NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
21 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Oct 23, 2017
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
CAN NOT DRIVE CAR POWER TRAIN AND ENGINE BLEW OUT DONT DRIVE DRIVE FAR ONLY IN MY CITY AND UP TO MAINTENCE AND ALL OF SUDDEN GIRLS STOP SHIFTING ONE DAY WHILE ON ROAD VERY SCARY HAD TO PULL OVER IN MIDDLKE OF INTERSECTION AFTER THT\AT DAY BOUGHT ANOTHER TRANSMISSION AND SAME THING HAPPENED DIDNT LAS…
Read full complaint
CAN NOT DRIVE CAR POWER TRAIN AND ENGINE BLEW OUT DONT DRIVE DRIVE FAR ONLY IN MY CITY AND UP TO MAINTENCE AND ALL OF SUDDEN GIRLS STOP SHIFTING ONE DAY WHILE ON ROAD VERY SCARY HAD TO PULL OVER IN MIDDLKE OF INTERSECTION AFTER THT\AT DAY BOUGHT ANOTHER TRANSMISSION AND SAME THING HAPPENED DIDNT LAST MONTH SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON TRANS THAT CANNOT AFFORD NEW AGIN
NHTSA ODI #11035566
190,000 miles · Jul 2, 2017
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY VEHICLE, WITHOUT ANY WARNING AT ANY SPEED, INCLUDING HIGHWAY SPEEDS, SHUTS OFF COMPLETELY,WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR INDICATION THAT IT IS ABOUT TO DO THIS. ALWAYS ON A STRAIGHT ROAD WITH ALMOST A FULL TANK OF GAS. THE CAUSE A RELAY SWITCH WHICH IS SOLDIERED INTO THE MEMORY BOARD THAT CONTROLS THE VEHICLE'S BRAIN BOX THAT SHORTS …
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE, WITHOUT ANY WARNING AT ANY SPEED, INCLUDING HIGHWAY SPEEDS, SHUTS OFF COMPLETELY,WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR INDICATION THAT IT IS ABOUT TO DO THIS. ALWAYS ON A STRAIGHT ROAD WITH ALMOST A FULL TANK OF GAS. THE CAUSE A RELAY SWITCH WHICH IS SOLDIERED INTO THE MEMORY BOARD THAT CONTROLS THE VEHICLE'S BRAIN BOX THAT SHORTS OUT. AFTER DOING RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET, I AM BOTH SHOCKED AND DISGUSTED THAT THE NHSTA HAS NOT INVESTIGATED THIS FAULTY DESIGN BY FORD AND MADE THEM RECALL ALL OF THE 2003- 2008 EXPEDITIONS. YOU ONLY HAVE TO PULL IT UP ON YOU-TUBE OR GOOGLE TO SEE THE 1000'S UPON 1000S OF COMPLAINTS FROM EXPEDITION OWNERS CONCERNING THIS CONSTANT AND DANGEROUS PROBLEM, WHICH CLEARLY ENDANGERS EVERY EXPEDITION OWNER AND THEIR FAMILY. THE WORST PART OF THIS, THE FORD DEALERSHIPS WANT YOU TO SPEND $1000 OF DOLLARS NEEDLESSLY TO TRY AND DIAGNOSE THIS SAME, OLD PROBLEM, BEFORE THEY FINALLY DEAL WITH REPLACING THE ENTIRE FUSE BLOCK PANEL, JUST FOR THE RELAY SWITCH, WHICH IS THE CAUSE, THE SHORTING OUT RELAY SWITCH. THE INTERNET SHOWS AGAIN AND AGAIN, THAT THIS PROBLEM IS SO RAMPANT, THAT IT ISN'T IF IT HAPPENS, BUT WHEN, BECAUSE IT WAS A FAULTY AND DEFECTIVE DESIGN, WHICH ENDANGERS ALL EXPEDITION OWNERS MADE THESE YEARS. THE FAULTY FUSE BLOCK'S FUEL PUMP RELAY SWITCH BURNS OUT AND BETWEEN THAT AND THE THIN WIRES GROUNDING OUT UNDER THE HOOD, DRIVERS, UNSUSPECTINGLY ARE LEFT IN PANIC MODES ON THE HIGHWAY, SCRAMBLING TO GET OUT OF HARMS WAY, AS A RESULT OF YOUR VEHICLE TURNING OFF AT ALL SPEEDS, IE, 70 MPH. IMAGINE A SEMI IS BEHIND YOU AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAFE MEANS OF ESCAPING THE DANGEROUS PREDICAMENT YOU ARE NOW LEFT IN TO GET OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD? A RECALL IS NEEDED ASAP BEFORE TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE NEEDLESSLY KILLED AS A RESULT. EXPEDITION'S ARE FAMILY VEHICLE'S AND USUALLY HAVE LOTS OF CHILDREN IN THEM! THIS IS TOO DANGEROUS TO KEEP OVERLOOKING.
NHTSA ODI #11002736
160,000 miles · Dec 11, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control
WHEN DRIVING IN COLD WEATHER THE VEHICLE CONTINUES TO ACCELERATE AFTER YOU HAVE RELEASED THE ACCELERATOR. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU ARE USING THE CRUISE CONTROL OR NOT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10934564
164,000 miles · Dec 11, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON A 3 LANE HIGHWAY WHERE THE SPEED LIMIT IS 65, I BEGAN MY TRANSITION TO THE RIGHT LANE TO EXIT. WE WERE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH. AS I BEGAN TO CHANGE LANES THE VEHICLE NOTICEABLEY BEGAN TO ACCELERATE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT THE CRUISE CONTROL HAD BEEN ACTIVATED, BUT WHEN J ATTEMPTED TO STOP, THE CAR KEPT TRYI…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON A 3 LANE HIGHWAY WHERE THE SPEED LIMIT IS 65, I BEGAN MY TRANSITION TO THE RIGHT LANE TO EXIT. WE WERE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH. AS I BEGAN TO CHANGE LANES THE VEHICLE NOTICEABLEY BEGAN TO ACCELERATE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT THE CRUISE CONTROL HAD BEEN ACTIVATED, BUT WHEN J ATTEMPTED TO STOP, THE CAR KEPT TRYING TO ACCELERATE. AS I ENTERED THE EXIT RAMP THE CAR DID NOT SLOW DOWN THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE AND THE BRAKES DID NOT FEEL SURE. AS I WAS ABLE TO COME TO A SAFE ROLL, I PLACED THE CAR I TO NEUTRAL AT WHICH TIME THE CAR ACCELERATED VIOLENTLY. I FELT FOR THE GAS PEDAL WHICH SEEMED TO TO DEPRESSED AS IF THE CRUISE CONTROL WAS ON. HOWEVER, I WAS STOPPED. THE ENGINE DID FINALLY SLOW TO WITHIN NORMAL RPM. I WAS SOMEWHAT CONVINCED THAT SOMETHING MAY HAVE BEEN STUCK, BUT SOON REALIZED THAT THE GAS PEDAL IS HINGED FROM ABOVE AND NOT INTO THE FLOOR, NOR WAS THERE ANYTHING ON THE FLOOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10663743
72,061 miles · Jun 1, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE SLOWLY BRAKING TO A STOP BEHIND TRAFFIC STOPPED FOR A RED LIGHT, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED WITH MY RIGHT FOOT STILL ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. I PRESSED HARDER ON THE BRAKE AND WHEN I REALIZED THE ENGINE WAS STILL REVVING (AT OVER 3,000 RPM), I PUT THE TRANSMISSION INTO NEUTRAL AND NOTICED THE ENGINE SPEED ERRATICALLY BOUN…
Read full complaint
WHILE SLOWLY BRAKING TO A STOP BEHIND TRAFFIC STOPPED FOR A RED LIGHT, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED WITH MY RIGHT FOOT STILL ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. I PRESSED HARDER ON THE BRAKE AND WHEN I REALIZED THE ENGINE WAS STILL REVVING (AT OVER 3,000 RPM), I PUT THE TRANSMISSION INTO NEUTRAL AND NOTICED THE ENGINE SPEED ERRATICALLY BOUNCING UP AND DOWN IN ROUGHLY THE 2500 TO 3500 RPM RANGE. I STILL HAD MY RIGHT FOOT FIRMLY PRESSED ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. I FINALLY SHUT THE IGNITION OFF AND PUT THE TRANSMISSION INTO PARK. I WAITED A A FEW SECONDS AND RESTARTED THE ENGINE. THIS ENTIRE TIME I NEVER LIFTED MY RIGHT FOOT OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE ENGINE STARTED AND IDLED AT A NORMAL 600 RPM OR SO. I CAREFULLY PUT IT INTO DRIVE SO I COULD GET OUT OF TRAFFIC. AT EACH SUBSEQUENT STOP, I WOULD PUT THE TRANSMISSION INTO NEUTRAL JUST IN CASE OF ANOTHER INCIDENT. I PROMPTLY DROVE STRAIGHT HOME WHICH FORTUNATELY WAS ONLY 2 MILES AWAY. I CHECKED THE FLOOR MAT TO SEE IF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL COULD HAVE GOTTEN STUCK BUT THERE WAS PLENTY OF CLEARANCE. THE FLOOR MAT IS ANCHORED TO THE FLOOR SO DOESN'T MOVE. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAS HAPPENED TO THIS OR ANY OTHER VEHICLE I'VE OWNED OR DRIVEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10595433
79,000 miles · May 13, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE HAD A SUDDEN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION EVENT WHICH NEARLY RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. THIS WAS A VERY NERVE RACKING EXPERIENCE AND I HAD DIFFICULTY STOPPING THE VEHICLE (DESPITE APPLYING FULL BRAKES) AS THE RPM CONTINUED TO INCREASE TO APPROX. 5000. ON STOPPING THE VEHICLE I MANAGED TO PLACE IT IN NEUTRAL AND THE ENGINE CONTI…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE HAD A SUDDEN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION EVENT WHICH NEARLY RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. THIS WAS A VERY NERVE RACKING EXPERIENCE AND I HAD DIFFICULTY STOPPING THE VEHICLE (DESPITE APPLYING FULL BRAKES) AS THE RPM CONTINUED TO INCREASE TO APPROX. 5000. ON STOPPING THE VEHICLE I MANAGED TO PLACE IT IN NEUTRAL AND THE ENGINE CONTINUED TO REV EXCESSIVELY. I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. VEHICLE WAS BROUGHT TO LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP WHO CONFIRMED A HIGH REV PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL AND RECOMMENDED A "THROTTLE BODY" REPLACEMENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10588115
79,000 miles · Jan 28, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlFire
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD EXPEDITION. SHE SMELLED PLASTIC BURNING IN HER GARAGE; HOWEVER, SHE OBSERVED FLAMES COMING FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD OF HER VEHICLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND THE VEHICLE IS IN HER GARAGE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND THERE WERE MAJOR DAMAGES TO HER RESIDENCE. THE DEALER WAS NO…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD EXPEDITION. SHE SMELLED PLASTIC BURNING IN HER GARAGE; HOWEVER, SHE OBSERVED FLAMES COMING FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD OF HER VEHICLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND THE VEHICLE IS IN HER GARAGE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND THERE WERE MAJOR DAMAGES TO HER RESIDENCE. THE DEALER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. HER INSURANCE COMPANY STATED THAT FORD WILL BE SENDING OUT AN INVESTIGATOR TO DETERMINE WHAT CAUSED THE FIRE. THERE IS AN INCIDENT REPORT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT .THERE IS A RECALL ON FORD VEHICLES FOR THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH BUT AT THIS MOMENT THEY DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAUSED THE FIRE TO OCCUR. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 79000.
NHTSA ODI #10303013
90,000 miles · Nov 5, 2009
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD EXPEDITION. WHILE ENTERING THE DRIVE-WAY, THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD WITHOUT PRESSING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. HE HAD TO REMOVE THE KEY FROM THE IGNITION TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALERSHIP. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 90000.
NHTSA ODI #10291067
67,900 miles · Feb 28, 2008
Vehicle Speed Control
CRUISE CONTROL STUCK AND THE SPEED WOULD ACCELERATE AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO TURN OFF CRUISE CONTROL OR SLOW DOWN TRUCK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10219636
30,060 miles · Jul 25, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
ON THREE OCCASIONS STARTING 6/21/06, AFTER PUTTING THE CAR INTO GEAR (FORWARD TWICE, REVERSE ONCE), THE ENGINE IMMEDIATELY RACED AND LURCHED, AND AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE HAD TO BE APPLIED TO THE BRAKES TO TRY TO CONTROL THE CAR. THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT DRIVERS EACH TIME WHO WILL ATTEST TO THIS. THE LAST OCCASION, MY…
Read full complaint
ON THREE OCCASIONS STARTING 6/21/06, AFTER PUTTING THE CAR INTO GEAR (FORWARD TWICE, REVERSE ONCE), THE ENGINE IMMEDIATELY RACED AND LURCHED, AND AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE HAD TO BE APPLIED TO THE BRAKES TO TRY TO CONTROL THE CAR. THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT DRIVERS EACH TIME WHO WILL ATTEST TO THIS. THE LAST OCCASION, MY WIFE WAS BACKING INTO OUR DRIVEWAY, STOPPED, PUT THE CARE IN 'PARK', AND THEN, AFTER A MINUTE, INTO REVERSE AGAIN, WHERE IT IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED TO A VERY HIGH RATE OF SPEED, SMASHED INTO MY SON'S VAN (TOTALING IT), PUSHED THE VAN ANOTHER 15 FEET OVER TWO TREES, WHERE SHE FINALLY HAD CONTROL OF THE BRAKE. WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT NO ONE WAS HURT, BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED AT FORD'S RESPONSE. I TOOK IT TO SPRINGFIELD FORD, WHERE I PURCHASED THE CARE, AND WAS TOLD THAT, AFTER A THOROUGH CHECK THEY COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE, AND THAT THEY EVEN TALKED TO THE FORD 'HOTLINE', AND THAT THE FORD ENGINEERS HAD 'NEVER HEARD' OF A SITUATION LIKE THIS. I TOLD THE SERVICE REP THAT IF HE GOOGLED 'SUDDEN ACCELERATION' AND 'FORD' HE MIGHT GET AN EDUCATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY, I HAVE APPX $3-4,000 IN DAMAGES TO THE EXPEDITION, AND THE VAN, A '99 WINDSTAR IS BEYOND REPAIR. I'M SURE THAT BY CONTACTING THE LOCAL DEALER, I'LL GET NOWHERE, AS IT'S VERY APPARENT THEY EITHER DON'T BELIEVE ME; DON'T CARE; OR ARE COVERING UP WHAT TRULY IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10163407
NHTSA investigations
2PE08070 · Steel Wheel Fracture
Opened Dec 9, 2008 · Closed Apr 15, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Wheels; Wheels:rim
FORD SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLE (SSV) EXPEDITIONS USE A STEEL FULL FACE WHEEL DESIGN SIMILAR TO THAT INVESTIGATED IN PE03009, RQ04007, EA04034 (CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR) AND PE03026 (GM PICKUPS AND SUVS).A TOTAL OF 8,251 SSVS (2.2% OF TOTAL PRODUCTION) WERE PRODUCED WITHIN MODEL YEARS 2004-2006 AND SOLD PRIMARILY FOR USE BY STATE, FEDERAL, AND MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) AGENCIES.FORD STIPULATES THAT THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR HIGH SPEED OR PURSUIT OPERATIONS AND ALSO IDENTIFIED A 2004 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE VEHICLE EVALUATION REPORT WHICH ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THIS LIMITATION. THE FULL FACE WHEEL IS FABRICATED FROM TWO PIECES: A STAMPED OUTER WHEEL DISC AND A FORMED RIM.THE TWO PIECES, WHICH TOGETHER COMPRISE THE OUTER BEAD SEAT, ARE JOINED TOGETHER WITH A CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD.A CYCLIC BENDING MOMENT OCCURS IN THE OUTER BEAD SEAT AREA AS THE WHEEL ROTATES, RESULTING IN FATIGUE STRESSES IN THE WELD'S HEAT AFFECTED ZONE THAT CAN LEAD TO FRACTURING (CRACKING) OF THE RIM MATERIAL.BECAUSE THE FAILURE OCCURS UNDER THE OUTBOARD TIRE BEAD, AIR LEAKAGE MAY NOT READILY OCCUR WHEN THE RIM CRACKS, DEPENDENT ON HOW WELL THE BEAD SEALS ON THE RIM.IF MULTIPLE CRACKS GROW UNDETECTED AND SUDDENLY JOIN INTO A SINGLE LARGE CRACK, THE WHEEL'S STRUCTURE CAN BECOME COMPROMISED LEADING TO RAPID AIR LOSS.A RAPID AIR LOSS, ESPECIALLY AT HIGHER SPEED, MAY LEAD TO A CRASH. FORD RESPONDED TO ODI'S JANUARY 5, 2009 INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) ON FEBRUARY 24.FORD'S RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGES A NUMBER OF WHEEL FRACTURES ON THE SSVS.HOWEVER, BASED ON ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE PERTINENT FACTORS, IT CONCLUDES THAT THE CONDITION DOES NOT REPRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO SAFETY.THE LACK OF REPORTS OF RAPID AIR LOSS, NO ALLEGED CRASHES, AND THEIR ASSESSMENT THAT A CRACKED WHEEL CAN BE DETECTED THROUGH SLOW, REPEATED AIR LOSS OR VIBRATION, WERE THE BASES FOR FORD'S CONCLUSION.FORD DISCUSSES THE RESULTS OF A STUDY IT PERFORMED ON WHEELS RETURNED FROM LE FIELD USE, DESIGN REVISIONS IT MADE TO THE SUBJECT WHEEL, AND THE OUTCOME OF DURABILITY TESTING IT CONDUCTED ON THE OLD AND NEW WHEEL DESIGNS. THE COUNTS SHOWN ABOVE INCLUDE A DUPLICATE ODI AND FORD REPORT; THE FORD COUNTS ARE UNIQUE VEHICLES ALLEGING WHEEL FRACTURE(S).SOME WARRANTY CLAIMS INVOLVED MORE THAN ONE WHEEL REPLACEMENT.ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT VEHICLES HAVE BEEN IN SERVICE FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN VEHICLES INVESTIGATED IN THE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO-PIECE WHEEL FRACTURE, ODI DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ALLEGATIONS OF CRASHES, RAPID AIR LOSS EVENTS DUE TO WHEEL FRACTURES OR ALLEGATIONS OF EFFECTS ON VEHICLE CONTROL OR STABILITY, AS WERE THE CASES IN PAST INVESTIGATIONS WHERE SAFETY RECALLS WERE CONDUCTED TO REPLACE AFFECTED WHEELS.THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THE SSV IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PURSUIT OR HIGH SPEED USAGE, REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR CRASHES OR LOSS OF CONTROL INCIDENTS TO BE CAUSED BY THE ALLEGED DEFECT. FORD IMPLEMENTED A 'SHOT PEENING' PROCESS IN JUNE 2006 WHICH REDUCED THE WHEEL'S SURFACE STRESS AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED ITS DURABILITY, AND ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY FAILURES OF SHOT PEENED WHEELS (SERVICE PART NUMBER 7L1Z-1015-B).FORD'S TESTING SHOWED A SLIGHTLY REDUCED DURABILITY FOR THE NON-SHOT PEENED WHEELS WHEN 'LT' INSTEAD OF FORD APPROVED 'P' METRIC TYPE TIRES ARE USED. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY FURTHER C
Additional source detail variants (2)
Wheels
FORD SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLE (SSV) EXPEDITIONS USE A STEEL FULL FACE WHEEL DESIGN SIMILAR TO THAT INVESTIGATED IN PE03009, RQ04007, EA04034 (CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR) AND PE03026 (GM PICKUPS AND SUVS).A TOTAL OF 8,251 SSVS (2.2% OF TOTAL PRODUCTION) WERE PRODUCED WITHIN MODEL YEARS 2004-2006 AND SOLD PRIMARILY FOR USE BY STATE, FEDERAL, AND MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) AGENCIES.FORD STIPULATES THAT THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR HIGH SPEED OR PURSUIT OPERATIONS AND ALSO IDENTIFIED A 2004 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE VEHICLE EVALUATION REPORT WHICH ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THIS LIMITATION. THE FULL FACE WHEEL IS FABRICATED FROM TWO PIECES: A STAMPED OUTER WHEEL DISC AND A FORMED RIM.THE TWO PIECES, WHICH TOGETHER COMPRISE THE OUTER BEAD SEAT, ARE JOINED TOGETHER WITH A CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD.A CYCLIC BENDING MOMENT OCCURS IN THE OUTER BEAD SEAT AREA AS THE WHEEL ROTATES, RESULTING IN FATIGUE STRESSES IN THE WELD'S HEAT AFFECTED ZONE THAT CAN LEAD TO FRACTURING (CRACKING) OF THE RIM MATERIAL.BECAUSE THE FAILURE OCCURS UNDER THE OUTBOARD TIRE BEAD, AIR LEAKAGE MAY NOT READILY OCCUR WHEN THE RIM CRACKS, DEPENDENT ON HOW WELL THE BEAD SEALS ON THE RIM.IF MULTIPLE CRACKS GROW UNDETECTED AND SUDDENLY JOIN INTO A SINGLE LARGE CRACK, THE WHEEL'S STRUCTURE CAN BECOME COMPROMISED LEADING TO RAPID AIR LOSS.A RAPID AIR LOSS, ESPECIALLY AT HIGHER SPEED, MAY LEAD TO A CRASH. FORD RESPONDED TO ODI'S JANUARY 5, 2009 INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) ON FEBRUARY 24.FORD'S RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGES A NUMBER OF WHEEL FRACTURES ON THE SSVS.HOWEVER, BASED ON ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE PERTINENT FACTORS, IT CONCLUDES THAT THE CONDITION DOES NOT REPRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO SAFETY.THE LACK OF REPORTS OF RAPID AIR LOSS, NO ALLEGED CRASHES, AND THEIR ASSESSMENT THAT A CRACKED WHEEL CAN BE DETECTED THROUGH SLOW, REPEATED AIR LOSS OR VIBRATION, WERE THE BASES FOR FORD'S CONCLUSION.FORD DISCUSSES THE RESULTS OF A STUDY IT PERFORMED ON WHEELS RETURNED FROM LE FIELD USE, DESIGN REVISIONS IT MADE TO THE SUBJECT WHEEL, AND THE OUTCOME OF DURABILITY TESTING IT CONDUCTED ON THE OLD AND NEW WHEEL DESIGNS. THE COUNTS SHOWN ABOVE INCLUDE A DUPLICATE ODI AND FORD REPORT; THE FORD COUNTS ARE UNIQUE VEHICLES ALLEGING WHEEL FRACTURE(S).SOME WARRANTY CLAIMS INVOLVED MORE THAN ONE WHEEL REPLACEMENT.ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT VEHICLES HAVE BEEN IN SERVICE FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN VEHICLES INVESTIGATED IN THE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO-PIECE WHEEL FRACTURE, ODI DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ALLEGATIONS OF CRASHES, RAPID AIR LOSS EVENTS DUE TO WHEEL FRACTURES OR ALLEGATIONS OF EFFECTS ON VEHICLE CONTROL OR STABILITY, AS WERE THE CASES IN PAST INVESTIGATIONS WHERE SAFETY RECALLS WERE CONDUCTED TO REPLACE AFFECTED WHEELS.THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THE SSV IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PURSUIT OR HIGH SPEED USAGE, REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR CRASHES OR LOSS OF CONTROL INCIDENTS TO BE CAUSED BY THE ALLEGED DEFECT. FORD IMPLEMENTED A 'SHOT PEENING' PROCESS IN JUNE 2006 WHICH REDUCED THE WHEEL'S SURFACE STRESS AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED ITS DURABILITY, AND ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY FAILURES OF SHOT PEENED WHEELS (SERVICE PART NUMBER 7L1Z-1015-B).FORD'S TESTING SHOWED A SLIGHTLY REDUCED DURABILITY FOR THE NON-SHOT PEENED WHEELS WHEN 'LT' INSTEAD OF FORD APPROVED 'P' METRIC TYPE TIRES ARE USED. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY FURTHER C
Wheels:rim
FORD SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLE (SSV) EXPEDITIONS USE A STEEL FULL FACE WHEEL DESIGN SIMILAR TO THAT INVESTIGATED IN PE03009, RQ04007, EA04034 (CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR) AND PE03026 (GM PICKUPS AND SUVS).A TOTAL OF 8,251 SSVS (2.2% OF TOTAL PRODUCTION) WERE PRODUCED WITHIN MODEL YEARS 2004-2006 AND SOLD PRIMARILY FOR USE BY STATE, FEDERAL, AND MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) AGENCIES.FORD STIPULATES THAT THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR HIGH SPEED OR PURSUIT OPERATIONS AND ALSO IDENTIFIED A 2004 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE VEHICLE EVALUATION REPORT WHICH ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THIS LIMITATION. THE FULL FACE WHEEL IS FABRICATED FROM TWO PIECES: A STAMPED OUTER WHEEL DISC AND A FORMED RIM.THE TWO PIECES, WHICH TOGETHER COMPRISE THE OUTER BEAD SEAT, ARE JOINED TOGETHER WITH A CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD.A CYCLIC BENDING MOMENT OCCURS IN THE OUTER BEAD SEAT AREA AS THE WHEEL ROTATES, RESULTING IN FATIGUE STRESSES IN THE WELD'S HEAT AFFECTED ZONE THAT CAN LEAD TO FRACTURING (CRACKING) OF THE RIM MATERIAL.BECAUSE THE FAILURE OCCURS UNDER THE OUTBOARD TIRE BEAD, AIR LEAKAGE MAY NOT READILY OCCUR WHEN THE RIM CRACKS, DEPENDENT ON HOW WELL THE BEAD SEALS ON THE RIM.IF MULTIPLE CRACKS GROW UNDETECTED AND SUDDENLY JOIN INTO A SINGLE LARGE CRACK, THE WHEEL'S STRUCTURE CAN BECOME COMPROMISED LEADING TO RAPID AIR LOSS.A RAPID AIR LOSS, ESPECIALLY AT HIGHER SPEED, MAY LEAD TO A CRASH. FORD RESPONDED TO ODI'S JANUARY 5, 2009 INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) ON FEBRUARY 24.FORD'S RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGES A NUMBER OF WHEEL FRACTURES ON THE SSVS.HOWEVER, BASED ON ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE PERTINENT FACTORS, IT CONCLUDES THAT THE CONDITION DOES NOT REPRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO SAFETY.THE LACK OF REPORTS OF RAPID AIR LOSS, NO ALLEGED CRASHES, AND THEIR ASSESSMENT THAT A CRACKED WHEEL CAN BE DETECTED THROUGH SLOW, REPEATED AIR LOSS OR VIBRATION, WERE THE BASES FOR FORD'S CONCLUSION.FORD DISCUSSES THE RESULTS OF A STUDY IT PERFORMED ON WHEELS RETURNED FROM LE FIELD USE, DESIGN REVISIONS IT MADE TO THE SUBJECT WHEEL, AND THE OUTCOME OF DURABILITY TESTING IT CONDUCTED ON THE OLD AND NEW WHEEL DESIGNS. THE COUNTS SHOWN ABOVE INCLUDE A DUPLICATE ODI AND FORD REPORT; THE FORD COUNTS ARE UNIQUE VEHICLES ALLEGING WHEEL FRACTURE(S).SOME WARRANTY CLAIMS INVOLVED MORE THAN ONE WHEEL REPLACEMENT.ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT VEHICLES HAVE BEEN IN SERVICE FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN VEHICLES INVESTIGATED IN THE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO-PIECE WHEEL FRACTURE, ODI DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ALLEGATIONS OF CRASHES, RAPID AIR LOSS EVENTS DUE TO WHEEL FRACTURES OR ALLEGATIONS OF EFFECTS ON VEHICLE CONTROL OR STABILITY, AS WERE THE CASES IN PAST INVESTIGATIONS WHERE SAFETY RECALLS WERE CONDUCTED TO REPLACE AFFECTED WHEELS.THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THE SSV IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PURSUIT OR HIGH SPEED USAGE, REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR CRASHES OR LOSS OF CONTROL INCIDENTS TO BE CAUSED BY THE ALLEGED DEFECT. FORD IMPLEMENTED A 'SHOT PEENING' PROCESS IN JUNE 2006 WHICH REDUCED THE WHEEL'S SURFACE STRESS AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED ITS DURABILITY, AND ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY FAILURES OF SHOT PEENED WHEELS (SERVICE PART NUMBER 7L1Z-1015-B).FORD'S TESTING SHOWED A SLIGHTLY REDUCED DURABILITY FOR THE NON-SHOT PEENED WHEELS WHEN 'LT' INSTEAD OF FORD APPROVED 'P' METRIC TYPE TIRES ARE USED. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY FURTHER C
DP05005 · 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