WHEN PARKING A NEWLY ACQUIRED USED 2006 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS AT IDLE SPEED IN A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER, THE ENGINE ACCELERATED AND THE HARDER I PRESSED THE BRAKE THE FASTER THE ENGINE RAN. TO THE EXTENT THE TRACTION CONTROL ACTIVATED AND THE WHEELS SPUN IN PLACE. THE ONLY WAY I PREVENTED CRASHING INTO THREE PARKED WAS TO SH…
Read full complaint
WHEN PARKING A NEWLY ACQUIRED USED 2006 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS AT IDLE SPEED IN A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER, THE ENGINE ACCELERATED AND THE HARDER I PRESSED THE BRAKE THE FASTER THE ENGINE RAN. TO THE EXTENT THE TRACTION CONTROL ACTIVATED AND THE WHEELS SPUN IN PLACE. THE ONLY WAY I PREVENTED CRASHING INTO THREE PARKED WAS TO SHIFT THE TRANSMISSION INTO NEUTRAL WITH THE ENGINE RACING. WHAT APPARENTLY HAPPENED WAS MY FOOT WAS NOT CENTERED ON THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE PEDAL TRAVELED TO THE POINT WHERE I WAS ALSO PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR. EVIDENTLY THE TRAVEL DISTANCE OF THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SO LONG I PRESSED ON THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AT THE SAME TIME. I TOOK THE CAR TO A MERCURY DEALER AND WAS TOLD THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM, BUT HE COULD NOT CORRECT IT BECAUSE THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS WERE OPERATING AS DESIGNED. THE DEALERS TECHNICIAN REPORTED THAT MY COMPLAINT WAS THAT THE PEDALS SEEMED TO CLOSE TOGETHER. THIS MAY BE TRUE, BUT THE PROBLEM IN MY MIND IS THE TRAVEL DISTANCE OF THE BRAKE PEDAL. I WAS ALSO TOLD FORD HAS NOT AS YET ISSUED A SOLUTION TO THIS SAFETY PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10256243
190 miles · Jul 14, 2008
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. AFTER ATTEMPTING TO STOP AT A STOP LIGHT, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. HE HAD TO PUMP THE BRAKES TWICE IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER COULD NOT REMEDY THE FAILURE. APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LATER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE DEALER …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. AFTER ATTEMPTING TO STOP AT A STOP LIGHT, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. HE HAD TO PUMP THE BRAKES TWICE IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER COULD NOT REMEDY THE FAILURE. APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LATER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE DEALER COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE FAILURE AGAIN. THE FAILURE OCCURRED SEVEN PREVIOUS TIMES, IN WHICH THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOUR OF THOSE TIMES. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE SPEED WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 190 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 37,000.
NHTSA ODI #10234286
21,800 miles · Oct 16, 2007
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD WHEN THE BRAKES WERE DEPRESSED. THE FAILURE FELT AS IF THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS WERE BEING DEPRESSED SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE CONTACT'S WIFE ALSO ATTEMPTED TO DEPRESS THE BRAKES ONCE AND SHE STRUCK A STOP SIGN. THERE WERE NO…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD WHEN THE BRAKES WERE DEPRESSED. THE FAILURE FELT AS IF THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS WERE BEING DEPRESSED SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE CONTACT'S WIFE ALSO ATTEMPTED TO DEPRESS THE BRAKES ONCE AND SHE STRUCK A STOP SIGN. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN SERVICED AS OF YET. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 21,800. * UPDATED 12/12/07 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DESIGNED TOO CLOSE TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE CONSUMERS WIFE HIT A STOP SIGN CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE FRONT BUMPER. UPDATED 12/12/07 UPDATED
NHTSA ODI #10205836
Mileage unknown · Jan 24, 2007
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
2006 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS WITH BRAKE PEDAL PROBLEMS**CC THE CONSUMER STATED THE LAST TIME HE EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES, AN ACCIDENT OCCURRED. THE CONSUMER STATED HIS FOOT BECAME CAUGHT UNDER THE GAS PEDAL. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10181589
721 miles · Oct 2, 2006
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE NORMALLY APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD SUDDENLY, REQUIRING EXTREME PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE PEDAL TO STOP THE VEHICLE. IT WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM. UPDATED 10/18/2006 - PRIOR TO THE ABOVE INCIDENT THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD WHILE APPRO…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE NORMALLY APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD SUDDENLY, REQUIRING EXTREME PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE PEDAL TO STOP THE VEHICLE. IT WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM. UPDATED 10/18/2006 - PRIOR TO THE ABOVE INCIDENT THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD WHILE APPROACHING A STOPLIGHT. THE MORE PRESSURE THE CONSUMER APPLIED TO THE BRAKE PEDAL THE MORE THE ENGINE RACED. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO TRAVEL FORWARD THROUGH THE CROSSWALK AND INTO THE STREET. LUCKILY NO ONE WAS IN THE CROSSWALK AND NO CARS WERE COMING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. THE CONSUMER HAS TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF TO GET IT TO STOP. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10169721
Mileage unknown · May 30, 2006
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES, UNWANTED ACCELERATION OCCURRED CAUSING THE CAR TO LUNGE FORWARD. THE MANAGER OF THE REPAIR DEPARTMENT TOOK A RIDE WITH ME TO SEE IF MY FOOT HIT BOTH THE BRAKE AND THE GAS PEDAL. HE ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. THE REPAIR DEPT. COULD NOT FIND THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. NOTHING WAS DONE TO…
Read full complaint
WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES, UNWANTED ACCELERATION OCCURRED CAUSING THE CAR TO LUNGE FORWARD. THE MANAGER OF THE REPAIR DEPARTMENT TOOK A RIDE WITH ME TO SEE IF MY FOOT HIT BOTH THE BRAKE AND THE GAS PEDAL. HE ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. THE REPAIR DEPT. COULD NOT FIND THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. NOTHING WAS DONE TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. IT HAS HAPPENED AGAIN (5TH TIME) WHEN I HAD TWO OF MY GRANDCHILDREN WITH ME! I HAVE ANOTHER APPOINTMENT WITH THE DEALERSHIP. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10158558
1,900 miles · May 23, 2006
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE DRIVER'S FOOT MADE CONTACT WITH BOTH ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND BRAKE PEDAL AT THE SAME TIME. THIS DUAL CONTACT RESULTED IN UNWANTED ACCELERATION ON FIVE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE DEALER WHO DETERMINED THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR WERE OPERATING NORMALLY.…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE DRIVER'S FOOT MADE CONTACT WITH BOTH ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND BRAKE PEDAL AT THE SAME TIME. THIS DUAL CONTACT RESULTED IN UNWANTED ACCELERATION ON FIVE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE DEALER WHO DETERMINED THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR WERE OPERATING NORMALLY.
NHTSA ODI #10158112
440 miles · May 3, 2006
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO APPLY BRAKE PRESSURE AT LOW SPEEDS THE BRAKES FAILED, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO ACCELERATE. THE DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. UPDATED 05/30/06. *AK
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2005-2011 Ford Crown Victoria, 2005-2011 Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles manufactured March 23, 2004, to August 30, 2011, and 2005-2011 Lincoln Town Car vehicles manufactured March 8, 2004, to August 30, 2011, and on which the upper intermediate shaft was serviced during the course of safety recall 13V-385. The prior repairs may not have been correctly performed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Improper servicing of the upper intermediate shaft could cause the shaft to separate, which can then result in a loss of steering control, and increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify the owners of vehicles whose repair records reflect that the upper intermediate steering shaft was repaired during the course of the prior recall 13V-385. Dealers will inspect and replace the upper immediate shaft if necessary free of charge. The recall began November 17, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 14S25.
Ford is recalling certain model year 2005-2011 Ford Crown Victoria (including Crown Victoria Police Interceptors), Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Car vehicles. The affected vehicles are currently registered or were originally sold in Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Severe corrosion can seize the lower intermediate shaft which may cause the upper intermediate shaft to collapse and the steering column lower bearing to separate.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the lower bearing separates, the vehicle may experience a loss of steering, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners and dealers will replace the lower intermediate shaft, free of charge. The upper intermediate shaft and steering column lower bearing will be inspected to identify any damage that may have occurred as a result of lower intermediate shaft corrosion, and repaired or replaced as necessary. If the steering column lower bearing has separated, a retainer clip will be installed. The recall began on October 23, 2013. Owners may contact Ford at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's recall number is 13S08.
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
1
PE14021 · Steering Column Shaft Obstruction
Opened Jul 7, 2014 · Closed Nov 21, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System; Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.This investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.This investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.This investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
2006 Mercury Grand Marquis Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year
Illustration