Illustration1999 FORD EXPLORER SPORT DRIVERS SEAT BACK UNLATCHED ITSELF WHILE DRIVING. LUCKILY ONLY 20 MPH! REAR PASSENGER DRIVERS SIDE SEAT IS FOLDED DOWN FORWARD TO HOLD DRIVERS SEAT IN PLACE, UNTIL I CAN FIND ANOTHER USED SEAT. *TR
1999 Ford Explorer Sport
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 68.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Explorer Sport 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
30–25K
725–50K
1850–75K
975–100K
9100–150K
6150K+
52 reports with mileage · 41 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.
- Electrical System. Review the 14 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 →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
6 crash reports5 fire reports7 injury reports
Seats complaints
14 reportsWAS DRIVING AROUND THE CITY WHEN I REACH INTO MY POCKET TO GET MY PHONE AND HEAR A LOUD THUMP COMING FROM THE SEAT AND THE NEXT THING I NOTICE IS THE SEAT RECLINING ALL THE WAY BACK. I WAS ABLE TO BRING IT BACK UP BY FOLDING THE EXTERIOR PASSENGER SEAT TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF SUPPORT. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME I TRIED INSPECTING WHAT …
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING AROUND THE CITY WHEN I REACH INTO MY POCKET TO GET MY PHONE AND HEAR A LOUD THUMP COMING FROM THE SEAT AND THE NEXT THING I NOTICE IS THE SEAT RECLINING ALL THE WAY BACK. I WAS ABLE TO BRING IT BACK UP BY FOLDING THE EXTERIOR PASSENGER SEAT TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF SUPPORT. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME I TRIED INSPECTING WHAT THE ISSUE WAS AND SAW A LARGE FRACTURE RIGHT NEXT TO THE RECLINING MECHANISM. THIS IS POTENTIALLY A HAZARD THAT CAN ONE DAY CAUSE A SEVERE ACCIDENT. I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN DRIVING SLOW BUT IF I WERE TO BE IN THE FREEWAY THEN IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS. THIS LARGE FRACTURE SEEMS TO DERIVE FROM A POORLY DESIGNED SEAT THAT WEAK METAL OF SOME SORT. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH WHEN A CHILD PASSENGER IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE PULLED ON THE DRIVER SEAT TO RECLINE HERSELF AND THE SEAT RECLINED BACKWARD AND FRACTURED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BOLT THAT HELD THE SETA IN PLACE FRACTURED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH WHEN A CHILD PASSENGER IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE PULLED ON THE DRIVER SEAT TO RECLINE HERSELF AND THE SEAT RECLINED BACKWARD AND FRACTURED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BOLT THAT HELD THE SETA IN PLACE FRACTURED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED IN REGARDS TO NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 03V281000 (SEATS: FRONT ASSEMBLY: RECLINER) BUT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 135,000.
THIS BOLT WAS REPLACED ON MY VEHICLE IN JAN 2004 AS PART OF THE RECALL. THE NEW BOLT THAT WAS INSTALLED FRACTURED CREATING A VERY SERIOUS CRASH RISK. FORD SAYS THEY WILL ONLY REPLACE ONCE. AUTO RECALL DATE: AUG 05, 2003 VEHICLE COMPONENT: SEATS:FRONT ASSEMBLY:RECLINER ESTIMATED VEHICLES AFFECTED: 1552880 MODEL AFFECTE…
Read full complaint
THIS BOLT WAS REPLACED ON MY VEHICLE IN JAN 2004 AS PART OF THE RECALL. THE NEW BOLT THAT WAS INSTALLED FRACTURED CREATING A VERY SERIOUS CRASH RISK. FORD SAYS THEY WILL ONLY REPLACE ONCE. AUTO RECALL DATE: AUG 05, 2003 VEHICLE COMPONENT: SEATS:FRONT ASSEMBLY:RECLINER ESTIMATED VEHICLES AFFECTED: 1552880 MODEL AFFECTED 1999 FORD EXPLORER 1999 FORD EXPLORER DEFECT SUMMARY: ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS, THE UPPER BOLT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE HIGH BACK SEAT, THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME, COULD FRACTURE. IF THE BOLT FRACTURES AND DOES NOT JAM IN THE SEAT BACK FRAME, THE SEAT BACK MAY RECLINE UNTIL IT MAKES CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT BEHIND THE SEAT, SUCH AS THE SECOND ROW SEAT CUSHION. DEFECT CONSEQUENCE: THE DRIVER COULD POTENTIALLY LOSE CONTACT WITH THE STEERING WHEEL OR FOOT PEDALS DURING SUCH AN EVENT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH. REMEDY: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER SEAT UPPER BOLT WITH A METAL SPACER AND BOLT. IN ADDITION, SEATS WITH TUBULAR BACK FRAMES WILL HAVE THE FULLY THREADED LOWER RECLINER BOLT REPLACED WITH A PARTIALLY THREADED BOLT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON AUGUST 29, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. ESTIMATED VEHICLES AFFECTED: 1552880 NOTES: FORD MOTOR COMPANY 03S04. *TR
(1) DRIVER'S SEAT BACK LATCH BROKEN (2) COULD NOT ENTER, OR EXIT FROM, REAR SEAT ON DRIVER'S SIDE (3) FORD DEALER REPLACED LATCH TOTAL COST ABOUT $200. *NM
WE WERE FORCED TO TAKE THIS VEHICLE FROM HANSEL FORD IN SANTA ROSA WHEN THEY FELT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE 2004 FORD F-150 WE PURCHASED THEY HAD SOLD MY TRADE IN HADN'T MADE A DEAL WITH COMPANY FOR CONTRACT CAME A FEW DAY BEFORE FIRST PAYMENT DUE AND REPOED IT SINCE WE HAVE HAD CAR NIGHTMARES THE SEAT ON DRIVER SIDE BR…
Read full complaint
WE WERE FORCED TO TAKE THIS VEHICLE FROM HANSEL FORD IN SANTA ROSA WHEN THEY FELT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE 2004 FORD F-150 WE PURCHASED THEY HAD SOLD MY TRADE IN HADN'T MADE A DEAL WITH COMPANY FOR CONTRACT CAME A FEW DAY BEFORE FIRST PAYMENT DUE AND REPOED IT SINCE WE HAVE HAD CAR NIGHTMARES THE SEAT ON DRIVER SIDE BROKE JUST REGULAR TIME IT DOES A LOT OF JERKING AND SPUTTERING THE LIGHT WORK WHEN THEY WANT TO ETC..... PLEASE GET ME A DECENT VEHICLE FOR AFTER. *JB
@ 50,000 MILES RADIATOR WENT OUT AND WE REPLACED W/ NEW RADIATOR/ HEADS IN THE MOTOR HAD TO BE REPLACED / ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS / RE-BUILT TRANSMISSION PUT IN / DRIVER'S SEAT RECLINER FAILURE . *AK
THIS REPORT CONCERNS A 1999 FORD EXPLORER SPORT 2DR 4X4. VEHICLE HAS 144,000 PLUS MILES. SPECIFICALLY THIS PERTAINS TO THE FRONT DRIVER?S SEAT (NON-POWER MODEL). OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS I HAVE REPLACED THE FRONT DRIVERS SEAT (BOTTOM FRAME) THREE TIMES. EACH TIME THE SEAT FRAME HAS BROKEN IN THE SAME MANNER. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE…
Read full complaint
THIS REPORT CONCERNS A 1999 FORD EXPLORER SPORT 2DR 4X4. VEHICLE HAS 144,000 PLUS MILES. SPECIFICALLY THIS PERTAINS TO THE FRONT DRIVER?S SEAT (NON-POWER MODEL). OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS I HAVE REPLACED THE FRONT DRIVERS SEAT (BOTTOM FRAME) THREE TIMES. EACH TIME THE SEAT FRAME HAS BROKEN IN THE SAME MANNER. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE FRAME METAL RIPS/TEARS AT THE LOCATION OF THE MOUNTING BOLT FOR THE RECLINE LEVER. THIS TEARING CAUSES THE SEAT BACK TO RECLINE WITHOUT WARNING ON THE LEFT SIDE CAUSING THE DRIVER TO FALL BACKWARDS AWAY FROM THE STEERING WHEEL. FORD HAS STATED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INFO ON THIS. THIS IS SOMEWHAT STRANGE AS THEY APPARENTLY DIRECTED DEALERSHIPS APPROXIMATELY 2 YRS AGO TO REPLACE THIS FRAME ON ALL AFFECTED VEHICLES. THE PROBLEM IS VERY APPARENT AND A VERY EASY FIX. THE TEARING OCCURS JUST TO THE FRONT OF THE (FRONT) BOLT HOLE ABOUT 1/8 INCH FROM THE HOLE. THERE IS A LARGE SPOT WELDED PLATE INSIDE THE FRAME WHERE THE BOLTS FOR THE RECLINE LEVER INSERT INTO THE FRAME. IF THIS PLATE WAS EXTENDED ABOUT 4 INCHES OR MORE PAST THE FRAME HOLES THIS PROBLEM WOULD NOT OCCUR. I HAVE DETAILED PHOTOS OF THIS FRAME AND PROBLEM AREA AVAILABLE FOR USE TO YOUR OFFICE AS WELL AS THE FRAME ITSELF.*AK
VEHICLE 1999 FORD EXPLORER SPORT (2DR) VIN [XXX] THIS INVOLVES A SAFETY ISSUE WITH THE FRONT SEAT RECLINER HANDLES ON THE SIDE OF THE SEATS. FORD HAS ISSUED A RECALL (03S04) TO REPLACE THE "DRIVER SEAT RECLINER BOLT." HOWEVER, MY COMPLAINT INVOLVES THE RECLINER HANDLES WHICH FELL APART ON THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT OF OUR VEHIC…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE 1999 FORD EXPLORER SPORT (2DR) VIN [XXX] THIS INVOLVES A SAFETY ISSUE WITH THE FRONT SEAT RECLINER HANDLES ON THE SIDE OF THE SEATS. FORD HAS ISSUED A RECALL (03S04) TO REPLACE THE "DRIVER SEAT RECLINER BOLT." HOWEVER, MY COMPLAINT INVOLVES THE RECLINER HANDLES WHICH FELL APART ON THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT OF OUR VEHICLE. ON BELOW DATE, MY WIFE EXITED THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT AND USED THE HANDLE TO MOVE THE SEAT FORWARD SO OUR DAUGHTER COULD EXIT THE REAR SEAT AREA. THE HANDLE FELL APART IN TWO PIECES AND THE BACK PART OF THE SEAT FLEW FORWARD TO THE DASH. THE BACK PART OF THE SEAT WILL NOT HOLD A POSITION AND FREELY MOVES BACK AND FORTH INTO THE REAR SEAT AND FORWARD TO THE DASH RENDERING THE SEAT UNSAFE AND USELESS. ON 2/6/04, I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO SOUTH BAY FORD, 13900 HAWTHORNE BLVD, HAWTHORNE, CA 90250 PH 310 644-0211 FOR THE RECALL WORK. I ALSO ADVISED THEM THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE SEAT HAD COME FREE BECAUSE OF A FAULTY RELEASE HANDLE. I WAS CALLED LATER AND ADVISED IT WOULD COST OVER 400 DOLLARS TO REPAIR THE FAULTY RELEASE HANDLES ON BOTH THE DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS SEATS. THE SERVICEMAN INFORMED ME THE DRIVERS SEAT RELEASE MECHANISM WAS ALSO ABOUT TO FAIL. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FORD DEFINITLY HAS A SAFETY ISSUE HERE INVOLVING THEIR SEATS IN THIS VEHICLE. FORD HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED ONE SAFETY ISSURE INVOLVING THE RECLINING SEATS WITH THE RECALL INVOLVING THE FAULTY BOLT. THE BOLT WAS REPLACED IN ORDER TO PREVENT EXACTLY WHAT IS OCCURRING WITH THEIR FAULTY RECLINER RELEASE MECHANISM. THE RECLINER HANDLE FELL APART WHEN MY WIFE SIMPLY TOUCHED IT AND THE OTHER, ACCORDING TO THE SERVICEPERSON, IS ABOUT TO FALL APART. I WOULD HATE TO IMAGINE IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE. I BELIEVE THIS IS A MATTER THE NHTSA SHOULD INVESTIGATE. *AK UPDATED 07/27/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
RECALL REPAIRS CANNOT BE PERFORMED UNLESS THE RECLINING SEAT HANDLE CAN BE FIXED. ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL RECALL PROBLEM CAUSED THE HANDLE TO BE BENT, THE DEALER WANTS THE CONSUMER TO PAY FOR IT. CONSUMER FEELS HE IS BEING GIVEN THE RUN AROUND TO GET THE VEHICLE FIXED. MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN NOTIFIED.*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
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.