IllustrationDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH ON A COUNTRY ROAD, BOTH DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE CURTAIN AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT WAS WEARING A SEAT BELT, AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE ALERTED. UPDATED 12/28/2006 - *NM
2003 Mercury Mountaineer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Mercury Mountaineer do not stand out strongly from 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
130–25K
1725–50K
2750–75K
3175–100K
22100–150K
7150K+
117 reports with mileage · 35 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Structure. Review the 59 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 42 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
6 crash reports5 fire reports9 injury reports
What owners actually said
152 reportsWE BOUGHT OUR MOUNTAINEER NEW IN 2003. WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS, BUT THE WORST HAS BEEN WITH THE TRANSMISSION. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN OUR VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIPS FOR SERVICE, BUT ARE CONTINUALLY TOLD THAT THEY CANNOT "REPLICATE THE PROBLEM AT THIS TIME". THE TRANSMISSION HAS ALWAYS SHIFTED HARD, BUT DEALERSHIPS SIMPLY…
Read full complaint
WE BOUGHT OUR MOUNTAINEER NEW IN 2003. WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS, BUT THE WORST HAS BEEN WITH THE TRANSMISSION. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN OUR VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIPS FOR SERVICE, BUT ARE CONTINUALLY TOLD THAT THEY CANNOT "REPLICATE THE PROBLEM AT THIS TIME". THE TRANSMISSION HAS ALWAYS SHIFTED HARD, BUT DEALERSHIPS SIMPLY TELL US IT JUST SHIFTS HARD. IN JANUARY OF 2006 THE OVERDRIVE LIGHT WAS FLASHING AND THE CHECK TRANSMISSION LIGHT WENT ON. I TOOK IT INTO THE DEALER WHO TOLD US WE HAD TO HAVE THE TORQUE CONVERTER REPLACED AS THEY FOUND METAL SHAVINGS IN THE PAN. WE PAID OVER $1300 BELIEVING THIS WOULD SOLVE THE SHIFTING PROBLEM, IT DID NOT. AT THE END OF JUNE I TOOK IT INTO ANOTHER DEALERSHIP FOR AN OIL CHANGE AND TRIP INSPECTION. I MENTIONED AGAIN THAT IT SHIFTS HARD. THEIR TECH LOOKED AT IT, FOUND METAL IN THE PAN AND SAID THE TRANSMISSION NEEDED TO BE REPLACED (AT LESS THAN 55,000). APPARENTLY THE TORQUE CONVERTER FORD SENT TO THE FIRST DEALERSHIP WAS FAULTY, CAUSING THE TRANSMISSION TO NEED REPLACEMENT. FORD DID PAY FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, GIVING US ABOUT A 45 DAY WARRANTY (AS THE WARRANTY STARTED FROM THE DAY THE TORQUE CONVERTER WAS FIRST REPLACED). WE THOUGHT SURELY THAT WOULD FIX THE SHIFTING PROBLEMS. NO...STILL SHIFTS HARD. IF WE COULD SELL THIS THING FOR ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT WE OWE...IT WOULD BE GONE. *JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE ELASTIC STRAPS CONNECTED TO THE CLOTH COVER OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT WHICH WRAPPED AROUND THE SEAT CAN BE REMOVED EASILY. THE CONTACT'S CHILD WAS ABLE TO REMOVE THE STRAPS, AND WRAP THE STRAPS AROUND THE NECK. THE CHILD WAS NOT INJURED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED, BUT THE CONTACT PLANNED TO…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE ELASTIC STRAPS CONNECTED TO THE CLOTH COVER OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT WHICH WRAPPED AROUND THE SEAT CAN BE REMOVED EASILY. THE CONTACT'S CHILD WAS ABLE TO REMOVE THE STRAPS, AND WRAP THE STRAPS AROUND THE NECK. THE CHILD WAS NOT INJURED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED, BUT THE CONTACT PLANNED TO NOTIFY THEM SOON. THE MANUFACTURER OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT WAS DOREL JUVENILE GROUP. MODEL COSCO CONVERTIBLE FORWARD FACING; MODEL NUMBER IS: 22-100-TTD. THE MANUFACTURER DATE WAS 2-15-05.*AK
LIFTGATE CRACKED. PART WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED OR POSSIBILITY OF WINDOW FALLING OUT. WAS TOLD BY MY MERCURY DEALER THAT THIS IS A KNOWN FAULT IN VEHICLE BUT SINCE IT HAPPENS BETWEEN 40,000 AND 50,000 MILES IT IS NO LONGER FORD/MERCURY'S RESPONSIBILITY SINCE CARS ARE OUT OF WARRANTY. *JB
ON 9/2/06, I USED MY VEHICLE TO GO TO STORE AND WHILE AT THE STORE, I HAD DIFFICULTY PLACING THE VEHICLE INTO PARK AND NEEDED TO SHUT VEHICLE OFF TO FINALLY LOCK IT INTO PARK. I THEN RETURNED HOME WITH THE VEHICLE AND PARKED IT IN MY DRIVEWAY. THE VEHICLE THEN ROLLED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AND CRASHED INTO MY HOUSE AND STRUCK MY 8 MO…
Read full complaint
ON 9/2/06, I USED MY VEHICLE TO GO TO STORE AND WHILE AT THE STORE, I HAD DIFFICULTY PLACING THE VEHICLE INTO PARK AND NEEDED TO SHUT VEHICLE OFF TO FINALLY LOCK IT INTO PARK. I THEN RETURNED HOME WITH THE VEHICLE AND PARKED IT IN MY DRIVEWAY. THE VEHICLE THEN ROLLED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AND CRASHED INTO MY HOUSE AND STRUCK MY 8 MONTH OLD SON 'S STROLLER. IT CAUSED DAMAGE TO MY HOUSE AND VEHICLE RECEIVED DAMAGE TO THE WINDSHIELD, FRONT BUMPER, HOOD AND GRILL. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE DEALER AND WAS GIVEN AN APPOINTMENT TO BRING IT ON 9/11/06. AFTER EXAMINING THE VEHICLE , THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY RECOMMENDED REPLACING THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK SWITCH SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO STICK AND BE FAULTY IN OTHER MOUNTAINEERS. I WAS TOLD THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A SAFETY HAZARD, IT WAS NOT A RECALL AND NOT COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY. I WAS ORDERED TO PAY $298.67 FOR THE REPAIR AND TOLD THAT THE REPAIRS TO MY HOUSE AND THE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE HANDLED BY ME. I DON'T KNOW HOW SOMETHING AS SERIOUS AS THIS IS NOT A RECALL BUT IT IS A KNOWN SAFELY DEFECT BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY. I FEEL THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE DAMAGE AND THE PAYMENT FOR THE REPAIRS AND THAT THEY ARE LUCKY THAT NO PERSONS, ONLY PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED THAT DAY. *B
2003 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER TRANSMISSION MADE A CLUNKING SOUND, SLID BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS WHILE SHIFTING INTO REVERSE. A/C BLOWER MOTOR MADE A HUMMING SOUND. WHILE DRIVING THE MOTOR WOULD MISFIRE. *KB WHILE DRIVING THE CONSUMER NOTICED THAT THE DASH LIGHT WENT OUT. THE CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM BY TURNING THE LI…
Read full complaint
2003 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER TRANSMISSION MADE A CLUNKING SOUND, SLID BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS WHILE SHIFTING INTO REVERSE. A/C BLOWER MOTOR MADE A HUMMING SOUND. WHILE DRIVING THE MOTOR WOULD MISFIRE. *KB WHILE DRIVING THE CONSUMER NOTICED THAT THE DASH LIGHT WENT OUT. THE CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM BY TURNING THE LIGHTING SWITCH. WHEN THE SWITCH WAS TURNED THE DASH LIGHT CAME ON BUT THE HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT. THE CONSUMER'S INDICATED THAT THEY SOMETIMES HEAR POPPING SOUNDS WHILE DRIVING, WHICH SEEMS TO BE OF AN ELECTRICAL NATURE.
2003 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER AWD 4.0L. WE PURCHASED OUR MOUNTAINEER IN JUNE OF 2004, WITH 22,000 MILES ON THE ODOMETER. APPROXIMATELY 300 MILES INTO OUR OWNERSHIP, WE EXPERIENCED A FRONT BEARING WINE. DEALERSHIP COVERED DEFECT UNDER 3 YEAR / 36,000 MILE WARRANTY. OTHER DEFECTS COVERED...REPLACEMENT OF THE REAR SPEED SENSOR AT 23,4…
Read full complaint
2003 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER AWD 4.0L. WE PURCHASED OUR MOUNTAINEER IN JUNE OF 2004, WITH 22,000 MILES ON THE ODOMETER. APPROXIMATELY 300 MILES INTO OUR OWNERSHIP, WE EXPERIENCED A FRONT BEARING WINE. DEALERSHIP COVERED DEFECT UNDER 3 YEAR / 36,000 MILE WARRANTY. OTHER DEFECTS COVERED...REPLACEMENT OF THE REAR SPEED SENSOR AT 23,454 MILES. A 2ND ABS PROBLEM REQUIRED A NEW ACTUATOR SPEED CONTROL SWITCH ASSEMBLY AT 28,419 MILES. TRANSMISSION SHIFT SOLENOID REPLACED AT 32,075 MILES. DRIVER SIDE PASSENGER WINDOW MOTOR REPLACED AT 33,443 MILES. RECALL ON REAR GLASS HATCH LIFT STRUTS AT 27,379 MILES. JANUARY 23, 2006 OUR MOUNTAINEER NOW HAS 42,777 MILES ON THE ODOMETER. WE NOTICED A LOW PITCH NOISE STARTING AT 25-30 MPH AND BECOMING HIGHER IN PITCH AT HIGHER SPEEDS. OUR LOCAL LINCOLN / MERCURY DEALERSHIP SERVICE ADVISOR DETERMINED WE HAD A FAULTY REAR AXLE RING & PINION GEAR SET. THEY REBUILT OUR REAR AXLE USING THE VIN # TO DETERMINE ACTUAL BILL OF SALES DATE, WHICH WAS JUNE OF 2003. THIS GAVE US A WARRANTY UNTIL JUNE OF 2006 THUS NEARING THE END OF OUR 36 MONTHS WARRANTY. WE REGRETFULLY ADMIT PAYING A $200.00 DEDUCTIBLE THE DEALERSHIP ASKED FOR. WE DROVE OFF WITH OUR NEWLY REBUILT AXLE IN OUR MOUNTAINEER. OUR NOISY AXLE NEVER WENT AWAY. THE DEALERSHIP BLAMED THIS DUE TO WORN AND NOISY TIRES. WE REPLACED THESE TIRES AT 47,500 MILES OR 4,500 MILES AFTER THE ORIGINAL AXLE NOISE COMPLAINT WITH NO REAL APPARENT CHANGE TO OUR NOISY PROBLEM. OUR MERCURY MOUNTAINEER WENT BACK INTO THE SHOP AT 48,300 MILES WITH A NOISE STILL DISTINCTIVE FROM THE REAR. AGAIN OUR LOCAL MERCURY DEALERSHIP TOOK A LOOK AT THE SUV WITH THE SERVICE MANAGER RIDING IN THE VEHICLE. HIS COMMENT... SOUNDS LIKE AN ON-GOING REAR AXLE ISSUE. HE WOULD CHECK WITH HIS DISTRICT MANAGER ABOUT REPLACING THE ENTIRE AXLE ASSEMBLY THIS TIME AROUND. THEY CONTACTED US BY PHONE THE NEXT DAY. THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS THE AXLE, BUT ONE OF THE REAR OUTER HUB WHEEL BEARING ASSEMBLIES. IT WOULD COST US $270.00. *JB
VEHICLE IS 2003 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER AWD/ THE VEHICLE KEEPS ON LOSING THE POWER TO THE TRANSMISSION AND YOU JUST SIT THERE WATCHING THE RPM RACE WITH NO POWER HAPPINESS AT ALL SPEEDS WHICH HAS ALMOST CAUSED MANY CRASHES RE PULLING OUT INTO TRAFFIC. HAS BEEN TO THE DEALER AND THEY CAN NOT FIND ANYTHING . ON GOING PROBLEM X 2 YEARS…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE IS 2003 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER AWD/ THE VEHICLE KEEPS ON LOSING THE POWER TO THE TRANSMISSION AND YOU JUST SIT THERE WATCHING THE RPM RACE WITH NO POWER HAPPINESS AT ALL SPEEDS WHICH HAS ALMOST CAUSED MANY CRASHES RE PULLING OUT INTO TRAFFIC. HAS BEEN TO THE DEALER AND THEY CAN NOT FIND ANYTHING . ON GOING PROBLEM X 2 YEARS AND IS AT THE DEALERSHIP NOW RE I FEEL I'M GOING TO GET KILLED IN THIS VEHICLE. *NM
2003 MOUNTAINEER TRANSAXLE HOUSING BROKE IN HALF. THE OIL FROM THE TRANSAXLE LEAKED ON THE EXHAUST CAUSING A SMALL FIRE. *TS THE DRIVER INDICATED THAT SHE MAY HAVE HIT AN OBJECT IN THE ROAD. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE FRONT SEATBELTS WOULD NOT RETRACT. THE DEALERSHIP INSTALLED A MODIFIED REPAIR KIT AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO FURTHER PROBLEMS. ALSO, THE FUEL GAUGE WAS NOT READING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FUEL. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE FUEL GAUGE, BUT THE LOW FUEL WARNING LIGHT HAS BECOME INOPERABLE. ADDITIONALLY, W…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE FRONT SEATBELTS WOULD NOT RETRACT. THE DEALERSHIP INSTALLED A MODIFIED REPAIR KIT AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO FURTHER PROBLEMS. ALSO, THE FUEL GAUGE WAS NOT READING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FUEL. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE FUEL GAUGE, BUT THE LOW FUEL WARNING LIGHT HAS BECOME INOPERABLE. ADDITIONALLY, WHILE THE MOON ROOF WAS BEING OPENED, IT BUCKLED. THE DEALERSHIP AND MANUFACTURER DETERMINED THIS WAS HOW THE VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED.
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
2EA09013 · Vehicle Rollaway Allegations
Opened Aug 18, 2009 · Closed Feb 12, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl); Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift; Steering; Steering:column; Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Power Train:automatic Transmission:gear Position Indication (prndl)
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Power Train:automatic Transmission:lever And Linkage:column Shift
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering:column LOCKING:ANTI-THEFT Device
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
Steering
This investigation is being closed based on several considerations.By the most inclusive counting of all alleged rollaway incidents (i.e., counting all alleged rollaway incidents and assuming a singular failure mechanism), the incident rate is low, however during EA09-013, ODI identified a number of different failure mechanisms in 180 incidents related to the alleged defect.The highest rate for any particular failure mechanism, the failure of the Automatic Transmission Parking System, was 4.4/100K.The next-highest failure rate was for the BSI System, at 3.4/100K.For all identified failure mechanisms there has been a drastically declining trend including very few incidents occurring in recent years.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.For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete closing resume in the document file for EA09-013. The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers:10168454, 10279630, 10280078.
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.