IllustrationVEHICLE WAS PARKED OUTSIDE DURING RAIN SHOWERS AND WATER ACCUMULATED INSIDE THE REAR PASSENGER FOOT AREA 1ST AND OVERFLOWED INTO THE FRONT PASSENGER'S FOOT AREA.
2004 Lincoln Town Car
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2004 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
200–25K
925–50K
850–75K
1375–100K
7100–150K
9150K+
66 reports with mileage · 17 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.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 19 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 11 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 reports3 fire reports2 injury reports
Structure complaints
11 reportsI CAME FROM WORK AT AROUND 0600 AM ON 9/4/15 IN MY 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR AND PARK IT IN MY APARTMENT. AT AROUND 0330 OF THE SAME DAY I DECIDED TO GO PICK MY CHILD FROM SCHOOL . WHENT I STATRTED MY CAR AND PUT IT IN REVERSE TRYNG TO BACK UP FROM THE PARKING LOT, THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AT A SPEED OF ABOUT 60 ML/HR TO HIT TO…
Read full complaint
I CAME FROM WORK AT AROUND 0600 AM ON 9/4/15 IN MY 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR AND PARK IT IN MY APARTMENT. AT AROUND 0330 OF THE SAME DAY I DECIDED TO GO PICK MY CHILD FROM SCHOOL . WHENT I STATRTED MY CAR AND PUT IT IN REVERSE TRYNG TO BACK UP FROM THE PARKING LOT, THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AT A SPEED OF ABOUT 60 ML/HR TO HIT TOW CARS PARK IN THE PARKING LOT AND DRAGGING ONE OF THE TO A TREE WHICH FINALLY STOPPED THE CAR. IF THAT TREE DID NOT STOP THE CAR THE DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE BECAUSE ALL MY EFFORTS TO STOP THE CAR FAILED. THE CAR WAS JUST UNCONTROLLABLE WITH UNPRECEDENTED SPEED . IT WAS AS IF THE CAR HAD A MIND OF IT SELF. I WAS JUST LUCKY BECAUSE MY WIFE AND KIDS WERE IN ANOTHER CAR VERY CLOSE TO THE CAR THAT WAS DRAGGED. IF THEY HAVE CAME OUT OF THE CAR , THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DRAGGED TOO. THANK GOD THEIR IS NO FATALITIES. I HAVE DIVEN ALL TYPES OF VEHICLE ,INCLUDING TRACTOR TRAILER OVER THE ROAD AND DOMESTIC AND HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH PHENOMENON.
2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR CARTIER. RIDING DOWN ROAD 35 MPH ACCELERATING. WINDOWS WERE ALL UP, SUNROOF CLOSED. NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS PRIOR. WIFE TOUCHED SUNROOF BUTTON TO OPEN SUNROOF WHILE WINDOWS STILL CLOSED, AND BAM! THE SUNROOF EXPLODED; LUCKILY DID NOT SHATTER ONTO US BUT CRACKED IN LARGE PIECES. SCARED US BOTH BUT I KEPT CO…
Read full complaint
2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR CARTIER. RIDING DOWN ROAD 35 MPH ACCELERATING. WINDOWS WERE ALL UP, SUNROOF CLOSED. NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS PRIOR. WIFE TOUCHED SUNROOF BUTTON TO OPEN SUNROOF WHILE WINDOWS STILL CLOSED, AND BAM! THE SUNROOF EXPLODED; LUCKILY DID NOT SHATTER ONTO US BUT CRACKED IN LARGE PIECES. SCARED US BOTH BUT I KEPT CONTROL OF THE CAR UNTIL COULD PULL OVER. NO CARS IN THE AREA AROUND US. NOT AWARE OF ANY DEBRIS. A WINDSHILED REPLACEMENT COMPANY TOLD US THERE IS A HIGH INCIDENCE OF SUNROOFS EXPLODING FOR NO REASON. MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT THE SUDDEN PULLING BACK OF THE SUNROOF COVER CAUSED A BIG DIFFERENCE IN AIR PRESSURE CAUSING THE SUNROOF GLASS TO BREAK. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM NEEDING ATTN. USUALLLY I HAVE MY WINDOWS OPENED SLIGHTLY BEFORE OPENING SUNROOF..NO PRIOR PROBLEMS. ON THAT DAY, MY WIFE WAS HAPPY AS WE LEFT A BUSINESS AND OPENED THE SUNROOF BEFORE THE WINDOWS..AND THEN BAM! NEVER EXPECTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON A LINCOLN TOWN CAR. BUT, THE AUTO GLASS CO SAID IT IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH SUNROOFTS. HAVE NOT YET HAD IT FIXED, WONDERING IF IT'S WORTH USING ANOTHER SUNROOF THAT MIGHT BREAK. MY CAR STILL OPERATES GOOD OTHERWISE.
2004 LINCOLN LEAKS ON PASSENGER SIDE UNDER GLOVEBOX AREA, DURING MODERATE TO HARD RAIN, SEEMS TO BE MUCH WORSE WHILE STANDING STILL. PASSENGER CARPET FLOODS AND VEHICLE MUST HAVE 'SHOP VAC' TREATMENT TO GET ALL THE WATER OUT OF THE CAR AND CARPET. LEAVES THE CARPET STAINED AND MUSTY SMELLING. NOW I MUST PUT A LARGE TRASH SAC…
Read full complaint
2004 LINCOLN LEAKS ON PASSENGER SIDE UNDER GLOVEBOX AREA, DURING MODERATE TO HARD RAIN, SEEMS TO BE MUCH WORSE WHILE STANDING STILL. PASSENGER CARPET FLOODS AND VEHICLE MUST HAVE 'SHOP VAC' TREATMENT TO GET ALL THE WATER OUT OF THE CAR AND CARPET. LEAVES THE CARPET STAINED AND MUSTY SMELLING. NOW I MUST PUT A LARGE TRASH SACK UNDER THE PASSENGER WINDSHIELD WIPER BLADE SO IF IT RAINS THE CAR WON'T FLOOD. LINCOLN SAYS THEY ARE SORRY BUT DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AS THEY CAN SEE NOTHING WRONG. I SHOWED THEM PICTURES AND LINCOLN WAS UNIMPRESSES. YOU CAN IDENTIFY MY CAR IN THE PARKING LOT WITH BY WATCHING FOR THE TRASHCAN LINER ON THE HOOD. STILL ONGOING PROBLEM. THANKS LINCOLN. *TR
OPENING THE DRIVER'S DOOR NORMALLY, THE DOOR HANDLE BROKE OFF WITH A PIECE OF THE DOOR PANEL. THE WHOLE DOOR ASSEMBLY USED TO OPEN/CLOSE THE DOOR IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE AND HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED. THE ONLY WAY TO OPEN THE DOOR NOW IS TO ROLL THE WINDOW DOWN AND REACH OUTSIDE TO OPEN THE DOOR FROM THE OUTSIDE. THIS IS PARTICUL…
Read full complaint
OPENING THE DRIVER'S DOOR NORMALLY, THE DOOR HANDLE BROKE OFF WITH A PIECE OF THE DOOR PANEL. THE WHOLE DOOR ASSEMBLY USED TO OPEN/CLOSE THE DOOR IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE AND HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED. THE ONLY WAY TO OPEN THE DOOR NOW IS TO ROLL THE WINDOW DOWN AND REACH OUTSIDE TO OPEN THE DOOR FROM THE OUTSIDE. THIS IS PARTICULARLY UNSAFE AS IT IS THE DRIVER'S MAIN ESCAPE.
THE INTERIOR DOOR LOCK WITHIN THE PANEL BROKE OFF ON THE DRIVERS SIDE & THE CLIPS BROKE OFF ON THE PASSENGERS SIDE. PER LINCOLN WE WILL NEED TO REPLACE THE WHOLE PANEL. THEY NO LONGER MAKE THE PANEL NOR CAN WE FIND IT AT ANYWHERE ELSE. LINCOLN OFFERED TWO SITES TO TRY AND LOCATE HOWEVER THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS PART EITHER. THE CAR…
Read full complaint
THE INTERIOR DOOR LOCK WITHIN THE PANEL BROKE OFF ON THE DRIVERS SIDE & THE CLIPS BROKE OFF ON THE PASSENGERS SIDE. PER LINCOLN WE WILL NEED TO REPLACE THE WHOLE PANEL. THEY NO LONGER MAKE THE PANEL NOR CAN WE FIND IT AT ANYWHERE ELSE. LINCOLN OFFERED TWO SITES TO TRY AND LOCATE HOWEVER THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS PART EITHER. THE CAR HASN'T EVEN HIT 10 YEARS FOR US AND LINCOLN OFFERS NO SOLUTION. THE CAR RUNS OK BUT IT'S A BIT EMBARRASSING THAT WE CANNOT OPEN THE DOOR WITHOUT THE PANEL FALLING DOWN. I BELIEVE THIS IS A BAD BUSINESS TRANSACTION FROM THE MANUFACTURER AND HAD WE KNOWN WE WOULD GET THIS TYPE OF SERVICE WE WOULDN'T OF BOUGHT THIS MAKE OF CAR. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE NOTICED WATER LEAKING INTO THE VEHICLE FROM UNDER THE GLOVE COMPARTMENT.THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THERE WAS A CRACK IN THE FIRE WALL UNDER THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR, CAUSING WATER TO LEAK INSIDE THE VEHIC…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE NOTICED WATER LEAKING INTO THE VEHICLE FROM UNDER THE GLOVE COMPARTMENT.THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THERE WAS A CRACK IN THE FIRE WALL UNDER THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR, CAUSING WATER TO LEAK INSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 66,000. *TR
INTERIOR DOOR HANDLES DISLODGE FROM DOOR PANEL MECHANISM RENDERING THE INSIDE DOOR HANDLE INOPERATIVE. THIS CAN TRAP PEOPLE INSIDE OF CAR. NO WAY TO OPEN DOOR FROM THE INSIDE. *TR
THE DOOR HANDLE TO OPEN THE DRIVERS DOOR IS STUCK OUT AND THE DOOR CANNOT BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE OF THE CAR. IF IN AN ACCIDENT, YOU COULD DIE. FORD DEALER TOLD ME TUFF LUCK, THE PART IS DISCONTINUED AND IMPOSSIBLE TO REPAIR. POOR DESIGN, POOR RESPONSE FROM FORD. IF THERE IS A FIRE OR ACCIDENT, YOU CANNOT EXIT THE CAR. FORD NE…
Read full complaint
THE DOOR HANDLE TO OPEN THE DRIVERS DOOR IS STUCK OUT AND THE DOOR CANNOT BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE OF THE CAR. IF IN AN ACCIDENT, YOU COULD DIE. FORD DEALER TOLD ME TUFF LUCK, THE PART IS DISCONTINUED AND IMPOSSIBLE TO REPAIR. POOR DESIGN, POOR RESPONSE FROM FORD. IF THERE IS A FIRE OR ACCIDENT, YOU CANNOT EXIT THE CAR. FORD NEEDS ORDERS TO RECALL THESE CARS AND FIX THE PROBLEM SO INNOCENT PEOPLE DO NOT SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES FOR FORDS BOTTOM LINE. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH THE ROOF CAME OFF. THE RAG TOP MATERIAL USED ON THE ROOF OF THE VEHICLE SEPARATED. AS THE SECOND OWNER OF THE VEHICLE THE CONTACT WAS NOT SURE IF THIS WAS AN AFTER MARKET RAG TOP OR NOT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE AND …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH THE ROOF CAME OFF. THE RAG TOP MATERIAL USED ON THE ROOF OF THE VEHICLE SEPARATED. AS THE SECOND OWNER OF THE VEHICLE THE CONTACT WAS NOT SURE IF THIS WAS AN AFTER MARKET RAG TOP OR NOT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 100,000.
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
1DP05005 · 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.