NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
15 reportsClear category filter70,400 miles · Dec 16, 2011
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES AT APPROXIMATE SPEED OF 3 TO 5 MPH, ANTI LOCK BRAKES ACTIVATE. FORD DEALERSHIP HAD THE VEHICLE FOR 7 DAYS, REPLACED THE ANTI LOCK BRAKE SENSOR AND ADVISED ME THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FIXED. AS SOON AS I LEFT THE DEALERSHIP, I NOTICED THE SAME PROBLEM. TO DATE, FORD HAS NOT FIXED THE PROBLEM, OR REFUNDED MY…
Read full complaint
WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES AT APPROXIMATE SPEED OF 3 TO 5 MPH, ANTI LOCK BRAKES ACTIVATE. FORD DEALERSHIP HAD THE VEHICLE FOR 7 DAYS, REPLACED THE ANTI LOCK BRAKE SENSOR AND ADVISED ME THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FIXED. AS SOON AS I LEFT THE DEALERSHIP, I NOTICED THE SAME PROBLEM. TO DATE, FORD HAS NOT FIXED THE PROBLEM, OR REFUNDED MY MONEY FOR THE REPAIR THAT WAS NOT NECESSARY (ANTI LOCK BRAKE SENSOR.) *TR
NHTSA ODI #10440220
38,000 miles · Oct 8, 2010
Latches/locks/linkagesService Brakes, HydraulicStructureInjury
2002 FORD SPORT TRAC 8 YEAR OLD CHILD BROKE DOOR HANDLE WHEN TRYING TO OPEN DOOR WITH CHILD LOCK ON. 5 YEAR OLD CHILD BROKE THE OTHER DOOR HANDLE THE SAME WAY. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS. THESE HANDLES ARE NOT HEAVY DTY ENOUGH FOR THE WEIGHT THAT IS FORCED ON THEM WHEN TRYING TO OPEN EVEN WITH THE CHILD LOCK OFF. THE…
Read full complaint
2002 FORD SPORT TRAC 8 YEAR OLD CHILD BROKE DOOR HANDLE WHEN TRYING TO OPEN DOOR WITH CHILD LOCK ON. 5 YEAR OLD CHILD BROKE THE OTHER DOOR HANDLE THE SAME WAY. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS. THESE HANDLES ARE NOT HEAVY DTY ENOUGH FOR THE WEIGHT THAT IS FORCED ON THEM WHEN TRYING TO OPEN EVEN WITH THE CHILD LOCK OFF. THESE AUTOMAKERS SHOULD BE FORCED TO STOP USING THE PUBLIC AS GUINEA PIGS TO FIND OUT WHAT PROBLEMS THEY HAVE AND THEN NEVER ISSUE RECALLS. THEY JUST MODIFY IT ON THE NEXT MODEL AND BLOW OFF PRIOR OWNERS. THE HANDLES ACTUALLY CUT MY DAUGHTERS HAND WHEN IT BROKE. IT IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. ALSO THE BRAKES ON THE SAME VEHICLE. I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE THE CALIPER ON THE PASS SIDE TWICE AND THEY EAT BRAKE PADS UP LIKE MAD. IT IS NOT DRIVING HABITS THAT CAUSED THIS IT IS A DESIGN FLAW. NO WONDER THEY WENT TO 4 WHEEL DISC BRAKES( ANOTHER WAIT AND MODIFY ROUTINE) I'M SURE THIS WAS THEIR FIX FOR THAT PROBLEM AND THEY AVOIDED ANOTHER RECALL. WE PAY THOUSAND OF DOLLARS FOR THESE VEHICLES THEY SHOULD PAY THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO FIX THEIR ENGINEERING AND QC DEPARTMENTS LACK OF DETAIL WHEN TESTING THESE VEHICLES. THANK YOU FOR ANYONE CARING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10359608
38,000 miles · Sep 17, 2008
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
BRAKE FAILURE 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC ONLY 38000 MI WHEN THIS OCCURRED IN AUG 07. I ALMOST HIT THE BACK OF A SCHOOL BUS WHEN DROPPING MY CHILDREN OFF AT SCHOOL. THE BRAKES WOULD GRIND AND NOT STOP THE VEHICLE AND SOMETIMES PULSATION WOULD OCCUR AT ANY SPEED. IT WAS LIKE THE ANTILOCK BRAKING SYSTEM WAS COMING ON WHEN IT …
Read full complaint
BRAKE FAILURE 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC ONLY 38000 MI WHEN THIS OCCURRED IN AUG 07. I ALMOST HIT THE BACK OF A SCHOOL BUS WHEN DROPPING MY CHILDREN OFF AT SCHOOL. THE BRAKES WOULD GRIND AND NOT STOP THE VEHICLE AND SOMETIMES PULSATION WOULD OCCUR AT ANY SPEED. IT WAS LIKE THE ANTILOCK BRAKING SYSTEM WAS COMING ON WHEN IT SHOULDN'T(SUMMER DRY ROADS) AND THEN GETTING STUCK IN THE BRAKE RELEASE STATE. SO WHEN TRYING TO STOP THE VEHICLE WITH THE FOOT PEDAL, THE ANTILOCK BRAKING SYSTEM WAS WORKING AGAINST YOUR BRAKING ACTION. THIS CAUSES A VERY SCARY FEELING WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR AND THE VEHICLE STILL REMAINS IN MOTION. THE BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS WERE REPLACED, BUT NOT THE PROBLEM. THE NEXT INCIDENCE OCCURRED IN A BUSY INTERSECTION WHEN WE WERE ALMOST HIT BY ONCOMING TRAFFIC BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WOULDN'T STOP AT A RED LIGHT. WHEN TAKING THE VEHICLE TO THE MECHANIC I ALMOST HIT 2 PEDESTRIANS IN A CROSSWALK AT A STOP SIGN. THE VEHICLE JUST KEPT ON GOING AND I QUICKLY BEEPED THE HORN FOR A NEAR MISS OF A MAN AND HIS LITTLE BOY. THE MECHANIC TOLD ME THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE ANTILOCK BRAKING SYSTEM WHICH CAUSES THE BRAKES TO MALFUNCTION. HE SENT US TO ANOTHER MECHANIC AND HE SAID THIS IS A DEFECT IN CERTAIN FORD EXPLORER MODELS. THE ANTILOCK BRAKING SENSORS, ALONG WITH THE LOCATION OF THEM IS THE PROBLEM. HE SAID TO FIX THIS IT WOULD COST ANYWHERE BETWEEN 300-600 DEPENDING ON WHAT ELSE WAS DAMAGED, BUT HE STRESSED DRIVING THE VEHICLE LIKE THIS IS AN EXTREME SAFETY HAZARD. I WAS UPSET BECAUSE OF THE LOW MILES ON THIS VEHICLE. IT WAS ONLY OVER WARRANTY MILES BY 2000 BUT 5 YRS OLD. I COULD NOT AFFORD TO FIX THIS SO I WAS INSTRUCTED TO PULL THE FUSE ON THE ABS BECAUSE IT WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE WITH THE ABS. I HAVE THREE CHILDREN AND THIS IS MY ONLY TRANSPORTATION. WITH THE ABS FUSE PULLED I DO NOT HAVE THE PROBLEM, BUT LACKING ABS. FORD NEEDS TO STAND BY THERE PRODUCT AND OFFER A RECALL ON THIS COMPLETELY UNSAFE MALFUNCTION OF THE ANTILOCK BRAKING SYSTEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10242563
50,000 miles · Sep 9, 2008
Latches/locks/linkagesService Brakes, HydraulicSuspension
WHEN I WOULD MAKE A SHARP LEFT HAND TURN AND USE THE BRAKES THE BRAKES WOULD PULSATE AND WOULD NOT STOP THE TRUCK RIGHT AWAY. IT WOULD ACT LIKE IT HAD HIT ICE AND ITS WAS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER. IT WOULD STILL MOVE ABOUT A FOOT. I TOOK IT TO A SHOP TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT AND WAS TOLD HE GETS ALOT OF FORD'S THAT DO THIS AND THEY DON'…
Read full complaint
WHEN I WOULD MAKE A SHARP LEFT HAND TURN AND USE THE BRAKES THE BRAKES WOULD PULSATE AND WOULD NOT STOP THE TRUCK RIGHT AWAY. IT WOULD ACT LIKE IT HAD HIT ICE AND ITS WAS THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER. IT WOULD STILL MOVE ABOUT A FOOT. I TOOK IT TO A SHOP TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT AND WAS TOLD HE GETS ALOT OF FORD'S THAT DO THIS AND THEY DON'T HAVE A RECALL ON THIS. THE SHOP REPLACED THE PART IN THE HUB OR WHEEL NOT SURE AND NOW ITS FINE BUT IT COST ME OVER 500.00 AND I ONLY HAVE 50,000 MILES ON IT. I KNOW THAT PARTS WEAR BOUT BUT THIS WAS A FAILURE OF A PART THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BAD. ALSO THE ELECTRIC DOOR LOCK BUTTON IN THE TRUCK STOPS WORKING, THE OPEN SECTION WORKS BUT NOT THE LOCK BUTTON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10241635
103,000 miles · May 17, 2008
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
THE FORD RECALL FOR CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH IS A JOKE. I JUST HAD THE DEALERSHIP PERFORM THE REPAIR ON MY 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THEY ONLY INSTALLED A FUSED JUMPER INSTEAD OF REPLACING THE FAILING SWITCH. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR FIRE BUT ALSO THE SWITCH FAILUR…
Read full complaint
THE FORD RECALL FOR CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH IS A JOKE. I JUST HAD THE DEALERSHIP PERFORM THE REPAIR ON MY 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THEY ONLY INSTALLED A FUSED JUMPER INSTEAD OF REPLACING THE FAILING SWITCH. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR FIRE BUT ALSO THE SWITCH FAILURE COULD CAUSE A LOSS OF BRAKE FLUID PRESSURE. WITH THE JUMPER INSTALLED A FAILURE WOULD BLOW THE FUSE AND REMOVE THE SWITCH FROM OVERHEATING BUT THE SWITCH COULD STILL LEAK BRAKE FLUID ONTO THE HOT EXHAUST MANIFOLD. I TALKED WITH THE SERVICE REP AND ASKED WHY FORD DOESN'T REPLACE THE SWITCH. HE STATED " GOOD QUESTION, PROBABLY BECAUSE THE JUMPER IS CHEAPER " . AFTER SPENDING $30,000.00 FOR A VEHICLE YOU WOULD THINK REPLACEMENT OF THE SWITCH WOULD BE A MINIMAL COST TO THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY. I WAS CONSIDERING GETTING A NEW FORD SPORT TRAC BUT WILL LOOK TO ANOTHER MANUFACTURER FOR MY NEXT VEHICLE. FORDS SAFETY AWARENESS AND RESPONSIBILITY SUCKS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10228085
43,175 miles · Jun 16, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE USED AT 22,000 MILES FROM LOCAL FORD DEALER. AT 27,380 FORD DEALER FURNISHED MULTI-POINT INSPECTION, SHOWED NO BRAKE ISSUES. AT 43,000 MILES THE BRAKES STARTED GRINDING METAL TO METAL. UP TO THIS TIME THERE WAS NO AUDIBLE WARNING AS I USUAL. TO MY SUPRISE THE ROTORS COULD NOT BE TURNED AND NEEDED T…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE USED AT 22,000 MILES FROM LOCAL FORD DEALER. AT 27,380 FORD DEALER FURNISHED MULTI-POINT INSPECTION, SHOWED NO BRAKE ISSUES. AT 43,000 MILES THE BRAKES STARTED GRINDING METAL TO METAL. UP TO THIS TIME THERE WAS NO AUDIBLE WARNING AS I USUAL. TO MY SUPRISE THE ROTORS COULD NOT BE TURNED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED . THE BRAKES COULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED AND ROTORS TURNED BEFOR MY PURCHASE BUT SOUNDED LIKE STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, INFERIOR PRODUCTS ?? *AK
NHTSA ODI #10193501
39,040 miles · Aug 25, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2002 FORD SPORT TRAC- VEHICLE HAS LESS THAN 40,000 MILES ON IT. HAD TO HAVE BRAKES AND ROTORS REPLACED. BRAKES WERE REPLACED AND ROTORS TURNED FIRST TIME AT 21,532 MILES ON 01-19-04. COMPLAINED SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT EXCESSIVE BRAKE DUST, ROTORS WERE TURNED AGAIN AT 26,885 ON 08-27-05. ON AUGUST 23, 2005 WHILE DRIVING, VEHICLE JUS…
Read full complaint
2002 FORD SPORT TRAC- VEHICLE HAS LESS THAN 40,000 MILES ON IT. HAD TO HAVE BRAKES AND ROTORS REPLACED. BRAKES WERE REPLACED AND ROTORS TURNED FIRST TIME AT 21,532 MILES ON 01-19-04. COMPLAINED SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT EXCESSIVE BRAKE DUST, ROTORS WERE TURNED AGAIN AT 26,885 ON 08-27-05. ON AUGUST 23, 2005 WHILE DRIVING, VEHICLE JUST STOPPED, HAD TOWED TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD IT WAS THE AIR FLOW VALVE. ASKED FORD TO FIX AND ALSO CHANGE OIL, SERVICE CALLED BACK TO SAY I NEEDED NEW BRAKES AND ROTORS NEEDED TO BE TURNED. GAVE PERMISSION TO FIX. RECEIVED ANOTHER PHONE CALL SHORTLY AFTER SAYING ROTORS COULD NOT BE TURNED THEY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. CALLED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE IN MICHIGAN AS WAS TOLD THAT BRAKES WERE ONLY UNDER WARRANTY FOR 12,000 MILES. HAVING HAD THE ROTORS TURNED TWICE AND THEN REPLACED AND HAVING LESS THAN 40,000 MILES ON VEHICLE SEEMED EXCESSIVE.
NHTSA ODI #10134224
26,000 miles · Jul 15, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
DT: CALLER HAS HAD TO REPLACE THE ROTORS ON HER VEHICLE TWICE. THE FIRST TIME WAS AT 26000 MILES AND THE SECOND TIME WAS AT 53000 MILES. THIS HAPPENED WITHOUT WARNING BOTH TIMES. DEALER FIXED THEM THE FIRST TIME. CALLER SAID YESTERDAY SHE HEARD A NOISE AND TOOK IT IN AND WAS TOLD IT WAS THE ROTOR. TODAY BELL TIRE CO. IS FIXING T…
Read full complaint
DT: CALLER HAS HAD TO REPLACE THE ROTORS ON HER VEHICLE TWICE. THE FIRST TIME WAS AT 26000 MILES AND THE SECOND TIME WAS AT 53000 MILES. THIS HAPPENED WITHOUT WARNING BOTH TIMES. DEALER FIXED THEM THE FIRST TIME. CALLER SAID YESTERDAY SHE HEARD A NOISE AND TOOK IT IN AND WAS TOLD IT WAS THE ROTOR. TODAY BELL TIRE CO. IS FIXING THE SECOND MISHAP. MANUFACTURER HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED YET. CALLER DOES NOT REMEMBER WHEN THE FIRST TIME WAS. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10128893
34,600 miles · Mar 27, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC PREMATURE FRONT BRAKE PAD WEAR, PARTICULARLY THE FRONT INSIDE PAD WORE DOWN TO ROTOR. HAD 30,000 FORD INSPECTION AND WAS ONLY 50% WORN ON FRONT, AT 34,000 MILES THE PADS WAS WORN OUT AND THE LOCAL DEALER BILL ALEXANDER FORD SAID THATS NOMINAL.
NHTSA ODI #10114838
Mileage unknown · Feb 7, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE VEHICLE HAD A DIFFICULT TIME SLOWING DOWN WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED. TAKEN TO DEALER FOR REPAIR OF THE BRAKE PADS FOUR TIMES, BUT THE PROBLEM RECURRED. MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BY OWNER.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10110952
NHTSA investigations
3PE09020 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Apr 21, 2009 · Closed Aug 19, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Steering:column
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
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.
PE03020 · Front Seat Back Recliner Attachment
Opened May 21, 2003 · Closed Sep 5, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 2003, FORD NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT IS CONDUCTING A VOLUNTARY SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 03V281) INVOLVING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1998-2001 FORD EXPLORER / MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4-DOOR, MY 1998-2000 FORD EXPLORER 2-DOOR AND MY 2001-2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT AND SPORT TRAC VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS.COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE DRIVER'S SEAT BACK RECLINED WITHOUT WARNING.A BOLT BETWEEN THE UPPER SEAT RECLINER ATTACHMENT AND THE SEAT BACK FRAME MAY FRACTURE.FORD WILL REPLACE THE BOLT THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME ON THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT.BASED ON FORD'S SAFETY RECALL ACTION, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Illustration