IllustrationDRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE IS SHOWING PREMATURE FAILURE (CONTINENTAL TIRE, P27560R17 . *AK TIRES WERE SO OUT OF ROUND THAT THEY COULDN'T BE BALANCED. THE CONSUMER PURCHASED A REPLACEMENT TIRE FROM CONTINENTAL AND THE TREAD WAS SHAVED ABOUT 18 INCHES TO MAKE IT MORE ROUND. THE CONSUMER FEARS SEPARATION MAY OCCUR. *PH *NLM
2000 Lincoln Navigator
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Navigator years
Owner complaints for the 2000 Lincoln Navigator are substantially higher than the model-year median of 30.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Navigator 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
10–25K
1425–50K
550–75K
975–100K
7100–150K
5150K+
41 reports with mileage · 68 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.
- Tires. Review the 42 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 10 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
9 crash reports17 fire reports4 injury reports
Tires complaints
42 reportsI EXPERIENCED A CONTINENTAL TIRE TREAD SEPARATION WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AT ABOUT 65 MPH TODAY. THE TIRE TREAD CAUSED CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE SIDE FENDER/BUMPER AND SIDE STEP PANEL AFTER THE TREAD SEPARATION. THE CAR IS A 2000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR ID # [XXX] WHICH I JUST PURCHASED ON JULY 6, 2003. THE TIRE WAS A CONTI…
Read full complaint
I EXPERIENCED A CONTINENTAL TIRE TREAD SEPARATION WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AT ABOUT 65 MPH TODAY. THE TIRE TREAD CAUSED CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE SIDE FENDER/BUMPER AND SIDE STEP PANEL AFTER THE TREAD SEPARATION. THE CAR IS A 2000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR ID # [XXX] WHICH I JUST PURCHASED ON JULY 6, 2003. THE TIRE WAS A CONTINENTAL SUV P265/70R17 113S THAT APPEARS TO BE THE REPLACEMENT TIRE FOR A CONTINENTAL TIRE RECALL IN AUGUST 2002 (NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 02T012000) DEALING WITH THE CONTITRAC AW AND GRABBER AW TIRES SIZE P275/60R17 FOR USE AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON CERTAIN 2000-2001 BY TWO-WHEEL-DRIVE FORD EXPEDITION AND TWO-WHEEL-DRIVE LINCOLN NAVIGATOR SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. THE SPARE TIRE THAT WAS THEN PUT ON THE CAR LOOKS TO BE THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT SPARE TIRE. IT IS A CONTINENTAL AW TIRE, P275/60R17 100S THAT APPEARS TO BE THE TIRE THAT WAS COVERED UNDER THE RECALL. I WOULD LIKE KNOW HOW TO CORRECTLY IDENTIFY THE SPARE TIRE I AM NOW RIDING ON AS TO WHETHER IT IS THE TIRE THAT WAS RECALLED AND IF SO AS TO HOW I CAN GET IT REPLACED. ALSO, AS TO WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGES THAT THE TIRE HAS CAUSED AND AS TO HOW I CAN GET THE TIRE REPLACED BECAUSE OF APPARENT MANUFACTURE DEFECT. ALSO, IF THE SPARE IS ONE COVERED BY THE RECALL HOW IS IT THAT THE CAR DEALER I PURCHASED IT FROM ONLY TWO MONTHS AGO DID NOT HAVE IT REPLACED OR AT LEAST NOTIFIED ME OF THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT THAT WOULD / COULD PROVE FATAL TO MYSELF OR OTHERS? *PH INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NAR 06-10-2003. *MR THE CONSUMER WAS CONTACTED BY CONTINENTAL CUSTOMER RELATIONS DEPARTMENT ABOUT HER TIRES BEING APART OF A REFERENCE RECALL PROGRAM , DESPITE THE CONFIRMATIONS AND THE CONSISTENT PROBLEMS WITH THE TIRES THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REPLACED AND THE ONLY ACCOMMODATIONS OFFERED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF CONTINENTAL WAS …
Read full complaint
NAR 06-10-2003. *MR THE CONSUMER WAS CONTACTED BY CONTINENTAL CUSTOMER RELATIONS DEPARTMENT ABOUT HER TIRES BEING APART OF A REFERENCE RECALL PROGRAM , DESPITE THE CONFIRMATIONS AND THE CONSISTENT PROBLEMS WITH THE TIRES THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REPLACED AND THE ONLY ACCOMMODATIONS OFFERED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF CONTINENTAL WAS 20% OFF A SET OF REPLACEMENT TIRES. THE CONSUMER WAS VERY OUTRAGED AND DISAPPOINTED HOW CONTINENTAL HAS HANDLED MATTERS AND WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO SWIFTLY RESOLVING THE SITUATION. (DAUGHTER MARINA SHEAR ON BEHALF OF HER MOTHER ELLIE HICKS.) *CB ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AS THE CONSUMER WAS HAVING HER VEHICLE SERVICED, SHE WAS ASSURED THE TIRES WERE OK. FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE RECALL WAS RECEIVED, ONE OF THE TIRES FELT SPONGY, IT WAS DISCOVERED THE TIRE WAS LOW AND ON A SECOND OCCASION ONE OF THE TIRES EXPERIENCED A BLOWOUT
THE CONSUMER RECEIVED RECALL NOTICE #02T012000 CONCERNING CONTINENTAL/TREAD SEPARATION. CONSUMER WAS PUT ON A WAITING LIST TO RECEIVE THE NEW TIRES. CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER ON 6/2/2003 WHO STATED THEY WERE NOT REPLACING THE TIRES ANYMORE. WEST POINT SERVICE CENTER 11666 OLD KATY RD, HOUSTON, TX 77043. PHONE #281 596 1…
Read full complaint
THE CONSUMER RECEIVED RECALL NOTICE #02T012000 CONCERNING CONTINENTAL/TREAD SEPARATION. CONSUMER WAS PUT ON A WAITING LIST TO RECEIVE THE NEW TIRES. CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER ON 6/2/2003 WHO STATED THEY WERE NOT REPLACING THE TIRES ANYMORE. WEST POINT SERVICE CENTER 11666 OLD KATY RD, HOUSTON, TX 77043. PHONE #281 596 1251.*AK
THE CONTINENTAL TIRES VIBRATED WHILE DRIVING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO TOLD THE CONSUMER THAT THE STEEL TIRE BELT CAME APART. THE CONSUMER WAS ALSO TOLD THAT THE TIRES WERE RECALLED BUT HE CONSUMER WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FRO THE RECALL BECAUSE IT EXPIRED 2 DAYS BEFORE THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. *MR *SCC …
Read full complaint
THE CONTINENTAL TIRES VIBRATED WHILE DRIVING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO TOLD THE CONSUMER THAT THE STEEL TIRE BELT CAME APART. THE CONSUMER WAS ALSO TOLD THAT THE TIRES WERE RECALLED BUT HE CONSUMER WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FRO THE RECALL BECAUSE IT EXPIRED 2 DAYS BEFORE THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. *MR *SCC *NLM
CONSUMER RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE REGARDING THE CONTINENTAL TIRES, HOWEVER CONSUMER WAS DENIED REIMBURSEMENT, BECAUSE THE RECEIPT WAS OUT OF DATE.*JB
CONTINENTAL TIRES REFUSED TO REIMBURSE THE CONSUMER FOR PURCHASE OF NEW TIRES. NOW A RECALL, BUT MANUFACTURER REFUSES REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS RECEIVED TOO LATE.*JB...*AK
THE REPLACEMENT TIRES WERE WARPED AND DID NOT STAY BALANCED, WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO BOUNCE AND PULL TO THE LEFT. *JB *TS
THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED IRREGULAR TREAD WEAR, THE REAR TIRE WAS REPLACED DUE TO SEPARATION OF THE BELT WHICH WAS CAUSED BY THE IRREGULAR WEAR. *SCC *JB
REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT FOR 4 NEW TIRES.*JB
Official recalls
405V388000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Sep 7, 2005
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FIRE AT THE SWITCH COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2005, OWNERS WERE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. OWNERS WHO HAVE HAD THEIR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATED ARE BEING NOTIFIED THAT PARTS WILL BE AVAILABLE AND ADVISED TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO RECONNECT THE SPEED CONTROL BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2006. OWNERS WHO DID NOT HAVE THEIR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATED ARE BEING NOTIFIED TO HAVE THEIR SYSTEM REMEDIED BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 2006. OWNERS ARE URGED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE FREE DISCONNECT SERVICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT RISK OF FIRE. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. (NOTE: ALSO SEE RECALLS 05V017 AND 06V286)
05V017000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
Jan 27, 2005
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND PICKUP TRUCKS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION COULD LEAD TO A FIRE. FIRES HAVE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLES WERE PARKED WITH THE IGNITION 'OFF.'
Remedy: AS AN INTERIM REPAIR, OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. AS SOON AS REPLACEMENT PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EARLY APRIL 2005), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A NEW SWITCH FREE OF CHARGE. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. (NOTE: ALSO SEE RECALLS 05V388 AND 06V286)
01V258000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer:motor
Aug 8, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND LIGHT AND MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS. A SWITCH LOCATED IN THE PLASTIC COVER OF THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COULD MALFUNCTION AND OVERHEAT, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF INTERMITTENT WIPER FUNCTION, LOSS OF WIPER PARK FUNCTION, COMPLETE LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION, OR IGNITION OF THE PLASTIC COVER MATERIAL. SWITCH MALFUNCTION IS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THE INTERMITTENT SETTING OF THE WIPERS IS BEING USED, OR WHEN SNOW OR ICE OBSTRUCTS THE BLADES FROM RETURNING TO THE "PARKED" POSITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDSHIELD. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT AT THE FOLLOWING ASSEMBLY PLANTS: ATLANTA PLANT FROM 2/11/00 THROUGH 7/31/00; CHICAGO PLANT FROM 2/14/00 THROUGH 8/4/00; KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 2/26/00 TO 9/4/00; KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/18/00 TO 8/31/00; MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/23/00 THROUGH 8/3/00; NORFOLK PLANT FROM 2/21/00 THROUGH 7/27/00; WAYNE STAMPING AND ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 2/25/00 THROUGH 8/15/00; AND WIXOM PLANT FROM 2/15/00 THROUGH 8/8/00.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: LOSS OF VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON THE WIPER MOTOR. MOTORS BUILT WITH THE SUSPECT TIME FRAME WILL HAVE THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COVER REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 20, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
00V073000 · Trailer Hitches
Mar 7, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLES. THE TRAILER HITCH ASSEMBLY TO THE FRAME ATTACHING BOLTS COULD LOSE THE CLAMP LOAD.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE TRAILER HITCH COULD THEN SEPARATE FROM THE VEHICLE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE TRAILER HITCH MOUNTING BOLTS AND NUT PLATES.
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
2DP05005 · 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.
PE04078 · Speed Control Deactivation Switch Fire
Opened Nov 19, 2004 · Closed Mar 22, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
IN ITS LETTER DATED JANUARY 27, 2005 TO ODI, FORD INDICATED THAT IT WOULD CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL # 05V-017) TO REMEDY AN OVERHEATING SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH IN APPROXIMATELY 738,490 SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE VEHICLES AFFECTED BY THE RECALL ARE CERTAIN 2000 MODEL YEAR (MY) FORD F150, FORD EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL AND CERTAIN 2001 MODEL YEAR F150 SUPERCREW VEHICLES BUILT THROUGH AUGUST 7, 2000.SINCE OPENING PE04-078, ODI HAS IDENTIFIED OTHER REPORTS OF KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES IN FORD VEHICLES WITH SIMILAR SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES THAT WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OR FORD'S RECALL 05V-017.FORD'S RESPONSE TO THE ODI INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3, 2004, PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL 107 ALLEGATIONS OF KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES THAT WERE ALSO IN VEHICLES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS INVESTIGATION OR INCLUDED IN THE FORD RECALL 05V-017.AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) IS WARRANTED TO DETERMINE IF A SAFETY DEFECT TREND EXISTS RELATING TO KEY OFF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES IN VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.ODI WILL EXPAND THE SCOPE OF IT'S INVESTIGATION AT THE EA PHASE TO INCLUDE THE 1995 THROUGH 2002 MODEL YEARS OF THE FORD F150, FORD EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR VEHICLES.