NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
615 reportsMileage unknown · Mar 14, 2006
Structure
2003 EXPEDITION HEADLIGHT FAILED FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES DUE TO WATER LEAKAGE. HEAT BRACKETS RUSTED DUE TO WATER LEAKAGE. *TS THE CONSUMER STATED THAT FORD WAS AWARE OF THE BODY SEAL PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE, BUT DIDN'T ISSUE A RECALL. THE DEALER TRIED TO FIX THE PROBLEM SIX TIMES WITH NO SUCCESS. THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR RATTLED.…
Read full complaint
2003 EXPEDITION HEADLIGHT FAILED FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES DUE TO WATER LEAKAGE. HEAT BRACKETS RUSTED DUE TO WATER LEAKAGE. *TS THE CONSUMER STATED THAT FORD WAS AWARE OF THE BODY SEAL PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE, BUT DIDN'T ISSUE A RECALL. THE DEALER TRIED TO FIX THE PROBLEM SIX TIMES WITH NO SUCCESS. THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR RATTLED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10154073
63,323 miles · Mar 6, 2006
Air BagsSeat BeltsCrashInjury
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH IN SNOW, WHILE CHANGING LANES THE VEHICLE HIT A TREE HEAD ON, THE FRONTAL AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY AND THE FRONT AND REAR SEAT BELTS FAILED. THIS OCCURRED WITHOUT WARNING AND PICTURES WERE TAKEN AT THE SCENE. THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER RECEIVED MINOR INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NO…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH IN SNOW, WHILE CHANGING LANES THE VEHICLE HIT A TREE HEAD ON, THE FRONTAL AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY AND THE FRONT AND REAR SEAT BELTS FAILED. THIS OCCURRED WITHOUT WARNING AND PICTURES WERE TAKEN AT THE SCENE. THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER RECEIVED MINOR INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED BODY DAMAGE AND WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP HOWEVER NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED. CONTACT WAS SEEKING FROM FORD THE REASSURANCE OF SAFETY . HE WANTS FORD TO TON INSPECT THE VEHICLE AND DETERMINE WHY THE AIR BAGS DID NOT WORK. THE IMPACT WA SHARD ENOUGH TO TRIGGER THEM. THE REASON GIVEN TO THE CONSUMER WAS THAT THE SENSOR WAS NOT HIT HARD ENOUGH. WANTS THE DEALER TO BE MORE FORTHRIGHT WITH CONTACT AND TELL HIM THE TRUTH. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10151988
Mileage unknown · Mar 1, 2006
Structure
2003 EXPEDITION LEAKED WATER INTO HEADLIGHTS CAUSING IT TO FAIL. SEAT BRACKETS RUSTED CAUSED BY WATER LEAKS AND DOOR RATTLED. *TS THE DEALER WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS BODY SEAL PROBLEM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10153010
58,000 miles · Feb 10, 2006
Latches/locks/linkagesSeats
HAVE A FORD EXPEDITION. THE 2ND ROW, MIDDLE SEAT WILL NOT STAY IN A LOCKED UPRIGHT POSITION. NOTIFIED FORD, AS THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY INFRACTION. ANY CHILD OR ADULT COULD BE SERIOUSLY HARMED IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, AS THE SEAT WOULD COLLAPSE FORWARD. FORD CLAIMS THE PART WHICH CONTROLS THE LATCHING OF THE SEAT INTO AN…
Read full complaint
HAVE A FORD EXPEDITION. THE 2ND ROW, MIDDLE SEAT WILL NOT STAY IN A LOCKED UPRIGHT POSITION. NOTIFIED FORD, AS THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY INFRACTION. ANY CHILD OR ADULT COULD BE SERIOUSLY HARMED IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, AS THE SEAT WOULD COLLAPSE FORWARD. FORD CLAIMS THE PART WHICH CONTROLS THE LATCHING OF THE SEAT INTO AN UPRIGHT POSITION (KNOWN AS A SEAT HANDLE RELEASE) IS TRIM AND THEREFORE UNCOVERED BY WARRANTY. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF FIXING A DOOR HANDLE OR A CRACKED PIECE OF PLASTIC, BUT TO CORRECT A SAFETY CONCERN THAT COULD CAUSE DAMAGE IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT. REPEATED PHONE CALLS TO FORD HAS YIELDED NO RESULTS AND WHILE THE FORD EMPLOYEES I SPOKE WITH CONCUR THAT THE ISSUE IS A SAFETY CONCERN, THEY ARE UNWILLING TO RE-CATEGORIZE THE PART OR ALLOW THE PART TO BE COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10149935
38,949 miles · Feb 3, 2006
Power Train
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE GEARS THE GEAR SHIFTER BROKE. THE ENGINE WAS IDLING WHEN THE SHIFTER BROKE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. UPON INSPECTION THE DEALER DETERMINED THE GEAR SHIFTER WAS DEFECTIVE. THE ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN WAS REPLACED. UPDATED 3/10/2006 - *NM
NHTSA ODI #10149401
105,000 miles · Jan 20, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON JANUARY 18, 2006 I WAS DRIVING MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WITH A 5.4L TRITON V8. JUST SOUTH OF CHICAGO THE ENGINE BLEW A SPARK PLUG FROM THE #5 CYLINDER. FORD WANTS $4500 TO REPAIR AND SEEMS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO KNOWN PROBLEM. THIS COULD HAVE RESULTED IN FIRE SINCE THE PLUG WAS OUT OF THE ENGINE AND THE INJECTOR WAS STILL…
Read full complaint
ON JANUARY 18, 2006 I WAS DRIVING MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WITH A 5.4L TRITON V8. JUST SOUTH OF CHICAGO THE ENGINE BLEW A SPARK PLUG FROM THE #5 CYLINDER. FORD WANTS $4500 TO REPAIR AND SEEMS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO KNOWN PROBLEM. THIS COULD HAVE RESULTED IN FIRE SINCE THE PLUG WAS OUT OF THE ENGINE AND THE INJECTOR WAS STILL FIRING PUTTING RAW GAS IN THE CYLINDER. I COULD SMELL THE GAS. IF IT HAD SPILLED OUT ONTO THE ENGINE, A FIRE COULD RESULT. FORD HAS NO INTEREST IN REPAIRING THIS PROBLEM. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10148221
55,000 miles · Jan 18, 2006
Visibility
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE ELECTRIC WINDOWS IN THE VEHICLE WORK INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION. *NM UPDATED 2/9/2006 - *NM
NHTSA ODI #10148023
38,000 miles · Jan 11, 2006
Tires
RUNNING ABOUT 50 MPH AND SIDEWALL BLEW OUT ON TIRE CONTINENTAL TIRE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10147471
1,000 miles · Jan 5, 2006
Air Bags
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY ILLUMINATED. THE FIRST TIME THE AIRBAG LIGHT ILLUMINATED WAS WHILE DRIVING, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER, AND THE ENGINE LOCKED , AND WOULD NOT START. THE CONTACT HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO A DEALER. THE DEALER REPLACED AN UNKNOWN FUSE. ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE DID NOT SU…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT INTERMITTENTLY ILLUMINATED. THE FIRST TIME THE AIRBAG LIGHT ILLUMINATED WAS WHILE DRIVING, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER, AND THE ENGINE LOCKED , AND WOULD NOT START. THE CONTACT HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO A DEALER. THE DEALER REPLACED AN UNKNOWN FUSE. ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE DID NOT SUFFER ANOTHER LOSS OF POWER AS STATED BEFORE THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT CONTINUED TO ILLUMINATE. THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE DEALER, WHO REPLACED THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT AS WELL AS THE FRONTAL AIRBAGS. THE DEALER SUGGESTED THERE WAS NO DANGER AND THE VEHICLE WAS SAFE TO DRIVE, HOWEVER THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT CONTINUED TO ILLUMINATE. THE VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY AT THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE DEALER PLANS TO REPLACE THE WIRING HARNESS.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10146956
65,000 miles · Nov 17, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
THIS COMPLAINT IS IN REFERENCE TO A MECHANICAL PROBLEM I HAD WITH MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE I-90 NEAR BOSTON, MA, THE ENGINE EJECTED A SPARK PLUG FROM THE HEAD CASING OF MY MOTOR (THIRD PLUG ON THE PASSENGER SIDE). WHEN THE PLUG EJECTED, IT TOOK WITH IT ALL OF THE THREADS IN THE CASING, RESULTING IN …
Read full complaint
THIS COMPLAINT IS IN REFERENCE TO A MECHANICAL PROBLEM I HAD WITH MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE I-90 NEAR BOSTON, MA, THE ENGINE EJECTED A SPARK PLUG FROM THE HEAD CASING OF MY MOTOR (THIRD PLUG ON THE PASSENGER SIDE). WHEN THE PLUG EJECTED, IT TOOK WITH IT ALL OF THE THREADS IN THE CASING, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE HEAD. THIS HAPPENED VERY SUDDENLY, AND RESULTED IN A DRAMATIC REDUCTION IN VEHICLE PERFORMANCE - WHICH NEARLY CAUSED A VEHICLE CRASH ON THE HIGHWAY. I WAS STRANDED ON THE MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE FOR SOME TIME AND HAD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED. MUCH TO MY SURPRISE, MY MECHANIC INDICATED THAT THIS WAS THE 4TH EXPEDITION HE HAD SEEN THIS YEAR WITH THIS DAMAGE TO THE EXACT SAME PLUG CASING - IN HIS MIND CLEARLY A DEFECT GIVEN THAT THESE WERE ALL RELATIVELY NEW VEHICLES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT MILEAGE ON THEM. I CALLED FORD ON THIS - BUT THEY CLAIMED THIS WAS NOT A COMMON PROBLEM (I DID NOT BELIEVE THEM). MY REPAIR COSTS FOR THIS WERE OVER $2,000. SUBSEQUENT REVIEW OF YOUR WEBSITE INDICATES THAT A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED BY SEVERAL PERSONS IN CALIFORNIA CLAIMING TO HAVE INCURRED THE SAME TYPE OF DAMAGE. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THIS IS ON YOUR RADAR SCREEN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY SUBMIT THIS REQUEST THAT THIS BE LOOKED INTO ON MY BEHALF AS WELL AS FOR OTHERS WHO I'M SURE THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ALREADY - BUT ARE NOT AWARE THAT THIS MAY BE A WIDESPREAD DEFECT/SAFETY ISSUE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10142958
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