IllustrationA SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION AND MESS UP THE WHOLE ENGINE, REQUIRING REPLACEMENT OF BOTH HEADS. FORD DENIES IT WAS A ENGINE PROBLEM, BUT THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF INCIDENTS LIKE MINE AROUND THE COUNTRY. *NM
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 reportsDT: THE CONTACT STATED THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE CAME APART ON THE TREAD. THIS HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70 MPH. IT PULLED OFF THE BOTTOM PART OF THE TRUCK, AND DID DAMAGE TO THE BUMPER AND PAINT DAMAGE TO THE DOOR. THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER AND A MECHANIC HAD TO BE CALLED TO CHANGE THE TIRE. THE TIR…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT STATED THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE CAME APART ON THE TREAD. THIS HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70 MPH. IT PULLED OFF THE BOTTOM PART OF THE TRUCK, AND DID DAMAGE TO THE BUMPER AND PAINT DAMAGE TO THE DOOR. THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER AND A MECHANIC HAD TO BE CALLED TO CHANGE THE TIRE. THE TIRE STILL HAD AIR, JUST THE TREAD WAS COMING OFF. THE TIRE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP, BUT THEY STATE IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY. *AK
I WAS INVOLVED IN A HEAD-ON ACCIDENT ON 9/29/05. MY 2003 EXPEDITION HAS BEEN TOTALED BY MY INSURANCE. THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED BUT THE DRIVER'S SIDE DID NOT DEPLOY. THE POINT OF IMPACT WAS THE FRONT CENTER OF THE CAR WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE DAMAGE TO THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE. I HAVE MADE 3 SEPARATE PHONE CALLS TO …
Read full complaint
I WAS INVOLVED IN A HEAD-ON ACCIDENT ON 9/29/05. MY 2003 EXPEDITION HAS BEEN TOTALED BY MY INSURANCE. THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED BUT THE DRIVER'S SIDE DID NOT DEPLOY. THE POINT OF IMPACT WAS THE FRONT CENTER OF THE CAR WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE DAMAGE TO THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE. I HAVE MADE 3 SEPARATE PHONE CALLS TO FORD'S COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT, AS OF TODAY NO RETURN CALLS FROM FORD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. *JB
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
FRONT BRAKE ROTORS COMPLETELY WORN DOWN AFTER ONLY 23,000 MILES. SEEMS TO BE A CHRONIC PROBLEM WITH THIS YEAR/MODEL.
DT: CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING HE NOTICED A SLIGHT VIBRATION AROUND 72 MPH. THE DEALERSHIP COULD NOT VERIFY THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING. THE CONSUMER DID HAVE THE TIRES ROTATED AND THE VEHICLE REALIGNED. THE CONTACT'S WIFE WAS DRIVING AND THE VIBRATION WAS SO BAD THAT IT DID CAUSE I…
Read full complaint
DT: CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING HE NOTICED A SLIGHT VIBRATION AROUND 72 MPH. THE DEALERSHIP COULD NOT VERIFY THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING. THE CONSUMER DID HAVE THE TIRES ROTATED AND THE VEHICLE REALIGNED. THE CONTACT'S WIFE WAS DRIVING AND THE VIBRATION WAS SO BAD THAT IT DID CAUSE INJURY TO HER WRISTS. ABOUT 6-8 MONTHS LATER THERE WAS HAD A DEFECTIVE TIRE ON THE REAR PASSENGER'S SIDE, BUT THIS HAD BEEN ROTATED FROM THE FRONT. THE SERVICE INVOICE STATED THAT THE TIRE HAS HOP-IN-TIRE, AND WAS OUT OF ROUND. THE TIRE MANUFACTURER STATED IF IT WAS A DEFECT IN THE TIRE. THEY WOULD NOT REPLACE OR REIMBURSE THE CONSUMER BECAUSE THERE WERE TOO MANY MILES ON THE TIRE. *AK *NM
2003 FORD EXPEDITION WINDOW ROLLED UP ON CONSUMER'S HAND.*MR *JB
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
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
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.
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.