NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
164 reports185,000 miles · Apr 21, 2017
Engine
PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED, ANTIFREEZE LEAKING FROM AROUND THERMOSTAT DUE TO THIS FAILURE AND LEAKING INTO COIL PACKS AND CAUSING MAJOR MISFIRE IN MOTOR. HAPPENED SUDDENLY, NO INDICATION OF LEAK PRIOR TO THIS FAILURE. WAS DRIVING WHEN THIS HAPPENED AND HAD TO CALL FOR HELP TO GET VEHICLE BACK HOME, AND NOW CAN'T DRIVE IT …
Read full complaint
PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED, ANTIFREEZE LEAKING FROM AROUND THERMOSTAT DUE TO THIS FAILURE AND LEAKING INTO COIL PACKS AND CAUSING MAJOR MISFIRE IN MOTOR. HAPPENED SUDDENLY, NO INDICATION OF LEAK PRIOR TO THIS FAILURE. WAS DRIVING WHEN THIS HAPPENED AND HAD TO CALL FOR HELP TO GET VEHICLE BACK HOME, AND NOW CAN'T DRIVE IT . COST TO FIX IS EXPENSIVE, AND THE CAR RAN GREAT UNTIL THIS HAPPENED. SOUNDED LIKE I HAS THROWN A ROD, POPPING LOUDER ON EXCELERATION, SO I IMMEDIATELY PARKED IT AND TURNED OFF THE MOTOR.
NHTSA ODI #10979720
118,000 miles · Apr 12, 2017
Electrical SystemEngineExterior Lighting
INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED (BURNED AND DISINTEGRATED IN THE AREA OF THE THERMOSTAT ) AND HAD TO BE REPLACED AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE . PRESENTLY THE SPEEDOMETER FAILS INTERMITTENTLY DROPPING TO ZERO AT RANDOM MOMENTS. MOST IMPORTANTLY THE LIGHTS CUT OUT INTERMITTENTLY USUALLY WHEN THE HEAT IS ON AND ON LONGER TRIPS. ALSO, MOST TIM…
Read full complaint
INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED (BURNED AND DISINTEGRATED IN THE AREA OF THE THERMOSTAT ) AND HAD TO BE REPLACED AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE . PRESENTLY THE SPEEDOMETER FAILS INTERMITTENTLY DROPPING TO ZERO AT RANDOM MOMENTS. MOST IMPORTANTLY THE LIGHTS CUT OUT INTERMITTENTLY USUALLY WHEN THE HEAT IS ON AND ON LONGER TRIPS. ALSO, MOST TIMES IT HAS HAPPENED WHEN IT HAS BEEN RAINING AND COLDER. DROVE UPWARDS OF 40 MILES WITH THE HEADLIGHTS CUTTING OUT INTERMITTENTLY IN THE RAIN AND COLD, PROBLEM HAS CONTINUED TO RECUR BUT SEEMS TO BE RELATED POSSIBLY TO HAVING THE HEAT ON. I BELIEVE THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE IS LOCATED NEAR A HEATING OUTLET AND MAY BE SUFFERING A FAILURE AS A RESULT BUT THIS IS JUST SPECULATION. ALSO, PREVIOUSLY WHEN I HAD PULLED INTO A REST AREA FOR AWHILE, AFTER COOLING DOWN, THE PROBLEM WENT AWAY FOR A LITTLE WHILE THEN RESUMED AFTER ABOUT TEN MILES WITH THE HEAT ON. I BELIEVE IT IS BEING CAUSED BY THE EXCESSIVE HEAT THE LCM IS SUBJECTED TO BY VIRTUE OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS INSTALLED. THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE IS OF MOTOROLA MANUFACTURE WITH SIEMANS RELAYS INSIDE. THE PART HAS NUMEROUS NUMBERS ON IT , MOST PROMINENTLY: XW7T-13C788-AA , 6MX2794A01, 990429A, AND LIGHTING CONTROL 95M .OTHERS ONLINE WITH SIMILAR VEHICLES (CROWN VICTORIAS) AND OF OTHER MODEL YEARS MANUFACTURED BY FORD HAVE REPORTED SIMILAR PROBLEMS AND THAT REPLACING THE RELAYS HAS RESOLVED THE ISSUE. I DO NOT KNOW THAT THIS PART IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM BUT SUSPECT IT AS MANY OTHERS ONLINE HAVE REPORTED THAT THIS PART WAS THE SOURCE OF THEIR PROBLEMS.
NHTSA ODI #10972145
200,000 miles · Mar 3, 2017
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BALL JOINTS WERE REPLACED BUT THE BOLT THAT HELD IT IN PLACE WAS LOOSE AND CAUSED THE CARTER KEY TO FAIL TO HOLD THE BOLT IN PLACE. AS A RESULT, THE BOLT NECK DETACHED WHILE THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 20 MPH AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO STOP A…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BALL JOINTS WERE REPLACED BUT THE BOLT THAT HELD IT IN PLACE WAS LOOSE AND CAUSED THE CARTER KEY TO FAIL TO HOLD THE BOLT IN PLACE. AS A RESULT, THE BOLT NECK DETACHED WHILE THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 20 MPH AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO STOP ABRUPTLY. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT'S HEAD HIT THE STEERING WHEEL. THE CONTACT SUFFERED A WHIP LASH THAT REQUIRED A MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BY THE CONTACT WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 200,000.
NHTSA ODI #10958417
100,000 miles · Oct 18, 2016
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting
AT NIGHT WHILE DRIVING HEADLIGHTS AND DASHBOARD LIGHTS WENT OUT ON FREEWAY AND COULD NOT BE TURNED ON AGAIN. HAS HAPPENED ON TWO OCCASIONS AND VEHICLE CANNOT BE DRIVEN AND UNSAFE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10916836
Mileage unknown · Aug 23, 2016
Seat BeltsSteering
SEAT BELTS FRONT BOTH SIDES,NOTHING BUT THE RETRACTER STICKS,SLOW MOVING LAP&SHOLD. STEERING SHAFT SEPARATES,RATTLES WHEN HITTING BUMPS HARD.
NHTSA ODI #10898106
Mileage unknown · May 20, 2016
Fuel/propulsion SystemSeat BeltsVehicle Speed Control
THE PASSENGERS SIDE SEAT BEAT COMES UNDONE AT TIMES AND THE SPEED SENSOR WORKS INTERMITTENTLY AND IT LEAKS GAS FROM AROUND THE FUEL PUMP
NHTSA ODI #10870118
133,596 miles · Jan 4, 2016
Exterior Lighting
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS FAILED INTERMITTENTLY. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD ACTIVATE AND DEACTIVATE INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE CONTROL MODULE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS FAILED INTERMITTENTLY. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD ACTIVATE AND DEACTIVATE INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE CONTROL MODULE WAS DAMAGED AND NEEDED REPLACEMENT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE MILEAGE WAS 133,596.
NHTSA ODI #10817529
140,000 miles · Oct 28, 2015
SteeringCrashInjury
WHILE DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY CHANGED LANES AND THE STEERING BECAME ERRATIC. UPON EXAMINATION, THE IDLER ARM HAD SEPARATED FROM THE STEERING LINK ARM. THERE WAS NO WARNING AND THE VEHICLE HAD RECENTLY PASSED A SAFETY INSPECTION.
NHTSA ODI #10786786
140,000 miles · Oct 21, 2015
Exterior Lighting
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40-45 MPH, THE HEADLIGHTS STOPPED FUNCTIONING INDEPENDENTLY. THE FAILURE HAPPENED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE CONTROL MODULE BEHIND THE DASHBOARD MALFUNCTIONED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40-45 MPH, THE HEADLIGHTS STOPPED FUNCTIONING INDEPENDENTLY. THE FAILURE HAPPENED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE CONTROL MODULE BEHIND THE DASHBOARD MALFUNCTIONED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED DUE TO PARTS NO LONGER BEING MANUFACTURED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000.
NHTSA ODI #10784444
130,000 miles · May 2, 2015
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting
THE 3/4 KEY ON THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR RANDOMLY QUIT WORKING. EVERY OTHER BUTTON STILL WORKS, AND WHEN ANY BUTTON OTHER THAN THE 3/4 KEY IS PRESSED, THE KEYPAD LIGHTS UP. MY KEY CODE INCLUDES THE 3/4 KEY THOUGH, SO I CANNOT USE THIS KEYPAD TO UNLOCK MY VEHICLE OR TRUNK. HOWEVER THE KEYPAD LIGHTS UP ON ITS OWN, WHICH CAUSES MY EXTE…
Read full complaint
THE 3/4 KEY ON THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR RANDOMLY QUIT WORKING. EVERY OTHER BUTTON STILL WORKS, AND WHEN ANY BUTTON OTHER THAN THE 3/4 KEY IS PRESSED, THE KEYPAD LIGHTS UP. MY KEY CODE INCLUDES THE 3/4 KEY THOUGH, SO I CANNOT USE THIS KEYPAD TO UNLOCK MY VEHICLE OR TRUNK. HOWEVER THE KEYPAD LIGHTS UP ON ITS OWN, WHICH CAUSES MY EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR LIGHTS TO ILLUMINATE. THESE LIGHTS CYCLE ON FOR ABOUT 15 SECONDS AND TURN OFF FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS. I HAD TO REMOVE MY INTERIOR DOME LIGHTS BECAUSE THEY WOULD DRAIN THE BATTERY. IF I AM PARKING FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, I HAVE TO DISCONNECT MY BATTERY SO THE LIGHTS WILL NOT DRAIN IT. THE FORD DEALER CHECKED FOR A RECALL ON THE LCM, BUT THE RECALL DOES NOT AFFECT THE 1999 MODEL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10714172
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