NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
362 reportsMileage unknown · Mar 20, 2007
Power Train
2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS CUSTOMER HAS HAD THE HEAD AND INTERIOR LIGHTS REPAIRED THREE TIMES AND WANTS TO BE REIMBURSED FOR REPAIRS CUSTOMER HAS EXTENDED SERVICE PLAN **CC THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS THE POWER CONTROL MODULE. THE CONSUMER STATED THE PROBLEM WAS MIS-DIAGNOSED THREE TIMES AS THE PROBLEM BEING THE LIGHTING CONTR…
Read full complaint
2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS CUSTOMER HAS HAD THE HEAD AND INTERIOR LIGHTS REPAIRED THREE TIMES AND WANTS TO BE REIMBURSED FOR REPAIRS CUSTOMER HAS EXTENDED SERVICE PLAN **CC THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS THE POWER CONTROL MODULE. THE CONSUMER STATED THE PROBLEM WAS MIS-DIAGNOSED THREE TIMES AS THE PROBLEM BEING THE LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10185829
75,584 miles · Mar 12, 2007
Wheels
I RECENTLY HAD TO REPLACE TWO WHEELS ON MY WIFE'S 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS DUE TO SUBSTANTIAL WHEEL CRACKS ALONG THE WELDS ON THE OUTER FLANGE OF THE WHEEL CAUSING THE TIRES TO DEFLATE (TWO SEPARATE EVENTS). I SEE REPORTED IN USA TODAY THAT INTERCEPTOR ARE BEING RECALLED FOR THIS SAME 'SERIOUS SAFETY' PROBLEM. I CONTACTE…
Read full complaint
I RECENTLY HAD TO REPLACE TWO WHEELS ON MY WIFE'S 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS DUE TO SUBSTANTIAL WHEEL CRACKS ALONG THE WELDS ON THE OUTER FLANGE OF THE WHEEL CAUSING THE TIRES TO DEFLATE (TWO SEPARATE EVENTS). I SEE REPORTED IN USA TODAY THAT INTERCEPTOR ARE BEING RECALLED FOR THIS SAME 'SERIOUS SAFETY' PROBLEM. I CONTACTED FORD/MERCURY ABOUT MY VEHICLE AND THEY SAY THAT IT IS NOT COVERED AT THIS TIME AND THAT "FORD AND THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) WORK TOGETHER TO PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONCERN THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF CONSUMER AND DEALER FEEDBACK. DURING AN INVESTIGATION FORD COOPERATES FULLY WITH NHTSA. FORD DOES NOT SPECULATE ON THE OUTCOME OF ANY CURRENT INVESTIGATION OR FUTURE ACTIONS. DUE TO OUR RIGOROUS SAFETY STANDARDS AND CONSTANT TESTING, NOT ALL ISSUES RESULT IN FIELD SERVICE ACTIONS OR CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAMS." I VISITED THE NHTSA WEBSITE AND SAW THAT OTHER MERCURY FAILURES OF LIKE TYPE HAVE BEEN LOGGED. I'M ADDING MY COMPLAINT AND EXPERIENCE TO THE LIST AND SUGGEST THAT FORD BE MADE TO REPLACE ALL THE DEFECTIVE WHEELS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10184911
18,000 miles · Jan 11, 2007
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* - ON 12/20/06 WHILE EXITING THE DRIVEWAY HIS 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONTACT TRY TO APPLY THE BREAK PEDAL, BUT COULDN'T GET THE VEHICLE TO STOP ON TIME BECAUSE THE BRAKE PEDAL IS 4 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE CONTACT IS CONCERN FOR SAFETY, BECAUSE HE HAS EXPERIENCE THE …
Read full complaint
TL* - ON 12/20/06 WHILE EXITING THE DRIVEWAY HIS 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONTACT TRY TO APPLY THE BREAK PEDAL, BUT COULDN'T GET THE VEHICLE TO STOP ON TIME BECAUSE THE BRAKE PEDAL IS 4 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE CONTACT IS CONCERN FOR SAFETY, BECAUSE HE HAS EXPERIENCE THE SAME INCIDENT SEVERAL OF TIMES.
NHTSA ODI #10178430
24,000 miles · Nov 17, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PARKED WITH THE IGNITION ON; THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD WITHOUT WARNING. THE BRAKES WERE DEPRESSED AND THE IGNITION WAS TURNED OFF, WHICH STOPPED THE VEHICLE AFTER IT TRAVELED 60 FT. THIS HAD OCCURRED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. ALSO, WHILE TRAVELING 60 MPH WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED, T…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PARKED WITH THE IGNITION ON; THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD WITHOUT WARNING. THE BRAKES WERE DEPRESSED AND THE IGNITION WAS TURNED OFF, WHICH STOPPED THE VEHICLE AFTER IT TRAVELED 60 FT. THIS HAD OCCURRED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. ALSO, WHILE TRAVELING 60 MPH WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED, THE VEHICLE SPED UNCONTROLLABLY TO 80 MPH. THE BRAKES WERE DEPRESSED, BUT DID NOT DISENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL. ALSO, WHILE TRAVELING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED SUDDENLY, CAUSING THE CONTACT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE INTO A DITCH TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED A BRUISE TO THE SHOULDER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED, AND PROVIDED NO ASSISTANCE SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER TWICE, WHERE THE CRUISE CONTROL WAS REPLACED, BUT THE PROBLEM PERSISTED.
NHTSA ODI #10173741
70,950 miles · Sep 30, 2006
Suspension
I OWN A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT BY THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO BE PLACED INTO FLEET SERVICE AS A HERTZ RENTAL VEHICLE IN JULY 2002. I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AS A USED CAR FROM A DEALER IN ASHLAND KY KNOWING THAT THE CAR HAD BEEN IN PREVIOUS FLEET SERVICE. ON JULY 15, 2004, FORD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PANTH…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2003 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT BY THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO BE PLACED INTO FLEET SERVICE AS A HERTZ RENTAL VEHICLE IN JULY 2002. I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AS A USED CAR FROM A DEALER IN ASHLAND KY KNOWING THAT THE CAR HAD BEEN IN PREVIOUS FLEET SERVICE. ON JULY 15, 2004, FORD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PANTHER VEHICLES BUILT FOR FLEET SERVICE WERE PRONE TO PREMATURE AXLE FAILURES AND ISSUED THE FOLLOWING RECALL. ------ FORD MOTOR COMPANY COMPONENT DESCRIPTION: SUSPENSION:REAR DEFECT SUMMARY CERTAIN POLICE, COMMERCIAL, AND PASSENGER VEHICLES SOLD TO FLEETS TYPICALLY INPUT HIGHER LOADS INTO THE VEHICLE CHASSIS OVERLOADING THE WHEEL BEARINGS AND AXLES. CONSEQUENCE SUMMARY THIS COULD LEAD TO EARLY BEARING FAILURE AND ULTIMATELY TO AXLE SHAFT FRACTURE. IN THE EVENT OF AXLE SHAFT FRACTURE, THE VEHICLE WOULD LOSE DRIVE FUNCTION AND WOULD COAST TO A STOP. LOSS OF DRIVE FUNCTION COULD LEAD TO A CRASH. CORRECTIVE SUMMARY DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE REAR WHEEL BEARINGS, SEALS,AND AXLE SHAFTS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 15, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. MADE BETWEEN 11/14/2001 AND 12/3/2002 POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITS AFFECTED: 47,314 DATE OWNER NOTIFIED BY MFR: 7/15/2004 RECALL INITIATOR: OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 04V328000. *JB MISSING FROM THIS RECALL ARE ALL MERCURY MODELS THAT WERE BUILT FOR FLEET SERVICE AS RENTAL VEHICLES. MY VEHICLE HAS PRODUCED THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS THE CARS MENTIONED IN THE ASSOCIATED RECALL, BUT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED. HOW DO I SEEK MEDIATION FOR DAMAGES SUFFERED DUE TO A KNOW MANUFACTURERS DEFECT?
NHTSA ODI #10169662
18,091 miles · Jun 28, 2006
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
DT*: ON THREE OCCASIONS WHEN THE GEAR WAS PLACED INTO DRIVE THE VEHICLE WOULD LURCH FORWARD OR WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED THE SAME THING WOULD OCCUR CAUSING THE TIRES TO SCREECH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALERS WHO DETERMINED THAT THE GAS AND BRAKE PEDALS WERE TO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. WHEN DEPRESSING ONE PEDAL THE OTHER PEDAL…
Read full complaint
DT*: ON THREE OCCASIONS WHEN THE GEAR WAS PLACED INTO DRIVE THE VEHICLE WOULD LURCH FORWARD OR WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED THE SAME THING WOULD OCCUR CAUSING THE TIRES TO SCREECH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALERS WHO DETERMINED THAT THE GAS AND BRAKE PEDALS WERE TO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. WHEN DEPRESSING ONE PEDAL THE OTHER PEDAL WAS ALSO APPLIED. THE DEALERS ALSO DETERMINED THAT BECAUSE THE PEDALS WERE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY IT WOULD CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO UNINTENTIONALLY ACCELERATE. THE DEALERS CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER WHO CONFIRMED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS ON THIS ISSUE. UPDATED 7/14/2006 - *NM
NHTSA ODI #10160963
12,300 miles · Apr 4, 2006
Structure
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE SPLASH GUARD PANEL UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE THAT PROTECTS THE RADIATOR, POWER STEERING, AND VACUUM HOSES, IS VERY LOW TO THE GROUND AND CAN BE STRUCK BY OBJECTS IN THE ROADWAY. ALTHOUGH A FAILURE DID NOT OCCUR, THE VEHICLE WAS SEEN BY A DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PR…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE SPLASH GUARD PANEL UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE THAT PROTECTS THE RADIATOR, POWER STEERING, AND VACUUM HOSES, IS VERY LOW TO THE GROUND AND CAN BE STRUCK BY OBJECTS IN THE ROADWAY. ALTHOUGH A FAILURE DID NOT OCCUR, THE VEHICLE WAS SEEN BY A DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. . SPLASH GUARD ALWAYS MADE CONTACT WITH THE BUMPER STOP ON PARKING LOT, WHEN A CAR PULLED OUT THE SPLASHING GUARD MADE CONTACT WITH IT, MAKING A TERRIBLE NOISE, THE PANEL BECAME MORE WARPED EACH TIME THAT IT HAPPENED. BECAUSE IT COVERED VITAL ENGINE AND STEERING PARTS, THIS PANEL SHOULD BE STRAIGHT AND MORE SECURE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10154529
22,014 miles · Mar 6, 2006
Fuel System, Other
FUEL GAUGE THAT COMES OFF FULL TOO QUICKLY AND READS LOWER THEN ACTUAL FUEL TANK LEVEL. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10152014
20,807 miles · Feb 10, 2006
Visibility
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS ACORNS HAVE ACCUMULATED INSIDE THE HOLES SURROUNDING THE WINDSHIELD WIPER ARMS. THE HOLES ARE TWO INCHES IN DIAMETER. THE CONTACT LIVES NEAR AN ACORN TREE AND THE ACORNS FUNNEL THEMSELVES DOWN INTO THE HOLES. THERE WERE 50 OR MORE ACORNS INSIDE THAT CAUSED THE MECHANISM TO B…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS ACORNS HAVE ACCUMULATED INSIDE THE HOLES SURROUNDING THE WINDSHIELD WIPER ARMS. THE HOLES ARE TWO INCHES IN DIAMETER. THE CONTACT LIVES NEAR AN ACORN TREE AND THE ACORNS FUNNEL THEMSELVES DOWN INTO THE HOLES. THERE WERE 50 OR MORE ACORNS INSIDE THAT CAUSED THE MECHANISM TO BIND. THE CONTACT BELIEVES THIS IS A DESIGN DEFECT. THIS CAUSED THE WIPING MECHANISM TO BIND AND STRIPPED THE GEAR IN THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR CAUSING THE WIPERS TO STOP WORKING. THE WIPERS HAVE BEEN REPAIRED. UPDATED 3/9/2006 - *NM
NHTSA ODI #10149977
54,698 miles · Jan 31, 2006
Fuel System, Gasoline
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED AFTER HEARING THERE WAS A MANUFACTURER'S OFFER TO REPLACE THE GASOLINE STORAGE TANK ON POLICE VEHICLES DUE TO A RISK OF FIRE IN THE EVENT OF A REAR END COLLISION, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE DISPLAYED NO PRIOR PROBLEMS OR HAD ANY EXISTING FAILURES, THE CONTACT INSTRUCTED THE S…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED AFTER HEARING THERE WAS A MANUFACTURER'S OFFER TO REPLACE THE GASOLINE STORAGE TANK ON POLICE VEHICLES DUE TO A RISK OF FIRE IN THE EVENT OF A REAR END COLLISION, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE DISPLAYED NO PRIOR PROBLEMS OR HAD ANY EXISTING FAILURES, THE CONTACT INSTRUCTED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT TO REPLACE THE FUEL TANK STORAGE ASSEMBLY. THE CONSUMER WANTED TO KNOW WHY HE HAD TO PAY FOR SERVICE WHEN THE POLICE VEHICLE WERE BEING REPAIRED FOR FREE. UPDATED 02/27/06. *JB UPDATED 4/6/2006 - THE GAS TANK WAS NOT REPLACED. A GAS TANK PROTECTION SHIELD WAS INSTALLED IN POLICE CARS FREE OF CHARGE. THE CONSUMER WAS UPSET BECAUSE HE HAD TO PAY TO HAVE ONE INSTALLED IN HIS VEHICLE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10149116
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