IllustrationSEATBELT MECHANISM FOR DRIVER SIDE AND PASSENGER SIDE IS INOPERABLE. IT DOESN'T LOCK AFTER YOU PUT YOUR SEATBELT ON. THE MECHANISM YOU PUT THE SEATBELT BUCKLE IN IS GOOD BUT AFTER THAT THE LOCK MECHANISM FOR THE BELT TO RETRACT ISN'T WORKING PROPERLY. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE DRIVING OR PARKED.
2004 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Ford Explorer Sport Trac do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 27.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Explorer Sport Trac 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
160–25K
1825–50K
550–75K
1775–100K
7100–150K
4150K+
67 reports with mileage · 19 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.
- Suspension. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
14 crash reports1 fire reports13 injury reports
Seat Belts complaints
5 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DRIVER AND FRONT PASSENGER SEAT BELTS FAILED TO RETRACT AND LOCK IN POSITION. THE CONTACT CALLED SANDERS FORD (LOCATED AT 1006 W CORBRELT AVE, SWANSBORO, NC 28584, 910-326-1801) AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE SEAT BELTS WERE NO LONGER COVERED UNDER WARR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD EXPLORER SPORT TRAC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DRIVER AND FRONT PASSENGER SEAT BELTS FAILED TO RETRACT AND LOCK IN POSITION. THE CONTACT CALLED SANDERS FORD (LOCATED AT 1006 W CORBRELT AVE, SWANSBORO, NC 28584, 910-326-1801) AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE SEAT BELTS WERE NO LONGER COVERED UNDER WARRANTY; THEREFORE, THE CONTACT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DIAGNOSTIC AND REPAIR COST. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000. THE VIN WAS INVALID.
2004 FORD EXPLORER SPORTTRAK - 3 PASSENGER SEAT BELTS FAILED DUE TO BELT BUCKLE CAUSING TEAR IN BELT FABRIC. *AK
APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AGO, WHILE MY VEHICLE WAS PARKED, AND RUNNING OUTSIDE OF MY HOME, I SHUT THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR, AND THE SIDE IMPACT AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR WAS SHUT WITH NO MORE FORCE THAN NORMAL, HOWEVER I WAS LATER TOLD BY THE FORD SERVICE DEPT. THAT EVEN A SLAM SHOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THIS DEPLOYMENT. I…
Read full complaint
APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AGO, WHILE MY VEHICLE WAS PARKED, AND RUNNING OUTSIDE OF MY HOME, I SHUT THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR, AND THE SIDE IMPACT AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR WAS SHUT WITH NO MORE FORCE THAN NORMAL, HOWEVER I WAS LATER TOLD BY THE FORD SERVICE DEPT. THAT EVEN A SLAM SHOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THIS DEPLOYMENT. I OPTED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, AND DID NOT GO TO FORD, HOWEVER NOW REALIZED I SHOULD HAVE, AS THE VEHICLE WAS THEN IN IT'S LAST MILES OF MY WARRANTY. I AM NOW CONCERNED THAT THE MULTIPLE PROBLEMS I HAVE HAD WITH MY DRIVER SIDE AND PASSENGER SIDE SEATBELTS MAY BE ASSOCIATED OR HAVE CAUSED THE DEFAULT OF MY SIDE AIRBAGS, AS THE DRIVER SEAT BELT WAS REPLACED APPROXIMATELY 3 TIMES JUST PRIOR TO THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYING. I AM VERY DISSATISFIED BY THE RESPONSE FORD PROVIDED, HOWEVER EVEN IF I HAD PLACED A COMPLAINT DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, ACCORDING TO OTHER FILED COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE SAME ISSUE WHICH I READ, IT MAY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN COVERED BY FORD. I AM JUST NOW CONTEMPLATING EITHER TRADING THE VEHICLE IN, OR REPLACING THE AIRBAG EQUIPMENT REQUIRED TO MEET SAFETY REGULATIONS, AS UP TO THIS POINT THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN OPERATIONAL WITHOUT REPLACEMENT, AFTER ALL, WITH MY MALFUNCTION AND OTHERS NOTED ON THE SITE, AND BY THE FORD SERVICE DEPT, I FEEL THEY ARE MORE A LIABILITY THAN A PROTECTIVE ELEMENT. IT IS A DISTURBING DAY, WHEN FORD DOES NOT STAND BEHIND IT'S SAFETY COMMITMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WAS NO CAUSE , PRIOR ACCIDENT, OR IMPACT TO HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THIS SUDDEN DEPLOYMENT. *TR
OCTOBER 28, 2004, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT, CHAIN REACTION 3 VEHICLE, I WAS AT FULL STOP WITH FOOT ON BRAKE. VEHICLE BEHIND ME STOPPED, NEXT VEHICLE DID NOT STOP, PUSHED VEHICLE BEHIND ME INTO AND UNDER THE DRIVER SIDE REAR OF MY VEHICLE. BUMPER DAMAGE, TRUCK BED TWISTED SEVERAL INCHES, ETC. MY SEAT BELT DID NOT HOLD/CATCH OR …
Read full complaint
OCTOBER 28, 2004, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT, CHAIN REACTION 3 VEHICLE, I WAS AT FULL STOP WITH FOOT ON BRAKE. VEHICLE BEHIND ME STOPPED, NEXT VEHICLE DID NOT STOP, PUSHED VEHICLE BEHIND ME INTO AND UNDER THE DRIVER SIDE REAR OF MY VEHICLE. BUMPER DAMAGE, TRUCK BED TWISTED SEVERAL INCHES, ETC. MY SEAT BELT DID NOT HOLD/CATCH OR STOP MY FORWARD MOVEMENT. I WAS THROWN INTO THE STEERING WHEEL AND THEN SNAPPED BACK, INJURING MY HEAD, NECK, MID AND LOW BACK, I HAD NUMBNESS AND TINGLING BILATERAL LOWER EXTREMITIES, AND BILATERAL UPPER EXTREMITIES. I ALSO EXPERIENCED SEVERE MUSCLE SPASMS NECK AND MID BACK. I HIT THE STEERING WHEEL HARD. THE AIR BAG DID NOT ENGAGE. PASSENGER SEAT BELT ENGAGED AND PROTECTED MY PASSENGER. I WAS TAKEN TO AN EMERGENCY HOSPITAL, C-SPINE/BACKBOARD, NECK AND BACK SPASMS, LOTS OF PAIN, TINGLING BILATERAL ARMS AND LEGS, ETC. NOW UNABLE TO WORK, UNKNOWN TIME DUE TO NECK AND BACK INJURY. I AM AN ER NURSE. IF MY SEAT BELT HAD HELD ME, I WOULD PROBABLY BE AT WORK RIGHT NOW AND NOT WRITING THIS COMPLAINT. YOUR QUESTION OF NUMBER OF FAILURES: THE BELT CATCHES ABOUT 1 IN 30 OR MORE ATTEMPT TO GET IT TO HOLD/CATCH. I AM AWAITING A SCHEDULED MRI OF MY SPINE, AND WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH A NEUROLOGIST. THE SEAT BELT HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED AT YET AND REMAINS FAULTY. *AK
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
2PE09020 · 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.