IllustrationWHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE ELECTRONIC SHUTDOWN CAUSING THE STEERING TO BECOME INOPERATIVE AND BRAKE PROBLEMS. THE VEHICLE HAD COME TO A ROLLING HALT. THE LINCOLN DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO ASSURE REPAIRS OR EXPLAIN THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF THE MALFUNCTION. *AK *SCC *TC
2003 Lincoln Navigator
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Navigator years
Owner complaints for the 2003 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
200–25K
1325–50K
1350–75K
1775–100K
20100–150K
8150K+
91 reports with mileage · 36 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.
- Suspension. Review the 38 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
6 crash reports3 fire reports11 injury reports
What owners actually said
127 reportsWHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED CONSUMER HEARD A NOISE COMING FROM INSIDE OF THE ENGINE. VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED SEVERAL TIMES, AND COULD NOT DUPLICATE OR CORRECT THE PROBLEM. *AK
WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH FRONT TIE ROD COLLAPSED, CAUSING CONSUMER TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION. *AK
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
CONSUMER STATED THAT WHEN OPENING VEHICLE DOORS OR WHEN DRIVING, WITHOUT WARNING REMOTE MARROW WOULD SHIFT IN THE DOWNWARD POSITION FACING THE GROUND. DEALER AND MANUFACTURE HAS BEEN CONTACTED. PLEASE PROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS. *LA
DOOR RATTLES AND WIND NOISE OCCURS WHEN DRIVING AT HOGHWAY RATED SPEED. THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE AS COMPLAINT#'S: 10062258,10005562,10028646. *AK
PASSENGER SIDE MIRROR DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY, RADIO COVER HAS MARKS ON IT WHERE IT RETRACT INTO THE DASH, KICK PLATE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR IS BROKEN, ALL FOUR DOORS EXTERNAL PATTERNS ARE LOOSE, AND THE FRONT CONSOLE LOCK IS BROKEN.*MR THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT ILLUMINATED CONTINUALLY AFTER BEING REPAIRED THREE TIMES. *NM
AFTER PURCHASING A 2003 NAVIGATOR WITH POWER RUNNING BOARDS, I NOTICED THAT THE RUNNING BOARDS DO NOT ALWAYS DEPLOY (IE; MOVE OUT) WHEN A DOOR IS OPENED. I HAVE WORKED WITH MY LOCAL DEALER TO GET THE MATTER RESOLVED AND THE MANUFACTURER CONTINUES TO EXTEND THE DATE THAT THEY PROMISE THERE WILL BE A FIX. I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR…
Read full complaint
AFTER PURCHASING A 2003 NAVIGATOR WITH POWER RUNNING BOARDS, I NOTICED THAT THE RUNNING BOARDS DO NOT ALWAYS DEPLOY (IE; MOVE OUT) WHEN A DOOR IS OPENED. I HAVE WORKED WITH MY LOCAL DEALER TO GET THE MATTER RESOLVED AND THE MANUFACTURER CONTINUES TO EXTEND THE DATE THAT THEY PROMISE THERE WILL BE A FIX. I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. THE FIRST FIX DATE WAS OCT'03, THEN NOV'03,THEN DEC '03 AND NOW DEC '04. THIS CAN BE A SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM IS SOMEONE WAS TO OPEN THE DOOR AND TRY TO STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE WITH NOTHING TO STEP ON TO -- ESPECIALLY IF YOU FACTOR IN THE HEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE. LINCOLN HAS MOST DEFINATELY DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE AND SEEMS TO NOT VIEW THE MATTER AS A HIGH PRIORITY. I CALLED THE LINCOLN CUSTOMER HOTLINE AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HELPFUL, NOR HAVE THEY BEEN ABLE TO GET BACK TO ME WITH ANY ANSWER. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MY DEALER THAT LINCOLN HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ELECTRONIC "CONTROL" MECHANISM IS DEFECTIVE. I AM EXTREMELY DISSAPOINTED WITH LINCOLN OVER THE MATTER AND FEEL THAT THEY HAVE ABANDONED PURCHASERS OF THEIR LINCOLN NAVIGATOR'S.*AK
WHEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT ANY SPEED, THE DRIVER NOTICED THAT BOTH SIDE MIRRORS SHOWED POOR VISIBILITY WHEN TOWING A TRAVEL TRAILER. THIS CAUSED THE DRIVER NOT TO SEE OTHER PASSING VEHICLE'S. THE CONSUMER HAD MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEALER ABOUT THIS ISSUE. *JB THE CONSUMER FEELS THE MIRRORS SHOULD BE EXTENDED. *NM
I PURCHASED MY VEHICLE BRAND NEW IN JANUARY OF 2003. I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE SINCE DAY 1.THE ENTIRE COMPUTER HAD TO BE CHANGED. THE TRUCK STALLED ON ME AT HIGHWAY SPEED. IT TOOK OVER 2 1/2 WEEKS TO GET MY VEHICLE BACK.HERE IS A LIST OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS I HAVE HAD. THE REAR VENT MOTORS HAVE BEEN CHANGED . …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED MY VEHICLE BRAND NEW IN JANUARY OF 2003. I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE SINCE DAY 1.THE ENTIRE COMPUTER HAD TO BE CHANGED. THE TRUCK STALLED ON ME AT HIGHWAY SPEED. IT TOOK OVER 2 1/2 WEEKS TO GET MY VEHICLE BACK.HERE IS A LIST OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS I HAVE HAD. THE REAR VENT MOTORS HAVE BEEN CHANGED . I HAD MY WINDOWS STUCK OPEN WITH HALF OF MY ELECTICAL SYSTEM OUT FOR OVER FOUR DAYS DUE TO THE PROBLEM. THE SIDE VIEW MIRROR MOTOR HAD TO BE CHANGED. THE POWER RUNNING BOARDS HAVE NEVER WORKED PROPERLY AND THE DEALER CAN'T FIND THE PROBLEM. ALL FOUR WHEELS HAD TO BE CHANGED DUE TO PEELING. A NEW ALTERNATOR HAD TO BE INSTALLED WHICH LEFT MY VEHICLE DEAD WITHOUT WARNING. THE CD CHANGER HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE ENTIRE NAVIGATION SYSTEM HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE COIL HAD TO BE CHANGED THREE TIMES. WHICH ONCE AGAIN DIED AT HIGHWAY SPEED ON ME. I WAS NEARLY HIT BY A SEMI TRUCK FROM BEHIND. I THOUGHT FOR SURE THAT MY FAMILY AND I WERE GOING TO BE SERIOUSLY INJURED. IT IS AT THE DEALER RIGHT NOW GETTING LOOKED AT. TWICE WHILE BEING AT THE DEALER FOR SERVICE, MY VEHICLE WAS HIT NEEDING REPAIR. THE LIST GOES ON. AS YOU CAN SAY MY VEHICLE IS AT THE DEALER MORE THAN IT IS AT HOME, WHERE IT SHOULD BE. MOST OF THE PROBLEMS TIE MY VEHICLE DOWN FOR MORE THAN A WEEK. I AM FED UP AND TIRED OF ALL THE PROBLEMS. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DRIVING SUCH AN UNSAFE VEHICLE. I KNOW IT WILL STALL AGAIN ON ME. HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE NO INJURIES OR FATALITIES DUE TO SUCH AN UNRELIABLE VEHICLE.*AK
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
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.