NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
26 reportsClear category filter120,000 miles · Jan 25, 2022
Engine And Engine Cooling
The contact owns a 1999 Mercury Grand Marquis. The contact stated that the vehicle had a leaking intake manifold. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic and diagnosed that the intake manifold needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The dealer and manufacturer were made aware of the failure but informed the…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 1999 Mercury Grand Marquis. The contact stated that the vehicle had a leaking intake manifold. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic and diagnosed that the intake manifold needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The dealer and manufacturer were made aware of the failure but informed the contact that there was no recall associated with the VIN. The failure mileage was approximately 120,000.
NHTSA ODI #11448881
108,000 miles · Dec 12, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingVehicle Speed Control
MY CAR WAS IN DRIVE AT A BUSINESS TRAFFIC INTERSECTION DRIVE WAY ON A SLIGHT HILL WITH THE BRAKES ON WHEN THE ENGINE SURGED AND THE CAR STARTED TO REVERSE WHILE STILL IN DRIVE. I HAD TO PUT CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE ON THE BRAKES TO STOP IT. I CHECKED AND THE SHIFT LEVER WAS STILL IN DRIVE. MY CAR HAS BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND WA…
Read full complaint
MY CAR WAS IN DRIVE AT A BUSINESS TRAFFIC INTERSECTION DRIVE WAY ON A SLIGHT HILL WITH THE BRAKES ON WHEN THE ENGINE SURGED AND THE CAR STARTED TO REVERSE WHILE STILL IN DRIVE. I HAD TO PUT CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE ON THE BRAKES TO STOP IT. I CHECKED AND THE SHIFT LEVER WAS STILL IN DRIVE. MY CAR HAS BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND WAS RECENTLY SERVICED WITH ALL REQUIRED SERVICES DONE. THIS REALLY SCARED ME AND I WOULD HAVE CRASHED INTO A CAR IF IT WAS BEHIND ME. FORD SHOULD LOOK INTO THIS SAFETY PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10663813
90,200 miles · Dec 15, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD STALL SPORADICALLY AND WITHOUT WARNING. A LOCAL MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED, BUT DENIED ANY ASSISTANCE WITH REPAIRS TO THE DEFECT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD STALL SPORADICALLY AND WITHOUT WARNING. A LOCAL MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED, BUT DENIED ANY ASSISTANCE WITH REPAIRS TO THE DEFECT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,200 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 91,000.
NHTSA ODI #10440044
80,000 miles · Oct 3, 2011
Engine And Engine CoolingPower TrainTires
VEHICLE WOULD SHAKE VIOLENTLY AT ANY SPEED FROM 45-80MPH. TOOK TO A MECHANIC SAID THE FRONT END NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. $800.00 LATER IT STILL DID IT, THEN TOOK BACK SAID THE TIRES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED ALTHOUGH WE HAD 80,000 MILE TIRES, AND ONLY HAD 35,000 MILES PUT ON THEM. REPLACED THE TIRES FOR $600.00. STILL SHOOK, TOOK TO A…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WOULD SHAKE VIOLENTLY AT ANY SPEED FROM 45-80MPH. TOOK TO A MECHANIC SAID THE FRONT END NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. $800.00 LATER IT STILL DID IT, THEN TOOK BACK SAID THE TIRES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED ALTHOUGH WE HAD 80,000 MILE TIRES, AND ONLY HAD 35,000 MILES PUT ON THEM. REPLACED THE TIRES FOR $600.00. STILL SHOOK, TOOK TO A DIFFERENT MECHANIC SAID IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION FAILING. DURING SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE FOUND CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD, ANTIFREEZE AND OIL IN SPARK PLUGS, CLEANED OUT CHANGED SPARK PLUGS, RAN FINE UNTIL THE MANIFOLD LEAKED MORE COOLANT INTO THE SPARK PLUGS AND NOW WE ARE AT SQUARE ONE. RESEARCHED ONLINE FOUND A BUNCH OF PLACES SAYING IT WAS RECALLED, WHEN I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP THEY SAID NO RECALLS. PRICE OF REPLACING THE PART WAS $615.00 IF I HAD ONE ALTERNATOR, OR $650.00 IF I HAD ANOTHER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10428282
183,172 miles · Mar 8, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING, (AT ANY SPEED)THE CAR'S ENGINE SHUT DOWN SEVERAL TIMES. EACH TIME I HEARD A "BEEP" AND WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON- CHECK ENGINE, TRACTION CONTROL AND ABS. AFTER A MINUTE OR SO, THE ENGINE WOULD START NORMALLY. THE ENGINE SHUT DOWN 6 TIMES ! EACH TIME I HEARD THE "BEEP" AND WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED INCLUDING TRACTION…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING, (AT ANY SPEED)THE CAR'S ENGINE SHUT DOWN SEVERAL TIMES. EACH TIME I HEARD A "BEEP" AND WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON- CHECK ENGINE, TRACTION CONTROL AND ABS. AFTER A MINUTE OR SO, THE ENGINE WOULD START NORMALLY. THE ENGINE SHUT DOWN 6 TIMES ! EACH TIME I HEARD THE "BEEP" AND WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED INCLUDING TRACTION CONTROL AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHTS. I WAS ON MY WAY HOME WITH MY NEWBORN IN THE CAR,IT JUST CUTS OFF, AND IT NEARLY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT ON THE HIGHWAY AS MANY OTHER CARS ALMOST RAN INTO ME BECAUSE THE CAR SHUT OFF WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION, ESPECIALLY AS POWER STEERING AND POWER BRAKES ARE LOST ON SHUT-DOWN. I AM LITERALLY AFRAID OF DRIVING MY VEHICLE AS NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY VEHICLE. THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ASAP AS SOMEONE COULD GET SERIOUSLY HURT OR KILLED. INCLUDING CHILDREN!....BY THE WAY, THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING ALL WEEK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10386939
65,000 miles · Feb 2, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
I RECEIVED NOTICED OF INTAKE MANIFOLD ON FORDS PASSENGERS CARS FAILURE AND OF THE SETTLEMENT OFFERED TO REPAIR AND WARRANT SAID INTAKE MANIFOLD. AT THAT TIME I OWNED A 1999 GRAND MARQUIS LS. BEFORE GETTING SAID NOTICE I HAD TOOK MY CAR TO LANDERS FORD DEALERSHIP IN JACKSON,MS HWY 80 WEST WHERE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS REPAIRED BY…
Read full complaint
I RECEIVED NOTICED OF INTAKE MANIFOLD ON FORDS PASSENGERS CARS FAILURE AND OF THE SETTLEMENT OFFERED TO REPAIR AND WARRANT SAID INTAKE MANIFOLD. AT THAT TIME I OWNED A 1999 GRAND MARQUIS LS. BEFORE GETTING SAID NOTICE I HAD TOOK MY CAR TO LANDERS FORD DEALERSHIP IN JACKSON,MS HWY 80 WEST WHERE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS REPAIRED BY DEALERSHIP BECAUSE OF FAILURE OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE COST ME $879.00 WHEN I RECEIVED NOTICED OF LAWSUIT AND OR CLAIMS ON SAID INTAKEMANIFOLD I RETURNED TO THAT DEALERSHIP BUT WAS TURNED AWAY WITH NO RESOLVE SAID DEALERSHIP WENT OUT OF BUSINESS MONTHS LATER NEVER TO COMPENSATE ME FOR OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE OR GIVING ME EXTENDED WARRANTY INFO.FORD CORPORATE OFFICE REFUSE TO HELP AFTER I EXPLAIN I HAD MY RECEIPTS TO SAID CLAIM AND GAVE ME NO LEAD WAY OF WHAT TO DO.NOW I AM STUCK WITH NO WARRANTY NO OUT OF POCKET COST AND THE SAME CAR NEEDING THE SAME WORK DONE AGAIN HERE IN 2011 FORD HANDLED THIS LAWSUIT CLAIMS VERY VERY POORLY AND INFO HAS IT THAT FORD HAS STOP MAKING THE GRAND MARQUIS AND CROWN VICTORIA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10380003
120,000 miles · Jan 19, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
CRACKED THE AIR INTAKE ON MY 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. IT WAS MADE OUT OF CHEAP PLASTIC. I HAD TO STEP ON THE THROTTLE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, AND MY CAR STARTED STEAMING. COME TO FIND OUT, THE INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. IT'S ONLY $300 FOR THE PART, NOT INCLUDING LABOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10377186
68,000 miles · Mar 19, 2010
Engine And Engine Cooling
FATIGUE CRACKING OF THE COOLANT CROSSOVER PASSAGE OF THE ALL NYLON-COMPOSITE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON OUR 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. (VIN # [XXX]). COMPONENT HAS FAILED, RESULTING IN REPLACEMENT, COSTING $888.00 COMPONENT WAS SUBJECT TO RECALL (HTTP://FORDMANIFOLDSETTLEMENT.COM/NOTICE.HTML). C…
Read full complaint
FATIGUE CRACKING OF THE COOLANT CROSSOVER PASSAGE OF THE ALL NYLON-COMPOSITE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON OUR 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. (VIN # [XXX]). COMPONENT HAS FAILED, RESULTING IN REPLACEMENT, COSTING $888.00 COMPONENT WAS SUBJECT TO RECALL (HTTP://FORDMANIFOLDSETTLEMENT.COM/NOTICE.HTML). CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER CARE PHONE LINE. THEY HAVE REFUSED TO COMPENSATE US OR THIS REPAIR. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10321044
100,000 miles · Feb 1, 2010
Engine And Engine Cooling
WE NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE MANIFOLD DEFECT AND RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A RECALL. OUR CAR IS A 1999 GRAND MARQUIS WITH CRACKED MANIFOLD INTAKE. WE TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL DEALER AND THEY SAID THAT THEY CANNOT DO ANY WARRANTY ADJUSTMENTS SINCE THE DEADLINE WAS EXHAUSTED. WE CALLED SUMMER OF 2009 TO LET THEM B…
Read full complaint
WE NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE MANIFOLD DEFECT AND RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A RECALL. OUR CAR IS A 1999 GRAND MARQUIS WITH CRACKED MANIFOLD INTAKE. WE TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL DEALER AND THEY SAID THAT THEY CANNOT DO ANY WARRANTY ADJUSTMENTS SINCE THE DEADLINE WAS EXHAUSTED. WE CALLED SUMMER OF 2009 TO LET THEM BE AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM. THOUGH THEY WERE NICE, THEY WERE STILL FIRM ON DENYING US REPAIR OR ADJUSTMENTS UNDER THE LAW SUIT AND RECALL. NOW WHAT DO WE DO SINCE WE NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION NOR WERE WE AWARE OF ANY PROBLEM WITH THE CAR? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10303603
54,300 miles · Oct 26, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. HE COULD NOT ACCELERATE PAST 30-35 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS BECAUSE OF A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED WITH THE REPLACEMENTS OF A METAL INTAKE MANIFOLD AND SPARK …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. HE COULD NOT ACCELERATE PAST 30-35 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS BECAUSE OF A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED WITH THE REPLACEMENTS OF A METAL INTAKE MANIFOLD AND SPARK PLUGS. THE FOLLOWING DAY AFTER THE SERVICE REPAIR, HE EXPERIENCED ROUGH IDLING WHILE STARTING THE ENGINE COLD. THE AUTHORIZED DEALER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE, BUT NO REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 54,300. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10289817
Official recalls
3Jul 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