Phone:

(800) 392-3673

Web:

Ford Customer Service

Mail:

Ford Customer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126

1997 Ford Crown Victoria NHTSA Defect Investigations

• Defect Investigation #EA02025 - Based on the low rate of fire incidents (2.5 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold) where failure of the scds is involved and the age of the vehicles ¿ 7 to 11 years ¿ a safety-related defect trend has not been identified and 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.for additional information, see the attached closing report.
• Defect Investigation #DP05005 - 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.
• Defect Investigation #SQ01014 - Allege fuel tank can rupture following a high-energy rear collision resulting in severe fires.
• Defect Investigation #EA03001 - In September 2002, a fuel cylinder in a natural gas powered vehicle (ngv) exploded during a fire.Ford and VRTC test engineers jointly examined the incident vehicle and reviewed testing to determine whether the performance of the pressure relief valve (PRD) was proper.the purpose of a PRD is to protect a compressed natural gas tank from overpressure by allowing the CNG to vent when the temperature reaches a specific point.the PRD was removed from the failed tank and subjected to a yield temperature determination test. It was concluded that a direct flame (from the interior of the vehicle) onto the cylinder (located behind the rear seat in the trunk)compromised the hoop strength of the natural gas cylinder, thus allowing the cylinder to fail prior to the PRD releasing at itsdesigned temperature.as a result of this testing and review of the involved vehicle, Ford has developed an insulator to insulate the natural gas fuel tank from a locally directed flame projecting from the interior of the vehicle.insulators will be installed behind the back seat on subject vehicles to prevent future failures of this type. Ford's action addresses the concerns of ODI.therefore, this investigation is closed.
• Defect Investigation #PE02071 - An explosion of a compressed natural gas (CNG) tank should not be able to occur, as the tank is fitted with a pressure relief device (PRD). This PRD should release the CNG in the tank, prior to the pressure reaching the tank burst pressure.the PRD did not release in the subject Wisconsin police cruiser explosion.NHTSA has recovered the PRD valve from the tank that exploded and testing will be necessary to establish why this tank safety valve did not release in the very high temperature fire that occurred in the police cruiser.there is only the single known event, but due to the catastropic force of such an explosion and the potential for injury and loss of life, this investigation is being upgraded.
• Defect Investigation #PE98041 - Alleged that the outboard-forward, front seat anchor bolt boss fractures through the vehicle floor pan, causing the front seat to lean sharply back
• Defect Investigation #RQ03004 - ODI has received 40 complaints alleging rear brake line failure in the subject vehicles, including 8 that have been received this year.an additional 192 reports and 478 warranty claims have been received from Ford.a leak in the rear brake line can cause extended stopping distance.a search of ODI's complaint database for peer vehicle complaints, using the same brake line failure criteria as for the subject vehicles and the same model years (1995-97), identified only 1 complaint involving General Motors caprice/implala/88/98/regal vehicles and only 2 complaints involving Chrysler LH-cars.the investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis to further evaluate the frequency, scope, and causal factors related to rear brake line failures in the subject vehicle population.
• Defect Investigation #EA03012 - In a letter dated February 25, 2005, Ford motor company (Ford) notified ODI that it would be conducting a customer satisfaction program (Ford no. 04B26) to correct a rear brake line chafing concern in approximately 44,000 model year (MY) 1997 Ford Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis non-fleet vehicles equipped with electronic traction control that werebuilt after March 19, 1997.these vehicles have an additional rear brake line and a mastic patch causing reduced clearance from a stiffening rib in the floor pan.ODI¿S analysis showed higher complaint and warranty rates related to rear brake line failures in this population than in other subject vehicles and peer mid-sized passenger cars that were evaluated during the investigation.vehicles involved in Ford¿S program will have the rear brake lines inspected for contact with the floor pan stiffing rib.if there is contact, but no abrasion or leakage, the brake lines will be repositioned.if there is abrasion or a leak is evident the brake line will be repaired.if necessary, both of the rear brake lines will be replaced. Though Ford does not admit to a safety-defect in the subject components, ODI believes that the facts in this investigation show otherwise because the insufficient clearance in the routing of those brake lines may result in leaks in those lines that may result in increased stopping distances.ODI is designating the campaign a safety recall (NHTSA recall no. 05V-086).because of the low rates of brake line failures in the remaining subject vehicles, a safety-related defect has not been identified in those populations and 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 in those vehicles.the Agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.for additional information, see the attached closing report.
• Defect Investigation #RQ03002 - See attached report.
• Defect Investigation #DP02007 - The fars data shows that the risk of fire from impact in all directions in the subject vehicles is the same as all other sedans.the subject vehicles are not over represented with respect to the risk of fire in real-world high-energy crashes.a further discussion of issues related to post crash fires in the subject vehicles is set out in the closing report for sq 01-014 and that report is in the docket for this petition.after reviewing the petition and its supporting materials, as well as information furnished by Ford and GM, and information within the Agency's possession from previous investigations and other related actions,NHTSA has concluded that futher investigation concerning post-crash fires in the subject vehicles is not likely to lead to a decision that the vehicles contain a safety defect.