IllustrationBurning of terminal on brake light switch wiring. Brake lights left on.
2003 Ford Mustang
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Ford Mustang do not stand out strongly from 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
580–25K
1925–50K
750–75K
575–100K
5100–150K
4150K+
98 reports with mileage · 47 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 39 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Seat Belts. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
19 crash reports4 fire reports10 injury reports
Exterior Lighting complaints
5 reportsWE HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH THIS CAR SINCE IT WAS BOUGHT NEW. ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT BY THE DEALER DURING THE FACTORY WARRANTY AND STILL REMAIN UNRESOLVED. I HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER TO FORD HEADQUARTERS BUT THEY SENT A COMPLETE REJECTION LETTER. I WAS TOLD TODAY BY A FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE TO FILE A COMPLAINT …
Read full complaint
WE HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH THIS CAR SINCE IT WAS BOUGHT NEW. ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT BY THE DEALER DURING THE FACTORY WARRANTY AND STILL REMAIN UNRESOLVED. I HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER TO FORD HEADQUARTERS BUT THEY SENT A COMPLETE REJECTION LETTER. I WAS TOLD TODAY BY A FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE TO FILE A COMPLAINT HERE. I CAN SUPPLY DOCUMENTS AND THE ORIGINAL LETTER TO FORD IF NEEDED. THE MAIN ISSUES FROM PURCHASING NEW AND DRIVING OFF THE LOT ARE (IN ROUGH ORDER OF IMPORTANCE): -MAJOR PAINT AND CLEAR COAT ISSUES (BROUGHT TO DEALER TWO DAYS AFTER PURCHASE TO COMPLAIN. THEY HAVE NEVER RESOLVED PROBLEM AND IT HAS CONTINUED TO GET WORSE TO THIS DAY.) -DRIVER DOOR WINDOW STOPS WORKING INTERMITTENTLY. -CAR ENGINE SURGING MAKING CAR LURCH FORWARD (MY WIFE WAS INVOLVED IN A MINOR ACCIDENT BECAUSE OF THIS. IT WAS REPORTED TO INSURANCE.) -ENGINE ACTS LIKE IT WANTS TO STALL WHEN TURNING STEERING WHEEL IN REVERSE. -HEADLIGHT LENSES COMPLETELY CLOUDED EARLY ON (HAVE HAD TO HAVE RESTORATION DONE TO HEADLIGHTS SEVERAL TIMES.) -ENGINE SOUNDS LIKE DIESEL WHEN AMBIENT TEMPERATURE IS HIGH. -BULGE IN SEAL ABOVE WINDSHIELD FRAME WHERE CONVERTIBLE TOP SEATS AGAINST IT. -STEREO INTERFERENCE (LOUD CONTINUOUS BUZZING SOUND.) -AC THUMP (HIGH PRESSURE COOLANT LINE HITS FIREWALL WHEN COMPRESSOR STARTS.) -DRIVER DOOR RATTLE (AFTER THE WINDOW WAS WORKED ON BUT WAS NOT FIXED.) -LIGHT BURNED OUT IN AC PANEL (OCCURRED AFTER STEREO WAS REPLACE TO TRY TO ELIMINATE INTERFERENCE, BUT WAS NOT RESOLVED.) WE HAVE MAINTAINED AND KEPT OUR LOW MILEAGE MUSTANG IN EXCELLENT CONDITION OTHERWISE. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO FROM HERE. THANK YOU *TR
PASSENGER SEAT BELT STARTED STICKING AND BEING HARD TO PULL OUT IN 2005, I TOOK IT BACK TO DEALERSHIP THEY STATED IT WAS OK, I HARDLY USED THAT PASSENGER SEATBELT BECAUSE I USUALLY DRIVE ALONE. IN 2009 IT GOT STUCK IN THE HOLDER AND I COULD NOT PULL IT OUT, AT THAT POINT THE FORD DEALERSHIP WANTED OVER $300.00 TO REPLACE THEIR A…
Read full complaint
PASSENGER SEAT BELT STARTED STICKING AND BEING HARD TO PULL OUT IN 2005, I TOOK IT BACK TO DEALERSHIP THEY STATED IT WAS OK, I HARDLY USED THAT PASSENGER SEATBELT BECAUSE I USUALLY DRIVE ALONE. IN 2009 IT GOT STUCK IN THE HOLDER AND I COULD NOT PULL IT OUT, AT THAT POINT THE FORD DEALERSHIP WANTED OVER $300.00 TO REPLACE THEIR ALREADY DEFECTED SEATBELT. I CHECKED JUNKYARDS IN THREE DIFFERENT STATES AND ALL THE 2003 FORD MUSTANG PASSENGER SEATBELTS WAS BROKEN. MY HEADLIGHT COVER IS MADE OF SOME SORT OF SUBSTANDARD PLASTIC THAT FOGGED UP AND MADE IT DIFFICULT TO SEE CLEARLY AND PLUS IT CAUSES MY CAR TO FAILS INSPECTION. FORD DEALERSHIP REQUESTED THAT I PAY THEM OVER $600.00 TO REPLACE HEADLIGHTS WITH MORE DETECTED HEADLIGHT. I CALL FORD HEADQUARTER TO NO AVAIL. HEADLIGHTS AND SEATBELT ARE VERY IMPORTANT TOOLS FOR SAFETY ON THE ROAD AND AS LONG AS THE CAR MANUFACTURER CAN GET AWAY WITH WEIGHTING THE ODDS* WITH PEOPLE LIVES WE ARE ALL IN DANGER!!!!! * ANALYZING IF IT IS CHEATER TO RECALL VEHICLES OR TO PAID THE LAWSUITS IN THE EVENT OF INJURIES OR DEATHS. *TR
BRAKE PEDAL SWITCH HARNESS CONNECTOR DEFORMED RESULTING IN INOPERATIVE BRAKE LIGHTS. WIRES NO LONGER FIT WITHIN PLASTIC CONNECTOR. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WIRING THAT LEADS TO THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH CONSTANTLY FAILS. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD NOT DEACTIVATE WHEN PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKES. THE CONTACT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE BRAKE LIGHTS DO NOT ILLUMINATE AND WHEN PARKING …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 FORD MUSTANG. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WIRING THAT LEADS TO THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH CONSTANTLY FAILS. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD NOT DEACTIVATE WHEN PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKES. THE CONTACT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE BRAKE LIGHTS DO NOT ILLUMINATE AND WHEN PARKING THE VEHICLE, HE CANNOT SHIFT THE VEHICLE OUT OF PARK. NEW TERMINAL ENDS WERE PLACED ON THE SWITCH; HOWEVER, THE WIRING CONTINUES TO FAIL. THE REPAIR USUALLY LASTS SIX MONTHS. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 36,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 83,000.
Official recalls
106V108000 · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
Apr 7, 2006
ON CERTAIN MUSTANG COBRA PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE REAR SURFACE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL MAY COME INTO CONTACT WITH FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION. THE UNIQUE SURFACE PROFILE OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL MAY CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD INTERFERE WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN TO AN IDLE POSITION. UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION AND/OR INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES MAY OCCUR WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A SHIELD OVER THE CUTOUT IN THE CARPET BEHIND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 26, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
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
3DP05005 · 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.
EA05014 · Accelerator Pedal Interference
Opened Sep 13, 2005 · Closed Apr 10, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
ON APRIL 3, 2006, FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO NHTSA CONCERNING A DEFECT CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND FLOOR CARPETING IN APPROXIMATELY 19,140 MODEL YEAR 2003 AND 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES (FORD RECALL NO. 06S43/NHTSA RECALL 06V-108, COPY ATTACHED).FORD WILL RECALL THE VEHICLES TO INSTALL A SHIELD BENEATH THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO PREVENT THE PIVOT PIN ON THE REAR SURFACE OF THE PEDAL FROM COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION.IN THOSE VEHICLES WHERE THE FLOOR CARPETING DOES NOT FIT FLUSH WITH THE SHEET METAL, THE UNIQUE REAR SURFACE PROFILE OF THE MUSTANG COBRA PEDAL MAY ALLOW THE PIVOT PIN OF THE PEDAL TO CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE PEDAL, INTERFERING WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN; THE RESULT OF WHICH COULD BE UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION.DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ALSO EXAMINED THE POSSIBLITY OF THE SAME PHENOMENA OCCURING IN NON-COBRA MUSTANGS.HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENT DESIGN OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDALS ON THE NON-COBRA MUSTANGS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE CARPETING, WITH THE BASE OF THE PEDAL PAD ACTING TO FORCE THE CARPET AWAY FROM THE PIVOT PIN.THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN CLOSED.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
ON APRIL 3, 2006, FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO NHTSA CONCERNING A DEFECT CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND FLOOR CARPETING IN APPROXIMATELY 19,140 MODEL YEAR 2003 AND 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES (FORD RECALL NO. 06S43/NHTSA RECALL 06V-108, COPY ATTACHED).FORD WILL RECALL THE VEHICLES TO INSTALL A SHIELD BENEATH THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO PREVENT THE PIVOT PIN ON THE REAR SURFACE OF THE PEDAL FROM COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION.IN THOSE VEHICLES WHERE THE FLOOR CARPETING DOES NOT FIT FLUSH WITH THE SHEET METAL, THE UNIQUE REAR SURFACE PROFILE OF THE MUSTANG COBRA PEDAL MAY ALLOW THE PIVOT PIN OF THE PEDAL TO CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE PEDAL, INTERFERING WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN; THE RESULT OF WHICH COULD BE UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION.DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ALSO EXAMINED THE POSSIBLITY OF THE SAME PHENOMENA OCCURING IN NON-COBRA MUSTANGS.HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENT DESIGN OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDALS ON THE NON-COBRA MUSTANGS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE CARPETING, WITH THE BASE OF THE PEDAL PAD ACTING TO FORCE THE CARPET AWAY FROM THE PIVOT PIN.THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN CLOSED.
Vehicle Speed Control
ON APRIL 3, 2006, FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUBMITTED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT TO NHTSA CONCERNING A DEFECT CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND FLOOR CARPETING IN APPROXIMATELY 19,140 MODEL YEAR 2003 AND 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES (FORD RECALL NO. 06S43/NHTSA RECALL 06V-108, COPY ATTACHED).FORD WILL RECALL THE VEHICLES TO INSTALL A SHIELD BENEATH THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO PREVENT THE PIVOT PIN ON THE REAR SURFACE OF THE PEDAL FROM COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR CARPETING DURING HEAVY THROTTLE APPLICATION.IN THOSE VEHICLES WHERE THE FLOOR CARPETING DOES NOT FIT FLUSH WITH THE SHEET METAL, THE UNIQUE REAR SURFACE PROFILE OF THE MUSTANG COBRA PEDAL MAY ALLOW THE PIVOT PIN OF THE PEDAL TO CATCH IN THE CUTOUT ON THE FLOOR CARPETING BEHIND THE PEDAL, INTERFERING WITH THE PEDAL'S ABILITY TO RETURN; THE RESULT OF WHICH COULD BE UNEXPECTED, CONTINUED THROTTLE APPLICATION.DURING THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ALSO EXAMINED THE POSSIBLITY OF THE SAME PHENOMENA OCCURING IN NON-COBRA MUSTANGS.HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENT DESIGN OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDALS ON THE NON-COBRA MUSTANGS RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE CARPETING, WITH THE BASE OF THE PEDAL PAD ACTING TO FORCE THE CARPET AWAY FROM THE PIVOT PIN.THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN CLOSED.
PE05038 · Accelerator Pedal Interference
Opened Jul 7, 2005 · Closed Sep 13, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
PE05-038 WAS OPENED ON JULY 7, 2005, WITH 11 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS TO ODI ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF THROTTLE STICKING DUE TO ACCELERATOR PEDAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE CARPET.ODI HAS RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL 24 COMPLAINTS SINCE THE PE WAS OPENED.DURING PE05-038, FORD SUPPLIED COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY INFORMATION REGARDING 86 ADDITIONAL INCIDENTS OF ACCELERATOR PEDAL INTERFERENCE IN MODEL YEAR 2003 TO 2004 MUSTANG COBRA VEHICLES.EIGHTY-FIVE OF THESE HAD CONCERNS OF ACCELERATOR PEDAL STICKING, 70 OF WHICH WERE ANALYZED AS BEING RELATED TO CARPET INTERFERENCE.ODI IS CONTINUING ITS ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSAL FACTORS IN THE REMAINING 15 INCIDENTS.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.