IllustrationTHE BACK LIFT GATE WAS CRACK WITH OUT ACCIDENT, FORD SHOULD RECALL. *TR
2004 Lincoln Aviator
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Lincoln Aviator do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 39.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Aviator 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
110–25K
1025–50K
1950–75K
1275–100K
14100–150K
2150K+
68 reports with mileage · 13 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.
- Power Train. Review the 21 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 15 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 15 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
2 crash reports1 fire reports3 injury reports
Structure complaints
15 reportsI WAS DRIVING EAST ON THE 202 FWY IN PHOENIX AT A SPEED BETWEEN 65-68 MPH WHEN I HEARD A LOUD BANG AND BOTH SIDE AIR CURTAINS DEPLOYED. TIME: 9:30 P.M. FEB. 20, 2015. *TR
AS I WAS EXITING A STORE AND WALKING TOWARD MY VEHICLE, I NOTICED WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BLACK STREAK ON THE BACK OF MY LIFTGATE. WHEN I WAS CLOSER, I SAW THAT IT WAS A CRACK IN THE BACK OF THE LIFT GATE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EMBLEM OF THE VEHICLE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE BACK WINDOW TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIFT GATE. THIS CRACK WA…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS EXITING A STORE AND WALKING TOWARD MY VEHICLE, I NOTICED WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BLACK STREAK ON THE BACK OF MY LIFTGATE. WHEN I WAS CLOSER, I SAW THAT IT WAS A CRACK IN THE BACK OF THE LIFT GATE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EMBLEM OF THE VEHICLE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE BACK WINDOW TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIFT GATE. THIS CRACK WAS NOT THERE WHEN I PARKED THE VEHICLE TO ENTER THE GROCERY STORE BECAUSE I HAD TO WALK AROUND THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE TO MAKE MY WAY INTO THE STORE AND ALWAYS LOOK AT THE BACK END TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD PULLED IN FAR ENOUGH FOR OTHERS TO PASS. AT FIRST, I THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE HAD BACKED INTO MY VEHICLE BUT THERE WERE NO OTHER MARKS, DENTS, SCUFFS, ETC. I WAS CURIOUS TO FIND OUT WHAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED THIS AND FOUND THAT THIS SAME CRACK HAS OCCURRED TO MANY OTHER OWNERS OF LINCOLN AVIATORS AND WELL AS FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS. FURTHER RESEARCH HAS INDICATED THAT THIS FRACTURE WAS, IN FACT, A DESIGN FLAW THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF MANUFACTURE. SO DISAPPOINTED. *TR
WHY WASHING SUV NOTICED A STRESS CRACK ON MY REAR LIFT GATE. BELIEVE THIS TO BE A MANUFACTURER DEFECT. I NOTICED THIS CRACK ON OTHER LINCOLN/FORD SUV'S. *TR
I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE AS A CERTIFIED USED VEHICLE. IT HAD AN EXTENDED WARRANTY. ONCE IT EXPIRED I'VE EXPERIENCED EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT PEOPLE HAVE STATED ONLINE ABOUT THIS VEHICLE. AS OF TODAY (12/02/13) IT STILL HAS ONLY 74,000 MILES ON IT AND THE LATEST PROBLEM IS THE TRANSMISSION NEEDS TO BE REPLACED BUT THEY DON'T KNOW W…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE AS A CERTIFIED USED VEHICLE. IT HAD AN EXTENDED WARRANTY. ONCE IT EXPIRED I'VE EXPERIENCED EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT PEOPLE HAVE STATED ONLINE ABOUT THIS VEHICLE. AS OF TODAY (12/02/13) IT STILL HAS ONLY 74,000 MILES ON IT AND THE LATEST PROBLEM IS THE TRANSMISSION NEEDS TO BE REPLACED BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHY. I AM A STAY AT HOME MOM AND WEAR-AND-TEAR ON IT IS VERY MINIMAL (GROCERY SHOPPING, TO AND FROM SCHOOL, ETC.). I HAVE NEVER HAD SO MANY PROBLEMS ON A "SO CALLED" LUXURY VEHICLE BEFORE! I'VE HAD BAD COILS IN CYLINDERS 3, 4, 5 (TWICE), AND 7 REPLACED UNDER LINCOLN'S RECALL. THE TAILGATE PANEL CRACKED (JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO OWN THIS VEHICLE AND THE MOUNTAINEERS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT), BUT THEY WON'T FIX IT. IN ADDITION, A WHITE PLASTIC PIECE FELL OUT OF THE TOP HALF OF THE TAILGATE AND NOW IT WILL NOT CLOSE ANYMORE THEREFORE I CAN NO LONGER TAKE IT THROUGH CAR WASHES. THE BRACKET FOR THE SUN VISOR ON MY PASSENGER SIDE COMPLETELY DETERIORATED AND CAUSED THE VISOR TO SUDDENLY DANGLE FROM THE ROOF OF MY CAR WHILE DRIVING. NOW, I CANNOT FLIP IT UP AND IT CAUSES A BLIND SPOT. THERE IS ALSO SOMETHING FAULTY WITH THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH WHICH DRAINS MY BATTERY ON A REGULAR BASIS AND I HAVE TO HAVE MY JUMPED. THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH HAS BEEN REPLACED 3 TIMES NOW BECAUSE IT IS HAS SHORTED OUT. TO COMPLICATE MATTERS, EVERY TIME I TAKE THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR THESE REPAIRS, THEY INSIST ON DOING A "DIAGNOSTICS CHECK" AND EVERY TIME THEY WANT TO CHARGE A FEE FOR THIS SERVICE. EVERY TIME THE PRICE IS DIFFERENT...SOME TIMES ITS $50, SOMETIMES ITS $100. THIS VEHICLE IS A LEMON AND I WILL NEVER BUY A FORD/LINCOLN/MERCURY AGAIN. *TR
THE PANEL BELOW THE BACK WINDOW ON THE HATCH HAS CRACKED AROUND THE EMBLEM. I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING THIS AND HAVE FOUND THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF AVIATOR'S THAT HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM AS MINE. WE PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS CAR WHEN WE BOUGHT IT NEW AND HAVE KEPT IT IN VERY GOOD CONDITION. ACCORDING TO LINCOLN, THIS IS ONLY COVERED…
Read full complaint
THE PANEL BELOW THE BACK WINDOW ON THE HATCH HAS CRACKED AROUND THE EMBLEM. I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING THIS AND HAVE FOUND THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF AVIATOR'S THAT HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM AS MINE. WE PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS CAR WHEN WE BOUGHT IT NEW AND HAVE KEPT IT IN VERY GOOD CONDITION. ACCORDING TO LINCOLN, THIS IS ONLY COVERED UNDER THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY. I FEEL THIS HATCH WAS NOT ENGINEERED CORRECTLY AND LINCOLN SHOULD FIX IT.
MY 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR, REAR WINDOW PANEL DEVELOPED A CRACK, WHICH I PAID FOR REPAIR. NOW AT 52,000 MILES WITH A PREMIUM EXTENDED WARRANTY IT HAS DEVELOPED ANOTHER CRACK. MY LOCAL LINCOLN DEALER TOLD ME IT WAS A DESIGN FLAW RELATED TO WEATHER CONDITIONS AND YET LINCOLN WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS REPAIR. IF THE CRACK CONTINUES IT CO…
Read full complaint
MY 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR, REAR WINDOW PANEL DEVELOPED A CRACK, WHICH I PAID FOR REPAIR. NOW AT 52,000 MILES WITH A PREMIUM EXTENDED WARRANTY IT HAS DEVELOPED ANOTHER CRACK. MY LOCAL LINCOLN DEALER TOLD ME IT WAS A DESIGN FLAW RELATED TO WEATHER CONDITIONS AND YET LINCOLN WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS REPAIR. IF THE CRACK CONTINUES IT COULD BECOME A PEDESTRIAN HAZARD AND QUITE DANGEROUS. THIS IS MY 5TH. LINCOLN AND MY LAST UNLESS LINCOLN STANDS BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT. *TR
WITHOUT IMPACT THE TAILGATE APPLIQUE OF MY 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR CRACKED. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS COMMON AMONG FORD EXPLORERS MERC. MOUNTAINEERS AND AVIATORS AS REPORTED BY MY LOCAL FORD DEALER AND VARIOUS BODYSHOPS AND THOUSANDS ON THE INTERNET WITH SIMILAR DEFECTS. FORD WONT FIX IF ITS OUT OF WARRANTY . THE BROKEN TAILGATE SECTI…
Read full complaint
WITHOUT IMPACT THE TAILGATE APPLIQUE OF MY 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR CRACKED. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS COMMON AMONG FORD EXPLORERS MERC. MOUNTAINEERS AND AVIATORS AS REPORTED BY MY LOCAL FORD DEALER AND VARIOUS BODYSHOPS AND THOUSANDS ON THE INTERNET WITH SIMILAR DEFECTS. FORD WONT FIX IF ITS OUT OF WARRANTY . THE BROKEN TAILGATE SECTION CAN DISLODGE AND CAUSE DAMAGE TO PEDESTRIANS OR MOTORISTS. PLEASE ADVISE AS THIS IS A WIDESPREAD MANUFACTURES DEFECT. THANK YOU *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR. WHILE THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH SMOKE CIRCULATED THROUGH THE VENTS INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE; AND THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE CONTACT STATED THE SMOKE ORIGINATED FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE TH…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR. WHILE THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH SMOKE CIRCULATED THROUGH THE VENTS INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE; AND THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE CONTACT STATED THE SMOKE ORIGINATED FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THAT THE FRONT END DIFFERENTIAL HAD DETERIORATED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. AFTER THE SERVICE REPAIR THE VEHICLE WAS TEST DRIVEN AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE TECHNICIAN PERFORMED FURTHER DIAGNOSIS AND REPAIRED THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE CONTINUED TO OCCUR ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS WHICH WAS REPAIRED AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FRONT END DIFFERENTIAL FAILURES AND THEY ACCEPTED LIABILITY FOR THE RADIO AND STEERING COLUMN REPAIRS THAT FAILED TO FUNCTION CORRECTLY DUE TO THE DIFFERENTIAL FAILURES. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT TIRES WERE REPLACED IN MARCH OF 2009; AND FIVE MONTHS LATER THE TIRES HAD WORN TO THE METAL IN RESULT OF THE DEFECTIVE FRONT END DIFFERENTIAL. THE TIRES WERE REPLACED. AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC INFORMED THE PROBLEM ORIGINATED FROM INEXPENSIVE KOREAN PARTS IN THE TRANSFER CASE. THE TRANSFER CASE AND U JOINT WERE REPLACED IN THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT EXPRESSED ANYONE DRIVING THE VEHICLE LIFE WAS IN DANGER BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY DEFECT. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. ALSO, THERE WAS A CRACK UNDER THE REAR LIFTGATE. THERE WAS RECALL ON THE REARLIFT. HOWEVER, THE CONSUMERS VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE ENTIRE SHIFTING MECHANISM HAD TO BE REPLACED, THE STEERING WHEEL WOULD VIBRATE WHILE MAKING A TURN. UPDATED 12/17/10
THE LIFTGATE ON THE BACK OF MY 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR CRACKED ON ONE SIDE OF THE LINCOLN SYMBOL. TOOK IT TO LINCOLN DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS FROM THE COLD BECAUSE THERE WAS A WEAK SPOT THERE. WAS TOLD THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW OF THE WEAK SPOT, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY TO FIX IT. AT THE TIME I DECLINED TO FIX IT. I …
Read full complaint
THE LIFTGATE ON THE BACK OF MY 2004 LINCOLN AVIATOR CRACKED ON ONE SIDE OF THE LINCOLN SYMBOL. TOOK IT TO LINCOLN DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS FROM THE COLD BECAUSE THERE WAS A WEAK SPOT THERE. WAS TOLD THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW OF THE WEAK SPOT, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY TO FIX IT. AT THE TIME I DECLINED TO FIX IT. I JUST NOTICED THE OTHER DAY THAT THERE IS NOW A CRACK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LINCOLN SYMBOL. I WAS TOLD IF I DON'T HAVE IT FIXED, THAT THE BACK GLASS COULD FALL OUT. SO NOW I AM GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE A DEFECT THAT LINCOLN IS AWARE OF FIXED. THIS IS THE SECOND LINCOLN THAT I HAVE OWNED AND I DON'T THINK I WILL BE PURCHASING ANOTHER ONE AFTER THIS. *TR
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
2EA09013 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Aug 18, 2009 · Closed Feb 12, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl); Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift; Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl)
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.