← New search

2000 Ford Expedition

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Expedition years

Owner complaints for the 2000 Ford Expedition are substantially higher than the model-year median of 155.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

443 reports with mileage · 447 unknown

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.

  • Electrical System. Review the 214 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Tires. Review the 172 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 124 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

55 crash reports199 fire reports37 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

214 reports
Clear category filter
54,200 miles · Oct 16, 2005
Electrical SystemStructure

CHRONIC WINDSHIELD LEAK, DRIVERS SIDE. COMPLAINED TO DEALER (3/14/05 & 4/4/05) - SEAL SUPPOSEDLY REPAIRED? STILL CONTINUED TO LEAK. SEVERE RUSTING UNDER DASH AREA. STARTED HAVING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS (FAN BLOWER AND COURTESY LIGHTS WOULD COME ON BY THEMSELVES WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS OFF AND PARKED AT NIGHT). DEALER CLAIMED FUSE BLO…

Read full complaint

CHRONIC WINDSHIELD LEAK, DRIVERS SIDE. COMPLAINED TO DEALER (3/14/05 & 4/4/05) - SEAL SUPPOSEDLY REPAIRED? STILL CONTINUED TO LEAK. SEVERE RUSTING UNDER DASH AREA. STARTED HAVING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS (FAN BLOWER AND COURTESY LIGHTS WOULD COME ON BY THEMSELVES WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS OFF AND PARKED AT NIGHT). DEALER CLAIMED FUSE BLOCK AND GEM MODULE WERE DAMAGED DUE TO THE WATER LEAK (A DEFECT). THE SAME LEAK WE HAD BEEN CONTINUALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT. THE WINDSHIELD, WINDSHIELD SEAL, FUSE BLOCK AND GEM WERE ALL REPLACED. THE INTERIOR RUSTING WAS NOT AND CANNOT EASILY BE FIXED. ALL THIS BECAUSE OF A FORD DEFECT. THE TOTAL REPAIR WAS OVER $1,000. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10139812

Mileage unknown · Sep 15, 2005
Electrical SystemStructureVisibility

I FIRST NOTICED A PROBLEM WITH MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS, THEY WOULD NOT COME ON OR JUST STOP RUNNING THEN THEY STARTED NOT TURNING OFF I HAD TO PULL THE FUSE TO TURN THE WIPERS ON AND OFF. I MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH FORD TO HAVE THE PROBLEM LOOKED AT AND WAS ADVISED THAT THE CONTROL SWITCH WAS BAD AND WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED ALSO…

Read full complaint

I FIRST NOTICED A PROBLEM WITH MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS, THEY WOULD NOT COME ON OR JUST STOP RUNNING THEN THEY STARTED NOT TURNING OFF I HAD TO PULL THE FUSE TO TURN THE WIPERS ON AND OFF. I MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH FORD TO HAVE THE PROBLEM LOOKED AT AND WAS ADVISED THAT THE CONTROL SWITCH WAS BAD AND WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED ALSO DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD AND SAME APPOINTMENT I HAD TO HAVE A BRAKE SENSOR REPLACED. I STARTED NOTICING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS LIKE THE RADIO WOULD TURN OFF WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN OUT OF PARK AND SOME TIMES IT WOULD TURN OFF WHEN YOU WERE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND TURN BACK ON BY ITS SELF. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN I WOULD BE LEAVING WORK AND TRY TO USE THE REMOTE TO UNLOCK THE DOORS AND IT WOULD NOT WORK AND WHEN I USE THE KEY TO OPEN THE DOOR THE RADIO WOULD BE ON AND THE AC WOULD BE BLOWING AIR. I HAVE SINCE DISCOVERED THAT THE WINDSHIELD IS LEAKING AND AFTER A RAIN WAS WHEN THE PROBLEM WOULD OCCUR MOSTLY. I MADE ANOTHER APPOINTMENT AND ADVISED FORD WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND I WAS ADVISED THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM IN THE FORD EXPEDITION AND FORD F150. I WAS ADVISED THAT THE SEAL ON THE WINDSHIELD OVER TIME SEPARATES FROM THE FRAME AND CAUSES THE LEAK. I SAID THEN THIS IS A DEFECT AND WAS ADVISED NO ITS NOT ITS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS. MY EXPEDITION IS ONLY 5 YEARS OLD ITS A 2000 IN GREAT CONDITION AND HAD BEEN GARAGE KEPT FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS. NOW I AM OUT $1043.69 JUST TO HAVE THE WINDSHIELD REPLACED AND THE GM MODULE AND FUSE BOX REPLACED AS WELL. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10136615

100,000 miles · Aug 19, 2005
Electrical SystemFire

FORD EXPEDITION WAS SITTING IN CARPORT. JUST RETURNED FROM THE DOCTORS OFFICE ABOUT 5:15 PM. ABOUT 6:00 MY SON HAYDEN WAS GOING OUT TO FEED THE ANIMALS AND NOTICED THAT BLACK SMOKE WAS COMMING FROM THE CAR. HE SCREEMED AND AT THAT POINT I RAN TO THE KITCHEN TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. HE POINTED OUT THE SMOKE AND I RAN TO …

Read full complaint

FORD EXPEDITION WAS SITTING IN CARPORT. JUST RETURNED FROM THE DOCTORS OFFICE ABOUT 5:15 PM. ABOUT 6:00 MY SON HAYDEN WAS GOING OUT TO FEED THE ANIMALS AND NOTICED THAT BLACK SMOKE WAS COMMING FROM THE CAR. HE SCREEMED AND AT THAT POINT I RAN TO THE KITCHEN TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. HE POINTED OUT THE SMOKE AND I RAN TO THE BEDROOM TO GET THE KEYS TO THE CAR AND HAD MY SONN CALL 911. I THEN RAN OUT THE DOOR AND WAS GOING TO TRY AND MOVE THE CAR AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. BY THE TIME I COULD GET CLOSE TO THE CAR FLAMES STARTED TO APPEAR ON DRIVERS TO MIDDLE OF THE CAR BETWEEN THE HOOD AND WINDSHIELD. THE BLACK SMOKE BEGAN TO THICKED AND I COULD SEE THE PAINT BUBBLES IN THE HOOD. I ATTEMPTED TO OPEN THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR, BUT IT WAS TOO HOT AND MY SON AND THE 911 OPERATOR WERE TELLING ME TO GET AWAY FROM IT. AT THAT POINT I COULD DO NOTHING BUT WATCH AS MY CAR WAS BURNING AND THEN IT STARTED TO CATCH THE HOUSE ON FIRE AS WELL. AS WE WAITED FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ARRIVE ALL WE COULD DO IS WATCH CAR EXPLODE SEVERAL TIMES AND CAUSE SEVRE DAMAGE TO OUR HOUSE. FORD MOTOR WILL BE AT THE HOUSE MONDAY AUG. 22, 2005 TO REVIEW THIS CASE. EXPERTS IN THE AREA ARE TELLING US THAT THIS WAS CAUSED BY A FAULTY CURISE CONTROL SWITCH AND FORD, TI AND DUPONT ALL KNOW ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT. I WILL HOWEVER NOT STAND BY AND WATCH SINCE WE WERE LUCKY AND NO LIVES WERE LOST,

NHTSA ODI #10133581

48,000 miles · Aug 19, 2005
Electrical System

DT: CONSUMER SAID THAT IN JUNE DEALER REPLACED THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER. CONSUMER TRIED TO START VEHICLE THIS MORNING AND VEHICLE WOULD NOT CRANK. CURRENTLY, DEALER HAD VEHICLE AND THEY WERE REPLACING GM MODULE. CONSUMER WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WERE ELECTRICAL. THE CONSUMER PAID FOR REPAIRS BUT THE DEALER …

Read full complaint

DT: CONSUMER SAID THAT IN JUNE DEALER REPLACED THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER. CONSUMER TRIED TO START VEHICLE THIS MORNING AND VEHICLE WOULD NOT CRANK. CURRENTLY, DEALER HAD VEHICLE AND THEY WERE REPLACING GM MODULE. CONSUMER WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WERE ELECTRICAL. THE CONSUMER PAID FOR REPAIRS BUT THE DEALER HASN'T INFORMED THE CONSUMER AS TO WHY VEHICLE IS HAVING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS. CONSUMER ALWAYS TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR REPAIRS AND SERVICE. CONSUMER WAS AWARE OF AN ARTICLE IN THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS MAGAZINE DEALING WITH ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE MAKE, MODEL, AND YEAR OF HIS VEHICLE. *AK *TT

NHTSA ODI #10127802

Mileage unknown · Jul 18, 2005
Electrical SystemFire

LAST MONTH, MY 2000 FORD EXPEDITION CAUGHT ON FIRE IN MY DRIVEWAY AFTER SITTING FOR ABOUT 3 HOURS. THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT BURST INTO FLAMES AND MELTED EVERY PLASTIC AND RUBBER COMPONENT INSIDE, INCLUDING THE DRIVER-SIDE FRONT TIRE. WITH THE HELP OF THE ROUND ROCK FIRE DEPT., THE FIRE WAS PUT OUT BEFORE IT CONSUMED THE ENTIRE V…

Read full complaint

LAST MONTH, MY 2000 FORD EXPEDITION CAUGHT ON FIRE IN MY DRIVEWAY AFTER SITTING FOR ABOUT 3 HOURS. THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT BURST INTO FLAMES AND MELTED EVERY PLASTIC AND RUBBER COMPONENT INSIDE, INCLUDING THE DRIVER-SIDE FRONT TIRE. WITH THE HELP OF THE ROUND ROCK FIRE DEPT., THE FIRE WAS PUT OUT BEFORE IT CONSUMED THE ENTIRE VEHICLE. A FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT WAS TAKEN AND CONCLUDED IT STARTED IN THE FUSE BOX AREA DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL SHORT.

NHTSA ODI #10129055

50,000 miles · Jul 11, 2005
Electrical SystemInjury

IN SPRING OF 2004 THE OWNER OF A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION VIN. NO. [XXX]. UPON OPENING THE HOOD OF THE VEHICLE, THE COMPONENTS SURROUNDING THE CRUISE CONTROL COMPONENT AND SEVERAL OTHER COMPONENTS INCLUDING THE ABS MODULE WERE SO HOT THAT THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE RECEIVED MINOR BURNS DISCONNECTING THE RUPTURED PART OF THE ABS SYST…

Read full complaint

IN SPRING OF 2004 THE OWNER OF A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION VIN. NO. [XXX]. UPON OPENING THE HOOD OF THE VEHICLE, THE COMPONENTS SURROUNDING THE CRUISE CONTROL COMPONENT AND SEVERAL OTHER COMPONENTS INCLUDING THE ABS MODULE WERE SO HOT THAT THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE RECEIVED MINOR BURNS DISCONNECTING THE RUPTURED PART OF THE ABS SYSTEM. THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN IDLE AND TURNED OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE (1) HOUR WHEN THE EVENT OCCURRED. UPON THE VEHICLE BEING STARTED THE NEXT DAY, THE HORN WOULD NOT WORK, THE ABS SYSTEM LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED AND THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD NOT ENGAGE. IN APRIL 2004, THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH WAS REPLACED. IN LATE MAY, THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH WAS STILL INOPERATIVE AFTER REPLACEMENT. ON JUNE 14,2005 THE COMPLAINTS CALLED FORD WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE VEHICLE WAS CONTINUING TO SHORT OUT IN VARIOUS WAYS INCLUDING PLACING THE VEHICLE IN THE DRIVE POSITION AND A NEW PROBLEM OF THE RADIO SYSTEM WOULD MALFUNCTION. WHEN PLACED BACK IN PARK,THE RADIO WAS RE-ACTIVATE. VEHICLE WAS EXAMINED BY PARKER FORD AND THEY ADVISED THE HORN CIRCUIT HAD BEEN OVERLOADED AND A FUSE BLOWN IN THE HORN MODULE. THEY ALSO ADVISED THE ABS MODULE AND PUMP WERE IN NEED OF REPLACEMENT. THE COMPLAINANT BELIEVES THIS VEHICLE REPRESENTS A CONTINUING FIRE HAZARD AND THAT THE DAMAGED COMPONENT FAILURES, ALL OF WHICH OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE DEFECTIVE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH. COMPLAINANT BELIEVES THAT ADDITIONAL VEHICLES MAY BE AT RISK DUE TO SIMILAR OVERLOADS ON THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. VEHICLE HAS NEVER BEEN WRECKED, SUBMERGED IN WATER OR ALTERED IN ANYWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL FACTORY DESIGN.COMPLAINANT HAS 24 YEARS PRIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE. VEHICLE HISTORY IS ALSO WELL KNOWN TO CURRENT KENTUCKY STATE TROOPER. REQUEST NHTSA IN DEPTH REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FOR CONTINUING PROBLEMS AND COLLATERAL FAILURES OF OTHER COMPONENTS ASSOCIATED WITH SPEED CONTROL SWITCH. *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #10128329

108,543 miles · Jul 10, 2005
Electrical System

WATER (RAIN) RUNNING INTO ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND SHORTING OUT COMPONENTS. I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE ALL COIL PACKS AND STILL COUNTING. CONTACTED FORD TOO MANY TIMES.

NHTSA ODI #10128243

Mileage unknown · Jun 28, 2005
Electrical SystemFire

DT: THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD EXPEDITION. THE VEHICLE BURNED UP WHILE IT WAS SITTING OUTSIDE OF THE CONSUMER'S HOUSE. THE FIRE STARTED AROUND THE ENGINE AND IT ENGULFED THE REST OF THE VEHICLE IN FLAMES.*AK *SB *NM

NHTSA ODI #10124605

62,000 miles · Jun 27, 2005
Electrical System

4 X 4 WARNING LIGHT ON DASH BOARD BEGAN FLASHING. ALL WHEEL DRIVE FAILED. THE FORD DEALER REPLACED THE GEM MODULE AND 4 X 4 SENSOR. I CALLED OTHER FORD DEALER'S TO DOUBLE CHECK THE FINDINGS OF THE DEALER I WAS WORKING WITH. ONE SERVICEMAN COMMENTED THAT THE ONLY WAY THE GEM MODULE CAN GO OUT IS TO GET IT WET. THIS IS DIFF…

Read full complaint

4 X 4 WARNING LIGHT ON DASH BOARD BEGAN FLASHING. ALL WHEEL DRIVE FAILED. THE FORD DEALER REPLACED THE GEM MODULE AND 4 X 4 SENSOR. I CALLED OTHER FORD DEALER'S TO DOUBLE CHECK THE FINDINGS OF THE DEALER I WAS WORKING WITH. ONE SERVICEMAN COMMENTED THAT THE ONLY WAY THE GEM MODULE CAN GO OUT IS TO GET IT WET. THIS IS DIFFICULT TO DO SINCE IT IS INSIDE THE DASH BOARD. I NOW SEE THERE ARE COMPLAINTS ABOUT LEAKY WINDSHIELDS IN EXPEDITIONS. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT SAFETY ISSUES MAY RESULT WHEN THE GEM MODULE FAILS, AND WHAT ELSE MIGHT FAIL IF THERE IS A LEAKY WINDSHIELD. IN MY CASE, THE ALL WHEEL DRIVE FAILED. THE OLD PART HAS BEEN DISCARDED.

NHTSA ODI #10126661

Mileage unknown · Jun 24, 2005
Electrical SystemFire

THE CONSUMER'S 2000 FORD EXPEDITION CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE PARKED IN HIS GARAGE. *NM MANUFACTURER NOTIFIED. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10126891

Official recalls

7

05V388000 · Vehicle Speed Control

Sep 7, 2005

ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A FIRE AT THE SWITCH COULD OCCUR.

Remedy: BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2005, OWNERS WERE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. OWNERS WHO HAVE HAD THEIR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATED ARE BEING NOTIFIED THAT PARTS WILL BE AVAILABLE AND ADVISED TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO RECONNECT THE SPEED CONTROL BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2006. OWNERS WHO DID NOT HAVE THEIR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATED ARE BEING NOTIFIED TO HAVE THEIR SYSTEM REMEDIED BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2006. OWNERS ARE URGED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE FREE DISCONNECT SERVICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT RISK OF FIRE. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. (NOTE: ALSO SEE RECALLS 05V017 AND 06V286)

05V017000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control

Jan 27, 2005

ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND PICKUP TRUCKS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THIS CONDITION COULD LEAD TO A FIRE. FIRES HAVE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLES WERE PARKED WITH THE IGNITION 'OFF.'

Remedy: AS AN INTERIM REPAIR, OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. AS SOON AS REPLACEMENT PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EARLY APRIL 2005), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A NEW SWITCH FREE OF CHARGE. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. (NOTE: ALSO SEE RECALLS 05V388 AND 06V286)

03V094000 · Structure

Mar 7, 2003

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK, VAN, AND MINI VAN CONVERSIONS EQUIPPED WITH SOUTHERN COMFORT BUILT RUNNING BOARDS THAT CONTAIN CERTAIN COURTESY LIGHTS MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS, INC. THESE UNITS CONTAIN A COURTESY LIGHT OR LIGHTS THAT MIGHT OVERHEAT WHEN THE WIRE HARNESS IS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE MOISTURE AND ROAD SALT.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THIS OVERHEATING CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE RUNNING BOARD TO MELT OR CAUSE A FIRE.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE WIRING HARNESS ON THESE RUNNING BOARDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 7, 2003. 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 SOUTHERN COMFORT AT 1-800-745-6096.

02V239000 · Equipment:other:labels

Sep 9, 2002

CERTAIN 4X2 SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS." THE REAR TIRE PRESSURE IS INCORRECTLY LISTED ON THE LABEL FOR 4.2 VEHICLES.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: CUSTOMERS MAY INFLATE THEIR REAR TIRES BASED ON THE INCORRECT TIRE PRESSURE INFORMATION ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL.

Remedy: A SUPPLEMENTARY LABEL WILL BE SENT TO CUSTOMERS TO PLACE NEAR THE CERTIFICATION LABEL TO IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE REAR TIRE PRESSURE. THE CUSTOMER MAY ALSO HAVE THE DEALER INSTALL THE LABEL ON THE VEHICLE, IF THEY SO DESIRE. OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER 2002. OWNERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE LABEL AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.

01V258000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer:motor

Aug 8, 2001

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND LIGHT AND MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS. A SWITCH LOCATED IN THE PLASTIC COVER OF THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COULD MALFUNCTION AND OVERHEAT, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF INTERMITTENT WIPER FUNCTION, LOSS OF WIPER PARK FUNCTION, COMPLETE LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION, OR IGNITION OF THE PLASTIC COVER MATERIAL. SWITCH MALFUNCTION IS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THE INTERMITTENT SETTING OF THE WIPERS IS BEING USED, OR WHEN SNOW OR ICE OBSTRUCTS THE BLADES FROM RETURNING TO THE "PARKED" POSITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDSHIELD. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT AT THE FOLLOWING ASSEMBLY PLANTS: ATLANTA PLANT FROM 2/11/00 THROUGH 7/31/00; CHICAGO PLANT FROM 2/14/00 THROUGH 8/4/00; KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 2/26/00 TO 9/4/00; KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/18/00 TO 8/31/00; MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/23/00 THROUGH 8/3/00; NORFOLK PLANT FROM 2/21/00 THROUGH 7/27/00; WAYNE STAMPING AND ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 2/25/00 THROUGH 8/15/00; AND WIXOM PLANT FROM 2/15/00 THROUGH 8/8/00.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: LOSS OF VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON THE WIPER MOTOR. MOTORS BUILT WITH THE SUSPECT TIME FRAME WILL HAVE THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COVER REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 20, 2001. 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 1-866-436-7332.

00V396000 · Equipment:other:owners/service/other Manual

Nov 28, 2000

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS, AND PASSENGER VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS." THE AFFECTED EXPEDITION/NAVIGATOR OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SEATING POSITIONS EQUIPPED WITH TETHER ANCHORAGES, AND DO NOT PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THESE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE F150 SC OWNER GUIDES DO NOT PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE TAURUS/SABLE OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE CENTER REAR SEATING POSITION AS HAVING LATCH COMPATIBLE LOWER ANCHORAGES.

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: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH OWNER GUIDE INSERTS REVISED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIXING THESE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES. CUSTOMERS WILL ALSO BE ADVISED THAT IF THEY PREFER, THEIR DEALER WILL AFFIX THE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES.

00V073000 · Trailer Hitches

Mar 7, 2000

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLES. THE TRAILER HITCH ASSEMBLY TO THE FRAME ATTACHING BOLTS COULD LOSE THE CLAMP LOAD.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THE TRAILER HITCH COULD THEN SEPARATE FROM THE VEHICLE.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE TRAILER HITCH MOUNTING BOLTS AND NUT PLATES.

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

5

EA05015 · Windshield Leak Causes Electric Failures

Opened Oct 13, 2005 · Closed Dec 6, 2006

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Exterior Lighting; Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer

CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.

Additional source detail variants (3)

Electrical System

CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.

Exterior Lighting

CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.

Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer

CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.

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.

PE05033 · Electrical System Failure

Opened Jun 15, 2005 · Closed Oct 13, 2005

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Equipment:electrical; Visibility:windshield

ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.

Additional source detail variants (3)

Electrical System

ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.

Equipment:electrical

ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.

Visibility:windshield

ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.

PE04078 · Speed Control Deactivation Switch Fire

Opened Nov 19, 2004 · Closed Mar 22, 2005

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control

IN ITS LETTER DATED JANUARY 27, 2005 TO ODI, FORD INDICATED THAT IT WOULD CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL # 05V-017) TO REMEDY AN OVERHEATING SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH IN APPROXIMATELY 738,490 SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE VEHICLES AFFECTED BY THE RECALL ARE CERTAIN 2000 MODEL YEAR (MY) FORD F150, FORD EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL AND CERTAIN 2001 MODEL YEAR F150 SUPERCREW VEHICLES BUILT THROUGH AUGUST 7, 2000.SINCE OPENING PE04-078, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED OTHER REPORTS OF KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES IN FORD VEHICLES WITH SIMILAR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES THAT WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OR FORD'S RECALL 05V-017.FORD'S RESPONSE TO THE ODI INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3, 2004, PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL 107 ALLEGATIONS OF KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES THAT WERE ALSO IN VEHICLES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS INVESTIGATION OR INCLUDED IN THE FORD RECALL 05V-017.AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) IS WARRANTED TO DETERMINE IF A SAFETY DEFECT TREND EXISTS RELATING TO KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES IN VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.ODI WILL EXPAND THE SCOPE OF IT'S INVESTIGATION AT THE EA PHASE TO INCLUDE THE 1995 THROUGH 2002 MODEL YEARS OF THE FORD F150, FORD EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR VEHICLES.

SQ00016 · Wheel Stud And Nut

Opened Sep 15, 2000 · Closed Dec 6, 2001

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Wheels

IN DECEMBER 1999, FORD ISSUED TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN 99-26-3, ENTITLED INCREASED WHEEL NUT AND STUD SIZE-SERVICE TIP,FOR 2000 MODEL YEAR EXPEDITION, NAVIGATOR, AND CERTAIN F-150 VEHICLES, BUILT ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 27, 1999.THESE VEHICLES HAVE INCREASED WHEEL STUD AND NUT DIAMETERS FROM 12MM TO 14MM.THE WHEEL NUT TORQUE WAS INCREASED FROM 100 FT-LB. TO 150 FT-LB., RESPECTIVELY.ODI HAS RECEIVED THREE REPORTS OF WHEELS SEPARATING FROM 2000 MODEL YEAR EXPEDITION VEHICLES, INCLUDING TWO CRASHES.TWO ADDITIONAL REPORTS ALLEGE BROKEN STUDS AND/OR LOOSE WHEEL NUTS.LOOSE WHEEL NUTS CAN ALLOW THE WHEEL TO WOBBLE AND CAUSE WHEEL STUD BREAKAGE.THERE ARE NO SIMILAR ODI REPORTS ON 2000 MODEL YEAR LINCOLN NAVIGATOR VEHICLES.THE FAILURES APPEAR TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER WHEEL NUT TORQUE; HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE TORQUE QUALITY DEFICIENCIES AT THE ASSEMBLY PLANTS.DUE TO THE MILEAGES THE INCIDENTS OCCURRED, IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT IMPROPER WHEEL NUT TORQUES WERE APPLIED DURING SERVICING, BECAUSE IN ALL CASES WHEN LOOSE WHEELS WERE RE-TORQUED TO A LEAST 100 FT-LB., THERE WERE NO FAILURE RE-OCCURRENCES.