IllustrationPLASTIC HEATER SUPPLY TUBE (LOCATED IN REAR OF PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD) FAILED CAUSING ENGINE TO OVERHEAT. INTAKE MANIFOLD HAS TO BE REPLACED. *LN
2002 Mercury Grand Marquis
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 78.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Grand Marquis years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
140–25K
725–50K
850–75K
775–100K
11100–150K
1150K+
48 reports with mileage · 30 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 10 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
8 crash reports2 fire reports5 injury reports
What owners actually said
78 reports2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO TWO SETS OF FAILED MICHELIN HYDROEDGE TIRES *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED HE AS WELL AS HIS PASSENGERS FELT A SLIGHT SHIMMY IN THE CAR AT LOW SPEEDS. SOON, AFTERWARDS THE SHIMMY BECAME PERCUSSIVELY WORSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT AT LEA…
Read full complaint
2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO TWO SETS OF FAILED MICHELIN HYDROEDGE TIRES *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED HE AS WELL AS HIS PASSENGERS FELT A SLIGHT SHIMMY IN THE CAR AT LOW SPEEDS. SOON, AFTERWARDS THE SHIMMY BECAME PERCUSSIVELY WORSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE TIRES WERE SEPARATING AND THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE REPAIR SHOP STATED THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND THAT THE TIRE WEAR WAS NOT NORMAL. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE TIRES WERE UNEVEN AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE TIRES AT THE SAME DISTANCE IN FROM THE EDGE. THE CONSUMER ALSO OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS WITH THE SAME TIRE PROBLEM. *JB
2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LUNGES FORWARD (INCREASE RPM @1000, AND LOUD GROWL FROM ENGINE COMPARTMENT) WHEN I LET OFF THE ACCELERATOR, I.E. APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT. ONCE I RELEASE THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATE AGAIN, ALL GOES BACK TO NORMAL. THERE IS NO "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT, AND NO OTHER NOTABLE PROBLEMS. IT IS INTERMITTENT AND A…
Read full complaint
2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LUNGES FORWARD (INCREASE RPM @1000, AND LOUD GROWL FROM ENGINE COMPARTMENT) WHEN I LET OFF THE ACCELERATOR, I.E. APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT. ONCE I RELEASE THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATE AGAIN, ALL GOES BACK TO NORMAL. THERE IS NO "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT, AND NO OTHER NOTABLE PROBLEMS. IT IS INTERMITTENT AND ANNOYING. *TR
I HAVE A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE STOPPED AT A LIGHT THE VEHICLE HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN ACCELERATED AT HIGH SPEED UNCONTROLLABLY. MY HUSBAND HAD BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKES AND SHIFTED THE CAR INTO NEUTRAL AS THE REAR TIRES SPUN WILDLY WITH BLACK SMOKE ROLLING OFF OF THEM. THIS WAS TERRIFYING. WE TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE STOPPED AT A LIGHT THE VEHICLE HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN ACCELERATED AT HIGH SPEED UNCONTROLLABLY. MY HUSBAND HAD BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKES AND SHIFTED THE CAR INTO NEUTRAL AS THE REAR TIRES SPUN WILDLY WITH BLACK SMOKE ROLLING OFF OF THEM. THIS WAS TERRIFYING. WE TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER CONTACTING FORD AND THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG SO THEY DISENGAGED THE CRUISE CONTROL THINKING THAT MAY BE THE PROBLEM. THE CAR CONTINUES TO DO THIS AND YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN. IT CAN BE ONE MONTH OR FOUR MONTHS LATER THAT THIS HAPPENS. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO GET RID OF THE CAR BUT WE ARE AFRAID OF IT. THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF RECOURSE OR ALLOWANCE FOR US TO GET RID OF THIS VEHICLE. PLEASE HELP US! *TR
AIR BAGS ARE RENDERED INOPERATIVE BY FAILURE OF A SENSOR IN THE DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT PRETENSIONER. FLASHES CODE 3-4. PART IN QUESTION IS OEM NUMBER 2W7Z54611B09AAA. FORD ADVISES THAT PART IS DISCONTINUED, NO REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EXPLANATION. THIS LEAVES TWO CHOICES: DRIVE WITHOUT AIRBAG PROTECTION OR REPLACE…
Read full complaint
AIR BAGS ARE RENDERED INOPERATIVE BY FAILURE OF A SENSOR IN THE DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT PRETENSIONER. FLASHES CODE 3-4. PART IN QUESTION IS OEM NUMBER 2W7Z54611B09AAA. FORD ADVISES THAT PART IS DISCONTINUED, NO REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABLE. NO OTHER EXPLANATION. THIS LEAVES TWO CHOICES: DRIVE WITHOUT AIRBAG PROTECTION OR REPLACE VEHICLE. THIS CAR HAS LESS THAN 16,000 MILES ON IT AND NEED NOT BE REPLACED. HOW CAN A SAFETY CRITICAL ITEM BE DISCONTINUED IN LESS THAN 6 YEARS. THIS PART IS REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED IN THE EVENT OF AN AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT AND, AS IN MY CASE, WHEN THE SENSOR FAILED. *TR
2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS WITH DEFECTIVE RUBBER BOOTS ON BALL JOINTS. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE DEALER TOLD HIM THE RUBBER BOOTS ON THE BALL JOINTS AND STABILIZER LINKS WERE DETERIORATED. MECHANIC STATED THIS WAS DUE TO WEATHER, AND LACK OF VEHICLE USE. *KB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 12 MPH, THE BALL JOINTS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE FAILED. THE VEHICLE DROPPED TO THE GROUND AND MADE A HUGE NOISE. THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE BLEW OUT AS A RESULT OF THE FAILED SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTO GARAGE AND WAS INFORMED TH…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 12 MPH, THE BALL JOINTS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE FAILED. THE VEHICLE DROPPED TO THE GROUND AND MADE A HUGE NOISE. THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE BLEW OUT AS A RESULT OF THE FAILED SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTO GARAGE AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE BALL JOINTS FAILED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE BALL JOINTS COULD NOT BE SERVICED. PRIOR TO THE FAILURE, THE DEALER REPAIRED THE EMISSIONS CONTROL SYSTEM, WHICH THE CONTACT BELIEVED TO BE THE ROOT OF THE ISSUES WITH HIS VEHICLE. HE ALSO BELIEVED THAT THE DEALER FAILED TO PROPERLY REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 57,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 50,000.
I HAVE A MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS YEAR 2002. THE HOOD WILL NOT CLOSE. I HAD A 1998 THE HOOD DID THE SAME THING AND THE HOOD FLEW UP ON OUR WAY BACK FROM WYOMING AND ALMOST CAUSED US TO WRECK. IT TWISTED THE HOOD KNOCKED OUT THE INTERIOR LIGHTS, BENT THE TOP OF MY CAR. THANK GOD IT DIDN'T BREAK THE WINDSHIELD. WE HAD THIS FIXED…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS YEAR 2002. THE HOOD WILL NOT CLOSE. I HAD A 1998 THE HOOD DID THE SAME THING AND THE HOOD FLEW UP ON OUR WAY BACK FROM WYOMING AND ALMOST CAUSED US TO WRECK. IT TWISTED THE HOOD KNOCKED OUT THE INTERIOR LIGHTS, BENT THE TOP OF MY CAR. THANK GOD IT DIDN'T BREAK THE WINDSHIELD. WE HAD THIS FIXED AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN 1 YEAR LATER CRACKING THE WINDSHIELD. I CAN'T BELIEVE I AM THE ONLY GRAND MARQUIS OWNER THIS HAS HAPPENED TO AND WITH 2 DIFFERENT CARS. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER WINDOW WAS INOPERATIVE. SHE HAS AN ELECTRONIC POWER DEVICE THAT CONTROLS THE WINDOW, BUT IT WILL NOT ROLL UP. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, BUT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE AND COULD NOT MAKE A REPAIR. THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER WINDOW WAS INOPERATIVE. SHE HAS AN ELECTRONIC POWER DEVICE THAT CONTROLS THE WINDOW, BUT IT WILL NOT ROLL UP. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, BUT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE AND COULD NOT MAKE A REPAIR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000. UPDATED 05/21/08 *BF UPDATED 05/21/08 *JB
BACKED OUT OF DRIVEWAY AT A FRIENDS HOUSE AND WENT ABOUT 4 HOUSES, WHEN THE RIGHT FRONT OF THE CAR DROPPED TO THE PAVEMENT AND DUG INTO THE ASPHALT. THE CAR WAS STOPPED IMMEDIATELY AS IT WAS ONLY TRAVELING AT 10 MPH. UPON INSPECTING THE DAMAGE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE LOWER BALL JOINT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE HAD BROKEN OFF. THE …
Read full complaint
BACKED OUT OF DRIVEWAY AT A FRIENDS HOUSE AND WENT ABOUT 4 HOUSES, WHEN THE RIGHT FRONT OF THE CAR DROPPED TO THE PAVEMENT AND DUG INTO THE ASPHALT. THE CAR WAS STOPPED IMMEDIATELY AS IT WAS ONLY TRAVELING AT 10 MPH. UPON INSPECTING THE DAMAGE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE LOWER BALL JOINT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE HAD BROKEN OFF. THE TIRE WAS CUT DOWN ON THE INSIDE SIDEWALL AND WAS PUSHED BACK INTO THE FENDER FORCING THE FENDER BACK INTO THE DOOR. THE RIM AND SWAY BAR LINK WERE ALSO DAMAGED. WE TRAVEL TO THE VETERANS HOSPITAL IN IOWA CITY, IOWA QUITE FREQUENTLY, TWO APPOINTMENTS THIS WEEK, AND HAD WE BEEN ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN THIS HAPPENED, I FEAR WE WOULD BE STATISTICS. *TR
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
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.