NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
27 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Jan 20, 2023
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed ControlCrash
I started Mercury with foot on break like normal. Shifted into reverse. Car accelerated backwards at full speed. Brakes did not stop car. Attempted to shift into neutral but went into drive instead. Car accelerated forward at full speed with my foot still on break. Car hit metal post and tree knocking them down and dragging the …
Read full complaint
I started Mercury with foot on break like normal. Shifted into reverse. Car accelerated backwards at full speed. Brakes did not stop car. Attempted to shift into neutral but went into drive instead. Car accelerated forward at full speed with my foot still on break. Car hit metal post and tree knocking them down and dragging the tree 50 to 60 feet before stopping with my foot still on the break. Car had stopped accelerating. I turned off the ignition. This unintended acceleration had happened before. Two different dealers attempted to fix the problem. Both of them thought they had been successful but it happened again. Previously, applying the brakes stopped the car, but not this time. Someone could have been injured severely or killed.
NHTSA ODI #11502872
Mileage unknown · Feb 4, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control
UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION WHEN CAR IS STOPPED AT A LIGHT, CAR LUNGES FORWARD. ON ONE OCCASION THE CAR WAS BURNING RUBBER . VERY DANGEROUS AND SCARY. HAVE TO SHUT OFF IGNITION WHEN THIS HAPPENS. HAS OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES. MY WIFE REFUSES TO RIDE IN THE VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10824362
130,000 miles · Oct 10, 2014
Service BrakesVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE ENGINE RPMS INCREASED APPROXIMATELY TO 4000. THE CONTACT STATED EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE VEHICLE JERKED. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS AGGRESSIVELY DEPRESSED UNTIL THE BRAKES…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE ENGINE RPMS INCREASED APPROXIMATELY TO 4000. THE CONTACT STATED EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE VEHICLE JERKED. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS AGGRESSIVELY DEPRESSED UNTIL THE BRAKES RESPONDED AND THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO COME TO A STOP. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 130,000. THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN HE APPLIED THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN. HOWEVER, THE ENGINE SPEED INCREASED TO 4,000 RPM'S/ WITH THE BRAKE FULLY DEPRESSED, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED WITH A SERIES OF LUNGES AT A HIGH SPEED. ONLY BY RELEASING THE BRAKE PEDAL AND SLAMMING ON THE BRAKE, DID THE VEHICLE STOP ABOUT THREE QUARTERS ACROSS THE INTERSECTION WITH THE ENGINE AT A NORMAL IDLE SPEED. NO WARNING LIGHTS DISPLAYED ON THE DASHBOARD. THE VEHICLE HAD A HISTORY OF ALMOST STALLING WHILE COMING TO A STOP. THE DEALER DID NOT FIND ANY CODES. UPDATED 12/04/14
NHTSA ODI #10643942
147,696 miles · Oct 28, 2013
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE STOPPED, THE ENGINE RPMS INCREASED EXCESSIVELY AS THE VEHICLE VIOLENTLY ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED OF THE INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE STOPPED, THE ENGINE RPMS INCREASED EXCESSIVELY AS THE VEHICLE VIOLENTLY ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED OF THE INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DUPLICATED OR DIAGNOSED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 147,696.
NHTSA ODI #10549823
100,000 miles · Oct 19, 2012
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STARTED THE IGNITION WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED AND SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE UNINTENDEDLY ACCELERATED WHEN THE GEAR LEVER WAS SHIFTED INTO DRIVE. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS ENGAGED NUMEROUS TIMES AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO SLOW DOWN AND CRASHED INTO THE NEARBY GARAGE AND ALS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STARTED THE IGNITION WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED AND SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE UNINTENDEDLY ACCELERATED WHEN THE GEAR LEVER WAS SHIFTED INTO DRIVE. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS ENGAGED NUMEROUS TIMES AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO SLOW DOWN AND CRASHED INTO THE NEARBY GARAGE AND ALSO CRASHED INTO A PARKED VEHICLE. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED OF THE INCIDENT. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED INJURY TO THE LEFT KNEE. THE VEHICLE WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED AND TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MALFUNCTION. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10481072
50,400 miles · Jul 15, 2011
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED WAS ATTEMPTING TO PARK THE VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH IN A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO THE GARAGE OF HIS HOME. THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED DURING THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT RESPOND. THE CONTACT WAS UNINJURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED WAS ATTEMPTING TO PARK THE VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH IN A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO THE GARAGE OF HIS HOME. THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED DURING THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT RESPOND. THE CONTACT WAS UNINJURED YET THERE WAS EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT YET BEEN INSPECTED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,400.
NHTSA ODI #10412378
162,000 miles · Jul 12, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SUDDEN ACCELERATION WAS EXPERIENCED IN THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE BEGAN GRADUALLY LUNGING FORWARD SPORADICALLY UNTIL IT BECAME HARDER FOR THE CONTACT TO STOP THE VEHICLE WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT ONCE PRESSURE WAS RELEASE FROM THE A…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SUDDEN ACCELERATION WAS EXPERIENCED IN THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE BEGAN GRADUALLY LUNGING FORWARD SPORADICALLY UNTIL IT BECAME HARDER FOR THE CONTACT TO STOP THE VEHICLE WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT ONCE PRESSURE WAS RELEASE FROM THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, THE VEHICLE RAPIDLY ACCELERATED AT FULL FORCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED FOR THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 162,000.
NHTSA ODI #10412009
50,000 miles · Jul 27, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE TRAVELING AT 4 MPH, THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE AS A RESULT. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. ON A LATER DATE, WHILE PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL GARAGE, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKES AND THE VEHI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE TRAVELING AT 4 MPH, THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE AS A RESULT. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. ON A LATER DATE, WHILE PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL GARAGE, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKES AND THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE GARAGE WALL AND THROUGH THE MASTER BATHROOM OF THE HOME. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED INJURIES TO HER PELVIS FROM ATTEMPTING TO APPLY EXTREME FORCE TO THE BRAKE. A POLICE REPORT WAS AVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED FOR THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 90,000.
NHTSA ODI #10345721
20,000 miles · Jan 29, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
SUDDEN ACCELERATION IN A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THIS HAPPENED AFTER PUTTING THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE, IT TOOK OFF AT AN EXCESSIVE RATE OF SPEED CROSSED A STREET AND JUMPED TWO CURBS ABOUT 15 INCHES HIGH WITHIN 5 OR 6 SECONDS. MY THOUGHTS WERE "WHAT IS HAPPENING?" & "BRAKE OR YOU ARE GOING TO DIE" THANK GOD THIS VEHICLE DROWN IN…
Read full complaint
SUDDEN ACCELERATION IN A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THIS HAPPENED AFTER PUTTING THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE, IT TOOK OFF AT AN EXCESSIVE RATE OF SPEED CROSSED A STREET AND JUMPED TWO CURBS ABOUT 15 INCHES HIGH WITHIN 5 OR 6 SECONDS. MY THOUGHTS WERE "WHAT IS HAPPENING?" & "BRAKE OR YOU ARE GOING TO DIE" THANK GOD THIS VEHICLE DROWN IN HURRICANE KATRINA. I CALLED YOUR OFC IN 2004 AFTER THIS HAPPENED AND WAS SENT A FORM TO FILL OUT AND RETURN TO YOU WHICH I NEVER DID. HOWEVER, WITH THE TOYOTA RECALL IT DISTURBS ME THAT MY FORD DID THE SAME THING. AN INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE MADE AS TO WHY THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING BECAUSE IN MY CASE IT WAS NOT A FLOOR MAT AND NEITHER WAS IT DRIVER'S ERROR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MYSELF THAT THIS INCIDENT IS REPORTED AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WILL TAKE IT SERIOUS AND FIND OUT WHAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS BEFORE MORE LIVES ARE LOST. I CONSIDER MYSELF VERY LUCKY THAT I WAS NOT INJURED AND OTHERS WERE NOT INJURED. MY VEHICLE SUSTAINED $5,000.00 WORTH OF DAMAGE AND AT THE TIME THE INCIDENT WAS REPORTED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP. THEY SUPPOSEDLY CHECKED THE CAR BUT COULD FIND NO REASON FOR THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10303107
25,000 miles · Oct 20, 2009
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT INTENTION THROUGH AN INTERSECTION. AFTER REPEATED BRAKE APPLICATION THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. SHE WAS ABLE TO DECELERATE BY DRIVING ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TOWING THE VEHICLE TO TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT INTENTION THROUGH AN INTERSECTION. AFTER REPEATED BRAKE APPLICATION THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. SHE WAS ABLE TO DECELERATE BY DRIVING ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TOWING THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 25,000.
NHTSA ODI #10289129
NHTSA investigations
6PE15028 · Loss Of Headlights
Opened Aug 10, 2015 · Closed Jan 8, 2016
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Exterior Lighting:headlights
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
DP15002 · Loss Of Headlamp/exterior Lighting
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Aug 11, 2015
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Exterior Lighting:headlights
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
PE08066 · Loss Of Headlight Function
Opened Nov 26, 2008 · Closed Mar 24, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:headlights
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD AND COMPLAINANT INTERVIEWS. FORD FOUND THAT SOME LIGHTING CONTROL MODULES (LCM) IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES CONTAINED DEFECTIVE SOLDER JOINTS ON THE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD.THIS CONDITION CAN LEAD TO POOR HEADLIGHT PERFORMANCE RANGING FROM INTERMITTENT OUTAGE AND DIMMING TO EVENTUAL HEADLIGHTS FAILURE.THE FAILURE DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER LIGHTING FUNCTIONS (PARK, EMERGENCY FLASHER, BRAKE AND FLASH TO PASS LIGHTS).THE AGENCY IS AWARE OF A TOTAL OF 306 CONSUMERS COMPLAINTS AND NO REPORT OF CRASH, INJURY OR FATALITY.FORD REPORTS 2,074 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO HEADLIGHT FAILURE LINKED TO THE LCM DURING THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF OPERATION.ABOUT 12% (247) OF THESE CLAIMS ARE SPECIFIC TO HEADLIGHT FAILURE WHILE DRIVING.THE AVERAGE WARRANTY RATE FOR HEADLIGHT FAILING WHILE DRIVING IS LOW (0.05%).FORD REPORTS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER WARRANTY RATE EXPERIENCED FOR THE CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR VEHICLES AND THIS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE HIGHER DUTY CYCLE OF THESE VEHICLES (HEADLIGHTS ON FOR LONGER PERIODS).A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
DP05005 · 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.
PE04010 · Rear Axle Fracture
Opened Jan 22, 2004 · Closed Jul 8, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:axle Assembly:axle Shaft
THIS PE WAS OPENED AFTER ODI BECAME AWARE OF TWO ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING REAR AXLE FRACTURE AND PARTIAL WHEEL SEPARATION INVOLVING MY 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS (CVPI).INITIALLY, THE PE'S SCOPE INVOLVED ALL MY 2003 GRAND MARQUIS, CROWN VICTORIA, AND LINCOLN TOWN CARS (I.E., PANTHER PLATFORM) PRODUCED THROUGH JANUARY 2003.WHILE GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE FAILURES WERE CONFINED TO LONG-WHEELBASE LINCOLN TOWN CARS AND THE CVPI'S DUE TO THEIR UNIQUE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE PROFILES.FORD'S RECALL ADDRESSES THESE VEHICLES.BOTH THE COMPANY AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THE AXLES AND WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS REQUIRED.
PE03009 · Fracture Of The Steel Wheel Rim
Opened Feb 25, 2003 · Closed Aug 8, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Wheels
THE SUBJECT WHEEL (NEW FOR MY 2003) IS USED ON CROWN VICTORIA (CV) AND GRAND MARQUIS.COMPLAINT DATA INDICATES THAT WHEEL FAILURE AFFECTS PRIMARILY THE COMMERCIAL SPECIFICATION CV MODEL (POLICE AND TAXI) WHICH HAS UNIQUE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS AND IS GENERALLY SUBJECTED TO HIGHER USAGE DEMANDS.DURING FORD'S ANALYSIS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CYCLIC BENDING MOMENT FATIGUE COULD CAUSE RIM CRACKS TO OCCUR IN THE HEAT AFFECTED ZONE ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD.FORD IMPLEMENTED CHANGES IN WHEEL MANUFACTURE IN SEPTEMBER 2002 AND INTRODUCED A NEW WHEEL DESIGN WITH A THICKER RIM IN APRIL 2003.ODI FOUND EVIDENCE THAT INDICATED RAPID CRACK PROPOGATION MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED IN SEVEN WHEEL FAILURE INCIDENTS, TWO OF WHICH LEAD TO TIRE DEBEADING.FORD HAS ANNOUNCED THAT 29,946 COMMERCIAL SPEC CV VEHICLES, MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO THE SEPTEMBER CHANGE, WILL BE RECALLED TO HAVE THE APRIL 2003 DESIGN WHEEL INSTALLED.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR FOR WHEEL FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL.
Illustration