NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Wheels complaints
9 reportsClear category filter109,000 miles · Jan 7, 2021
Wheels
THE GOOD YEAR EAGLE SPORT TIRES TORE APART ON A SHORT TRIP TO THE GROCERY STORE AND CAUSED THE CAR TO BE UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE TIRES WERE MANUFACTURED ON JUNE 2019 AND PURCHASED OCTOBER 2019 AND BY JANUARY 3RD OF 2021 THEY WERE FLAT AND CHEWED UP WITH ONLY AROUND 13,000 MILES ON THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE 50,000 MILE TIRES. THI…
Read full complaint
THE GOOD YEAR EAGLE SPORT TIRES TORE APART ON A SHORT TRIP TO THE GROCERY STORE AND CAUSED THE CAR TO BE UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE TIRES WERE MANUFACTURED ON JUNE 2019 AND PURCHASED OCTOBER 2019 AND BY JANUARY 3RD OF 2021 THEY WERE FLAT AND CHEWED UP WITH ONLY AROUND 13,000 MILES ON THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE 50,000 MILE TIRES. THIS COMPLAINT IS INVOLVING THE GOODYEAR TIRES THAT WERE ON THE CAR AND THE ONE THAT FAILED AND WAS CHEWED UP DESPITE LOW MILES AND RECENTLY MANUFACTURED/MADE WITHIN THE LAST 19 MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS HAPPENING. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT AFTER THE TIRE WAS DISCOVERED CHEWED UP THE BRAKE SYSTEM WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AS THE TIRE CAUSED DAMAGE. THE BRAKES WERE NOT RESPONSIVE TO STOPPING AFTER THE TIRE WAS CHEWED UP EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS SOME BRAKING POWER WHEN BRAKE PEDAL WAS PUSHED DOWN TO THE FLOOR, THE BRAKING POWER WAS REDUCED AND THE BRAKE LIGHT ON THE CAR CAME ONE. THAT IS TO SAY THAT THE TIRE FAILURE DAMAGED SOME OF THE BRAKING COMPONENETS IN THE VEHICLE. DOT C0X3 2E1R 0619
NHTSA ODI #11386905
119,000 miles · May 31, 2016
Wheels
FORD RECALL FOR CRACKS IN POLICE INTERCEPTOR WHEELS THAT WAS CANCELLED AND REMOVED FROM OASIS DATABASE IF WHEELS ARE NOT ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE ANY LONGER. WHEEL IS MARKED WITH THE NUMBERS OF THE DEFECTIVE ONES AND HAS A VISIBLE CRACK AND CREAKS AND WON'T HOLD A BALANCE AND WOBBLES WHILE DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AND LOOSES AIR…
Read full complaint
FORD RECALL FOR CRACKS IN POLICE INTERCEPTOR WHEELS THAT WAS CANCELLED AND REMOVED FROM OASIS DATABASE IF WHEELS ARE NOT ON A LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE ANY LONGER. WHEEL IS MARKED WITH THE NUMBERS OF THE DEFECTIVE ONES AND HAS A VISIBLE CRACK AND CREAKS AND WON'T HOLD A BALANCE AND WOBBLES WHILE DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AND LOOSES AIR . WHEEL IS UNSAFE IN ANY USAGE AND WILL EVENTUALLY FAIL AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME WEATHER POLICE OR PRIVATE AND SHOULD BE REPLACED BY FORD UNDER RECALL REGARDLESS OF ANY PRIOR NOTES. RECALL WORK WAS STARTED BUT NOT COMPLETED AS ALL WHEELS WERE REPLACED BUT ONE BEFORE BEING SOLD TO ME BY RUSSIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, SINCE THE OTHER WHEELS WERE FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE THIS LAST WHEEL IS NO DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE REPLACED UNDER RECALL AS ITS UNSAFE TO USE. FORD STILL COVERS UNSAFE STEERING LINKAGE AND LIGHT MODULES REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP YET REFUSES TO REPLACE AN UNSAFE WHEEL THAT CAN EVENTUALLY CAUSE AN ACCIDENT AND HARM TO THE DRIVER AND ANY OTHER VEHICLE NEARBY AS WELL. A SAFETY DEFECT SHOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP. I WAS ABLE TO DO A SCREEN CAPTURE OF THE RECALL THAT WAS NOT FULLY COMPLETED BEFORE FORD REMOVED IT FROM OASIS AFTER LEARNING IT WAS PRIVATELY OWNED NOW.
NHTSA ODI #10871544
Mileage unknown · Apr 8, 2016
Wheels
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD THREE MANUFACTURER RECALLS THAT NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DEALER; HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT COMPLETED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE WHEEL WELLS HAD A PREMATURE LEAK OF AIR AND THAT THE TIRES HAD T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD THREE MANUFACTURER RECALLS THAT NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DEALER; HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT COMPLETED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE WHEEL WELLS HAD A PREMATURE LEAK OF AIR AND THAT THE TIRES HAD TO CONSTANTLY BE REFILLED WITH AIR. THE MANUFACTURER AND THE DEALER INDICATED THAT BECAUSE THE CONTACT WAS NOT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE RECALL REPAIR FOR ONE OF THE THREE RECALLS. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE DEALER WAS TO SCHEDULE THE REPAIRS FOR THE OTHER TWO RECALLS AND WAS UNCERTAIN OF WHEN THE WHEELS WOULD BE EITHER REPLACED BY THE DEALER OR AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP. THE TIRES HAD NOT YET BEEN REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE MORE THAN TWICE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10854316
133,000 miles · Jan 16, 2014
SteeringWheels
BEGINNING IN SUMMER 2013, STEERING BECAME NOTICEABLY TIGHTER WHEN MAKING SLOW SPEED TURNS. NOVEMBER 2013 THE VEHICLE WAS BROUGHT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE AN ALIGNMENT DUE TO TIRES CONTINUOUSLY WEARING ON INSIDE WALLS, WHICH I SUSPECT IS DUE TO THE STEEL WHEEL RECALL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 07V079000) BUT FORD WILL NOT HONOR…
Read full complaint
BEGINNING IN SUMMER 2013, STEERING BECAME NOTICEABLY TIGHTER WHEN MAKING SLOW SPEED TURNS. NOVEMBER 2013 THE VEHICLE WAS BROUGHT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE AN ALIGNMENT DUE TO TIRES CONTINUOUSLY WEARING ON INSIDE WALLS, WHICH I SUSPECT IS DUE TO THE STEEL WHEEL RECALL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 07V079000) BUT FORD WILL NOT HONOR IF THE CAR IS IN PRIVATE POSESSION. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED, I WAS ADVISED THE STEERING SHAFT WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. UPON RESEARCH, I DISCOVERED OTHER OWNERS EXPERINCING THE SAME ISSUES. FORD ISSUED A RECALL (FORD RECALL #13S08) TO INSPECT AND REPLACE THE UPPER AND LOWER STEERING SHAFT ONLY FOR 2005-2011 MODELS. THE DEALERSHIP ADVISED ME TO CONTACT FORD DIRECTLY, AND I DID. I EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS THAT THIS IN AN IMMEDIATE SAFETY CONCERN AND FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. I WAS ADVISED BY FORD THAT THEY SPOKE WITH THE SERVICE MANAGER AT MY DEALERSHIP AND VERIFIED THAT MY CAR IS INDEED HAVING ISSUES THAT ARE EXACTLY LIKE THE RECALL INCLUDED. I WAS TOLD THAT MY CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL AND THAT THEY WOULD KEEP MY INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THEM TO REVIEW IN THE EVENT OF A FUTURE RECALL. I AM HAVING AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC REPLACE THE UPPER AND LOWER SHAFT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CHANCE IT COULD BECOME DISENGAGED AND RENDER THE VEHICLE INOPERABLE. I STRONGLY URGE THE NHTSA TO INVESTIGATE THIS AND OTHER CASES OF 2004 CROWN VICTORIA (CVPI) OWNERS WHO COMPLAIN OF BOTH THE STEERING ISSUE AND THE RECALL THAT FORD FAILS TO FIX ON THE STEEL WHEELS. THE VEHICLE IS NO LONGER IN FLEET USE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM OF THE DEFECTIVE STEEL WHEELS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FORD. THEY NEED TO INSPECT AND REPLACE THE WHEELS JUST AS THEY WOULD FOR ANY OTHER RECALL REGARDLESS OF THE CURRENT OWNER, HOW A RECALL SHOULD WORK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10560260
Mileage unknown · Mar 9, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingWheels
THE # 6 SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF MY ENGINES CYLINDER HEAD ALSO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AIR LEAKING FROM MY WHEELS & A VIBRATION AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10451036
122,404 miles · Nov 11, 2009
Wheels
RECEIVED A RECALL LETTER FROM FORD REGARDING A 2004 CROWN VICTORY THAT I ACQUIRED 08/09 AS A FORMER POLICE CRUISER. LETTER STATED I HAD TO GET THIS CAR TO A DEALER ASAP AS THIS WAS AN 07 RECALL THAT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED. THE LETTER CLEARLY STATES DEFECTIVE WHEELS MUST BE REPLACED OR ONUS IS ON ME FOR ANY FUTURE FAILURES REGARD…
Read full complaint
RECEIVED A RECALL LETTER FROM FORD REGARDING A 2004 CROWN VICTORY THAT I ACQUIRED 08/09 AS A FORMER POLICE CRUISER. LETTER STATED I HAD TO GET THIS CAR TO A DEALER ASAP AS THIS WAS AN 07 RECALL THAT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED. THE LETTER CLEARLY STATES DEFECTIVE WHEELS MUST BE REPLACED OR ONUS IS ON ME FOR ANY FUTURE FAILURES REGARDING THIS RECALL. I CALLED THE CUSTOMER SERVICE NUMBER ON LETTER AND THEY EXPLAINED THAT THE WHEELS (SPECIAL FOR POLICE) HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DEVELOP CRACKS AND SPLIT OPEN FURTHER AT SOME POINT IN TIME. I ADVISED THAT I WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND CAR WAS NOT A POLICE VEHICLE ANY LONGER & THEY SAID IT MATTERED NOT, AND MUST BE REPLACED. THEY GAVE ME A DEALER NAME & NUMBER WHICH I PROMPTLY CALLED THE NEXT DAY. DEALER HAD LITTLE INFO ON THIS SO I GAVE THEM THE RECALL NUMBER AND EXPLAINED WHAT I WAS TOLD AND WHAT LETTER SAID, DATED OCT '09. DEALER DECLINED TO ORDER PARTS AND SAID THEY WOULD NOT REPAIR UNDER RECALL SINCE IT WAS NO LONGER IN POLICE USE. I THEN CALLED CS AGAIN AND THEY AGREED THIS TIME WITH DEALER. I ESCALATED TO CUSTOMER RELATIONS WHICH WAS NO HELP WHATSOEVER. I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT FORD HAD CONTACTED ME, THE LETTER DID NOT SAY TO DISREGARD IF NO LONGER USED AS A POLICE VEHICLE, ONLY THAT THIS WAS A HAZARD AND NEEDED TO GET DONE. I ASKED FOR A LETTER OF EXPLANATION AS TO HOW IT WAS SAFE FOR ME TO DRIVE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN IF IT WAS NOT SAFE FOR POLICE AND THEY REFUSED, BUT DID TELL ME IT "SHOULD" BE OK. THE RECALL NUMBER & DESCRIPTION READS 07S48-16" STEEL WHEEL REPLACEMENT. I CAN FAX A COPY OF LETTER IF YOU REQUIRE, BUT FORD IS ADAMANT IN REFUSAL TO DO ANYTHING AFTER SOUNDING THE ALERT TO ME AND PUTTING ME IN A POTENTIALLY UNSAFE SITUATION, PLUS CLEARLY STATING I AM RESPONSIBLE IF ANYTHING HAPPENS AND I HAVE IGNORED THE LETTER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10291818
135,000 miles · Mar 6, 2009
Wheels
LOST CONTROL OF MY VEHICLE DURING AN EXIT TURN OFF A HIGHWAY I-75 ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO. AFTER RECEIVING A SAFETY RE- CALL 07SS48-S1 LETTER ON THE POLICE MODEL CROWN VICTORIA I TOOK TO PRESTIGE FORD AND WAS TOLD ALL WHEELS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT BUT SINCE THE VEHICLE IS NO LONGER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE C…
Read full complaint
LOST CONTROL OF MY VEHICLE DURING AN EXIT TURN OFF A HIGHWAY I-75 ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO. AFTER RECEIVING A SAFETY RE- CALL 07SS48-S1 LETTER ON THE POLICE MODEL CROWN VICTORIA I TOOK TO PRESTIGE FORD AND WAS TOLD ALL WHEELS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT BUT SINCE THE VEHICLE IS NO LONGER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE COST FOR ALL WHEELS. I HAVE TO CONSTANTLY KEEP AIR IN THEM EVERY WEEK AND HAS BEEN A SEVERE SAFETY ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO CONTROLLING THE VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10260951
93,000 miles · Jul 24, 2008
Wheels
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V079000 (WHEELS). WHEN THE DEALER INSPECTED THE WHEELS, THEY STATED THAT THE RECALL DID NOT APPLY; HOWEVER, THE DEALER BILLED FORD FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. A SECOND DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT HIS VEHICLE WAS…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V079000 (WHEELS). WHEN THE DEALER INSPECTED THE WHEELS, THEY STATED THAT THE RECALL DID NOT APPLY; HOWEVER, THE DEALER BILLED FORD FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. A SECOND DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT HIS VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECALL, SO HE SCHEDULED AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THE REPAIR PERFORMED. THE PREVIOUS DEALER BILLED HIM FOR THE REPAIR WORK. THE RECALL REPAIR IS SPECIFIC TO WHEELS WITH 9 HOLES, WHICH THE CONTACT CURRENTLY HAS ON HIS VEHICLE. THE REPAIR INCLUDED REPLACING THE WHEELS WITH 13 HOLES. THE PART NUMBER OF THE WHEELS IS 3W731007CG. THE CONTACT HAS OWNED THE VEHICLE FOR FIVE MONTHS AND HAS ALL PRIOR MAINTENANCE RECORDS FOR THE VEHICLE. THE CURRENT AND APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 93,000.
NHTSA ODI #10235625
32,819 miles · Dec 10, 2004
Wheels
TROOPER WAS ON PATROL, WHILE DRIVING, HE HEARD A LOUD NOISE FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE, FELT A SHIMMY IN THE STEERING, PULLED OVER AND OBSERVED THE RT FRT TIRE WAS SUDDENLY LOW ON AIR. HE RETURNED TO STATION, PARKED THE CAR AND CONTINUED HIS PATROL IN ANOTHER CAR. WHEN HE RETURNED TO STATION, THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE ON THE PARK…
Read full complaint
TROOPER WAS ON PATROL, WHILE DRIVING, HE HEARD A LOUD NOISE FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE, FELT A SHIMMY IN THE STEERING, PULLED OVER AND OBSERVED THE RT FRT TIRE WAS SUDDENLY LOW ON AIR. HE RETURNED TO STATION, PARKED THE CAR AND CONTINUED HIS PATROL IN ANOTHER CAR. WHEN HE RETURNED TO STATION, THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE ON THE PARKED CAR WAS TOTALY FLAT. THE TIRE WAS EXAMINED BY A FORD DEALER, WHO FOUND THE WHEEL HAD AN APPROX 1/8" CRACK APPROX 16" LONG IN THE WHEEL. THE WHEEL WAS REPLACED BY THE DEALER.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10102520
NHTSA investigations
6PE15028 · 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.
PE14021 · Steering Column Shaft Obstruction
Opened Jul 7, 2014 · Closed Nov 21, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System; Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
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.
Illustration