STARTED UP MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE WITH 140,000 MILES ON IT IN THE DRIVEWAY. PUT THE CAR INTO REVERSE. HEARD AN AWFUL NOISE. GOT OUT THE CAR THE LEFT FRONT DRIVER'S TIRE WAS FLAT. TOOK TIRE OF AND FOUND THAT THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT COIL SNAPPED OF AND GOUGED THE TIRE. LUCK THIS WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY AND NOT ON THE OPEN ROAD. NO…
Read full complaint
STARTED UP MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE WITH 140,000 MILES ON IT IN THE DRIVEWAY. PUT THE CAR INTO REVERSE. HEARD AN AWFUL NOISE. GOT OUT THE CAR THE LEFT FRONT DRIVER'S TIRE WAS FLAT. TOOK TIRE OF AND FOUND THAT THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT COIL SNAPPED OF AND GOUGED THE TIRE. LUCK THIS WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY AND NOT ON THE OPEN ROAD. NOTICED ON LINE THAT THERE ARE MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS, BUT THAT FORD ONLY HAS A RECALL FOR YEARS 1999 TO 2001. THIS DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10326200
127,991 miles · Apr 6, 2010
Suspension
I HAVE A 2002 MERCURY SABLE THAT BROKE A FRONT COIL SPRING AND NOTICED THAT 2001 MERCURY SABLES WERE RECALLED FOR THE SAME PROBLEM NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID # 04V332000 ACTION #PE04044 SHOULD THIS RECALL BE UPDATED TO INCLUDE YEAR MODEL 2002? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10324121
Mileage unknown · Mar 26, 2010
Suspension
I DRIVE A 2002 MERCURY SABLE THAT WAS PURCHASED A FEW MONTHS AGO. WE ARE A FAMILY OF THREE THAT DOESN'T DRIVE OFTEN OR LIKE A NASCAR DRIVER. BUT LAST WEEK WHILE REVERSING, MY TIRES BLEW. WE WERE GOING TO PUT THE SPARE ON WHEN WE NOTICED THAT THE STRUT/SPRING THAT PUNCTURED AND BLOWN THE TIRE. WE ARE SO THANKFUL THAT WE WERE NOT …
Read full complaint
I DRIVE A 2002 MERCURY SABLE THAT WAS PURCHASED A FEW MONTHS AGO. WE ARE A FAMILY OF THREE THAT DOESN'T DRIVE OFTEN OR LIKE A NASCAR DRIVER. BUT LAST WEEK WHILE REVERSING, MY TIRES BLEW. WE WERE GOING TO PUT THE SPARE ON WHEN WE NOTICED THAT THE STRUT/SPRING THAT PUNCTURED AND BLOWN THE TIRE. WE ARE SO THANKFUL THAT WE WERE NOT ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE WE COULD'VE BEEN KILLED. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WE ARE SPENDING HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON THIS ISSUED THAT SHOULD BE RECALLED! I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH ON THIS CAR AND NOTICED THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM FOR MANY OWNERS OF THE MERCURY SABLE ANAD FORD TAURUS. IT IS NOT RIGHT FOR A COMPANY TO THINK THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS. OUR FAMILY WAS HIT HEAD ON, ON THE INTERSTATE A YEAR AGO ADN COULD'VE DIED!! WE ARE STILL DISABLED AND WILL BE FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES. THE LAST THING I WANT IN MY LIFE IS TO HAVE ANOTHER CLOSE CALL TO DEATH! THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED! I NOW HAVE TO PURCHASE 2 BRAND NEW TIRES, EVEN THOUGH I JUST GOT NEW ONES! NEED NEW STRUT/SPRING COMBOS ON EACH SIDE, OTHERWISE THEY WEAR DIFFERENTLY AND COULD HAVE MORE ISSUES LATER AND NEW BALL JOINTS ON EACH SIDE. NOT ONLY THAT BUT I HAVE TO GET THESE TIRES BALANCED AND ROTATED AT ANOTHER FEE. DIDN'T HAVE A CAR FOR OVER A WEEK, AND MISSED SCHOOL. FIX THIS ISSUE! DO SOME RESEARCH YOURSELF AND YOU WILL SEE WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM ON OUR HANDS!!! WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY AND SUFFER FOR THIER MISTAKE? CAN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS FOR ME?
NHTSA ODI #10322242
74,000 miles · Mar 12, 2010
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. HE HEARD AN UNUSUAL NOISE COMING FROM THE VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, AND UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, HE NOTICED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS FLAT. IN AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE DEFECTIVE TIRE, HE HEARD THE SAME NOISE A SECOND TIME. HE THEN NOTICED THAT THE FRONT DR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. HE HEARD AN UNUSUAL NOISE COMING FROM THE VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, AND UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, HE NOTICED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS FLAT. IN AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE DEFECTIVE TIRE, HE HEARD THE SAME NOISE A SECOND TIME. HE THEN NOTICED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE COIL SPRING HAD FRACTURED AND PUNCTURED THE TIRE THROUGH THE SIDEWALL. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS ON THE VEHICLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 74000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 74000.
NHTSA ODI #10319175
79,000 miles · Mar 4, 2010
Suspension
IN FEBRUARY 2010 WHILE LEAVING OUR HOME HEADING TOWARDS HIGHWAY I NOTICED THE CAR HANDLING UNUSUAL. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE AND HAD A FRONT LEFT FLAT TIRE. HAD THE TIRE CHANGED IT WAS TOTALLY SHREDDED ON THE INSIDE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE THE CAR. AFTER INSPECTING THE TIRE THERE WAS A PIECE OF BROKEN COIL SPRING INSIDE THE TIRE.…
Read full complaint
IN FEBRUARY 2010 WHILE LEAVING OUR HOME HEADING TOWARDS HIGHWAY I NOTICED THE CAR HANDLING UNUSUAL. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE AND HAD A FRONT LEFT FLAT TIRE. HAD THE TIRE CHANGED IT WAS TOTALLY SHREDDED ON THE INSIDE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE THE CAR. AFTER INSPECTING THE TIRE THERE WAS A PIECE OF BROKEN COIL SPRING INSIDE THE TIRE. MY CAR NOW SITS IN THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE OF THE COST FORD WANTS TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM AND IF I HAVE IT REPAIRED "I CAN PURSUE A REFUND IF A RECALL IS MADE". THIS HAS CAUSED NOW THE NEED TO ALSO HAVE TO PURCHASE NEW TIRES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10316778
75,000 miles · Mar 4, 2010
Suspension
HI I AM WRITING ABOUT MY 17-YEAR-OLD SON'S CAR. IT IS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. HE HAD A BLOW-OUT 4 NIGHTS AGO WHICH PROMPTED HIM TO CALL AAA TO CHANGE IT AT 11:30 P.M. THE NEXT DAY WE WENT TO GET A NEW TIRE FOR THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE, THEY PUT A NEW TIRE ON IT, WE PAID THEM AND PROCEEDED TO BACK OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE TIR…
Read full complaint
HI I AM WRITING ABOUT MY 17-YEAR-OLD SON'S CAR. IT IS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. HE HAD A BLOW-OUT 4 NIGHTS AGO WHICH PROMPTED HIM TO CALL AAA TO CHANGE IT AT 11:30 P.M. THE NEXT DAY WE WENT TO GET A NEW TIRE FOR THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE, THEY PUT A NEW TIRE ON IT, WE PAID THEM AND PROCEEDED TO BACK OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE TIRE WENT FLAT. THE MECHANIC THEN TOOK THE TIRE OFF AND TOLD US WE HAD A BROKEN COIL SPRING THAT WAS PUNCTURING THE TIRES. WE THEN TOOK THE CAR TO THE GARAGE TO HAVE THIS SPRING REPLACED FOR $150 AND UPON DRIVING THE CAR INTO THE SHOP THE OTHER SIDE BROKE AND PUNCTURED THE LEFT TIRE. SO NOW MY BILL IS UP TO $300 ALREADY AND HE HASN'T EVEN CHECKED THE REAR COILS YET. IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING TO ME TO SEE THAT THEY HAD RECALLS FOR THE 2001 SABLE AND OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVEN'T FIXED THE PROBLEM. THIS WAS A VERY TERRIFYING THING FOR ME TO DRIVE TO STAY WITH MY SON WHILE WAITING FOR AAA AND TO SEE THIS TIRE THAT WAS SPLIT IN HALF. MY SON WAS ONLY MINUTES FROM GETTING ONTO THE HIGHWAY WHERE THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A HORRIFIC ACCIDENT. I HAVE READ LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THE 2002 HAVING PROBLEMS SO MY QUESTION IS WHY HASN'T ANYTHING BEEN DONE YET. I SURE HOPE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO SOMEONE GETTING HURT OR EVEN WORSE BEFORE THIS PROBLEM IS FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10316665
56,000 miles · Feb 25, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE EXITING A PARKING SPACE, THERE WAS A LOUD BANGING NOISE. THE CONSUMERS DAUGHTER DISCOVERED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS PUNCTURED . THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE THEY FOUND THE SUSPENSION COIL SPRING SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE. THERE WAS CURR…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCURY SABLE. WHILE EXITING A PARKING SPACE, THERE WAS A LOUD BANGING NOISE. THE CONSUMERS DAUGHTER DISCOVERED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS PUNCTURED . THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE THEY FOUND THE SUSPENSION COIL SPRING SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE. THERE WAS CURRENTLY AN OPEN INVESTIGATION FOR THE DESCRIBED FAILURE (SEE NHTSA ACTION NUMBER EA08018: COMPONENT :SUSPENSION:FRONT:SPRINGS:COIL SPRINGS) HOWEVER THERE WERE NO RECALLS. UPDATED 04/13/10. *LJ UPDATED 10/12/10*JB
NHTSA ODI #10314413
98,500 miles · Feb 15, 2010
Suspension
A FRONT COIL SPRING BROKE AND PUNCTURED MY FRONT TIRE ON MY 2002 MERCURY SABLE. IT HAPPENED WHEN I WAS PULLING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT. I HAD IT TOWED TO A DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIRS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10310455
65,000 miles · Feb 5, 2010
Suspension
SUSPENSION SPRING BRAKING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10306789
101,000 miles · Feb 1, 2010
Suspension
WHILE BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY THE FRONT RIGHT COIL SPRING FRACTURED AND TORE A 1FOOT LONG HOLE ON THE INSIDE WALL OF THE TIRE. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO A REPAIR FACILITY, WHERE BESIDE THE FRONT RIGHT COIL SPRING AND TIRE REPLACEMENT, I HAD BOTH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES REPLACED ON EACH SIDE. I HAVE THE SPRING AND TIRE. EVIDENCE O…
Read full complaint
WHILE BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY THE FRONT RIGHT COIL SPRING FRACTURED AND TORE A 1FOOT LONG HOLE ON THE INSIDE WALL OF THE TIRE. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO A REPAIR FACILITY, WHERE BESIDE THE FRONT RIGHT COIL SPRING AND TIRE REPLACEMENT, I HAD BOTH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES REPLACED ON EACH SIDE. I HAVE THE SPRING AND TIRE. EVIDENCE OF CORROSION ON SPRING, MILEAGE 101000. I CONTACTED FORD AND THEY TOLD ME THERE WAS NO RECALL AND THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND OUT THAT THE 2001S WERE RECALLED FOR THE SAME PROBLEM, AND THE SOLUTION WAS TO INSTALL A SPRING SHIELD. FORD DID NOT TELL ME ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I AM APPALLED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS RECOGNIZED IN 01 AND WAS NOT RECTIFIED BY 02, AND THAT I WAS NOT TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT A PREVENTABLE SPRING SHIELD ON THE 01S. WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING OR WORRY ABOUT A POTENTIALLY LIFE THREATENING SITUATION, FOR WHICH FORD APPEARS TO BE FULLY AWARE OF. *TR
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