IllustrationAIR SUSPENSION MOTOR HAD TO BE REPLACED AT AROUND 100,0000 MILES. ALSO AIR BAGS LEAK AND ARE SLOW TO AIR UP IN COLD WEATHER. MECHANIC SAID NEED TO REPLACED. *TR
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 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AIR RISE SYSTEM ON THE VEHICLE FAILED AND WAS CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO BOUNCE ABNORMALLY WHEN DRIVING OVER ANY TYPE OF ROAD BUMP OR UNEVEN ROAD SURFACE. THE AIR RISE SYSTEM WAS REPAIRED TWICE, BUT THE FAILURE CONTINUED TO RECUR. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AIR RISE SYSTEM ON THE VEHICLE FAILED AND WAS CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO BOUNCE ABNORMALLY WHEN DRIVING OVER ANY TYPE OF ROAD BUMP OR UNEVEN ROAD SURFACE. THE AIR RISE SYSTEM WAS REPAIRED TWICE, BUT THE FAILURE CONTINUED TO RECUR. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE ENTIRE AIR RISE SYSTEM WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 157,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. WHENEVER THE BRAKE WERE APPLIED THE VEHICLE WOULD VIBRATE AND SHAKE EXCESSIVELY. THERE WERE SEVERAL ELECTRICAL FAILURES TO INCLUDE THE ELECTRONIC CLUSTER IN THE ODOMETER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED HER TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER TO HAVE THE FAILURES REPAIRED. T…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. WHENEVER THE BRAKE WERE APPLIED THE VEHICLE WOULD VIBRATE AND SHAKE EXCESSIVELY. THERE WERE SEVERAL ELECTRICAL FAILURES TO INCLUDE THE ELECTRONIC CLUSTER IN THE ODOMETER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED HER TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER TO HAVE THE FAILURES REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 30,000.
I WAS DRIVING MY 2003 LINCOLN FORD NAVIGATOR ON JULY 3RD AT APPROXIMATELY 3PM DOWN US HIGHWAY 52 NEAR SPRINGFIELD SOUTH DAKOTA ON A FLAT STRETCH OF DRY ROAD GOING APPROXIMATELY 55 MILES PER HOUR. FOR NO APPARENT REASON OUR AIRBAGS FROM THE PASSENGER AND DRIVERS SIDE ROOF DEPLOYED WITH AN EXPLOSION. IN ADDITION TO ALMOST WRECKIN…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2003 LINCOLN FORD NAVIGATOR ON JULY 3RD AT APPROXIMATELY 3PM DOWN US HIGHWAY 52 NEAR SPRINGFIELD SOUTH DAKOTA ON A FLAT STRETCH OF DRY ROAD GOING APPROXIMATELY 55 MILES PER HOUR. FOR NO APPARENT REASON OUR AIRBAGS FROM THE PASSENGER AND DRIVERS SIDE ROOF DEPLOYED WITH AN EXPLOSION. IN ADDITION TO ALMOST WRECKING THE VEHICLE MY SON AND NIECE AND MYSELF ALL RECEIVED IMPACT BURNS ON OUR FACES (NOT SURE IF IT WAS FROM THE EXPLOSION OR THE BAGS THEMSELVES) AND HEARING PROBLEMS THAT HAVE CARRIED OVER TO TODAY (JULY 4TH). IF WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON ANY OTHER STRETCH OF ROAD EXCEPT FLAT-LAND I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE UPSET AND ALL BEEN KILLED OR INJURED SEVERELY. THE AIRBAGS ACTIVATED FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER...I THINK THIS NEEDS CHECK OUT BECAUSE IF IT BECOMES AN ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR MODEL LIVES WILL CERTAINLY BE LOST. HIGHLY DANGEROUS ..I'M SURPRISED WE SURVIVED IT. *TR
ON SUNDAY JUNE 27TH 2010 AT APPROX. 4:30 PM. MY WIFE AND 2 CHILDREN WERE TRAVELING TO PALM SPRINGS ON THE EAST BOUND 10 FWY IN BANNING WHEN, FOR NO REASON THE SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAGS WENT OFF HITTING MYSELF AND MY 7 YEAR OLD. I WAS ABLE TO REMAIN IN CONTROL OF OUR 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR, AND PULL TO THE CENTER MEDIAN AS I THOUGH MA…
Read full complaint
ON SUNDAY JUNE 27TH 2010 AT APPROX. 4:30 PM. MY WIFE AND 2 CHILDREN WERE TRAVELING TO PALM SPRINGS ON THE EAST BOUND 10 FWY IN BANNING WHEN, FOR NO REASON THE SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAGS WENT OFF HITTING MYSELF AND MY 7 YEAR OLD. I WAS ABLE TO REMAIN IN CONTROL OF OUR 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR, AND PULL TO THE CENTER MEDIAN AS I THOUGH MAYBE WE WERE HIT BY SOMETHING. AS I LOOKED AROUND THE NAVIGATOR, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN OF DAMAGE OR BEING HIT BY ANY KIND OF DEBRIS. I HAD TO CUT THE AIRBAGS AWAY TO SEE AND GET TO A SAFER PLACE TO CHECK ON MY CRYING CHILDREN. I WAS RELIEVED THAT THEY WERE NOT INJURED VISUALLY, BUT WE ARE HAVING THERE EARS CHECKED FOR DAMAGE FROM THE LOAD NOISE. WE DROPPED THE VEHICLE OFF TO OUR LOCAL DEALER AND THEY SAID THAT THE CRASH SENSOR WENT OFF AND THAT WE SHOULD CONTACT OUR INSURANCE. OUR INSURANCE SAID IT IS A MANUFACTURES MALFUNCTION AND TO CONTACT THE HEAD QUARTERS OF FORD AND LINCOLN. AFTER THE RUN AROUND THERE, THEY SAID IT WAS AN INSURANCE ISSUE BECAUSE THE CRASH CODE WAS SIGNALED. WE ARE NOW ON THE HOOK FOR $3500-4000 FOR REPAIRS AND FEEL THAT IT WAS EITHER THE CRASH SENSOR MALFUNCTION OR THE AIRBAG SENSOR MALFUNCTION. THE DEALER WILL NOT REPAIR BECAUSE THE CRASH CODE AND THE INSURANCE DOES NOT WANT TO OPEN CLAIM BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND I FEEL IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE CHILD SEAT DEFLECTION SOME OF THE AIRBAG, MY 3 YEAR OLD WOULD SUSTAINED INJURIES. FORD-LINCOLN DOES NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH ISSUE. *TR
WE HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. ON JUNE 17, 2010 WHILE DRIVING ON THE 605 FREEWAY, WE HEARD A LOUD NOISE AND THE CAR STARTED TO SHAKE TREMENDOUSLY THEN LOOSE POWER. THE CAR IS STILL RUNNING BUT COULD NOT PICK UP SPEED. A HUGE MACK TRUCK BEHIND US WAS BRAKING HARD TO AVOID HITTING OUR CAR. WE PULLED TO THE SIDE WITH THE CAR SHA…
Read full complaint
WE HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. ON JUNE 17, 2010 WHILE DRIVING ON THE 605 FREEWAY, WE HEARD A LOUD NOISE AND THE CAR STARTED TO SHAKE TREMENDOUSLY THEN LOOSE POWER. THE CAR IS STILL RUNNING BUT COULD NOT PICK UP SPEED. A HUGE MACK TRUCK BEHIND US WAS BRAKING HARD TO AVOID HITTING OUR CAR. WE PULLED TO THE SIDE WITH THE CAR SHAKING AND RATTLING. LUCKILY, IT HAD ENOUGH POWER TO MAKE AN EXIT. A PRIVATE AUTO MECHANIC AT AUTO SHOP ARTESIA FOUND THAT THE SPARK PLUGS HAD BLOWN AND COMPLETELY DAMAGED THE CYLINDERS HEAD. MECHANIC STATED THAT HE HAD SEEN THIS MANY TIMES ON FORD VEHICLES. MECHANIC INSISTS THAT VEHICLE MUST BE TOW TO FORD DEALERSHIP FOR EXTENSIVE MAJOR REPAIR. MECHANIC RECOMMENDS NOT DRIVING THE VEHICLE AS IT MAY IGNITE IN FLAMES DUE TO FUEL LEAK. WHEN CAR ARRIVED AT CERRITOS FORD DEALERSHIP, LEAD TECHNICIAN CONFIRMED THAT IT IS A BLOWN SPARK PLUGS ISSUE WHICH DAMAGED THE CYLINDERS HEAD. REPAIR BILL IS QUOTED AT $4,500. CERRITOS FORD ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS AN A KNOWN DEFECTS ON FORD VEHICLES AND CAN NOT ASSIST WITH REPAIR COST DUE TO THE FACT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY UNABLE TO COMPENSATE DEALERSHIP FOR THIS TYPE OF REPAIR. WE CONTACTED FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THEY REFUSED TO ASSIST WITH THIS MATTER. MY CASH RESERVE IS FOR MY SON'S MONTHLY SCHOOL TUITION. I CAN NOT AFFORD TO HAVE THE EXPENSIVE REPAIR. PLEASE SOMEONE HELP US. THIS IS A KNOWN DEFECT ON FORD VEHICLES, BUT WE ARE NOT GETTING ANY ASSISTANT FROM FORD REGARDING THIS MATTER. *TR
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
2003 NAVIGATOR, 99,000MILES - SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT - ENGINE LOST POWER, GAS SPILLING OUT OF ENGINE, DURING THE TRANSPORT OF 1 ADULT AND 4 CHILDREN. 1. ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT, THE TRUCK WAS GIVEN A FULL SERVICE FOR 100K MILES, LESS THEN 1000 MILES LATER, THE CAR IS RENDERED INOPERABLE, AND THE DEALER OFFERED TO GIVE $…
Read full complaint
2003 NAVIGATOR, 99,000MILES - SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT - ENGINE LOST POWER, GAS SPILLING OUT OF ENGINE, DURING THE TRANSPORT OF 1 ADULT AND 4 CHILDREN. 1. ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT, THE TRUCK WAS GIVEN A FULL SERVICE FOR 100K MILES, LESS THEN 1000 MILES LATER, THE CAR IS RENDERED INOPERABLE, AND THE DEALER OFFERED TO GIVE $2500 ON TRADE (THE AMOUNT OF THE 100K SERVICE) OR REPAIR THE ENGINE FOR $5500. 2. CAR DOES NOT RUN 3. NOTHING IS FIXED YET, FORD WILL NOT ADMIT A PROBLEM AND WILL NOT ASSIST THE DEALER. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 2 MPH THROUGH GRASS, THE FRONT DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WITHOUT WARRANT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR A DIAGNOSIS OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 111,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. WHILE DRIVING AT 35 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. WHEN THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD BUT THEN AFTER A FEW SECONDS, SUDDENLY TAKE OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALERSHIP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. WHILE DRIVING AT 35 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. WHEN THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD BUT THEN AFTER A FEW SECONDS, SUDDENLY TAKE OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALERSHIP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY A VACUUM LEAK. THE COILS AND SPARK PLUGS WERE REPLACED BUT THE FAILURE OCCURRED A DAY LATER. THE FAILURE REOCCURRED TWICE BUT HAD NOT OCCURRED SINCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 105,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 118,000.
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.