IllustrationSIDEWALL BLOWOUT AT HIGHWAY SPEED. HAS OCCURRED 2 TIMES. A 3RD TIRE WAS REPLACED PRIOR TO FAILURE. *NM
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
What owners actually said
201 reportsDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE BRAKING FROM 30 MPH ON A HIGHWAY EXIT RAMP, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE BRAKE WAS APPLIED WITH EXCESSIVE FORCE, WHICH DID NOT STOP THE VEHICLE, AND COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE 3 TIMES. AFTER A FEW MINUTES, THE VEHICLE SLOWED, AND THE BRAKE TOOK EFFECT. A POLICE REPORT TAKEN AT …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE BRAKING FROM 30 MPH ON A HIGHWAY EXIT RAMP, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE BRAKE WAS APPLIED WITH EXCESSIVE FORCE, WHICH DID NOT STOP THE VEHICLE, AND COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE 3 TIMES. AFTER A FEW MINUTES, THE VEHICLE SLOWED, AND THE BRAKE TOOK EFFECT. A POLICE REPORT TAKEN AT THE SCENE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHERE A DIAGNOSTIC TEST WAS PERFORMED, BUT THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALSO NOTIFIED. UPDATED 01/18/07. *JB
I RECENTLY PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED ON THE FIRST NIGHT DRIVE THAT WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE 3RD BRAKE LIGHT(THE ONE AT THE TOP OF THE BACK WINDOW GLOWED BRIGHTLY OVER THE INSIDE OF THE WINDOW MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE TO THE REAR. WHEN IT RAINED AND THE BACK WINDOW WAS WET. THE PROBLEM WAS EVEN WORSE. UPON FEELING…
Read full complaint
I RECENTLY PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED ON THE FIRST NIGHT DRIVE THAT WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE 3RD BRAKE LIGHT(THE ONE AT THE TOP OF THE BACK WINDOW GLOWED BRIGHTLY OVER THE INSIDE OF THE WINDOW MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE TO THE REAR. WHEN IT RAINED AND THE BACK WINDOW WAS WET. THE PROBLEM WAS EVEN WORSE. UPON FEELING AROUND THE LIGHT I DISCOVERED 3/4 INCH SPACE BETWEEN THE LIGHT AND THE GLASS THUS LETTING THE LIGHT SPILL OUT. I CALLED THE LOCAL LINCOLN DEALER WHO AFTER EXAMINING IT SAID THEY WERE ALL LIKE THAT AND COULDN'T HELP ME. I CALLED FORD MOTOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND GOT THE SAME RESPONSE. I HAVE HAD TO PUT DUCT TAPE AROUND IT TO STOP THE LIGHT BUT I KNOW THIS SUMMER WHEN SUN GETS ON IT THE TAPE WILL NOT STICK AND LEAVE GLUE RESIDUE. I CAN RAISE THE CEILING (AND LIGHT ) UP AND DOWN 3/4 OF AN INCH BUT THEY SAY THATS THE WAY THEY WERE BUILT. IT'S DANGEROUS. I HAD A MERCURY BEFORE AND YOU COULDN'T EVEN TELL WHEN THE 3RD LITE WAS ONL.
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THERE WAS A NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THE REAR AXLES AND BEARING WERE DEFECTIVE, AND THE PARTS WERE REPLACED. THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL, # 04V328000, REGARDING THE REAR SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE T…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THERE WAS A NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THE REAR AXLES AND BEARING WERE DEFECTIVE, AND THE PARTS WERE REPLACED. THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL, # 04V328000, REGARDING THE REAR SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN.*AKI
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH, THERE WAS A LOUD GRINDING NOISE IN THE RIGHT REAR END OF THE PASSENGER SIDE. THERE WAS NO WARNING SIGNALS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT SHOP WHO DETERMINED THAT THE AXLE AND AXLE BEARING HAD FAILED AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WA…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH, THERE WAS A LOUD GRINDING NOISE IN THE RIGHT REAR END OF THE PASSENGER SIDE. THERE WAS NO WARNING SIGNALS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT SHOP WHO DETERMINED THAT THE AXLE AND AXLE BEARING HAD FAILED AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. UPDATED 12/01/06. 8JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, A GRINDING NOISE WAS HEARD. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THE LEFT AND RIGHT REAR AXEL BEARINGS, SEALS, AND PARKING BRAKE SHOES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED.
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A CONSTANT GRINDING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, REGARDLESS OF SPEED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE REPAIR SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THAT THE NOISE WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE OF THE REAR BEARINGS. THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL# 04V328000 WHICH PERTAINED TO THE REAR SUSPENSION. THE VEHIC…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A CONSTANT GRINDING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, REGARDLESS OF SPEED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE REPAIR SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THAT THE NOISE WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE OF THE REAR BEARINGS. THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL# 04V328000 WHICH PERTAINED TO THE REAR SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. *AK UPDATED 10/31/2006 - *NM
MY 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR WAS SLOWING (FOOT OFF GAS, COASTING) DOWN OFF-RAMP FROM FREEWAY BECAUSE THE STOP LIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OFF-RAMP WAS RED. WHEN I BEGAN TO APPLY THE BRAKES TO COME TO A COMPLETE STOP, THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD VIOLENTLY AS THE FRONT BRAKES LOCKED COMPLETELY, CAUSING THE CAR TO SLIDE TO A STOP. I COULD…
Read full complaint
MY 2003 LINCOLN TOWN CAR WAS SLOWING (FOOT OFF GAS, COASTING) DOWN OFF-RAMP FROM FREEWAY BECAUSE THE STOP LIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OFF-RAMP WAS RED. WHEN I BEGAN TO APPLY THE BRAKES TO COME TO A COMPLETE STOP, THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD VIOLENTLY AS THE FRONT BRAKES LOCKED COMPLETELY, CAUSING THE CAR TO SLIDE TO A STOP. I COULD NOT MOVE THE CAR FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN GEAR, AND COULD NOT GET IT TO COAST IN NEUTRAL. THE CAR COULD NOT BE MANUALLY PUSHED FROM ITS RESTING SPOT AND I HAD TO HAVE IT WINCHED ONTO A FLATBED TOW TRUCK AND TAKEN TO THE LINCOLN DEALERSHIP. THE REPAIR MANAGER TOLD ME AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THE LINING INSIDE THE BRAKE LINES LEADING TO THE CALIPERS HAD BEEN SLOWLY FLAKING OFF INTO THE BRAKE FLUID. WHEN SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS HAD COLLECTED IN THE FLUID THEY ACTED LIKE A CHECK-VALVE, ALLOWING FLUID INTO THE CALIPERS TO ACTUATE THE BRAKES BUT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE FLUID TO RETURN AND THE BRAKES COULD NOT RELEASE. THE REPAIR CONSISTED OF REPLACING BOTH FRONT BRAKE LINES AND BOTH CALIPER UNITS, COSTING OVER $600. ONLY MOMENTS BEFORE THE BRAKES LOCKED MY CAR HAD BEEN AT SPEEDS OF 55 - 65 MPH ON THE FREEWAY. HAD I NEEDED TO APPLY THE BREAKS WHILE AT THOSE SPEEDS, THE RESULTS WOULD HAVE BEEN DEVASTATING; MY CAR WOULD HAVE BEEN SLIDING OUT OF CONTROL IN HEAVY FREEWAY TRAFFIC AND LIKELY WOULD HAVE LED TO SEVERE INJURY OR DEATH OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS OR OTHER DRIVERS/PASSENGERS. THE LINCOLN DEALERSHIP SEARCHED FOR RECALL AND/OR SAFETY BULLETINS FROM THE MANUFACTURER AND COULD FIND NONE. I'M INFURIATED BY THIS ~ IT IS AN APPARENT DESIGN AND/OR MANUFACTURING DEFECT, ADMITTEDLY SEEN SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE OVER RECENT YEARS BY THE MECHANICS AT MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP, YET NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO ADDRESS IT. I SUSPECT THAT IT'S NOT A "SEVERE" ENOUGH SITUATION YET BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN NO DEATHS REPORTEDLY LINKED TO THE CATASTROPHIC FAILURE I SURVIVED. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A GRINDING NOISE IN THE REAR END. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THE REAR AXLES, BEARINGS AND SAFETY PINS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE REPAIR KIT WAS ORDERED FROM THE MANUFACTURER AND THE KIT WAS INSTALLED.*AK
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, A GROWLING NOISE WAS NOTICED IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP DETERMINED THE WHEEL BEARINGS WORE OUT. THIS ALSO CAUSED EXCESSIVE AXLE WEAR. THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL, # 04V328000, REGARDING THE REAR SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, A GROWLING NOISE WAS NOTICED IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP DETERMINED THE WHEEL BEARINGS WORE OUT. THIS ALSO CAUSED EXCESSIVE AXLE WEAR. THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL, # 04V328000, REGARDING THE REAR SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN.*AK UPDATED 11/21/2006 -*NM
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.