← New search

1998 Ford Explorer Sport

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 1998 Ford Explorer Sport do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 68.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

69 reports with mileage · 52 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.

  • Latches/locks/linkages. Review the 33 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Seats. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

5 crash reports13 fire reports7 injury reports

Latches/locks/linkages complaints

33 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Feb 17, 2007
Latches/locks/linkages

THE DOOR LOCKS WILL NOT UNLOCK WITH A KEY OR THE UNLOCK BUTTON WHEN LOCKED(ELECTRICAL). MY VEHICLE IS NOT THE ONLY ONE. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH 5 OTHERS IN MY CITY ALONE WITH EXPLORERS AND THEY ARE ALL HAVING THE SAME TROUBLES. THIS HAS GOT TO BE A DEFECT FOR IT TO BE IN SO MANY OTHER EXPLORERS. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10182832

98,000 miles · Aug 4, 2006
Latches/locks/linkages

THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR LOCK IS NO LONGER ABLE TO BE UNLOCKED WITH THE KEY OR BY THE POWER LOCK SWITCH. IF IT IS LOCKED ACCIDENTALLY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENTER THE VEHICLE ANY WAY OTHER THAN BY CRAWLING IN FROM THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR OR BY PULLING VERY HARD ON THE INSIDE HANDLE WHILE WORKING THE KEY IN THE LOCK. THIS COULD PRES…

Read full complaint

THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR LOCK IS NO LONGER ABLE TO BE UNLOCKED WITH THE KEY OR BY THE POWER LOCK SWITCH. IF IT IS LOCKED ACCIDENTALLY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENTER THE VEHICLE ANY WAY OTHER THAN BY CRAWLING IN FROM THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR OR BY PULLING VERY HARD ON THE INSIDE HANDLE WHILE WORKING THE KEY IN THE LOCK. THIS COULD PRESENT A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT IF AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO FLEE THE VEHICLE. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10164447

Mileage unknown · Jul 18, 2006
Latches/locks/linkages

THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR LOCK IS NO LONGER ABLE TO BE UNLOCKED WITH THE KEY OR BY THE POWER LOCK SWITCH. IF IT IS LOCKED ACCIDENTALLY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENTER THE VEHICLE ANY WAY OTHER THAN BY CRAWLING IN FROM THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR. THIS COULD PRESENT A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT IF AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO FLEE …

Read full complaint

THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR LOCK IS NO LONGER ABLE TO BE UNLOCKED WITH THE KEY OR BY THE POWER LOCK SWITCH. IF IT IS LOCKED ACCIDENTALLY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENTER THE VEHICLE ANY WAY OTHER THAN BY CRAWLING IN FROM THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR. THIS COULD PRESENT A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT IF AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO FLEE THE VEHICLE... ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE LIKE MYSELF WITH INFANTS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE AS WELL. THE PROBLEM BEGAN FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN IT BECAME DIFFICULT TO UNLOCK THE DOOR WITH THE KEY AT VARIOUS TIMES. SINCE THEN, THE SITUATION HAS WORSENED SIGNIFICANTLY. THE ONLY THING ABOUT THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR THAT IS IN WORKING CONDITION NOW IS THE "LOCK" ACTION OF THE POWER LOCK SWITCH. HAVING SAID THAT, THE POWER WINDOW ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR NO LONGER WORKS, THOUGH I AM UNSURE IF IT IS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE LOCK. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10162754

153,000 miles · Aug 29, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages

DT: THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR WILL NOT UNLOCK BY KEY, REMOTE OR THE INSIDE HANDLE. WHEN THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER, THEY TOLD HER THAT IT WAS NOT ON RECALL AND THAT SHE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE HERSELF. THE CONSUMER FELT THAT THIS WAS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY ONE WOULD NOT BE…

Read full complaint

DT: THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR WILL NOT UNLOCK BY KEY, REMOTE OR THE INSIDE HANDLE. WHEN THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER, THEY TOLD HER THAT IT WAS NOT ON RECALL AND THAT SHE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE HERSELF. THE CONSUMER FELT THAT THIS WAS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY ONE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXIT THE VEHICLE QUICKLY. THE CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO UNLOCK THE DOOR WHEN SHE LEFT FOR WORK ON 8-29-05. AS OF NOW THE PROBLEM IS STILL HAS NOT BEEN SOLVED. *AK THE CONSUMER STATED SON-IN-LAW WAS ABLE TO FIX THE DOOR. UPDATE 4/25/07 *TR

NHTSA ODI #10134663

90,000 miles · Aug 1, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages

DT: THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WAS COMPLETELY LOCKED, THE REMOTE KEY PAD OR KEYS DID NOT WORK. HAD USED THE REMOTE TO UNLOCK DOORS THE SAME AS ALWAYS. CONTACTED MANUFACTURER, WHO SAID TO CONTACT THE DEALER. BUT DEALER SAID NEVER HEARD OF IT. CONSUMER DID NOT WANT TO PAY THE DEALER TO FIX IT. FOUND A FORUM ONLINE WHERE OTHER PEOPL…

Read full complaint

DT: THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WAS COMPLETELY LOCKED, THE REMOTE KEY PAD OR KEYS DID NOT WORK. HAD USED THE REMOTE TO UNLOCK DOORS THE SAME AS ALWAYS. CONTACTED MANUFACTURER, WHO SAID TO CONTACT THE DEALER. BUT DEALER SAID NEVER HEARD OF IT. CONSUMER DID NOT WANT TO PAY THE DEALER TO FIX IT. FOUND A FORUM ONLINE WHERE OTHER PEOPLE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. THIS HAPPENED JULY 29, 2005. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10130767

149,484 miles · May 25, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages

DRIVERS SIDE DOOR, OF MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER, COULD NOT BE OPENED (FROM INSIDE OR OUTSIDE DOOR HANDLES). ATTEMPTED TO HAVE DOOR LATCH ASSEMBLY REPLACED, AS BROKEN SPRING WAS FOUND PROTRUDING FROM DOOR LATCH ASSEMBLY AREA <DRIVERS SIDE>. DEALERSHIP INCORRECTLY REPLACED INSIDE DOOR HANDLE AND NOW DRIVERS SIDE DOOR CANNOT BE LOCKE…

Read full complaint

DRIVERS SIDE DOOR, OF MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER, COULD NOT BE OPENED (FROM INSIDE OR OUTSIDE DOOR HANDLES). ATTEMPTED TO HAVE DOOR LATCH ASSEMBLY REPLACED, AS BROKEN SPRING WAS FOUND PROTRUDING FROM DOOR LATCH ASSEMBLY AREA <DRIVERS SIDE>. DEALERSHIP INCORRECTLY REPLACED INSIDE DOOR HANDLE AND NOW DRIVERS SIDE DOOR CANNOT BE LOCKED (BUT CAN NOW BE OPENED OR CLOSED). DUE TO DOOR LATCH ASSEMBLY PROBLEMS WITH CANADIAN FORD VEHICLES, I FEAR WE NOW HAVE A SERIOUS SECURITY & SAFETY ISSUE WITH OUR 1998 FORD EXPLORER. DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO REPAIR UNLESS WE BASICALLY AGREE TO REPLACE ALL INTERNAL PARTS OF DOOR <INCLUDING SEAT BELT?>. THE ESTIMATED REPAIR COST (PARTS & LABOR) IS IN EXCESS OF $500.

NHTSA ODI #10122068

86,000 miles · Apr 15, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages

DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR WILL NOT UNLOCK WITH KEY, REMOTE, KEY PAD ENTRY OR WITH DOOR HANDLE INSIDE. APPARENTLY, THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH 1998 EXPLORER SPORT.*AK

NHTSA ODI #10117932

Mileage unknown · Mar 2, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages

THE DOOR LOCKING MECHANISM OF MY DRIVER SIDE DOOR OF MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT IS BROKEN. A SMALL METAL PIN BROKE WHICH MAKES THIS LOCKING MECHANISM NOT WORK. SO SOMETIMES I HAVE TO CLIMB THROUGH TO THE PASSENGER SIDE TO GET OUT IF MY VARIOUS TECHNIQUES DO NOT WORK TO UNLOCK THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR. I BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS IS …

Read full complaint

THE DOOR LOCKING MECHANISM OF MY DRIVER SIDE DOOR OF MY 1998 FORD EXPLORER SPORT IS BROKEN. A SMALL METAL PIN BROKE WHICH MAKES THIS LOCKING MECHANISM NOT WORK. SO SOMETIMES I HAVE TO CLIMB THROUGH TO THE PASSENGER SIDE TO GET OUT IF MY VARIOUS TECHNIQUES DO NOT WORK TO UNLOCK THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR. I BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE METAL PIN WILL EVENTUALLY CORROD AND BREAK SO I HAVE NOT YET FIXED IT DUE TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE NO FAITH IN A PRODUCT THAT WILL MOST LIKELY BREAK AGAIN. I THOUGHT I WAS WAS JUST HAVING THIS PROBLEM UNTIL I VISITED THIS MESSAGE BOARD (HTTP://WWW.OFFROADEXCHANGE.COM/MODFORUMS/INDEX.PHP?BOARD=9;ACTION=DISPLAY;THREADID=1749;START=25). I REALLY HOPE YOU INVESTAGATE THIS PROBLEM BEFORE SOMEBODY IS IN A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION AND TRAPPED IN THEIR EXPLORER BECAUSE THE METAL PIN OF THE LOCKING MECHANISM BROKE. THANK YOU. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10112388

Mileage unknown · Feb 11, 2005
Latches/locks/linkagesStructure

DOOR LOCK WAS NOT WORKING WHEN IT WAS COLD. NOW, DOOR LOCK ON DRIVER'S SIDE IS COMPLETELY OUT, THE KEY JUST TURNS IN THE LOCK AND DOES NOT WORK. THE OTHER LOCKS (PASSENGER AND BACK WINDOW) DO NOT WORK EITHER. YOU HAVE TO TURN THE KEY MANY TIMES BEFORE LOCK WORKS, THEN YOU HAVE TO EITHER CRAWL OVER THE SEATS OR PRESS THE UNLO…

Read full complaint

DOOR LOCK WAS NOT WORKING WHEN IT WAS COLD. NOW, DOOR LOCK ON DRIVER'S SIDE IS COMPLETELY OUT, THE KEY JUST TURNS IN THE LOCK AND DOES NOT WORK. THE OTHER LOCKS (PASSENGER AND BACK WINDOW) DO NOT WORK EITHER. YOU HAVE TO TURN THE KEY MANY TIMES BEFORE LOCK WORKS, THEN YOU HAVE TO EITHER CRAWL OVER THE SEATS OR PRESS THE UNLOCK BUTTON SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE LOCK ENGAGES. I WAS OUTSIDE IN THE RAIN FOR AT LEAST 5 MINUTES TRYING TO GET THE LOCK TO WORK ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF CAR BECAUSE DRIVER'S SIDE IS BROKEN. ON GOING PROBLEM FOR AT LEAST 3 MONTHS.*JB

NHTSA ODI #10110345

95,997 miles · Oct 14, 2004
Latches/locks/linkages

THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR LOCK FAILED. THE CONSUMER HAD TO CLIMB OVER TO THE PASSENGER SIDE TO GET OUT. THE LOCKING MECHANISM ON THE DOOR WAS DEFECTIVE. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10096807

Official recalls

0

No 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

1

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.