Illustration2000 FORD EXPEDTION 4.6, IGNITION COILS FAILING, DANGEROUS TO DRIVE. FORD KNOWS IT IS A DESIGN PROBLEM, FORD DEALERS NOT WARRANTEEING OR REPLACING THE PART.*AK
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Expedition 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
140–25K
5425–50K
9050–75K
7775–100K
124100–150K
84150K+
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 reportsSPARK PLUG BLEW OUT WITH NO WARNING AND BEFORE RECOMMENDED TIME THEY WERE TO BE REPLACED. THREADS WERE STRIPPED. HEAD ALONG WITH RELATED COMPONENTS HAVE TO BE REPLACED. *AK
WE PARKED OUR 2000 FORD EXPEDITION XLT IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE AFTER DRIVING IT APPROXIMATELY 45 MILES TOWING OUR BOAT. WE ARRIVED AT OUR HOUSE AROUND 9:15PM. AT AROUND 10:30PM, MY NEIGHBOR KNOCKED ON MY DOOR AND TOLD ME THAT MY CAR WAS ON FIRE. FLAMES WERE COMING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD AND THE LEFT-FRONT TIRE WAS ON FIRE. 2 …
Read full complaint
WE PARKED OUR 2000 FORD EXPEDITION XLT IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE AFTER DRIVING IT APPROXIMATELY 45 MILES TOWING OUR BOAT. WE ARRIVED AT OUR HOUSE AROUND 9:15PM. AT AROUND 10:30PM, MY NEIGHBOR KNOCKED ON MY DOOR AND TOLD ME THAT MY CAR WAS ON FIRE. FLAMES WERE COMING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD AND THE LEFT-FRONT TIRE WAS ON FIRE. 2 NEIGHBORS AND I SPRAYED THE VEHICLE WITH GARDEN HOSES UNTIL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ARRIVED. THEY HAD TO RIP THE HOOD OFF THE VEHICLE IN ORDER TO PUT THE FIRE OUT. AFTER INSPECTING THE BURN DAMAGE, THE FIREMAN INDICATED THAT THE FIRE STARTED ON TOP OF THE ENGINE AND WAS PROBABLY DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE. HE ALSO STATED THERE WAS NO SIGN OF MALICIOUS ACTIVITY. THE ADJUSTER WILL NOT COME OUT UNTIL MONDAY, BUT THE FIREMAN INDICATED THAT IT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE TOTALLED.*AK
ON 5-03-03 IGNITION COIL FOR #7 CYLINDER FAILED. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS UNUSUAL TO OCCUR ON A VEHICLE WITH 56,000 MILES. ON 10-06-03 IGNITION COIL FOR #6 CYLINDER FAILED. I WAS TOLD THAT THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL THAT THIS OCCURS ON A VEHICLE WITH 63,000 MILES. ON 10-14-03, I CONTACTED FORD REQUESTING AN INSPECTION OF THIS U…
Read full complaint
ON 5-03-03 IGNITION COIL FOR #7 CYLINDER FAILED. I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS UNUSUAL TO OCCUR ON A VEHICLE WITH 56,000 MILES. ON 10-06-03 IGNITION COIL FOR #6 CYLINDER FAILED. I WAS TOLD THAT THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL THAT THIS OCCURS ON A VEHICLE WITH 63,000 MILES. ON 10-14-03, I CONTACTED FORD REQUESTING AN INSPECTION OF THIS UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER FAILURE OF THE IGNITION COILS AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY COULD NOT HELP ME BECAUSE I REPAIRED THE CONDITION. *LA
VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE IN THE ENGINE, INSPECTOR STATED IT WAS AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM. DEALER NOTTIFIED.*AK
ELECTRICAL MOTOR UNDER DRIVER SEAT WAS HOT AND STARTED A FIRE. I WAS ABLE TO GET OUT CAR OUT OF THE GARAGE AT HOME BEFORE IT CAUGHT FIRE. STARTED AS SMOKE FROM UNDER SEAT AND INVESTIGATED TO FIND THE MOTOR VERY HOT. *JB
THE MASTER SWITCH FAILED, WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO HAVE NO BLINKERS, THE WIPERS WORKED INTERMITTENTLY, AND THE SECURITY SYSTEM DID NOT WORK PROPERLY.*JB
WHEN VEHICLE WAS SHUT OFF IT CONTINUED TO IDLE. DEALER HAS BEEN NOTIFIED.*AK
11/01 VEHICLE STALLS NO POWER VALLEY FORD CHANGES KEY AND RE-CODES ,3/20 VEHICLE STALLS CAN'T RESTART/ TROUBLE SHOTS BY VALLETY FORD THEY REPLACE A NEW BATTERY FOR A NEW BATTERY. 3/25/02 BACK IN SERVICE OFFICERS STALLS WHILE DRIVING , HE BELEIVES IT TO BE THE FAULT OF AN ELECTRONIC GAS KEY ON RING, REMOVES KEY TO GLOVE BOX, RES…
Read full complaint
11/01 VEHICLE STALLS NO POWER VALLEY FORD CHANGES KEY AND RE-CODES ,3/20 VEHICLE STALLS CAN'T RESTART/ TROUBLE SHOTS BY VALLETY FORD THEY REPLACE A NEW BATTERY FOR A NEW BATTERY. 3/25/02 BACK IN SERVICE OFFICERS STALLS WHILE DRIVING , HE BELEIVES IT TO BE THE FAULT OF AN ELECTRONIC GAS KEY ON RING, REMOVES KEY TO GLOVE BOX, RESTARTS VEHICLE 1 HOUR LATER VEHICLE STALLS ,REMOVES KEY RE-STARTS VEHICLE OPERATING/ EMSG SENT TO WINNER FORD AND VALLEY FORD REGARDING CONTINUAL PROBLEM GROWING WORSE WITH NO SOLUTION. *AK
THE #4 IGNITION COIL PACK FAILED AND WAS REPLACED. THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON FORD 4.6L AND 5.4L ENGINES. I AM CREATING A DATABASE OF FAILURES FROM MULTIPLE USER GROUPS AND CAN CONFIRM MULTIPLE (UP TO FIVE ON THE SAME VEHICLE) FAILURES OF THIS PART BECAUSE OF A HEATER HOSE THAT LEAKS ON TO THE COIL PACK DIRECTLY BENEATH IT. …
Read full complaint
THE #4 IGNITION COIL PACK FAILED AND WAS REPLACED. THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON FORD 4.6L AND 5.4L ENGINES. I AM CREATING A DATABASE OF FAILURES FROM MULTIPLE USER GROUPS AND CAN CONFIRM MULTIPLE (UP TO FIVE ON THE SAME VEHICLE) FAILURES OF THIS PART BECAUSE OF A HEATER HOSE THAT LEAKS ON TO THE COIL PACK DIRECTLY BENEATH IT. MINE FAILED WHILE ACCELERATING ON TO A HIGHWAY, AND WAS ALMOST REAR-ENDED SINCE THE TRUCK SUDDENLY LOST POWER BEING THAT THE #4 CYLINDER WAS NO LONGER FIRING. SINCE MULTIPLE FAILURES HAVE BEEN RECORDED, FORD SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR THIS AS IT IS CLEARLY A DESIGN FLAW. *AK
Official recalls
705V388000 · 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
5EA05015 · 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.