NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
16 reportsClear category filter165,400 miles · Sep 22, 2020
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE EXAMINING HIS VEHICLE AT HIS RESIDENCE, HE NOTICED THE FRONT BALL JOINTS WERE DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE TAKEN TO EXPRESSWAY FORD OF MOUNT VERNON (3800 HIGHWAY 62 E, MOUNT VERNON, IN 47620) ON MAY 30 2020, WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED AND IT WAS DETE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE EXAMINING HIS VEHICLE AT HIS RESIDENCE, HE NOTICED THE FRONT BALL JOINTS WERE DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE TAKEN TO EXPRESSWAY FORD OF MOUNT VERNON (3800 HIGHWAY 62 E, MOUNT VERNON, IN 47620) ON MAY 30 2020, WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE SHOCKS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE FRONT SHOCKS WERE REPLACED HOWEVER, SEVERAL MONTHS LATER THE DRIVER'S SIDE SHOCK WAS LEAKING FLUID. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 165,400.
NHTSA ODI #11360434
213,760 miles · Apr 28, 2016
SteeringSuspensionCrash
AUTOZONE- VALUCRAFT BRAND- BALL JOINTS PART NUMBER VFA2101 I RECENTLY HAD MY BALL JOINTS REPLACED AND I HAD A PREMATURE FAILURE OF THE BALL JOINT FASTENING HARDWARE WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE CITY ROAD IN A STRAIGHT LINE AT 45 MPH. IT CAUSED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF DAMAGE AND IT ALSO ALMOST CAUSE ME GREAT INJURY. I SUSPECT AUTOZO…
Read full complaint
AUTOZONE- VALUCRAFT BRAND- BALL JOINTS PART NUMBER VFA2101 I RECENTLY HAD MY BALL JOINTS REPLACED AND I HAD A PREMATURE FAILURE OF THE BALL JOINT FASTENING HARDWARE WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE CITY ROAD IN A STRAIGHT LINE AT 45 MPH. IT CAUSED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF DAMAGE AND IT ALSO ALMOST CAUSE ME GREAT INJURY. I SUSPECT AUTOZONE IS USING LOW GRADE NUTS CAUSE THE NUT THAT WAS ON THE BALL JOINT SHEARED OFF CAUSING ME TO BEND A CONTROL ARM, CRACK MY FRAME, BLOW A TIRE, ALL WHILE BARELY MISSING A TELEPHONE POLE. HAD I BEEN GOING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT I COULD HAVE FLIPPED MY CAR, GOT PULLED UNDER A SEMI, CROSS THE MEDIAN INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND SO ON. I WOULD LIKE FOR AN INVESTIGATION TO BE STARTED ON THEIR POOR ENGINEERING CHOICES AND A RECALL TO BE STARTED. ITS JUST NOT FOR THE SAFETY OF ME BUT FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE. I DO HAVE ALL DAMAGE PICTURES AND PICTURES OF THE FAILURE POINT. I HAVE PICTURES OF THE NUT IN QUESTION COMPARED TO ANOTHER COMPETITORS BRAND AND THERE IS A NOTICEABLE SIZE DIFFERENCE AND HARDNESS DIFFERENCE. THE BALL JOINTS WERE REPLACED 9/26/2015 AND FAILED ON 4/25/2016. AUTOZONE PART NUMBER VFA2101. MY BELIEF IS THE NUT IS A LOWER GRADE WHEN IT SHOULD BE A GRADE 8 NUT. I SAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE THE AUTO BODY SHOPS AROUND ME SAID THEY WILL NOT REPAIR THE FRAME BECAUSE ITS A LIABILITY AND WOULD RECOMMEND A NEW FRAME TO BE PUT UNDER THE VEHICLE ESSENTIALLY TOTALING MY CAR OUT CAUSING ME TO HAVE TO SPEND THOUSANDS TO REPLACE MY VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10861946
31,000 miles · Jan 26, 2013
Suspension
WHILE DRIVING OR BACKING AT SLOW SPEEDS THIS VEHICLE(WHICH HAS VERY VERY LOW MILES) MAKES LOUD,BANGING,POUNDING,BINDING NOISES AND SOUNDS LIKE THE ENTIRE FRONT END IS GOING TO FALL OFF. THIS HAPPENS FREQUENTLY AND IS NOT NORMAL FOR ANY CAR WITH SUCH LOW MILES 15 YEARS OLD OR NOT. I HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT THAT I AM AFRAID TO DR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING OR BACKING AT SLOW SPEEDS THIS VEHICLE(WHICH HAS VERY VERY LOW MILES) MAKES LOUD,BANGING,POUNDING,BINDING NOISES AND SOUNDS LIKE THE ENTIRE FRONT END IS GOING TO FALL OFF. THIS HAPPENS FREQUENTLY AND IS NOT NORMAL FOR ANY CAR WITH SUCH LOW MILES 15 YEARS OLD OR NOT. I HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT THAT I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE THIS CAR. I HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD THAT OTHERS HAVE THIS SAME OR A SIMILAR ISSUE. THE CAR WAS DRIVEN BY AN OLDER COUPLE AKA MY GRANDPARENTS WHO BOUGHT IT NEW IN 98' AND THEY BOTH PASSED AWAY IN 2012. THIS MAY BE IN PART DUE TO THE "DOUBLE WISHBONE" SUSPENSION WHICH I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. I AM EXTRA UPSET AS I SAID DUE THE FACT THAT THIS CAR HAS ONLY HAD AN AVERAGE OF JUST OVER 2,000 MILES ANNUALLY AND WAS TREATED VERY WELL. THE CAR LOOKS LIKE NEW BUT SCARES ME HALF TO DEATH WHEN I HEAR THIS UNMISTAKABLE LOUD SOUND OF BROKEN,BINDING,LOOSE OR DEFECTIVE PARTS. I AM ABLE TO REPAIR IT BUT WAS HOPING THERE WAS A RECALL DUE TO THE SAME STORY BEING POSTED OVER AND OVER. THIS CAR,EITHER MODEL THE GS OR LS IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. IF YOU ARE A PROSPECTIVE BUYER,PLEASE DRIVE THE CAR SLOWLY THEN TURN IN REVERSE AND IF IT EXISTS THE PROBLEM WILL SOUND OFF IMMEDIATELY. IF BACKING OUT WITH A VERY SLIGHT CURB,THE CAR WILL SOUND MUCH WORSE.FORD IS NOT KNOWN FOR ITS FRONT ENDS OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT ITS CARS AND TRUCKS FRONT ENDS ARE EITHER NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO ALIGN AND/OR ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR. I HAVE NEVER SEEN OR HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN ANY OTHER CAR MAKER,FORD SHOULD PAY FOR THIS TRAVESTY OF A FRONT END. WITHOUT TAKING A VISUAL I WOULD SAY IT MY CAR NEEDS BOTH UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS,TIE ROD ENDS AND A FULL SUSPENSION CHECK OR REBUILD. IF ANYONE HEARS THIS IN A CAR FROM A DEALER OR ELSEWHERE=DO NOT BUY!!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10494784
83,400 miles · Feb 8, 2012
SteeringSuspension
DURING NORMAL DRIVING NOTICED A SQUEAKING AND GROANING NOISE COMING FROM FRONT END OF CAR. STEERING HAS BECOME LOOSE AND WAS TOLD BY A MECHANIC THAT THE BALL JOINTS,SHOCKS,BUSHINGS ARE DRY AND THAT THE VEHICLE CANNOT BE LUBRICATED BECAUSE IT IS SEALED. SEEN OTHER COMPLAINTS ON WEBSITE REGARDING THESE SAME ISSUES. I HAVE BEEN …
Read full complaint
DURING NORMAL DRIVING NOTICED A SQUEAKING AND GROANING NOISE COMING FROM FRONT END OF CAR. STEERING HAS BECOME LOOSE AND WAS TOLD BY A MECHANIC THAT THE BALL JOINTS,SHOCKS,BUSHINGS ARE DRY AND THAT THE VEHICLE CANNOT BE LUBRICATED BECAUSE IT IS SEALED. SEEN OTHER COMPLAINTS ON WEBSITE REGARDING THESE SAME ISSUES. I HAVE BEEN WARNED THAT THE TIRES COULD FALL OFF AT HIGH SPEEDS CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10447085
142,767 miles · Oct 21, 2010
Suspension
VEHICLE BECAME UNDRIVEABLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE AIR SUSPENSION COMPLETELY GAVE OUT AND THE SHOCK ABSORBERS WERE NO LONGER WORKING. THE APPROXIMATE STARTING TIME TO THIS PROBLEM, WHEN THE COMPRESSOR WAS ACTING UP, WAS BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010. THE CAR SITS SO LOW TO THE GROUND NOW THAT I WILL HAVE TO GET RID OF IT ALTOGETH…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE BECAME UNDRIVEABLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE AIR SUSPENSION COMPLETELY GAVE OUT AND THE SHOCK ABSORBERS WERE NO LONGER WORKING. THE APPROXIMATE STARTING TIME TO THIS PROBLEM, WHEN THE COMPRESSOR WAS ACTING UP, WAS BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010. THE CAR SITS SO LOW TO THE GROUND NOW THAT I WILL HAVE TO GET RID OF IT ALTOGETHER (EITHER HAVE A JUNK YARD BUY IT OR GET RID OF IT AS A PARTS CAR), AS IT'S UNSAFE FOR ME TO DRIVE, LET ALONE HAVE MY DAUGHTER IN. ALSO, I'M A POOR MOTHER, UNEMPLOYED, WHO DEFINITELY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE LARGE COSTS OF GETTING THIS FIXED. IN TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE PROBLEM, IT'S EITHER THE COMPRESSOR HAS GONE BAD, A WIRING PROBLEM, OR A PROBLEM WITH THE ON/OFF SWITCH IN THE TRUNK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10361638
90,000 miles · Aug 25, 2008
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD NOISE AND FELT EXCESSIVE VIBRATION. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED BY ANOTHER MOTORIST THAT THE END ROD WAS DISENGAGED UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD NOISE AND FELT EXCESSIVE VIBRATION. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED BY ANOTHER MOTORIST THAT THE END ROD WAS DISENGAGED UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE BALL JOINT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED OF THE SAFETY RISK INVOLVED. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 90,000.
NHTSA ODI #10239634
105,000 miles · Oct 13, 2007
SteeringSuspension
DURING NORMAL DRIVING, HEARD EXTREMELY ALARMING LOUD CREAKING, SQUEAKING NOISES FROM FRONT END. STEERING BECAME SLOPPY AND ERRATIC. TOOK IT TO R&R AUTOMOTIVE IN LEX. PK. MD AND HAD COMPLETE FRONT END REPLACED, DUE TO WORN OUT BALL JOINTS, IDLER ARMS, PITMAN ARMS, TIE RODS, SWAY BAR ENDS WHICH COULD NOT BE LUBRICATED. REPLACED W…
Read full complaint
DURING NORMAL DRIVING, HEARD EXTREMELY ALARMING LOUD CREAKING, SQUEAKING NOISES FROM FRONT END. STEERING BECAME SLOPPY AND ERRATIC. TOOK IT TO R&R AUTOMOTIVE IN LEX. PK. MD AND HAD COMPLETE FRONT END REPLACED, DUE TO WORN OUT BALL JOINTS, IDLER ARMS, PITMAN ARMS, TIE RODS, SWAY BAR ENDS WHICH COULD NOT BE LUBRICATED. REPLACED WITH THOSE EQUIPPED WITH GREASE FITTINGS. $1750.00 *JB
NHTSA ODI #10205557
Mileage unknown · Mar 1, 2005
Suspension
THE FRONT UPPER BALL JOINTS WERE SQUEAKING DUE TO DRYNESS,WHICH CONSUMER HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THEY CAN BREAK AND CAUSE THE WHEELS TO FALL OFF.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10113215
Mileage unknown · Oct 12, 2003
Service Brakes, HydraulicSteeringSuspension
PROBLEMS WITH UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS AND TIE RODS.*MR THE PARTS WERE REPLACED, SOME OF THEM TWICE. FORD PUT UNGREASED PARTS ON. EVENTUALLY THEY DRIED OUT AGAIN AND STARTED SQUEAKING. IF NOT REPLACED THEY WOULD POSSIBLY BREAK WHICH COULD CAUSE THE DRIVER TO LOSE CONTROL, POSSIBLY CAUSING INJURY OR DEATH. *PH THE FR…
Read full complaint
PROBLEMS WITH UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS AND TIE RODS.*MR THE PARTS WERE REPLACED, SOME OF THEM TWICE. FORD PUT UNGREASED PARTS ON. EVENTUALLY THEY DRIED OUT AGAIN AND STARTED SQUEAKING. IF NOT REPLACED THEY WOULD POSSIBLY BREAK WHICH COULD CAUSE THE DRIVER TO LOSE CONTROL, POSSIBLY CAUSING INJURY OR DEATH. *PH THE FRONT BRAKES WERE RESURFACED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10043921
60,000 miles · Jun 3, 2003
SteeringSuspension
THE INNER AND OUTER TIE ROD ENDS HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS WELL AS THE UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS. *MR *SCC *NLM
NHTSA ODI #10021561
Official recalls
5Feb 4, 2008
FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
Jul 18, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE VEHICLES HAVE JACKING INSTRUCTIONS WHICH, IF FOLLOWED, COULD CAUSE THE VEHICLE OPERATOR TO PLACE THE JACK ON A FRAME WELD WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RAISE A REAR WHEEL. IF THE VEHICLE IS JACKED UP WITH THE JACK PLACED ON THE FRAME WELD AND IF THE VEHICLE IS FREE TO ROLL (WHEELS NOT BLOCKED OR CHOCKED), THE JACK COULD YIELD AND THE VEHICLE MAY DROP SUDDENLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS AND ANY PORTION OF THE OPERATOR'S BODY IS UNDER THE VEHICLE, THE POTENTIAL FOR PERSONAL INJURY EXISTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A REVISED JACK INSTRUCTION AND STOWAGE CARD AND JACK WARNING LABEL, AS WELL AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE OWNER GUIDE.
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET DRIVER'S SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
DP02007 · FUEL-FED Fires
Opened Aug 22, 2002 · Closed Dec 4, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
THE FARS DATA SHOWS THAT THE RISK OF FIRE FROM IMPACT IN ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS THE SAME AS ALL OTHER SEDANS.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT OVER REPRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE RISK OF FIRE IN REAL-WORLD HIGH-ENERGY CRASHES.A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO POST CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS SET OUT IN THE CLOSING REPORT FOR SQ 01-014 AND THAT REPORT IS IN THE DOCKET FOR THIS PETITION.AFTER REVIEWING THE PETITION AND ITS SUPPORTING MATERIALS, AS WELL AS INFORMATION FURNISHED BY FORD AND GM, AND INFORMATION WITHIN THE AGENCY'S POSSESSION FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS,NHTSA HAS CONCLUDED THAT FUTHER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING POST-CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO A DECISION THAT THE VEHICLES CONTAIN A SAFETY DEFECT.
SQ01014 · Post Rear End Collision Fires
Opened Nov 27, 2001 · Closed Oct 3, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
There is no summary currently available
Illustration