IllustrationDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 4 MPH UNDER NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS, THE VEHICLE MADE A LOUD NOISE. AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE LOWER BALL JOINT SEPARATED.
1997 Lincoln Town Car
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Town Car years
Owner complaints for the 1997 Lincoln Town Car are substantially higher than the model-year median of 86.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Town Car years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
30–25K
725–50K
2550–75K
4475–100K
37100–150K
11150K+
127 reports with mileage · 187 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 87 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 50 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 43 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
10 crash reports6 fire reports6 injury reports
Suspension complaints
50 reports1997 LINCOLN TOWN CAR FRONT CONTROL ARM LOWER BALL JOINT FAILED, PUNCTURING TIRE AND DRIVING LOWER CONTROL ARM INTO ASPHALT. SPEED OF ACCIDENT 15 MPH. NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON LOWER CONTROL ARM FAILURES FOR LINCOLN, CROWN VICTORIA ETC. MANUFACTURER CLAIMS THE SPECIFIC VIN IS NOT UNDER RECALL CRITERIA. I SUSPECT THIS IS AN OVER…
Read full complaint
1997 LINCOLN TOWN CAR FRONT CONTROL ARM LOWER BALL JOINT FAILED, PUNCTURING TIRE AND DRIVING LOWER CONTROL ARM INTO ASPHALT. SPEED OF ACCIDENT 15 MPH. NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON LOWER CONTROL ARM FAILURES FOR LINCOLN, CROWN VICTORIA ETC. MANUFACTURER CLAIMS THE SPECIFIC VIN IS NOT UNDER RECALL CRITERIA. I SUSPECT THIS IS AN OVERSIGHT BY THE MANUFACTURER. I AM THANKFUL THAT I WAS NOT TAKING MY CHILD ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN THIS OCCURRED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. THERE WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN A WRECK AND THE WAY THE FAILURE OCCURRED, I AM NOT SURE HOW THE CAR COULD NOT HAVE SPUN AND ROLLED IF THE FAILURE WOULD HAVE OCCURRED AT A HIGHER SPEED. THE CONTROL ARM LEFT A GROOVE IN THE ASPHALT AND HALTED THE CAR INSTANTLY THROWING EVERYONE FORWARD WHEN IT OCCURRED. IT WOULD BE ADVISABLE TO HAVE THESE RECALLED TO AVOID POTENTIAL LITIGATION AND LAW SUITS. I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL INSTANCES OF THIS IN THIS COMPLAINT DATABASE AS WELL AS ON THE WEB. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY CLASS ACTION SUIT AND CAN ONLY FIND THE RECALL ON THE LOWER CONTROL ARM THAT APPARENTLY DOES NOT INCLUDE MY SPECIFIC VIN NUMBER (AND A LOT OF OTHERS APPARENTLY AS WELL). I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL MECHANICS AND THEY ARE AWARE OF THIS AND SUSPECT A MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND THEY ALSO SAY THAT IT IS PRETTY RIDICULOUS TO HAVE A CONTROL ARM GO OUT SO SOON IN A VEHICLES LIFE. THERE ARE CARS THAT STILL HAVE THEIR ORIGINAL CONTROL ARMS AND TWICE THE MILEAGE OF OTHER MANUFACTURERS. THE REPAIRS ARE EXPENSIVE, THE FAILURE IS DANGEROUS, AND I HONESTLY HAVE PROBLEMS TRUSTING WHETHER THE DEALER WILL USE PARTS THAT HAVE BEEN RE-ENGINEERED TO OVERCOME THIS FAILURE. ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE SEEING THAT SOME OF THE REPLACEMENT CONTROL ARMS APPEAR TO HAVE THE SAME FAILURES OR SAME DEFECT. HOW CAN I BE ASSURED THAT THIS WILL NOT OCCUR AGAIN? AND WILL I BE JUST AS LUCKY AS I WAS THIS TIME IN THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED AT EXTREMELY LOW SPEED? *JB
HEARD A POPPING IN THE FRONT END OF MY 1997 LINCOLN TOWNCAR AND IT WAS PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN I WOULD APPLY THE BRAKES. I TOOK IT TO THE GARAGE AND HAD THE TIRES ROTATED AND THE FRONT BRAKES REPLACED AND THE ROTORS WERE REPLACED AND BRAKE PADS, NOTHING WAS NOTICED AT THIS TIME. THE CAR WAS STILL PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN THE BR…
Read full complaint
HEARD A POPPING IN THE FRONT END OF MY 1997 LINCOLN TOWNCAR AND IT WAS PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN I WOULD APPLY THE BRAKES. I TOOK IT TO THE GARAGE AND HAD THE TIRES ROTATED AND THE FRONT BRAKES REPLACED AND THE ROTORS WERE REPLACED AND BRAKE PADS, NOTHING WAS NOTICED AT THIS TIME. THE CAR WAS STILL PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED. I WAS DRIVING TO MY JOB WHICH IS ABOUT 10 MILES FROM HOME AND WHEN I PULLED IN TO THE DRIVE AND WENT TO BACK UP I HEARD A LOUD POP, I CALLED MY HUSBAND AND TOLD HIM ABOUT IT AND WHEN HE LOOKED UNDERNEATH THE CAR HE FOUND THAT THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BRACKET THAT WAS FACTORY WELDED TO THE FRAME HAD COME LOOSE. THE POPPING NOISE WAS OBVIOUSLY FLEXING OF THE BRACKET THAT WAS WELDED TO THE FRAME AND WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED THE FLEXING OF THE BRACKET WAS CAUSING THE CAR TO PULL TO THE LEFT. MY HUSBAND CALL THE LOCAL LINCOLN DEALERSHIP AND EXPLAINED WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING BEFORE. I THEN WENT ON LINE TO CARFAX AND RESEARCHED THE HISTORY OF MY CAR TO SEE IF IT HAD EVER BEEN WRECKED AND THE RESULTS WERE CLEAN, NO WRECKS OR SERVICE HISTORY OF ANY PROBLEM. WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE LOOK AT THE CAR AND EACH AND EVERY ONE EXPRESSED THAT THIS WAS A FIRST FOR THEM, THAT THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING BEFORE AND THAT THEY FEEL LIKE IT WAS A FACTORY DEFAULT ON THE WELDING AND THAT I MUST HAVE HAD AN ANGEL ON MY SHOULDER BECAUSE THIS COULD HAVE BEEN VERY DANGEROUS. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW I AM AT AWE AS TO WHAT TO DO BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO NOT HAVE ANYTHING DONE TO THE CAR TILL SOMEONE FROM FORD/LINCOLN LOOKS AT. I FEEL THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION AND THAT FORD/LINCOLN SHOULD TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS PROBLEM. THIS VEHICLE IS USED ON THE ROAD ONLY AND NOT USED AS AN OFF ROAD VEHICLE AND IT HAS NOT BEEN ABUSED IN ITS USE. I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE SOME KIND OF RESPONSE OR HELP WITH THIS PROBLEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. *JB
DT: CONTACT STATED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL FELL OFF ON 8-5-05. IT SOUNDED LIKE A FLAT TIRE AND THE FRONT END WAS DRAGGING. THE TIRES WERE A FEW YEARS OLD. HE CALLED FORD AND ASKED ABOUT A RECALL AND THEY TOLD HIM NO THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY RECALLS.*AK IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS HAD FAILED.*JB
DT: THE DRIVER'S SIDE LOWER BALL JOINT FELL OFF ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2005. THE VEHICLE JUST HAD AN OIL CHANGE THE DAY BEFORE, AND THEY DID NOT SEE ANYTHING AT THAT TIME. THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT. THE CONSUMER HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE MECHANICS. THE CONSUMER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM BUT THIS VEHICLE WAS N…
Read full complaint
DT: THE DRIVER'S SIDE LOWER BALL JOINT FELL OFF ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2005. THE VEHICLE JUST HAD AN OIL CHANGE THE DAY BEFORE, AND THEY DID NOT SEE ANYTHING AT THAT TIME. THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT. THE CONSUMER HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE MECHANICS. THE CONSUMER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM BUT THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INVOLVED DUE TO VIN. *AK UPDATED 12/07/05. *JB
DT: A RECALL WAS ISSUED FOR THE SAME TYPE OF VEHICLE THE CONSUMER OWNS, HOWEVER HIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. WITHOUT WARNING THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD AND THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE COLLAPSED AND SPUN AROUND. WHEN THE CONSUMER EXITED THE VEHICLE, HE DISCOVERED THE BALL JOINT PUNCTURED THE TIRE ON THE FRONT PASSEN…
Read full complaint
DT: A RECALL WAS ISSUED FOR THE SAME TYPE OF VEHICLE THE CONSUMER OWNS, HOWEVER HIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. WITHOUT WARNING THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD AND THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE COLLAPSED AND SPUN AROUND. WHEN THE CONSUMER EXITED THE VEHICLE, HE DISCOVERED THE BALL JOINT PUNCTURED THE TIRE ON THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED THE DEALER AND THEY SAID THE CONSUMERS VEHICLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER SAID HIS CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE CONSUMER STATED HIS VEHICLE HAD THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS STATED IN THE RECALL # 98V322000. *JB.
DRIVER NOTICED THAT BOTH FRONTAL SEAT BELTS DO NOT RETRACT BACK. WHILE DRIVING DRIVER NOTICED FLUID LEAKING FROM UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. DRIVER TOOK VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *AK UPDATED 12-12-07. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE DRIVIN…
Read full complaint
DRIVER NOTICED THAT BOTH FRONTAL SEAT BELTS DO NOT RETRACT BACK. WHILE DRIVING DRIVER NOTICED FLUID LEAKING FROM UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. DRIVER TOOK VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *AK UPDATED 12-12-07. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE DRIVING, COOLANT LEAKED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE VEHICLE HAD A DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE BALL JOINTS WERE DEFECTIVE AND ONE OF THEM HAD ALREADY FAILED. UPDATED *JB
ERRATIC STEERING AND NOISE AT THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT END. APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT AT LESS THAN 15MPH THE BALL JOINT FELL OUT. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BY FIESTA FORD LINCOLN MERCURY IN INDIO CA.AT MY EXPENSE BY REPLACING THE LOWER COTROL ARMAND SHOCK ABSORBER. A WEEK AGO THE SAME NOISE DEVELOPED ON THE DRIVER SIDE AND THE CAR…
Read full complaint
ERRATIC STEERING AND NOISE AT THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT END. APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT AT LESS THAN 15MPH THE BALL JOINT FELL OUT. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BY FIESTA FORD LINCOLN MERCURY IN INDIO CA.AT MY EXPENSE BY REPLACING THE LOWER COTROL ARMAND SHOCK ABSORBER. A WEEK AGO THE SAME NOISE DEVELOPED ON THE DRIVER SIDE AND THE CAR WAS SENT TO FRESNO LINCOLN MERCURY FOR REPAIR YESTERDAY. I WAS TOLD BY THE MECHANIC THE LEFT LOWER CONTROL ARM NEEDS REPLACING. *AK
WHILE DRIVING, A LOUD NOISE WAS HEARD FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER NOTICED THAT THE NOISE LEVEL HAS INCREASED ENORMOUSLY LOUDER UPON ACCELERATION. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE DRIVER THAT BOTH DRIVER, AND PASSENGER SIDE UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED DUE TO CORROSION. *LA THE FAILURE CAUSED THE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING, A LOUD NOISE WAS HEARD FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER NOTICED THAT THE NOISE LEVEL HAS INCREASED ENORMOUSLY LOUDER UPON ACCELERATION. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE DRIVER THAT BOTH DRIVER, AND PASSENGER SIDE UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED DUE TO CORROSION. *LA THE FAILURE CAUSED THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE COLLAPSED TO THE GROUND. THE MANUFACTURER REFUSED TO HONOR RECALL 98V322000. *NM
1. THE ABS LAMP REMAINED ON AND MY COST WAS NEARLY 1000.00 TO DIAGNOSE A FAULTY MODULE,AND HAVE IT REPLACED. THE LINCOLN TOWNCAR IS A 97 WITH ONLY 73K MILES. 2. THERE IS A SUSPENSION NOISE IN THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE WHICH I WAS TOLD WOULD COST NEARLY 600 DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BREAK THE SEAL TO ACCESS THE AREA AND THAT I…
Read full complaint
1. THE ABS LAMP REMAINED ON AND MY COST WAS NEARLY 1000.00 TO DIAGNOSE A FAULTY MODULE,AND HAVE IT REPLACED. THE LINCOLN TOWNCAR IS A 97 WITH ONLY 73K MILES. 2. THERE IS A SUSPENSION NOISE IN THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE WHICH I WAS TOLD WOULD COST NEARLY 600 DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BREAK THE SEAL TO ACCESS THE AREA AND THAT IT IS NOT A SIMPLE LUBRICATIION JOB. 3. I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL RECALLS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABS AND FRONT SUSPENSIONS YET I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY BY MAIL.*AK
Official recalls
607V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
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.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: 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.
01V318000 · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
Oct 3, 2001
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES THAT HAVE HAD THE DRIVER'S AIR BAG MODULE REPLACED AFTER APRIL 5, 2000. THE REPLACEMENT DRIVER'S AIR BAG MODULE INFLATOR MAY HAVE INSUFFICIENT WELDS THAT COULD PREVENT PROPER INFLATION OF THE AIR BAG.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE DRIVER'S AIR BAG MAY NOT PROPERLY DEPLOY WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN LESS THAN THE INTENDED LEVEL OF OCCUPANT PROTECTION.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THE DRIVER'S AIR BAG MODULE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN OCTOBER 5, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
00V157001 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET DRIVER'S SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
00V157002 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
98V322000 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
Dec 16, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1996-1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, NATURAL GAS, AND 1996-1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT WERE PRODUCED WITH A LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CONTAINING A ONE PIECE BEARING; AND 1990-1996 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, AND NGV VEHICLES AND 1990-1996 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN SERVICED WITH EITHER A BALL JOINT CONTAINING THE ONE-PIECE BEARING OR A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM CONTAINING A BALL JOINT WITH A ONE-PIECE BEARING. THE ONE-PIECE BEARING WITHIN THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CAN WEAKEN SLOWLY DURING USE AND EVENTUALLY CRACK. THIS COULD RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE BALL AND CAP OF THE JOINT, ALLOWING THE CONTROL ARM TO DROP TO THE GROUND.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS WHILE THE VEHICLE IS MOVING, REDUCED STEERING CONTROL COULD OCCUR, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS (2).
96V231000 · Air Bags:frontal
Nov 12, 1996
TWO BOLTS THAT ATTACH THE DRIVER AIR BAG TO THE STEERING WHEEL WERE NOT INSTALLED DURING VEHICLE ASSEMBLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A FRONTAL COLLISION, THE AIR BAG MODULE WOULD STAY IN POSITION DURING DEPLOYMENT. HOWEVER, THE MODULE COULD LEAVE THE STEERING WHEEL CAVITY FOLLOWING AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE VEHICLES AND INSTALL ANY BOLTS THAT ARE MISSING.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
7DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
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.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
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.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
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.
Engine And Engine Cooling
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.
EA03012 · Rear Brake Line Failure
Opened Jul 25, 2003 · Closed Apr 11, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
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.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid
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.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
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.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
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.
RQ03004 · Rear Brake Line Failure
Opened Mar 11, 2003 · Closed Jul 25, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
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.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid
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.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
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.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components
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.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
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.
RQ03002 · Ball Joint Separation
Opened Jan 3, 2003 · Closed Jun 3, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
SEE ATTACHED REPORT.
EA02025 · Speed Control Deactivation Switch Fires
Opened Sep 6, 2002 · Closed Jun 30, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling
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.
DP02007 · FUEL-FED Fires
Opened Aug 22, 2002 · Closed Dec 4, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
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.
SQ01014 · Post Rear End Collision Fires
Opened Nov 27, 2001 · Closed Oct 3, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
There is no summary currently available