NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
18 reportsClear category filter35,000 miles · Jul 18, 2011
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE HATCH BACK DOOR WAS RUSTED . THE DEALER WAS AWARE OF THE FAILURE, BUT OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE FAILURE. NO REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 3…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE HATCH BACK DOOR WAS RUSTED . THE DEALER WAS AWARE OF THE FAILURE, BUT OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE FAILURE. NO REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 83,000.
NHTSA ODI #10413381
Mileage unknown · Jun 10, 2010
Structure
WE BOUGHT A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR FROM A LOCAL DEALER AND ABOUT A MONTH TO LATE NOTICED WATER LEAKING FROM THE SUNROOF AND FRONT HANDLE OF THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THOUGHT IT WAS COMING FROM THE FRONT WINDSHIELD, BECAUSE THE GASKET WAS KIND OF WARPED .FIRST WE SEALED IT UP WITH SILICONE, SO WE THOUGHT THE PROBLEM WAS…
Read full complaint
WE BOUGHT A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR FROM A LOCAL DEALER AND ABOUT A MONTH TO LATE NOTICED WATER LEAKING FROM THE SUNROOF AND FRONT HANDLE OF THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THOUGHT IT WAS COMING FROM THE FRONT WINDSHIELD, BECAUSE THE GASKET WAS KIND OF WARPED .FIRST WE SEALED IT UP WITH SILICONE, SO WE THOUGHT THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED UNTIL WE NOTICED MORE WATER LEAKING.BY THIS TIME IT WAS TO LATE. ON THE WAY HOME FROM THE STORE NOTICED A BUZZING SOUND .GUESS WHAT THE ELECTRICAL BOARD IS FRIED . I ALWAYS WONDERED IF WE'RE THE ONLY ONE BUT IM QUITE SURE WE'RE NOT . THIS IS A POORLY DESIGNED PIECE OF CAR. THERE HAS TO BE SOME WAY IN DETERMINING HOW TO FIX THIS WATER LEAK. BUT NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING. WHY ISN'T THEIR A RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10335605
96,800 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE RUNNING BOARDS ON BOTH SIDES OF VEHICLES WERE EXHIBITING ROTTING. THE BRACKETS WERE RUSTED AND CORRODED AND THE SHEET METAL UNDERNEATH THE BOARDS WAS MISSING. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CONSULT WITH THE DEALER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BUT TO NO AVAIL. THE FAILU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE RUNNING BOARDS ON BOTH SIDES OF VEHICLES WERE EXHIBITING ROTTING. THE BRACKETS WERE RUSTED AND CORRODED AND THE SHEET METAL UNDERNEATH THE BOARDS WAS MISSING. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CONSULT WITH THE DEALER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BUT TO NO AVAIL. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 96,800.
NHTSA ODI #10324741
55,000 miles · Feb 11, 2010
Electrical SystemPower TrainStructure
VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AT MARSHALL BROS IN NEW ORLEANS, VEHICLE WAS SOLD AS A CERTIFIED VEHICLE. VEHICLE HAD TO HAVE A NEW TRANSMISSION INSTALLED 2 MONTHS AFTER VEHICLE PURCHASED. VEHICLE WAS SOLD WITH THE PROBLEM KNOWN TO DEALERSHIP. WORKER AT LOCATION STATED THEY KNEW IT AND WHEN WE PURCHASED VEHICLE, THEY INSISTED ON US BUYING…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AT MARSHALL BROS IN NEW ORLEANS, VEHICLE WAS SOLD AS A CERTIFIED VEHICLE. VEHICLE HAD TO HAVE A NEW TRANSMISSION INSTALLED 2 MONTHS AFTER VEHICLE PURCHASED. VEHICLE WAS SOLD WITH THE PROBLEM KNOWN TO DEALERSHIP. WORKER AT LOCATION STATED THEY KNEW IT AND WHEN WE PURCHASED VEHICLE, THEY INSISTED ON US BUYING AN EXTENDED WARRANTY SINCE IT WAS USED. INSISTED TO THE POINT OF GIVING POLICY AT COST, THIS WAS DUE TO KNOWN PROBLEM, TRANSMISSION CASE AND UNIT WAS SO BADLY DAMAGED THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MISSED. PREVIOUS OWNER CONTACTED AND STATED THEY TOLD DEALERSHIP OF PROBLEM. ALSO SINCE VEHICLE WAS OWNED ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAS GONE HAYWIRE, BATTERY NOT CHARGING PERIODICALLY, ALARM AND LIGHTS OPERATING ON THEIR OWN,LIGHTS STAYING ON, COMING ON AT NIGHT, RADIO STAYING ON DEALERSHIP STATED THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WHEN BROUGHT IN FOR ISSUES, THEY KEPT VEHICLE FOR THREE DAYS. HAPPENED SEVERAL MORE TIMES, SAME STATEMENT BY DEALER. I RESEARCHED PROBLEM ON INTERNET AND DISCOVERED TSB'S ON SAME PROBLEMS, BUT NO RECALL. BUT TSBS HAVE EXISTED SINCE 2004, DEALER KNEW WINDSHIELD LEAKS INTO COMPUTER AND MOONROOF CAN LEAK CAUSING SAME PROBLEM, DEALERSHIP DIDN'T FIX ANYTHING, THEN WHEN OUT OF WARRANTY DEALERSHIP STATES KNOWN ISSUE AND FUSE PANEL NEEDS REPLACING AT COST OF $4,000 . THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL AFTER MY RESEARCH AND SINCE THE DEALERSHIPS ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN INCLUDING LYING AND SELLING VEHICLES WITH KNOWN PROBLEMS. BBB WAS CONTACTED AND IN PROCESS OF HAVING PRESS INVOLVED. PLEASE LOOK AT ALL COMPLAINTS ON ISSUE AND MAKE A RECALL NECESSARY. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PROBLEM, VEHICLES WRECKING, PUTTING DRIVERS IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10308848
96,000 miles · Nov 23, 2009
Structure
POWER SIDE STEP BARS ROTTEN WITH RUST, WE CAN NO LONGER STEP ON THEM BECAUSE THEY WILL BREAK OFF COMPLETELY THEN WE WILL HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10293319
Mileage unknown · Apr 25, 2009
Structure
MY 03 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR HAS BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE POWER RUNNING BOARDS ON THE DRIVER SIDE. AFTER CAR IS STARTED THE RUNNING BOARD REMAINS DEPLOYED AND WILL NOT RETURN TO THE "IN" POSITION UNTIL VEHICLE HAS EXCEEDED MORE THAN 5MPH. THE RUNNING BOARD WILL GO IN AND OUT EVERY TIME THE VEHICLE COMES TO A STOP. THE PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
MY 03 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR HAS BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE POWER RUNNING BOARDS ON THE DRIVER SIDE. AFTER CAR IS STARTED THE RUNNING BOARD REMAINS DEPLOYED AND WILL NOT RETURN TO THE "IN" POSITION UNTIL VEHICLE HAS EXCEEDED MORE THAN 5MPH. THE RUNNING BOARD WILL GO IN AND OUT EVERY TIME THE VEHICLE COMES TO A STOP. THE PROBLEMS TEMPS TO BE WORST ON HOT DAYS. I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO FIX THE PROBLEM YET, BUT AFTER RESEARCHING AND READING SOME BLOGS ABOUT LINCOLN'S 03 NAVIGATOR I SAW THAT THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER NAVIGATOR OWNERS THAT ARE OR HAD EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM. WHEN THE RUNNING BOARD DOES NOT GO IN, IT MAKES THE AIR SUSPENSION NOT INFLATE AS IT SHOULD. THIS MAKES THE VEHICLE FEEL LIKE IF IT IS HEAVIER THAN IT IS AND AT TIME MAKING IT HARD TO HANDLE ON THE ROAD. WITH THIS I HAVE NOTICED THAT SINCE THE SUSPENSION IS NOT RUNNING OK THE CAR FEELS LIKE IF ITS DRAGGING, WHICH PUTS EXTRA STRESS ON THE TIRES, WEARING OUT THE TIRES FASTER THAN IT SHOULD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10266677
130,000 miles · Apr 8, 2009
Latches/locks/linkagesStructure
HI I WAS WONDERING THE INSIDE PASS. DOOR HANDLE WE WENT TO OPEN IT AND THE HANDLE BROKE IN HALF, WELL FOR 1 CANT BELIEVE IT WAS MADE OF CHEAP PLASTIC FOR THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR THE TRUCK AND 2 WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT AND THE HANDLE BROKE ETC. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10264762
72,500 miles · Mar 30, 2006
StructureInjury
POWER DEPLOYABLE RUNNING BOARD ON THE PASSENGER SIDE DID NOT EXTEND OUT (DEPLOY) WHEN THE DOOR WAS OPENED TO EXIT THE VEHICLE. THE PASSENGER STEPPED OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND FELL TO THE GROUND. THE BOARD HAS NOT DEPLOYED SINCE THIS INCIDENT. TAKEN THE VEHICLE IN FOR REPAIR AND PARTS (MOTOR) ARE NOT COVERED BY EXTENDED WARRANTY.…
Read full complaint
POWER DEPLOYABLE RUNNING BOARD ON THE PASSENGER SIDE DID NOT EXTEND OUT (DEPLOY) WHEN THE DOOR WAS OPENED TO EXIT THE VEHICLE. THE PASSENGER STEPPED OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND FELL TO THE GROUND. THE BOARD HAS NOT DEPLOYED SINCE THIS INCIDENT. TAKEN THE VEHICLE IN FOR REPAIR AND PARTS (MOTOR) ARE NOT COVERED BY EXTENDED WARRANTY. SAME PROBLEM HAPPENED AROUND 40K MILES. DEALERSHIP REPLACED BOTH RUNNING BOARD ASSEMBLIES. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10154155
Mileage unknown · Nov 1, 2004
Electrical SystemStructureInjury
THE RETRACTABLE POWER RUNNING BOARDS ON MY 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR INTERMITTENTLY FAIL TO DEPLOY AND/OR RETRACT. AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE TO DEPLOY, I FELL WHILE EXITING THE VEHICLE, HITTING MY HEAD ON THE GROUND, INJURING MY LOWER BACK (LUMBAR)IN TWO PLACES AND FRACTURING MY (THORACIC) SPINE AT T-12. I'VE RESEARCHED THIS …
Read full complaint
THE RETRACTABLE POWER RUNNING BOARDS ON MY 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR INTERMITTENTLY FAIL TO DEPLOY AND/OR RETRACT. AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE TO DEPLOY, I FELL WHILE EXITING THE VEHICLE, HITTING MY HEAD ON THE GROUND, INJURING MY LOWER BACK (LUMBAR)IN TWO PLACES AND FRACTURING MY (THORACIC) SPINE AT T-12. I'VE RESEARCHED THIS ON LINE AND FOUND SEVERAL OTHERS VEHICLE OWNERS WHO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE RUNNING BOARDS. I'M TOLD THAT FORD HAS A SERVICE BULLETIN #17249 THAT DESCRIBES THE MALFUNCTION. FORD AND THE DEALER HAVE BEEN UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO REPAIR MY VEHICLE. I HAVE LEFT IT WITH THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS NUMEROUS TIMES, TWICE ONE OF THE RUNNING BOARDS WAS STUCK IN THE OUTER POSITION AT THE TIME IT WAS LEFT FOR REPAIR. I HAVE MET WITH THE FACTORY ENGINEER ON TWO OCCASIONS. I HAVE MADE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS AND TELPHONE CALLS TO THE LINCOLN CUSTOMER SERVICEHOTLINE AND MET WITH SMITHTOWN LINCOLN MERCURY'S PREVIOUS AND CURRENT SERVICE MANAGERS. A DANGEROUS CONDITION EXISTS. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL TAKE AN INTEREST AND FORCE THEM TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS REQUIRED TO CORRECT THE MALFUNCTION BEFORE OTHERS ALSO SUSTAIN SERIOUS INJURIES. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10086506
40,000 miles · Aug 5, 2004
Power TrainSeatsService Brakes, Hydraulic
DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE MOTOR AND THE COMPUTER OF DRIVER'S SEAT THAT WAS TOO LOOSE AND MOVED BACK AND FORTH WHILE DRIVING, CAUSING A DISTRACTION TO THE CONSUMER. 6 MONTHS LATER, CONSUMER EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM. *AK THE VEHICLES BRAKES SQUEAKED, THE DOOR PANEL WAS LOOSE, THE SIDE MIRROR MOTOR FAILED. THERE WAS A RATTLIN…
Read full complaint
DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE MOTOR AND THE COMPUTER OF DRIVER'S SEAT THAT WAS TOO LOOSE AND MOVED BACK AND FORTH WHILE DRIVING, CAUSING A DISTRACTION TO THE CONSUMER. 6 MONTHS LATER, CONSUMER EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM. *AK THE VEHICLES BRAKES SQUEAKED, THE DOOR PANEL WAS LOOSE, THE SIDE MIRROR MOTOR FAILED. THERE WAS A RATTLING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR CENTER CONSOLE AND THERE WAS A LOUD HUMMING NOISE FROM THE PASSENGER DASH IN COLD WEATHER. THE GEAR SHIFTER BROKE WHILE DRIVING. THE ORIGINAL WINDSHIELD WIPER LEFT A BLACK SMEAR ON THE WINDOW WHEN IT RAINED WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT TO SEE. THE FRONT DOOR MOLDING WARPED. THE CONSUMER NO LONGER WASN'T THE VEHICLE AND HAS REQUESTED A REFUND. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10081356
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.
Illustration