IllustrationTHE PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG IS NOT WORKING PROPERLY
1999 Lincoln Town Car
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1999 Lincoln Town Car do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 86.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Town Car 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
80–25K
625–50K
1350–75K
1075–100K
23100–150K
17150K+
77 reports with mileage · 71 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.
- Air Bags. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 21 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
18 crash reports7 fire reports11 injury reports
Air Bags complaints
29 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH IN HEAVY RAIN, THE VEHICLE HYDROPLANED AND CRASHED WITH A FLAT BED TOW TRUCK. NONE OF THE FRONTAL AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS PRESENT, BUT A REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE CONTACT AND A PASSENGER WERE TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL BY AMB…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH IN HEAVY RAIN, THE VEHICLE HYDROPLANED AND CRASHED WITH A FLAT BED TOW TRUCK. NONE OF THE FRONTAL AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS PRESENT, BUT A REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE CONTACT AND A PASSENGER WERE TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL BY AMBULANCE, TREATED, AND RELEASED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN IMPOUND LOT AND LATER DEEMED DESTROYED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 183,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE CRASHED HEAD ON INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED BY A SHERIFF NOT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE IN CASE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE CRASHED HEAD ON INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED BY A SHERIFF NOT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE IN CASE THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED INDEPENDENTLY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG ERRONEOUSLY DEPLOYED AS SOON AS THE CONTACT INSERTED THE KEY INTO THE IGNITION. THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN PARKED AND WAS NOT DRIVEN ON THE DAY OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT SUFFERED INJURIES TO THE BACK AND THE HEAD. THE VEHICLE WAS NO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG ERRONEOUSLY DEPLOYED AS SOON AS THE CONTACT INSERTED THE KEY INTO THE IGNITION. THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN PARKED AND WAS NOT DRIVEN ON THE DAY OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT SUFFERED INJURIES TO THE BACK AND THE HEAD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 101,525.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH AND WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG DEPLOYED ERRONEOUSLY. THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AFTER THE AIRBAG DEPLOYED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
THE "AIR BAG" LIGHT ON THIS VEHICLE COMES ON OFTEN, IRREGULARLY AND UNPREDICTABLY ON THIS VEHICLE. THE DEALER SAYS IT MUST BE ILLUMINATED WHILE IN THEIR SHOP TO PERFORM ANY DIAGNOSTICS. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND MANY MILES. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNED A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH THE CONTACTS VEHICLE WAS HIT HEAD ON BY AN SUV. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO A LIGHT POST. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE PASSENGER WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BY THE POLICE AND LATER ON MOVED BY THE CONTACT TO A DEALER. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE MAN…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNED A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH THE CONTACTS VEHICLE WAS HIT HEAD ON BY AN SUV. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO A LIGHT POST. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE PASSENGER WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BY THE POLICE AND LATER ON MOVED BY THE CONTACT TO A DEALER. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT INFORMED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
MY AIR BAG LIGHT BLINKS ON AND OFF FOR ABOUT 90 SECONDS THEN GOES OFF FOR ABOUT ANOTHER 90 SECONDS THEN COMES ON AND STAYS ON I WAS TOLD BY THE MECHANIC AT THE LINCOLN DEALERSHIP THAT I DO NOT HAVE ANY AIR BAGS WHEN THE LIGHT IS ON THE PROBLEM? NOT KNOWN UNTIL I SPEND $$$ FINDING OUT WHY THEN SPENDING MORE $$$ TO FIX IT *JB
1. I ENTERED THE VEHICLE WHICH HAD BEEN PARKED FOR APPROXIMATELY 90 MINUTES. I TURNED THE IGNITION KEY TO START THE VEHICLE AND AT THE MOMENT I TURNED THE KEY THE DRIVER SIDE, SEAT/WINDOW SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT IN MOTION, NOT IN DRIVE GEAR AND WAS NOT STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE. ALSO, THERE HAD BEEN NO WAR…
Read full complaint
1. I ENTERED THE VEHICLE WHICH HAD BEEN PARKED FOR APPROXIMATELY 90 MINUTES. I TURNED THE IGNITION KEY TO START THE VEHICLE AND AT THE MOMENT I TURNED THE KEY THE DRIVER SIDE, SEAT/WINDOW SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT IN MOTION, NOT IN DRIVE GEAR AND WAS NOT STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE. ALSO, THERE HAD BEEN NO WARNING LIGHTS STAYING ON INDICATING A POSSIBLE PROBLEM WITH THE AIR BAG SYSTEM. 2. THE SIDE AIR BAG STRUCK MY LEFT SHOULDER AND UPPER BACK. IT WAS PAINFUL, BUT DID NOT INJURE ME. AFTER A FEW MINUTES, I STARTED THE VEHICLE AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED SO I DROVE A SHORT DISTANCE TO MY HOME WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. 3. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL LINCOLN MERCURY DEALER AND THEY DETERMINED THAT FOUR WIRES IN THE MAIN WARNING HARNESS UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT WERE DAMAGED, HAD SHORTED OUT AND CAUSED THE AIR BAG TO DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE IS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR WITH 74,000 MILES ON IT. THEY SAID ALL WARRANTIES WERE EXPIRED AND THERE WERE NO EXTENDED WARRANTIES ON THE VEHICLE AND IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR THE REPAIRS. ADDITIONALLY, THE WARNING HARNESS( PART # XW1Z14A005AA) IS NO LONGER MADE AND NOT IN STOCK AND MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE. THE ESTIMATE FOR REPAIR IS $3,500.00 PARTS AND LABOR. IF THEY REPAIRED THE WIRING HARNESS, I WOULD HAVE TO SIGN A RELEASE OF LIABILITY STATING IF THE REPAIRED AIR BAG SYSTEM FAILED TO DEPLOY OR DEPLOYED WHEN IT SHOULD NOT BECAUSE THE WIRING HARNESS WAS NOT REPLACED THE DEALER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE. I CONTACTED THE FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS CENTER AND THEY SAID THEY HAD NO HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM OR RECALLS OF THIS NATURE FOR THIS VEHICLE AND THAT REPAIR WOULD BY AT MY EXPENSE. *JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 2MPH THROUGH A PARKING LOT, THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE AIRBAG DEPLOYED WITHOUT WARNING. UPON DEPLOYMENT OF THE SIDE AIR BAG, THE CONTACT, WHO WAS NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT, WAS PUSHED ASIDE INTO THE CENTER CONSOLE, AND LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE ROLLED OVER A PARKING LOT DIVIDER, A…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 2MPH THROUGH A PARKING LOT, THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE AIRBAG DEPLOYED WITHOUT WARNING. UPON DEPLOYMENT OF THE SIDE AIR BAG, THE CONTACT, WHO WAS NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT, WAS PUSHED ASIDE INTO THE CENTER CONSOLE, AND LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE ROLLED OVER A PARKING LOT DIVIDER, AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES. DUE TO THE LOW SPEED OF THE CRASH, THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED MINOR DAMAGE. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY A DEALER AND AN INSURANCE ADJUSTOR WHO WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALSO ALERTED. UPDATED 10/31/2006 -*NM
Official recalls
500V356000 · Tires
Dec 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN LIMOUSINES STRETCHED OVER 60 INCHES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 109, "NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES," AND NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE VEHICLE WEIGHT COULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LOAD RATING FOR THE TIRE, INCREASING THE RISK OF PREMATURE TIRE WEAR OR BLOWOUT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE ALL 5 TIRES (INCLUDING THE SPARE TIRE) WITH MICHELIN TIRES (225/70R16 107T REINFORCED WHITE SIDEWALL) WITH A SUFFICIENTLY HIGHER LOAD RATING. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN JANUARY 10, 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 1-800-248-0186.
00V200000 · Equipment:mechanical:integrated Jack/leveler/stabilizer
Jul 18, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE VEHICLES HAVE JACKING INSTRUCTIONS WHICH, IF FOLLOWED, COULD CAUSE THE VEHICLE OPERATOR TO PLACE THE JACK ON A FRAME WELD WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RAISE A REAR WHEEL. IF THE VEHICLE IS JACKED UP WITH THE JACK PLACED ON THE FRAME WELD AND IF THE VEHICLE IS FREE TO ROLL (WHEELS NOT BLOCKED OR CHOCKED), THE JACK COULD YIELD AND THE VEHICLE MAY DROP SUDDENLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS AND ANY PORTION OF THE OPERATOR'S BODY IS UNDER THE VEHICLE, THE POTENTIAL FOR PERSONAL INJURY EXISTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A REVISED JACK INSTRUCTION AND STOWAGE CARD AND JACK WARNING LABEL, AS WELL AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE OWNER GUIDE.
00V157001 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET DRIVER'S SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
00V157002 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
98V322000 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
Dec 16, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1996-1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, NATURAL GAS, AND 1996-1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT WERE PRODUCED WITH A LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CONTAINING A ONE PIECE BEARING; AND 1990-1996 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, AND NGV VEHICLES AND 1990-1996 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN SERVICED WITH EITHER A BALL JOINT CONTAINING THE ONE-PIECE BEARING OR A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM CONTAINING A BALL JOINT WITH A ONE-PIECE BEARING. THE ONE-PIECE BEARING WITHIN THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CAN WEAKEN SLOWLY DURING USE AND EVENTUALLY CRACK. THIS COULD RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE BALL AND CAP OF THE JOINT, ALLOWING THE CONTROL ARM TO DROP TO THE GROUND.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS WHILE THE VEHICLE IS MOVING, REDUCED STEERING CONTROL COULD OCCUR, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS (2).
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
4DP05005 · 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.
PE03011 · Inadvertent Side Air Bag Deployment
Opened Mar 14, 2003 · Closed Aug 22, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:side/window
ODI HAS IDENTIFIED 173 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INADVERTENT OR NON-CRASH DEPLOYMENT OF SIDE AIR BAGS ON MODEL YEAR (MY) 1999-2003 LINCOLN TOWN CARS.MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT ONE OF THE SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WHILE DRIVING WITHOUT ANY IMPACT.ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT MY 2001 THROUGH EARLY MY 2003 TOWN CARS HAVE MUCH HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM RATES (138 COMPLAINTS AND 120 WARRANTY CLAIMS) THAN THE REMAINING VEHICLES (35 COMPLAINTS AND 32 WARRANTY CLAIMS).FORD CHANGED ITS SUPPLIER OF THE SIDE CRASH SENSORS FOR THE MY 2001 TOWN CARS.FORD STATES THAT THE ALGORITHM IN THE MY 2001 TOWN CARS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS MODEL YEAR'S DESIGN, AND THAT IT IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE IMPROVED OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN MODERATE SPEED SIDE POLE IMPACTS.IN DECEMBER 2002 (I.E., EARLY MY 2003 VEHICLE PRODUCTION), THE CRASH SENSORS WERE MOVED FROM THE FLOOR OF VEHICLE TO NEAR THE BASE OF B-PILLARS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE INCIDENTS OF INADVERTENT SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENTS.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA03-014) FOR MY 2001-2003 TOWN CARS BUILT BEFORE DECEMBER 2002.
DP02007 · FUEL-FED Fires
Opened Aug 22, 2002 · Closed Dec 4, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
THE FARS DATA SHOWS THAT THE RISK OF FIRE FROM IMPACT IN ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS THE SAME AS ALL OTHER SEDANS.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT OVER REPRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE RISK OF FIRE IN REAL-WORLD HIGH-ENERGY CRASHES.A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO POST CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS SET OUT IN THE CLOSING REPORT FOR SQ 01-014 AND THAT REPORT IS IN THE DOCKET FOR THIS PETITION.AFTER REVIEWING THE PETITION AND ITS SUPPORTING MATERIALS, AS WELL AS INFORMATION FURNISHED BY FORD AND GM, AND INFORMATION WITHIN THE AGENCY'S POSSESSION FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS,NHTSA HAS CONCLUDED THAT FUTHER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING POST-CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO A DECISION THAT THE VEHICLES CONTAIN A SAFETY DEFECT.
SQ01014 · Post Rear End Collision Fires
Opened Nov 27, 2001 · Closed Oct 3, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
There is no summary currently available