MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE HAS BROKEN ALL FOUR COIL SPRINGS, BOTH SETS IN MULTIPLE FRACTURES IN EACH SPRING. ALTHOUGH THEY ADMIT THIS IS FREQUENT (THE LOCAL DEALER SERVICE GARAGE SAID THAT THEY HAD SEEN HUNDREDS OF 02S WITH THIS PROBLEM, I BELIEVE THAT THE 450 OR SO SHOWN ON THIS SITE ON THIS SITE IS VERY FAR OFF) THE FRONT PAIR …
Read full complaint
MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE HAS BROKEN ALL FOUR COIL SPRINGS, BOTH SETS IN MULTIPLE FRACTURES IN EACH SPRING. ALTHOUGH THEY ADMIT THIS IS FREQUENT (THE LOCAL DEALER SERVICE GARAGE SAID THAT THEY HAD SEEN HUNDREDS OF 02S WITH THIS PROBLEM, I BELIEVE THAT THE 450 OR SO SHOWN ON THIS SITE ON THIS SITE IS VERY FAR OFF) THE FRONT PAIR BROKE AROUND THE 50,000 MARK, IT TOOK ABOUT FIVE VISITS TO THE DEALER TO GET EVEN LIMITED CREDIT TOWARD REPLACEMENT. THE FAILURE WAS PROGRESSIVE, SAG WAS ONLY NOTICED WHEN IT GOT EXTREME. INTERESTINGLY THEY DID BREAK IN PAIRS. TIRE DAMAGE OCCURRED WHEN ONE EDGE OF THE SPRING PROTRUDED INTO THE TIRE. THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO KEEP THE SPRING/STRUT COMBO(THE STRUTS WERE LEAKING FROM THE ADDED ABUSE AND TRAVEL) THE SPRING LOOKED TO HAVE BROKEN THROUGH INCLUSIONS IN THE STEEL, FROM MY AUTO INDUSTRY CONNECTIONS, I FOUND THESE HAD BEEN SOURCED IN CHINA, AND WERE HOLD-OVERS FROM THE 2001 MODEL. AT ABOUT THE 80,000 MILE MARK, THE REAR SPRINGS WERE OBVIOUSLY FAILED, AGAIN MULTIPLE CRACK POINTS, ONE TIRE WAS GOUGED OUT BY THE PROTRUDING SPRING. DEALER SERVICE AGAIN INDICATED THAT NO HELP WAS BEING ISSUED, DESPITE AGAIN IN THEIR WORDS HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS I STILL HAVE BOTH THE DAMAGED TIRE AND SPRING/STRUT COMBOS. AGAIN, THE FRACTURE SURFACE WAS MARKED WITH INCLUSIONS, AND VOIDS, CORROSION LOOKED TO BE SECONDARY. I HAVE RUN INTO AT LEAST FIVE ADDITIONAL OWNERS WHO HAVE A FRACTURE AND WERE DENIED ANY SATISFACTION FROM FORD. FORD ZONE AND REGIONAL PEOPLE UNDERPLAY THE PROBLEM AS IF TRYING TO CONVINCE IT IS RARE, YET BOTH TIMES THE SERVICE PEOPLE INDICATE IT TO BE COMMON. THIS HAS BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING. THERE ARE ALSO UNSCRUPULOUS REPAIR FACILITIES, ONE OF WHICH INITIALLY REFUSED TO TAKE MY CAR DOWN FROM THE LIFT SAYING IT WAS DEADLY, WHILE TRYING TO EXTORT OVER $1,200 TO REPAIR SAME. I HAD TO THREATEN TO CALL THE LOCAL POLICE BEFORE THEY WOULD LET ME HAVE MY OWN CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10303390
71,000 miles · Jan 30, 2010
Suspension
SPRING ON FRONT STRUTS BROKE ON BOTH SIDES, CAUSING TIRE BLOWOUT AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CONDITION. SPRINGS WERE BROKEN AT IDENTICAL POINTS AND SHOW PARTIAL RUST PRIOR TO BREAKING INDICATING A DEFECTIVE MANUFACTURER OF THE SPRING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10303363
77,981 miles · Jan 29, 2010
Suspension
ON 1/21/2010 I DISCOVERED THAT THE RIGHT DRIVER SIDE SPRING ON MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE HAD BROKE AND PUNCTURED THE NEARBY TIRE. SOMEHOW (LUCKILY) THIS HAPPENED WHILE THE CAR WAS PARKED. I DISCOVERED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL FOR THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM ON 1999-01 SABLES THAT INCLUDED THE INSTALLATION OF A PROTECTIVE SHIELD T…
Read full complaint
ON 1/21/2010 I DISCOVERED THAT THE RIGHT DRIVER SIDE SPRING ON MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE HAD BROKE AND PUNCTURED THE NEARBY TIRE. SOMEHOW (LUCKILY) THIS HAPPENED WHILE THE CAR WAS PARKED. I DISCOVERED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A RECALL FOR THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM ON 1999-01 SABLES THAT INCLUDED THE INSTALLATION OF A PROTECTIVE SHIELD TO PREVENT A BROKEN SPRING FROM PUNCTURING A TIRE. THIS RECALL WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL JULY 2004, WELL AFTER MY VEHICLE HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED. OBVIOUSLY MY VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN EQUIPPED WITH ANYTHING TO PREVENT THE EXACT PROBLEM THAT INITIATED THE OTHER RECALL AND AS SUCH I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY MY OWN VEHICLE WOULD NOT BE ALSO RECALLED. I AM REQUESTING THAT SOMETHING BE DONE. THIS IS A VERY, VERY SERIOUS DEFECT AND I AM BAFFLED AS TO HOW IT WAS OVERLOOKED WHEN OLDER MODEL CARS WERE RECALLED FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10303219
Mileage unknown · Jan 20, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH INTO HIS DRIVEWAY; SUDDENLY, A LOUD NOISE CAME FROM OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE COLLAPSED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE FAILURE WAS CONTRIBUTED TO A BROKEN FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING. THE VEHICLE WAS …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH INTO HIS DRIVEWAY; SUDDENLY, A LOUD NOISE CAME FROM OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE COLLAPSED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE FAILURE WAS CONTRIBUTED TO A BROKEN FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED PER THE SERVICE WARRANTY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
NHTSA ODI #10300387
58,860 miles · Jan 7, 2010
Suspension
AS I WAS BEGINNING TO BACK MY CAR OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, THE LEFT, FRONT SUSPENSION COIL SPRING BROKE, RUPTURED THE TIRE, AND PUT A 4-8" GASH INTO THE BACK OF TIRE. I HAD TO HAVE THE CAR TOWED TO A DEALER FOR REPAIR. THE DEALER'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REPLACE THE COIL SPRINGS ON BOTH SIDES, AS THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM A REC…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS BEGINNING TO BACK MY CAR OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, THE LEFT, FRONT SUSPENSION COIL SPRING BROKE, RUPTURED THE TIRE, AND PUT A 4-8" GASH INTO THE BACK OF TIRE. I HAD TO HAVE THE CAR TOWED TO A DEALER FOR REPAIR. THE DEALER'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REPLACE THE COIL SPRINGS ON BOTH SIDES, AS THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM A RECALL OF EARLIER MODELS WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. AFTER THE REPAIRS WERE MADE, I HAD TO BRING THE VEHICLE TO A TIRE DEALER FOR A REPLACEMENT TIRE. THIS ALSO INVOLVED HAVING TO GET AN ALIGNMENT. FORTUNATELY, THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED IN MY DRIVEWAY - WE WERE ABOUT TO LEAVE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN ON A HIGHWAY IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. NO INJURIES, BUT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN CATASTROPHIC. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298589
125,000 miles · Jan 4, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH IN THE DRIVEWAY AND HEARD A LOUD NOISE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. HE IMMEDIATELY SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND OBSERVED THAT THE REAR DRIVER SIDE STRUT WAS BROKEN. THE VEHICLE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION.…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH IN THE DRIVEWAY AND HEARD A LOUD NOISE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. HE IMMEDIATELY SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND OBSERVED THAT THE REAR DRIVER SIDE STRUT WAS BROKEN. THE VEHICLE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION. THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS AVAILABLE OF THE DEFECTIVE COMPONENT. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 125,000.
NHTSA ODI #10298138
89,000 miles · Jan 4, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT BOTH REAR COIL SPRINGS BROKE AND PUNCTURED THE REAR DRIVER AND PASSENGER TIRES. A LOCAL MECHANIC REPLACED THE REAR COIL SPRINGS, THE TIRES AND THE BRAKES AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE FOR $2000. THE CONTACT HAS NOT NOTIFIED THE MANUFACTURER OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS UNK…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT BOTH REAR COIL SPRINGS BROKE AND PUNCTURED THE REAR DRIVER AND PASSENGER TIRES. A LOCAL MECHANIC REPLACED THE REAR COIL SPRINGS, THE TIRES AND THE BRAKES AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE FOR $2000. THE CONTACT HAS NOT NOTIFIED THE MANUFACTURER OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 89,000.
NHTSA ODI #10297970
102,000 miles · Jan 4, 2010
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. THE CONTACT STATED AS HE WAS DRIVING THE FRONT PASSENGER COIL SPRINGS BROKE AND RIPPED THE TIRE OPENED. CONTACT HAD TO REPLACE THE TIRES WITH THE SPARE AND DROVE IT HOME. THE DEALER OR MANUFACTURER HAVE NOT BEEN CONTACTED IN REGARDS TO THE PROBLEM. THERE IS A DEFECT INVESTIGATION NHTSA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. THE CONTACT STATED AS HE WAS DRIVING THE FRONT PASSENGER COIL SPRINGS BROKE AND RIPPED THE TIRE OPENED. CONTACT HAD TO REPLACE THE TIRES WITH THE SPARE AND DROVE IT HOME. THE DEALER OR MANUFACTURER HAVE NOT BEEN CONTACTED IN REGARDS TO THE PROBLEM. THERE IS A DEFECT INVESTIGATION NHTSA# EA08018, COMPONENT : SUSPENSION:FRONT:SPRINGS:COIL SPRINGS, OPENED SINCE AUGUST 28, 2008 AND IS STILL OPENED. VIN NUMBER IS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE IS 102,000....MW
NHTSA ODI #10297952
55,030 miles · Jan 4, 2010
Suspension
THIS COMPLAINT MAY BE RELATIVE TO NHTSA ACTION NUMBER EA08018. THIS IS IN REGARDS TO MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE. ON 8-27-09 I WAS DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET WHEN I HEARD AND FELT A LOUD POP FOLLOWED BY A FRICTION GRINDING AND BEFORE I COULD SLOW TO A STOP, MY REAR TIRE BLEW. BOTH REAR COIL SPRINGS HAD BROKEN W…
Read full complaint
THIS COMPLAINT MAY BE RELATIVE TO NHTSA ACTION NUMBER EA08018. THIS IS IN REGARDS TO MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE. ON 8-27-09 I WAS DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET WHEN I HEARD AND FELT A LOUD POP FOLLOWED BY A FRICTION GRINDING AND BEFORE I COULD SLOW TO A STOP, MY REAR TIRE BLEW. BOTH REAR COIL SPRINGS HAD BROKEN WITH ONE OF THE SPRINGS PIERCING A TIRE. REPLACEMENT OF THE REAR ASSEMBLIES AND TIRE COST ME APPROXIMATELY $1200. I FEEL THAT IF I WAS GOING AT A HIGHER RATE OF SPEED, I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A DANGEROUS ACCIDENT. I WAS HEADED TO THE EXPRESSWAY THAT DAY AND WAS GLAD I NEVER MADE IT TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED. TODAY ON 1-3-2010, I WAS BACKING MY CAR FROM A GARAGE WHEN I HEARD THE LOUD POP AGAIN FOLLOWED BY THE HISSING OF MY RIGHT FRONT TIRE. THIS TIME THE RIGHT FRONT COIL SPRING CRACKED AND PIERCED MY TIRE. AFFORDING TO FIX THIS DEFECT IS ONE HEADACHE. I AM LOOKING AT TOW AND REPAIR FEES. WORRYING WHEN THE FINAL COIL WILL BREAK CONCERNS ME MORE, AS I DRIVE THE HIGHWAY ALOT. THIS DEFECT SHOULD BE RECALLED. AS OF THE TIME OF THIS COMPLAINT, MY VEHICLE HAS YET TO BE REPAIRED, AND I WILL SAVE THE OLD PARTS FOR EXAMINATION IF REQUESTED. I DO LIVE IN A "SALT BELT STATE", ILLINOIS, BUT MY CAR IS GARAGE KEPT. IT ONLY HAS 56,000 MILES ON IT. I HAVE OWNED THIS VEHICLE SINCE 2004 AND NOT ONLY HAS IT BEEN GARAGE KEPT, BUT NEVER USED TO HAUL HEAVY LOADS OR ANYTHING TO COMPROMISE THE COIL SPRINGS. THEY JUST SNAP AND TEAR UP YOUR TIRES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10297936
70,000 miles · Dec 30, 2009
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE HE NOTICED THAT THE DRIVER-SIDE FRONT TIRE WAS FLAT. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION HE NOTICED THAT THE COIL SPRING HAD FRACTURED AND THEN PUNCTURED THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP IN WHICH THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS NEEDED T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE HE NOTICED THAT THE DRIVER-SIDE FRONT TIRE WAS FLAT. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION HE NOTICED THAT THE COIL SPRING HAD FRACTURED AND THEN PUNCTURED THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP IN WHICH THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 70000.
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES ARE BEING RECALLED TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH A MALFUNCTIONING STOP LAMP SWITCH AND/OR ASSOCIATED WIRING. THIS MALFUNCTIONING COULD RENDER THE STOP LAMPS INOPERABLE OR CAUSE THEM TO STAY ON ALL THE TIME. THIS COULD CAUSE CONFUSION TO A FOLLOWING DRIVER, WHICH COULD LEAD TO A CRASH.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN ADDITION, IF THE SWITCH AND/OR ASSOCIATED WIRING FAIL IN THE OPEN POSITION, THE BRAKE LIGHTS WILL NOT ACTUATE AND THE DRIVER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE OUT OF "PARK" IF THEY FAIL IN THE CLOSED POSITION, THE BRAKE LIGHTS WILL REMAIN ON, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW THE SPEED CONTROL TO BE ACTIVATED. THIS COULD ALSO CAUSE THE BATTERY TO DISCHARGE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REMOVE THE STOP LAMP SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING ASSEMBLY AND INSTALL A NEWLY DESIGNED STOP LAMP SWITCH AND WIRE ASSEMBLY. OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON APRIL 5, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 212, "WINDSHIELD MOUNTING." THE WINDSHIELDS MAY POTENTIALLY EXHIBIT INCREASED WIND NOISE, WATER LEAKAGE, AND SQUEAKS AND RATTLES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: POTENTIAL LOSS OF WINDSHIELD RETENTION MAY ALSO REDUCE OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THESE WINDSHIELDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON MARCH 31, 2003. 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/MERCURY AT 1-800-392-3673.
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PADELS ARE BEING RECALLED IN ORDER TO ADJUST THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO A MINIMUM OF 50 MM OF LATERAL SEPARATION. SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF BOTH THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS COULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN ENGINE RPM.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A CUSTOMER EXPERIENCING AN "UNINTENDED VEHICLE SPEED INCREASE" OR A PERCEIVED "UNABLE TO STOP" CONDITION.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED AS TO THE PROPER WAY TO SET THE POSITION OF THE PEDALS AND TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE SPACING BETWEEN THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS MEASURED. IF THE SPACING IS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN 50 MM, THE DEALER WILL ADJUST THE PEDALS TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM TO GREATER THAN 50 MM. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN OCTOBER 28, 2002. OWNERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
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
4
PE12033 · 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).
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.
2002 Mercury Sable Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year
Illustration