NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
61 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Oct 7, 2005
Electrical SystemEquipmentService Brakes, Hydraulic
CONSUMER IS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH AIR CONDITION MAKING NOISE, POWER WINDOWS ONLY LOWER, RADIO VOLUME GETS LOUDER WHEN ACCELERATING SEAT CONTROL BUTTONS ARE INOPERABLE. *TS WATER LEAKED FROM THE SUNROOF, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CLOSED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS DUE TO BRAKE AND ROTOR NOISE. THE CONSUM…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER IS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH AIR CONDITION MAKING NOISE, POWER WINDOWS ONLY LOWER, RADIO VOLUME GETS LOUDER WHEN ACCELERATING SEAT CONTROL BUTTONS ARE INOPERABLE. *TS WATER LEAKED FROM THE SUNROOF, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CLOSED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS DUE TO BRAKE AND ROTOR NOISE. THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCED LACK OF POWER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO ACCELERATE. THE CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO HEAR THE RADIO SEPARATELY WHEN THE DVD WAS PLAYING. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10139949
22,500 miles · Oct 7, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
FRONT BRAKE ROTORS COMPLETELY WORN DOWN AFTER ONLY 23,000 MILES. SEEMS TO BE A CHRONIC PROBLEM WITH THIS YEAR/MODEL.
NHTSA ODI #10139000
40,520 miles · Aug 28, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE ROTORS HAVE BEEN CONSTANTLY WARPING. THE ROTORS WERE MACHINED AT 24985, 35498 AND 40520 MILES. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME THE ROTORS CAN BE TURNED AND NEW ROTORS WILL HAVE TO BE PURCHASED IF/WHEN THEY WARPED AGAIN. DOES NOT SEEM NORMAL FOR THE ROTORS TO BE TURNED EVERY 5000 TO 10000 MILES. 8JB
NHTSA ODI #10134431
Mileage unknown · Aug 25, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
DT: 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONSUMER STATED THE ROTORS CREATED A HUGE SAFETY HAZARD . THE BRAKES WERE MADE OF HARD METAL, AND THE ROTORS WERE MADE OF SOFT METAL WHICH WORE THEM DOWN. THERE WERE NO BRAKE PROBLEMS PRIOR TO FINDING THIS DEFECT. THE VEHICLE HAS 50,000 MILES ON IT, AND WAS TAKEN TO DEALER FOR REGULAR MAINTEN…
Read full complaint
DT: 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONSUMER STATED THE ROTORS CREATED A HUGE SAFETY HAZARD . THE BRAKES WERE MADE OF HARD METAL, AND THE ROTORS WERE MADE OF SOFT METAL WHICH WORE THEM DOWN. THERE WERE NO BRAKE PROBLEMS PRIOR TO FINDING THIS DEFECT. THE VEHICLE HAS 50,000 MILES ON IT, AND WAS TAKEN TO DEALER FOR REGULAR MAINTENANCE TO THE BRAKES. THE DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO LET THE CONSUMER TAKE THE VEHICLE UNTIL THE ROTORS WERE REPLACED. THEY HAD NEVER BEEN TURNED. THE ROTORS WERE REPLACED. THE ROTORS WERE WORE OUT BELOW SPECIFICATION. THIS HAPPENED A MONTH AGO. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED FORD, AND THEY CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP. A REGIONAL DIRECTOR WAS TO INSPECT THE PROBLEM. THEY DID NOT CONTACT THE CONSUMER, HE CALLED THEM, AND THEY TOLD HIM HIS CLAIM WAS DENIED.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10134180
Mileage unknown · Jun 29, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2003 FORD EXPEDITION DEVELOPED PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKE EQUIPMENT.***NO ANSWER REQUIRED***. *MR THE FRONT BRAKE ROTORS WERE COMPLETELY WORN DOWN. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10128060
20,000 miles · May 13, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2003 FORD EXPEDITION EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKE EQUIPMENT. *MR THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT ESCALATING PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKES INCLUDING DUSTING, DIFFICULTY STOPPING PARTICULARLY FROM HIGHER SPEEDS AND CHATTER SOUNDS. THE PROBLEM WAS SAID TO BE DUE TO OVERHEATING OF THE ORIGINAL PADS. THE PROBLEM WAS SO BAD THAT THE R…
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPEDITION EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKE EQUIPMENT. *MR THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT ESCALATING PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKES INCLUDING DUSTING, DIFFICULTY STOPPING PARTICULARLY FROM HIGHER SPEEDS AND CHATTER SOUNDS. THE PROBLEM WAS SAID TO BE DUE TO OVERHEATING OF THE ORIGINAL PADS. THE PROBLEM WAS SO BAD THAT THE ROTORS WERE WELDED TO THE RIMS. THE CONSUMER REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10121585
Mileage unknown · Apr 20, 2005
Engine And Engine CoolingPower TrainService Brakes, Hydraulic
SINCE WE HAVE OWNED THIS 2003 EXPEDITION WE HAVE HAD THE WINDSHIELD REPLACED DUE TO NOISE AND LOOSE STRIPPING, THEN, THE CONTRACTING PERSON PUT IN THE WRONG YEARS WINDSHIELD. THE EMISSIONS CANISTER WAS CRACKED AND WAS REPLACED. THE MUFFLER WOULD POP AFTER TURNING OFF THE ENGINE, BUT COULDN'T BE FIXED UNTIL VERIFIED BY FORD. I…
Read full complaint
SINCE WE HAVE OWNED THIS 2003 EXPEDITION WE HAVE HAD THE WINDSHIELD REPLACED DUE TO NOISE AND LOOSE STRIPPING, THEN, THE CONTRACTING PERSON PUT IN THE WRONG YEARS WINDSHIELD. THE EMISSIONS CANISTER WAS CRACKED AND WAS REPLACED. THE MUFFLER WOULD POP AFTER TURNING OFF THE ENGINE, BUT COULDN'T BE FIXED UNTIL VERIFIED BY FORD. I WAITED FOR 3-4 HOURS ONE DAY WITH 3 CHILDREN WHILE THEY LET MY CAR RUN AND SHUT OFF. WE FINALLY CALLED AHEAD, AND HAD THEM WAIT OUTSIDE ON US UNTIL WE KILLED THE ENGINE TO HEAR IT POP. IT WAS A POOR MUFFLER WELD AND WAS REPAIRED. THE SIDE MOLDING RATTLED BADLY, AND WAS TERRIBLY FADED, AND THAT WAS REPLACED. THE DOOR GETS A LOT OF WIND NOISE , AND A WHISTLE IN THE WINDOW. THEY SAID WINDOW PASSED THE DOLLAR BILL TEST AND WAS FINE BUT IT STILL WHISTLES. THEY, PUT A CLEAR STRIP ALONG INSIDE OF DOOR TO HELP NOISE. IT DOESN'T. THEN ,THE REAR CONTINENTAL TIRE HAD SUCH HORRIBLE, UNEVEN WEAR, IT WAS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. BOUGHT NEW TIRES FOR $600. THEN REAR DIFFERENTIAL MALFUNCTIONED, AND WOULD MAKE A GRINDING ON TURNING LEFT OR RIGHT. THEY FIXED THAT IN MARCH 2005, AND IT JUST STARTED DOING IT AGAIN. NOW, THERE IS A STRANGE NOISE WHEN REVVING THE ENGINE TO DRIVE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. IT IS GOING IN TOMORROW FOR THE NOISE AND THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL. ON TOP OF ALL THE REPAIRS, WE HAVE HAD A SQUEAKY BRAKE ISSUE. ALSO, THEY HAVE SAID THEY WERE GOOD. THEY JUST GET A LOT OF BRAKE DUST, JUST SAND THEM. OUR SIDE WINDOWS SHIMMIES ALL THE TIME. ! I DID INVEST IN AN EXTENDED WARRANTY!. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10118197
Mileage unknown · Apr 6, 2005
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, Hydraulic
WHILE MAKING A STOP, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED ON. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT THE MECHANIC COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP COMPLETELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, …
Read full complaint
WHILE MAKING A STOP, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED ON. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT THE MECHANIC COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP COMPLETELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, AND THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE BRAKE ROTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *AK WHEN STOPPING, THE MOTOR STARTS SHAKING AND THE VEHICLE WOULD SHUT OFF. WHEN TURNING THE VEHICLE, IT WOULD NOT RESPOND UNTIL ATTEMPTING 2 OR 3 TIMES, THEN FINALLY A LOT OF SMOKE APPEARS. THE SUSPENSION APPEARED TO BE LOOSE AND ONE SENSOR ON THE WHEELS DID NOT RESPOND. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10115182
23,176 miles · Mar 2, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
FORD EXPEDITION 2003 FRONT BRAKES AND BRAKE SYSTEM FAILED. *BF THE CONSUMER STATED THERE WAS VISIBLE DUSTING, DIFFICULTY STOPPING AND BRAKE CHATTER. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE PROBLEM WAS DUE TO INCREDIBLY HIGH AND OVERHEATING FROM THE ORIGINAL BRAKE PADS, THE PROBLEM WAS SO BAD THAT THE ROTORS WELDED TO THE RIMS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10113270
33,000 miles · Feb 16, 2005
Electrical SystemExterior LightingPower Train
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
NHTSA ODI #10107404
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.
Illustration