NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
83 reports6,138 miles · Oct 6, 2005
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel System, Gasoline
DT: THE ENGINE DIED/STALLED. THE FIRST TIME IT OCCURRED WAS ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2005. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALERSHIP. THEY CHANGED THE FUEL PUMP. IT HAPPENED AGAIN ON OCTOBER 3. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT, BUT IT DIED AGAIN. HE WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT AND SLOWLY GOT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. THEY REPLACED TW…
Read full complaint
DT: THE ENGINE DIED/STALLED. THE FIRST TIME IT OCCURRED WAS ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2005. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALERSHIP. THEY CHANGED THE FUEL PUMP. IT HAPPENED AGAIN ON OCTOBER 3. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT, BUT IT DIED AGAIN. HE WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT AND SLOWLY GOT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. THEY REPLACED TWO FUEL INJECTORS, AND TWO SPARK PLUGS. AFTERWARDS THEY TEST DROVE THE VEHICLE AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THEY FOUND THE VACUUM LINE HAD NOT BEEN CONNECTED. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED THAT THE PROBLEM WILL REOCCUR. *AK UPDATED 11/29/05. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10138917
3,500 miles · Oct 6, 2005
Vehicle Speed Control
DT: THE CONSUMER STATES THAT 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL NOT HOLDING SPEED WHEN DESCENDING A HILL. THE CRUISE CONTROL WILL HOLD THE SPEED WHEN ON FLAT GROUND AND WHEN GOING UP A HILL. THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE CONSUMER FOR ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS. THE CONSUMER HAD NOT NOTICED THE PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONSUMER STATES THAT 2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL NOT HOLDING SPEED WHEN DESCENDING A HILL. THE CRUISE CONTROL WILL HOLD THE SPEED WHEN ON FLAT GROUND AND WHEN GOING UP A HILL. THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE CONSUMER FOR ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS. THE CONSUMER HAD NOT NOTICED THE PROBLEM BEFORE THIS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE LIVED ON FLAT GROUND. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION ,AND THEY TOLD HIM TO STAY OUT OF THE MOUNTAINS. THE CONSUMER ALSO CONTACTED FORD ABOUT THE MATTER. THE PERSON THAT THE CONSUMER SPOKE WITH TOLD HIM THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL. THE CRUISE CONTROL WAS SET EVERY TIME THAT THIS HAPPENED TO THE CONSUMER. *AK *NM
NHTSA ODI #10136187
19,875 miles · Sep 22, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
DT: WHILE DRIVING ABOUT 65 MPH THE ENGINE BEGAN TO HESITATE AND FINALLY STALLED. CONSUMER INSPECTED UNDER THE ENGINE AND SMELLED SMOKE. AN INDIVIDUAL STOPPED ALONG THE SIDE OF ROAD WHERE CONSUMER WAS AND NOTED HE WAS FROM AAA. HE TOOK OUT THE AIR FILTER WHICH HAD SMOLDERED AND WAS SLIGHTLY SMOKING. HE POURED WATER ON IT. T…
Read full complaint
DT: WHILE DRIVING ABOUT 65 MPH THE ENGINE BEGAN TO HESITATE AND FINALLY STALLED. CONSUMER INSPECTED UNDER THE ENGINE AND SMELLED SMOKE. AN INDIVIDUAL STOPPED ALONG THE SIDE OF ROAD WHERE CONSUMER WAS AND NOTED HE WAS FROM AAA. HE TOOK OUT THE AIR FILTER WHICH HAD SMOLDERED AND WAS SLIGHTLY SMOKING. HE POURED WATER ON IT. THE CONSUMER DROVE HOME WITHOUT THE AIR FILTER IN. THAT MONDAY MORNING WENT TO A DEALER AND SHOWED THE SERVICE MANAGER THE AIR FILTER. CONSUMER LEFT VEHICLE FOR REPAIRS AND FOUR DAYS LATER. SERVICE MANAGER NOTED THAT THE AIR FILTER HAD PICKED UP A FOREIGN OBJECT, SUCH AS A CIGARETTE BUTT. THIS WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY WARRANTY. REPAIRS WERE MADE, NO PROBLEMS SO FAR. *AK *NM
NHTSA ODI #10132432
Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR DEVELOPED A KNOCKING WHEN THE VEHICLE IS FIRST STARTED.*MR THE DEALER INSTALLED COVERS FOR THE CATALYTIC CONVERTERS BUT THIS DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10132363
1,525 miles · Jul 11, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
DT: CONTACT STATES: HER BRAKES HAVE FAILED 4 TIMES ON HER CAR. NO LIGHTS CAME ON TO WARN HER BEFORE THIS HAPPENED. THE PEDAL WENT DOWN TO THE FLOOR. THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY, ON 6-1-05 DAY AND ANOTHER TIME 3 WEEKS LATE ON 6-24-05. THE DEALER COULD NOT FIND THE PROBLEM. THE DEALER DROVE THE CAR 600 MILES AND THE BRAKE…
Read full complaint
DT: CONTACT STATES: HER BRAKES HAVE FAILED 4 TIMES ON HER CAR. NO LIGHTS CAME ON TO WARN HER BEFORE THIS HAPPENED. THE PEDAL WENT DOWN TO THE FLOOR. THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY, ON 6-1-05 DAY AND ANOTHER TIME 3 WEEKS LATE ON 6-24-05. THE DEALER COULD NOT FIND THE PROBLEM. THE DEALER DROVE THE CAR 600 MILES AND THE BRAKES DID NOT FAIL. THE DEALER CHECKED THE BRAKE FLUID AND SAID IT WAS FULL. THE DEALER DID NOT HAVE ANY IDEA WHY THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10128251
Mileage unknown · May 23, 2005
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed ControlCrash
THE VEHICLE WAS IN BUMPER TO BUMPER TRAFFIC WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT SURGED FORWARD ON ITS OWN WHEN THE BRAKE WAS APPLIED. THE CONSUMER REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE. *SC THE DEALER CONCLUDED THAT THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDAL WERE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER, SO THEY RAISED THE PEDAL.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10117293
Mileage unknown · Mar 30, 2005
Tires
2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR HAD THE WRONG TIRE PRESSURE PUT IN ALL FOUR TIRES DURING TIRE REPLACEMENT RESULTING IN THE VEHICLE PERFORMING BADLY WHILE DRIVING.*MR WHEN THE CONSUMER CHECKED THE OWNERS MANUAL FOR THE CORRECT TIRE PRESSURE IT STATED 35 PSI FOR THE REAR AND 32 PSI FOR THE FRONT. THE CONSUMER STOPPED TO A LOCAL SERVICE ST…
Read full complaint
2004 LINCOLN TOWN CAR HAD THE WRONG TIRE PRESSURE PUT IN ALL FOUR TIRES DURING TIRE REPLACEMENT RESULTING IN THE VEHICLE PERFORMING BADLY WHILE DRIVING.*MR WHEN THE CONSUMER CHECKED THE OWNERS MANUAL FOR THE CORRECT TIRE PRESSURE IT STATED 35 PSI FOR THE REAR AND 32 PSI FOR THE FRONT. THE CONSUMER STOPPED TO A LOCAL SERVICE STATION AND DISCOVERED THE REAR TIRES HAD 30 PSI AND THE FRONT TIRES HAD 31 PSI. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10117356
8,334 miles · Mar 28, 2005
TiresCrashInjury
MICHELIN RADIAL SXE, P225/60R17. DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE BLOWN TIRE, THE DOT# WAS UNAVAILABLE WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS GIVEN. THE RIGHT REAR TIRE BLEW OUT WHILE THE RENTER WAS DRIVING ON A CLEAR DAY AT APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH. THE SIDEWALL WAS DAMAGED DUE TO THE BLOWOUT. *AK DRIVER COULD NOT CONTROL VEHICLE. VEHICLE HIT MAIL …
Read full complaint
MICHELIN RADIAL SXE, P225/60R17. DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE BLOWN TIRE, THE DOT# WAS UNAVAILABLE WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS GIVEN. THE RIGHT REAR TIRE BLEW OUT WHILE THE RENTER WAS DRIVING ON A CLEAR DAY AT APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH. THE SIDEWALL WAS DAMAGED DUE TO THE BLOWOUT. *AK DRIVER COULD NOT CONTROL VEHICLE. VEHICLE HIT MAIL BOX, CROSSED ROAD AND RAN BACKWARDS INTO A DITCH. THE RIGHT REAR TIRE BLEW OUT BUT ALL OTHER TIRES WERE STILL INFLATED. *BF *NM
NHTSA ODI #10113391
2,347 miles · Feb 18, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
VEHICLE HAS VERY POOR BRAKES. PEDAL FEEL IS VERY WEAK AND SPONGY. PEDAL FREE TRAVEL EXCEEDS 4 INCHES FROM FULL RELEASE TO FULL ENGAGEMENT. PEDAL IS 3/4 IN.FROM FLOORBOARD WHEN FULLY ENGAGED. EVEN ON PARTIAL ENGAGEMENT THE BRAKE PEDAL IS CLOSER TO THE FLOORBOARD THAN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THIS CREATES A SITUATION WHERE THE DRIV…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE HAS VERY POOR BRAKES. PEDAL FEEL IS VERY WEAK AND SPONGY. PEDAL FREE TRAVEL EXCEEDS 4 INCHES FROM FULL RELEASE TO FULL ENGAGEMENT. PEDAL IS 3/4 IN.FROM FLOORBOARD WHEN FULLY ENGAGED. EVEN ON PARTIAL ENGAGEMENT THE BRAKE PEDAL IS CLOSER TO THE FLOORBOARD THAN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THIS CREATES A SITUATION WHERE THE DRIVER CAN BE BRAKING AND ACCELERATING AT THE SAME TIME. THIS HAPPENED ONE TIME AT FREEWAY SPEED. CAR HAS BEEN TO DEALERSHIP 3 TIMES FOR BRAKE ISSUES AND OTHER PROBLEMS. DEALER STATES BRAKE FUNCTION IS NORMAL. DEALER ALSO TOLD ME NOT OPERATE VEHICLE WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS IN FULL FORWARD POSITION. VEHICLE PROBLEMS CURRENTLY SUBJECT OF ARBITRATION WITH DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BOARD IN WAUKESHA,WI. CURRENT VEHICLE MILEAGE 2,347.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10110768
2,388 miles · Jan 19, 2005
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
WHILE IDLING THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. *NM THE VEHICLE HAS HAD FOUR CASES OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AFTER EACH OCCURRENCE BUT THEY INDICATED THAT NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE BRAKES. THE CONSUMER BELIEVES THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT RELATED TO THE BRAKES. ONE ACCIDENT RESULTED ON $7000. I…
Read full complaint
WHILE IDLING THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. *NM THE VEHICLE HAS HAD FOUR CASES OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AFTER EACH OCCURRENCE BUT THEY INDICATED THAT NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE BRAKES. THE CONSUMER BELIEVES THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT RELATED TO THE BRAKES. ONE ACCIDENT RESULTED ON $7000. IN DAMAGE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10111005
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.
Illustration