IllustrationBRAKE AND GAS PEDALS ARE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER. SOMETIMES WHEN PRESSING BRAKES FOOT IS ACTUALLY ON GAS PEDAL, ONCE CONSUMER RAN RIGHT INTO GARAGE.*AK *SLC
1997 Mercury Mountaineer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Mountaineer years
Owner complaints for the 1997 Mercury Mountaineer are substantially higher than the model-year median of 117.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mountaineer years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 31 of 328 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Tires. Review the 138 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 59 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 37 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
41 crash reports10 fire reports16 injury reports
What owners actually said
328 reportsFIRESTONE TIRE (P235/75R15) EXPERIENCED BLOWOUT CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE WHEEL, CONSUMER IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TIRE AND DAMAGES. *SLC
ON FOUR OCCASIONS WHEN GOING OUT TO START VEHICLE CONSUMER WAS NOT ABLE TO TURN IGNITION AND STEERING WHEEL WOULD NOT MOVE, LEAVING CONSUMER STRANDED. EVENTUALLY IT WOULD RELEASE . DEALER HAS REMOVED IGNITION, BUT CLAIMED NO DEFECT EXISTED. DEALER ONLY ADVISED CONSUMER TO MAKE SURE WHEELS WERE STRAIGHT WHEN PARKING. *AK
WHILE PARKING AT A RIGHT ANGLE ON A STEEP HILL OVERLOOKING A BUSY ROAD, THE CAR ALMOST AT A STANDSTILL, THE DRIVER'S FOOT ON THE BRAKE, THE CAR ENGINE SUDDENLY STARTED SCREAMING, THE GAS PEDAL DEPRESSED ON ITS OWN AND THE CAR SURGED FORWARD OVER A CONCRETE PARKING CURB AND MOWED DOWN A TALL PALM TREE. MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW WOULD …
Read full complaint
WHILE PARKING AT A RIGHT ANGLE ON A STEEP HILL OVERLOOKING A BUSY ROAD, THE CAR ALMOST AT A STANDSTILL, THE DRIVER'S FOOT ON THE BRAKE, THE CAR ENGINE SUDDENLY STARTED SCREAMING, THE GAS PEDAL DEPRESSED ON ITS OWN AND THE CAR SURGED FORWARD OVER A CONCRETE PARKING CURB AND MOWED DOWN A TALL PALM TREE. MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED IF NOT FOR HITTING THE TREE, AS SHE HAD ALREADY TAKEN OFF HER SEATBELT AND OPENED HER DOOR - WE WERE SO CLOSE TO A STANDSTILL. THE TREE STOPPED THE CAR FROM GOING OVER A VERY STEEP HILL AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED ONTO TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD BELOW. THE REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE TREE IS NOT YET KNOWN. I HAVE SINCE DISCOVERED VIA CHANNEL 4 TV IN UK, AND DATELINE NBC THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED, AS MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN IF NOT FOR THE PALM TREE. I HAVE NOW HAD THE CRUISE CONTROL DISABLED ON THE VEHICLE SO THAT I CAN DRIVE IT, AS I CAN NOT ETHICALLY TRADE IT IN AND LET SOMEONE ELSE BUY IT WHEN I KNOW IT HAS A PROBLEM. I HOPE THAT BY REGISTERING THIS BRIEF COMPLAINT THAT IT WILL HELP YOU TO INFLUENCE FORD LINCOLN MERCURY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FAULT RECALL THESE VEHICLES. THANK YOU. *AK
TIRES EXHIBIT CRACKS AT THE TREAD LINE (ALL FOUR) AND HAVE NOT FAILED. I HAVE SINCE REPLACED THEM ON MY OWN BUT DECIDED TO REPORT THEM ANYWAY. I HAVE HI-RES PHOTOS AND CAN E-MAIL THEM IF YOU LIKE. ALL MEDIA RELATED TO THE TIRES THAT I HAVE SEEN SAYS THAT THE CRACKS ARE SIGNS OF TIRES NEAR FAILURE. AS MY TIRES WERE NOT PART O…
Read full complaint
TIRES EXHIBIT CRACKS AT THE TREAD LINE (ALL FOUR) AND HAVE NOT FAILED. I HAVE SINCE REPLACED THEM ON MY OWN BUT DECIDED TO REPORT THEM ANYWAY. I HAVE HI-RES PHOTOS AND CAN E-MAIL THEM IF YOU LIKE. ALL MEDIA RELATED TO THE TIRES THAT I HAVE SEEN SAYS THAT THE CRACKS ARE SIGNS OF TIRES NEAR FAILURE. AS MY TIRES WERE NOT PART OF THE RECALL, I CHOSE NOT TO TAKE THE CHANCE. PLEASE CALL / E-MAIL IF INTERESTED. (DOT NUMBER: VNHL TIRESIZE: P235-75-15)
3 OF THE CONSUMER'S FIRESTONE WILDERNESS AT TIRES (P235 75 R15) ARE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 00T005, HOWEVER ARE EXPERIENCING TREAD SEPARATION, CONSUMER IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL OF THE TIRES. *SLC
CONSUMER IS HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING REIMBURSED FOR FAULTY TIRES, THE CONSUMER HAS SENT ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS BUT THE MANUFACTURER CONTINUES TO ASK FOR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION LEADING THE CONSUMER TO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LOST. NLM
FIRESTONE TIRES DEVELOPED VERY ODD WEAR, THE LEFT TIRE BEGAN FALLING APART WHILE DRIVING, CONSUMER FEELS FIRESTONE IS NOT HANDLING THE RECALL SITUATION IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER, CONSUMER RERQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT BUT WAS DENIED BECAUSE THEY WERE PURCHASED FROM A COMPETITIVE RETAILER PRIOR TO AUGUST 9, 2000 (FIRESTONE WILDERNESS A…
Read full complaint
FIRESTONE TIRES DEVELOPED VERY ODD WEAR, THE LEFT TIRE BEGAN FALLING APART WHILE DRIVING, CONSUMER FEELS FIRESTONE IS NOT HANDLING THE RECALL SITUATION IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER, CONSUMER RERQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT BUT WAS DENIED BECAUSE THEY WERE PURCHASED FROM A COMPETITIVE RETAILER PRIOR TO AUGUST 9, 2000 (FIRESTONE WILDERNESS AT P235/75R15 SERIAL#VD). NLM
HEARD A LOUD NOISE COMING FROM REAR OF THE VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING. TOOK VEHICLE TO TIRE RETAILER DUE TO CONTROLLING OF VEHICLE. MECHANIC NOTICED 2 REAR TIRES WERE CUPPED. HAD NO EXCESS OR UNEVEN WEAR ON THEM. TIRES STILL ON VEHICLE. FIRESTONE, WILDERNESS AT, P235/75R15 WITH 35,000 MILES.*AK
ONE OF THE FRONT FIRESTONE WILDERNESS TIRES (P235/75R15) HAD A STRIP OF TIRE MISSING, THE CONSUMER REPLACED THE 2 FRONT TIRES, NOW THE CONSUMER HEARS ABOUT RECALL 00T-005 AND 3 OUT OF 5 TIRES WERE INCLUDED AND REPLACED, THE CONSUMER IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE 2 TIRES THAT WERE REPLACED PRIOR TO THE RECALL WHICH MAY OR M…
Read full complaint
ONE OF THE FRONT FIRESTONE WILDERNESS TIRES (P235/75R15) HAD A STRIP OF TIRE MISSING, THE CONSUMER REPLACED THE 2 FRONT TIRES, NOW THE CONSUMER HEARS ABOUT RECALL 00T-005 AND 3 OUT OF 5 TIRES WERE INCLUDED AND REPLACED, THE CONSUMER IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE 2 TIRES THAT WERE REPLACED PRIOR TO THE RECALL WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. *SLC
Official recalls
609V399000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Oct 13, 2009
FORD IS RECALLING MODEL YEARS 1995-2003 WINDSTAR, 2000-2003 EXCURSION DIESEL, 1993-1997 AND 1999-2003 F-250 SD THROUGH F-550 SD DIESEL, 1992-2003 E-150 THROUGH E-550, 1995-2002 EXPLORER, 1997 AND 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, 1995-1997 AND 2001-2003 RANGER, AND 1994 F53 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS). THE SCDS MAY LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS THAT DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS IN LINE WITH THE SCDS. ON 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES WITH A LEAKING SCDS, DEALERS WILL ALSO INSPECT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE CONNECTOR AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. REPAIRS WILL BE COMPLETED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 27, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
00V422000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Dec 27, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L SOHC ENGINES AND STILL RETAIN THE ORIGINAL THROTTLE BODY (PART NUMBERS 97JF-9E926AB OR 97JF-9E926-AC). SOME OF THE ORIGINAL THROTTLE BODIES INSTALLED ALLOWED A GAP BETWEEN THE PLATE AND BORE TO BE BUILT TOO NARROW. THIS REDUCED CLEARANCE ALLOWED THE ENGINE DEPOSITS NORMALLY PRESENT IN THE THROTTLE BODY TO CONTACT OR BRIDGE THE GAP. IF THE ENGINE DEPOSITS BRIDGED THE GAP BETWEEN THE THROTTLE PLATE AND BORE AND THEN HARDENED, ON THE INITIAL APPLICATION OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AFTER THE ENGINE HAS COOLED, THE OPERATOR WOULD NEED TO APPLY ADDITIONAL FORCE TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO BREAK THE BRIDGE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN ENGINE SURGE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BREAKS FREE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE ORIGINAL THROTTLE BODIES.
00V402000 · Suspension
Nov 28, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, A FRONT SWAY BAR LINK CAN FRACTURE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: VEHICLE HANDLING COULD BE AFFECTED, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT SWAY BAR LINKS.
98V060000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
Mar 19, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L SINGLE OVERHEAD CAM ENGINES. THE ENGINE FUEL LINES CAN BE DAMAGED IF THE VEHICLE IS JUMP STARTED AND THE GROUND CABLE IS ATTACHED TO THE FUEL LINE BRACKET THAT IS LOCATED NEAR THE BATTERY. SINCE THE BRACKET IS NOT GROUNDED, THE STAINLESS STEEL FUEL LINE BRAID COULD ACT AS A GROUND POTENTIALLY OVERHEATING THE PTFE INNER LINER OF THE FUEL LINE RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE FUEL LINE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE FUEL LINES CAN LEAK, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, A FIRE COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A WARNING LABEL ON THE FUEL LINE BRACKET ADVISING OWNERS NOT TO USE IT FOR A JUMP START GROUND. ALSO A REVISED BOLT WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE ALTERNATOR BRACKET TO PROVIDE A CONVENIENT JUMP START GROUND LOCATION.
97V137000 · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
Aug 19, 1997
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE LIFTGATE ASSIST GAS CYLINDER BRACKET ON THE RIGHT HAND BODYSIDE OUTER PANEL WAS INCORRECTLY WELDED.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE GAS CYLINDER BRACKET MAY NOT PROPERLY SUPPORT THE LIFTGATE INCREASING THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REINFORCE THE BRACKET ATTACHMENT WITH TWO POP RIVETS.
97V074000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Apr 30, 1997
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MULTI-PURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 5.0L ENGINES ORIGINALLY SOLD OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATES OF ALASKA, IDAHO, IOWA, MAINE, MICHIGAN (UPPER PENINSULA ONLY), MINNESOTA, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW YORK, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, VERMONT, WISCONSIN, AND WYOMING. THESE VEHICLES, WHEN OPERATED FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS AND TEMPERATURES BELOW -20 DEGREES FARENHEIT, DO NOT RETURN TO IDLE DUE TO ICE IN THE THROTTLE BODY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE CAN BE CONTROLLED BY EITHER APPLYING THE SERVICE BRAKES OR SHIFTING THE TRANSMISSION TO NEUTRAL, INCREASED BRAKE PEDAL EFFORTS OR SOME INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCE CAN RESULT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A REVISED PCV SYSTEM WITH WATER HEATED VACUUM SOURCE.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
4DP05005 · 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.
PE99049 · Windshield Wiper Malfunction
Opened Jul 28, 1999 · Closed Apr 24, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Visibility
There is no summary currently available
PE99045 · Steering Knuckle Separations
Opened Jul 6, 1999 · Closed Oct 29, 1999
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering
There is no summary currently available
RQ98020 · Fuel Line Damage From Jump Starting
Opened Nov 3, 1998 · Closed Nov 15, 2000
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
There is no summary currently available