NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
19 reportsClear category filter114,000 miles · Apr 30, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH AS AN INTERIM REPAIR UNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS BECAME AVAILABLE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH AS AN INTERIM REPAIR UNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS BECAME AVAILABLE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER TO COMPLETE THE RECALL REPAIRS; HOWEVER, THE DEALER REFUSED TO HONOR THE RECALL REPAIR. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO ACTIVE THE SPEED CONTROL ACTIVATION SWITCH. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 08V051000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,000. ....UPDATED 07/22/15 *BF UPDATED 10/11/2017*CN
NHTSA ODI #10713897
190,000 miles · Sep 9, 2014
Vehicle Speed ControlFire
ON 9/17/2003 @ 11:23 PM, MY 1996 GRAND MARQUIS CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD AND WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED WHILE SITTING IDLE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THE HENRICO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED. I HAVE THE FIRE REPORT, WHICH INDICATES THAT NO CAUSE FOR THE FIRE WAS DETERMINED. IN JUNE 2014, I RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FROM FORD MOTOR…
Read full complaint
ON 9/17/2003 @ 11:23 PM, MY 1996 GRAND MARQUIS CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD AND WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED WHILE SITTING IDLE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THE HENRICO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED. I HAVE THE FIRE REPORT, WHICH INDICATES THAT NO CAUSE FOR THE FIRE WAS DETERMINED. IN JUNE 2014, I RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY STATING THAT MY 1996 GRAND MARQUIS HAS A POTENTIAL UNDER HOOD FIRE RISK. THE ISSUE AS STATED WAS THAT "FORD CANNOT BE CONFIDENT THAT AFTER MANY YEARS IN SERVICE, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH IN YOUR VEHICLE WILL NOT LEAK, POSING THE RISK OF AN UNDER HOOD FIRE. UNTIL THIS REPAIR IS PERFORMED, A FIRE COULD OCCUR AT ANY TIME. A FIRE CAN OCCUR EVEN IF THE KEY IS NOT IN THE IGNITION, AND CAN OCCUR EVEN IF THE SPEED CONTROL SYSTEM IS NEVER USED." AFTER RECEIVING THE LETTER, I FILED A REPORT WITH FORD TO POSSIBLY GET SOME FORM OF COMPENSATION FOR MY CAR SINCE I MY CAR WAS INSURED FOR LIABILITY ONLY. FORD RESPONDED BACK THAT MY CLAIM WAS CLOSED DUE TO THE FACT THAT I KNOW LONGER OWNED THE CAR, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO INSPECT IT. I FIND THIS TO BE ABSURD SINCE THE CAR WAS TOTALED, AND NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10631764
220,000 miles · May 1, 2009
Vehicle Speed ControlFire
ON TUESDAY NIGHT, APRIL 28, MY 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS SUDDENLY CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD OF THE CAR AND THE ENGINE WAS IN FLAMES IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. MY CAR HAD BEEN SITTING FOR HOURS BEFORE I GOT IN IT AND DROVE IT HOME, APPROXIMATELY 2 1/2 MILES. WHEN I PARKED MY CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY I ENTERED MY HOUSE. WITHIN FIVE MI…
Read full complaint
ON TUESDAY NIGHT, APRIL 28, MY 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS SUDDENLY CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD OF THE CAR AND THE ENGINE WAS IN FLAMES IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. MY CAR HAD BEEN SITTING FOR HOURS BEFORE I GOT IN IT AND DROVE IT HOME, APPROXIMATELY 2 1/2 MILES. WHEN I PARKED MY CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY I ENTERED MY HOUSE. WITHIN FIVE MINUTES MY DAUGHTER SCREAMED THAT SMOKE WAS COMING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD. WITHIN ANOTHER 5 - 10 MINUTES THE ENTIRE ENGINE AREA WAS IN FLAMES. FIRE RESCUE ARRIVED AND PUT OUT THE FIRE, BUT NOT BEFORE MY CAR WAS, FOR THE MOST PART, RUINED. FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD, AND READ, I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL MECHANISM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10267518
Mileage unknown · Dec 6, 2008
Vehicle Speed ControlFire
WE OWNED A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS VEHICLE. THIS VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE IN JULY 2007 WITHOUT ANY WARNING PARKED IN FRONT OF OUR HOME WHILE WE WERE OUT OF TOWN. LUCKILY MY DAUGHTER AND GRANDDAUGHTER WERE HOME AT THE TIME TO CALL 911. WE DID NOT RECEIVE A RECALL NOTICE FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY REGARDING A RECALL UNTIL 2 MONTHS LATE…
Read full complaint
WE OWNED A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS VEHICLE. THIS VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE IN JULY 2007 WITHOUT ANY WARNING PARKED IN FRONT OF OUR HOME WHILE WE WERE OUT OF TOWN. LUCKILY MY DAUGHTER AND GRANDDAUGHTER WERE HOME AT THE TIME TO CALL 911. WE DID NOT RECEIVE A RECALL NOTICE FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY REGARDING A RECALL UNTIL 2 MONTHS LATER! HAD WE BEEN ABLE TO KNOW ABOUT THE RECALL, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. MY WIFE AND I ARE SENIOR CITIZENS, ME IN MY 80'S AND SHE IN HER 70'S. HAD THIS HAPPENED WHILE WE WERE DRIVING WE WOULD HAVE NOT MADE IT OUT OF THE VEHICLE IN TIME! MY DAUGHTER DID EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ONLINE AND FOUND THERE WERE MANY COMPLAINTS PRIOR TO THE SAFETY RECALL #05S28. THESE AUTOMAKERS NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR SITUATIONS AS THIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN NUMEROUS CONSUMER COMPLAINTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO THE RECALL. WE'RE LUCKY TO BE ALIVE AND NOT BURNED! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10250941
Mileage unknown · Sep 8, 2008
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. AFTER RECEIVING A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL), THE CONTACT HAD THE SWITCH DISCONNECTED IN HIS VEHICLE. ON MARCH 8, 2008, HE RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 08V051000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUIS…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. AFTER RECEIVING A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL), THE CONTACT HAD THE SWITCH DISCONNECTED IN HIS VEHICLE. ON MARCH 8, 2008, HE RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 08V051000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL). HE CALLED THE DEALER AND WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD BE IN TOUCH WITH HIM AS SOON AS THE PART WAS AVAILABLE. AS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2008, THE CONTACT HAS NOT HEARD BACK FROM THE DEALER. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 87,000. UPDATED 10/03/08 *BF UPDATED 10/07/08.8JB
NHTSA ODI #10241333
73,000 miles · Mar 10, 2008
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingExterior Lighting
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. OCCASIONALLY, WHEN DRIVING 55-60 MPH, THE VEHICLE WOULD VIBRATE. THE VIBRATION ALSO OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING BETWEEN 35-40 MPH. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE HAD TO ADD WATER TO THE ANTIFREEZE RECEPTACLE EACH DAY BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WOULD OVERHEAT. WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN, THE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. OCCASIONALLY, WHEN DRIVING 55-60 MPH, THE VEHICLE WOULD VIBRATE. THE VIBRATION ALSO OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING BETWEEN 35-40 MPH. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE HAD TO ADD WATER TO THE ANTIFREEZE RECEPTACLE EACH DAY BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WOULD OVERHEAT. WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN, THE CONTACT WOULD HEAR A RUSTLING SOUND AS IF SOMETHING WAS RUBBING TOGETHER. IN ADDITION, THE REAR WINDOWS WOULD NOT GO DOWN. THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW WOULD GO DOWN, BUT WOULD NOT GO BACK UP. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FAILURE WAS ELECTRICAL. THE BLINKERS, BRAKE LIGHTS, AND CRUISE CONTROL HAVE FAILED. SHE ALSO RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. THE POWERTRAIN AND RECALL NUMBER WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 90,647 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 73,000.
NHTSA ODI #10220703
Mileage unknown · Feb 21, 2008
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL: CRUISE CONTROL. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE RECALL PART WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE RECALL NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 47,293.
NHTSA ODI #10218738
Mileage unknown · Jan 23, 2008
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT HAS NOT RECEIVED A REMEDY FOR RECALL NUMBER 05S28 IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL WAS DISCONNECTED. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE VEHICLE WAS RECEIVED AS A GIFT. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT HAS NOT RECEIVED A REMEDY FOR RECALL NUMBER 05S28 IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL WAS DISCONNECTED. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE VEHICLE WAS RECEIVED AS A GIFT. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 135,357.
NHTSA ODI #10215787
82,000 miles · Jan 16, 2008
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 FORD GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID #07V336000). SHE STATED THAT THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. AS A RESULT, SHE BEGAN TO HAVE ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE POWER WINDOWS. THE DEALER REFUSED TO INSPECT THE POWE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 FORD GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID #07V336000). SHE STATED THAT THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. AS A RESULT, SHE BEGAN TO HAVE ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE POWER WINDOWS. THE DEALER REFUSED TO INSPECT THE POWER WINDOWS UNTIL THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL HAS BEEN RECONNECTED. AS OF JANUARY 16, 2008, THE DEALER HAD NOT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 82,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 85,000.
NHTSA ODI #10215133
Mileage unknown · Jan 14, 2008
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL) AND FORD RECALL NUMBER 05S28 IN AUGUST OF 2007. SINCE THEN, HE HAS HAD THE DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER STATED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THEY DI…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL) AND FORD RECALL NUMBER 05S28 IN AUGUST OF 2007. SINCE THEN, HE HAS HAD THE DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER STATED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW WHEN THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 143,000. UPDATED 02-14-08 *BF
NHTSA ODI #10214698
Official recalls
5Feb 4, 2008
FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
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.
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.
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.
Apr 22, 1996
WHEN IN THE SECONDARY LATCHED POSITION, THE DRIVER DOOR LATCHES MAY OPEN WHEN SUBJECTED TO TRANSVERSE LOADS LESS THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN FMVSS NO. 206, "DOOR LOCKS AND DOOR RETENTION COMPONENTS."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE DRIVER'S DOOR, WHEN CLOSED ONLY TO THE SECONDARY LATCHED POSITION, MAY NOT SUSTAIN A 1,000 POUND TRANSVERSE LOAD.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THE DRIVER DOOR LATCH.
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
7EA03012 · 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
DP98007 · Improper Height For Head Restraints
Opened Jul 28, 1998 · Closed Sep 28, 1998
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats:front Assembly:head Restraint
NHTSA WAS PETITIONED TO COMMENCE A DEFECT INVESTIGATION OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ON JULY 28, 1998.THE PETITION ALLEGES THAT THE DRIVER'S SEAT HEAD RESTRAINT WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH AT ITS HIGHEST POSITION TO PROTECT HIM FROM NECK INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING A REAR IMPACT COLLISION.OTHER THAN THE SUBJECT PETITIN, ODI HAS RECEIVED NO OTHER COMPLAINTS OF INADEQUATE HEAD RESTRAINT HEIGHT FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S COMPLIANCE DATA SHOWS THAT THE SUBJECT VEHICLES MET THE HEAD RESTRAINT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF FMVSS NO. 202, HEAD RESTRAINTS. THEREFORE, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Illustration