NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Air Bags complaints
24 reportsClear category filter99,700 miles · Aug 24, 2010
Air BagsCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A MULTI VEHICLE CRASH IN WHICH THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED YET THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT AND A PASSENGER SUSTAINED MAJOR INJURIES AND WERE BOTH TRANSPORTED VIA AMBULANCE TO THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A MULTI VEHICLE CRASH IN WHICH THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED YET THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT AND A PASSENGER SUSTAINED MAJOR INJURIES AND WERE BOTH TRANSPORTED VIA AMBULANCE TO THE HOSPITAL. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED BY THE CONTACT'S INSURANCE COMPANY BUT WAS NOT EXAMINED FOR THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 99,700.
NHTSA ODI #10351518
75,000 miles · Aug 2, 2010
Air Bags
WENT TO THE PARKING LOT TO START MY CAR. WHEN I TURNED THE IGNITION KEY THE PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG DEPLOYED AND THEN THE DRIVER SIDE AIRBAG DEPLOYED. THE CONCERN IS WHAT IF THE CAR HAD STARTED AND I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND THE AIRBAG WENT OFF FOR NO REASON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10346902
50,000 miles · Nov 2, 2009
Air BagsElectrical SystemFuel System, Gasoline
I PURCHASED A 2002 MERCURY SABLE IN SEPTEMBER, 2006. ON JANUARY 19, 2007 WHILE TURNING INTO MY DRIVEWAY GOING 3-5 MILES AN HOUR BOTH FRONTAL AIRBAGS DEPLOYED CAUSING AN ESTIMATED $3,000.00 TO $4,000.00 IN DAMAGES. THE DEALER HAS REFUSED TO ASSIST ME SAYING I BOUGHT THE CAR "AS IS". THEY TOLD ME TO FILE THE CLAIM WITH MY INSURAN…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2002 MERCURY SABLE IN SEPTEMBER, 2006. ON JANUARY 19, 2007 WHILE TURNING INTO MY DRIVEWAY GOING 3-5 MILES AN HOUR BOTH FRONTAL AIRBAGS DEPLOYED CAUSING AN ESTIMATED $3,000.00 TO $4,000.00 IN DAMAGES. THE DEALER HAS REFUSED TO ASSIST ME SAYING I BOUGHT THE CAR "AS IS". THEY TOLD ME TO FILE THE CLAIM WITH MY INSURANCE COMPANY. THE INSURANCE COMPANY SAID THEY COULD DO NOTHING "THERE WAS NO IMPACT". FORD MOTOR COMPANY SAID THERE WAS A 50,000 MILE WARRANTY. YOUR DEPARTMENT SENT ME A SERVICE TECHNICAL BULLETIN STATING THAT FORD KNEW OF THIS PROBLEM IN MAY, 2002. I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET ANYONE (IE: DEALER, INSURANCE COMPANY, FINANCE COMPANY, OR MANUFACTURER) TO HELP ME WITH THIS ISSUE. IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR 2009, THE FUEL PUMP, DRIVER, COMPUTER, AND TRANSMISSION WENT OUT IN THIS CAR. I HAVE SPENT OVER $1,600.00 IN REPAIR OF THIS VEHICLE . DUE TO THE DEPRECIATION OF THE CAR, THE MECHANICAL FAILURES, AND THE SAFETY ISSUE OF NO AIRBAGS THE VEHICLE IS WORTH NOTHING. I STILL OWE THE FINANCE COMPANY $6,000.00 AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR FOR THE LAST 10 MONTHS. I WAS RECENTLY DIRECTED TO RESEARCH THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT OF 1974, THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT, SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979, ALABAMA LEMON LAWS, BUYERS REMORSE LAW, TRADE COMMISSION ACT, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, AND CONSUMER RIGHTS WHEN BUYING A USED CAR BY THE BBB. I HAVE BEEN DENIED MY RIGHTS. NO CONSUMER SHOULD HAVE TO EXPERIENCE WHAT I HAVE. EVERY CONSUMER HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPECT A CAR THEY PURCHASE TO MEET REASONABLE STANDARDS. THERE WAS A GRAVE ISSUE OF SAFETY FOR ME AND MY GRANDDAUGHTER WHEN THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. THANK GOD WE WERE NOT INJURED. ALL OF THESE FAILURES HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED THE USE, VALUE, AND SAFETY OF THIS VEHICLE! THEY AROSE OUT OF THE ORDINARY USE OF THE VEHICLE AND NOT AS A RESULT OF ABUSE. THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS OUT OF SERVICE AND IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEALER DUE TO REPAIR ATTEMPTS, ONE OF WHICH OCCURRED DURING THE LEMON LAW RIGHTS PERIOD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10290614
49,000 miles · Jan 7, 2009
Air BagsCrashInjury
INVOLVED IN MVC. PASSENGER AIRBAG DEPLOYED ALTHOUGH NO PASSENGER IN VEHICLE. DRIVERS SIDE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. DRIVER SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10254087
34,332 miles · Jun 9, 2008
Air BagsCrash
2002 MERCURY SABLE NOT EQUIPPED WITH OPTIONAL "PERSONAL SAFETY SYSTEM" (NO SIDE AIRBAGS OR OCCUPANT SENSORS ON THIS VEHICLE) WAS INVOLVED IN COLLISION. FRONT END DAMAGE APPEARS MINIMAL, MICHIGAN STATE POLICE ESTIMATED VEHICLE SPEED AT COLLISION APPROX. 25 MPG. PASSENGER AIRBAG DEPLOYED, DRIVERS AIRBAG DID NOT. THE VEHICLE DID PR…
Read full complaint
2002 MERCURY SABLE NOT EQUIPPED WITH OPTIONAL "PERSONAL SAFETY SYSTEM" (NO SIDE AIRBAGS OR OCCUPANT SENSORS ON THIS VEHICLE) WAS INVOLVED IN COLLISION. FRONT END DAMAGE APPEARS MINIMAL, MICHIGAN STATE POLICE ESTIMATED VEHICLE SPEED AT COLLISION APPROX. 25 MPG. PASSENGER AIRBAG DEPLOYED, DRIVERS AIRBAG DID NOT. THE VEHICLE DID PROTECT THE DRIVER (ME) AND THE SEATBELT SYSTEM WORKED FLAWLESSLY. I COULD HAVE BEEN INJURED BUT WAS NOT. BASED ON EQUIPMENT ON THIS VEHICLE, IF THE PASSENGER AIRBAG DEPLOYED THEN THE DRIVERS SHOULD HAVE AS WELL AS IT DOES NOT HAVE THE OCCUPANT SENSORS, ETC. MAIN CONCERN IS IN REPAIR, THE DEALER STATED THAT THIS HAPPENS SOMEWHAT FREQUENTLY AND I AM CONCERNED THE DRIVERS AIRBAG WILL NOT BE REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10230348
65,000 miles · Jan 18, 2008
Air Bags
I PURCHASED A 2002 MERCURY SABLE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2006. ON JANUARY 19TH WHILE TURNING INTO MY DRIVEWAY TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 3-5 MPH BOTH AIR BAGS DEPLOYED CAUSING APPROXIMATELY 4,000.00 DOLLARS IN DAMAGE TO MY CAR. THE DEALER THAT I PURCHASED THE CAR FROM STATED I BOUGHT IT AS IS AND WOULD NOT OFFER ME ANY ASSISTANCE EXCEPT T…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2002 MERCURY SABLE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2006. ON JANUARY 19TH WHILE TURNING INTO MY DRIVEWAY TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 3-5 MPH BOTH AIR BAGS DEPLOYED CAUSING APPROXIMATELY 4,000.00 DOLLARS IN DAMAGE TO MY CAR. THE DEALER THAT I PURCHASED THE CAR FROM STATED I BOUGHT IT AS IS AND WOULD NOT OFFER ME ANY ASSISTANCE EXCEPT TO TELL ME TO FILE IT WITH MY INSURANCE COMPANY. MY INSURANCE COMPANY SENT AN ADJUSTER WHOM SURVEYED THE DAMAGE AND TOLD ME THEY WOULD NOT PAY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO IMPACT. I THEN FILED A COMPLAINT WITH FORD MOTOR COMPANY WHO SAID AND I QUOTE "THERE WAS A 50,000 MILE WARRANTY AND THEY COULD NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. SINCE THIS TIME TO DATE I CANNOT GET INSURANCE OR ANY HELP WITH THIS PROBLEM. I AM STILL PAYING FOR A CAR I AM NOT SUPPOSE TO BE DRIVING. YOUR DEPARTMENT SENT ME A SERVICE TECHNICAL BULLETIN STATING THAT FORD KNEW THEY HAD THIS PROBLEM IN MAY OF 2002. WHAT ELSE CAN I DO? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10215386
50,000 miles · Dec 5, 2007
Air BagsCrashInjury
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, ANOTHER VEHICLE COMING FROM BEHIND HER, JUMPED THE MEDIAN AND CRASHED INTO THE FRONT END OF HER VEHICLE. AS A RESULT, THE STEERING AND FLOOR COLUMN COLLAPSED, AND THE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CRASH DESTROYED THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED A SHOULDER HARNE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, ANOTHER VEHICLE COMING FROM BEHIND HER, JUMPED THE MEDIAN AND CRASHED INTO THE FRONT END OF HER VEHICLE. AS A RESULT, THE STEERING AND FLOOR COLUMN COLLAPSED, AND THE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CRASH DESTROYED THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED A SHOULDER HARNESS STRAIN, A FRACTURED STERNUM AND BRUISED RIBS. IN ADDITION, SHE SUSTAINED BRUISES TO HER RIGHT HAND AND LEFT FOOT. THE DRIVER OF THE ONCOMING VEHICLE SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 50,000. UPDATED 03/10/08 *LJ
NHTSA ODI #10210885
Mileage unknown · May 10, 2006
Air BagsCrashInjury
ON MAY 1, 2006 MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION WITH A DUMP TRUCK. THE AIR BAGS (DRIVER AND PASSENGER) DID NOT DEPLOY ON IMPACT. MY DAUGHTER (WHO IS 15 YEARS OLD AND DRIVING WITH A PERMIT) WAS TRAPPED IN THE CAR. SHE RECEIVED MULTIPLE LACERATIONS, INCLUDING A TORN EAR WHICH WILL REQUIRE SURGERY TO REPAIR…
Read full complaint
ON MAY 1, 2006 MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION WITH A DUMP TRUCK. THE AIR BAGS (DRIVER AND PASSENGER) DID NOT DEPLOY ON IMPACT. MY DAUGHTER (WHO IS 15 YEARS OLD AND DRIVING WITH A PERMIT) WAS TRAPPED IN THE CAR. SHE RECEIVED MULTIPLE LACERATIONS, INCLUDING A TORN EAR WHICH WILL REQUIRE SURGERY TO REPAIR IT TO LOOK NORMAL AGAIN. I RECEIVED KNEE AND NECK INJURIES. I CALLED MERCURY CUSTOMER CARE CENTER TO MAKE THE COMPANY AWARE OF THIS SITUATION. I OFFERED TO GIVE THEM THE LOCATION OF MY CAR, IF THEY WISHED TO LOOK AT IT. THE PERSON I SPOKE TO SAID THEY WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT THE CAR AND HE WOULD MAKE A NOTE OF MY NEGATIVE COMMENT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10157218
Mileage unknown · Mar 25, 2005
Air BagsService Brakes, HydraulicCrash
WHILE DRIVING A TRACTOR TRAILER JUMPED IN FRONT OF CONSUMER'S VEHICLE. DRIVER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND SLID UNDERNEATH TRACTOR TRAILER. THE DRIVER'S SIDE AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY, BUT THE PASSENGER'S SIDE AIR BAG DID DEPLOY. DRIVER SUSTAINED HEAD INJURIES AND DIED …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING A TRACTOR TRAILER JUMPED IN FRONT OF CONSUMER'S VEHICLE. DRIVER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND SLID UNDERNEATH TRACTOR TRAILER. THE DRIVER'S SIDE AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY, BUT THE PASSENGER'S SIDE AIR BAG DID DEPLOY. DRIVER SUSTAINED HEAD INJURIES AND DIED THIRTY MINUTES LATER. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10115890
30,000 miles · Dec 21, 2004
Air BagsCrashInjury
COMPLAINT RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL. ON THURSDAY 11/18/04 AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 PM CENTRAL DAYLIGHT TIME I WAS INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE, RESULTING IN A TOTAL LOSS OF MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE LS PREMIUM, ID [XXX]. THE COOK COUNTY POLICE WAS NO THE SCENE AND ISSUED REPORT # 04-140236. FORTUNATELY FOR ME AN…
Read full complaint
COMPLAINT RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL. ON THURSDAY 11/18/04 AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 PM CENTRAL DAYLIGHT TIME I WAS INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE, RESULTING IN A TOTAL LOSS OF MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE LS PREMIUM, ID [XXX]. THE COOK COUNTY POLICE WAS NO THE SCENE AND ISSUED REPORT # 04-140236. FORTUNATELY FOR ME AND THE OTHER DRIVER THERE WERE NO INJURIES REQUIRING TRANSPORTATION BY THE PARAMEDICS AT THE SCENE TO A HOSPITAL. THE AIR BAG SYSTEM ON THE OTHER VEHICLE WAS ACTIVATED AND DID DEPLOY. HOWEVER, MY VEHICLE AIR BAG SYSTEM DID NOT. THIS WAS THE REASON FOR MY CONCERN AND ADVISEMENT TO YOU. MY VEHICLE WAS INSURED BY TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, AND HAS BEEN HANDLED BY [XXX] , PHONE # 800-842-6172, EXT. [XXX] AT NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS OFFICE. I HAVE RECEIVED THE CHECK FOR THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE THAT WAS DETERMINED IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 10,905.00 FOR ABOUT 30,000 MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS TO BE PICKED UP FROM THE TOWING COMPANY THAT WAS AT THE SCENE AND TRANSPORTED TO A STORAGE FACILITY USED BY TRAVELERS INSURANCE. CONFIRMATION ON THIS DEFICIENCY ON THE AIR BAG SYSTEM CAN BE OBTAINED FROM TRAVELER INSURANCE CO. IF YOU NEED DOCUMENTATION. I HAVE SIGNED AND SENT THE TITLE OF THE VEHICLE TO THEM IN ORDER TO RECEIVE MY CHECK. *AK *NM INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10101834
NHTSA investigations
4PE12033 · Speed Control Cable Damage
Opened Oct 24, 2012 · Closed Jun 26, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:cables; Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Vehicle Speed Control:cables
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Vehicle Speed Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
EA08018 · Front Suspension Coil Spring Fracture
Opened Aug 28, 2008 · Closed Jun 30, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front:springs:coil Springs
To date, ODI is aware of 2,401 non-duplicative complaints related to the alleged defect. In addition, ODI is aware of 1,411 subject vehicles with one or more warranty claims related to the alleged defect. In total, ODI is aware of 3,645 unique subject vehicles that have experienced one or more front suspension coil spring fractures. ODI is also aware of four minor crashes related to the alleged defect resulting in one minor injury.With greater than eight years of exposure, a large subject vehicle population and approximately 2,052 reported front tire punctures caused by fractured coil springs (at all speeds), there have been no reported severe crashes, deaths or injuries related to the alleged defect. The real world consequences of these defective coil springs have been a small number of minor control problems that resulted in minor damage; suggesting that the effect of the defect on vehicle control is minor.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will continue to monitor this issue and will take further action if warranted by the circumstances. See the EA08-018 Engineering Analysis Closing Report for more details.
RP03001 · Brake/accelerator Pedal Application
Opened Oct 31, 2003 · Closed Mar 23, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:pedals And Linkages
MS. RODMAN REPORTED THAT AFTER HER VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED FOR THE RECALL, HER MOTHER EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN ACCELERATION AND CRASHED THE SABLE INTO A LIGHT POLE.PREVIOUSLY NHTSA HAD CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION FOR THIS ISSUE (PE02-035) THAT RESULTED IN THE RECALL (02V-266) OF 369,000 MY 2000-2002 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO INSURE THAT THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PEDALS WAS AT LEAST 50MM..A REVIEW OF ODI'S DATABASE FOR COMPLAINTS REGARDING RECALL 02V-266 DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY RECALL REMEDY COMPLAINTS OTHER THAN THE PETITIONER'S.MS. RODMAN?S VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY ODI USING FORD?S SPECIAL TOOL AND HER VEHICLE WAS FOUND TO EXCEED 50MM.ALSO, THE LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE PEDALS WAS FOUND NOT TO BE EXCESSIVE RELATIVE TO OTHER COMPARABLE TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES.THEREFORE, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING FORD TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT REMEDY FOR THIS DEFECT.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.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS ANALYSIS, PLEASE REFER TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE DATED MARCH 23, 2004 (VOL 69, NO 56, PAGES 13619-13620).
RQ03008 · Brake Light Switch Failure
Opened Oct 23, 2003 · Closed Mar 5, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:brake Lights; Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch; Exterior Lighting:tail Lights; Exterior Lighting:tail Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Illustration