IllustrationSuspenion and or traction was and the electrical system didnt work good
2002 Ford Explorer Sport
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2002 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
140–25K
1725–50K
2150–75K
2775–100K
18100–150K
4150K+
101 reports with mileage · 32 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 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 28 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Visibility. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
10 crash reports7 fire reports13 injury reports
Suspension complaints
8 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE BODY MOUNT BUSHINGS WERE CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE BODY MOUNT BUSHINGS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS N…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE BODY MOUNT BUSHINGS WERE CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE BODY MOUNT BUSHINGS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 78,000.
I JUST PURCHASED A USED 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT ON 08/06/2011 SO THAT I HAD A VEHICLE THAT I COULD TAKE THE KIDS ON CAMPING TRIPS. ON 09/04/2011 ON OUR WAY TO DAYTONA BEACH I NOTICED THE CAR WAS PUSHING AND SWERVING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, I HAD JUST PUT BRAND NEW TIRES ON IT AND REPLACED BOTH THE UPPER CONTROL ARMS AND ALL 4 BALL …
Read full complaint
I JUST PURCHASED A USED 2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT ON 08/06/2011 SO THAT I HAD A VEHICLE THAT I COULD TAKE THE KIDS ON CAMPING TRIPS. ON 09/04/2011 ON OUR WAY TO DAYTONA BEACH I NOTICED THE CAR WAS PUSHING AND SWERVING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, I HAD JUST PUT BRAND NEW TIRES ON IT AND REPLACED BOTH THE UPPER CONTROL ARMS AND ALL 4 BALL JOINTS AND HAD AN ALIGNMENT DONE, I THOUGHT THAT IT'S A BIGGER VEHICLE THAN WHAT I'M USED TO AND HAD BEEN A SLIGHTLY WINDY. ON THE WAY HOME ON MONDAY 09/05/2011 IT WAS EVEN WORSE, I COULD FEEL THE BODY ROLLING THE CAR PUSHING ECT.. I PULLED OVER AND CHECKED THE FRONT SUSPENSION. THERE APPEARED TO BE NOTHING WRONG. I CRAWLED HOME A NERVOUS WRECK. WHEN WE UNLOAD THE CAR AT HOME I NOTICED THE CAR WAS SAGGING IN THE LEFT REAR.I CRAWLED UNDER THE VEHICLE. I NOTICED 2 BIG ISSUES, 1ST THE COIL SPRING IS BROKEN WERE LUCKY IT DIDN'T POP OUT AND SHRED A TIRE, AND 2ND ALL OF THE BODY MOUNT BUSHINGS ARE COMPLETELY CRUMBLING OR JUST PLAIN GONE. TALK ABOUT DANGEROUS. I WENT ONLINE AND THERE SEEMS TO BE THOUSANDS OF COMPLAINTS FOR THE 2002 EXPLORERS ON BLOGS AND FORD FORUMS AND TONS OF SITES FOR COMPLAINTS FOR AUTOMOBILES FOR ALL MODELS OF THIS VEHICLE FOR THE EXACT SAME THINGS. I HAVE ALSO SEEN NUMEROUS OTHER COMPLAINTS ON THIS VEHICLE FOR OTHER EQUIPMENT FAILURES ONE OF THEM BEING A WHINING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAREND OF THE CAR WHICH I THOUGHT WAS THE TIRES, BUT APPARENTLY IT IS AN IMPROPERLY ENGINEERED DIFFERENTIAL THAT FORD WILL NOT FIX OR ADMIT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL BULLETINS OUT ON IT. THEY ARE JUST LUCKY THAT MY CHILDREN WERE NOT INJURED. HOW DARE THEY NOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THESE VEHICLES THAT THEY ENGINEERED AND SOLD, USED OR NOT. IF YOU MANUFACTURE AN UNSAFE VEHICLE AND A DEFECTIVE VEHICLE YOU SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. IS IT GONNA TAKE A FATHER AND HIS CHILDREN BEING KILLED. *TR
DEFECTIVE FRONT HUB ASSEMBLY BEARING SEALS. *AK
WHILE TURNING VEHICLE, HEARD A POPPING NOISE & FRONT LEFT TIRE SUDDENLY COLLAPSED INWARD. LEFT FRONT UPPER CONTROL ARM, LOWER BALL JOINT, SHOCK & CAM BOLTS & WASHERS WERE REPLACED. VEHICLE WAS UNDER WARRANTY, HOWEVER FORD DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO COVER STATING THIS WAS THE RESULT OF VANDALISM. NO PROOF OF THIS WAS EVER SUBMITTED…
Read full complaint
WHILE TURNING VEHICLE, HEARD A POPPING NOISE & FRONT LEFT TIRE SUDDENLY COLLAPSED INWARD. LEFT FRONT UPPER CONTROL ARM, LOWER BALL JOINT, SHOCK & CAM BOLTS & WASHERS WERE REPLACED. VEHICLE WAS UNDER WARRANTY, HOWEVER FORD DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO COVER STATING THIS WAS THE RESULT OF VANDALISM. NO PROOF OF THIS WAS EVER SUBMITTED TO ME DESPITE CERTIFIED LETTER SENT TO THEM REQUESTING. VEHICLE WAS KEPT IN LOCKED GARAGE AT NIGHT & PARKED IN SECURE, GATED LOT AT WORK DURING THE DAY. THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE ON 5/21/04, BUT WAS BEING DRIVEN STRAIGHT. INS REFUSED TO COVER AS NO PROOF OF VANDALISM. *NM
DT: VEHICLE HAD TO HAVE THE REAR END BREPLACED 3 TIMES , VEHCILE HAD TO BE TAKEN BACK AGAIN A 4TH TIME, DEALERSHIP WILL NOT HELP WITH PAYMENT, CONSUMER HAD TO PAY TWICE FOR REPAIRS. *AK
THE VEHICLE WAS HARD TO STEER AND CONTROL WHEN IT WAS DRIVEN AT SPEEDS AT AR OVER 70 MPH. THE TECHNICIAN NOTICED THAT THE REAR SWAY BAR LINKS WERE WORN. THE TECHNICIAN REPLACED THE REAR SWAY BARS, REAR SPRINGS AND REAR SHOCKS. *AK *NLM
WHILE DRIVING, VEHICLE WOULD SWAY LEFT TO RIGHT. TOOK TO DEALER AND DEALER INDICATED REAR AXLE TUBE WAS CROOKED.*AK CONSUMER TEST DROVE VEHICLE PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND HAD MENTIONED TO DEALER THAT THE VEHICLE SWAYED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. *TT
Official recalls
307V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
06V114000 · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
Apr 10, 2006
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, THE SEAT BACK MAY RECLINE UNTIL IT MAKES CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT BEHIND THE SEAT, SUCH AS THE SECOND ROW SEAT CUSHION.
Consequence & remedy
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. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 10, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. THIS IS A SUPPLEMENT TO A PREVIOUS RECALL CAMPAIGN (03V281).
03V281000 · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
Aug 5, 2003
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.
Consequence & remedy
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.
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
5PE09020 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Apr 21, 2009 · Closed Aug 19, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Steering:column
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Steering
IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED CONSUMER REPORTS OF HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EFFORTS WHEN SHIFTING INTO AND OUT OF PARK COULD BE A RESULT OF A GROOVE BEING WORN INTO THE SWING ARM RAMP OF THE STEERING COLUMN. THE SWING ARM IS A COMPONENT BOLTED TO THE STEERING COLUMN THAT ASSISTS IN SHIFTING THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION GEARS.AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION CONDUCTED BY FORD OF RETURNED STEERING COLUMNS FOUND THE GROOVE COULD BE CREATED OVER TIME IF CONSUMER SHIFT MORE QUICKLY FROM THE DRIVE OR REVERSE TO PARK THAN THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK (BSI) SOLENOID PIN RETRACTS AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED. IN NOVEMBER OF 2004, FORD RELEASED A REDESIGNED BSI SOLENOID WITH A SHORTER PIN RETRACTING TIME AS A SERVICEABLE COMPONENT. FORD HAS NOTED THE SHORTER RETRACTION TIME SIGNIFICANTLY LESSENS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BSI SOLENOID PIN TO SWING ARM CONTACT EVEN WITH RAPID CONSUMER SHIFTS.FORD ALSO ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN, TSB 04-22-12, TO INSTRUCT SERVICE TECHNICIANS ON THE PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND VEHICLE REPAIR. REVIEWING COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 200 ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AFTER CONSUMERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE VEHICLE INTO PARK, RESULTING IN 85 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 32 ALLEGED INJURIES.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT, ODI HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED 883 REPORTS OF CONSUMERS ALLEGING DIFFICULTY OR THE INABILITY TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO PARK.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA09-013) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
PE05037 · Stuck Engine Throttle
Opened Jul 7, 2005 · Closed Nov 2, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal; Vehicle Speed Control:cables
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Vehicle Speed Control:cables
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Vehicle Speed Control
ON JULY 7, 2005, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE STANDARD AVAILABLE 4.0L SOHC V6 ENGINE.AT THAT TIME, ODI WAS AWARE OF 15 COMPLAINTS THAT ALLEGED STUCK ENGINE THROTTLE CAUSING UNWANTED VEHICLE ACCELERATION AND 1 ALLEGED CRASH AS A RESULT.SIX COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CABLE REPLACEMENT REMEDIED THE ALLEGED STUCK THROTTLE CONDITION.ADDITIONALLY, ODI WAS AWARE OF A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT REFERRED TO AN ACCELERATOR CABLE DESIGN CHANGE.ODI SENT A LETTER TO THE MANUFACTURER ON JULY 18, 2005 REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THESE VEHICLES. ACCORDING TO FORD, APPROXIMATELY 234,092 SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 2000 (?JOB 1?) THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2001 USED A PARTICULAR ACCELERATOR CABLE KNOWN AS A 16 LAY WIRE DESIGN.THIS DESIGN IS COMPRISED OF THE THROTTLE CABLE SURROUNDED BY A CONDUIT MADE OF SEVERAL CONCENTRIC LAYERS INCLUDING A TEFLON LINER, A NYLON TUBE EXTRUDED OVER THE TEFLON LINER, 16 LAY WIRES WRAPPED AROUND THE NYLON TUBE, AND FINALLY A NYLON JACKET EXTRUDED OVER AND AROUND THE LAY WIRES. FORD REPORTS THAT THROTTLE CONTROL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ACCELERATOR CABLE ARE LIKELY CAUSED BY A MIGRATION OF THE INNER TEFLON LINER OUT OF THE CONDUIT AT THE DASH PANEL FITTING.SHOULD THE TEFLON LINER MIGRATE OUTWARD SUFFICIENTLY TO CONTACT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM IT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL?S ABILITY TO RETURN TO IDLE.IN NOVEMBER 2001, FORD BEGAN USING A NEW 12 LAY WIRE DESIGN ACCELERATOR CABLE.THIS CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE POWER-ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. FIELD DATA SUGGESTS THAT THE CONDITION WITH THE SUBJECT CABLE IS MORE PREVALENT IN COLD (WINTER) CLIMATES.OF THE 396 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT, NEARLY 68% OCCURRED IN WINTER MONTHS AND MOST WARRANTY CLAIMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICLES SOLD IN THE NORTHEASTERN, NORTHERN INTERIOR (MIDWEST), AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.THIS SEASONAL TREND APPEARS TO BE IN DECLINE WITH FEWER WARRANTY CLAIMS PAID IN WINTER 2005 THAN IN PREVIOUS WINTERS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT RATE IS LOW AFTER APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS IN SERVICE (3.0 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THE FAILURE TREND IS DECLINING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2005.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR ITS COMPLAINT DATABASE AND WILL RECEIVE UPDATED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA FROM FORD IN SPRING 2006 TO VERIFY THE TREND ANALYSIS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
PE04045 · Rear Liftgate Glass Assembly
Opened Jun 2, 2004 · Closed Sep 28, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
COMPLAINTS REPORT FAILURE OF THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS SUPPORT WHILE THE OPERATOR IS OPENING OR CLOSING THE GLASS.THE FALLING GLASS CAN STRIKE THE OPERATOR OR BYSTANDER.THE INJURIES REPORTED ARE BRUISES TO THE HEAD, NECK OR BACK, CUTS TO THE FACE, ARM OR HAND.ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT WILL RECALL APPROXIMATELY 955,732 MY 2002 AND 2003 FORD EXPLORER AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEER VEHICLES TO REPLACE THE LIFTGATE GLASS STRUT BRACKETS AND/OR HINGES.SEE NHTSA RECALL 04V442 FOR DETAILS. THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
PE03020 · Front Seat Back Recliner Attachment
Opened May 21, 2003 · Closed Sep 5, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats:front Assembly:recliner
BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 2003, FORD NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT IS CONDUCTING A VOLUNTARY SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 03V281) INVOLVING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1998-2001 FORD EXPLORER / MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4-DOOR, MY 1998-2000 FORD EXPLORER 2-DOOR AND MY 2001-2002 FORD EXPLORER SPORT AND SPORT TRAC VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH HIGH BACK SEATS.COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE DRIVER'S SEAT BACK RECLINED WITHOUT WARNING.A BOLT BETWEEN THE UPPER SEAT RECLINER ATTACHMENT AND THE SEAT BACK FRAME MAY FRACTURE.FORD WILL REPLACE THE BOLT THAT ATTACHES THE SEAT RECLINER MECHANISM TO THE SEAT BACK FRAME ON THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT.BASED ON FORD'S SAFETY RECALL ACTION, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.