2003 FORD Econoline

SPARK PLUG BLOW OUT OFHEAD

2003 FORD E450 SUPER DUTYSPEED CONTROL MODIFICATION- SAFETY RECALL 05S28.I received this notification on Sept. 20,2007. I immediately had the unit disabled. The dealer said they would have the repair part in November. In November they said they would have the part in March 2008. I have contacted all local dealers and have received a different answer as to availability. I have contacted FORD MOTOR COMPANY and get the run around. Each office I call refers me to Customer Service. I have contacted them and get no answers. MR. Bill Ford, Mr. Allan Mulally and MR. Frank Ligon (Mr. Ligon signed the letter of notification) do not have the courtesy to answer my question of when the part will be available. Do you have or can you get a positive answer about the availablity of this modification part.

THE PAINT IS PEELING OFF THE ROOF IN ABOUT 15 PLACES SOME ABOUT 3 " AROUND. ALSO THE HOOD IS CRACKING IN THE PAINT AND I ASSUME WILL PEEL SOON. A FEW PLACES ON THE SIDE ARE ALSO PEELING. I HAVE NOT YET REPAINTED THE VAN.

2003 ford econoline with a recall. customer stated the former owners forwarded the recall notice to them. although he is mad because the parts will not be in until december or the beginning of next year. *kb *tr

2003 ford econo-line van caught on fire in the engine compartment.*mr the consumer had the abs recall repaired in dec 2004. the fire seemed to originate in the area of the abs system/ master brake cylinder. *nm

Fuel tank delamination. this will be the second time i have to replace the fuel tank, sending unit and fuel pump on my e350 diesel van. ford has had known issues for several years regarding this problem and refuses to accept any responsibility. the inside coating of the tank peels away and clogs up the fuel system, then they turn around and sell you the same tank so it happens again. very dangerous vehicle suddenly loses power and will even stall.

Tl* the contact owns a 2003 ford econoline equipped with radar radial rlt-9 tires, size p245/75/r16. the contact stated that while driving 10 mph, the rear driver’s tire blew out. the condition of the road were dry and the approximate temperature was 90 degrees fahrenheit. the failure recurred and the rear passenger tire blew out. the condition of the road was again dry and the approximate temperature was 80 degrees fahrenheit. the tires were not taken to dealer and the manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. the vin was unavailable. the failure and current mileages on the vehicle was 62,000. the failure and current mileages on the tires were 6,000.

No. 2 spark plug blew out of cylinder head. *tr

Tl*the contact owns a 2003 ford econoline e-150. the contact stated that three cooper american prospector 225/70r15 tires on the vehicle have failed. the vehicle began vibrating and the dealer confirmed that the rear driver side tire needed to be replaced. two weeks later, the rear passenger side tire blew out and was replaced. one week after the rear tire blew out the front passenger side blew out and was also replaced. the dealer stated that all of those tires must have been defective; however, the contact was not reimbursed for the repairs. the manufacturer stated that there was no warranty or free repair available. the failure mileage was 15,000.

2003 ford aerostar lx van abs light and brake light on dashboard will come on and stay on one day, and maybe not the next day. going on for months. can't predict when this will occur. the ford dealer offer to take care of the problem for less than a $1000 dollars!?!?!? very generous of them! *tr

Tl*the contact owns a 2003 ford econoloine. the contact received a safety recall notice in september of 2007 for the vehicle speed control. the cruise control was disconnected in october. each month since october, the dealer has informed the contact that the parts would be available the following month. there had been no failure to date. the purchase date and recall number were unknown. the current mileage was 60,000. updated 03-18-08 *bf the consumer stated the recall number is 05s28. updated 03/18/08 *tr

I received a recall notice in 9/07 from the ford company concerning my 2003 motorhome. it involved the speed control deactivation switch, which they said was defective. when i contacted a local ford dealer as instructed by the letter, i was told the repair had to wait till the parts arrived in december. when i called the dealer lst week, i was told the parts wouldn't arrive until at least february. i called the ford toll-free number and was told the same thing. why are they dragging their feet on this? why does it take so long to get the parts? *tr

2003 ford econoline with a recall. customer stated the former owners forwarded the recall notice to them. although he is mad because the parts will not be in until december or the beginning of next year. *kb *tr

Tl*the contact owns a 2003 ford econoline. the contact received a recall notice for nhtsa campaign id number 07v336000 (vehicle speed control) in august of 2007. the dealer stated that the part would not be available until march of 2008. the contact felt that the wait time for the repair was unacceptable. there had been no failure to date. the current mileage was 40,000.

2003 econoline speed recall defect i was told to have cruise control disconnected and repair not available until jan. 2008. *jb

We have a 2003 ford econoline van that ejected it's first spark plug this spring costing us towing and $500.00+ in repairs. wednesday, it happened again, this time on the new york state thruway. we were forced to stand in a 10 foot piece of grass between 3 lanes of traffic and a rock cliff with 4 small children. after we managed to get 7 people packed into a tow truck and get to the nearest ford dealership, we had to rent a car for 3 days and pay for yet another repair. i investigated and found out that this is a recurring defect in this type of ford engines. i called the ford motor company to see what can be done to repair the actual engine problem. i was told that my van is now fixed, so technically it is fine. i was also told that there is only a 50% chance that the problem may occur again and if it does i should call back. i want to know what recourse there is for someone who just doesn't want to drive around with their children in a known time bomb! *tr

Tl*the contact owns a 2003 ford econoline. the abs was replaced under recall # 04v444000 (electrical system:wiring), but it did not correct the failure. the vehicle is drivable, however, the abs is burned. the current mileage is 97,000 and failure mileage was 93,195. updated 08/14/07. *jb

Dt*: the contact stated when the vehicle was in reverse, the vehicle felt as if it was slipping on ice or sludge. when the vehicle was in the forward motion, sometimes the same sensation was felt when starting to make a right or left turn. the dealership inspected the vehicle five times, agreed the problems were present however, the diagnostic tests showed everything was normal.

Dt: the contact stated that a dealer called montgomary ford sold three 15 passenger vans to a public school called harmony community school. *ak

2003 econoline made a loud popping sound in the engine compartment, lost power shortly after. vehicle later caught on fire. *ts ***no answer required*** after the noise was heard the driver pulled to vehicle onto the side of the road and that's when the driver noticed that the vehicle was on fire. the driver and firemen were injured while attempting to extinguish the fire. a recall was received in october 2004. the recall referenced safety recall 04s22 and 04s23. *nm

2003 ford econoline defective part repairs.***no answer required***. *mr the vehicle was taken to the dealer for the eighth time to repair the alarm. the alarm still wasn't fixed. the tires and/or rims are defective. the brakes, shocks and a/c failed. the vehicle also lost power. *nm

2003 ford econo-line van caught on fire in the engine compartment.*mr the consumer had the abs recall repaired in dec 2004. the fire seemed to originate in the area of the abs system/ master brake cylinder. *nm

Vehicle constantly stalled while driving at any speed. vehicle had been to the dealer on three separate occasions. dealer was unable to determine the cause of the problem.*ak

Vehicle was parked outside the owner's home. owner was awakened, and to discovered that the vehicle was engulfed in flames. the fire department was notified and extinguished the fire. the vehicle was an econoline van modified for persons with disabilities. *ak *tc

Manufacturer's recall gm04s22 was issued for the anti lock brake system. however, the dealer continued to state they did not have the parts for three months. *ak

Consumer complained about having problems with front cab of vehicle been redisigned. also the way the vehicle was redisigned it did not allow consumer to see a bilnd spot.*ak

The consumer believed the entire door on the vehicle was designed incorrectly. *jb

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.

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.

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.