IllustrationWHILE DRIVING THE CAR, THE HEADLIGHTS GOES OUT, THAN ON, AND OUT. THIS IS UNSAFE FOR MY WIFE DRIVING WITH KIDS.
1998 Mercury Grand Marquis
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 78.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Grand Marquis 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
10–25K
425–50K
1250–75K
775–100K
12100–150K
5150K+
41 reports with mileage · 102 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Exterior Lighting. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
8 crash reports8 fire reports5 injury reports
What owners actually said
143 reportsI OBSERVED A COOLANT LEAK AROUND THE THERMOSTAT. I FOUND THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD TO BE CRACKED AROUND THE THERMOSTAT AND LEAKING COOLANT. I MADE CONTACT WITH MERCURY AND FOUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL ON THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD IN WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE REPLACED THE PART AT NO CHARGE DURING THE SAFETY RECALL CAMPAIGN.…
Read full complaint
I OBSERVED A COOLANT LEAK AROUND THE THERMOSTAT. I FOUND THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD TO BE CRACKED AROUND THE THERMOSTAT AND LEAKING COOLANT. I MADE CONTACT WITH MERCURY AND FOUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL ON THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD IN WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE REPLACED THE PART AT NO CHARGE DURING THE SAFETY RECALL CAMPAIGN. I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE SAFETY RECALL AND HAVE OWNED THE VEHICLE SINCE 04/17/02 WHEN I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE USED FROM A MERCURY DEALERSHIP. THE DEALERSHIP WOULD NO LONGER HONOR THIS RECALL ALTHOUGH THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF THESE ENGINES STILL ON THE ROAD. THE ALL PLASTIC MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED WITH AN INTAKE MANIFOLD WITH AN ALUMINUM CROSSOVER CHANNEL FOR THE COOLANT. I WAS FORCED TO REPLACE THIS DEFECTIVE PART OUT-OF-POCKET AT A COST OF $800. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE HAD I NOT BEEN FRIENDS WITH THE MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE HAD 102,281 MILES AT THE TIME OF THE FAILURE. *TR
VEHICLE STARTED TO BUCK AND WHEN I PULLED MY VEHICLE OVER I LIFTED THE HOOD. I FOUND ANTI-FREEZE FLOWING ON THE TOP OF MY ENGINE. I HAD IT TOWED TO MY LOCAL GARAGE & THEY TOLD ME THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACKED. I DID SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND OUT THERE'S A RECALL ON THIS PART. WHEN I CALLED MY LOCAL FORD DEALER, THEY TOLD ME…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE STARTED TO BUCK AND WHEN I PULLED MY VEHICLE OVER I LIFTED THE HOOD. I FOUND ANTI-FREEZE FLOWING ON THE TOP OF MY ENGINE. I HAD IT TOWED TO MY LOCAL GARAGE & THEY TOLD ME THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACKED. I DID SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND OUT THERE'S A RECALL ON THIS PART. WHEN I CALLED MY LOCAL FORD DEALER, THEY TOLD ME THERE IS A RECALL ON THIS PART, BUT IT'S ONLY FOR POLICE AND FLEET VEHICLES ONLY. NOW THAT THIS WAS SAID TO ME, I WAS TOLD BY MY GARAGE IT WOULD COST ME $1000 TO FIX. SOMETHING I DON'T HAVE. FORD WAS NOT VERY COOPERATIVE ABOUT MY SITUATION AND I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED. *TR
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
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
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK WITH THE BRAKES DEPRESSED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 60…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK WITH THE BRAKES DEPRESSED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 60,000. UPDATED 01/13/12*LJ UPDATED 01/19/12
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD BOOMING NOISE FROM INSIDE HIS HOME. THE CONTACT NOTICED FLAMES UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE A…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD BOOMING NOISE FROM INSIDE HIS HOME. THE CONTACT NOTICED FLAMES UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND A COMPLAINT WAS FILED. THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A RECALL UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL) THAT MAY BE RELATED TO THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 63,000.
MY 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS HEADLIGHTS AS WELL AS TAILIGHTS FAIL. DURING THIS ALL OF A SUDDEN WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT THE HEADLIGHTS WHILE DRIVING WILL START FLASHING ON AND OFF, THEN JUST COMPLETELY GO OFF, AS WELL AS THE LIGHTS ON THE DOORS AND LIGHT AROUND THE DASH CONTROLS SUCH AS (AC BUTTONS AN KNOBS) THIS HAPPENED RARELY,…
Read full complaint
MY 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS HEADLIGHTS AS WELL AS TAILIGHTS FAIL. DURING THIS ALL OF A SUDDEN WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT THE HEADLIGHTS WHILE DRIVING WILL START FLASHING ON AND OFF, THEN JUST COMPLETELY GO OFF, AS WELL AS THE LIGHTS ON THE DOORS AND LIGHT AROUND THE DASH CONTROLS SUCH AS (AC BUTTONS AN KNOBS) THIS HAPPENED RARELY, BUT NOW IT HAPPENED EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. I GOOGLED THIS AND MANY MORE ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM, IT SEEMS AS IF ITS COMMON IN THESE VEHICLES. ON THE FORUMS SOME SAY A LIGHT CONTROL BOX NEEDS REPLACING, AND THEN SOME SAY A HEADLIGHT CONTROL MODULE NEEDS REPLACING. THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. A RECALL NEEDS TO BE FILED FOR THE REPLACING OF THE BAD PART CAUSING THIS ISSUE. THIS CAN CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY TO SOMEONE IF THIS HAPPENS ON A DARK WINDY ROAD. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD OVERHEAT ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE RADIATOR WAS FLUSHED BUT TO NO AVAIL. THE CONTACT LATER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND DISCOVERED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS FRACTURED. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THAT TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD OVERHEAT ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE RADIATOR WAS FLUSHED BUT TO NO AVAIL. THE CONTACT LATER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND DISCOVERED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS FRACTURED. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BECAUSE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS DESIGNED USING PLASTIC. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 64,950.
Official recalls
508V051000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
Feb 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.
07V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
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.
00V200000 · Equipment:mechanical:integrated Jack/leveler/stabilizer
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.
00V157001 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
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.
00V157002 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
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