IllustrationA SPARK PLUG WAS EJECTED FROM MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION AND IS A KNOWN PROBLEM AND DEADLY SAFETY (FIRE) PROBLEM. *TR
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 reportsTHIS EVENT OCCURRED DECEMBER 2008. WE WERE HEADING TO A DINNER, PULLED ONTO GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE FROM HWY 114 IN IRVING, TX. THE ROADWAY IS FLAT, OUR SPEED WAS ACCELERATING TO GET ONTO THE FREEWAY FROM AN ENTRANCE RAMP. AS WE WERE MERGING ONTO GB TURNPIKE WE HEARD A LOUD BANG, OUR SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAGS DEPLOYED....FOR NO REASO…
Read full complaint
THIS EVENT OCCURRED DECEMBER 2008. WE WERE HEADING TO A DINNER, PULLED ONTO GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE FROM HWY 114 IN IRVING, TX. THE ROADWAY IS FLAT, OUR SPEED WAS ACCELERATING TO GET ONTO THE FREEWAY FROM AN ENTRANCE RAMP. AS WE WERE MERGING ONTO GB TURNPIKE WE HEARD A LOUD BANG, OUR SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAGS DEPLOYED....FOR NO REASON. WE WERE SHOCKED. AT FIRST WE THOUGHT MAYBE SOMEONE HIT US. WE EVEN THOUGHT MAYBE SOMEONE SHOT AT OUR VEHICLE, THEN WE REALIZED THE AIRBAGS HAD DEPLOYED. FORTUNATELY, NEITHER OF US WERE SITTING WITH OUR HEADS OR ARMS NEAR THE WINDOWS TO BE INJURED BY THE DEPLOYMENT. WE CONTACTED OUR INSURANCE COMPANY, HOWEVER THEY TOLD US THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT THEY COULD DO NOTHING FOR US. WE CONTACTED OUR LOCAL FORD DEALER THE NEXT DAY. THEY SAID THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING, SO WE SET UP AN APPOINTMENT FOR THEM TO LOOK AT OUR VEHICLE. THEY CALLED A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FORD TO COME AND INSPECT IT. BASED ON THE READING BY THE "COMPUTER", IT INDICATED THAT OUR VEHICLE HAD ENCOUNTERED AN "IMPENDING ROLL-OVER". WE DISPUTED THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUCH IMPENDING ROLLOVER, NOR WAS THERE ANY SWERVING, ANYTHING THAT COULD HAVE EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED SOMETHING TO HAVE CAUSED THIS SITUATION. FORD WOULD DO NOTHING BECAUSE THE COMPUTER INDICATED THERE WAS AN IMPENDING ROLLOVER IT WAS DEEMED OUR FAULT, NOT A FAULTY COMPUTER. WE CONTACT FORD CORPORATE, THEY TREATED US AS THOUGH WE WERE JUST PEOPLE WANTING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. WE WANTED OUR VEHICLE REPAIRED DUE TO THEIR FAULTY EQUIPMENT. THEY WOULD NOT RELENT, THE COMPUTER INDICATED IT WAS OUR FAULT, THEREFORE AS FAR AS THEY WERE CONCERNED WAS. WE SENT OUR COMPLAINT TO YOUR ORGANIZATION THE FIRST PART OF 2009, THERE WAS NEVER ANY ACTION TAKEN. SINCE THIS OCCURRENCE WE HAVE HEARD OF THIS SAME ISSUE WITH OTHER VEHICLES. NOW, THE GOVERNMENT HAS STEPPED IN DUE TO THESE PROBLEMS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE OUR VEHICLE PLACED IN WITH THE RECALL WITH THE F150'S TO HAVE IT REPAIRED. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL DROPPED TO THE FLOOR AND THE CONTACT EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF BRAKING CAPABILITY. THE CONTACT STATED HE CRASHED INTO A TREE STUMP AND SNOW ON THE GROUND AND THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. T…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL DROPPED TO THE FLOOR AND THE CONTACT EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF BRAKING CAPABILITY. THE CONTACT STATED HE CRASHED INTO A TREE STUMP AND SNOW ON THE GROUND AND THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 18,535. UPDATED 3/14/11 *CN IT WAS DETERMINED THE MASTER CYLINDER WAS LEAKING FLUID AND ULTIMATELY FAILED. UPDATED 05/04/11
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH AND ATTEMPTED A RIGHT TURN, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP DESPITE THE CONTACTS ATTEMPTS TO BRAKE AND THE VEHICLE PROCEEDED TO DRIVE ONTO THE PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK. THE CONTACT STRUCK A PEDESTRIAN AND THE PEDES…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH AND ATTEMPTED A RIGHT TURN, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP DESPITE THE CONTACTS ATTEMPTS TO BRAKE AND THE VEHICLE PROCEEDED TO DRIVE ONTO THE PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK. THE CONTACT STRUCK A PEDESTRIAN AND THE PEDESTRIAN WAS KILLED. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE HANDS AND FEET. A PASSENGER SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE NECK AND RIGHT FOOT. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BUT DECLINED ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE CONTACT. A POLICE REPORT WAS AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 38,000.
MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION SECOND ROW MIDDLE SEATBELT WILL NOT FASTEN. I HAVE TRIED SEVERAL TIMES AND CAN NOT GET IT TO WORK, MY 5YR. OLD CAN NOT BE BUCKLED. THEY SHOULD GIVE ME ANOTHER ONE ,BUT THE FORD DEALER WANTS TO CHARGE ME 150.00 BUCKS. WHAT SHOULD I DO? *TR
OIL LEAKING FROM HEAD GASKET ON PASSENGER REAR OF HEAD..... LEAKS ONTO MANIFOLD WHERE A FIRE CAN START. FORD MECHANICS KNOW THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. THE MECHANICS SAY THAT THERE IS A FLAW IN THE CASTING IN THE HEAD. THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS OF THIS HAPPENING. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD A TENDENCY TO LUNGE FORWARD WHILE SITTING IDLE IN DRIVE OR REVERSE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENED THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE PLACED IN NEUTRAL GEAR OR THE IT HAD TO BE TURNED OFF BECAUSE THE BRAKES DO NOT STOP THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT STA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD A TENDENCY TO LUNGE FORWARD WHILE SITTING IDLE IN DRIVE OR REVERSE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENED THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE PLACED IN NEUTRAL GEAR OR THE IT HAD TO BE TURNED OFF BECAUSE THE BRAKES DO NOT STOP THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS CONNECTED TO THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN INSPECTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 89187.
WENT OUT TO WARM UP OUR FORD EXPEDITION FOR WORK. UPON STARTING IT HEARD A LOUD BOOM AND THE ENGINE SOUNDED LOUD. HAD IT TOWED TO GARAGE. FOUND OUT THAT THE #7 SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT. FOR SAFETY SAKE, FORD SHOULD ADMIT TO THE DEFECT IN THE ENGINE, AND ISSUE A RECALL. *TR
ON 11/7/10 TRAVELING HOME WITH MY FAMILY IN MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION I HEARD A LOUD BANG THOUGHT I BLEW A TIRE. I STARTED SMELLING A STRONG ODOR OF GAS. THE CAR STARTED TO MISFIRE. I PULLED IT OVER TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T ON FIRE. TURNS OUT A SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF THE ENGINE. FOUND OUT THREW SOME RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET THAT THI…
Read full complaint
ON 11/7/10 TRAVELING HOME WITH MY FAMILY IN MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION I HEARD A LOUD BANG THOUGHT I BLEW A TIRE. I STARTED SMELLING A STRONG ODOR OF GAS. THE CAR STARTED TO MISFIRE. I PULLED IT OVER TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T ON FIRE. TURNS OUT A SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF THE ENGINE. FOUND OUT THREW SOME RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET THAT THIS IS A ON GOING PROBLEM WITH FORD. WHY ARE THEY NOT STANDING BEHIND THERE PRODUCT. I'VE HEARD IT IS A DESIGN FLAW WITH THE SPARK PLUGS NOT HAVING ENOUGH THREAD ON THEM. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED. THIS IS GOING TO COST ME SOMEWHERE AROUND $3000.00 TO GET FIXED. I BOUGHT THIS TRUCK NEW FROM THE DEALER. I ONLY HAVE 58,000 MILES ON IT TO ME THIS IS STILL A NEW TRUCK SOMETHING HAS GOT TO BE DONE THEY DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DESIGN FLAW BECAUSE IN 2004 THEY CHANGED THE DESIGN. SHAME ON FORD. AN AMERICAN MADE VEHICLE .THIS SHOULD BE RECALLED AND FORD SHOULD MAKE GOOD ON THERE PRODUCT. *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.
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.