IllustrationWATER LEAKING INTO FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE OF VEHICLE, DAMAGING CARPETING AND CAUSING MILDEW DAMAGE...HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND SOURCE OF LEAK...BUT DAMPNESS OCCURS EVEN WHEN VEHICLE IS NOT BEING DRIVEN, EVERY TIME IT RAINS OR SNOWS.
2000 Ford Econoline
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Econoline years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 6 of 39 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 9 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 6 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
3 crash reports4 fire reports3 injury reports
What owners actually said
39 reportsWINDSHIELD WIPER FUSE (30 AMP INSIDE FUSE PANEL) KEEPS BLOWING. THERE WAS NO EVENT EXCEPT A SMALL BUMP ( SMALL BUMP ) IN THE ROAD. THIS CAUSED RADIO TO POWER OFF FOR SECOND THEN COME BACK ON. SMOKE WAS SEEN COMING OUT FROM UNDER STEERING SIDE DASH. I REFUSED, AND WIPERS WOULD WORK UNTIL I ANY MINOR DIP,BUMP,OR TURNING WOULD CAUS…
Read full complaint
WINDSHIELD WIPER FUSE (30 AMP INSIDE FUSE PANEL) KEEPS BLOWING. THERE WAS NO EVENT EXCEPT A SMALL BUMP ( SMALL BUMP ) IN THE ROAD. THIS CAUSED RADIO TO POWER OFF FOR SECOND THEN COME BACK ON. SMOKE WAS SEEN COMING OUT FROM UNDER STEERING SIDE DASH. I REFUSED, AND WIPERS WOULD WORK UNTIL I ANY MINOR DIP,BUMP,OR TURNING WOULD CAUSE FUSE TO BLOW. NOW THE FUSE BLOWS AS SOON AS IT IS PUT IN. SAFETY ITEM, WIPERS ARE NEEDED TO DRIVE SAFE, IN FOG,RAIN AND SNOW
FRONT WELD AT UNIVERSAL JOINT, FAILED CAUSING DRIVESHAFT TO DROP TO THE GROUND WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH. EXAMINATION OF THE FAILED COMPONENTS SUGGESTS A LIKELY FATIGUE FAILURE CAUSED BY A POOR WELD. WELD CONTAINED SPHERE-SHAPED PORES AND WAS NOT CENTERED ON THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE U-JOINT AND THE SHAFT. ALTHOUG…
Read full complaint
FRONT WELD AT UNIVERSAL JOINT, FAILED CAUSING DRIVESHAFT TO DROP TO THE GROUND WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH. EXAMINATION OF THE FAILED COMPONENTS SUGGESTS A LIKELY FATIGUE FAILURE CAUSED BY A POOR WELD. WELD CONTAINED SPHERE-SHAPED PORES AND WAS NOT CENTERED ON THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE U-JOINT AND THE SHAFT. ALTHOUGH FAILURE WAS LIKELY CAUSED BY A MANUFACTURING DEFECT, DEALER HAS THUS FAR DENIED A WARRANTY CLAIM CITING TO THE VEHICLE'S MILEAGE. SINCE THIS WELD WAS PROBABLY PRODUCED BY AUTOMATED EQUIPMENT, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT OTHER DRIVESHAFTS MANUFACTURED DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD MAY ALSO BE DEFECTIVE. A FAILURE AT A HIGHER SPEED, SUCH AS ON THE HIGHWAY, MAY RESULT IN MUCH MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.*AK
CONSUMER HEARD A FUNNY NOISE WHILE DRIVING, AND WAS TOLD BY PASSING MOTORIST THAT THE REAR TIRE WAS SHIMMYING BACK AND FORTH, AND WAS READY TO FALL OFF. UPON INSPECTION OF THE TIRE BY THE DEALERSHIP, THEY INDICATED THAT A LUG BROKE. *AK
CONSUMER NOTICED WHILE MAKING A LEFT OR RIGHT TURN AT 50 MPH, THE VEHICLE WOULD FISH TAIL. DEALER HAD BEEN CONTACTED. *AK DUE TO THE VEHICLE FISHTAILING THERE WAS A CRASH. *JB *NM
WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH LEFT FRONT TIRE TREAD SEPARATED. *AK *NLM
CONSUMER COMPLAINED ABOUT AIR CONDITIONING SWITCH THAT CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE DRIVING. MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL.*AK
THE VAN SMELLED OF BURNING RUBBER SEVERAL TIMES DURING MY 1000 MILE DEER HUNTING TRIP TO WEST VIRGINIA. I STOPPED AT MY NEPHEW JOHN DAILEY'S HOME (A DEPUTY SHERRIF IN PUTNAM COUNTY WV)TO UNLOAD MY GUNS AND A FEW MAJOR ITEMS. I INFORMED HIM I SMELLED BURNING RUBBER IN MY VAN AND WAS TAKING IT TO THE FORD GARAGE TO BE CHECKED. …
Read full complaint
THE VAN SMELLED OF BURNING RUBBER SEVERAL TIMES DURING MY 1000 MILE DEER HUNTING TRIP TO WEST VIRGINIA. I STOPPED AT MY NEPHEW JOHN DAILEY'S HOME (A DEPUTY SHERRIF IN PUTNAM COUNTY WV)TO UNLOAD MY GUNS AND A FEW MAJOR ITEMS. I INFORMED HIM I SMELLED BURNING RUBBER IN MY VAN AND WAS TAKING IT TO THE FORD GARAGE TO BE CHECKED. APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES FROM HIS HOME SMOKE BILLOWED FROM BENEATH THE DASH. IT SEEMED TO ORIGINATE UNDER THE DASH APPROXIMATELY HALF WAY ACROSS THE VEHICLE. IT SEEMED TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE BEHIND THE RADIO. I HAD A BAG OF TRASH AND OLD NEWSPAPERS ALONG WITH PAPER BAGS OF BELONGINGS ON THE FLOOR ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, IN THE SEAT AND BEHIND THE PASSENGER SEAT. ALL OF A SUDDEN THE PAPER MATERIALS ON THE FRONT FLOOR WERE ON FIRE AND IT SPREAD QUICKLY ACROSS THE SEAT TO THE REAR COMPARTMENT. I SLOWED THE VEHICLE TO JUMP OUT BUT CARS WERE STOPPED IN THE OTHER LANE. PARENTS HAD PICKED UP CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL AND THE LONG LINE OF VEHICLES WERE FILLED WITH CHILDREN. I WAS AFRAID THE ABANDONED VEHICLE WOULD CONTINUE TO TRAVEL DOWN THE ROAD AND HIT ONE OR MORE OF THE CARS. SO I TRIED TO DRIVE IT OFF THE ROAD TO A SAFE RESTING PLACE BEFORE JUMPING OUT. I JUMPED OUT AS I STEERED IT ACROSS THE DITCH AND UP ON THE BANK BESIDE THE ROAD. IT ROLLED BACKWARDS INTO THE DITCH WERE IT BURNED COMPLETELY. I CONTACTED THE DEALER FROM WHOM I HAD PURCHASED THE VEHICLE JUST A FEW MONTHS EARLIER AND TOLD HIM WHAT HAD HAPPENED. I HOPED FOR A DISCOUNT ON A REPLACEMENT VAN BUT I WAS TREATED RUDELY. UPON THE ADVICE OF AND WITH THE HELP OF THE SERVICE MANAGER I COMPLETED A DEALER REQUEST FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS REVIEW. I FOLLOWED UP WITH THE DEALER TO AS CERTAIN HE STATUS OF MY REQUEST BUT HE HAS NEVER HAD ANY INFORMATION. TO DATE NOON HAS CONTACTED ME ABOUT THE INCIDENT. ON MY WAS HOME TO FLORIDA I RELAYED MY INCIDEN TO A FEW INDIVIDUALS AT REST AREAS, GAS STATIONS, ETC AND FOUND THREE (3) HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF 2000 FORD ECONOLINE VANS THAT HAD BURN
WHILE PROCEEDING SLOWLY, APPROX. 3 MPH, MOVING UP AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, STEERING WHEEL JERKED TO THE LEFT, FELT SLACK WITH SOME SLIGHT VIBRATION & POPPING AT , AND WHEN I PRESSED THE BRAKES IT ALMOST SEEMED AS THOSE THE BRAKES LOCKED UP. PEDAL WOULD ONLY DEPRESS APPROX 1/4 , WITH SOME VIBRATION IN PEDAL, WITH A GRUMBLING NOISE. …
Read full complaint
WHILE PROCEEDING SLOWLY, APPROX. 3 MPH, MOVING UP AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, STEERING WHEEL JERKED TO THE LEFT, FELT SLACK WITH SOME SLIGHT VIBRATION & POPPING AT , AND WHEN I PRESSED THE BRAKES IT ALMOST SEEMED AS THOSE THE BRAKES LOCKED UP. PEDAL WOULD ONLY DEPRESS APPROX 1/4 , WITH SOME VIBRATION IN PEDAL, WITH A GRUMBLING NOISE. THE VAN THEN FELT AS THOUGH BRAKES LOCKED UP WITH THE REAR END SLIDING. NO COLLISION BUT WAS EXTREMELY CLOSE. THERE WERE NO HIGH SPEEDS INVOLVED & IN ADDITION THE ROADS WERE NOT WET. THE VAN WAS THEN TOWED TO A LOCAL DEALERSHIP WHERE THE PROBLEM WOULD NOT DUPLICATE; THEREFORE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN FOR REPAIR.*AK
WHEN BRAKING CONSUMER'S FOOT COME IN CONTACT WITH FOOT REST AND INTERFERED WITH BRAKING PRESSURE OF BRAKE PEDAL. DEALER / MANUFACTURER WERE NOT NOTIFIED AT THIS TIME. FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.*AK
Official recalls
308V051000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
Feb 4, 2008
FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
00V284000 · Equipment:other:labels
Sep 21, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: BI-FUEL CNG PICKUP TRUCKS AND BI-FUEL CNG VANS, MODIFIED BY CFI CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 303, "FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY OF COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS VEHICLES." THE LABEL AFFIXED TO THE FUEL FILLER DOOR BY THE VEHICLE MODIFIER CONTAINS THE INSPECTION DATE AND EXPIRATION DATE OF THE CNG TANK. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE STATEMENT "SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE FUEL CONTAINER FOR INSPECTION AND SERVICE LIFE."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THESE VEHICLES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED A LABEL WITH THE REQUIRED STATEMENT, ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIXING THE LABEL AT THE FUEL FILLER DOOR. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN NOVEMBER 2, 2000. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
00V115000 · Wheels:lugs/nuts/bolts/studs
Apr 19, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CUTAWAYS AND STRIPPED CHASSIS WITH SINGLE REAR WHEELS. THE LUG NUTS CAN POTENTIALLY BOTTOM OUT ON A SHOULDER ON THE STUDS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THERE CAN BE AN INADEQUATE CLAMP LOAD TO ATTACH THE WHEEL TO THE AXLE, RESULTING IN NOISE, DAMAGE TO THE WHEEL AND HUB, OR IN EXTREME CASES, LOSS OF A REAR WHEEL WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE REAR WHEEL ATTACHING STUDS.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · 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.