IllustrationSee attached document for complaint.
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
Suspension complaints
21 reportsThe contact owns a 1999 Lincoln Town Car. The contact stated while driving approximately 55 MPH, the steering wheel started pulling to the left with extreme force. The contact attempted to correct the over steering and the vehicle started pulling to the right and the left. The contact stated that an unknown warning was illuminat…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 1999 Lincoln Town Car. The contact stated while driving approximately 55 MPH, the steering wheel started pulling to the left with extreme force. The contact attempted to correct the over steering and the vehicle started pulling to the right and the left. The contact stated that an unknown warning was illuminated. The contact drove the vehicle back to his residence. The contact stated that he drove the vehicle several more times and the steering failure recurred while driving at various speeds. The contact drove the vehicle to an independent mechanic to be diagnosed. The contact was informed that the ball joints, upper and lower control arms, and the steering gear needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired; however, the failure recurred. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer had been informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 132,000. The dealer is requesting the consumer get a diagnostic for $168 eventhough the consumer presented them with a safety recall via carfax.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN, THE CONTACT HEARD AN ABNORMAL SOUND COMING FROM THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WHEEL DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE DRIVER'S AND PASSENGER'S SIDE FRONT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN, THE CONTACT HEARD AN ABNORMAL SOUND COMING FROM THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WHEEL DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE DRIVER'S AND PASSENGER'S SIDE FRONT UPPER CONTROL ARMS AND BALL JOINTS WERE REPLACED. THE CONTACT CALLED LAMARQUE FORD LOCATED AT 3101 WILLIAMS BLVD SUITE F, KENNER, LA 70065, (504) 443-2500, AND MADE THE DEALER AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN INFORMED OF FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 54,000.*DT *AS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE BALL JOINTS ON THE VEHICLE BECAME UNDONE. IN ADDITION, THE A FRAME DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 175,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED AND MAKING A TURN, THE ROCKER ARM LOWERED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE PASSENGER SIDE UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS AND THE PASSENGER SIDE OUTER TIE ROD WERE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED, BUT THE FAILURE RECUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED AND MAKING A TURN, THE ROCKER ARM LOWERED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE PASSENGER SIDE UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS AND THE PASSENGER SIDE OUTER TIE ROD WERE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE CLANKING NOISE WAS STILL PRESENT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 109,228. UPDATED 02/26/16*LJ *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE BALL JOINTS DETACHED FROM THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE AT A STOP SIGN, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THERE WAS A LOUD ABNORMAL NOISE. THE VEHICLE HAD COLLAPSED ON THE FRONT PASSENGERS SIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE AT A STOP SIGN, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THERE WAS A LOUD ABNORMAL NOISE. THE VEHICLE HAD COLLAPSED ON THE FRONT PASSENGERS SIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 98V322000 (SUSPENSION). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 94,000.
2 OCCASIONS WHERE BALL JOINT SNAPPED AND VEHICLE WAS MOVING AND FELL TO GROUND .WHILE MY CHILD WAS INSIDE . MAJOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES SUCH AS: ODOMETER FLASHES CONSTANTLY AND GAS GAGE WACKED OUT EVER SINCE VEHICLE FELL TO GROUND EVERY THING WAS WORKING PROPERLY BEFORE AND ON THE FIRST INCIDENT IS WHEN IT STARTED AND CONTINUES TO…
Read full complaint
2 OCCASIONS WHERE BALL JOINT SNAPPED AND VEHICLE WAS MOVING AND FELL TO GROUND .WHILE MY CHILD WAS INSIDE . MAJOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES SUCH AS: ODOMETER FLASHES CONSTANTLY AND GAS GAGE WACKED OUT EVER SINCE VEHICLE FELL TO GROUND EVERY THING WAS WORKING PROPERLY BEFORE AND ON THE FIRST INCIDENT IS WHEN IT STARTED AND CONTINUES TO GET WORSE. SUSPENSION AND STEERING : ALSO SINCE CAR FELL TO GROUND HAS CAUSE STEERING AND SUSPENSION TO BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE . I HAVE HAD SEVERAL MECHANICS RIP ME OFF AND HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS ON TRYING TO GET VEHICLE BACK TO THE WAY A LINCOLN SHOULD DRIVE . AND STILL THE RESULTS ARE NOT GOOD. I CANT DRIVE ON EXPRESS WAYS BECAUSE VEHICLE IS EXTREMELY HARD TO CONTROL AND STAY IN LANES .AS WELL ON SIDE STREETS/MAIN ROADS . IT ALSO HAS A VERY HIGH TENDENCY TO LOOSE CONTROL WHEN DRIVING OVER A SMALL , MEDIUM OR LARGE BUMP, DIV-IT OR CRACK IN ROAD WHICH COULD OR WILL EVENTUALLY RESULT IN A CRASH. BY ALL MEANS I LOVE MY 1999 LINCOLN BUT CERTAINLY DOES NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE PROPERLY LIKE ONE SHOULD .I DO ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT ITS A 13 YEAR OLD CAR AND THINGS WILL GO WRONG BUT AFTER DO MY RESEARCH AND BEING THAT I AM NAIVE AND VERY UNEDUCATED WITH MECHANICS ON A VEHICLE I SIMPLY LET THIS PASS FOR SOMETIME NOW TO REALIZE THESE RE OCCURRING INCIDENTS ARE NOT NORMAL AND HERE I AM NOW MY RESULTS ARE A DAMAGED CAR WITH RECALL SUPPORTED AND THOUSANDS OF MY HARD INCOME TO REPLACE PARTS ON CAR TO GET BACK TO PROPER WORKING ORDER . SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE OR IF POSSIBLE BE SETTLED IN THE MIDDLE/HALFWAY WHICH WOULD BE FAIR. I HOPE I CAN BE A TRUE FORD LINCOLN SUPPORTER/BUYER FOR EVER AND DON'T WANT TO BE DISAPPOINTED. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR CARTIER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 2 MPH, A LOUD NOISE EMITTED AS THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP WHERE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE BALL JOINT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR CARTIER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 2 MPH, A LOUD NOISE EMITTED AS THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP WHERE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE BALL JOINT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE VIN FAILED TO QUALIFY FOR REPAIRS UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER:98V322000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER BALL JOINT). THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 167,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 173,000. UPDATED 11/23/12 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED THE PASSENGER LOWER BALL JOINT FAILED AS SHE WAS TRAVELING, BUT NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TOWED TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP, WHERE IT WAS REPAIRED. IN FACT, THE REPAIR SHOP REPLACED THE PASSENGER LOWER CONTROL ARM AS WELL AS THE LOWER BALL JOINT. APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE DRIVER'S SIDE LOWER BALL JOINT FAILED, AS SHE TRAVELED AGAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE SAME REPAIR SHOP, WHERE THEY REPLACED THE LOWER BALL JOINT. THREE MONTHS LATER, THE PASSENGER LOWER BALL JOINT FAILED.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT WAS TRAVELING 30 MPH WHEN AN ABNORMAL SQUEALING WAS HEARD FROM THE DRIVER'S SIDE AS THE VEHICLE STARTED TO SHAKE ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE FRONT END AND THE DRIVERS SIDE BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. IN ADDITION, THE DEALER CO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT WAS TRAVELING 30 MPH WHEN AN ABNORMAL SQUEALING WAS HEARD FROM THE DRIVER'S SIDE AS THE VEHICLE STARTED TO SHAKE ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE FRONT END AND THE DRIVERS SIDE BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. IN ADDITION, THE DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THE VIN FAILED TO QUALIFY FOR REPAIRS UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER:98V322000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER BALL JOINT). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 275 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 276.
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