Illustration2001 FORD ECONOLINE TRUCK CRUISE CONTROL STOPPED WORKING AFTER THE BRAKE SWITCH RECALL WAS REPAIRED. *NJ THE CONSUMER STATED THERE WAS A RUMBLING/GRINDING NOISE COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER VERIFIED THE NOISE COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE WHEEL BEARING WAS LOOSE. *JB
2001 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: 11 of 28 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 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine. 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.
1 crash reports2 fire reports0 injury reports
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
8 reportsI HAVE A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE WAGON VAN THAT WAS RECALLED ABOUT JUNE OF 2007 BECAUSE OF A DEFECT WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL. WHEN I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN AMERICUS, GEORGIA, THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY PARTS TO REPAIR THE CRUISE CONTROL. THAT IT WAS ON BACK ORDER. IT HAS BEEN ALMOST 1 YEAR AND STILL THEY HAVE NOT OF…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE WAGON VAN THAT WAS RECALLED ABOUT JUNE OF 2007 BECAUSE OF A DEFECT WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL. WHEN I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN AMERICUS, GEORGIA, THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY PARTS TO REPAIR THE CRUISE CONTROL. THAT IT WAS ON BACK ORDER. IT HAS BEEN ALMOST 1 YEAR AND STILL THEY HAVE NOT OFFERED TO REPAIR THE CRUISE CONTROL THEIR REASON IS THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PARTS. *TR
2001 FORD ECONOLINE WITH A RECALL. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE DEALER KEEPS TELLING HIM THAT THE PARTS ARE NOT IN. DEALER STATED THEY ONLY GET AS MANY AS FORD RELEASES AND CAN'T HELP THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THEM. *KB
2001 FORD ECONOLINE RECALL FOR SPEED CONTROL. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE DEALER TOLD HIM THE PART WAS NOT IN YET. HE WAS TOLD THE PART WAS IN AND WENT TO THE DEALER TO BE TOLD IT WASN'T FOR HIS VEHICLE. *KB
A WEEK AGO WE RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR OUR 2001 ECONOLINE TRUCK CONCERNING THE FUSED JUMPER HARNESS. WE ALSO SAW IT ON THE NEWS. WE CALLED THE FORD GARAGE HERE TO GET THIS REPAIRED AND THEY SAID TO CALL BACK IN APRIL. THIS VEHICLE IS USED EVERY DAY FOR WORK AND IT IS A GREAT CONCERN OF OURS THAT WE ARE DRIVING AN UNSAFE …
Read full complaint
A WEEK AGO WE RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR OUR 2001 ECONOLINE TRUCK CONCERNING THE FUSED JUMPER HARNESS. WE ALSO SAW IT ON THE NEWS. WE CALLED THE FORD GARAGE HERE TO GET THIS REPAIRED AND THEY SAID TO CALL BACK IN APRIL. THIS VEHICLE IS USED EVERY DAY FOR WORK AND IT IS A GREAT CONCERN OF OURS THAT WE ARE DRIVING AN UNSAFE VEHICLE AND WERE TOLD TO WAIT A MONTH! THE DEALERSHIP HERE IN ROCHESTER MN. IS ROCHESTER FORD. IF THE PARTS AREN'T AVAILABLE, I WANT THIS DOCUMENTED THAT WE COULDN'T GET THEM. MRS SORENSEN *TR
2001 FORD ECONOLINE WITH SPEED CONTROL SENSOR RECALL. CONSUMER STATES THAT BOTH VANS HAVE THIS RECALL CONCERNING THE SPEED CONTROL AND THAT THE PARTS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL AUGUST OF 2008 IN ORDER TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM. *KB THE SECOND VAN IS A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE. *JB THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE SPE…
Read full complaint
2001 FORD ECONOLINE WITH SPEED CONTROL SENSOR RECALL. CONSUMER STATES THAT BOTH VANS HAVE THIS RECALL CONCERNING THE SPEED CONTROL AND THAT THE PARTS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL AUGUST OF 2008 IN ORDER TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM. *KB THE SECOND VAN IS A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE. *JB THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE SPEED CONTROL SWITCH, BUT THEY DIDN'T INSTALL THE FUSED WIRING HARNESS PER THE RECALL. *JB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PART WAS UNAVAILABLE AND THAT THEY WOULD DISCONNECT THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REMEDY. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO D…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PART WAS UNAVAILABLE AND THAT THEY WOULD DISCONNECT THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REMEDY. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 15,000. UPDATED 01-15-08. *KB UPDATED 12/12/07
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE BECAUSE OF THE SPEED CONTROL RECALL. HE STATED THAT THERE WAS NO SAFETY WARNING LIGHT REGARDING A POSSIBLE FIRE. THE INSULATION ON ALL OF THE ELECTRICAL WIRES IN THE UNDERCARRIAGE WAS IMPROPERLY FUSED AND THE LOW-WEIGHT SH…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE BECAUSE OF THE SPEED CONTROL RECALL. HE STATED THAT THERE WAS NO SAFETY WARNING LIGHT REGARDING A POSSIBLE FIRE. THE INSULATION ON ALL OF THE ELECTRICAL WIRES IN THE UNDERCARRIAGE WAS IMPROPERLY FUSED AND THE LOW-WEIGHT SHOCKS WERE INCORRECT AND FAULTY. HE STATED THAT THE DEACTIVATION SWITCH CONTAINED THE INCORRECT INSULATION. THE RECALL NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 97,000. UPDATED 01/09/08. *LJ UPDATED 12/12/07 *TR
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.
03V282000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
Aug 5, 2003
ON CERTAIN CUTAWAY CHASSIS CAB WITH THE SCHOOL BUS OPTION, TWO BRACKETS AND TWO OUTRIGGER MEMBERS ARE MISSING IN THE AREA OF THE FUEL TANK.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE BRACKETS AND OUTRIGGER MEMBERS ARE INTENDED TO ENHANCE CRASH PERFORMANCE.
Remedy: FORD WILL SEND TECHNICIANS TO THE OWNER'S LOCATION TO INSPECT AND ADD THE BRACKETS AND OUTRIGGERS AS REQUIRED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
00V304000 · Child Seat
Oct 4, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN CREW VANS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS." THESE VEHICLES, WHICH ARE DESIGNATED AS TRUCKS, ARE 5 PASSENGER VEHICLES WITH THREE DESIGNATED SEATING POSITIONS IN THE SECOND ROW SEATS. THEY WERE BUILT WITHOUT CHILD SEAT TETHER ANCHORAGE BRACKETS IN THE CENTER POSITION OF THE SECOND ROW SEAT. ALSO THE OWNER GUIDES DO NOT ADDRESS THE CHILD SEAT TETHER ANCHORAGES IN THE CENTER SECOND ROW SEAT POSITION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE CHILD SEAT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY ATTACHED INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE CHILD.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL THE CHILD SEAT TETHER ANCHORAGES AT THE CENTER SECOND ROW SEATING POSITION, AND ALSO REPLACE THE VEHICLE OWNER GUIDES WITH NEW VERSIONS PROVIDING THE REQUIRED WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS. ELEVEN VEHICLES ARE AT DEALERSHIPS AND ASSEMBLY PLANT PERSONNEL WILL REPAIR THESE UNITS AT THE AFFECTED DEALERSHIPS. ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE RETURN OF THE ONE UNIT THAT HAD BEEN SOLD. NO OTHER OWNER NOTIFICATION WILL BE REQUIRED.
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.