NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
615 reports33,131 miles · Jun 15, 2005
Service Brakes, Air
ON DECEMBER 9, 2004, I DELIVERED MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION TO THE ASPEN TIRE AND AUTO CENTER IN CASTLE ROCK, CO FOR THE BRAKE REPAIRS UPON COMPLETION OF THE 30,000 MILE SERVICE AT THE MEDVED FORD DEALERSHIP IN CASTLE ROCK, CO. I HAD REPORTED TO FORD THAT THE BRAKES BEGAN SQUEAKING THAT MORNING AND CONTINUED TO SQUEAK FOR SEVERAL …
Read full complaint
ON DECEMBER 9, 2004, I DELIVERED MY 2003 FORD EXPEDITION TO THE ASPEN TIRE AND AUTO CENTER IN CASTLE ROCK, CO FOR THE BRAKE REPAIRS UPON COMPLETION OF THE 30,000 MILE SERVICE AT THE MEDVED FORD DEALERSHIP IN CASTLE ROCK, CO. I HAD REPORTED TO FORD THAT THE BRAKES BEGAN SQUEAKING THAT MORNING AND CONTINUED TO SQUEAK FOR SEVERAL SECONDS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS RELEASED. FORD ADVISED IT NEEDED NEW FRONT BRAKE PADS, BUT I OPTED TO TAKE IT ELSEWHERE FOR THE REPAIRS. I IMMEDIATELY DROPPED THE VEHICLE OFF AT THE ASPEN TIRE AND AUTO CENTER, 4978 FRONT STREET, CASTLE ROCK, CO 80104 AFTER MEDVED COMPLETED THE INITIAL WORK. WHEN THE ASPEN TIRE AND AUTO SERVICE TECHNICIANS EXAMINED THE BRAKE SYSTEM, THEY REPORTED TO ME THAT BOTH ROTORS WERE UNEVENLY WORN AND WARPED. ADDITIONALLY, THE LEFT CALIPER WAS NOT RELEASING PROPERLY. I WAS IN THE VICINITY AND WAS ABLE TO INSPECT THE ENTIRE BRAKE SYSTEM IN THEIR SERVICE CENTER. THE ASPEN TIRE AND AUTO CENTER BROUGHT THE RIGHT ROTOR TO MINIMUM SAFETY SPECIFICATIONS, BUT WAS UNABLE TO SALVAGE THE LEFT ROTOR. THEIR TECHNICIANS CLEANED THE BRAKE SYSTEM, WHICH ALLOWED BOTH CALIPERS TO PERFORM NORMALLY. BOTH ROTORS HAD TO BE REPLACED. AS A FORD OWNER FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, I NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SIGNIFICANT AND UNSAFE DETERIORATION OF A BRAKING SYSTEM. IF THE REPAIRS TO THE ROTORS AND CALIPERS HAD NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DELIVER OPTIMAL BRAKING PERFORMANCE, ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF MY FAMILY, OTHER MOTORIST, AND MYSELF. THIS VEHICLE NEVER PERFORMED ANY DRIVING ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD GREATLY ALTER THE NORMAL WEAR ON THE BRAKING SYSTEM. IT IS USED PRIMARILY AS A TRANSPORT VEHICLE TO AND FROM WORK, ON A RELATIVELY EVEN DRIVING SURFACE. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON WHY THIS VEHICLE EXPERIENCED THESE PROBLEMS WITH ONLY 33,131 MILES. I HAVE SPOKEN TO OTHER FORD EXPEDITION OWNERS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED IDENTICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE FRONT BRAKES ON THEIR VEHICLES.
NHTSA ODI #10125403
17,493 miles · Jun 8, 2005
Interior LightingPower TrainSteeringCrash
DT: THE DRIVERS SIDE TIE ROD HAS BROKEN TWICE. BOTH TIMES WAS WITHOUT WARNING. THE DEALER HAS FIXED IT ONCE AND NOW IT IS BACK TO THE DEALER FOR THE SECOND TIME FOR SAME PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER TOOK INFORMATION FROM THE CONSUMER, BUT SHE HAS NOT HEARD BACK FROM THEM. *JB PASSENGER SIDE REAR WINDOW DOES NOT GO DOWN FROM MAS…
Read full complaint
DT: THE DRIVERS SIDE TIE ROD HAS BROKEN TWICE. BOTH TIMES WAS WITHOUT WARNING. THE DEALER HAS FIXED IT ONCE AND NOW IT IS BACK TO THE DEALER FOR THE SECOND TIME FOR SAME PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER TOOK INFORMATION FROM THE CONSUMER, BUT SHE HAS NOT HEARD BACK FROM THEM. *JB PASSENGER SIDE REAR WINDOW DOES NOT GO DOWN FROM MASTER SWITCH. DOOR AJAR LIGHT DOES NOT GO OFF. LEFT FRONT BALL JOINT SEPARATED, THEN VEHICLE HIT SIGN. LOWER CONTROL ARM BROKEN, UPPER BALL JOINT BAD, SPINDLE BROKEN SWAY BAR LINK BROKEN, CV BOOT TORN AND AXLE PULLED OUT OF FRONT DIFFERENTIAL. TIE ROD END ON LEFT SIDE BROKEN AND VACUUM HUB CRACKED ON SPINDLE AND TIRE AND RIM DAMAGED. ALSO FENDER LINER RIPPED OUT. SPINDLE, UPPER CONTROL ARM, LOWER CONTROL ARM, CV BOOT REPLACED. CLIP FOR AXLE VACUUM HUB AND WHEEL AND TIRE, REMOVED FRONT DIFFERENTIAL TO REINSTALL, AXLE AND CLIP REPLACED WHEEL AND TIRE AND PERFORMED ALIGNMENT. DAMAGE TO HOOD WHEN KNUCKLE SPLIT. *TT *SB
NHTSA ODI #10121387
40,000 miles · May 25, 2005
Electrical SystemFire
DT: VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE AND BURNED WHILE PARKED FRO ABOUT 6-7 HOURS. VEHICLE HAD BEEN PARKED FOR ABOUT 6-7 HOURS. FIRE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE WAS UNDETERMINED. FIRE STARTED UNDER THE HOOD, AND BURNED EVENLY THROUGHOUT THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE, ALL THE WAY BACK TO JUST ABOUT THE PASSENGER DOORS ON TH…
Read full complaint
DT: VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE AND BURNED WHILE PARKED FRO ABOUT 6-7 HOURS. VEHICLE HAD BEEN PARKED FOR ABOUT 6-7 HOURS. FIRE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE WAS UNDETERMINED. FIRE STARTED UNDER THE HOOD, AND BURNED EVENLY THROUGHOUT THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE, ALL THE WAY BACK TO JUST ABOUT THE PASSENGER DOORS ON THE OUTSIDE, AND ABOUT TO THE BACK GATE ON THE INSIDE.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10122082
23,000 miles · May 18, 2005
Tires
ONLY ONE OF 4 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT TIRES ON A 2003 FORD EXPEDITION HAD EXECSSIVE AND UNSAFE WEAR ( FEATHERING) ON THE INSIDE TREAD OF A TIRE AFTER 23,000 MILES . THE TIRES WERE ROTATED EVERY 4000 MILES. MANUFACTURER REFUSED TO ADJUST THE TIRE. FORD REFUSED TO ADJUST THE TIRE. PHOTOS AVAIALABLE UPON REQUEST.
NHTSA ODI #10121329
Mileage unknown · May 14, 2005
Service Brakes, Air
I BOUGHT IT WITH ABOUT 21000 MILES AT AROUND 30000 I REPLACED THE PADS AT A FORD DEALER BECAUSE OF THE WEAR AND SEVER BRAKE DUST I ALSO HAD THE ROTORS TURNED, IT NOW HAS 53000 MILES AND I HAVE HAD TO TURN THE ROTORS ABOUT EVERY 10000 MILES BECAUSE THE SHAKING IN THE STEERING WHEEL GETS SO BAD WHEN BRAKING
NHTSA ODI #10120909
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 · May 9, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
DT: THE CONTACT SAYS THAT HIS ENGINE IS STALLING AT ANYWHERE FROM 45-70MPH. THE ENGINE STALLS WHILE HE IS TRYING TO ACCELERATE. THERE IS NO PRIOR WARNING TO THE FAILURE. THE ENGINE JUST COMPLETLY SHUTS OFF. IT TAKES IT A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE FAILURE FOR HIS ENGINE TO START UP AGAIN. THE ENGINE IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSI…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT SAYS THAT HIS ENGINE IS STALLING AT ANYWHERE FROM 45-70MPH. THE ENGINE STALLS WHILE HE IS TRYING TO ACCELERATE. THERE IS NO PRIOR WARNING TO THE FAILURE. THE ENGINE JUST COMPLETLY SHUTS OFF. IT TAKES IT A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE FAILURE FOR HIS ENGINE TO START UP AGAIN. THE ENGINE IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION AND IT HAS DONE THIS TO HIM AT LEAST TEN TIMES. HAS CAME VERY CLOSE TO HAVING ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE HE HAS KNOW WARNING TO GET OUT OF THE ROAD.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10120319
Mileage unknown · May 6, 2005
Unknown Or Other
DT: FRONT DRIVER SIDE WINDOW SHATTERED. CONTACT WAS WALKING ABOUT 15-20 FEET AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE AND SHE HEARD LIKE AN EXPLOSION AND SHE TURNED AND LOOKED AND SHE SAW THE GLASS FLY OUT OF THE WINDOW THE GLASS WAS ALL OVER THE VEHICLE AND KNOW ONE WAS AROUND THE TRUCK. CONTACT SAYS THAT IF SHE HAD NOT OF STOPPED AT THE GREENHO…
Read full complaint
DT: FRONT DRIVER SIDE WINDOW SHATTERED. CONTACT WAS WALKING ABOUT 15-20 FEET AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE AND SHE HEARD LIKE AN EXPLOSION AND SHE TURNED AND LOOKED AND SHE SAW THE GLASS FLY OUT OF THE WINDOW THE GLASS WAS ALL OVER THE VEHICLE AND KNOW ONE WAS AROUND THE TRUCK. CONTACT SAYS THAT IF SHE HAD NOT OF STOPPED AT THE GREENHOUSE THEN THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING AND POSSIBLY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. HER 18 MONTH OLD WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE BACK SEAT POSSIBLY CAUSING INJURY TO HER BABY IF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WHILE SHE DRIVING. THE WINDOW WAS DOWN A COUPLE OF INCHES AND IF SHE HADN'T ACTUALLY SEEN THE WINDOW SHATTER SHE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD TRIED TO BREAK INTO HER TRUCK.
NHTSA ODI #10120155
36,500 miles · May 6, 2005
Power Train
CONSUMER STATES: HAD CAR IN PARK WITH SLIGHT INCLINE, AND LEFT VEHICLE RUNNING ,AND THE VEHICLE SLIPPED OUT OF GEAR AND WENT INTO REVERSE. NO ONE WAS IN THE VEHICLE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10120115
Mileage unknown · May 2, 2005
StructureInjury
CONSUMER WAS INJURED ON THE 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WHILE OPENING THE REAR WINDOW.*MR THE CONSUMER BROKE HIS LEFT FOURTH FINGER ON HIS LEFT HAND TORE THE LIGAMENT FROM HIS FINGER AND CAUSED DAMAGED TO HIS WRIST JUST BY OPENING THE WINDOW. THE WINDOW WAS DESIGNED TO CAPTURE ONE'S FINGER LIKE A BOTTLE OPENER. IT WAS NOT ANGLED OUT A…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER WAS INJURED ON THE 2003 FORD EXPEDITION WHILE OPENING THE REAR WINDOW.*MR THE CONSUMER BROKE HIS LEFT FOURTH FINGER ON HIS LEFT HAND TORE THE LIGAMENT FROM HIS FINGER AND CAUSED DAMAGED TO HIS WRIST JUST BY OPENING THE WINDOW. THE WINDOW WAS DESIGNED TO CAPTURE ONE'S FINGER LIKE A BOTTLE OPENER. IT WAS NOT ANGLED OUT AS TO RELEASE. THE WINDOW HAS PRESSURE ASSIST CYLINDERS WHICH THAT AND A LITTLE WIND CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10121501
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