IllustrationTAKATA RECALL AIR BAG LIGHT STAYS ON FOR NO APPARENT REASON... ALL THE TIME GRINDING NOISES WHILE TURNING LEFT OR RIGHT SOUNDS LIKE GEARS ARE FREELY SPINNING WHILE ENGAGED AND DRIVING. NO ISSUES WITH CHANGING GEARS AS FAR AS MECHANIC SAYS.
2004 Mercury Mountaineer
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2004 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
230–25K
3725–50K
4350–75K
3675–100K
32100–150K
10150K+
181 reports with mileage · 29 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 79 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 64 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 21 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
11 crash reports2 fire reports15 injury reports
Unknown Or Other complaints
9 reportsTHIS WAS VERY DANGEROUS!! RIGHT HINGE BROKE WHICH DROPPED RIGHT SIDE OF GLASS PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE GLASS WHICH MADE IT EXPLODE. GLASS COVERED ME WITH A FEW MINIMAL CUTS
REAR TAILGATE WINDOW HINGE BROKE WHILE HAVING THE WINDOW ONLY OPEN AND PUTTING AWAY GROCERIES. UPON CLOSING THE WINDOW, THE RIGHT HINGE BROKE CAUSING THE WINDOW TO ALMOST FALL OFF OF THE CAR. I ATTEMPTED, WITH ASSISTANCE FROM OTHERS IN THE PARKING LOT, TO PUSH THE WINDOW BACK INTO THE FRAME AND HAVE IT LOCK AT THE CENTER LATCH…
Read full complaint
REAR TAILGATE WINDOW HINGE BROKE WHILE HAVING THE WINDOW ONLY OPEN AND PUTTING AWAY GROCERIES. UPON CLOSING THE WINDOW, THE RIGHT HINGE BROKE CAUSING THE WINDOW TO ALMOST FALL OFF OF THE CAR. I ATTEMPTED, WITH ASSISTANCE FROM OTHERS IN THE PARKING LOT, TO PUSH THE WINDOW BACK INTO THE FRAME AND HAVE IT LOCK AT THE CENTER LATCH. THE LATCH IS NO LONGER ENGAGED AND I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PUSH ON THE WINDOW TO CONNECT WITH THE LATCH. I AM NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO DO SO. THE WINDOW IS AT A POINT WHERE IT COULD FALL OFF OF MY CAR. THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS PART FOR 2000-2003 VEHICLES OF THIS MAKE AND MODEL. FORD IS NOT CARRYING OVER THE RECALL TO 2004 STATING THE DEFECT IS NOT THE SAME (WITH THE DETAILS) AS THE RECALL ITSELF. IT IS STILL THE SAME DEFECTIVE PART! I AM OF SHORT STATURE AND DO NOT HAVE THE STRENGTH TO PUSH THE WINDOW THE 1" OR SO TO GET IT INTO THE FRAME TO LOCK SUCCESSFULLY. I HAVE CONTACTED MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP FOR ADVICE BUT HAVE BEEN TOLD I WOULD NEED TO PAY OUT OF POCKET. I AM AT RISK OF HAVING THE WINDOW FALL OFF THE BACK OF MY CAR AND DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR AT THIS TIME. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL COMPLAINTS NOTED FOR THIS EQUIPMENT FAILURE ON THIS SITE FOR THE 2004 MOUNTAINEER. JUST NOT SURE WHAT TO DO NEXT. MY VEHICLE IS MY BREAD AND BUTTER IN ORDER TO WORK.
DOOR DINGS AND DENTS. *TR
I OPENED THE WINDOW HATCH ON THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE AND THE WINDOW HINGE BROKE AND THE WINDOW STARTED TO SLIP DOWN ALMOST BRAKING MY NOSE. *TR
BRAKE PEDAL RUBBER COVER CAME OFF DURING BRAKING. FOOT SLIPPED TO ACCELERATOR CAUSING CAR TO LEARCH FORWARD HITTING REAR OF PARKED CAR AND CAUSING DAMAGE TO THAT CAR. *JB
I PURCHASED A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER V6 IN APRIL, 2004. I IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO NOTICE A HARSH JERK WHEN PUTTING THE CAR IN REVERSE AND SOMETIMES WHILE DRIVING FORWARD. IT SOMETIMES FELT LIKE DRIVING A 5-SPEED VEHICLE. IN LATE SEPTEMBER, 04 WHILE BACKING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, ME AND MY 13 YR OLD DAUGHTER EXPERIENCED A VERY …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER V6 IN APRIL, 2004. I IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO NOTICE A HARSH JERK WHEN PUTTING THE CAR IN REVERSE AND SOMETIMES WHILE DRIVING FORWARD. IT SOMETIMES FELT LIKE DRIVING A 5-SPEED VEHICLE. IN LATE SEPTEMBER, 04 WHILE BACKING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, ME AND MY 13 YR OLD DAUGHTER EXPERIENCED A VERY HARSH JERK AS IF SOMEONE HAD SLAMMED IN THE BACK OF THE CAR. WE WERE BOTH SHAKEN. I STARTED TO EXPERIENCE NECK PROBLEMS. I MADE MY FIRST DR. APPT. IN EARLY TO MID OCTOBER 2004 AND WAS TOLD THAT MY VERTABRE WAS OUT OF PLACE. WHEN THE RECALL NOTICE CAME IN FEBRUARY 2005 (I BELIEVE) TO ME, I TOOK MY CAR TO BE REPAIRED AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT WOULD TAKE AT LEAST 4 HOURS TO FIX. IT ACTUALLY TOOK THE DEALSHIP 3 DAYS TO FIX IT. THE AUTO TECHNICIAN TOLD ME THAT MY CAR WAS WORSE OFF THAN OTHERS THAT HE'D SEEN BEFORE WITH THE SAME PROBLEM AND ADDITONAL PARTS HAD TO BE ORDERED. MY CAR IS WORKING OKAY NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN FIXED. ON THE OTHER HAND, I HAVE BEEN TO THE DOCTOR SEVERAL TIMES WITH THIS NECK INJURY. I HAVE HAD X-RAYS, MRI AND ULTRA SOUND COMPLETED. THE JERKING OF MY VEHICLE HAS CAUSED INJURY TO THE #2 VERTABRE IN MY NECK. I EXPERIENCE HEAD ACHES, SEVERE NECK PAIN, AND SHOULDER AND BACK PAIN. I HAVE BEEN TO PHYSICAL THERAPY- RECOMMENDED BY MY DOCTOR AND TO THE CHIROPRACTOR. I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME SLEEPING AND WORKING DUE TO THIS PAIN. I CALLED FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO ALARM THEM OF MY INJURY DUE TO THE DEFECTIVE TRANSMISSION IN THE VEHICLE THAT THEY MANUFACTURED. THE INDIVIDUAL THAT I SPOKE WITH WAS VERY RUDE, NON- CARING OF MY INJURY AND SPOKE TO ME IN A NEGATIVE TONE. I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE NO MEDICAL PROVISIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR RECALL. TO THIS DAY, I AM STILL IN CONSTANT PAIN. I HAVE SUFFERED LONG ENOUGH AND I FEEL THAT IT IS TIME FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO OWN UP TO THE RRESPONSIBILITY THAT THEIR DEFECTIVE VEHICLE HAS CAUSED AN INJURY.
WHILE DRIVING OUR 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, ALL OF THE SUDDEN IT WILL STALL AND A LIGHT WILL COME ON SHOWING "ENGINE FAIL SAFE MODE". THERE IS NO POWER AT ALL AND THE CAR NEEDS A FEW MINUTES BEFORE STARTING UP AGAIN. THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES NOW AND ALL IN TRAFFIC. WE HAVE HAD TO PRAY THAT WE WOULD NOT BE HIT OR WORSE YET, KILL…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING OUR 2004 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, ALL OF THE SUDDEN IT WILL STALL AND A LIGHT WILL COME ON SHOWING "ENGINE FAIL SAFE MODE". THERE IS NO POWER AT ALL AND THE CAR NEEDS A FEW MINUTES BEFORE STARTING UP AGAIN. THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES NOW AND ALL IN TRAFFIC. WE HAVE HAD TO PRAY THAT WE WOULD NOT BE HIT OR WORSE YET, KILLED. WE HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE DEALERDHIP TWICE NOW (THE 1ST TIME THEY SAID IT WAS BAD GAS AND SENT US ON OUR WAY) AND ALL THEY CAN SAY THE LAST TWO TIMES IS "WE CAN'T DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM". THIS IS VERY UNSAFE AND WE ARE VERY AFRAID TO DRIVE THIS VEHICLE.
THE NEW VEHICLE I PURCHASED ON JULY DOES NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATION AFFIXED. (THE INCIDENT DATE LISTED BELOW IS THE DATE OF PURCHASE.)*AK
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
3EA09013 · 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.
RQ08003 · Rear Liftgate Glass Hatch Failure
Opened Jun 23, 2008 · Closed Oct 24, 2008
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JUNE 23, 2008, BASED ON 34 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EIGHT INJURIES IN WHICH THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH ON MODEL YEAR 2004 FORD EXPLORERS OR MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS BROKE OFF AND FELL, USUALLY WHILE INDIVIDUALS WERE OPERATING THE GLASS HATCH OR LOADING OR UNLOADING ITEMS FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE.FORD CONDUCTED RECALL 04V-442 IN 2004 TO ADDRESS SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2003 FORD EXPLORERS AND MERCURY MOUNTAINEERS.THE INFORMATION FORD PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER INDICATED THAT FAILURES WITH 2004 VEHICLES WERE PRIMARILY LIFTGATE GLASS HATCH HINGE FAILURES RELATED TO CORROSION AT THE HINGE PIN, WHEREAS THE FAILURES THAT PROMPTED THE RECALL WITH THE EARLIER MODELS WERE PRIMARILY RELATED TO PROBLEMS WITH THE GLASS HATCH'S STRUTS OR FRACTURE OF A PRIOR HINGE DESIGN AT THE BOSS/BOLT CONNECTION AT THE GLASS.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S WARRANTY, COMPLAINT, AND INJURY DATA FOR THE 2004 VEHICLES INDICATES THAT THESE RATES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE RECALLED POPULATION.A POTENTIAL DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS NECESSARY.THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
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.