAS PLENTY OF OIL STILL IN THE REAR END. THEY ALSO SHOWED M…
Read full complaint
NOISE IN REAR OF CAR. WHEN I LOOKED AT RIGHT REAR WHEEL I SAW OIL. I THEN TOOK IT TO THE CLOSES AUTO REPAIR SHOP IN MIDLAND TEXAS WHICH WAS ALLEN S AUTO REPAIR. THEY TORE THE REAR END DOWN AND FOUND THAT BOTH REAR AXLES WERE WORN CONSIDERABLY THEY ALSO TOLD ME THERE WAS PLENTY OF OIL STILL IN THE REAR END. THEY ALSO SHOWED ME A BULLETIN THAT FORD MOTOR CO. PUT OUT ON THIS PROBLEM, SO APPARENTLY THEY HAVE HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. WHEN I GOT HOME IN BANDER TEXAS AFTER GETTING THE REPAIRS THAT COST ME $677.00 TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT THEY HA D THE SAME PROBLEM ONE EVEN LOST A WHEEL. THE CAR HAD LESS THAN 70,000 MILES WHEN THIS HAPPENED. I HAD JUST DELIVERED 5 GRAND CHILDREN TO THE AIR PORT. THIS COULD HAVE LOCKED UP OR RAN A WHEEL OFF. THE AXLES WERE WORN DOWN QUITE A BIT. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10204127
69,500 miles · Sep 22, 2007
Power Train
WENT TO MIDLAND TEXAS FROM BANDERA TX. WHICH WAS AROUND 300 MI. WAS HAVING NOISE IN LEFT REAR WHEEL UPON INSPECTION SAW OIL ON WHEEL. IT WAS ON WEEK END I HAD A REPUTABLE AUTO SHOP CHECK IT OUT AND FOUND BOTH REAR AXLES WERE WORN REAL BAD. THEIR WAS PLENTY OF OIL IN DIFFERENTIAL. THEY HAD ABULLETIN MAKING THEM AWARE OF THE PROBL…
Read full complaint
WENT TO MIDLAND TEXAS FROM BANDERA TX. WHICH WAS AROUND 300 MI. WAS HAVING NOISE IN LEFT REAR WHEEL UPON INSPECTION SAW OIL ON WHEEL. IT WAS ON WEEK END I HAD A REPUTABLE AUTO SHOP CHECK IT OUT AND FOUND BOTH REAR AXLES WERE WORN REAL BAD. THEIR WAS PLENTY OF OIL IN DIFFERENTIAL. THEY HAD ABULLETIN MAKING THEM AWARE OF THE PROBLEM SO FORD KNEW THEIR IS A PROBLEM. SINCE I HAVE HAD TWO MORE PEOPLE IN BANDERA TX. THAT HAD THE SAME PROBLEM ONE HAD A WHEEL COME OFF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10203714
82,000 miles · Aug 24, 2007
Power Train
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A GRINDING AND KNOCKING NOISE COMING FROM THE DRIVER SIDE REAR TIRE. HE STATED THAT THE BEARINGS PUNCTURED THE AXLE SHAFT. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE BEARINGS AND AXLE SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 8…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A GRINDING AND KNOCKING NOISE COMING FROM THE DRIVER SIDE REAR TIRE. HE STATED THAT THE BEARINGS PUNCTURED THE AXLE SHAFT. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE BEARINGS AND AXLE SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 82,000.
NHTSA ODI #10200669
102,753 miles · Jul 2, 2007
Power Train
I HAVE A 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA WITH A 4.6L V8 AND AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION. IN THE LAST 44,000 MILES I HAVE HAD TWO REAR AXLE FAILURES THAT NECESSITATED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE AXLE SHAFTS, SEALS ETC. THE FIRST FAILURE WAS AT 57,902 MI AND WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. THE SECOND AT 102,753MI - 44,851 MILES. I HAVE FOUND THAT …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA WITH A 4.6L V8 AND AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION. IN THE LAST 44,000 MILES I HAVE HAD TWO REAR AXLE FAILURES THAT NECESSITATED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE AXLE SHAFTS, SEALS ETC. THE FIRST FAILURE WAS AT 57,902 MI AND WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. THE SECOND AT 102,753MI - 44,851 MILES. I HAVE FOUND THAT FORD DOES HAVE A RECALL ON THESE VEHICLES BUT WILL NOT COVER MY VEHICLE AS IT IS NOT A TAXI/POLICE/FLEET VEHICLE. I AM NEARLY 60, DRIVE MOSTLY FREEWAY AND COUNTRY ROADS, DO NOT RACE ANYONE, DO NOT TOW ANYTHING AND WORK TO GET THE BEST GAS MILEAGE I CAN FROM MY CAR. I DRIVE IT GENTLY. I HAVE HAD THE REAR AXLE SERVICED PER THE SCHEDULE AND IT WAS ONLY ABOUT 3,000 MILES AFTER MY LAST AXLE SERVICE THAT THIS NEW FAILURE OCCURRED. I SAW FLUID ALL OVER THE WHEEL WELL AND UPON REMOVING THE TIRE SAW FLUID COMING OUT OF THE HUB AREA. THINKING IT WAS AN EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILURE TOOK IT TO A CERTIFIED SHOP AND FOUND OUT IT WAS THE AXLE SEALS GOING AND THE AXLE SHAFT DETERIORATING. THIS WAS A $458.31 REPAIR THAT I FEEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. MY AXLE HAS FAILED AT 57KMI AND 44KMN LATER. I HAVE READ ON THE WEB OF NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE HAD REAR AXLES GO AND THAT SOME OF THESE CAUSED ACCIDENTS. I WAS LUCKY BOTH TIMES BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON CARS FOR OVER 40 YEARS AS A HOBBY AND WATCH MY CARS CAREFULLY. I FEEL FORDS POSITION OF USING ONLY VIN NUMBERS, RATHER THAT INCIDENTS, IS A DANGER TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND AN OBVIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10195166
39,000 miles · Mar 5, 2006
Power Train
REAR AXLE BEARINGS FAILED AT 39,000 MILES. OUT OF WARRANTY, THERE IS A RECALL FOR FLEET BUYERS. WHY NOT MY CAR? I REPAIRED IT AT MY EXPENSE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10151815
69,000 miles · Mar 29, 2005
Power Train
RECALL CAMPAIGN 04V328000 CONCERNING REAR AXLE SHAFT FRACTURE. A ROARING NOISE WOULD COME FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WHEN DRIVING AT ANY SPEED. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A REPAIR SHOP, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE REAR WHEEL BEARING, SEALS AND THE AXLE SHAFTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. HE FOUND THIS RECALL ON ALL DATA, AND SUGGES…
Read full complaint
RECALL CAMPAIGN 04V328000 CONCERNING REAR AXLE SHAFT FRACTURE. A ROARING NOISE WOULD COME FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WHEN DRIVING AT ANY SPEED. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A REPAIR SHOP, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE REAR WHEEL BEARING, SEALS AND THE AXLE SHAFTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. HE FOUND THIS RECALL ON ALL DATA, AND SUGGESTED THAT THE CONSUMER CONTACT THE DEALER. DEALER INFORMED CONSUMER THAT THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THIS RECALL.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10117030
99,299 miles · Sep 27, 2004
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING TRANSMISSION SLIPPED GEARS UNTIL CONSUMER REACHED HIS DESTINATION. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10094337
67,707 miles · Aug 14, 2004
Power Train
MY 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA, DEVELOPED A GRINDING NOISE IN THE REAR END ON 8/05/04. TOOK IT TO HAVE IT CHECKED ON 8/12/04 AND FOUND OUT THAT THE REAR AXLE BEARINGS WERE BAD AND THAT THEY HAD CUT INTO THE AXLE SHAFT. I HAD TO HAVE THE AXLE SHAFTS, BEARINGS AND SEALS REPLACED AT A COST OF $513.45. I SEARCHED THE INTERNET AND FOU…
Read full complaint
MY 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA, DEVELOPED A GRINDING NOISE IN THE REAR END ON 8/05/04. TOOK IT TO HAVE IT CHECKED ON 8/12/04 AND FOUND OUT THAT THE REAR AXLE BEARINGS WERE BAD AND THAT THEY HAD CUT INTO THE AXLE SHAFT. I HAD TO HAVE THE AXLE SHAFTS, BEARINGS AND SEALS REPLACED AT A COST OF $513.45. I SEARCHED THE INTERNET AND FOUND OUT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL ON THE 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA "FLEET" VEHICLES (RECALL #04S16) FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. I CALLED FORD ON 8/13/04 AND FOUND OUT THAT IT ONLY APPLIED TO VEHICLES ASSEMBLED AT THE ST. THOMAS FACILITY BETWEEN 12/01 AND 12/02. THEY ALSO VERIFIED BY MY VIN# [XXX], THAT MY CAR WAS ASSEMBLED IN THE ST. THOMAS FACILITY IN 7/02. I WAS INFORMED THAT MY CAR IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS RECALL. I ALSO FOUND THAT FORD HAD ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB) ADVISING DEALERS TO BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR SERVICE COMPLAINTS CENTERING AROUND REAR AXLE NOISE IN THE 2003 CROWN VICTORIAS, AND TWO OTHER MODELS MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO 01/01/03 AND INCLUDED ALL CHASSIS CONFIGURATIONS (NOT ONLY FLEET VEHICLES) EXCEPT HEAVY-DUTY LIMOUSINE AND HEARSE CHASSIS. ACCORDING TO FORDS RECALL INFORMATION, "EARLY BEARING FAILURE AND ULTIMATELY AXLE SHAFT FRACTURE WOULD LEAD TO LOSS OF DRIVE FUNCTION AND COULD LEAD TO A CRASH". I ALSO FOUND THAT IT COULD LEAD TO A WHEEL-OFF FAILURE AND A RESULTING CRASH. I ALSO FIND THAT FORD ISSUED A "SILENT RECALL" OR "SECRET WARRANTY" TO DEAL WITH CUSTOMER PROBLEMS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE FACTORY WARRANTY (DEALER OPERATION CODE 030505A). MY CAR HAD APPROX 21000 MILES ON IT WHEN I BOUGHT IT AND NOW HAS APPROX 69000 MILES ON IT. IN MY OPINION, FORD IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND HAS DECIDED TO BE SELECTIVE IN WHICH VEHICLES THEY ARE RECALLING WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON. I BELIEVE THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD OVERLOOK THE MANY PEOPLE THAT FERRY THEIR FAMILIES AROUND ON A DAILY BASIS IN A CAR THAT IS NOT DEEMED A "FLEET" CAR BUT THAT APPARENTLY STILL HAS A PROBLEM.*AK UPDATED 07/25/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO TH
NHTSA ODI #10086824
Mileage unknown · Jun 14, 2004
Power Train
1) REAR AXLE WHEEL SEAL LEAK, REAR AXLE "PLAY" 2) AXLE GROOVES AND VEHICLE STABILITY AND HANDELING (DRIVEABILTY) PROBLEMS, BRAKES COATED WITH GREASE CAUSING BRAKE PREFORMANCE ISSUES. *AK 3) AXLE AND BEARINGS REPLACED
NHTSA ODI #10075358
40,559 miles · May 13, 2004
Power Train
PREMATURE BEARING AND AXLE WEAR. IF NOT REPAIRED AXLE MAY BREAK. THIS WAS FOUND ON 7 OF 8 CARS CHECKED. CARS BUILT 02-04-03. MILEAGE 29278 TO 40559.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10072558
NHTSA investigations
9PE15028 · Loss Of Headlights
Opened Aug 10, 2015 · Closed Jan 8, 2016
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Exterior Lighting:headlights
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
DP15002 · Loss Of Headlamp/exterior Lighting
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Aug 11, 2015
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Exterior Lighting:headlights
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
PE08066 · Loss Of Headlight Function
Opened Nov 26, 2008 · Closed Mar 24, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:headlights
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD AND COMPLAINANT INTERVIEWS. FORD FOUND THAT SOME LIGHTING CONTROL MODULES (LCM) IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES CONTAINED DEFECTIVE SOLDER JOINTS ON THE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD.THIS CONDITION CAN LEAD TO POOR HEADLIGHT PERFORMANCE RANGING FROM INTERMITTENT OUTAGE AND DIMMING TO EVENTUAL HEADLIGHTS FAILURE.THE FAILURE DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER LIGHTING FUNCTIONS (PARK, EMERGENCY FLASHER, BRAKE AND FLASH TO PASS LIGHTS).THE AGENCY IS AWARE OF A TOTAL OF 306 CONSUMERS COMPLAINTS AND NO REPORT OF CRASH, INJURY OR FATALITY.FORD REPORTS 2,074 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO HEADLIGHT FAILURE LINKED TO THE LCM DURING THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF OPERATION.ABOUT 12% (247) OF THESE CLAIMS ARE SPECIFIC TO HEADLIGHT FAILURE WHILE DRIVING.THE AVERAGE WARRANTY RATE FOR HEADLIGHT FAILING WHILE DRIVING IS LOW (0.05%).FORD REPORTS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER WARRANTY RATE EXPERIENCED FOR THE CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR VEHICLES AND THIS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE HIGHER DUTY CYCLE OF THESE VEHICLES (HEADLIGHTS ON FOR LONGER PERIODS).A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
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.
RQ04007 · Fracture Of The Steel Wheel Rim
Opened Aug 2, 2004 · Closed Dec 20, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Wheels; Wheels:hub; Wheels:hubcap/cover; Wheels:rim
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Wheels
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Wheels:hubcap/cover
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Wheels:hub
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Wheels:rim
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
PE04010 · Rear Axle Fracture
Opened Jan 22, 2004 · Closed Jul 8, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:axle Assembly:axle Shaft
THIS PE WAS OPENED AFTER ODI BECAME AWARE OF TWO ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING REAR AXLE FRACTURE AND PARTIAL WHEEL SEPARATION INVOLVING MY 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS (CVPI).INITIALLY, THE PE'S SCOPE INVOLVED ALL MY 2003 GRAND MARQUIS, CROWN VICTORIA, AND LINCOLN TOWN CARS (I.E., PANTHER PLATFORM) PRODUCED THROUGH JANUARY 2003.WHILE GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE FAILURES WERE CONFINED TO LONG-WHEELBASE LINCOLN TOWN CARS AND THE CVPI'S DUE TO THEIR UNIQUE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE PROFILES.FORD'S RECALL ADDRESSES THESE VEHICLES.BOTH THE COMPANY AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THE AXLES AND WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS REQUIRED.
PE03009 · Fracture Of The Steel Wheel Rim
Opened Feb 25, 2003 · Closed Aug 8, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Wheels
THE SUBJECT WHEEL (NEW FOR MY 2003) IS USED ON CROWN VICTORIA (CV) AND GRAND MARQUIS.COMPLAINT DATA INDICATES THAT WHEEL FAILURE AFFECTS PRIMARILY THE COMMERCIAL SPECIFICATION CV MODEL (POLICE AND TAXI) WHICH HAS UNIQUE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS AND IS GENERALLY SUBJECTED TO HIGHER USAGE DEMANDS.DURING FORD'S ANALYSIS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CYCLIC BENDING MOMENT FATIGUE COULD CAUSE RIM CRACKS TO OCCUR IN THE HEAT AFFECTED ZONE ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD.FORD IMPLEMENTED CHANGES IN WHEEL MANUFACTURE IN SEPTEMBER 2002 AND INTRODUCED A NEW WHEEL DESIGN WITH A THICKER RIM IN APRIL 2003.ODI FOUND EVIDENCE THAT INDICATED RAPID CRACK PROPOGATION MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED IN SEVEN WHEEL FAILURE INCIDENTS, TWO OF WHICH LEAD TO TIRE DEBEADING.FORD HAS ANNOUNCED THAT 29,946 COMMERCIAL SPEC CV VEHICLES, MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO THE SEPTEMBER CHANGE, WILL BE RECALLED TO HAVE THE APRIL 2003 DESIGN WHEEL INSTALLED.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR FOR WHEEL FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL.
EA03001 · Cng Tank Explosion
Opened Jan 27, 2003 · Closed Nov 19, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
IN SEPTEMBER 2002, A FUEL CYLINDER IN A NATURAL GAS POWERED VEHICLE (NGV) EXPLODED DURING A FIRE.FORD AND VRTC TEST ENGINEERS JOINTLY EXAMINED THE INCIDENT VEHICLE AND REVIEWED TESTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE (PRD) WAS PROPER.THE PURPOSE OF A PRD IS TO PROTECT A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS TANK FROM OVERPRESSURE BY ALLOWING THE CNG TO VENT WHEN THE TEMPERATURE REACHES A SPECIFIC POINT.THE PRD WAS REMOVED FROM THE FAILED TANK AND SUBJECTED TO A YIELD TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION TEST. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT A DIRECT FLAME (FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE) ONTO THE CYLINDER (LOCATED BEHIND THE REAR SEAT IN THE TRUNK)COMPROMISED THE HOOP STRENGTH OF THE NATURAL GAS CYLINDER, THUS ALLOWING THE CYLINDER TO FAIL PRIOR TO THE PRD RELEASING AT ITSDESIGNED TEMPERATURE.AS A RESULT OF THIS TESTING AND REVIEW OF THE INVOLVED VEHICLE, FORD HAS DEVELOPED AN INSULATOR TO INSULATE THE NATURAL GAS FUEL TANK FROM A LOCALLY DIRECTED FLAME PROJECTING FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE.INSULATORS WILL BE INSTALLED BEHIND THE BACK SEAT ON SUBJECT VEHICLES TO PREVENT FUTURE FAILURES OF THIS TYPE. FORD'S ACTION ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF ODI.THEREFORE, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
PE02071 · Cng Tank Exploding In A Fire
Opened Oct 1, 2002 · Closed Jan 27, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
AN EXPLOSION OF A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) TANK SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OCCUR, AS THE TANK IS FITTED WITH A PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICE (PRD). THIS PRD SHOULD RELEASE THE CNG IN THE TANK, PRIOR TO THE PRESSURE REACHING THE TANK BURST PRESSURE.THE PRD DID NOT RELEASE IN THE SUBJECT WISCONSIN POLICE CRUISER EXPLOSION.NHTSA HAS RECOVERED THE PRD VALVE FROM THE TANK THAT EXPLODED AND TESTING WILL BE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH WHY THIS TANK SAFETY VALVE DID NOT RELEASE IN THE VERY HIGH TEMPERATURE FIRE THAT OCCURRED IN THE POLICE CRUISER.THERE IS ONLY THE SINGLE KNOWN EVENT, BUT DUE TO THE CATASTROPIC FORCE OF SUCH AN EXPLOSION AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY AND LOSS OF LIFE, THIS INVESTIGATION IS BEING UPGRADED.
Illustration