IllustrationLOSS OF HEADLIGHTS WHEN USING AUTO CONTROL, SINCE THIS IS AN 03' I BELIEVE HEADLIGHT CONTROL UNIT IS BAD AS THIS SAME UNIT WAS RECALLED ON MY 03' CROWN VICTORIA
2003 Ford Expedition
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Expedition years
Owner complaints for the 2003 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
960–25K
5325–50K
6950–75K
7175–100K
105100–150K
69150K+
463 reports with mileage · 152 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 127 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 104 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
57 crash reports36 fire reports39 injury reports
Exterior Lighting complaints
8 reportsSUNROOF LEAKS BADLY IT HAS FUSE BOX SHORTING OUT. WHEN IT RAINS MY WINDOWS GO UP DOWN ALONE. ALL LIGHTS SHORTED OUT AND NOTHING WORKING ANY LONGER
I WAS TRAVELING AT 70 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE. THE CAR POPPED, SPUTTERED AND DIED. HAS STEADILY GOTTEN MORE AND MORE FREQUENT. ENGINE DIES AT IDLE, DIES AT SLOW SPEEDS AS WELL AS FASTER SPEEDS. VERY DANGEROUS! HAVE REPLACED THE PCM, WIRING HARNESS, AND FUEL PUMP. IS NOT REPAIRED. POWER MIRRORS READJUST THEMSELVES WHEN THE KEYLESS …
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING AT 70 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE. THE CAR POPPED, SPUTTERED AND DIED. HAS STEADILY GOTTEN MORE AND MORE FREQUENT. ENGINE DIES AT IDLE, DIES AT SLOW SPEEDS AS WELL AS FASTER SPEEDS. VERY DANGEROUS! HAVE REPLACED THE PCM, WIRING HARNESS, AND FUEL PUMP. IS NOT REPAIRED. POWER MIRRORS READJUST THEMSELVES WHEN THE KEYLESS ENTRY IS USED. SEVERAL WARNING LIGHTS STAY ON, DOOR AJAR, CHECK FUEL CAP, ADVATRAC WILL NOT TURN ON. REAR WINDOW WILL NOT WORK. BACK UP SENSOR WILL NOT WORK. INTERIOR LIGHTS AS WELL AS EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL NOT POWER OFF WHEN CAR IS TURNED OFF. YOU MUST MANUALLY TURN THEM OFF OR THE BATTERY DRAINS.CD PLAYER WILL NOT EJECT CD'S LOUD POPPING SOUND IN THE FRONT END AND GRINDING SOUND WHEN STOPPING. I HAVE HAD THIS IN THE SHOP SINCE JUNE OF 2014 AND THEY CANNOT FIND THE PROBLEM. HAVE ALREADY SPENT $1000 TRYING TO REPAIR. THIS VEHICLE IS DANGEROUS AND CAN VERY LIKELY CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. IT IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. FORD AUTO SHOP WANTS TO CHARGE ME $100 AN HOUR TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM THEN THEY ARE NOT SURE IF THEY CAN FIND THE PROBLEM, THEY ARE TELLING ME IT COULD COST BETWEEN $500-$1000 JUST TO FIND THE PROBLEM. I HAVE CHECKED SEVERAL WEB SITES AND SEE THAT THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE WITH THE SAME PROBLEMS WITH THE SAME TYPE OF VEHICLE. THIS SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO BEFORE SOMEONE IS INJURED OR KILLED IN AN ACCIDENT CAUSED FROM THE CAR STALLING!!! *TR
BULBS MELTING THIRD BRAKE LIGHT ASSEMBLY INTERNALLY. THIS HAPPENED TO ORIGINAL AND RECENTLY REPLACED UNIT. BULBS WERE SEIZED TO THE PLASTIC MOUNTING AND MELTED/DEFORMED BOTH BULB MOUNTS AND REFLECTOR. UNIT IS NOW DEFECTIVE. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS SUDDENLY TURN OFF AND BACK WITHOUT WARNING. THE HEADLIGHT RELAY MADE A NOISE AS WELL. THE FAILURE OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER WHO STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RELATED RECALLS. THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS SUDDENLY TURN OFF AND BACK WITHOUT WARNING. THE HEADLIGHT RELAY MADE A NOISE AS WELL. THE FAILURE OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER WHO STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RELATED RECALLS. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 91,000.
BRAKES NEED TO BE REPLACED CONSTANTLY. PADS WEAR VERY FAST. ROTORS WEAR EASILY AND NEED REPLACEMENT WITH PADS EACH TIME. WHEN BROUGHT TO HAVE ROTORS TURN, WAS TOLD THEY ARE MANUFACTURED WITH VERY LITTLE TOLERANCE AND COULD NOT BE TURNED EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS MINIMAL VISIBLE WEAR. WAS TOLD THEY DID NOT "MIC" WITH ENOUGH RANGE …
Read full complaint
BRAKES NEED TO BE REPLACED CONSTANTLY. PADS WEAR VERY FAST. ROTORS WEAR EASILY AND NEED REPLACEMENT WITH PADS EACH TIME. WHEN BROUGHT TO HAVE ROTORS TURN, WAS TOLD THEY ARE MANUFACTURED WITH VERY LITTLE TOLERANCE AND COULD NOT BE TURNED EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS MINIMAL VISIBLE WEAR. WAS TOLD THEY DID NOT "MIC" WITH ENOUGH RANGE TO TOLERATE THE CUT WHEN TURNING. ROTORS SHOULD NOT NEED REPLACEMENT WITH EACH BRAKE CHANGE. EXCESSIVE BRAKE DUST. BRAKE DUST HAS EATEN AWAY AT FINISH ON RIMS. AFTER LAST BRAKE REPAIR, FRONT END NOW HAS A CLICKING SOUND. BRAKE PEDAL HAS ALWAYS FELT SPONGY. ON TWO OCCASIONS WITH AGGRESSIVE BRAKING CONDITIONS, BRAKES LOCKED UP. TOLD DEALERSHIP WHO SAID THIS IS NORMAL WITH THE FORD BRAKING SYSTEMS. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE HAD AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH THE PASSENGER SIDE FOG LAMP NOT STAYING LIT AND THE METAL REFLECTOR PIECE IN THE FOG LAMPS COMING LOOSE. WE ARE NOW HAVING PROBLEMS WITH TWO (FRONT DRIVERS/REAR PASSENGERS) DOOR ELECTRIC LOCKS NOT UNLOCKING OR LOCKING THE DOORS. *TR
2003 FORD EXPEDITION HEADLIGHTS ARE TOO DIM TO DRIVE SAFELY. HUSBAND HAS RETURNED VEHICLE TO FORD DEALER AND HAD THEM CHECKED, NOT LONG AFTER WE BOUGHT IT NEW. SERVICE DEPT SAYS HEADLIGHTS ARE FINE. BOTH MY HUSBAND AND I FEEL THAT IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD TO DRIVE WITH THE DIMS ON, BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE FAR ENOUGH IN FRONT OF US. T…
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPEDITION HEADLIGHTS ARE TOO DIM TO DRIVE SAFELY. HUSBAND HAS RETURNED VEHICLE TO FORD DEALER AND HAD THEM CHECKED, NOT LONG AFTER WE BOUGHT IT NEW. SERVICE DEPT SAYS HEADLIGHTS ARE FINE. BOTH MY HUSBAND AND I FEEL THAT IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD TO DRIVE WITH THE DIMS ON, BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE FAR ENOUGH IN FRONT OF US. THE BRGHTS ARE FINE, JUST THE DIMS SEEM TO BE FAULTY. THE HEADLIGHTS WERE LIKE THAT WHEN THE CAR WAS BRAND NEW, SO IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT STARTED DETERIORATING WITH AGE. HUSBAND THOUGHT MAYBE THEY WERE OUT OF ADJUSTMENT, AND HAD THEM CHECKED, BUT WAS TOLD THEY WERE FINE. WE OWN A FORD ECONOLINE VAN AND A FORD F-150 PICKUP AND BOTH OF THE OTHER FORD VEHICLES HAVE MUCH BETTER VISIBILITY THAN OUR 2003 EXPEDITION. DUE TO MOUNTAIN DRIVING IN A RURAL AREA IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE FAR ENOUGH IN FRONT OF US TO AVOID HITTING ANIMALS. THE HEADLIGHTS ARE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH TO SEE FAR ENOUGH IN FRONT OF US TO AVOID ROCKS IN THE ROAD OR EVEN DEER. PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS BECAUSE IT IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WHEN NIGHT DRIVING HERE. I AM ADDING A NUMBER IN THE FIELD (NUMBER OF FAILURES) THAT REALLY ISN'T ACCURATE BECAUSE THE HEADLIGHTS HAVE BEEN THIS WAY SINCE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED.
WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE VIBRATED UNCONTROLLABLY. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE DRIVER TRIED TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO DO SO. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE DRIVER THAT THE ALTERNATOR AND BATTERY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WHILE UNLOCKING THE DRIVE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE VIBRATED UNCONTROLLABLY. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE DRIVER TRIED TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO DO SO. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE DRIVER THAT THE ALTERNATOR AND BATTERY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WHILE UNLOCKING THE DRIVER'S DOOR WITH THE AUTOMATIC SWITCH BOTH SIDE REAR VIEW MIRRORS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY MOVE UP AND DOWN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE MECHANIC REPLACED BOTH SIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR MOTORS. PLEASE PROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS. *JB CONSUMER ADDS BOTH SIDE VIEW MIRRORS MOTORS REPLACED 2 TO 3 MORE TIMES. THE FOG LIGHT HOUSING REPLACED, REAR LIGHT COVERS REPLACED DUE TO MOISTURE, HEATER CORE SWITCH REPLACED FROM DASH. BRAKES SQUEALING WHEN APPLIED. TRANSMISSION SLIPPING AND POWER STEERING PUMP WINDING. *TT
Official recalls
103V094000 · 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.
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.