NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
78 reportsMileage unknown · Jan 19, 2017
EngineEngine And Engine Cooling
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A PREMATURE FAILURE IN WHICH THERE WAS AN INTERNAL CRACK ON THE INTAKE MANIFOLD, WHICH CAUSED WATER INTRUSION THAT AFFECTED OTHER COMPONENTS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A PREMATURE FAILURE IN WHICH THERE WAS AN INTERNAL CRACK ON THE INTAKE MANIFOLD, WHICH CAUSED WATER INTRUSION THAT AFFECTED OTHER COMPONENTS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10946464
Mileage unknown · Aug 30, 2016
Seat Belts
BOTH BACK SEAT BELTS DON'T RETRACT AS THEY SHOULD, THE TEST WAS DONE WHEN VEHICLE IS STOPPED BUT I CHECKED MY OTHER GRANDMARQUIS OF 1997, IT HAS THE SAME ISSUE. I ALSO TOOK IT A MECHANIC AND THEY CHECKED TWO DIFFERENT BUT FORD CROWN VICTORIA, IT SNOWED THE SAME ISSUE. ALL VEHICLES WERE STATIONARY DURING TEST. IS THERE ANY SAFET…
Read full complaint
BOTH BACK SEAT BELTS DON'T RETRACT AS THEY SHOULD, THE TEST WAS DONE WHEN VEHICLE IS STOPPED BUT I CHECKED MY OTHER GRANDMARQUIS OF 1997, IT HAS THE SAME ISSUE. I ALSO TOOK IT A MECHANIC AND THEY CHECKED TWO DIFFERENT BUT FORD CROWN VICTORIA, IT SNOWED THE SAME ISSUE. ALL VEHICLES WERE STATIONARY DURING TEST. IS THERE ANY SAFETY TEST I CAN PERFORM TO MAKE SURE THEY WORK OR RECALL ON THIS VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10899622
53,000 miles · Aug 16, 2016
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 5 MPH, THE FRONT BALL JOINTS DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS PENDING A DIAGNOSIS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 5 MPH, THE FRONT BALL JOINTS DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS PENDING A DIAGNOSIS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 53,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10896335
95,000 miles · Jun 21, 2016
Seat Belts
SEAT BELTS WILL NOT RETRACT AFTER USE AND ARE STUCK.
NHTSA ODI #10875601
118,575 miles · Aug 27, 2015
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting
AFTER DRIVING TO MALL MY DAUGHTER REALIZED THAT MY HEAD LIGHTS WERE NOT ON. CHECKED ALL FUSE (UNDER DASH AND UNDER HOOD). NONE WERE BLOWN. REALIZED THAT HAD NO DOME LIGHT BUT DID HAVE MAP/READING LIGHTS. NO TAIL LIGHTS OR BRAKE LIGHTS EXCEPT THIRD BRAKE LIGHTS. HAD BRIGHTS IF I HELD HIGH BEAM LEVER. HAD CAR TOWED TO SHOP. WAS T…
Read full complaint
AFTER DRIVING TO MALL MY DAUGHTER REALIZED THAT MY HEAD LIGHTS WERE NOT ON. CHECKED ALL FUSE (UNDER DASH AND UNDER HOOD). NONE WERE BLOWN. REALIZED THAT HAD NO DOME LIGHT BUT DID HAVE MAP/READING LIGHTS. NO TAIL LIGHTS OR BRAKE LIGHTS EXCEPT THIRD BRAKE LIGHTS. HAD BRIGHTS IF I HELD HIGH BEAM LEVER. HAD CAR TOWED TO SHOP. WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS THE LIGHT CONTROL MODULE (LCM). WAS TOLD THAT FORD HAD AND EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THIS PART. TOOK IT TO FORD DEALER. THEY SAID THAT IT WAS ONLY FOR THE 2003-2005 MODELS AND THAT MY CAR WAS NOT COVERED. I THINK THEY SHOULD EXTEND THIS WARRANTY TO THE THE 2002 MODELS SEEING THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH EARLIER MODELS AND NOT JUST THE 2003-2005 MODELS. IT IS PROBABLY THE SAME PART.
NHTSA ODI #10759856
6,000 miles · Apr 3, 2015
Exterior Lighting
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED TO OPERATE WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE LCM MODULE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS FAILED TO OPERATE WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE LCM MODULE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 6,000.
NHTSA ODI #10703457
35,000 miles · Mar 10, 2014
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 3 MPH, A NOISE EMITTED FROM THE FRONT PASSENGER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE WHEN MAKING A TURN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE FRONT RIGHT UPPER BALL JOINT AND TIE ROD END WERE RECOMMENDED TO BE REPLAC…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 3 MPH, A NOISE EMITTED FROM THE FRONT PASSENGER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE WHEN MAKING A TURN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE FRONT RIGHT UPPER BALL JOINT AND TIE ROD END WERE RECOMMENDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10568262
89,900 miles · Jan 22, 2014
Steering
STEERING PROBLEM NHTSA # 13V385000, FORD RECALL13S08. "NOTCHY, STIFF OR BINDING" STEERING, AS IN FORD'S RECALL LETTER TO DEALERS. COVERED WERE 2005 -2011 MODELS FOR RECALL. SOLUTION: "REPLACE LOWER IMMEDIATE SHAFT, ETC. AL". MY MARQUIS IS A 2002 PURCHASED IN IL. REPUTABLE LOCAL MECHANIC ADVISED; POWER STEERING, FLUID, PUMP, & BE…
Read full complaint
STEERING PROBLEM NHTSA # 13V385000, FORD RECALL13S08. "NOTCHY, STIFF OR BINDING" STEERING, AS IN FORD'S RECALL LETTER TO DEALERS. COVERED WERE 2005 -2011 MODELS FOR RECALL. SOLUTION: "REPLACE LOWER IMMEDIATE SHAFT, ETC. AL". MY MARQUIS IS A 2002 PURCHASED IN IL. REPUTABLE LOCAL MECHANIC ADVISED; POWER STEERING, FLUID, PUMP, & BELT O.K., USUALLY WOULD NOT CREATE ABOVE. DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A LOCAL MECHANIC FIX. (SPECIAL TOOLS SENT TO FORD...) THIS MODEL CAR / STEERING HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE 2002 & BEFORE. IF FOUND TO BE THE PROBLEM AT FORD DEALERSHIP, IS THERE ANY RECOURSE? WHEN THESE CASES ARE DECIDED, DO YOU & OTHERS FUNDAMENTALLY STATE THAT IF A VEHICLE THAT IS OVER "X" YEARS OLD IS EXEMPT FROM RECALL REGARDLESS OF ORIGINAL IDENTIFIED DEFECT OR SEVERITY OF OUTCOME? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10561071
128,842 miles · Dec 14, 2013
Tires
I PURCHASED A SET OF BRIDGESTONE INSIGNIA SE200 5/2013 . 4MONTHS LATER I REPLACED 1 TIRE DUE TO SIDE WALL SPLITTING. TODAY 12/14/13 I REPLACED THE TIRE THAT I BOUGHT IN 9/13 FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. I CONTACTED BRIDGESTONE VIA EMAIL BUT GOT NO RESPONDS I CONTACTED THEM BY PHONE THEY TOLD ME THERE WAS REASON FOR ME TO BE CONCERNED A…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A SET OF BRIDGESTONE INSIGNIA SE200 5/2013 . 4MONTHS LATER I REPLACED 1 TIRE DUE TO SIDE WALL SPLITTING. TODAY 12/14/13 I REPLACED THE TIRE THAT I BOUGHT IN 9/13 FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. I CONTACTED BRIDGESTONE VIA EMAIL BUT GOT NO RESPONDS I CONTACTED THEM BY PHONE THEY TOLD ME THERE WAS REASON FOR ME TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIRE FAILURES I HAD EXPERIENCED EVEN THOUGH 40 % OF THE TIRES HAD PURCHASED THIS YEAR. 3,000 MILES ON FIRST TIRE EVEN LESS ON THE SECOND TIRE ,THE TIRE DEALER CONTACTED BRIDGSTONE AND REPLACED THE TIRE WITH A FIRESTONE TIRE SINCE BRIDGESTONE NO LONGER MAKER THE INSIGNIA AND HE DID NOT WANT TO USE ANOTHER INSIGNIA BECAUSE OF WHAT HE FELT WAS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT THAT HAD BEEN SEEN IN THE INSIGNIAS AND OTHER TIRES THAT BRIDGSTONE MAKES SOME OF WITCH HAVE ALREADY RECALLED I WILL KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON REST OF TIRES.IN MY 40 YEARS OF DRIVING THIS IS BY FAR THE WORST SET OF TIRES I HAVE EVER OWNED . BRIDGESTONE SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND RECALL THIS TIRE BEFORE A TIRE FAILURE CAUSES A FATAL INJURY TO SOME ONE .BUT I AM SURE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF RESPONCE AND UNCONCERN OF THE PEOPLE THAT I HAD SPOKE TO AT BRIDGESTONE . MY LOCAL TIRE DEALER IS SEND MY FAILED TIRE TO BRIDGESTONES TECH'S LETS SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10556066
100,000 miles · Nov 25, 2013
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE POWER STEERING MALFUNCTIONED MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE POWER STEERING MALFUNCTIONED MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 100,200. ..UPDATED 12-30-13 *BF
NHTSA ODI #10553750
NHTSA investigations
1DP05005 · 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.
Illustration