MY FIRESTONE TIRES WERE REPLACED BY FORD WITH TIGER PAWS. AFTER ONLY A FEW THOUSAND MILES, WHILE ON A TRIP, MY RIGHT FRONT WHEEL SPLIT. FORD GAVE ME A NEW WHEEL, BUT WOULD NOT REPLACE THE TIRES BECAUSE THEY WERE ON FORD'S REPLACEMENT LIST. I REQUESTED NEW ONES. A TIRE DEALER TOLD ME ALL MY TIRES HAD TO MANY WEIGHTS ON THEM. THE …
Read full complaint
MY FIRESTONE TIRES WERE REPLACED BY FORD WITH TIGER PAWS. AFTER ONLY A FEW THOUSAND MILES, WHILE ON A TRIP, MY RIGHT FRONT WHEEL SPLIT. FORD GAVE ME A NEW WHEEL, BUT WOULD NOT REPLACE THE TIRES BECAUSE THEY WERE ON FORD'S REPLACEMENT LIST. I REQUESTED NEW ONES. A TIRE DEALER TOLD ME ALL MY TIRES HAD TO MANY WEIGHTS ON THEM. THE SPLIT TIRE DID SO ALONG A ROW OF THREE WEIGHTS(14 OUNCES). *AK
NHTSA ODI #749086
Mileage unknown · Jul 8, 2001
Tires
FOR THE SECOND TIME IN JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS IVE HAD ANOTHER ONE OF MY FIRESTONE (STEELTEX RADIALS R4S) TIRES HAVE A BLOWOUT AND THIS TIME IT INCLUDED A COMPLETE TREAD SEPARATION. THE TIRE LOCATION WAS THE LEFT REAR INNER TIRE... TEMP OUTSIDE WAS APPROX. 105 OR GREATER (ARIZONA). MY HIGHWAY SPEED WAS AROUND 65MPH. WITH LESS…
Read full complaint
FOR THE SECOND TIME IN JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS IVE HAD ANOTHER ONE OF MY FIRESTONE (STEELTEX RADIALS R4S) TIRES HAVE A BLOWOUT AND THIS TIME IT INCLUDED A COMPLETE TREAD SEPARATION. THE TIRE LOCATION WAS THE LEFT REAR INNER TIRE... TEMP OUTSIDE WAS APPROX. 105 OR GREATER (ARIZONA). MY HIGHWAY SPEED WAS AROUND 65MPH. WITH LESS THAN 14000 MILES ON THE TIRES, I SHOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM. INTERESTING TO FIND OUT MY TIRES ARE FROM THE DECATUR PLANT, YET FIRESTONE REFUSES TO ADMIT THERE IS A DEFECT OR THEYRE NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE THE HEAT IN THIS AREA. SINCE THIS WAS MY FIRST TRIP SINCE MY LAST BLOWOUT, I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE ANY OF THE REMAINING TIRES WILL LAST. IM REPLACING THEM ALL. NEITHER FORD NOR FIRESTONE WILL MEET ME HALF WAY ON THE COST.*AK (DOT NUMBER: VD1L1XD059 TIRESIZE: LT22575R16)
NHTSA ODI #748084
Mileage unknown · Jun 18, 2001
Tires
WE CURRENTLY RESIDE IN PUERTO RICO. IN THE SUMMER OF 2000, WE HEARD NEWS REPORTS OF TREAD SEPARATION PROBLEMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT AND WARM CLIMATE. WE DETERMINED THAT ALL OF OUR TIRES ON OUR 99 EXPLORER WERE WILDERNESS TIRES. ONLY 1 WAS BEING RECALLED BECAUSE OF THE PLACE OF MFG. WE WERE PUTTING OF…
Read full complaint
WE CURRENTLY RESIDE IN PUERTO RICO. IN THE SUMMER OF 2000, WE HEARD NEWS REPORTS OF TREAD SEPARATION PROBLEMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT AND WARM CLIMATE. WE DETERMINED THAT ALL OF OUR TIRES ON OUR 99 EXPLORER WERE WILDERNESS TIRES. ONLY 1 WAS BEING RECALLED BECAUSE OF THE PLACE OF MFG. WE WERE PUTTING OFF REPLACING THE TIRE UNTIL THE MATTER WAS INVESTIGATED FURTHER. ON JULY 10, 2000 WHILE DRIVING WITH MY SON TO A FOOTBALL GAME WE STOPPED FOR A SODA AND DISCOVERED ONE TIRE SEPARATING. BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD 36,000 MI. ON THE CAR AND BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL SAFETY CONCERNS, WE IMMEDIATELY REPLACED ALL FOUR TIRES AT THE PLACE FORD RECOMMENDED. THEY REIMBURSED US FOR THE 1 TIRE RECALLED. NOW THE OTHER THREE HAVE BEEN RECALLED BUT THEY REFUSE TO REIMBURSE US (EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT) BECAUSE IT WAS PRIOR TO AUG. 1, 2000. *AK( DOT NUMBER: )
NHTSA ODI #746961
Mileage unknown · May 25, 2001
Tires
PE00 020; REAR TIRE TREAD SEPARATED FROM TIRE. GENERAL TIRE, 15INCH. DEALERSHIP WAS AWARE OF PROBLEM. *AK
NHTSA ODI #889182
Mileage unknown · May 22, 2001
Tires
I WANTED TO LET SOMEONE KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH BRIDGESTONE, THAT IT IS NOT THE COMPLETE FAULT OF THEIR TIRES AND THE FAULT MUST ALSO BE WITH THE EXPLORER ITSELF. I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE TIRES AND EVEN WENT AS FAR AS TO PROCEED WITH THE LEMON LAW, WHICH YOU CAN LOOK UP IN FLORIDA TO SEE THE SPECIFICS. OF COURSE FORD…
Read full complaint
I WANTED TO LET SOMEONE KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH BRIDGESTONE, THAT IT IS NOT THE COMPLETE FAULT OF THEIR TIRES AND THE FAULT MUST ALSO BE WITH THE EXPLORER ITSELF. I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE TIRES AND EVEN WENT AS FAR AS TO PROCEED WITH THE LEMON LAW, WHICH YOU CAN LOOK UP IN FLORIDA TO SEE THE SPECIFICS. OF COURSE FORD BLAMED THE TIRES WHICH THEY REPLACED WITH MICHELIN'S. I STILL HAVE THE SAME SHAKING AND VIBRATION PROBLEMS I HAD WITH THE FIRESTONE TIRES. FORD SAID THAT THE EXPLORER'S RIDE THAT WAY AND TRIED TO TELL ME THAT WHAT I WAS FEELING WAS "NORMAL". TO ME, THIS IS A TOTAL LACK OF SAFETY CONCERN FOR ME OR ANY OTHER PERSON THAT PURCHASES THEIR PRODUCT. WHAT IF MY TIRES HAD BLOWN OUT ON THE HIGHWAY BEFORE THEY WERE REPLACED AFTER COMPLAINING TO THEM FOR MONTHS? THEY PUT MY LIFE IN JEOPARDY. ON TOP OF THAT, I HAD MY OIL CHANGED THE OTHER DAY AND FOUND THAT THEY NEVER REPLACED THE SPARE, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE A RECALLED TIRE, SO I CAN ASSUME THAT THE OTHER 4 WERE RECALLED ALSO. IT WAS REPLACED BY THE DEALER WHO PERFORMED THE OIL CHANGE. I HONESTLY DO NOT FEEL SAFE DRIVING THIS VEHICLE EVEN WITH DIFFERENT TIRES BECAUSE IT STILL SHAKES AND VIBRATES PRETTY BAD AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS AND I JUST HAD THE TIRES ROTATED, BALANCED AND ALIGNED. I HONESTLY FEEL THAT THERE IS SOMETHING MECHANICALLY WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE. I ALSO FEEL THAT I SHOULD HAVE WON WITH THE LEMON LAW, AND THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE FOR HAVING JEOPARDIZED MY LIFE FOR MONTHS BEFORE THEY CHANGED OUT THE TIRES AND ALSO BECAUSE IT STILL HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS. OF COURSE, ALL THE NEWS ABOUT THE RECALLED TIRES CAME AFTER I HAD COMPLETED THE LEMON LAW ACTION AGAINST FORD. I FEEL THAT FORD WAS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT WITH REGARDS TO MY PERSONAL SAFETY AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING DONE ON THAT LEVEL, I WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED. NOTHING HAS HAPPENED YET, BUT I DO NOT FEEL SAFE IN THE VEHICLE AND IT DOES FEEL LIKE THE TIRES ARE GOING TO COME OFF WHEN I AM ON THE HIGHWAY (TIRESIZE: P235/75R15)
NHTSA ODI #745669
Mileage unknown · May 18, 2001
Tires
PRIOR TO RECALL NOTIFICATION CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE AND WAS ADVISED BY TECHNICIAN THAT ALL FOUR TIRES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE OF EXTREME WEAR, CONSUMER WAS THEN NOTIFIED OF RECALL MONTHS LATER, AND NOW IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TIRES, CONSUMER WAS ADVISED BY FIRESTONE THAT THE SERIAL…
Read full complaint
PRIOR TO RECALL NOTIFICATION CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE AND WAS ADVISED BY TECHNICIAN THAT ALL FOUR TIRES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE OF EXTREME WEAR, CONSUMER WAS THEN NOTIFIED OF RECALL MONTHS LATER, AND NOW IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TIRES, CONSUMER WAS ADVISED BY FIRESTONE THAT THE SERIAL NUMBERS FOR THE OLD TIRES WERE NEEDED, C0NSUMER STATED HE DID NOT HAVE THE SERIAL NUMBER NOR DID THE MECHANIC THAT REPLACED THE TIRES, HOWEVER CONSUMER WAS STILL IN POSSESSION OF THE SPARE TIRE WHICH CONTAINED THE SERIAL NUMBER, ONCE THAT WAS GIVEN TO FIRESTONE, CONSUMER WAS THEN ADVISED THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE SINCE THE REPLACEMENT TIRES WERE NOT REPLACED BY AN AUTHORIZED BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE DEALER. *JB
NHTSA ODI #561273
Mileage unknown · May 7, 2001
Tires
WAS FILLING VEHICLE WITH FUEL AND NOTICED REAR LEFT TIRE HAD CRACKS WHERE TREAD & CASING MEET. TOOK TO MECHANIC, INFORMED CONSUMER THAT TIRES WERE DEFECTIVE. HAD ALL 4 TIRES EXCHANGED. FIRESTONE, WILDERNESS AT, P235/75R16 DOT CODE WZHL 1PY119, HAD 16,000 MILES.*AK
NHTSA ODI #887614
Mileage unknown · Apr 30, 2001
Tires
PRIOR TO RECALL, WHILE TRAVELING BOTH LEFT REAR FIRESTONE(P235/75R15) TIRES BLEW OUT CAUSING VEHICLE TO SPIN AROUND AND INTO THE MEDIAN, VEHICLE WAS TOWED AND ALL 4 TIRES WERE REPLACED, CONSUMER HAS BEEN SENT FORMS FROM MANUFACTURER THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO HIS SITUATION AND AS OF 4/2/01 STILL HAS NOT HEARD FROM MANUFACTURER. *J…
Read full complaint
PRIOR TO RECALL, WHILE TRAVELING BOTH LEFT REAR FIRESTONE(P235/75R15) TIRES BLEW OUT CAUSING VEHICLE TO SPIN AROUND AND INTO THE MEDIAN, VEHICLE WAS TOWED AND ALL 4 TIRES WERE REPLACED, CONSUMER HAS BEEN SENT FORMS FROM MANUFACTURER THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO HIS SITUATION AND AS OF 4/2/01 STILL HAS NOT HEARD FROM MANUFACTURER. *JB
NHTSA ODI #560968
Mileage unknown · Apr 20, 2001
Engine And Engine CoolingLatches/locks/linkagesPower Train
WE HAVE HAD A HOOD LATCH RECALL, CRUISE CONTROL RECALL, QUESTIONS ABOUT A TIRE RECALL (FIRESTONE), POWER STEERING FLUID LEAK, CV BOOT RIP, WIPERS TURNING ON WITH THE TURN SIGNAL, 1 ENGINE REPLACED DUE TO 0 PSI OIL AT IDLE (DID THEY REALLY REPLACE IT OR JUST SAY THEY DID?) SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RE-EVALUATIONS AFTER THE "NEW" ENGINE…
Read full complaint
WE HAVE HAD A HOOD LATCH RECALL, CRUISE CONTROL RECALL, QUESTIONS ABOUT A TIRE RECALL (FIRESTONE), POWER STEERING FLUID LEAK, CV BOOT RIP, WIPERS TURNING ON WITH THE TURN SIGNAL, 1 ENGINE REPLACED DUE TO 0 PSI OIL AT IDLE (DID THEY REALLY REPLACE IT OR JUST SAY THEY DID?) SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RE-EVALUATIONS AFTER THE "NEW" ENGINE HAD EVEN MORE NOISES, FUEL INJECTORS REPLACED, A MYSTERIOUS CLUNKING SOUND ON THE RIGHT SIDE DURING LEFT TURNS, ~5000MI AFTER 1ST ENGINE "REPLACEMENT" ANOTHER FORD REPAIR CENTER IS NOW SAYING THAT THE ENGINE HAS 0PSI AT AND WE NEED ANOTHER ENGINE. WE FEEL LIKE THIS 99 EXPLORER (WITH CURRENTLY <35,000MI)IS A LEMON AND WE ARE TIRED OF RECALLS, REPAIRS, WAITING FOR ENGINES. WE WANT A DEPENDABLE CAR! WE HAVE TAKEN IMMACULATE CARE OF THE CAR, HAVE HAD PROFESSIONALS DO THE WORK ON IT (USUALLY FORD DEALERSHIPS) AND YET WE ARE AFRAID THAT THE WARRENTEE WILL RUN OUT AND WE WILL HAVE AN EXPENSIVE PROBLEM OR, WORSE, THE CAR WILL FAIL AND SOMEONE WILL GET HURT! DOES THIS CAR QUALIFY AS A "LEMON." IF NOT WHAT DOES? IF SO, WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS? P.S. ALL OF THE MENTIONED PROBLEMS ARE DOCUMENTED BY FORD DEALERSHIP RECORDS THAT ARE IN OUR POSSESSION.
NHTSA ODI #744286
Mileage unknown · Apr 10, 2001
SuspensionTiresCrash
WHEN ROADS WERE WET VEHICLE STARTED TO FISHTAIL. CONSUMER HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING 65-70MPH IN RAIN. VEHICLE STARTED TO FISHTAIL, SPUN 180' WENT DOWN AN EMBANKMENT THEN HIT A TREE. CONSUMER COULD NOT CONTROL VEHICLE. VEHICLE WAS TOTALLED. ON DECEMBER 15, 2000 CONSUMER HAD A SIMILAR ACCIDENT, ROAD WAS WET, HIT A PATCH OF S…
Read full complaint
WHEN ROADS WERE WET VEHICLE STARTED TO FISHTAIL. CONSUMER HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING 65-70MPH IN RAIN. VEHICLE STARTED TO FISHTAIL, SPUN 180' WENT DOWN AN EMBANKMENT THEN HIT A TREE. CONSUMER COULD NOT CONTROL VEHICLE. VEHICLE WAS TOTALLED. ON DECEMBER 15, 2000 CONSUMER HAD A SIMILAR ACCIDENT, ROAD WAS WET, HIT A PATCH OF SLUSHY SNOW, VEHICLE WENT INTO TAILSPIN, AND ROLLED OVER, DAMAGE WAS AROUND $ 4500. *AK TIRES WERE FIRESTONE WILDERNESS, P235/70R16. *SLC
FORD IS RECALLING MODEL YEARS 1995-2003 WINDSTAR, 2000-2003 EXCURSION DIESEL, 1993-1997 AND 1999-2003 F-250 SD THROUGH F-550 SD DIESEL, 1992-2003 E-150 THROUGH E-550, 1995-2002 EXPLORER, 1997 AND 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, 1995-1997 AND 2001-2003 RANGER, AND 1994 F53 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS). THE SCDS MAY LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS THAT DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS IN LINE WITH THE SCDS. ON 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES WITH A LEAKING SCDS, DEALERS WILL ALSO INSPECT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE CONNECTOR AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. REPAIRS WILL BE COMPLETED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 27, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
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.
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL AND 4.0L SOHC ENGINES, IF THE STRAND COVER ON THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE BECOMES FLARED AT THE END, THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE MAY BIND WHEN THE SPEED CONTROL IS ACTIVATED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE THROTTLE RETURN SPRING FORCE MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE BINDING CONDITION WHEN THE SPEED CONTROL IS DISENGAGED. BRAKING FUNCTION WOULD BE MAINTAINED THOUGH STOPPING DISTANCES MAY BE INCREASED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE SPEED CONTROL CABLE AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE IT. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 29, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
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.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE 3.27 OR 3.55 AXLE RATION. THE SUBJECT VEHICLES HAVE A POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE THAT COULD ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO EXCEED THE DESIGN INTENT TOP SPEED. AT THESE EXTREME SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE COULD BE CAPABLE OF EXCEEDING THE SPEED RATING OF THE TIRE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: OPERATING THE VEHICLE ABOVE THE MAXIMUM SPEED RATING COULD LEAD TO A TIRE FAILURE WHICH AT THESE SPEEDS COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPROGRAM THE POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L ENGINES AND ALL-TIME 4-WHEEL DRIVE (A4WD) POWERTRAINS. THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) COULD EXPERIENCE A CONDITION REFERRED TO AS "LOCK-UP" IN WHICH THE GEM CONTROLLED ELECTRONIC FUNCTIONS (E.G., FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS, INTERIOR LIGHTS, 4X4 SYSTEM, ETC.) COULD NOT BE TURNED ON OR, IN SOME CASES IF THE FUNCTION IS ON, COULD NOT BE TURNED OFF.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AN INOPERATIVE WINDSHIELD WIPER SYSTEM COULD AFFECT DRIVER VISIBILITY, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A RESISTOR IN THE GEM CIRCUIT.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. THE RIGHT FRONT BRAKE LINE TO THE HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT (HCU) CONNECTION COULD SEPARATE CAUSING THE LINE TO LEAK WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF BRAKE PRESSURE TO THE FRONT WHEELS, INCREASING THE STOPPING DISTANCE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FLARE NUT ON THE BRAKE LINE.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1997-1999 RHD EXPLORER EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L OHV/SOHC ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MAY 29, 1996 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1998-1999 EXPLORER/MOUNTAINEERS EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L OHV/SOHC OR 5.0L ENGINES OR 1998-1999 RANGERS EQUIPPED WITH 2.5L, 3.0L FFV/EFI OR 4.0L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM JANUARY 5, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1998-1999 MUSTANGS EQUIPPED WITH 3.8L, 4.6L 2-VALVE OR 4-VALVE ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; 1999 F250/F350/F450/F550 (OVER 8,500 LBS.) TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 5.4L OR 6.8L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999; AND 1999 F-53 STRIPPED CHASSIS EQUIPPED WITH 5.4L OR 6.8L ENGINES AND CRUISE CONTROL BUILT FROM MARCH 2, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1999. A CRUISE CONTROL CABLE CAN INTERFERE WITH THE SPEED CONTROL SERVO PULLEY AND NOT ALLOW THE THROTTLE TO RETURN TO IDLE WHEN DISENGAGING THE CRUISE CONTROL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE CRUISE CONTROL IS USED AND THIS CONDITION IS PRESENT, A STUCK THROTTLE COULD RESULT, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE CRUISE CONTROL CABLES. AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE REPLACEMENT CABLES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. CUSTOMERS ARE BEING ADVISED NOT TO USE THE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEM UNTIL A REPLACEMENT CAN BE MADE.
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
6
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.
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.
EA01008 · Seat Belt Webbing
Opened Feb 26, 2001 · Closed Apr 25, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts:front:webbing
ODI OPENED PE00-044INVESTIGATION ON NOVEMBER 3, 2000, BASED ON A REPORT REGARDING THE DEATH OF THE OCCUPANT OF THE RIGHT FRONT SEAT IN A 2000 MODEL YEAR FORD EXPLORER XLS INVOLVED IN A ROLL-OVER CRASH.IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE WEBBING OF THE BUCKLE PORTION OF THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY FAILED DURING THE CRASH.THE OCCUPANT WAS PARTIALLY EJECTED FROM THE VEHICLE, THEREBY SUSTAINING FATAL INJURIES.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN OPENED FOR FURTHER STUDY.
SQ99026 · Airbag System's Light Dysfunctional
Opened Nov 19, 1999 · Closed May 23, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags
There is no summary currently available
PE99049 · Windshield Wiper Malfunction
Opened Jul 28, 1999 · Closed Apr 24, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Visibility
There is no summary currently available
SQ99017 · Vehicle Hesitation/stalling
Opened Jun 9, 1999 · Closed Feb 22, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train
Illustration