[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23870]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 27, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Denial of Motor Vehicle Petition
This notice sets forth the reasons for denial of a petition
submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
under Section 30162 of Chapter 301, Title 49, United States Code
(formerly Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (the Act)).
Mr. Lawrence J. Hutchens, an attorney representing Ms. Gloria Ody-
Costello, petitioned the Administrator of NHTSA with respect to the
automatic transmission dipstick and dipstick tube on all 1994 Mercury
Cougar model vehicles. The petitioner maintains that when the subject
vehicle is brought to a sudden stop, transmission fluid spills out of
the dipstick tube and ignites on the catalytic converter located below
the tube. The petitioner requests that NHTSA order the recall of all
1994 Mercury Cougars for the installation of a clamp to be installed on
the subject dipstick to retain the dipstick in the dipstick tube in a
more positive manner and ``look into'' relocating or increasing the
length of the dipstick tube.
Mr. Hutchens' petition specifically calls for the recall of all
1994 Mercury Cougars vehicles. According to the Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) provided by Mr. Hutchens, Ms. Ody-Costello owns a 1993
Mercury Cougar, which is equipped with an automatic transmission and
5.0 liter V-8 engine. Mr. Hutchens states in his letter that Ms. Ody-
Costello took her vehicle into a Ford dealer for unspecified
transmission repairs. When the vehicle was returned to Ms. Ody-
Castello, the transmission dipstick was allegedly not pushed completely
into the top of the dipstick tube, which left the top of the dipstick
tube partially open. Also, according to Mr. Hutchens, this condition
allowed automatic transmission fluid to spill onto the catalytic
converter during sudden braking and ignite. There is no mention of any
damage to the vehicle as a result of such ignition. As the vehicle
owned by Ms. Ody-Costello is actually a 1993 model, this model was also
included in the NHTSA analysis.
Mr. Hutchens suggests three corrective actions in his letter:
1. Install a clamp on the dipstick tube to hold the dipstick in a
more positive manner.
2. Relocate the dipstick tube, so that the opening of the tube is
not above the catalytic converter.
3. Increase the length of the tube, to raise the opening of the
tube into a higher location in the engine compartment.
The 1993 and 1994 Mercury Cougar are available with two engine
options, either a 5.0 liter V-8 or a 3.8 liter V-6. Both the 1993 and
1994 models are equipped with the same dipstick and have the same
dipstick tube location, regardless of engine size. The dipstick tube
runs upward from the transmission to a location near the rear corner of
the right side engine valve cover, where the dipstick is inserted into
the tube. The opening of the tube is located about 12 inches above the
heat shield that surrounds one of the engine's catalytic converters.
The upper end of the dipstick is fitted with a metal cap that fits
over the top of the dipstick tube. This cap is about \1/2\ inch deep.
Inside the cap and extending about \1/2\ inch from the opening of the
cap is a rubber seal that closes the opening of the dipstick tube. This
seal is basically a rubber plug that fits snugly into the opening. The
plug portion is tapered for the first \1/4\ inch to facilitate its
entry into the opening of the tube. According to Ford Motor Company
(Ford), when the dipstick is inserted into the dipstick tube properly,
so that the metal cap seats over the end of the tube, the rubber plug
will provide a seal that will prevent any transmission fluid from
spilling from the tube under all foreseeable driving conditions,
including sudden or panic stops. Instructions in the Cougar owner's
manual, contained in the glove compartment of all new vehicles, advise
the owner to make sure the dipstick is fully seated when checking
transmission fluid. The owner's manual also warns against overfilling
of the transmission and instructs the owner to have any excess fluid
removed from the transmission if the fluid ever exceeds the recommended
level.
A search of the Office of Defects Investigation's (ODI) consumer
complaint file disclosed no other reports of fluid spilling from the
automatic transmission dipstick tube in either 1993 or 1994 Mercury
Cougars. As the automatic transmission dipstick in the 1993 and 1994
Cougar is identical or very similar to the dipstick is most other Fords
products, a search of ODI's consumer complaint file was also conducted
involving all Ford vehicles from 1990 through 1994. Again, no
complaints of transmission fluid spilling from the automatic
transmission dipstick tubes were located. Ford was also contacted and
reported that Ms. Ody-Costello's complaint was the only one it has
received involving the subject transmission dipstick.
Mr. John R. Jackson, represented by Mr. Hutchens as an expert
witness, was retained by Mr. Hutchens to inspect the Ody-Costello
vehicle. According to Mr. Jackson's report, a one-page letter, when he
first inspected the Ody-Costello vehicle, the transmission was
overfilled. In spite of this overfilled condition, when Mr. Jackson
examined the underside of the vehicle and the area surrounding the
transmission dipstick tube, he reported that there was no evidence that
any oil had spilled or was spilling from the dipstick tube. With the
transmission in the overfilled condition, the owner pulled the dipstick
out, so that the opening of the dipstick tube was ``partially'' open.
When the vehicle was brought to two sudden stops in this condition,
transmission fluid reportedly spilled from the dipstick tube on both
occasions and was ignited by the exhaust system. This test was repeated
two more times, after the excess transmission fluid was removed (with
the dipstick tube still partially open), with the same result.
After the four previously described tests, a final test was
conducted. According to Mr. Jackson's report, ``the dipstick was then
properly installed and the test repeated.'' In the final test, there
was no ignition, although Mr. Jackson did report that there were
``several spots of fluid along that path traveled by the decelerating
vehicle. Mr. Jackson did not explain in his report, whether these spots
could have come from residual oil that had possibly leaked during the
four previous tests, when the dipstick tube was intentionally left
partially open, nor did he indicate that the vehicle was inspected for
the presence of any residual oil or that the area around and under the
dipstick tube was cleaned after any of the previous tests. There was
also no indication in the report that these spots were verified
actually to be transmission fluid from Ms. Ody-Costello's vehicle.
Ms. Ody-Costello also demonstrated the problem for Mr. David
Horowitz, the host of a syndicated television show, that deals with
consumer issues. During the test conducted for Mr. Horowitz, the
transmission dipstick also was not seated into the transmission
dipstick tube. This condition resulted in a partial opening of the
dipstick tube, although this fact was not mentioned by Mr. Horowitz in
his broadcast (Mr. Hutchens submitted a video tape of the segment of
Mr. Horowitz's show dealing with the Ody-Costello vehicle).
In an effort to better understand petitioner's allegations and
particularly to verify Mr. Jackson's testing, ODI conducted an informal
test program involving four 1993/1994 Mercury Cougar vehicles.
All four vehicles were randomly selected from the inventory of two
large metropolitan dealership. Two were new vehicles with less than 50
miles recorded on the odometer and two were used vehicles. The vehicles
were first inspected both in the engine compartment and under the
vehicle for any evidence of oil spillage from the transmission dipstick
tube. None of the vehicles showed any signs of oil leakage or spillage
and were clean and free from any oil residue in the area beneath and
surrounding the transmission dipstick tube. All four vehicles were then
driven for approximately 30 minutes to bring the transmission up to
normal operating temperature. Each vehicle was then inspected and the
transmission fluid levels checked according to the manufacturer's
instructions from the vehicle owner's manual. The dipstick has a
crosshatched area, not quite \3/4\ inches long, near its lower
extremity. The manufacturer recommends that the fluid level fall within
this area when the transmission fluid is at operating temperature. The
fluid level in all four vehicles fell within \1/8\ inch of the
uppermost limit of the crosshatched area of the dipstick. All were
topped off as necessary to bring the fluid level to the top of the
crosshatched area. It is also noted that there is a warning stamped
into the dipstick immediately above the crosshatched area reading
``DON'T ADD.''
With the transmission dipsticks in place and seated into the
dipstick tube according to the manufacturer's instructions, the
uppermost area of the transmission dipstick tube, from 3 inches below
the opening of the tube, was next loosely wrapped with paper toweling.
This wrap extended above the top of the tube and around the handle
portion of the dipstick above the cup containing the dipstick tube
seal. The toweling was retained in position with masking tape.
Each vehicle was then driven for approximately 15 miles in stop and
go traffic and for a second 15 miles at highway speeds of 55 to 65 mph.
The vehicles were then subjected to braking in a large, level parking
lot. The asphalt surface of the lot was dry and the ambient temperature
was 87 degrees F. Each vehicle was driven along a straight path and
brought up to a speed of 50 mph, at which time the brakes were applied
as firmly as possibly, bringing the vehicle to a sudden panic-type
stop. (Although the test vehicles were not equipped with anti-lock
brakes, as was the Ody-Costello vehicle, the deceleration was so severe
that the valence panel under the front bumper of the test vehicles
contacted the road surface during four of the test stops.) This was
repeated three times with each vehicle. After each of the three tests
of each vehicle, the area underhood and under the vehicle was inspected
for any evidence of fluid spillage. Each time, the paper toweling was
removed and replaced with fresh toweling prior to the next test.
NHTSA found no evidence of any transmission fluid escaping from any
of the dipstick tubes in any of the 12 braking tests nor any of the
``stop and go'' or highway tests. There were no oil spots on the
testing surface, nor any evidence of any oil on any of the paper towels
used around the dipstick tubes.
ODI maintains a library of owner's manuals for all passenger
vehicles sold in the United States. Currently, the manuals cover all
model years from 1989 through 1994. These manuals were reviewed and no
passenger vehicle was located that was fitted with any original
equipment device or clamp to retain the transmission dipstick into the
dipstick tube. In addition, almost all transmission dipsticks are
located near the rear of the engine compartment on the passenger side.
In all cases where the vehicles are equipped with either V-8 or V-6
engines, this places the opening of the dipstick tube above the exhaust
manifold and exhaust pipe for the right bank of cylinders. Although a
few vehicles were located with the transmission dipstick tube opening
located a few inches higher than the subject Cougars, the height of the
opening of the Cougar dipstick tube is typical.
There has been one safety recall involving a transmission dipstick
(recall #93V016). This recall involved 1988 through 1990 full-sized
Chevrolet trucks. It was determined that when these vehicles were
towing heavy trailers in overdrive, pressure could build up in the
automatic transmission and transmission fluid would be forced from the
transmission dipstick tube. A special dipstick was supplied to owners
with a locking seal. There is no evidence to indicate that pressure
build up occurs in the subject Cougar vehicles.
The construction of the Cougar dipstick and the method used to seal
the top of the dipstick tube with the dipstick are also typical of peer
vehicles. Dipsticks were examined for several model vehicles
manufactured by Chrysler and General Motors, and the dipsticks and
seals were all found to be of the same style and very similar in both
construction and design. The location and the method by which the
dipstick is inserted into the transmission tube are also very similar.
The petitioner's primary request (``suggestion'') is that the
agency require the manufacturer to install a clamp to hold the dipstick
into the dipstick tube in a more positive manner. This suggestion
implies that the petitioner recognizes that if the dipstick is seated
into the dipstick tube according to the manufacturer's recommendations,
no fluid will escape. The petitioner also suggests that NHTSA might
want to look into the possibility of raising or relocating the dipstick
tube so that if the dipstick is not properly installed into the
dipstick tube, transmission fluid will be less likely to escape or come
in contact with exhaust system components.
Both ODI and the manufacturer have searched their files and the
petitioner's reported incident is the only recorded occurrence that has
been located. The petitioner states that the problem originally
occurred when a dipstick was improperly installed by a mechanic in a
Ford dealership, after transmission repairs. The dipstick is not in a
unique location, nor does proper insertion of the dipstick appear to be
difficult, even for owners that are not mechanically inclined. It
appears that the dipstick was inadvertently left loose, or not fully
seated after repairs. In order to duplicate the original incident, the
petitioner has had to leave the dipstick unseated, so that the opening
of the dipstick tube is partially open. The Ford dipstick tube height
is typical of peer vehicles. In fact, most vehicles on the road have
their transmission dipsticks in similar locations and also seal the top
of the transmission dipstick tube with a rubber seal located on the
dipstick.
In summary, a review of all the pertinent information leads to the
following conclusions:
1. The petitioner's allegation appears to be an isolated incident.
2. The alleged problem appears to be the result of improper
maintenance and repair, rather than a manufacturing defect.
3. The Cougar transmission dipstick, dipstick tube, and sealing
system are typical of other peer vehicles.
4. If an owner uses reasonable care and follows the manufacturer's
instructions in the vehicle's owner manual, the seal on the
transmission dipstick will prevent spillage or escape of transmission
fluid.
5. There is no evidence that the transmission dipstick will not
stay in place once properly inserted into the tube. However, the
dipstick could be left loose by an inattentive owner or mechanic,
regardless of the presence of a retaining device.
In consideration of the available information, it is concluded that
there is not a reasonable possibility that an order concerning the
notification and remedy of a safety-related defect in relation to the
petitioner's allegations would be issued at the conclusion of an
investigation. Further commitment of resources to determine whether a
safety-related defect trend exists does not appear to be warranted.
Therefore, the petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: September 22, 1994.
William A. Boehly,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-23870 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M