IllustrationTHE TAILGATE CRACKS DOWN THE CENTER. *TR
2003 Ford Explorer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Ford Explorer do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 609.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Explorer 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
1420–25K
14025–50K
18850–75K
17075–100K
192100–150K
84150K+
916 reports with mileage · 215 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.
- Structure. Review the 354 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 335 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 69 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
60 crash reports10 fire reports45 injury reports
Latches/locks/linkages complaints
17 reportsMY 2003 FORD EXPLORER WAS PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY AND IT SOMEHOW ROLLED DOWN APPROX 150 FEET AND SMASHED INTO A TREE. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE VEHICLE IT WAS PARKED AND THE KEYS WERE IN THE HOUSE. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MY INSURANCE (STATE FARM) AND THEY HAD ME CALL A COLLISION GARAGE TO COME OUT AND THEY CAME WITHIN THE HOUR. THE…
Read full complaint
MY 2003 FORD EXPLORER WAS PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY AND IT SOMEHOW ROLLED DOWN APPROX 150 FEET AND SMASHED INTO A TREE. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE VEHICLE IT WAS PARKED AND THE KEYS WERE IN THE HOUSE. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MY INSURANCE (STATE FARM) AND THEY HAD ME CALL A COLLISION GARAGE TO COME OUT AND THEY CAME WITHIN THE HOUR. THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE VEHICLE IS A TOTAL LOSS. THE NEXT MORNING I CALLED FORD AND THEY DISREGARDED ANYTHING I SAID AND SAID MY INSURANCE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT. I AM STILL PAYING ON A LOAN FOR THIS CAR AND I DO HAVE FULL COVERAGE BUT I AM NOW WITHOUT A VEHICLE AND I AM SCARED TO THINK OF WHAT MIGHT OF HAPPENED IF MY DAUGHTERS WOULD OF BEEN PLAYING IN THE BACKYARD. *TR
THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH MY 2003 FORD EXPLORER SINCE I BOUGHT IT BRAND NEW IN AUGUST OF 2003. BUT IRONICALLY THEY HAVE ALL APPEARED AFTER THE WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED. IN SEPTEMBER 2007 THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT NO LONGER WORKED. IT COST ME $2000 AND A WEEK WITHOUT A CAR, TO GET IT FIXED. IN AUGUST 2009 THE PASSENG…
Read full complaint
THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH MY 2003 FORD EXPLORER SINCE I BOUGHT IT BRAND NEW IN AUGUST OF 2003. BUT IRONICALLY THEY HAVE ALL APPEARED AFTER THE WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED. IN SEPTEMBER 2007 THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT NO LONGER WORKED. IT COST ME $2000 AND A WEEK WITHOUT A CAR, TO GET IT FIXED. IN AUGUST 2009 THE PASSENGER DOOR WINDOW WOULD NO LONGER WORK. IN SEPTEMBER 2009 MY SUV STARTED MAKING A CLICKING SOUND WHEN TURNING ON THE HEATER. SINCE WE LIVED IN A WARM CLIMATE THIS DID NOT CONCERN US MUCH, AS THE HEAT HAD WORKED EVEN WITH THE CLICKING SOUND. BUT WE MOVED TO A COLDER CLIMATE AND THE HEATER WENT OUT IN MARCH 2010. IN APRIL 2010 THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE MECHANIC, HE SAID IT WAS A TRANSMISSION PROBLEM THAT OCCURRED WHEN THE CAR SHIFTED FROM 1ST TO 2ND GEAR AND FROM 4TH TO 5TH GEAR. HE COULD NOT GIVE ME ANY MORE INFORMATION AND WAS NOT WILLING TO FIX MY TRANSMISSION PROBLEM (HE SUGGESTED I GO ELSEWHERE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AN EXPERT IN TRANSMISSIONS). IN MAY 2010 THE O/D LIGHT STARTED FLASHING OFF. AFTER SPEAKING TO MECHANIC AGAIN, HE SAID IT WAS RELATED TO THE TRANSMISSION PROBLEM. IN AUGUST 2010 THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT STARTED COMING ON RANDOMLY, EVEN WHEN THE DOOR IS NOT OPEN. AND IN SEPTEMBER 2010, I NOTICED MY ABS LIGHT WILL COME ON RANDOMLY. IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE TRIGGERED BY ANY SPECIFIC REASON, AND DOES NOT ALWAYS COME ON. *TR
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPLORER AND WAS CLOSING THE WINDOW OF THE BACK HATCH WHEN THE REAR LIFT GATE HINGE FAILED AND BROKE AND THE WINDOW BECAME DISLODGED AND HIT ME IN THE HEAD. MY SON WAS STANDING NEXT TO ME AND THANKFULLY THE WINDOW DIDN'T FALL OUT COMPLETELY AND LAND ON HIM! I HAVE CONTACTED FORD AND THEY SAID THAT ALTHOUGH TH…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2003 FORD EXPLORER AND WAS CLOSING THE WINDOW OF THE BACK HATCH WHEN THE REAR LIFT GATE HINGE FAILED AND BROKE AND THE WINDOW BECAME DISLODGED AND HIT ME IN THE HEAD. MY SON WAS STANDING NEXT TO ME AND THANKFULLY THE WINDOW DIDN'T FALL OUT COMPLETELY AND LAND ON HIM! I HAVE CONTACTED FORD AND THEY SAID THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THIS VERY SAME PROBLEM, YOUR AGENCY DID NOT IDENTIFY MY VEHICLE AS BEING AFFECTED AND THEY WILL NOT REPAIR IT AT THEIR COST. AGAIN, THEY SAID IT WAS BECAUSE YOUR AGENCY DID NOT IDENTIFY MY VEHICLE AS BEING AFFECTED BY THIS DEFECT. AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE WINDOW IS HANGING BY THE STRUTS AND THE LEFT HINGE. FURTHER, I HAVE GONE ONLINE AND SEEN THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD THIS VERY SAME PROBLEM AND IT WAS NOT COVERED BY FORD'S RECALL. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE AS THAT WINDOW COULD HAVE FALLEN OUT AND LANDED ON MY SON! THANKFULLY, I WAS NOT SERIOUSLY INJURED. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN RECALLED MORE EXTENSIVELY. I THINK IT IS REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT A WINDOW OR A DOOR IS NOT GOING TO FALL OFF A HINGE AND POTENTIALLY CAUSE A SERIOUS INJURY. SAFETY IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION! *TR
I HAVE A 2003 EDDIE BAUER FORD EXPLORER. LAST NIGHT, WHEN MY SON WAS ATTEMPTING TO CLOSE THE REAR LIFT GATE GLASS DOOR, THE HINGE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE BROKE OFF. THE GLASS LIFTGATE IS PRESENTLY BEING HELD UP BY THE OTHER HINGE AND IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE THAT ONE BREAKS ALSO. I SPOKE WITH AN ANDREA AT FORD 1-800-392-3673 AND SH…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 EDDIE BAUER FORD EXPLORER. LAST NIGHT, WHEN MY SON WAS ATTEMPTING TO CLOSE THE REAR LIFT GATE GLASS DOOR, THE HINGE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE BROKE OFF. THE GLASS LIFTGATE IS PRESENTLY BEING HELD UP BY THE OTHER HINGE AND IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE THAT ONE BREAKS ALSO. I SPOKE WITH AN ANDREA AT FORD 1-800-392-3673 AND SHE BASICALLY TOLD ME THAT I WAS OUT OF LUCK, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE REPAIRS BECAUSE MY VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, I TOLD HER THE DESCRIPTION OF MY VEHICLE. I HAVE A FRIEND WHO OWNS A FORD EXPLORER AND HE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, AND SINCE HIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECALL, HE DIDN'T ENCOUNTER ANY PROBLEMS IN HAVING IT REPAIRED. YOU WONDER WHY SO MANY PEOPLE BUY JAPANESE CARS AND TRUCKS. HERE IS ONE OF MANY REASONS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS OBVIOUSLY ATTEMPTING TO SAVE MONEY AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR SAFETY. *TR
I TOOK MY 2003 FORD EXPLORER TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND WAS REFUSE RECALL REPAIRS. WAS TOLD IT WOULD BE AT MY OWN EXPENSE BECAUSE HE COULD NOT FIND RECALL NOTICE IN FORD SYSTEM. BELOW IS THE DETAILS OF RECAP. AT THIS TIME THE LIFTGATE HINGE IS BROKEN AND WINDOW IS ABOUT TO FALL OFF. PLEASE HELP. VEHICLE MAKE / MODEL: MODEL …
Read full complaint
I TOOK MY 2003 FORD EXPLORER TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND WAS REFUSE RECALL REPAIRS. WAS TOLD IT WOULD BE AT MY OWN EXPENSE BECAUSE HE COULD NOT FIND RECALL NOTICE IN FORD SYSTEM. BELOW IS THE DETAILS OF RECAP. AT THIS TIME THE LIFTGATE HINGE IS BROKEN AND WINDOW IS ABOUT TO FALL OFF. PLEASE HELP. VEHICLE MAKE / MODEL: MODEL YEAR(S): FORD / EXPLORER 2002-2003 FORD / MOUNTAINEER 2002-2003 MANUFACTURER: FORD MOTOR COMPANY MFR'S REPORT DATE: SEP 09, 2004 NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 04V442000 PE04045 NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: PE04045. *TR
JULY OF 2007 THE REAR WINDOW ON OUR 2003 FORD EXPLORER XLT HAD BROKEN AT ONE OF THE HINGES AND THE WINDOW SAGGED. AFTER RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET WE FOUND OUT THERE WAS A RECALL, (04V44200). WE THEN CONTACTED FORD AND THEY AGREED TO FIX THE PROBLEM AT NO CHARGE. NOW 10 MONTHS LATER WHILE THE AUTO WAS PARKED IN OUR DRIVEWAY T…
Read full complaint
JULY OF 2007 THE REAR WINDOW ON OUR 2003 FORD EXPLORER XLT HAD BROKEN AT ONE OF THE HINGES AND THE WINDOW SAGGED. AFTER RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET WE FOUND OUT THERE WAS A RECALL, (04V44200). WE THEN CONTACTED FORD AND THEY AGREED TO FIX THE PROBLEM AT NO CHARGE. NOW 10 MONTHS LATER WHILE THE AUTO WAS PARKED IN OUR DRIVEWAY THE WINDOW SHATTERED WITH NO ONE AROUND. THERE WAS A NEIGHBOR WORKING IN THE YARD WHO WITNESSED THIS HAPPEN. GLASS WAS BOTH INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. AFTER A WEEK OF PHONE CALLS WITH NO LUCK, I WAS FINALLY IN TOUCH WITH A ONE OF THE PARTS GUYS AT FORD WHO SAID THIS IS AN ONGOING PROBLEM THAT HE WAS AWARE OF. HE EVEN STATED THAT THEY ONLY REPLACED THE HINGES AND NOT THE GLASS WHICH IS KNOWN TO SHATTER. AFTER SEVERAL PHONE CALLS, WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE RECALL WAS ONLY ON THE HINGES (EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW THE GLASS IS DEFECTIVE AS WELL) AND THEY WOULD NOT HELP US OUT. WELL IM NOT PAYING $1,600 OUT OF MY POCKET FOR ANOTHER PRODUCT THAT FORD KNOWS HAS A PROBLEM AND DOESN'T BACK UP THERE WARRANTIES. *TR
HATCHBACK ON 2003 FORD EXPLORER CRACKED, AND NEEDED REPLACEMENT, THE TOTAL COST WAS $290.00. *TR
THE HINGES ON MY 2003 FORD EXPLORER BROKE WHILE OPENING THE LIFT GATE. I WANT TO THE DEALER TO HAVE FIXED. THEY CHARGED ME $323.55 TO REPLACE THE HINGES & STRUTS. LATER I FOUND OT THAT THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THIS EXACT ISSUE. I CONTACTED FORD AND THEY TOLD ME THAT EVEN THOUGH MY VEHICLE WAS BUILT DURING THE DATES LISTED IN THE R…
Read full complaint
THE HINGES ON MY 2003 FORD EXPLORER BROKE WHILE OPENING THE LIFT GATE. I WANT TO THE DEALER TO HAVE FIXED. THEY CHARGED ME $323.55 TO REPLACE THE HINGES & STRUTS. LATER I FOUND OT THAT THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THIS EXACT ISSUE. I CONTACTED FORD AND THEY TOLD ME THAT EVEN THOUGH MY VEHICLE WAS BUILT DURING THE DATES LISTED IN THE RECALL IT WAS NOT BUILT AT A SPECIFIC PLANT. OF THE 955,000 VEHICLES COVERED UNDER THIS RECALL MY CAR (WHICH ACTUALLY HAD THE PROBLEM) WAS NOT COVERED. BELOW IS A COPY OF THE RECALL FROM YOUR OFFICE. I AM CERTAIN THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY OWNER FACING THIS ISSUE. FORD MOTORS NEEDS TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS. I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD WITH THIS COMPLAINT STATING THAT THE RECALL BELOW BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ALL 2003 FORD EXPLORERS REGARDLESS OF PLANT THAT BUILT IT. THE HINGES ARE BAD. FORD / EXPLORER 2002-2003 FORD / MOUNTAINEER 2002-2003 MANUFACTURER : FORD MOTOR COMPANY MFR'S REPORT DATE : SEP 09, 2004 NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER : 04V442000 PE04045 NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: PE04045 COMPONENT: STRUCTURE:BODY:HATCHBACK/LIFTGATE:HINGE AND ATTACHMENTS POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITS AFFECTED : 955732 SUMMARY: ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THE LIFTGATE GLASS STRUT MAY BECOME DISENGAGED OR THE HINGE MAY FRACTURE ALLOWING THE GLASS TO FALL AND POSSIBLY BREAK. CONSEQUENCE: IF THE HINGE SHOULD FRACTURE, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR THE GLASS TO FALL AND ULTIMATELY BREAK AND PERSONAL INJURIES COULD OCCUR. *TR
MY 2003 EXPLORER SUDDENLY DEVELOPED A CRACK ON THE BACK PANEL BENEATH THE REAR WINDOW. I AM CONCERNED THAT IF IT PROGRESSES THE GLASS WILL HAVE NO SUPPORT AND BREAK. I SPOKE WITH FORD AFTER LEARNING THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THESE SUV'S AND WAS TOLD IF I HAD NO WARRANTY THEY WOULD NOT COVER THE COST. *TR
Official recalls
204V442000 · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
Sep 13, 2004
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THE LIFTGATE GLASS STRUT MAY BECOME DISENGAGED OR THE HINGE MAY FRACTURE ALLOWING THE GLASS TO FALL AND POSSIBLY BREAK.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE HINGE SHOULD FRACTURE, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR THE GLASS TO FALL AND ULTIMATELY BREAK AND PERSONAL INJURIES COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL HAVE THE LIFTGATE GLASS STRUT BRACKETS AND GLASS HINGES REPLACED. FOR THE VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 1, 2000 THROUGH MARCH 3, 2002, THE DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE HINGES AND LIFTGATE STRUT BRACKET. ON VEHICLES BUILT FROM MARCH 3, 2002 THROUGH JUNE 23, 2003, THE DEALERS WILL ONLY REPLACE THE HINGES. THE RECALL BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2004. A POSTCARD WAS SENT TO OWNERS ON DECEMBER 27, 2004, ADVISING THEM THAT PARTS ARE NOW AVAILABLE. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
03V094000 · Structure
Mar 7, 2003
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK, VAN, AND MINI VAN CONVERSIONS EQUIPPED WITH SOUTHERN COMFORT BUILT RUNNING BOARDS THAT CONTAIN CERTAIN COURTESY LIGHTS MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS, INC. THESE UNITS CONTAIN A COURTESY LIGHT OR LIGHTS THAT MIGHT OVERHEAT WHEN THE WIRE HARNESS IS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE MOISTURE AND ROAD SALT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS OVERHEATING CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE RUNNING BOARD TO MELT OR CAUSE A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE WIRING HARNESS ON THESE RUNNING BOARDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 7, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHERN COMFORT AT 1-800-745-6096.
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
3EA09013 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Aug 18, 2009 · Closed Feb 12, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl); Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift; Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl)
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
PE09020 · 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.