IllustrationWHILE SITTING IN A DRIVE THRU MY 2002 LINCOLN TOWNCAR CAUGHT A BLAZE UNDER THE HOOD. *TR
2002 Lincoln Town Car
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2002 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
110–25K
825–50K
550–75K
575–100K
5100–150K
2150K+
36 reports with mileage · 29 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 20 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 12 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 10 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
14 crash reports1 fire reports10 injury reports
What owners actually said
65 reportsTHE DRIVER SIDE SAFETY BELT ON MY 2002 LINCOLN TOWN CAR NO LONGER LATCHES AND APPEARS TO BE LOCKED PREVENTING THE SEAT BELT FROM BEING CONNECTED/LATCHED. THE DASH BOARD SEAT BELT INDICATOR (NORMALLY LIT UP WHEN A SEAT BELT IS NOT ATTACHED) DOES NOT LIGHT UP. THIS PROBLEM STARTED ONLY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND CONTINUES. T…
Read full complaint
THE DRIVER SIDE SAFETY BELT ON MY 2002 LINCOLN TOWN CAR NO LONGER LATCHES AND APPEARS TO BE LOCKED PREVENTING THE SEAT BELT FROM BEING CONNECTED/LATCHED. THE DASH BOARD SEAT BELT INDICATOR (NORMALLY LIT UP WHEN A SEAT BELT IS NOT ATTACHED) DOES NOT LIGHT UP. THIS PROBLEM STARTED ONLY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND CONTINUES. THIS CAR HAVE LESS THAN 48,000 MILES AND IS USED TO DRIVE TO WORK AND BACK. BECAUSE I AM UNABLE TO LATCH MY DRIVER SEAT BELT THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY CONCERN AND I WANTED TO REPORT IT TO YOUR AGENCY. AS OF THIS WRITING I HAVE NOT HAD A FORD SERVICE REP LOOK AT THIS, BUT INTEND TO SHORTLY. BECAUSE I HAVE NOT YET TAKEN MY CAR INTO A FORD SERVICE CENTER FOR EXAMINATION I AM UNABLE TO REPORT WHAT WAS DONE TO CORRECT THIS FAILURE OR PARTS NEEDED/REPLACED. *TR
RE 2002 LINCOLN TC CARTIER L. THE MOST USELESS AND DANGEROUS ACCESSORY ON THIS AUTO IS THE ADJUSTABLE BRAKE & ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THERE DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THERE IS ANY WAY ONE MAY ADJUST EITHER/OR AS THEY ADJUST SIMULTANEOUSLY. RECENTLY THIS "ACCESSORY" COST ME $1000.00. MY WIFE WAS STOPPED, WAITING ON THE LIGHT TO CHANGE AND H…
Read full complaint
RE 2002 LINCOLN TC CARTIER L. THE MOST USELESS AND DANGEROUS ACCESSORY ON THIS AUTO IS THE ADJUSTABLE BRAKE & ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THERE DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THERE IS ANY WAY ONE MAY ADJUST EITHER/OR AS THEY ADJUST SIMULTANEOUSLY. RECENTLY THIS "ACCESSORY" COST ME $1000.00. MY WIFE WAS STOPPED, WAITING ON THE LIGHT TO CHANGE AND HAD HER FOOT PARTIALLY ON THE BRAKE PEDAL AND WHEN SHE PUSH ON THE BRAKE PEDAL, SHE ALSO PUSHED ON THE ACCELERATOR CAUSING HER TO REAR-END THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HER. ONCE THE BRAKE PADS WEAR, THE BRAKE PEDAL AND ACCELERATOR IS AT THE SAME LEVEL. THIS IS NO JOKE. THIS HAS HAPPEN TO ME TWICE, FORTUNATELY IN BOTH INSTANCES THERE WERE NO PEOPLE OR VEHICLE (S) IN FRONT OF ME.- ( NO EXCUSES, JUST FACTS). I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE HAD THE SAME EXPERIENCE (REPORTED TO YOU)? THANK YOU. PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. EZRA RACHAL. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE CONTACT DROVE OVER A POTHOLE AND THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. THE PASSENGER SUFFERED MINOR INJURIES. THE VEHICLE WILL BE TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 153,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 154,000. UPDATED 5/27/09 …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE CONTACT DROVE OVER A POTHOLE AND THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. THE PASSENGER SUFFERED MINOR INJURIES. THE VEHICLE WILL BE TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 153,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 154,000. UPDATED 5/27/09 *CN
WHEN BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED FOR A LONG TRAFFIC LIGHT STOP, I COULD SMELL BURNING PLASTIC. AFTER SEVERAL WEEKS OF THIS MY CAR WOULD NOT COME OUT OF PARK. FOUND THE HARNESS PLUG TO THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH MELTED. I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE FUSE DIDN'T BLOW ?. I REPLACED THE PLUG WITH NEW CONNECTORS AND A FEW WEEKS LATER THE SAME TH…
Read full complaint
WHEN BRAKE PEDAL IS APPLIED FOR A LONG TRAFFIC LIGHT STOP, I COULD SMELL BURNING PLASTIC. AFTER SEVERAL WEEKS OF THIS MY CAR WOULD NOT COME OUT OF PARK. FOUND THE HARNESS PLUG TO THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH MELTED. I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE FUSE DIDN'T BLOW ?. I REPLACED THE PLUG WITH NEW CONNECTORS AND A FEW WEEKS LATER THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING - WIRES ARE MELTED AND THE FUSE IS NOT TRIPPED.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHENEVER THE CONTACT DEPRESSES THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS DEPRESSED INSTEAD. THIS CAUSES THE VEHICLE TO UNEXPECTEDLY SPEED UP. THE FAILURE RECENTLY OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH. HE HAS TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT THEY STATED THAT NOTHING COU…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. WHENEVER THE CONTACT DEPRESSES THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS DEPRESSED INSTEAD. THIS CAUSES THE VEHICLE TO UNEXPECTEDLY SPEED UP. THE FAILURE RECENTLY OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH. HE HAS TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT THEY STATED THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE. THE DEALER ADVISED HIM TO BE MORE CAREFUL WHEN DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL AND STATED THAT THE FAILURE MAY BE BECAUSE AN ADJUSTABLE BRAKE PEDAL WAS INSTALLED IN HIS VEHICLE. HE BELIEVES THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF REPAIR OR SOLUTION TO THIS FAILURE. THE CONTACT FEELS UNSAFE DRIVING THE VEHICLE BECAUSE HE COULD MISTAKENLY DEPRESS THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND CAUSE A CRASH. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 30,000. UPDATED 11/07/08. *LJ UPDATED 11/07/08. *JB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD AND CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. SHE WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE UNTIL ONE MINUTE LATER. THE MECHANIC AND DEALER WERE UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 49,000.
TRAVELING AT 65 OR 70 MPH ON A CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY LAST SUMMER, THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED (CAUSING PAIN, BRUISING, ETC. BUT NOTHING APPARENTLY PERMANENT - NO PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM HAS EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED). IT WAS SHOCKING IN THAT THERE WAS NO CRASH OF ANY KIND. THE PASSENGER THOUGHT THE BAG DEPLOYED FOR NO…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING AT 65 OR 70 MPH ON A CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY LAST SUMMER, THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED (CAUSING PAIN, BRUISING, ETC. BUT NOTHING APPARENTLY PERMANENT - NO PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM HAS EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED). IT WAS SHOCKING IN THAT THERE WAS NO CRASH OF ANY KIND. THE PASSENGER THOUGHT THE BAG DEPLOYED FOR NO REASON. THE DRIVER, NOT BEING CERTAIN, HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT SOME OBJECT (E.G., A SMALL PIECE OF TIRE RUBBER) WAS KICKED UP AGAINST THE CAR FROM THE ROADWAY. THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF ANY IMPACT WITH ANYTHING. THE BAG TORE PART OF THE LEATHER SEAT (BEYOND THE SEAM). THIS OCCURRED NEAR THE 5 YEAR POINT RE: WARRANTY. THE MANUFACTURER, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, SEEMED RESPONSIVE AT FIRST AND ASKED THAT WE TAKE THE CAR TO THE DEALER. I DID SO, AND WAS INFORMED BY THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT FORD INFORMED THEM IT WAS REFERRED TO THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND, THUS, THEY COULD NOT EVEN LOOK AT, LET ALONE REPAIR IT. THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TOOK SEVERAL WEEKS TO ULTIMATELY SEND A LETTER STATING THEY HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY. OUR INSURANCE CARRIER IS UNCERTAIN AS TO HOW TO HANDLE THE CLAIM. THE AIR BAG SYSTEM IN THIS LINCOLN TOWN CAR IS OBVIOUSLY DEFECTIVE. IS THIS A KNOWN DEFECT WITH THIS MODEL, ETC.? WHAT RECOURSE DO WE HAVE AGAINST FORD MOTOR COMPANY FOR FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS MORAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLACE THE AIR BAG AND REPAIR THE SEAT? IS THERE NOT A FEDERAL AGENCY THAT CAN BE HELPFUL IN SUCH MATTERS? NOTE: THE DAMAGE OCCURRED IN EARLY JUNE, 2006 (ENTERED 1ST BELOW TO ALLOW FOR TRANSMISSION OF CLAIM). *JB
ON THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007, MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING MY LINCOLN TOWN CAR APPROXIMATELY 55 MILES PER HOUR. FOR NO APPARENT REASON, THE PASSENGER RIGHT SIDE AIRBAG INFLATED. ALSO CAUSING INJURIES TO MY DAUGHTER, INJURIES INCLUDES A BRUISED EAR DRUM AND AN ASTHMA ATTACK. *JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH ON A CITY STREET, SMOKE ERUPTED FROM ALL OF THE AIR VENTS ON THE DASH, AND FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. THERE WERE NO VISIBLE FLAMES PRESENT. THE CONTACT TURNED THE ENGINE OFF, WHICH STOPPED THE SMOKE. AFTERWARDS, AS SOON AS THE ENGINE WAS RESTARTED, SMOKE WAS AGAIN PRESENT. THE VEHI…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH ON A CITY STREET, SMOKE ERUPTED FROM ALL OF THE AIR VENTS ON THE DASH, AND FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. THERE WERE NO VISIBLE FLAMES PRESENT. THE CONTACT TURNED THE ENGINE OFF, WHICH STOPPED THE SMOKE. AFTERWARDS, AS SOON AS THE ENGINE WAS RESTARTED, SMOKE WAS AGAIN PRESENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER, WHO DETERMINED THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR SHORTED OUT AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL, # 01V258000, REGARDING THE WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER MOTOR. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED.
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
3DP05005 · 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.
EA03014 · Inadvertent Side Air Bag Deployment
Opened Aug 22, 2003 · Closed Aug 12, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:side/window
THIS INVESTIGATION IDENTIFIED A TOTAL OF 182 REPORTS ALLEGING INADVERTENT OR NON-CRASH DEPLOYMENT OF THE SIDE AIR BAGS.THE DATA EXAMINED DURING THE INVESTIGATION SUGGEST THAT THE SIDE AIR BAG CRASH SENSING SYSTEM'S ALGORITHM MAY RECOGNIZE CERTAIN NON-CRASH INCIDENTS AS DEPLOYABLE EVENTS.ODI HAS NOT, HOWEVER, IDENTIFIED ANY FAILED COMPONENT THAT RELATES TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ALSO, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY TREND IN THE MANUFACTURE DATES OF COMPLAINT VEHICLES THAT MAY INDICATE A COMPONENT OR VEHICLE-MANUFACTURING PROBLEM.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
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.