1998 Ford E-250

This investigation was opened based on one complaint and reports from four transportation fleets alleging 182 blower motor control switch failures.ODI was concerned that these melting and burning switches could lead to an open flame that could spread throughout the vehicle.After a comprehensive review of all data related to overheating blower motor control switches in the subject vehicles, ODI did not identify the existence of a safety defect trend.ODI reviewed 1,036 complaints, claims, and field reports of failed blower motor control switches and determined that only two fires were likely to have been caused by a failing subject blower motor control switch.This represents a failure rate of 0.2 R/100K on a population of 1,076,975 vehicles that have been in service for up to 14 years.ODI has found that when the subject switches do fail and begin to melt, they are constructed in a manner that typically prevents the failing switch from igniting and developing into an open flame.Ford Motor Company has agreed to take two actions to further reduce the likelihood an overheated blower motor switch in the subject vehicles.Ford informed ODI that it has implemented a series of design changes to the subject switch that will help prevent it from developing internal high resistance short circuits.Ford has also informed ODI that it would release a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB-11-11-21) instructing subject vehicle owners to replace the electrical connector at the same time a failed switch is replaced.In light of the low rate of failure resulting in open flame and fire spread on the subject vehicles, and Ford's actions to reduce the likelihood of a switch failure through switch design changes and a TSB, further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists.The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.The ODI complaints cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following (ODI) numbers: 10427875, 10114393, 10257890For additional information, see the attached closing report.

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.

1998 FORD ECONOLINE VAN 5.4L ENG. ABS BRAKES: WHILE APPLYING BRAKES, THE BRAKE PEDAL RESPONDS WITH FORCEFUL BACK PRESSURE TO PROHIBIT BRAKES FROM OPERATING. OPERATOR THEN EXERTS EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TO FORCE BRAKING, STILL YET VEHICLE BRAKES VERY SLUGGISHLY. OPERATOR NOTES THAT WHEN THE CONDITION OCCURS, IF HE RELEASES THEN RE-APPLIES BRAKE PEDAL PRESSURE THE BRAKES TEND TO GRAB AND TRY TO LOCK UP. OPERATOR HAS TAKEN THE VAN IN FOR SERVICE, REPLACED THE SPEED SENSOR ON REAR DIFF, PROBLEM WENT AWAY FOR 2 DAYS RECURRING THERE AFTER. SHOP MGR STATES THAT THE PROBLEM COULD BE A DUMP VALVE CAUSING MALFUNCTION. STILL INVESTIGATING PROBLEM. VEHICLE MFR HAS RECENTLY SENT A RECALL NOTICE IDENTIFYING DESC # 09S09, SPEED CONTROL SYSTEM MODIFICATION. OPERATOR WILL BE SCHEDULING THE SERVICE. MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS SUBJECT. PROBLEM HAS BEEN NOTED AND CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, DEC 28 2010

NHTSA ID

10373205

Incident

Apr 15, 2010

Mileage

128,085 mi

SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT OF HEAD WITH THREADS IN MY 98 E250 WITH 92,000 WELL MAINTAINED MILES ON IT. THE COST IS YET TO BE DETERMINED. *TR

NHTSA ID

10221856

Incident

Mar 18, 2008

Mileage

92,300 mi

I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE TO INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS FOR MY BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER IN AUGUST AND HAD THE WORK DONE. NOW I HAVE RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE WHICH STATES THAT FOMOCO "HAS DECIDED THAT A DEFECT WHICH RELATES TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY EXISTS IN A FUSED JUMPER HARNESS THE WAS INSTALLED IN YOUR VEHICLE WHEN IT WAS SERVICED." THIS APPEARS TO BE A RECALL OF THE HARNESS THAT WAS INSTALLED AS PART OF THE FIRST RECALL. I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER AND THEY WERE UNAWARE OF A SECOND RECALL AND SAID THEY HAD BEEN WAITING FOR MONTHS FOR THE HARNESSES REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST RECALL. SINCE I STILL DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A SECOND RECALL I CALLED FORDS TOLL FREE NUMBER AND EXPLAINED THE SITUATION. I WAS TOLD TO CALL THE LOCAL DEALER AND GIVE THEM MY VIN NUMBER. I HAVE NOT DONE THIS YET SINCE I ALREADY CALLED THEM AND DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER. THIS SOUNDS LIKE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM AND I WOULD LIKE A CORRECT ANSWER. THANKS. IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE HARNESSES HOW CAN THEY DO THE REPAIRS? WHY ARE THEY NOT AWARE OF THE SECOND RECALL? WHY ARE THE RECALLS NOT FOUND ON YOUR NHTSA WEBSITE? *TR

NHTSA ID

10219055

Incident

Feb 25, 2008

Mileage

64,000 mi

FORD ECONOLINE E250 HD - 1998 EXTENDED MODEL; COLUMN GEAR SHIFT WILL SHIFT FROM PARK TO GEAR WITHOUT IT GOING INTO GEAR AND FROM GEAR TO PARK WITHOUT VEHICLE GOING INTO PARK BUT STAYING IN GEAR. *JB

NHTSA ID

10158511

Incident

May 27, 2006

Mileage

15,000 mi

WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH SPARK PLUG BLEW OUT. VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO DEALER, AND PROBLEM WAS REPAIRED. *AK

NHTSA ID

10099657

Incident

Jul 14, 2004

Mileage

95,000 mi

WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE SPARE TIRE CABLE BROKE. AS A RESULT THE SPARE TIRE FLEW TWENTY-FIVE FEET IN THE AIR. NO COLLISION REPORTED. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. *JB

NHTSA ID

10064910

Incident

Mar 25, 2004

Mileage

182,789 mi

POWER STEERING UNITS MAY BE CAUSE OF VEHICLE ROLL OVER PROBLEM.*MR *TS

NHTSA ID

10040145

REAR DOOR WAS NOT INSTALLED PROPERLY ON MY 1998 CHINOOK MOTOR HOME. THIS IMPROPER INSTALLATION HAS RESULTED IN EXTENSIVE INTERNAL DAMAGE AND LEFT ME WITHOUT A SAFE CLOSURE FOR THE VEHICLE. IT WAS PRESENTED FOR REPAIR AND THE DEALER FAILED TO MAKE PROPER REPAIRS TO REPAIR THIS POOR FACTORY INSTALLATION. BOTH THE MANUFATURER AND DEALER ARE NOT ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS STRUCTURAL FAILURE THAT COULD RESULT IN PEOPLE BEING EJECTED FROM THE VEHICLE. TS

NHTSA ID

10000324

Incident

Dec 20, 2002

Mileage

17,000 mi

This SKU is a front upper ball joint. The Customer communication requested return of unsold inventory to inspect for ball studs with excessive rotational friction in the ball joint assembly. Excessive friction in the ball joint assembly may cause a perceptible increase in steering effort.

VIBRATION/HARSHNESS ABOVE 45 MPH (72 KM/H) AFTER TIRE BALANCE. *TT

A BUMP STEER STEERING FEELING, NOTED WHEN THE VEHICLE'S FRONT WHEELS/TIRES CONTACT ROAD SURFACE IRREGULARITIES. *TT

MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LAMP (MIL) ILLUMINATION WITH NO HARD FAULT. *TT

SOME VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 4R70W TRANSMISSION (DRIVESHAFT >70 INCH) MAY EXHIBIT A VIBRATION / ROUGHNESS ON ACCELERATION OR UNDER LOAD AT ABOUT 50-55 MPH. *TT

CONCERNS WITH BUMP STEER STEERING FEELING NOTED WHEN FRONT WHEELS / TIRES CONTACT ROAD SURFACE IRREGULARITIES. *TT