1999 Ford Expedition Recalls

CONSUMERS ALLEGED THAT WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED, WATER LEAKED INTO THE VEHICLE AROUND THE WINDSHIELD.MOISTURE FLOWING THROUGH THE SEAL THAT SURROUNDS THE FRONT WINDSHIELD FOLLOWS A PATH THROUGH THE SEAL INTO THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM) AND FUSE BOX, AND MAY CAUSE THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS IN THE VEHICLE TO MALFUNCTION.OVERALL, THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ALLEGING WIPER FAILURES AND LIGHTING FAILURES IS RELATIVELY SMALL.IN REVIEWING A LARGE SAMPLE OF THE 1503 COMPLAINTS FOR WINDSHIELD LEAKS, ODI'S ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT 0.04% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATION REPORTED IMPROPER WINDSHIELD WIPER OPERATION AND 0.01% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE POPULATIONREPORTED LIGHTING FAILURES.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS REVEAL THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.10% OF THE POPULATION HAS BEEN SERVICED FOR WIPER MALFUNCTIONS AND 0.08% FOR LIGHTING MALFUNCTIONS AS A RESULT OF WINDSHIELD LEAKING. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND AVAILABLE TECHNICAL INFORMATION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFECT TREND EXISTS IN THE MALFUNCTION, FAILURE OR INTERMITTENT OPERATION OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD WIPERS OR HEADLIGHTS.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY 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.

ODI HAS RECEIVED 39 REPORTS ALLEGING THAT WATER LEAKS AROUND THE WINDSHIELD CAUSING ELECTRICAL FAILURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS AND THE HEADLAMPS.FORD REPORTS THAT WATER ENTERING THE VEHICLE CAN WET THE POWER DISTRIBUTION BOX (PDB) AND THE GENERIC ELECTRONIC MODULE (GEM).THESE COMPONENTS CONTROL VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IN THE VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, EA05015, TO ALLOW FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO ASSESS THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.

EA05-005 IS CLOSED WITH FORD?S ACTIONS IN RECALLS 05V-017, 05V-388, AND 06V-286, RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 6.7 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).THE BRAKE SYSTEMS IN THESE RECALLED VEHICLES GENERATE A VACUUM THAT CAN POTENTIALLY CAUSE THE SCDS TO FAIL AND, IN CERTAIN SWITCH INSTALLATION ORIENTATIONS, CATCH FIRE.FORD IS ALSO INCLUDING THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF 1998 EXPLORERS.FORD HAS INFORMED ODI THAT TESTING TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF FAILURES IN THE 1998 EXPLORERS WILL CONTINUE AFTER THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.ODI BELIEVES THAT THE VEHICLES EXHIBITING THE FACTORS CAUSING SCDS FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT CORRELATE WELL WITH THE OBSERVED FAILURE RATES ON THESE VEHICLES BY MODEL AND MODEL YEAR.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE NON-RECALLED VEHICLES MANUFACTURED WITH SCDS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN FORD?S RECALLS.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE NON-RECALLED POPULATION FOR INCIDENCE OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR DETAILS.

THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 BASED ON FIVE CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT SOME OF THE EIGHT HITCH MOUNTING BOLTS EITHER BECAME LOOSE OR CAME COMPLETELY OUT OF ITS RETAINING PLATE.ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS INDICATED THAT WHILE TOWIG A TRAILER THE HITCH ACTUALLY SEPARATED FROM THE FRAME ON THE PASSENGER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE WHEN THE FOUR MOUNTING BOLTS ON THAT SIDE CAME COMPLETELY OUT. THIS ALLOWED THE HITCH AND TRAILER TO CONTACT THE ROAD SURFACE.IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY, FORD PROVIDED INFORMATION REGARDING NINE ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF LOOSE OR MISSING BOLTS, TWO OF THOSE ALLEGING SEPARATION OF THE HITCH ON ONE SIDE.THERE WERE NO REPORTS OF VEHICLE CRSHES, INJURIES, OR A COMPLETE SEPARATION OF A HITCH ASSEMBLY.SCOPE:1997 THROURGH 2000 MODEL YEAR EXPEDITIONS AND 1998 THROUGH 2000 MODEL YEAR NAVIGATORS BUILT AT MICHIGAN TRUCH ASSEMBLLY PLANT FROM JULY 22,1 996 THROUGH DECEMBER 9, 1999.DEFECT: LOSS OF CLAMPING LOAD OF HITCH ATTACHMENT BOLTS.REMEDY:THE HITCH MOUNTING BOLTS AND NUT PLATES WILL BE REPLACE WITH HIGHER STRENGTH BOLTS AND PLATES.ADDITIONALLY , THE TORQUE VALUE FOR THE MOUNTING BOLTS WILL BE INCREASED AND AN ADHESIVE WILL BE ADDED TO THE BOLTS.