NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
53 reports67,000 miles · Aug 25, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
VEHICLE CONTAINS A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFORD THAT CRACKS DUE TO THE HEAT AND CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN STANDARD ENGINE USE. THE CRACKS ALLOW THE ESCAPE OF RADIATOR FLUID/ANTIFREEZE ... WHICH WILL THEN CAUSE PERMENANT DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE/VEHICLE.*AK FORD IN FACT KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM, AND WARRANTIES CERTAIN VEHICLE STYLES/YEARS AS…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE CONTAINS A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFORD THAT CRACKS DUE TO THE HEAT AND CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN STANDARD ENGINE USE. THE CRACKS ALLOW THE ESCAPE OF RADIATOR FLUID/ANTIFREEZE ... WHICH WILL THEN CAUSE PERMENANT DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE/VEHICLE.*AK FORD IN FACT KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM, AND WARRANTIES CERTAIN VEHICLE STYLES/YEARS AS WELL AS VEHICLES USED AS FLEET/POLICE/TAXI VEHICLES ... BUT NOT ALL AFFECTED VEHICLES FOR CONSUMERS THAT CONTAIN THE IDENTICAL PART IN QUESTION. LATER VEHICLE YEARS WERE FITTED WITH INTAKES WITH EITHER ALUMINUM CROSSOVERS, OR MADE ALL OF ALUMINUM. VEHICLES THAT CONTAIN THE FAILED PART HAVE THE PART REPLACED WITH THE ALUMINUM-CROSSOVER PART AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. 1.) PART FAILS UNDER REGULAR USE OF VEHICLE. 2.) DEFECTIVE PART MUST BE REPLACED AT HIGH COST OF LABOR - DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO REPAIR PART DESPITE TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLITIN #97M91. 3.) NOTHING. - DEALER WILL NOT REPLACE - I CANNOT AFORD REPLACEMENT CURRENTLY.
NHTSA ODI #10088568
103,513 miles · Aug 16, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. I NOW HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. FORD MOTOR COMPANY KNOWS THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLDS ARE SUBJECT TO FAILURE. THEY ALSO RECALLED SOME OF THE VEHICLES WITH THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT I HAVE IN MY CAR. I WAS TOLD, BY FORD THAT SINCE MY CAR WAS MADE A FEW MONTHS AFTER THOSE BEING RECALLED THAT …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. I NOW HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. FORD MOTOR COMPANY KNOWS THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLDS ARE SUBJECT TO FAILURE. THEY ALSO RECALLED SOME OF THE VEHICLES WITH THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT I HAVE IN MY CAR. I WAS TOLD, BY FORD THAT SINCE MY CAR WAS MADE A FEW MONTHS AFTER THOSE BEING RECALLED THAT I DO NOT QUALIFY. THE PART IN QUESTION IS AN INTAKE MANIFOLD MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. THE MANIFOLDS THAT WERE REPLACED BY FORD NOW HAVE ALUMINUM IN PLACE OF THE PLASTIC IN THE AREA OF THE CRACK. I LEARNED OF A FORD DOCUMENT # 97M91 WHICH SHOWS THAT FORD KNOWS OF THE PROBLEM. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT I CAN DO TO TRY AND GET FORD TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10086959
82,000 miles · Aug 14, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. WAS TOLD NEW ONE WAS REDESIGNED. SPOKE WITH SEVERAL AUTO PARTS DEALERS AND FOUND THIS COMPONENT BREAKS IN SAME LOCATION ON ALL. THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND FORD WILL NOT REPLACE FOR FREE OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10086853
90,000 miles · Aug 11, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE PLASTIC INTAKE ON THE ENGINE (4.6 SOHC), CRACKED IN THE WATER JACKET AREA CAUSING, AN ANTI-FREEZE FLUID LEAK. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10086619
Mileage unknown · Aug 9, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. HAPPENS ON MOST 1996-1998 MUSTANG GT 4.6. NEW PART FROM FORD REPLACES PLASTIC PART PRONE TO CRACKING WITH ALUMINUM PART. FORD HAS A SERVICE PROGRAM # 97M91 RELATED TO 4.6 ENGINES FOR CARS BUILT 07/1995 - 06/1997. CARS BUILT AFTER THIS END DATE STILL EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS DUE TO DEFECTIVE PART. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10086464
66,000 miles · Jul 8, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
1) VEHICLE STARTED LOSING RADIATOR FLUID THEN 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT CAME ON. 2) TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC WHO STATED THERE IS A CRACK IN THE FRONT PLASTIC PART ON THE ENGINE. MECHANIC STATED HE HAS REPLACED A COUPLE DOZEN OF THESE PARTS ON OTHER NEWER MUSTANGS AND IT WAS COVERED BY WARRANTY. MECHANIC STATED TO TAKE TO THE FORD D…
Read full complaint
1) VEHICLE STARTED LOSING RADIATOR FLUID THEN 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT CAME ON. 2) TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC WHO STATED THERE IS A CRACK IN THE FRONT PLASTIC PART ON THE ENGINE. MECHANIC STATED HE HAS REPLACED A COUPLE DOZEN OF THESE PARTS ON OTHER NEWER MUSTANGS AND IT WAS COVERED BY WARRANTY. MECHANIC STATED TO TAKE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, THIS WAS A DEFECTIVE PART AND IS BEING REPLACED WITH AN ALUMINUM PART INSTEAD OF PLASTIC BECAUSE OF THIS DEFECT. 3) TOOK VEHICLE TO COLUMBIA, SC DEALERSHIP. THEY STATED OTHER MECHANIC WAS CORRECT AND WOULD IT COST $780 TO REPLACE PART. 4) I FEEL FORD SHOULD PAY FOR THIS SINCE IT IS A DEFECTIVE PART. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10080592
105,000 miles · Jun 18, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
CAR IS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH THE SOHC 4.6L ENGINE. AT AROUND 105K MILES, COOLANT LEVELS STARTED DROPPING RAPIDLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ENGINE WAS REVVED ABOVE 3000 RPMS. EVENTUALLY, LEVELS DROPPED MORE QUICKLY THAN COOLANT COULD BE REPLACED AND CAR OVERHEATED. FOUND A LARGE POOL OF COOLANT IN ENGINE VALLEY BETWEEN CYLINDERS…
Read full complaint
CAR IS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH THE SOHC 4.6L ENGINE. AT AROUND 105K MILES, COOLANT LEVELS STARTED DROPPING RAPIDLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ENGINE WAS REVVED ABOVE 3000 RPMS. EVENTUALLY, LEVELS DROPPED MORE QUICKLY THAN COOLANT COULD BE REPLACED AND CAR OVERHEATED. FOUND A LARGE POOL OF COOLANT IN ENGINE VALLEY BETWEEN CYLINDERS. FOUND RECALL ON COMPOSITE INTAKES FOR 1996 AND 1997 MUSTANG GT'S WITH 4.6L SOHC ENGINE BUT NOT ON 1998 VEHICLES. INTAKE WAS REPLACED WITH NEW VERSION WITH CAST ALUMINUM CROSSOVER TUBE AT OWNER'S EXPENSE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10078423
40,000 miles · Jun 10, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE LOST 1 QUART OF OIL PER 1000 MILES SINCE 40,000 MILES. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A POOL OF OIL UNDER MY CAR BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE LEAK. MULTIPLE VISITS TO THE DEALERSHIP HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THIS LEAK. MY NEW MECHANIC FINALLY FOUND THE LEAK TO BE A CRACKED TIMING CHAIN COVER. THERE IS A V-SHAPED CRACK ON TH…
Read full complaint
I HAVE LOST 1 QUART OF OIL PER 1000 MILES SINCE 40,000 MILES. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A POOL OF OIL UNDER MY CAR BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE LEAK. MULTIPLE VISITS TO THE DEALERSHIP HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THIS LEAK. MY NEW MECHANIC FINALLY FOUND THE LEAK TO BE A CRACKED TIMING CHAIN COVER. THERE IS A V-SHAPED CRACK ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE COVER. HE SAYS IT'S PROBABLY A CASTING ERROR. THE CAR NOW HAS 90,000 MILES AND OF COURSE IS NOT UNDER ANY WARRANTY. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD AND TWO SETS OF WORN REAR-END BEARINGS.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10075178
82,995 miles · Apr 26, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
A USED VEHICLE ('98 MUSTANG GT) WAS FINANCED FROM A USED CAR DEALERSHIP BY MY DAUGHTER APPROX. 3 WEEKS AGO. THE SALESMAN WHO CLOSED THE DEAL STATED THAT THE ONLY ITEMS TO BE COVERED UNDER ANY KIND OF WARRANTY WOULD BE THOSE REGARDED AS SAFETY ITEMS. ENGINE FAILURE OR COSMETIC FEATURES WOULD NOT BE COVERED. APPROX. 17 DAYS AFTER …
Read full complaint
A USED VEHICLE ('98 MUSTANG GT) WAS FINANCED FROM A USED CAR DEALERSHIP BY MY DAUGHTER APPROX. 3 WEEKS AGO. THE SALESMAN WHO CLOSED THE DEAL STATED THAT THE ONLY ITEMS TO BE COVERED UNDER ANY KIND OF WARRANTY WOULD BE THOSE REGARDED AS SAFETY ITEMS. ENGINE FAILURE OR COSMETIC FEATURES WOULD NOT BE COVERED. APPROX. 17 DAYS AFTER FINANCING THE VEHICLE, THE REAR SWAY BAR BROKE WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING IT. THE CAR WAS IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THE DEALERSHIP TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM WHERE IT SAT WITHOUT NOTIFICATION FOR ANOTHER 2 OR 3 DAYS. WE WERE INFORMED BY A REPRESENTATIVE (I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE OWNER OR THE MANAGER, DUE TO THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE 4 OR 5 PEOPLE I SPOKE TO, NO ONE WOULD CLAIM MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY) THAT THE PART DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A SAFETY ITEM WHICH MEANS MY DAUGHTER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF THE PART AND THE LABOR. THE SWAY BAR WAS REMOVED BY THE DEALERSHIP MECHANIC AND I CURRENTLY HAVE IT IN MY POSSESSION. THERE ARE DEFINITE SIGNS THAT THE PART WAS CRACKED AND READY TO BREAK LONG BEFORE THE PURCHASE WAS MADE. I ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH THE MANAGER AND/OR THE OWNER TO GET SOME RESOLUTION. I HAD OFFERED TO REPLACE THE PART MYSELF IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SIMPLY PURCHASE IT. THE MANAGER SAID THE ONLY THING HE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IS COVER HALF THE COST OF PARTS AND LABOR ($150). I FEEL THAT THIS PART SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE SAFETY CLAUSE THAT THE SALESMAN ORIGINALLY TOLD MY DAUGHTER WOULD BE IN EFFECT. THE COST OF THE PART AND LABOR DOESN'T BOTHER ME NEARLY AS MUCH AS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO STAND BEHIND THE VEHICLES THEY SELL. THEREFORE, I AM REQUESTING THAT A COMPLAINT BE FILED AGAINST BAJA MOTORS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY INSIST A FULL SAFETY INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED ON THIS VEHICLE, BUT THAT THEY REFUSE TO STAND BEHIND A SAFETY ITEM WHICH WAS CLEARLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO MY DAUGHTER TAKING DELIVERY. SINCERELY, [XXX]. *AK INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10067858
Mileage unknown · Mar 23, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. MANIFOLD DEVELOPED CRACK FOR NO REASON. I FOUND OUT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM FROM FORD AND FORD WILL NOT RECALL THE CARS. THE NEW REPLACMENT INTAKE MANIFOLD IS METAL IN THE AREA THAT DEVELOPS A CRACK AND FORD CHARGES ALOT OF MONEY FOR THE REPLACMENT THAT WAS A BAD DESIGN IN THE FIRST P…
Read full complaint
DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. MANIFOLD DEVELOPED CRACK FOR NO REASON. I FOUND OUT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM FROM FORD AND FORD WILL NOT RECALL THE CARS. THE NEW REPLACMENT INTAKE MANIFOLD IS METAL IN THE AREA THAT DEVELOPS A CRACK AND FORD CHARGES ALOT OF MONEY FOR THE REPLACMENT THAT WAS A BAD DESIGN IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT REFUSES TO RECALL THIS PROBLEM OR REFUND THE COST OF A NEW INTAKE MANIFOLD. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10063685
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Illustration