2002 Ford Explorer Sport problems

What is wrong

On certain pickup trucks, passenger vehicles, sport utility vehicles, and motor homes chassis, the speed control deactivation switch may, under certain conditions, leak internally and then overheat, smoke, or burn.

Risk

This could result in an underhood fire.

Remedy

Dealers will install a fused wiring harness. Owners of the passenger cars included in this campaign will be instructed to return their vehicles to their dealers to have the speed control deactivation switch disconnected as an interim repair. As soon as repair parts are available (expected october 2007), owners will be instructed to return to the dealers for installation of a fused wiring harness. The recall began on august 13, 2007, and mailing completed by september 19, 2007. Owners may contact ford at 1‑888‑222‑2751.

Recall number 07V336000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with high back seats, the upper bolt on the driver's side high back seat that attaches the seat recliner mechanism to the seat back frame, could fracture. If the bolt fractures, the seat back may recline until it makes contact with an object behind the seat, such as the second row seat cushion.

Risk

The driver could potentially lose contact with the steering wheel or foot pedals during such an event, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the driver seat upper bolt with a metal spacer and bolt. In addition, seats with tubular back frames will have the fully threaded lower recliner bolt replaced with a partially threaded bolt. The recall began on april 10, 2006. Owners may contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673. This is a supplement to a previous recall campaign (03v281).

Recall number 06V114000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with high back seats, the upper bolt on the driver's side high back seat, that attaches the seat recliner mechanism to the seat back frame, could fracture. If the bolt fractures and does not jam in the seat back frame, the seat back may recline until it makes contact with an object behind the seat, such as the second row seat cushion.

Risk

The driver could potentially lose contact with the steering wheel or foot pedals during such an event, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the driver seat upper bolt with a metal spacer and bolt. In addition, seats with tubular back frames will have the fully threaded lower recliner bolt replaced with a partially threaded bolt. Owner notification began on august 29, 2003. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 03V281000 · Recall details

In response to an information request (ir) letter sent by the office of defects investigation (odi), ford stated consumer reports of higher than expected efforts when shifting into and out of park could be a result of a groove being worn into the swing arm ramp of the steering column. The swing arm is a component bolted to the steering column that assists in shifting through the transmission gears.an engineering evaluation conducted by ford of returned steering columns found the groove could be created over time if consumer shift more quickly from the drive or reverse to park than the brake shift interlock (bsi) solenoid pin retracts after the brake pedal is applied. In november of 2004, ford released a redesigned bsi solenoid with a shorter pin retracting time as a serviceable component. Ford has noted the shorter retraction time significantly lessens the likelihood of bsi solenoid pin to swing arm contact even with rapid consumer shifts.ford also issued a technical service bulletin, tsb 04-22-12, to instruct service technicians on the proper diagnosis and vehicle repair. Reviewing complaints to odi and data submitted by ford, odi has identified 200 alleged incidents of unintended vehicle movement after consumers believe they have shifted the vehicle into park, resulting in 85 alleged crashes and 32 alleged injuries.in addition to the reports of alleged incidents of unintended vehicle movement, odi has also identified 883 reports of consumers alleging difficulty or the inability to shift the vehicle into park.this preliminary evaluation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis (ea09-013) to further assess the scope, frequency and risk to motor vehicle safety of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles.

PE09020

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 the federal safety agency 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 the federal safety agency?s limited resources to best accomplish the agency?s safety mission, the petition is denied.

DP05005

On july 7, 2005, the office of defects investigation (odi) opened a preliminary evaluation to investigate alleged stuck throttle complaints in certain model year (my) 2002 ford explorer and mercury mountaineer vehicles equipped with the standard available 4.0l sohc v6 engine.at that time, odi was aware of 15 complaints that alleged stuck engine throttle causing unwanted vehicle acceleration and 1 alleged crash as a result.six complainants reported that throttle control cable replacement remedied the alleged stuck throttle condition.additionally, odi was aware of a technical service bulletin issued by the manufacturer that referred to an accelerator cable design change.odi sent a letter to the manufacturer on july 18, 2005 requesting certain information about these vehicles. According to ford, approximately 234,092 subject vehicles built from august 14, 2000 (?job 1?) through october 31, 2001 used a particular accelerator cable known as a 16 lay wire design.this design is comprised of the throttle cable surrounded by a conduit made of several concentric layers including a teflon liner, a nylon tube extruded over the teflon liner, 16 lay wires wrapped around the nylon tube, and finally a nylon jacket extruded over and around the lay wires. Ford reports that throttle control concerns related to the accelerator cable are likely caused by a migration of the inner teflon liner out of the conduit at the dash panel fitting.should the teflon liner migrate outward sufficiently to contact the accelerator pedal arm it could interfere with the pedal?s ability to return to idle.in november 2001, ford began using a new 12 lay wire design accelerator cable.this change was implemented to allow for installation of optionally available power-adjustable pedals. Field data suggests that the condition with the subject cable is more prevalent in cold (winter) climates.of the 396 warranty claims related to the alleged defect, nearly 68% occurred in winter months and most warranty claims are associated with vehicles sold in the northeastern, northern interior (midwest), and rocky mountain regions of the united states.this seasonal trend appears to be in decline with fewer warranty claims paid in winter 2005 than in previous winters.there are no known crashes related to the alleged defect on the subject vehicles, the complaint rate is low after approximately four years in service (3.0 incidents per 100,000 vehicles) and the failure trend is declining.there have been no new complaints since january 2005.a safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exist.odi will continue to monitor its complaint database and will receive updated complaint and warranty data from ford in spring 2006 to verify the trend analysis.the agency will take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

PE05037

Complaints report failure of the rear liftgate glass support while the operator is opening or closing the glass.the falling glass can strike the operator or bystander.the injuries reported are bruises to the head, neck or back, cuts to the face, arm or hand.on september 9, 2004, ford notified the agency that it will recall approximately 955,732 my 2002 and 2003 ford explorer and mercury mountaineer vehicles to replace the liftgate glass strut brackets and/or hinges.see the federal safety agency recall 04v442 for details. This investigation is closed.

PE04045

By letter dated august 4, 2003, ford notified the agency that it is conducting a voluntary safety recall (the federal safety agency recall no. 03v281) involving certain model year (my) 1998-2001 ford explorer / mercury mountaineer 4-door, my 1998-2000 ford explorer 2-door and my 2001-2002 ford explorer sport and sport trac vehicles equipped with high back seats.complaints allege that the driver's seat back reclined without warning.a bolt between the upper seat recliner attachment and the seat back frame may fracture.ford will replace the bolt that attaches the seat recliner mechanism to the seat back frame on the driver side seat.based on ford's safety recall action, this investigation is closed.

PE03020