Illustration1. THERE IS A DREADFUL GAS FUME ODOR INSIDE THE CAR EVERY TIME I PUT FUEL IN THE CAR ESPECIALLY WHEN I FILL THE TANK. 2.THE EMERGENCY BRAKE DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY. WHEN ENGAGED MY CAR STILL ROLLS A LITTLE. 3. THE SEAT BELTS DO NOT RETRACT PROPERLY AND TEND TO TWIST AND TANGLE WHEN I TRY TO DO IT MANUALLY.
2001 Ford Mustang
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Mustang years
Owner complaints for the 2001 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
150–25K
1025–50K
2150–75K
775–100K
5100–150K
5150K+
63 reports with mileage · 110 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 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 24 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Seat Belts. Review the 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
37 crash reports2 fire reports28 injury reports
Seat Belts complaints
22 reportsTHE PASSENGER SEAT HAS RARELY BEEN USED IN THIS VEHICLE. HOWEVER, THE WEEK THE SEATBELT FAILED (BECAME JAMMED IN PANEL AS THOUGH I HAD HIT BRAKES AND WOULD NOT RELEASE) I WAS THE DRIVER FOR AN 88 YEAR OLD FEMALE FRIEND RUNNING HER ERRANDS WHILE HER CAREGIVER WAS OUT OF TOWN., THE SEAT BELT WAS USED FOR SEVERAL DAYS. I WENT ON LI…
Read full complaint
THE PASSENGER SEAT HAS RARELY BEEN USED IN THIS VEHICLE. HOWEVER, THE WEEK THE SEATBELT FAILED (BECAME JAMMED IN PANEL AS THOUGH I HAD HIT BRAKES AND WOULD NOT RELEASE) I WAS THE DRIVER FOR AN 88 YEAR OLD FEMALE FRIEND RUNNING HER ERRANDS WHILE HER CAREGIVER WAS OUT OF TOWN., THE SEAT BELT WAS USED FOR SEVERAL DAYS. I WENT ON LINE AND FOUND NUMEROUS ARTICLES AND RECALLS. I CONTACTED MY LOCAL FORD DEALER. THEY IMPLIED ON THE PHONE IT WOULD BE REPAIRED AT NO CHARGE BECAUSE, ONCE I WAS ON SITE, RENT CAR ARRANGED I WAS TOLD MY PARTICULAR VEHICLE WAS NOT A SPECIFIC RECALL AND INDICATED I MUST PAY. NOW AFTER 5 DAYS OF PAYING FOR A RENT CAR. I WAS INFORMED REPLACEMENT SEATBELT HAD NOT BEEN ORDERED PENDING MY APPROVAL. (PREVIOUSLY IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED TO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ENTIRELY REPLACED. COST OF SEATBELT $260.42 TOTAL COST TO INSTALL $584.63. MY VEHICLE WILL NOT PASS INSPECTION AS THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE. I FEEL I HAVE BEEN MISLEAD AND RIPPED OFF BY DEALER. AT THIS POINT I AM PICKING UP THE PART ONLY, TURNING IN THE RENT CAR AND SEEKING A LESS EXPENSIVE INSTALL. THIS IS A WELL DOCUMENTED DEFECT WITH THIS VEHICLE AND COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT WITH NO RESTRAINT FOR MY PASSENGER. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT BELT SENSOR BROKE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE WHO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER ANY WARRANTY FOR THE FAILURE TO BE REPAIRED AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT BELT SENSOR BROKE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE WHO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER ANY WARRANTY FOR THE FAILURE TO BE REPAIRED AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 111,530 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 111,570.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SEAT BELT WAS STUCK IN A PARTIALLY RETRACTED POSITION. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE SEAT BELT WOULD NOT PULL OUT ANY FURTHER OR RETRACT ANY FURTHER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO HAVE THE FAILURE DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SEAT BELT WAS STUCK IN A PARTIALLY RETRACTED POSITION. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE SEAT BELT WOULD NOT PULL OUT ANY FURTHER OR RETRACT ANY FURTHER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO HAVE THE FAILURE DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 11,000.
THE FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTORS ARE DEFECTIVE IN DESIGN. THE SEAT BELT TWISTS INSIDE THE RETRACTOR, MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO USE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. THE SEAT BELTS WILL NOT RETRACT PROPERLY AND GET STUCK CAUSING PASSENGERS NOT TO BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR WARRANTY REPAIR, HOWEVER THE DE…
Read full complaint
THE FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTORS ARE DEFECTIVE IN DESIGN. THE SEAT BELT TWISTS INSIDE THE RETRACTOR, MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO USE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. THE SEAT BELTS WILL NOT RETRACT PROPERLY AND GET STUCK CAUSING PASSENGERS NOT TO BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR WARRANTY REPAIR, HOWEVER THE DEALER REFUSED TO REPAIR VEHICLE UNDER WARRANTY. THE FAILURE BEGAN APPROXIMATELY 1-2 MONTHS AFTER PURCHASE AND HAS WORSENED OVER TIME. PROBLEM HAS GONE UNREMEDIED BY MANUFACTURER OR DEALER. *TR
MY WIFE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A HIT AND RUN INCIDENT WHILE TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON I-75 JUST SOUTH OF DELK ROAD IN MARIETTA GA. THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER CAR CAUSED US TO BEGIN A SERIES OF OVERSTEER CORRECTIONS WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE CAR LOOSING COMPLETE TRACTION AND MAKING TWO COMPLETE REVOLUTIONS WHILE EXITING THE ROAD TO…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A HIT AND RUN INCIDENT WHILE TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON I-75 JUST SOUTH OF DELK ROAD IN MARIETTA GA. THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER CAR CAUSED US TO BEGIN A SERIES OF OVERSTEER CORRECTIONS WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE CAR LOOSING COMPLETE TRACTION AND MAKING TWO COMPLETE REVOLUTIONS WHILE EXITING THE ROAD TOWARDS THE GRASS SHOULDER. WE EXITED THE ROAD GOING BACKWARDS AND PROCEEDED TO HIT A 6' DEEP CULVERT AND CAUSE THE CAR TO BECOME AIRBORNE. UPON THE INITIAL IMPACT MY WIFE'S SAFETY BELT WHICH HAD BEEN PROPERLY SECURED UNTIL THE IMPACT, RELEASED AND CAUSED HER TO COME OUT OF HER SEAT. AFTER LANDING AND THEN COMING TO REST VIOLENTLY I IMMEDIATELY CHECKED TO MAKE SURE SHE WAS ALRIGHT AND WAS IN QUESTION OF WHY HER BELT HAD DETACHED FROM THE RECEIVER. THE WAS NO VISIBLE DAMAGE TO THE MECHANISM, HOWEVER UPON INITIAL IMPACT I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER HEARING A METALLIC "CLINK" NOISE FOLLOWED BY MY WIFE COMING OUT OF HER PASSENGER SEAT. THIS WAS NOTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND WAS DESCRIBED TO ALL FIRST RESPONDERS ON SITE. *TR
I RECENTLY BOUGHT A 01 MUSTANG WITH 103K MILES ON IT. NOT 2 DAYS LATER THE PASSENGER SEAT BELT STOPPED WORKING. I TOOK IT DOWN TO OUR LOCAL FORD HOUSE AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS JUST ODD THAT IT HAPPENED TO BREAK AND WOULD COST 300 DOLLARS TO CHANGE THE SEAT BELT. I DID SOME RESEARCH ONLINE AND FIND THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE THIS PROBL…
Read full complaint
I RECENTLY BOUGHT A 01 MUSTANG WITH 103K MILES ON IT. NOT 2 DAYS LATER THE PASSENGER SEAT BELT STOPPED WORKING. I TOOK IT DOWN TO OUR LOCAL FORD HOUSE AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS JUST ODD THAT IT HAPPENED TO BREAK AND WOULD COST 300 DOLLARS TO CHANGE THE SEAT BELT. I DID SOME RESEARCH ONLINE AND FIND THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE THIS PROBLEM. EITHER THE SEAT BELT LOCKS UP AND TAKES A WHILE TO STRAITEN BACK OUT OR LIKE MINE IT JUST STOPS WORKING. ONE POST ON A FORUMS SAID THAT HIS 2003 MUSTANG'S WENT OUT BEFORE 50000 MILES. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED BY THE DEALER BECAUSE IF IT IS HAPPENING SO MUCH IT IS OBVIOUSLY A DEFECT. I HAVE A 95 THUNDERBIRD AND 01 ALERO THAT STILL HAVE THEIR SEAT BELTS WORKING PERFECTLY. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME ON THIS MATTER. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FILLER TUBE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED ON THE FUEL SYSTEM. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, SHE SMELLED GAS…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FILLER TUBE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED ON THE FUEL SYSTEM. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, SHE SMELLED GASOLINE ON HER DRIVEWAY. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALER. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 61,410 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 60,000. UPDATED 10/14/08 *BF THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE MATERIAL USED FOR THE PARTS THAT HAD TO BE REPLACED HAD ROTTED OVER TIME. THE DRIVERS SIDE SEATBELT WAS NOT RETRACTING AND RELEASING. THE HEADLAMPS HAD TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE A HAZE FILE HAD FORMED ON THE INSIDE. UPDATED 10/16/08. *JB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD MUSTANG. THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER FRONT SEAT BELTS WILL NOT RETRACT OR RELEASE. THE FAILURE BEGAN APPROXIMATELY 5-6 MONTHS AGO AND HAS WORSENED OVER TIME. THE PURCHASE DATE WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 107,500 AND THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
SET BELTS IN THE 2001 MUSTANG NEVER WORKED THE BEST NOW THE PASSANGER'S SIDE SET BELT WON'T WORK AT ALL, IT WON'T COME OUT SO YOU CAN LOCK YOURSELF IN.THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT.*AK
Official recalls
100V349000 · 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.
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.