IllustrationI have had to replace wheel bearing and axle every few months because of premature wear and causing driving to be a safety concern. Once it wears thin, the car shakes and wobbles and the tire almost snapped off twice.
2003 Lincoln Town Car
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Town Car years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Lincoln Town Car are substantially higher than 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
220–25K
3225–50K
3150–75K
2975–100K
31100–150K
15150K+
160 reports with mileage · 41 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 81 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 27 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. 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.
14 crash reports0 fire reports6 injury reports
Power Train complaints
27 reportsBeen trying for about a year to get this safety recall called 4 local ford dealer ships first one said my cars to old they won’t fix the safety recall other don’t give call back I can hear like vibrating in the back where this recall would fix it hopfully it don’t break on me
THE REAR RIGHT WHEEL BEARING WAS REPLACED LESS THAN 2 YEARS AGO AND IS ALREADY BAD AGAIN. THIS SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL AND YEAR OF CAR HAS BEEN RECALLED FOR THE BEARING ISSUES THAT THIS CAR HAS, AND THIS CAR WAS PRODUCED IN THE EXACT PLANT THAT THE RECALL INVOLVES. HOWEVER, THE RECALL MANUFACTURE DATE ENDS ON DECEMBER 31, 2002…
Read full complaint
THE REAR RIGHT WHEEL BEARING WAS REPLACED LESS THAN 2 YEARS AGO AND IS ALREADY BAD AGAIN. THIS SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL AND YEAR OF CAR HAS BEEN RECALLED FOR THE BEARING ISSUES THAT THIS CAR HAS, AND THIS CAR WAS PRODUCED IN THE EXACT PLANT THAT THE RECALL INVOLVES. HOWEVER, THE RECALL MANUFACTURE DATE ENDS ON DECEMBER 31, 2002 AND THIS CAR'S MANUFACTURE DATE IS FEBRUARY 2003. THE CAR HAS THE BAD PARTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECALLED AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
THE CAR DOESNT GO ON GEAR. ENGINE STARTS BUT WONT GO ON ANY GEAR. EITHER AXLE SHAFT OR BEARING PROBLEM
ASSISTING A FRIEND WITH THIS. THE LEFT REAR AXLE HAS BROKEN AND DAMAGED THE BRAKES AND ABS SENSOR. HE HAD DRIVEN THE VEHICLE TO WORK AND PARKED IT. AFTER HIS SHIFT ENDED, HE STARTED THE VEHICLE, SHIFTED INTO GEAR AND FOUND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE & WAS MAKING NOISE. HE HAD IT TOWED TO HIS HOUSE AND ASKED ME TO DIAGNOSE THE C…
Read full complaint
ASSISTING A FRIEND WITH THIS. THE LEFT REAR AXLE HAS BROKEN AND DAMAGED THE BRAKES AND ABS SENSOR. HE HAD DRIVEN THE VEHICLE TO WORK AND PARKED IT. AFTER HIS SHIFT ENDED, HE STARTED THE VEHICLE, SHIFTED INTO GEAR AND FOUND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE & WAS MAKING NOISE. HE HAD IT TOWED TO HIS HOUSE AND ASKED ME TO DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE. AFTER RAISING THE REAR AXLE, I WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE LEFT REAR AXLE BEARING HAD WORN THROUGH THE AXLE AND IT BROKE. WHEN I CHECKED THE NHTSA WEBSITE, IT SHOWED IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE REAR AXLE SAFETY RECALL, ALTHOUGH THE CONDITIONS ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS LISTED.
LOOKING THROUGH THE LIST OF COMPLAINTS THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED TO MANY TIMES TO BE IGNORED. I COUNTED 38 TIMES BY PAGE 15, NOT EVEN HALF WAY THROUGH THE LIST. I HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR AND IS BEEN HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THE DRIVER SIDE AXLE AND BEARINGS, I AM GETTING READY TO REPLACE THE SHAFT, BEARING AND SEAL FOR THE …
Read full complaint
LOOKING THROUGH THE LIST OF COMPLAINTS THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED TO MANY TIMES TO BE IGNORED. I COUNTED 38 TIMES BY PAGE 15, NOT EVEN HALF WAY THROUGH THE LIST. I HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR AND IS BEEN HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THE DRIVER SIDE AXLE AND BEARINGS, I AM GETTING READY TO REPLACE THE SHAFT, BEARING AND SEAL FOR THE THIRD TIME IN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. LIKE SOME OTHER CUSTOMERS I FOUND THAT MY CAR IS NOT INCLUDED ON THE RECALL, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT PROBLEM IS A LOT MORE FREQUENT THAN IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. THIS IS A PROBLEM AND ALOT OF PEOPLE HAVE REPORTED IT UNDER THE "SUSPENSION" CATEGORY.
I HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR AND IS BEEN HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THE PASSENGER SIDE AXEL, I AM GETTING READY TO REPLACE THE SHAFT, BEARING AND SEAL FOR THE THIRD TIME IN A PERIOD OF MAYBE FOUR YEARS, I'M SORRY, BUT DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS, BUT LAST TIME WAS LEST THAN 16 MONTHS AGO, ON THE LAST TWO THERE WAS OIL LEAK…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR AND IS BEEN HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THE PASSENGER SIDE AXEL, I AM GETTING READY TO REPLACE THE SHAFT, BEARING AND SEAL FOR THE THIRD TIME IN A PERIOD OF MAYBE FOUR YEARS, I'M SORRY, BUT DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS, BUT LAST TIME WAS LEST THAN 16 MONTHS AGO, ON THE LAST TWO THERE WAS OIL LEAKING ALL AROUND THE WHEEL, THIS TIME THERE IS STILL NO OIL LEAK BUT IS MAKING THAT KIND OF HUMMING NOISE, AND WHEN LIFTED THE CAR YOU CAN MOVE THE WHEEL UP AND DOWN, NOW I'M JUST WAITING FOR THE PARTS TO DO THE JOB AGAIN. LIKE SOME OTHER CUSTOMERS I FOUND THAT MY CAR IS NOT INCLUDED ON THE RECALL, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT PROBLEM IS A LOT MORE FREQUENT THAN IS SUPPOSE TO, AND I HAS FOUND THAT SOME PEOPLE HAD REPORTED IT UNDER THE "SUSPENSION" CATEGORY. THANKS GOD! NOTHING HAD HAPPEN, BECAUSE I GOT IT ON TIME, BUT IT WON'T TAKE ME BY SURPRISE THAT SOME ONE OUT THERE WASN'T SO LUCKY. LIKE I SAID BEFORE I FOUND THE PROBLEM WHEN WALKING AROUND THE CAR WITH THE EXEMPTION OF THIS TIME THAT I HEARD THE NOISE WHEN DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY.
I HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR THAT I BOUGHT IN 2005, WHICH WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. OVER THE YEARS, I'VE HAD TO PAY FOR REPLACING THE REAR AXLES AND AXLE BEARINGS THAT WENT BAD. I SAW ON THE NHTSA WEBSITE YESTERDAY THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM THAT RESULTED IN A RECALL OF THIS MAKE/MODEL/YEAR. I NEVER RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE ON TH…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR THAT I BOUGHT IN 2005, WHICH WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. OVER THE YEARS, I'VE HAD TO PAY FOR REPLACING THE REAR AXLES AND AXLE BEARINGS THAT WENT BAD. I SAW ON THE NHTSA WEBSITE YESTERDAY THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM THAT RESULTED IN A RECALL OF THIS MAKE/MODEL/YEAR. I NEVER RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE ON THIS PROBLEM, AND HAVE PAID OUT-OF-POCKET FOR THESE REPAIRS TWICE, NOT KNOWING THAT THERE WAS EVER A RECALL. NOW, ALL FORD WILL TELL ME THAT THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY A RECALL ON MY CAR, IGNORING THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT A RECALL NOTICE. I BELIEVE THAT FORD SHOULD REPLACE THE REAR AXLES AND BEARINGS, WHICH ARE ONCE AGAIN NEEDING REPLACED. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT FORD SHOULD REIMBURSE ME FOR THE TWO TIMES ALREADY THAT I HAD TO PAY TO HAVE THE AXLES AND BEARINGS REPLACED. THE VIN OF THE CAR IS [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHAKE ON THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE AXLE/BEARING WAS WORN AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE M…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHAKE ON THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE AXLE/BEARING WAS WORN AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 59,000.
WHEEL BEARINGS AND AXLES AND DIFFERENTIAL BEARINGS MAKING A LOUD NOISE AT 30-35 MPH TOLD BEARINGS NEED TO BE REPLACED. *TR
Official recalls
104V328000 · Suspension:rear
Jul 7, 2004
CERTAIN POLICE, COMMERCIAL, AND PASSENGER VEHICLES SOLD TO FLEETS TYPICALLY INPUT HIGHER LOADS INTO THE VEHICLE CHASSIS OVERLOADING THE WHEEL BEARINGS AND AXLES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD LEAD TO EARLY BEARING FAILURE AND ULTIMATELY TO AXLE SHAFT FRACTURE. IN THE EVENT OF AXLE SHAFT FRACTURE, THE VEHICLE WOULD LOSE DRIVE FUNCTION AND WOULD COAST TO A STOP. LOSS OF DRIVE FUNCTION COULD LEAD TO A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE REAR WHEEL BEARINGS, SEALS,AND AXLE SHAFTS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 15, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
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.
PE04010 · Rear Axle Fracture
Opened Jan 22, 2004 · Closed Jul 8, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:axle Assembly:axle Shaft
THIS PE WAS OPENED AFTER ODI BECAME AWARE OF TWO ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING REAR AXLE FRACTURE AND PARTIAL WHEEL SEPARATION INVOLVING MY 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS (CVPI).INITIALLY, THE PE'S SCOPE INVOLVED ALL MY 2003 GRAND MARQUIS, CROWN VICTORIA, AND LINCOLN TOWN CARS (I.E., PANTHER PLATFORM) PRODUCED THROUGH JANUARY 2003.WHILE GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE FAILURES WERE CONFINED TO LONG-WHEELBASE LINCOLN TOWN CARS AND THE CVPI'S DUE TO THEIR UNIQUE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE PROFILES.FORD'S RECALL ADDRESSES THESE VEHICLES.BOTH THE COMPANY AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THE AXLES AND WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS REQUIRED.
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.