NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
121 reports163,466 miles · Feb 25, 2017
Power Train
MY VEHICLE WILL NOT RUN ON REVERSE. I CAN SHIFT PERFECTLY FINE TO ALL MY GEARS WITHOUT ANY FUSSING OR CLUNKING NOISES COMING FROM THE GEAR SHIFTS/TRANSMISSION. BUT AS SOON AS I TRY TO PUT IT ON REVERSE MY VEHICLE DOES NOT MOVE, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S IN NEUTRAL INSTEAD OF REVERSE. AT THE MOMENT OF DISCOVERING MY VEHICLE DOES NOT MOV…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE WILL NOT RUN ON REVERSE. I CAN SHIFT PERFECTLY FINE TO ALL MY GEARS WITHOUT ANY FUSSING OR CLUNKING NOISES COMING FROM THE GEAR SHIFTS/TRANSMISSION. BUT AS SOON AS I TRY TO PUT IT ON REVERSE MY VEHICLE DOES NOT MOVE, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S IN NEUTRAL INSTEAD OF REVERSE. AT THE MOMENT OF DISCOVERING MY VEHICLE DOES NOT MOVE IN REVERSE IT WAS STATIONARY IN PARK. I TRIED TURNING THE VEHICLE ON AND OFF AND TRIED MESSING WITH ALL THE GEARS BUT TO NO AVAIL.
NHTSA ODI #10956882
Mileage unknown · Mar 29, 2016
Service Brakes
AFTER CHANGING THE FRONT WHEEL BEARING HUBS, THE VEHICLE ABS LIGHT CAME ON. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT A YEAR. THE VEHICLE DOES STOP, BUT THE ABS FUNCTION DOESN'T WORK. THIS HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM FOR ME, BUT, SOMETIMES THE ABS LIGHT STAYS OUT FOR A WHILE AND THEN COMES BACK ON. DEALER STATED THAT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE AN…
Read full complaint
AFTER CHANGING THE FRONT WHEEL BEARING HUBS, THE VEHICLE ABS LIGHT CAME ON. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT A YEAR. THE VEHICLE DOES STOP, BUT THE ABS FUNCTION DOESN'T WORK. THIS HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM FOR ME, BUT, SOMETIMES THE ABS LIGHT STAYS OUT FOR A WHILE AND THEN COMES BACK ON. DEALER STATED THAT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE AND MOTOR ASSEMBLIES WOULD COST ABOUT $2300 FOR PARTS, SANS LABOR TO REPAIR. DEALER ALSO STATED THAT THERE WERE ONLY ABOUT 12 NEW PARTS AVAILABLE, AND NOTHING REFURBISHED. DEALER ALSO STATED THAT IF THIS WERE A FEW MONTHS EARLIER, THE TOTAL COST WOULD BE ABOUT $300 FOR NEW PARTS. THE VEHICLE HAS APPROX. 167,000 MILES ON IT. NO ACCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED AT THIS TIME. JUST THOUGHT SOMEONE SHOULD KNOW.
NHTSA ODI #10852326
174,559 miles · Oct 13, 2013
TiresWheels
THESE TIRES ARE STILL UNDER WARRANTY. WHEN THEY WERE FIRST INSTALLED, WE NOTICED A STRANGE SOUND. WE DID NOT ASSUME IT WAS FROM THE TIRES, BUT THOUGHT IT WAS RELATED TO THE ROTORS. THIS IS NOT OUR ONLY VEHICLE AND WE DON'T DRIVE IT ALL OF THE TIME; IN FACT IT IS PARKED MUCH OF THE TIME. WE DID NOT GET THE ROTORS REPLACED UNTIL A…
Read full complaint
THESE TIRES ARE STILL UNDER WARRANTY. WHEN THEY WERE FIRST INSTALLED, WE NOTICED A STRANGE SOUND. WE DID NOT ASSUME IT WAS FROM THE TIRES, BUT THOUGHT IT WAS RELATED TO THE ROTORS. THIS IS NOT OUR ONLY VEHICLE AND WE DON'T DRIVE IT ALL OF THE TIME; IN FACT IT IS PARKED MUCH OF THE TIME. WE DID NOT GET THE ROTORS REPLACED UNTIL AUGUST OF 2013. THE SOUND CONTINUED EVEN WITH THE NEW ROTORS, TO OUR SURPRISE. SO WE WENT BACK AND CHECKED A SECOND MECHANIC WHO THEN REMOVED ALL OF THE TIRES. AFTER INSPECTING THE TIRES, THE MECHANIC SHOWED US WHERE THEY WERE DEFECTIVE. HE PHYSICALLY POINTED OUT SOME AREAS WHERE THEY WERE DEFORMED. HE TOLD US TO TAKE THEM BACK TO WHERE WE PURCHASED THEM FOR REPLACEMENT. IN SHORT, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THEM REPLACED AT WAL MART WHERE THEY WERE PURCHASED. I WOULD LIKE THESE TIRES INDEPENDENTLY INSPECTED SO THAT WE CAN VERIFY THAT THEY ARE INDEED DEFECTIVE. THANK YOU. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547763
155,000 miles · Apr 15, 2011
Tires
GENERAL TIRE TREAD SEPARATION FORD EXPLORER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10396034
Mileage unknown · Aug 27, 2010
Structure
RUNNING BOARDS ARE SO BADLY CORRODED YOU COULD SEE RIGHT THROUGH TO THE ROAD. RUST SPREADING BADLY THROUGH UNDERCARRIAGE. HAD TO HAVE RUNNING BOARDS REMOVED BEFORE THEY FELL OFF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10352319
140,000 miles · Aug 27, 2010
Seats
SUBJECT: DEFECTIVE SEAT FRAME CAUSED BY FAULTY SEAT RECLINER BOLT COMMENTS: I HAVE A 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT THAT WAS RECALLED BY FORD FOR A FAULTY DRIVERS SEAT RECLINER BOLT. ON JUNE 2ND 2010 I TOOK MY EXPLORER TO FUTURE FORD OF CONCORD CA TO HAVE THE RECALL REPAIR WORK PERFORMED, WHICH IT WAS, BUT WITH A "NOTE TO THE …
Read full complaint
SUBJECT: DEFECTIVE SEAT FRAME CAUSED BY FAULTY SEAT RECLINER BOLT COMMENTS: I HAVE A 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT THAT WAS RECALLED BY FORD FOR A FAULTY DRIVERS SEAT RECLINER BOLT. ON JUNE 2ND 2010 I TOOK MY EXPLORER TO FUTURE FORD OF CONCORD CA TO HAVE THE RECALL REPAIR WORK PERFORMED, WHICH IT WAS, BUT WITH A "NOTE TO THE CUSTOMER" FROM THE FORD MECHANIC THAT THE SEAT FRAME WAS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THE FAULTY DRIVERS SEAT RECLINER BOLT FOR WHICH MY EXPLORER WAS RECALLED FOR. UPON BEING INFORMED I ASKED MY FORD SERVICE ADVISOR "D.T." HOW FORD PLANNED TO REPAIR THE DAMAGED SEAT FRAME, AND HE REFERRED ME TO THE FUTURE FORD SERVICE MANAGER J.H., WHO IN TURN SAID THAT HIS "COMPUTER SAID" THE PARTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, AND THAT I WAS WELCOME TO VOICE MY CONCERNS TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY?!?! CAN SOMEONE AT THE DOT PLEASE EVALUATE MY CASE AND IF WARRANTED, APPROACH FORD MOTOR CO. WITH AN ORDER TO REPLACE THE FAULTY PART(S) AT NO COST TO ME SINCE THE DAMAGE TO THE SEAT FRAME WAS CAUSED BY THE FAULTY DRIVERS SEAT RECLINER BOLT? DRIVING ON A DAMAGED DRIVERS SEAT SEAT FRAME DOESN'T SOUND TOO SAFE TO ME! NO DOUBT THIS IS WHY THE MECHANIC AT FUTURE FORD NOTED THIS ON HIS WORK ORDER, AND THE SERVICE ADVISOR THEN NOTIFIED ME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10352279
121,895 miles · Aug 3, 2010
Latches/locks/linkagesSeats
I HAVE HAD MY DRIVER'S SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM REPAIRED BEFORE, BUT THE RECLINER DRIVER'S SEAT HAS BROKEN AGAIN. NOW THE RECLINER DRIVER'S SEAT RECLINES TOTALLY, UNTIL IT TOUCHES THE BACK SEAT CUSHION. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THE PART TO REPAIR THE SEAT IS NO LONGER MANUFACTURED. I WAS TOLD I COULD GO TO A SALVAGE YARD TO LOOK…
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD MY DRIVER'S SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM REPAIRED BEFORE, BUT THE RECLINER DRIVER'S SEAT HAS BROKEN AGAIN. NOW THE RECLINER DRIVER'S SEAT RECLINES TOTALLY, UNTIL IT TOUCHES THE BACK SEAT CUSHION. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THE PART TO REPAIR THE SEAT IS NO LONGER MANUFACTURED. I WAS TOLD I COULD GO TO A SALVAGE YARD TO LOOK FOR THE PART. ON RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM ON THE INTERNET I CAME UPON THE RECALL NOTICE FOR THE EXACT PROBLEM I HAVE HAD WITH THIS VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10347147
118,000 miles · Dec 23, 2009
Fuel System, Gasoline
LARGE FUEL LEAK FROM BRAIDED STEEL FUEL LINES WHERE THEY WERE RUBBING AGAINST THEIR BRACE ON THE TOP FRONT OF ENGINE. THEY WERE CUT, WITH A SPLICE PUT IN, AND THE BRACE REMOVED, RATHER THAN A REPLACEMENT. THE REASON BEING THE REPLACEMENT PART COST OF $600. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10296772
168,455 miles · Aug 12, 2009
Fuel System, Other
I WAS GOING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, IN MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER, EDDIE BAUER, THIS AFTERNOON ; I WAS ABOUT 10 TO 15 MILES OFF THE INTERSTATE. ALL OF A SUDDEN MY GAS PEDAL BROKE OFF AND WAS JUST HANGING THERE. IT WAS A VERY BUSY STATE HWY WHERE THE SPEED LIMIT IS 55 MPH. LUCKILY A CHP OFFICER CAME BY AND PUSHED MY CAR FORWARD TO A WID…
Read full complaint
I WAS GOING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, IN MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER, EDDIE BAUER, THIS AFTERNOON ; I WAS ABOUT 10 TO 15 MILES OFF THE INTERSTATE. ALL OF A SUDDEN MY GAS PEDAL BROKE OFF AND WAS JUST HANGING THERE. IT WAS A VERY BUSY STATE HWY WHERE THE SPEED LIMIT IS 55 MPH. LUCKILY A CHP OFFICER CAME BY AND PUSHED MY CAR FORWARD TO A WIDER SPOT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD THEN THE TOW TRUCK CAME AND TOWED ME TO A SHOP. IT REALLY SCARES ME TO THINK ABOUT IF MY WIFE OR SON HAD BEEN DRIVING AND NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO OR WHAT WAS WRONG. ALSO, I WAS VERY LUCKY IT DID NOT HAPPEN TO ME WHILE ON THE INTERSTATE. AFTER I GOT THE CAR TOWED AND CAME HOME I WENT ON THE INTERNET TO RESEARCH THIS PROBLEM. ON WWW.ABOUTAUTOMOBILE.COM I FOUND 11 OTHER CASES LISTED WITH VERY SIMILAR STORIES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10280278
132,000 miles · Jul 20, 2009
Electrical SystemExterior LightingService Brakes, HydraulicFire
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TAIL LIGHTS FAILED AND THE FUSES WOULD CONTINUOUSLY BLOW OUT. AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC INSTALLED NEW FUSES IN THE VEHICLE AND MADE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS, BUT THE FUSES BLEW OUT AGAIN THE SAME DAY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE MECHANIC. WHILE AT T…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TAIL LIGHTS FAILED AND THE FUSES WOULD CONTINUOUSLY BLOW OUT. AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC INSTALLED NEW FUSES IN THE VEHICLE AND MADE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS, BUT THE FUSES BLEW OUT AGAIN THE SAME DAY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE MECHANIC. WHILE AT THE REPAIR SHOP, THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE DUE TO THE MASTER CYLINDER. THE MECHANIC WAS ABLE TO EXTINGUISH THE FIRE, BUT THE VEHICLE WAS PARTIALLY DESTROYED AND WOULD NEED TO BE REBUILT. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THERE WERE THREE OPEN RECALLS, ONE OF WHICH COULD RESULT IN A FIRE. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBERS 06V286000, 03V281000, AND 98V060000 WERE REFERENCED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE LESS THAN 132,000.
NHTSA ODI #10277486
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Illustration