NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
164 reports18,000 miles · Sep 28, 2009
Tires
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS TOYO SPECTRUM, P/225/60/R16 ON A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN DRIVING HE WOULD HEAR ROARING COMING FROM THE TIRES. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION HE NOTICED THAT ALL FOUR TIRES HAVE ABNORMAL TREAD WEAR. HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING THE TIRES REPLACED. HOWEVER HE HAS TAKEN THE VEHICLE FOR R…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS TOYO SPECTRUM, P/225/60/R16 ON A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN DRIVING HE WOULD HEAR ROARING COMING FROM THE TIRES. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION HE NOTICED THAT ALL FOUR TIRES HAVE ABNORMAL TREAD WEAR. HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING THE TIRES REPLACED. HOWEVER HE HAS TAKEN THE VEHICLE FOR ROUTINE INSPECTION, AND WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 18,000.
NHTSA ODI #10285499
52,000 miles · Jan 1, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD ON A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS WITH ONLY 52000 MILES ON IT. COST $1200 TO REPAIR. WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF RECALL. 52000 MILES IS ONLY ABOUT 4.3 YEARS OF ACTUAL USE. IT IS UNFAIR THAT LOW MILEAGE DRIVERS SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR CONSERVING ENERGY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10253424
135,000 miles · May 7, 2008
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT FLASHED AND THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE, BUT THE SPEED WOULD NOT INCREASE. THE DEALER CHARGED $100 FOR A DIAGNOSIS, BUT COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT IS AFRAID THAT A …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT FLASHED AND THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE, BUT THE SPEED WOULD NOT INCREASE. THE DEALER CHARGED $100 FOR A DIAGNOSIS, BUT COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT IS AFRAID THAT A CRASH COULD OCCUR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED; HOWEVER, THEY FELT THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS UNIMPORTANT. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 135,000.
NHTSA ODI #10226902
87,500 miles · Jan 24, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE HESITATED, STALLED, AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE ALSO BEGAN TO LOOSE COOLANT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER AND THEY DISCOVERED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. THERE WAS NO…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE HESITATED, STALLED, AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE ALSO BEGAN TO LOOSE COOLANT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER AND THEY DISCOVERED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. THERE WAS NO RECALL ON THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 88,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 87,500.
NHTSA ODI #10215854
78,002 miles · Dec 11, 2007
Fuel System, GasolineFuel System, Other
1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LS 4.6L (1) DROVE VEHICLE IN A NORMAL WAY, COMMUTING FROM HOME TO WORK DAILY. NO SPEEDING. IN THE MORNINGS PROPERLY WAIT FOR 10 MINUTES TO WARM UP THE VEHICLE'S ENGINE PRIOR TO DRIVING. KEPT PROPER MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE BY FORD/MERCURY DEALERSHIP. NEVER BROUGHT UP TO MY ATTENTION OF THE POSSIBLE DEFA…
Read full complaint
1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LS 4.6L (1) DROVE VEHICLE IN A NORMAL WAY, COMMUTING FROM HOME TO WORK DAILY. NO SPEEDING. IN THE MORNINGS PROPERLY WAIT FOR 10 MINUTES TO WARM UP THE VEHICLE'S ENGINE PRIOR TO DRIVING. KEPT PROPER MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE BY FORD/MERCURY DEALERSHIP. NEVER BROUGHT UP TO MY ATTENTION OF THE POSSIBLE DEFAULT THIS PART MAY CAUSE DOWN THE LINE. HAD A COMPLETE COOLANT FLUSH FOR RADIATOR. REPLACED WITH NEW COOLANT. (2) MISFIRE IN CYLINDERS 6 + 2. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON. SMALL AMOUNTS OF COOLANT LEAKAGE ONTO TOP PART OF ENGINE, PROFUSELY AROUND THE SPARK PLUG CHAMBERS. COOLANT COME IN CONTACT WITH ALTERNATOR AFFECTING CHECK BATTERY LIGHT TO GO ON. VEHICLE SHOWED SIGNS OF INTENSE SHAKING AT IDLE AND AT NORMAL DRIVING CONDITIONS WITHIN 1 HR AFTER CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. VEHICLE IS A 199 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LS 4.6L. VEHICLE COULD NOT BE DRIVEN W/O BEING EXTREMELY SHAKY WHILE DRIVING. HESITATION PRESENT. ON COLD DAYS, SMALL PRESENCE OF COOLANT TRACES WERE FOUND INSIDE THE SPARK-PLUG PITS ALONG SIDE THE IGNITION COILS AND AT TIMES SMALL VAPOR CAME FROM INSIDE THE ENGINE NOTICED FROM INSIDE THE DRIVER'S SEAT COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOOD CAUSING CONCERN. I FOUND THE FOLLOWING FROM THE FOLLOWING FORD PARTS WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.1AAUTO.COM/1A/INTAKEMANIFOLDS/-/-/1AEIM00012. "THE ORIGINAL INTAKE MANIFOLD, DUE TO THE DESIGN, HAS AN ABNORMAL TENDENCY TO CRACK, LEADING TO OVERHEATING AND IN MANY CASES COMPLETE ENGINE FAILURE AND/OR DAMAGE TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CAR'S ENGINE. THIS NEW AND IMPROVED INTAKE MANIFOLD IS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THOSE PROBLEMS!". (3) DEALERSHIP CHARGED ME OVER $1500.00 FOR REPLACING THE INTAKE MANIFOLD, SPARK PLUG AND IGNITION COIL FOR CYLINDER #2 PLUS AN OIL CHANGE AND FILTER. I REQUESTED OLD PARTS BACK AND ONLY THE SPARK-PLUG AND IGNITION COIL WAS RETURNED TO ME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10211441
150,000 miles · Nov 25, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
I NOTICED COOLANT LEAKING FROM SOMEWHERE IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT, BUT INITIALLY HAD TROUBLE FINDING WHERE THE LEAK WAS COMING FROM. I FINALLY DISCOVERED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED AT THE PLASTIC THERMOSTAT HOUSING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10209851
123,052 miles · Sep 7, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE ON THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO INCREASE. THE CONTACT PULLED OVER TO ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO COOL BEFORE DRIVING HOME. ONCE SHE ARRIVED HOME, SHE NOTICED SMOKE RISING FROM THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THIS SAME FAILURE HAS PREVIOUSLY OCCURRED…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE ON THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO INCREASE. THE CONTACT PULLED OVER TO ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO COOL BEFORE DRIVING HOME. ONCE SHE ARRIVED HOME, SHE NOTICED SMOKE RISING FROM THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THIS SAME FAILURE HAS PREVIOUSLY OCCURRED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC AND HE STATED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 123,052.
NHTSA ODI #10202211
103,000 miles · May 15, 2007
Steering
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 1 MPH, THE OUTER LEFT FRONT TIE ROD DETACHED. NO PRIOR WORK WAS DONE TO THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE OUTER TIE ROD END DETACHED DUE TO LACK OF GREASE. THE DEALER REPLACED TWO INNER AND OUTER TIE ROD …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 1 MPH, THE OUTER LEFT FRONT TIE ROD DETACHED. NO PRIOR WORK WAS DONE TO THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE OUTER TIE ROD END DETACHED DUE TO LACK OF GREASE. THE DEALER REPLACED TWO INNER AND OUTER TIE ROD ENDS AND TWO ADJUSTER SLEEVES. THE ENGINE SIZE WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 103,000. THE CONSUMER STATED THE TIE ROD WAS WORN OUT FROM THE INSIDE DUE TO LACK OF GREASE. UPDADATED 06/08/07. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10190751
138,000 miles · May 3, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
HAD SPARK PLUGS REPLACED. ONE PLUG EXPLODED. WAS TOLD BY FORD DEALERSHIP SERVICE MECHANIC THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. CAR WAS RUNNING FINE BEFORE PLUGS WERE REPLACED. INTAKE MANIFOLD IS PLASTIC. (THIS WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE 1997 MODEL.) DID THE REPAIRMAN CRACK THE MANIFOLD? WHY IS REPLACEMENT PART STILL PLASTIC? FORD…
Read full complaint
HAD SPARK PLUGS REPLACED. ONE PLUG EXPLODED. WAS TOLD BY FORD DEALERSHIP SERVICE MECHANIC THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. CAR WAS RUNNING FINE BEFORE PLUGS WERE REPLACED. INTAKE MANIFOLD IS PLASTIC. (THIS WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE 1997 MODEL.) DID THE REPAIRMAN CRACK THE MANIFOLD? WHY IS REPLACEMENT PART STILL PLASTIC? FORD/MERCURY PRICE FOR PART IS $598.06; NAPA IS $281.00. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10189687
77,980 miles · Dec 1, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE ENGINE HESITATED AND IDLED BADLY AT A STOP. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE FUEL FILTER, BUT PROBLEM CONTINUED. WHEN TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT SERVICE DEALER, THE DIAGNOSTICS SHOWED THE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WOULD SJIP AND…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE ENGINE HESITATED AND IDLED BADLY AT A STOP. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE FUEL FILTER, BUT PROBLEM CONTINUED. WHEN TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT SERVICE DEALER, THE DIAGNOSTICS SHOWED THE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WOULD SJIP AND JUMP. UPDATED 12/18/06. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10174876
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