IllustrationTL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE PARKING BRAKE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE VEHICLE WHEN ENGAGED. AS OCTOBER 23, 2007, THE DEALER HAD NOT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 136,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 140,000.
2000 Ford Explorer Sport
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2000 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
625–50K
1450–75K
675–100K
9100–150K
4150K+
42 reports with mileage · 29 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.
- Power Train. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 12 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 9 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 reports10 fire reports6 injury reports
What owners actually said
71 reportsI STARTED MY FORD EXPLORER SPORT ON JANUARY 30 FOR A FEW MINUTES TO WARM IT UP, BEFORE I DROVE TO WORK. I RAN BACK INTO THE HOUSE FOR APROX 4 MINUTES, WHEN I CAME BACK OUT THE FRONT OF THE EXPLORER WAS IN FLAMES, IT TOTALLY BURNED BEFORE THE FIRE DEPT COULD GET THERE TAKING OUR BARN WITH IT. *JB
1) DRIVERS SEAT COLLAPSE. 2) FORD ISSUED A RECALL CLAIMING A DEFECTIVE DRIVER SEAT BOLT 3) TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR, DEALERSHIP CONFIRMS THE RECALLED BOLT IS BROKEN AND THE CAUSE OF THE SEAT FAILURE. FORD WANTS $460.00 TO REPLACE THE RECALLED BOLT. WHY DOES FORD EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR A RECALL. 4) SEAT WILL NO…
Read full complaint
1) DRIVERS SEAT COLLAPSE. 2) FORD ISSUED A RECALL CLAIMING A DEFECTIVE DRIVER SEAT BOLT 3) TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR, DEALERSHIP CONFIRMS THE RECALLED BOLT IS BROKEN AND THE CAUSE OF THE SEAT FAILURE. FORD WANTS $460.00 TO REPLACE THE RECALLED BOLT. WHY DOES FORD EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR A RECALL. 4) SEAT WILL NOT STAY UPRIGHT AT ALL SINCE THE DEALERSHIP PERFORMED THE INSPECTION. *JB
2000 FORD EXPLORER SPORT ROLLOVER ACCIDENT. BOTH MY SON AND WITNESSES STATE THAT MY SON WAS DRIVING THE SPEED LIMIT (55 ON A RURAL 2 LANE ROAD) WHEN A SMALL DIP IN THE ROAD CAUSED HIM TO FISHTAIL AND FLIP ONTO HIS ROOF. THANK GOD HIM AND HIS FRIEND HAD ON THE SEAT BELTS AND WERE ABLE TO CRAWL OUT OF THE CAR UNHARMED. I DID NO…
Read full complaint
2000 FORD EXPLORER SPORT ROLLOVER ACCIDENT. BOTH MY SON AND WITNESSES STATE THAT MY SON WAS DRIVING THE SPEED LIMIT (55 ON A RURAL 2 LANE ROAD) WHEN A SMALL DIP IN THE ROAD CAUSED HIM TO FISHTAIL AND FLIP ONTO HIS ROOF. THANK GOD HIM AND HIS FRIEND HAD ON THE SEAT BELTS AND WERE ABLE TO CRAWL OUT OF THE CAR UNHARMED. I DID NOT KNOW THIS PROBLEM EXISTED WITH THE FORD EXPLORER. MORE SHOULD BE DONE TO WARN PEOPLE ABOUT THIS DEFECT! THIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE RECALLED! THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED. *TR
EL PASADO DOMINGO 10 DE JUNIO DEL 2007, SIENDO LAS 4 P.M. ESTACION Y APAGU UN VEHCULO FORD EXPLORER 2000 ELITE, PLACAS LAH-530, SERIAL DE CARROCERA: [XXX], DE MI PROPIEDAD SIN NINGUNA SEAL QUE INDICARA QUE ALGO NO ESTABA FUNCIONANDO BIEN. A LAS 6 P.M. ME DAN EL AVISO QUE LA CAMIONETA SE ESTABA INCENDIANDO. EFECTIVAMENTE CUANDO …
Read full complaint
EL PASADO DOMINGO 10 DE JUNIO DEL 2007, SIENDO LAS 4 P.M. ESTACION Y APAGU UN VEHCULO FORD EXPLORER 2000 ELITE, PLACAS LAH-530, SERIAL DE CARROCERA: [XXX], DE MI PROPIEDAD SIN NINGUNA SEAL QUE INDICARA QUE ALGO NO ESTABA FUNCIONANDO BIEN. A LAS 6 P.M. ME DAN EL AVISO QUE LA CAMIONETA SE ESTABA INCENDIANDO. EFECTIVAMENTE CUANDO FUI OBSERV GRAN CANTIDAD DE FUEGO BAJO EL CAP QUE CONSUMI TODAS LAS PARTES ADYACENTES AL MOTOR. FUNCIONAROS DEL CUERPO DE BOMBEROS SE HICIERON PRESENTES EN EL SITIO Y LOGRARON APAGAR EL FUEGO ANTES QUE SE EXTENDIERA AN MAS. UN PROBLEMA SIMILAR SE HA PRESENTADO EN VEHCULOS FORD Y QUE HAN SIDO LLAMADOS A REVISIN POR FALLAS EN UN SWITCH DE CONTROL DE VELOCIDAD AUTOMTICO. AUNQUE MI VEHCULO NO APARECE DENTRO DE LOS RECLAMADOS SI APARECE DENTRO DE LOS QUE TIENEN UN SWITCH IGUAL O SIMILAR POR LO QUE TODO INDICA QUE ESTA FUE LA CAUSA DEL INCENDIO Y LA COMPAA FORD DEBERA RESPONSABILIZARSE POR ELLO. SPANISH, NOT UNDERSTOOD. *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
TL* - THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE ODI WARNING LIGHT CONTINUOUSLY FLASHED. A LOCAL MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THE FAILURE AS HAVING TO DO WITH THE TRANSMISSION. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 79,108. *AK
NO EVENTS LED UP TO THE CRANKSHAFT FAILURE. OUR 2000 FORD EXPLORER WAS BEING DRIVEN AS A DAILY ROUTINE TRIP IN TOWN. THE CAR DIED AT A STOP LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE CAR . THE CAR MADE A LOUD CLUNK. I DROVE THE VEHICLE INTO A PARKING LOT AND SHUT IT OFF. WE HAD A CERTIFIED FORD MECHANIC COME OUT TO LOOK AT THE CAR. HE W…
Read full complaint
NO EVENTS LED UP TO THE CRANKSHAFT FAILURE. OUR 2000 FORD EXPLORER WAS BEING DRIVEN AS A DAILY ROUTINE TRIP IN TOWN. THE CAR DIED AT A STOP LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE CAR . THE CAR MADE A LOUD CLUNK. I DROVE THE VEHICLE INTO A PARKING LOT AND SHUT IT OFF. WE HAD A CERTIFIED FORD MECHANIC COME OUT TO LOOK AT THE CAR. HE WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS V6 ENGINE. HE STATED TO US THAT THE CRANKSHAFT FORD USED WAS A CAST IRON CRANK AND NOT A FORGED STEEL CRANK. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE CRANKSHAFT WILL DEVELOP CRACKS IN IT AND EVENTUALLY BREAK APART. HIS COMMENT WAS IT WAS A BAD IDEA AND BAD DESIGN BY FORD. THIS MECHANIC WORKED FOR FORD FOR 18 YEARS AND STATED THAT THIS PARTICULAR ENGINE WAS USED FROM 1995-2001 AND I BELIEVE HE SAID IT WAS A COLOGNE V6 .OUR 2 OPTIONS AT THIS POINT IS TO PUT IN A NEW MOTOR OR JUNK THE CAR. THIS VEHICLE IS A 2000 FORD EXPLORER SPORT 2 DOOR. TWO WHEEL DRIVE. DEALER MAINTAINED AT 30000,60000,AND RECENTLY AT 90000 MILES .CURRENT MILEAGE IS 91000. OIL CHANGED EVERY 2 MONTHS REGARDLESS. MAINTENANCE RECORDS ARE ALL AVAILABLE. NO REASON FOR AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT LIKE A CRANKSHAFT TO CRACK AND RUIN THE CAR. *JB
MY CAR BREAK LIGHTS WERE NOT WORKING. I JUST SO HAPPENNED TO TELL MY UNCLE AND HE GOT WORRIED SINCE I HAVE A 1 YEAR OLD. WE WENT TO A CAR SHOP TO GO FIX IT. THEY TOLD ME IT WAS SIMPLY THE BREAK FUSE. WHEN THEY WENT TO REPLACE THE FUSE, THE CAR STARTED SMOKING TO THE POINT WHERE I COULD NOT EVEN SEE. I THOUGHT THE CAR WAS GO…
Read full complaint
MY CAR BREAK LIGHTS WERE NOT WORKING. I JUST SO HAPPENNED TO TELL MY UNCLE AND HE GOT WORRIED SINCE I HAVE A 1 YEAR OLD. WE WENT TO A CAR SHOP TO GO FIX IT. THEY TOLD ME IT WAS SIMPLY THE BREAK FUSE. WHEN THEY WENT TO REPLACE THE FUSE, THE CAR STARTED SMOKING TO THE POINT WHERE I COULD NOT EVEN SEE. I THOUGHT THE CAR WAS GOING TO EXPLODE SO I TOOK MY SON AND STARTED RUNNING. EVERYONE IN THE PARKING LOT STARTED RUNNING ALSO. THEY LIFTED THE HOOD, AND NOTICED THAT THE BRAKE CUT OFF SWITCH FOR CRUISE CONTROL WAS BURNING AND HE PUT IT OUT. THIS HAS BEEN A HUGE RECALL FOR MANY OTHER YEARS FOR FORD, BUT NOT FOR MINE. NOW FORD WANTS TO CHARGE ME BECAUSE MY VEHICLES YEAR IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THIS IS A MANUFACTURER ERROR AND IT IS WRONG FOR ME TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS MYSELF. IF MY SON AND I WOULD HAVE DIED, FORD WOULD BE LOOKING AT A MAJOR LAWSUIT. I AM WILLING TO TAKE THIS AS FAR AS I HAVE TO BECAUSE I HONESTLY BELIEVE FORD IS TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH THIS. THIS WAS A VERY FRIGHTENING INCIDENCE. *NM
I WAS NOT CONTACTED TO THE RECALL ON MY FIRESTONE TIRES ON MY 2000 FORD EXPLORER, UNTIL LAST WEEK, AND TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO, AT MY EXPENSE, AND REPLACED SAID TIRES, WITH ANOTHER, MORE TRUSTED AND SAFER BRAND OF TIRE. NOW AFTER 6 YEARS. I RECEIVE A NOTICE FROM FIRESTONE ABOUT MY SPARE, BUT WITH THE CONDITION THAT I DRIVE 30 MI…
Read full complaint
I WAS NOT CONTACTED TO THE RECALL ON MY FIRESTONE TIRES ON MY 2000 FORD EXPLORER, UNTIL LAST WEEK, AND TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO, AT MY EXPENSE, AND REPLACED SAID TIRES, WITH ANOTHER, MORE TRUSTED AND SAFER BRAND OF TIRE. NOW AFTER 6 YEARS. I RECEIVE A NOTICE FROM FIRESTONE ABOUT MY SPARE, BUT WITH THE CONDITION THAT I DRIVE 30 MILES, AND HAVE THE 1 TIRE REPLACED WITH ANOTHER FIRESTONE TIRE. FIRESTONE REFUSED TO REPLACE MY ORIGINAL 4 TIRES, WITH COMPENSATION, AND NOW REFUSES TO REPLACE MY SPARE WITH A TIRE THAT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH........NOT A FIRESTONE! I FEEL THEY SHOULD COMPENSATE ME MY $350, ORIGINAL, AS WELL AS PAY FOR ANY TIRE I CHOOSE AS MY SPARE.....WHICH THEY REFUSE TO DO!!!!*JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TAKING THE VEHICLE IN FOR INSPECTION THE DEALER DETERMINED ALL FOUR BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CONTACT WAS UNAWARE OF ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE BALL JOINTS. SINCE THE REPLACEMENT NO FAILURES HAVE OCCURRED.
Official recalls
100V394000 · Structure:body:hood:hinge And Attachments
Nov 28, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES WITH STEEL HOODS AND CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH SHEET MOLDING COMPOUND HOODS. A WIRE FORMED HOOD STRIKER COULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO FATIGUE FRACTURES. IF THE HOOD STRIKER FRACTURES, THE HOOD COULD FLY OPEN WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A HOOD FLY-UP WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING OPERATED COULD RESULT IN REDUCED DRIVER VISIBILITY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE HOOD STRIKER.
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.