IllustrationMY 2000 FORD MUSTANG SEAT BELT WONT RETRACT. CALLED DEALER ABOUT DEFECT THEY SAID NOT ONE OF CARS ON RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM. THEY NEED TO LOOK INTO EXPANDING THE RECALL TO COVER MORE CARS WITH THIS PROBLEM. *JB
2000 Ford Mustang
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Mustang years
Owner complaints for the 2000 Ford Mustang are substantially higher than the model-year median of 81.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mustang 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
160–25K
2125–50K
2250–75K
1675–100K
19100–150K
3150K+
97 reports with mileage · 214 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.
- Air Bags. Review the 42 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 40 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 40 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
56 crash reports9 fire reports30 injury reports
What owners actually said
311 reportsDT: THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE THE VEHICLE IS PARKED ON A HILL AND THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IS ON THE VEHICLE WILL CONTINUE TO ROLL DOWN A HILL. THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED IN NOVEMBER 2003. THE REPAIR SHOP SAID THAT IT WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE EMERGENCY BRAKE. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE, BUT THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDE…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE THE VEHICLE IS PARKED ON A HILL AND THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IS ON THE VEHICLE WILL CONTINUE TO ROLL DOWN A HILL. THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED IN NOVEMBER 2003. THE REPAIR SHOP SAID THAT IT WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE EMERGENCY BRAKE. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE, BUT THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO VIN, ACCORDING TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THE MANUFACTURER. IN MOST CASES AFTER THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN PARKED FOR A WHILE WITH THE EMERGENCY BRAKE ON THE VEHICLE WOULD CONTINUE TO ROLL. ALSO, THE CONTACT HAS BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH FRONT DRIVER AND PASSENGER SEAT BELTS. THE PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT WAS WORSE. THE SEAT BELTS WILL NOT RETRACT, CAUSING THE SEAT BELTS TO GET CAUGHT IN THE DOOR. THIS PROBLEM EXISTED SINCE THE CONTACT PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. *AK
THE DRIVER SEAT BELT BECOMES STUCK AND DOES NOT FULLY RETRACT. IT ALSO DOES NOT LOCK UP WHEN YOU BRAKE QUICKLY. THE SEAT BELT IN THE BACK SEAT IS STUCK AND WILL NOT MOVE OR RETRACT AT ALL. IT CANNOT BE USED AT ALL, AND THEREFORE I CANNOT INSTALL THE CHILD CAR SEAT FOR MY BABY. THERE IS AN ACTIVE RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM FOR T…
Read full complaint
THE DRIVER SEAT BELT BECOMES STUCK AND DOES NOT FULLY RETRACT. IT ALSO DOES NOT LOCK UP WHEN YOU BRAKE QUICKLY. THE SEAT BELT IN THE BACK SEAT IS STUCK AND WILL NOT MOVE OR RETRACT AT ALL. IT CANNOT BE USED AT ALL, AND THEREFORE I CANNOT INSTALL THE CHILD CAR SEAT FOR MY BABY. THERE IS AN ACTIVE RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM FOR THE 2000 FORD MUSTANG, BUT WHEN I TOOK THE CAR TO MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP THEY SAID THAT MY VEHICLE IS NOT COVERED UNDER THIS RECALL. THEY ADVISED ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THE SEATBELTS REPAIRED.
A/C CONDENSATION DRAIN TUBE DRIPS ON EXHAUST MANIFOLD CAUSING THE EXHAUST TO BRAKE. ITS AN ON-GOING PROBLEM THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED. THE ONLY REMEDY IS TO WELD THE TUBE BACK TOGETHER. FROM MANY SHOPS I'VE SPOKEN TO THIS IS A PROBLEM THEY SEE AND KNOW A LOT ABOUT. *NM
COMPLAINT ON MY 2000 FORD MUSTANG COUPE(ORGINAL OWNER ). VEHICLE HAS PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE POSITION OF THE CARPET AROUND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. AFTER MINIMAL USE OF THE VEHICLE ( 5000 MILES OR AROUND 3-5 MONTHS OF USE) A LARGE HOLE DEVELOPED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. IF THE ACCELERATOR IS DEPRESSED FULLY OR…
Read full complaint
COMPLAINT ON MY 2000 FORD MUSTANG COUPE(ORGINAL OWNER ). VEHICLE HAS PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE POSITION OF THE CARPET AROUND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. AFTER MINIMAL USE OF THE VEHICLE ( 5000 MILES OR AROUND 3-5 MONTHS OF USE) A LARGE HOLE DEVELOPED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. IF THE ACCELERATOR IS DEPRESSED FULLY OR ALMOST FULLY THE SIDE OF YOUR SHOE CAN CATCH ON THE HOLE LONG ENOUGH TO POSE A SAFTEY HAZARD OF NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE YOUR FOOT IMMEADATLY OFF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. I HAVE HAD THIS HAPPEN ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND HAVE TO BE VERY CONCIOUS OF MY FOOT POSITION ON THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WHEN DRIVING TO PREVENT THIS PROBLEM NOW THAT I AM AWARE OF IT. FORD DEEMS THIS PROBLEM AS NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR ON THE CAR AND WOULD NOT COVER REPLACEMENT OF THE CARPET UNDER MY BUMPER TO BUMPER WARRENTY.(WHICH IS NOW EXPIRED) PICTURES ARE AVAILABLE, PLEASE CONTACT AND I WILL FORWARD THEM TO YOU.
ON MAY 30, 2005, OUR DAUGHTER WAS EXITING A PARKING LOT IN HER 2000 FORD MUSTANG. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE EXITS WEREN''T CLEARLY MARKED, SHE DROVE OVER THE SIDEWALK, RESULTING IN APPROXIMATELY A FOUR INCH DROP OFF. AFTER WAITING FOR TRAFFIC TO CLEAR, SHE ACCELERATED TO EXIT THE PARKING LOT AND BOTH OF HER AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. S…
Read full complaint
ON MAY 30, 2005, OUR DAUGHTER WAS EXITING A PARKING LOT IN HER 2000 FORD MUSTANG. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE EXITS WEREN''T CLEARLY MARKED, SHE DROVE OVER THE SIDEWALK, RESULTING IN APPROXIMATELY A FOUR INCH DROP OFF. AFTER WAITING FOR TRAFFIC TO CLEAR, SHE ACCELERATED TO EXIT THE PARKING LOT AND BOTH OF HER AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. SHE WAS FORTUNATE THAT A POLICE OFFICER WITNESSED THIS INCIDENT. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE OFFICER, I WAS ASSURED THAT SPEED WAS NOT A FACTOR. I ALSO REVIEWED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AREA TO VIEW TO SEE THE DROP-OFF AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A ''HIGHWAY POT-HOLE'', WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE PREMATURE DEPLOYMENT OF THE AIRBAGS.
OVER THE PAST YEAR MY 2000 FORD MUSTANG HAS ACCELERATED BY ITSELF WITHOUT MY FOOT ON THE GAS PEDDLE..AND ITS A 5 SPEED ...(STICK SHIFT) THANK GOODNESS I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO THROW IT INTO NEUTERAL AND THEN I HAVE TO SLAM THE GAS PEDDLE DOWN TO THE FLOOR TO GET IT TO UNSTICK ..BOTH TIMES HAVE BEEN ON A BUSY HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOU…
Read full complaint
OVER THE PAST YEAR MY 2000 FORD MUSTANG HAS ACCELERATED BY ITSELF WITHOUT MY FOOT ON THE GAS PEDDLE..AND ITS A 5 SPEED ...(STICK SHIFT) THANK GOODNESS I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO THROW IT INTO NEUTERAL AND THEN I HAVE TO SLAM THE GAS PEDDLE DOWN TO THE FLOOR TO GET IT TO UNSTICK ..BOTH TIMES HAVE BEEN ON A BUSY HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC...WHEN I ASKED FORD TO LOOK AT IT ..THEY TOLD ME THEY COULDNT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT .. I HAD TAKEN IT IN TO HAVE THE CATALITIC CONVERTER FIXED..AND THEY SAID THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM BUT IN TALKING IT OVER WITH MY BROTHER (WHO IS A CAR MECHANIC) HE DIDNT THINK THAT THE CATALITIC CONV. WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACCELERATOR STICKING LIKE THAT !.. IT HASNT HAPPENED IN A WHILE BUT ITS VERY NERVE WRACKING WHEN IT DOES/NOT SURE IF THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ANY OTHER MUSTANGS OUT THERE..
I WAS INVOLVED IN A ONE CAR ACCIDENT WHERE I LOST CONTROL AND JUMPED A CURB. MY CAR WAS A 2000 V6 MUSTANG COUPE. THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WHEN THE CAR MADE CONTACT WITH THE CURB. BUT I WAS THEN AIRBORN IN THE CAR FOR ABOUT 12 FEET AND BY THE TIME MY CAR HIT THE GROUND MY AIR BAGS HAD DEFLATED, CAUSING MY PASSENGER TO HIT HER HEA…
Read full complaint
I WAS INVOLVED IN A ONE CAR ACCIDENT WHERE I LOST CONTROL AND JUMPED A CURB. MY CAR WAS A 2000 V6 MUSTANG COUPE. THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WHEN THE CAR MADE CONTACT WITH THE CURB. BUT I WAS THEN AIRBORN IN THE CAR FOR ABOUT 12 FEET AND BY THE TIME MY CAR HIT THE GROUND MY AIR BAGS HAD DEFLATED, CAUSING MY PASSENGER TO HIT HER HEAD ON THE DASHBOARD. SHE HAD HER SEATBELT ON, AND BE KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS. ALSO... WHEN THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED THEY CAME OUT WITH SUCH FORCE THAT IT KNOCKED MY HANDS OFF THE STEERING WHEEL, CAUSING ME TO NOT BE ABLE TO STEER THE CAR .SCARED THAT IF THE TIRES WEREN'T STRAIGHT WHEN WE WOULD TOUCH DOWN THAT WE WOULD FLIP. THE SAME INCIDENT HAPPENED 2 DAYS AGO WHEN MY FRIEND WRECKED HIS 20'01 GT. HE HAD LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND CLIPPED A TELEPHONE POLL DOING ABOUT 50MPH. HE THEN JUMPED A DITCH... WENT AIRBORN... AND WRAPPED HIS CAR AROUND A TREE. THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED,BUT HAD DEFLATED BY THE TIME HE HAD ANY REAL CONTACT. THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED WHEN HE CLIPPED THE TELEPHONE POLL... BUT WHEN HE NEEDED IT MOST IT HAD ALREADY DEFLATED... CAUSING HIM TO HIT HIS HEAD ON THE STEERING WHEEL AND THEN HAVING HIS HEAD GO THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD. AIRBAGS DO NOT NEED TO DEFLATE SO QUICKLY. I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO. THANK YOU!*AK
FAILURE JUST HAPPENED. FAILURE OF THE "MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH" ON OUR 2000 MUSTANG CAUSED THE FAILURE OF THE TURN SIGNALS, BRAKE LIGHTS, WIPERS, AND SPEED CONTROL. HAD PROBLEM LOOKED AT BY SEVERAL MECHANICS. THEY REPLACED FUSES, WHICH REMEDIED THE SITUATION FOR 24 HOURS. THEN THE FUSES WOULD BLOW, AND THE SYSTEMS WOULD FAIL. CHEV…
Read full complaint
FAILURE JUST HAPPENED. FAILURE OF THE "MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH" ON OUR 2000 MUSTANG CAUSED THE FAILURE OF THE TURN SIGNALS, BRAKE LIGHTS, WIPERS, AND SPEED CONTROL. HAD PROBLEM LOOKED AT BY SEVERAL MECHANICS. THEY REPLACED FUSES, WHICH REMEDIED THE SITUATION FOR 24 HOURS. THEN THE FUSES WOULD BLOW, AND THE SYSTEMS WOULD FAIL. CHEVROLET DEALER DISCOVERED THAT LEAVING THE HAZARD SWITCH IN THE "ON" POSITION WOULD ALLOW THESE SYSTEMS TO FUNCTION NORMALLY, BUT DISABLED THE HAZARD WARNING LIGHTS. UPON CALLING THE LOCAL FORD DEALER AND SPEAKING WITH THE SERVICE MANAGER, I DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM, AND HE SAID IT WAS THE "MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH", AND THAT THEY HAD REPLACED "A FEW". I HAVE NOT HAD THE REPAIR DONE YET, BUT INTEND TO IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. MEANWHILE, MY DAUGHTER DRIVES THE CAR WITH THE HAZARD SWITCH IN THE "ON" POSITION IN ORDER TO HAVE BRAKE LIGHTS, TURN SIGNALS, WIPERS, AND HER SPEED CONTROL OPERABLE. I FEEL THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE!*AK
THE PASSENGER SEAT BELT WILL NOT RETRACT FROM THE RETRACTOR. ANY ONE RIDING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT IS LEFT UNRESTRAINED. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. *NM *NM
Official recalls
200V349000 · Parking Brake:conventional
Oct 30, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH MANUAL TRANSMISSIONS. IF A VEHICLE IS PARKED WITH THE PARKING BRAKE NOT FULLY APPLIED AND NOT IN FIRST GEAR, AS DIRECTED IN THE OWNER GUIDE, AND THE SELF ADJUSTMENT PAWL SUBSEQUENTLY SKIPS ONE OR TWO TEETH, THE VEHICLE COULD MOVE ON SOME GRADES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN UNINTENDED VEHICLE MOVEMENT AND A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MODIFY THE PARKING BRAKE CONTROL AND INSTALL A PLATE OR OVER-BRACKET TO THE CONTROL TO LOCK THE SELF ADJUST MECHANISM IN POSITION FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENT.
99V250000 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Sep 20, 1999
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR MAY HAVE A PIN SHAFT IN THE SWITCHABLE ELR/ALR MECHANISM THAT IS INCORRECTLY FORMED. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SWITCHING MECHANISM COULD BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL, PREVENTING THE SEAT BELT WEBBING FROM BEING EXTRACTED FROM THE RETRACTOR. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT MALFUNCTION OF THE MECHANISM COULD PREVENT THE BELT FROM BEING SWITCHED INTO THE ALR MODE. THE ELR MECHANISM IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS CONDITION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE MECHANISM MALFUNCTIONS AND DOES NOT ALLOW THE WEBBING TO BE EXTRACTED, THE LAP AND SHOULDER BELT COULD NOT BE WORN BY A VEHICLE OCCUPANT. IN THE EVENT THAT THE MECHANISM DOES NOT ALLOW THE ALR MODE TO BE ENGAGED, THE OPERATOR MAY BE UNABLE TO PROPERLY INSTALL A CHILD SEAT IN THAT SEATING POSITION.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE LAP AND SHOULDER BELT ASSEMBLIES. ASSEMBLIES WITH JULIAN DATE CODES OF 200 THROUGH 223 ARE SUSPECT AND WILL BE REPLACED.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.