NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
164 reports97,000 miles · Aug 30, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 75 MPH WITH THE SPEED CONTROL ENGAGED, THE SPEED INCREASED WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED AND FAILED TO DISENGAGE. THE CONTACT WAS FORCED TO MANUALLY DISENGAGE THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN ORDER TO AVOID A CRASH. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT TO BRING THE VEHICLE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 75 MPH WITH THE SPEED CONTROL ENGAGED, THE SPEED INCREASED WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED AND FAILED TO DISENGAGE. THE CONTACT WAS FORCED TO MANUALLY DISENGAGE THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN ORDER TO AVOID A CRASH. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN TO BE REPAIRED AT HIS EXPENSE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 97,000. UPDATED 10/21/11 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO DISENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL, THE VEHICLE JERKED AND WENT INTO PASSING GEAR, FAILING TO DISENGAGE FROM CRUISE CONTROL. THE CONSUMER HAD TO PURCHASE A NEW SWITCH, DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE CRUISE CONTROL. UPDATED 12/19/11
NHTSA ODI #10422547
81,000 miles · Apr 5, 2011
Equipment
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE CHANGING A FLAT TIRE WITH THE FACTORY JACK, THE JACK BENT AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO FALL OFF THE JACK. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO CHANGE THE TIRE AND THEN CALLED THE MANUFACTURE. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY SO THERE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE CHANGING A FLAT TIRE WITH THE FACTORY JACK, THE JACK BENT AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO FALL OFF THE JACK. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO CHANGE THE TIRE AND THEN CALLED THE MANUFACTURE. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY SO THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO TO ASSIST. THE JACK WAS NOT REPLACED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 81,000.
NHTSA ODI #10394292
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
100,250 miles · Apr 10, 2010
Fuel System, Other
DURING NORMAL OPERATION OF MY CAR, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. I HAD THE ENGINE LIGHT CODES READ AND IT INDICATED THAT TWO CYLINDERS WERE MISFIRING. I TOOK THE CAR TO A SERVICE SHOP TO HAVE THE SPARK PLUGS CHANGED. I WAS TOLD THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD DEVELOPED A CRACK WHICH WAS ALLOWING COOLANT FLUID IN…
Read full complaint
DURING NORMAL OPERATION OF MY CAR, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. I HAD THE ENGINE LIGHT CODES READ AND IT INDICATED THAT TWO CYLINDERS WERE MISFIRING. I TOOK THE CAR TO A SERVICE SHOP TO HAVE THE SPARK PLUGS CHANGED. I WAS TOLD THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD DEVELOPED A CRACK WHICH WAS ALLOWING COOLANT FLUID INSIDE THE MANIFOLD CAVITY AND THIS IS WHAT WAS CAUSING THE CYLINDER MISFIRE. THE CAR IS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS WITH A 4.6 LTR. ENGINE. THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IS MADE OF A PLASTIC MATERIAL AND TENDS TO CRACK NEXT TO THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING. THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY CAR CRACKED. I HAVE SINCE FOUND OUT THAT THE FORD MOTOR CO. ISSUED A RECALL BULLETIN TO THEIR FORD AND LINCOLN MERCURY DEALERS IN DECEMBER 2001 ADVISING THEM OF THE DEFECT. SUBSEQUENTLY, CERTAIN FAVORED FLEET OWNERS OF MERCURY MARQUIS AND FORD CROWN VICTORIA AUTOMOBILES (POLICE, LIMO AND TAXI COMPANIES) WERE NOTIFIED OF THE RECALL. "CIVILIAN" OWNERS WERE EXCLUDED. I OWNED MY MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS AT THAT TIME AND WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE RECALL. MY EXCLUSION FROM THE RECALL NOTIFICATION RESULTED IN MY BEING EXPOSED TO THE POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARD OF THE CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD, AS WELL AS THE INCONVENIENCE AND CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE OF HAVING TO HAVE THE DEFECTIVE MANIFOLD REPLACED. BECAUSE OF THE SELECTIVE RECALL THAT FORD MOTOR CO. MADE REGARDING DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLD, A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WAS FILED AGAINST FORD MOTOR CO. ON BEHALF OF EXCLUDED OWNERS AND FORD MOTOR CO. HAD TO MAKE RESTITUTION TO SUCH OWNERS. I WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF MY STATUS AS A WRONGED OWNER. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THE NHTSB DID NOT REQUIRE THAT FORD MOTOR CO. NOTIFY ME ABOUT THE RECALL TO REPLACE THE DANGEROUS DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY CAR? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10324884
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
188,000 miles · Mar 15, 2010
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting
PROBLEM: INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT FAILURE WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT WITH 1999 (1998 YEAR OF MANUFACTURE) MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. LIGHTS GO OFF FOR AS LONG AS 2-3 SECONDS AND COME BACK ON AGAIN FOR A SECOND OR TWO, THEN GO OFF AGAIN, THEN BACK ON AGAIN, ETC--AND ONLY OCCURS AFTER THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN DRIVEN FOR 20-30 MINUTES. TH…
Read full complaint
PROBLEM: INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT FAILURE WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT WITH 1999 (1998 YEAR OF MANUFACTURE) MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. LIGHTS GO OFF FOR AS LONG AS 2-3 SECONDS AND COME BACK ON AGAIN FOR A SECOND OR TWO, THEN GO OFF AGAIN, THEN BACK ON AGAIN, ETC--AND ONLY OCCURS AFTER THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN DRIVEN FOR 20-30 MINUTES. THIS HAPPENED ONCE BEFORE, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, WITH THIS VERY SAME VEHICLE AND I SOLVED THE PROBLEM BY REPLACING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON THE DASH. APPARENTLY THERE IS NO HEADLIGHT-RELATED RECALL* FOR THIS PARTICULAR MERCURY AND THE COST TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM BY THE MERCURY DEALERSHIP WILL BE THEREFORE AT MY EXPENSE. THE CHEAPEST REPAIR COST SCENARIO AT THE DEALERSHIP IS OVER $300. THIS PROBLEM SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, NOT TO MENTION NOW THE SECOND TIME. *SEE: NHTSC RECALL # 99V103 MERCURY MYSTIQUE (1998 YEAR OF MANUFACTURE). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10319833
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