NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
23 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Sep 1, 2022
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed ControlFire
While driving, I came to a stop light and suddenly, the car idled high and lurched forward while my foot was on the brake, luckily, I was stopped well away from the vehicle in front of me. The car idled high and seemed to have a mind of it's own. I took the back roads home and backed into our garage. The car smelled hot, and I …
Read full complaint
While driving, I came to a stop light and suddenly, the car idled high and lurched forward while my foot was on the brake, luckily, I was stopped well away from the vehicle in front of me. The car idled high and seemed to have a mind of it's own. I took the back roads home and backed into our garage. The car smelled hot, and I though I had smoked my brakes, trying to keep control of it. Later that night, I told my husband about the car's actions and he did not believe me, though my daughter who was with me at the time confirmed that the car had indeed accelerated on it's own. My husband started the car and it did idle high and get hot once again, although only parked with no one in it. He thought he knew what the problem was and we turned off the car and closed the hood and went inside to order the part. A few minutes later, we heard a couple popping noises and I opened the door that led into the garage from the basement. Smoke was coming into the house and my husband said that a flame shot over my head. The car had caught on fire under the closed hood. We called the fire department, but by the time they arrived, a good portion of the basement was on fire. The house was a total loss. My husband though that the pvc elbow under the hood was sticking closed, so that is the part we were going to order. Unsure, if that was the real cause or not. The car did not have any warning lights or any other indications of a problem before this incident.
NHTSA ODI #11482417
80,000 miles · Oct 1, 2015
Exterior LightingVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE HEADLIGHTS WORK INTERMITTENTLY . CRUSE CONTROL DOES NOT RESET OR TURN ON WHEN SUPPOSED TO. THIS IS ALSO AN INTERMITTENT PROBLEM, SOMETIMES RESETTING, AND SOMETIMES NOT. HEADLIGHTS WOULD SOMETIMES NOT TURN ON WHEN DRIVING UNLESS PULLING TURN SIGNAL ARM TOWARD STEERING WHEEL AND HOLDING. HIGH BEAMS ONLY WOULD WORK.
NHTSA ODI #10779135
58,000 miles · Jul 22, 2015
Service BrakesVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS COMING TO A STOP, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE SPEED AND RPMS INCREASED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CONTINUED TO DEPRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL; HOWEVER, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND. THE CONTACT POWERED THE VEHICLE OFF AND NOTICED BLUE SMOKE EM…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS COMING TO A STOP, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE SPEED AND RPMS INCREASED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CONTINUED TO DEPRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL; HOWEVER, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND. THE CONTACT POWERED THE VEHICLE OFF AND NOTICED BLUE SMOKE EMITTING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 58,000. MA 09/25 UPDATED 12/05/2017*CN
NHTSA ODI #10735745
50,000 miles · Nov 30, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE VEHICLES SPEED INCREASED. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS ENGAGED, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO REDUCE SPEED. THE CONTACT MANEUVERED ONTO THE EMERGENCY LANE AND TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF. AFTER RESTARTING THE VEHICLE, IT BEGAN TO FUNCTION NORMALLY. THE FAIL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE VEHICLES SPEED INCREASED. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS ENGAGED, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO REDUCE SPEED. THE CONTACT MANEUVERED ONTO THE EMERGENCY LANE AND TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF. AFTER RESTARTING THE VEHICLE, IT BEGAN TO FUNCTION NORMALLY. THE FAILURE OCCURRED THREE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING AND THE THEY WERE UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10437785
50,000 miles · Aug 8, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH WITH THE BRAKES ENGAGED, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE, HE HAD TO SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FAILURE DIAGNOSED. THE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH WITH THE BRAKES ENGAGED, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE, HE HAD TO SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FAILURE DIAGNOSED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 67,000.
NHTSA ODI #10417971
27,800 miles · Jul 8, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE IN REVERSE, THE VEHICLE SURGED BACKWARDS UNTIL HEAVY PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FAILURE WAS NORMAL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE IN REVERSE, THE VEHICLE SURGED BACKWARDS UNTIL HEAVY PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FAILURE WAS NORMAL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 27,800.
NHTSA ODI #10411504
71,000 miles · Jun 16, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control
I OWN A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LS THAT UNEXPECTEDLY GOES INTO UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WHEN SLOWING DOWN OR STOPPING VEHICLE. I NEVER KNOW WHEN THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WILL OCCUR. FIRST NOTICED PROBLEM AT ABOUT 24000 TILL NOW AT 71000 MILES. THE PROBLEM OCCURS USUALLY IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC AS I AM SLOWING DOWN OR SLOWING D…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS LS THAT UNEXPECTEDLY GOES INTO UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WHEN SLOWING DOWN OR STOPPING VEHICLE. I NEVER KNOW WHEN THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WILL OCCUR. FIRST NOTICED PROBLEM AT ABOUT 24000 TILL NOW AT 71000 MILES. THE PROBLEM OCCURS USUALLY IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC AS I AM SLOWING DOWN OR SLOWING DOWN TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN OR TRAFFIC LIGHT. OR PARKING THE VEHICLE. SUDDENLY THE ENGINE STARTS RACING AND SOMETIMES THE VEHICLE WILL JUMP FORWARD RAPIDLY (SUDDEN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION). I HAVE TO APPLY THE BRAKES RAPIDLY AND WITH EXTREME PRESSURE TO KEEP THE VEHICLE FROM HITTING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME OR TO KEEP FROM RUNNING A TRAFFIC LIGHT OR STOP SIGN. MOST OF THE TIME WHEN THE ENGINE RACES AND I APPLY THE BRAKES THE REAR WHEELS WILL CONTINUE TO SPIN AT A HIGH RATE EVEN TO THE POINT OF CAUSING THE RUBBER ON THE TIRES TO SMOKE AND STILL TRY TO PUSH ME FORWARD. AFTER APPLYING THE BRAKES I MUST TURN OFF THE ENGINE USING THE KEY TO STOP THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM. I NOTICED THE PROBLEM NOT LONG AFTER PURCHASING THE CAR AND REPORTED IT TO THE DEALER DUB HERRING FORD IN PICAYUNE, MS. WHILE THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO CHECK OR FIX THE PROBLEM. THEY SEEMED NOT TO WORRY OR BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM! I REPORTED THE PROBLEM SEVERAL TIMES TO THE DEALER WITH NO SUCCESS. I THEN REPORTED IT TO THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY SEVERAL TIMES AND THEY REFERRED ME TO THE DEALER WHICH DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO FIX THE PROBLEM TO START WITH. I THEN TOOK THE CAR TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP AND THEY TRIED TO FIND OUT FROM THE DEALER AND FORD CO. IF THERE WAS A RECALL OR NOTATION OR FIX FOR THE PROBLEM. THE INDEPENDENT SHOP SAID THE DEALERS AND FORD CO. WOULDN'T GIVE HIM ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROBLEM. THEY ASKED ME TO CONTACT FORD MOTOR CO. AND SEE IF I COULD GET ANY RESPONSE FOR A FIX OR REPAIR AND GOT NO HELP FROM THEM. I AM LODGING A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST FORD AND THE DEALER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10407056
57,692 miles · May 12, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control
THREE TIMES MY 2004 MERCURY MARQUIS HAS HAD SHOWN "PRIUS LIKE" PROBLEMS. ONCE IN DRY SUMMER , THEN TWICE IN WINTER IN THE PACIFIC NW.THE LAST TIME I WAS INTO THE INTERSECTION WHEN I SLAMMED ON MY PARKING BRAKE TO STOP THE CAR BUT THE MOTOR WAS STILL RACING.
NHTSA ODI #10330048
88,000 miles · May 3, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION: LAST YEAR (FEB 2009) MY 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS HAD AN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WHICH I (WEIGHT LIFTER) COULD BARELY CONTROL AND I ALMOST CRASHED INTO 2-CARS. I ALSO HAD TO HAVE THE BRAKES REPLACED DUE TO SEVERE BRAKING REQUIRED TO STOP THE CAR DUE TO THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION I USED A RELIABLE MECHA…
Read full complaint
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION: LAST YEAR (FEB 2009) MY 2004 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS HAD AN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WHICH I (WEIGHT LIFTER) COULD BARELY CONTROL AND I ALMOST CRASHED INTO 2-CARS. I ALSO HAD TO HAVE THE BRAKES REPLACED DUE TO SEVERE BRAKING REQUIRED TO STOP THE CAR DUE TO THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION I USED A RELIABLE MECHANIC (HIGHLY RATED BY THE STATE OF MA) AS THE LOCAL FORD DEALER SHOPS ARE OVER-PRICED AND UNRELIABLE. NO DIAGNOSTIC CODES SHOWED-UP AT THE SHOP AFTER THE PROBLEM, BUT I WOULD NOT HAVE MY WIFE DRIVE THIS CAR? THE CAR IS WELL MAINTAINED AND I HAD A PREVIOUS GRAND MARQUIS, SO I KNOW THE CAR BETTER THAN MOST. HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND IS THERE A RECALL? FORD WAS CONTACTED ON FEB 23 2010, VIA THEIR PROTAL, AND INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM OR RECALL, AND SUGGESTED THAT I GO TO THEIR DEALER (DID NOT GO AS I HAVE NO NEED FOR BS). I INFORMED MY LOCAL MECHANIC THAT THE CAR WENT INTO OVERDRIVE AND I HAD TO DRIVE OVER THE CURB (BRAKE TO FLOOR TO STOP IT).L BURNED OUT THE BRAKES BUT NO ONE DIED. THERE WAS NO DIAGNOSTIC CODES THAT SHOWED A BRAKING OR OTHER ELECTRONIC PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10328554
16,890 miles · Mar 21, 2006
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE APPROACHING A STOP UNDER NORMAL BRAKING, THE VEHICLES ENGINE REVS AND SURGES FORWARD. THE BRAKE PEDAL MUST BE DEPRESSED TO THE FLOOR TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THIS HAPPENED 5 TIMES AND THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE DEALER HOWEVER; THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN OVER 6,…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE APPROACHING A STOP UNDER NORMAL BRAKING, THE VEHICLES ENGINE REVS AND SURGES FORWARD. THE BRAKE PEDAL MUST BE DEPRESSED TO THE FLOOR TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THIS HAPPENED 5 TIMES AND THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE DEALER HOWEVER; THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN OVER 6,000 MILES WHEN THE PROBLEM RETURNED. IT WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER FOR SERVICE AND AGAIN THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. *AK THE CONSUMER BELIEVED THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE TRANSMISSION. UPDATED 04/06/06. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10153351
NHTSA investigations
5PE15028 · 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.
PE14021 · Steering Column Shaft Obstruction
Opened Jul 7, 2014 · Closed Nov 21, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System; Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
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.
Illustration