IllustrationTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE VEHICLE RESTARTED AFTER TEN MINUTES AND WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 180,000.
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
What owners actually said
615 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ABSORB IMPACT FROM DRIVING OVER A POT HOLE. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THE FAILURE MAY BE CAUSED BY THE UPPER AND LOWER CONTROL ARM BUSHING AND BALL JOINTS PREMATURELY WEARING OUT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ABSORB IMPACT FROM DRIVING OVER A POT HOLE. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THE FAILURE MAY BE CAUSED BY THE UPPER AND LOWER CONTROL ARM BUSHING AND BALL JOINTS PREMATURELY WEARING OUT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 79,000.
MY BEST FRIEND'S 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BLEW A SPARK PLUG OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD WHILE PULLING A BOAT ACROSS A HIGHWAY. THIS CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO BE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, AND SEVERAL CARS HAD TO SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES AND SWERVE TO BARELY AVOID COLLISION. UPON INTERNET RESEARCH, I LEARNED THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAD…
Read full complaint
MY BEST FRIEND'S 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BLEW A SPARK PLUG OUT OF THE CYLINDER HEAD WHILE PULLING A BOAT ACROSS A HIGHWAY. THIS CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO BE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, AND SEVERAL CARS HAD TO SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES AND SWERVE TO BARELY AVOID COLLISION. UPON INTERNET RESEARCH, I LEARNED THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAD THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM WITH THIS SAME ENGINE IN FORD VEHICLES OVER SEVERAL YEARS OF PRODUCTION. FORD DENIES THIS PROBLEM EXISTS AND ENDANGERS LIVES EVERYWHERE WITH THIS MOTOR. I SAW THIS PROBLEM MYSELF, AND MECHANICS I HAVE TALKED TO SAID THAT THESE FORD CYLINDER HEADS ARE ALL BAD WITH THIS PROBLEM. THIS PROBLEM EXISTS FOR EVERY FORD TRITON 5.4 LITER V8 ENGINE, SO IT EXISTS ACROSS THOUSANDS OF VIN NUMBERS. *TT
FACTORY SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF ENGINE. I FOUND NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME PROBLEM AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THERE HAS BEEN NO RECALL. *TR
AT 4:40AM, WAS WOKE UP BY THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT WHO RESPONDED TO A CALL IN OF OUR VEHICLE, A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BEING ON FIRE. BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE FIRE CREW CHIEF, THE FIRE HAD STARTED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT, ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE, AND APPEARED TO BE ELECTRICAL IN NATURE. THE CAR HAD LAST BE…
Read full complaint
AT 4:40AM, WAS WOKE UP BY THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT WHO RESPONDED TO A CALL IN OF OUR VEHICLE, A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION BEING ON FIRE. BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE FIRE CREW CHIEF, THE FIRE HAD STARTED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT, ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE, AND APPEARED TO BE ELECTRICAL IN NATURE. THE CAR HAD LAST BEEN USED THE PRIOR NIGHT AT 8PM, WHEN WE RETURNED FROM EATING DINNER, AND HAD REMAINED IDLE SINCE THAT TIME. UPON HEARING OUR STORY, SEVERAL FRIENDS MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD READ STORIES ABOUT FORD VEHICLES THAT HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH CAUSING FIRES, EVEN IN VEHICLES THAT HAD REMAINED IDLE FOR SEVERAL HOURS. I CHECKED AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THERE WERE ANY RECALLS FOR MY VEHICLE'S YEAR, BUT HAD BEEN FOR THE PRIOR YEAR'S (2002). HERE IS A LINK TO ONE ARTICLE (ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MANY): HTTP://ARTICLES.CNN.COM/2005-06-16/US/FORD.VEHICLES_1_FORD-VEHICLES-BRAKE-FLUID-CRUISE-CONTROL?_S=PM:US THE CAR IS A COMPLETE LOSS, THE ENGINE MOSTLY GONE AND THE TIRE AND PART OF THE BODY MELTED TO MY DRIVEWAY. THE DAMAGE INSPECTOR FOR OUR INSURANCE COMPANY STATED IT WAS LIKELY THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COVER OUR FULL LIEN AMOUNT AND I BELIEVE AT THE VERY LEAST FORD SHOULD MAKE WHOLE FOR US. THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS WORKING WITH FORD ABOUT POSSIBLE SUBROGATION, BUT IT IS UNCLEAR AT THIS POINT IN TIME IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL ASK FOR DOLLARS BEYOND WHAT THEY WOULD PAY OUT IN THE LOSS. WE WERE FORTUNATE IT DID NOT SPREAD TO OUR HOME, MY HUSBAND'S FORD PARKED NEXT TO IT OR TO OUR BOAT WHICH WAS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IT. IT WAS VERY, VERY CLOSE AND COULD HAVE EASILY HAPPENED. WE FEEL VERY FORTUNATE THAT WE DID NOT PARK THE VEHICLE IN OUR GARAGE OR ANY CLOSER TO THE BOAT, WHOSE COVER HAD MELTED AND COULD HAVE EASILY SET ON FIRE GIVEN THE HEAT AND SEVERITY OF THE FIRE.
DRIVING SOUTH ON HWY 42, MCDONOUGH, GA. SPEED LIMIT 55MPH. WIFE WAS TRAVELING BETWEEN 45-50MPH. CAR IN FRONT OF HER SLAMMED ON BRAKES TO TURN INTO A GAS STATION, WHICH HAPPENED TO HAVE THE COUNTIES CHEAPEST GAS. WIFE ATTEMPTED TO STOP, BUT NOT IN TIME, RESULTING IN THE FRONT OF HER 2003 FORD EXPEDITION CRASHING INTO THE REAR OF …
Read full complaint
DRIVING SOUTH ON HWY 42, MCDONOUGH, GA. SPEED LIMIT 55MPH. WIFE WAS TRAVELING BETWEEN 45-50MPH. CAR IN FRONT OF HER SLAMMED ON BRAKES TO TURN INTO A GAS STATION, WHICH HAPPENED TO HAVE THE COUNTIES CHEAPEST GAS. WIFE ATTEMPTED TO STOP, BUT NOT IN TIME, RESULTING IN THE FRONT OF HER 2003 FORD EXPEDITION CRASHING INTO THE REAR OF THE STOPPED DRIVER. ON A FAIRLY SEVERE TRAFFIC CRASH, THE AIRBAGS FOR OUR 2003 FORD EXPEDITION DID NOT DEPLOY. ALL DAMAGE TO THE EXPEDITION WAS FRONTAL. ALL DAMAGES TO THE STOPPED VEHICLE WERE TO THE REAR. *TR
GOODYEAR TIRE BLOWOUT. SIZE: 265/75/17 #1306431. *TR
MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WILL BE DRIVING FINE, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WILL DIE IN TRAFFIC AND HAVE HAD SEVERAL CLOSE CALLS OF BEING REAR ENDED. ONE OTHER TIME IT DIED AND WHILE COASTING AFTER IT DIED, IT STARTED AGAIN CAUSING VEHICLE TO LUNGE AND MY WIFE ALMOST REAR ENDED SOMEONE ELSE. THE VEHICLE IS AT THE REPAIR SHOP AND IT I…
Read full complaint
MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WILL BE DRIVING FINE, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WILL DIE IN TRAFFIC AND HAVE HAD SEVERAL CLOSE CALLS OF BEING REAR ENDED. ONE OTHER TIME IT DIED AND WHILE COASTING AFTER IT DIED, IT STARTED AGAIN CAUSING VEHICLE TO LUNGE AND MY WIFE ALMOST REAR ENDED SOMEONE ELSE. THE VEHICLE IS AT THE REPAIR SHOP AND IT IS DIAGNOSED AS A PCM THAT IS AND NOW HAS A HARD FAILURE. *TR
SPARK PLUG STRIPED AND BLEW OUT OF CYLINDER HEAD ON MY 5.4L ENGINE. *TR
2003 FORD EXPEDITION WOULD NOT START AFTER LONG TOW TO MECHANIC IT WAS A BURNT RELAY SWITCH BUT NOW IT TURNS OFF WHILE DRIVING, CHANGE THE RELAY SWITCH AND PROBLEM IS TEMPORARILY FIXED NOW SINCE THE RELAY IS FOR THE FUEL PUMP AND PCM MY TRANSMISSION IS ACTING UP NOT SHIFTING 3RD OR OVER DRIVE NO ONE CAN FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM BU…
Read full complaint
2003 FORD EXPEDITION WOULD NOT START AFTER LONG TOW TO MECHANIC IT WAS A BURNT RELAY SWITCH BUT NOW IT TURNS OFF WHILE DRIVING, CHANGE THE RELAY SWITCH AND PROBLEM IS TEMPORARILY FIXED NOW SINCE THE RELAY IS FOR THE FUEL PUMP AND PCM MY TRANSMISSION IS ACTING UP NOT SHIFTING 3RD OR OVER DRIVE NO ONE CAN FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM BUT WE ARE SCARED TO DRIVE THE TRUCK! *TR
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.