← New search

1983 Ford Ltd

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Ltd years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

Limited mileage data: 0 of 5 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Electrical System. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

0 crash reports2 fire reports2 injury reports

What owners actually said

5 reports
Mileage unknown · Nov 29, 2000
Electrical System

CONSUMERS VEHICLE EXHIBITED STALLING CONDITION AND HAD IT REPAIRED, CONSUMER BELIEVES THIS PROBLEM WAS DIRECTLY RELATED THE THE TFI MODULE BEING RECALLED IN CALIFORNIA, CONSUMER REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT. NLM

NHTSA ODI #558173

Mileage unknown · Dec 28, 1998
Engine And Engine CoolingFire

ENGINE FIRE. (OHIO TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT).

NHTSA ODI #543145

Mileage unknown · Feb 18, 1998
Power TrainInjury

MOTOR STARTS SHAKING EXCESSIVELY DUE TO TRANSMISSION OVERDRIVE FAILURE. *AK..

NHTSA ODI #830490

Mileage unknown · Sep 8, 1997
Power TrainInjury

VEHICLE WAS IN THE PARK POSITION AND THE VEHICLE JUMPED FROM PARK TO REVERSE, CAUSING THE INJURIES TO THE OCCUPANT. CONSUMER HAS YET TO CONTACT THE DEALER. RECALL LISTED FOR VEHICLE DUE TO THE SAME PROBLEM 83V-028000. *AK

NHTSA ODI #816107

Mileage unknown · Apr 25, 1996
Electrical SystemFire

IGNITION FIRE. *AK

NHTSA ODI #983538

Official recalls

1

83V028000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

Mar 7, 1983

THE PARKING GEAR MAY NOT ENGAGE, EVEN THOUGH THE GEAR SHIFT LEVER IS PLACED IN THE "PARK" POSITION. THIS OCCURS IF THE LINKAGE INSIDE THE TRANSMISSION THAT ACTUATES THE PARK GEAR WAS IMPROPERLY MANUFACTURED. A PIN THAT RETAINS COMPONENTS ON A LINKAGE (ACTUATING) ROD COULD BREAK AND THE LINKAGE MAY NOT ENGAGE THE PARKING GEAR.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Not supplied

Remedy: DEALER WILL INSPECT AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THE PARKING PAWL ACTUATING ROD ASSEMBLY.

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

2

PE89039 · Parking Brake Failure

Opened Feb 9, 1989 · Closed Jun 13, 1989

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Parking Brake

SUMMARY:THE SPRING UNDER INVESTIGATION CAUSES THE LATCHING PAWL TOENGAGE THE TEETH OF THE RATCHET WHEREBY THE PARKING BRAKE IS RETAINEDIN THE APPLIED POSITION.IF THE SPRING FAILS, THE PEDAL FOLLOWS THEOPERATORS FOOT BACK UP INTO THE RELEASED POSITION.FORD STATES THAT IT ISSUED THE BULLETIN IN ORDER TO INFORM DEALERSTHAT THE SPRING WAS NEWLY AVAILABLE AS A SEPARATE PART.PREVIOUSLY,IT WAS NECESSARY TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE PARKING BRAKE CONTROL ASSEMBLY INORDER TO OBTAIN A NEW SPRING.SINCE THE FAILURE OF THE SPRING WILL NOT CAUSE THE PARKING BRAKE TOSUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY RELEASE AND SINCE THERE IS ADEQUATE WARNINGOF THE FAILURE, NO SAFETY DEFECT TREND WAS FOUND.===

EA86010 · Seatback Failure

Opened Mar 26, 1986 · Closed Jul 28, 1989

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM MANUFACTURER:FORD BELIEVES THAT THE AL-LEGED DEFECT ONLY OCCURS IN A SMALL NUMBER OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ANDRECALLED ABOUT 195,732 1984 TEMPO/TOPAZ VEHICLES IN JUNE 1986.ANALYSIS: VEHICLES POTENTIALLY INVOLVED INCLUDE TEMPO/TOPAZ, ESCORT/LYNX/EXP, MUSTANG/CAPRI, LTD/MARQUIS, AND THUNDERBIRD/COUGAR.FORD SOLD ABOUT 110,000 REPLACEMENT MIO BOLTS, MAINLY FOR 1983 AND 1984MODELS. LOW CLAMPING FORCE APPEARS TO BE A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM.FORD INCREASED THE TORQUE REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRED THE USE OF A MANUALTORQUE TOOL IN MARCH AND SEPTEMBER 1985 PRODUCTION CHANGES. 1987 MODELSWILL BE PRODUCED WITH A LONGER M10 BOLT AND A NUT TO INCREASE AND MAIN-TAIN CLAMPING FORCE. BOLTS WERE FORMERLY SELF TAPPING. REPORTS LISTEDABOVE SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE BOLT BROKE. NONE REFER SIMPLY TOSEAT BACK COLLAPSE ALONE.STATUS:FORD REPLY TO ODI IR DATED 2/2/87.FORD RECALLED 195,7321984 TEMPO/TOPAZ VEHICLES IN JUNE 1986 (86V-082). ANALYZING REPONSE,MONITORING CANADIAN PROGRESS. RESPONSE TO 4/6/87 LETTER TO FORDRECEIVED 7/15/87. WILL PROBABLY CLOSE AFTER CANADA COMPLETES THEIRACTIONS.===