1995 Ford Taurus

ARRIVING HOME, I PARKED THE CAR IN OUR ATTACHED GARAGE. I WENT INTO THE GARAGE AND I NOTICED THE SMELL OF SOMETHING HOT OR SHORTED COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. I BACKED THE CAR OUT OF THE GARAGE AND DISCONNECTED THE BATTERY. THE NEXT DAY, I RECONNECTED THE BATTERY AND NO LONGER NOTICED THE SMELL. I DROVE IT AND THERE WAS NO MORE ODOR. THE SPEED CONTROL FAILED TO OPERATE, AND THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH WAS LEAKING BRAKE FLUID ON THE WIRING HARNESS AND THE 3 AMP FUSE IN THE WIRNG HARNESS WAS BLOWN, BUT ONLY AFTER COMING CLOSE TO STARTING A FIRE. FORD HAS A HISTORY OF SAFETY PROBLEMS WITH THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH LEAKING BRAKE FLUID ON THE WIRING HARNESS AND CAUSING FIRES. THIS CAR WAS RECALLED IN 2007 TO INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS WITH A 3 AMP FUSE BETWEEN THE SWITCH AND THE SPEED CONTROL SERVO WHERE IT OFFERED NO PROTECTION. THE CAR WAS RECALLED AGAIN IN 2008 TO REPLACE THE FIRST WIRING HARNESS WITH ONE HAVING THE FUSE AHEAD OF THE DEACTIVATION SWITCH. THE 3 AMP FUSE IN SERIES WITH THE 15 AMP FUSE IS FAR LESS LIKELY TO CAUSE A FIRE THAN HAVING ONLY THE 15 AMP FUSE. NEVERTHELESS, I CAME CLOSE TO HAVING A MAJOR FIRE IN OUR HOME WHILE WE WERE INSIDE HAD I NOT NOTICED THE PROBLEM. THE 3 AMP FUSE DID ITS JOB, BUT THERE WAS ENOUGH BRAKE FLUID AND HEAT TO POSSIBLY CAUSE A FIRE. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND THEY REPLACED THE LEAKING SWITCH AND THE FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THEY CHARGED ME $177.03 FOR THE REPAIR. FORD HAS RECALLED ABOUT 10 MILLION VEHICLES TO ADD THE FUSE, BUT I AM CONVINCED THAT THE DESIGN IS STILL UNSAFE BECAUSE 3 AMPS COULD STILL IGNITE BRAKE FLUID, I HOPE THIS NOTE MAY SAVE OTHERS FROM SERIOUS PROBLEMS, AS MORE OF THESE PRESSURE SWITCHES WILL FAIL WITH AGE AND LEAK BRAKE FLUID ON THE CONTINUOUSLY ENERGIZED WIRING HARNESS. THE 3 AMP FUSES MAY NOT ALWAYS BLOW SOON ENOUGH. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH, FLAMES EMITTED FROM THE HOOD, COVERING THE WINDSHIELD. THE COOLANT WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED PRIOR TO THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHO CONFIRMED HAT THE RADIATOR AND ELECTRONIC WIRING HARNESS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 19,000.

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH A NOISE WAS HEARD AND THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER. A FIRE WAS OBSERVED COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CONTACTED WHO EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SERVICE STATION. THE CONTACT WAS UNSURE WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE WAS ELECTRICAL OR FUEL IGNITED, NOR WHAT COMPONENT WAS INVOLVED.*AK

I AM THE OWNER OF A 1995 FORD TAURUS WITH AROUND 64000 MILES. I WAS DRIVING THE VEHICLE ON THE DATE OF 11/27/05 WHEN BLACK SMOKE STARTED COMING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD, I WAS ONE LIGHT FROM THE WESTBROOK FIRE DEPARTMENT SO MANAGED TO GET TO THE FIREHOUSE AND OFF THE ROAD TO PREVENT ANY OTHER DAMAGE TO OTHERS AROUND ME. I ENDED UP LOSING MY BRAKES FROM THE FIRE AND EVERY WIRE AND ANYTHING PLASTIC UNDER THE HOOD HAD BEEN DESTROYED. THE VEHICLE IS A TOTAL LOSE. IT SEEMS THE FIRE HAD BEEN CAUSED BY AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM AND STARTED TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. I CHECKED ON THE INTERNET AND FOUND THAT FORD HAD ISSUED A RECALL FOR A PROBLEM WITH THE COOLING FAN CAUSING AN UNDER-HOOD FIRE. I CONTACTED FORD ON 11/28/05 TO VERIFY IF MY VEHICLE WAS AFFECTED BY THIS RECALL AND WAS TOLD YES, BUT I HAD NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED. AFTER THIS I WAS TOLD BY FORD THAT I WOULD BE CONTACTED IN SEVERAL WORKING DAYS WITH FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. I WAS CONTACTED BY FORD ON 12/13/05 AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO UNTIL A FORD DEALER CHECKED THE CAR TO SEE IF THE FIRE WAS CAUSED BY THE COOLING FAN. ON THE DATE OF 12/14/05 I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO HAMMONASSET FORD LINCOLN IN MADISON CT TO LOOK AT THE VEHICLE. THEY LOOKED AT THE VEHICLE AND SAID THERE WAS SO MUCH DAMAGE UNDER THE HOOD, THAT EVERY WIRE HAD MELTED THEY COULD NOT TELL EXACTLY WHERE THE FIRE STARTED. I HAD THE CAR TOWED BACK HOME AND ON 12/20/05 I WAS CONTACTED BY FORD VIA U.S. MAIL AND WAS TOLD DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE THEY WERE UNABLE TO VERIFY A MANUFACTURER''S DEFECT THAT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS UNABLE TO OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE AT THIS TIME. EVERY WIRE UNDER THE HOOD IS STRIPPED OF ITS PLASTIC COATING. AND THE PAINT ON THE HOOD IS BURNED OFF RIGHT OVER THE FAN. THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED TO A CAR WITH ONLY 64000 MILES . *JB

DT: THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995, FORD TAURUS. WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING PROPERLY. CONTACT COULD NOT TELL HOW FAST HE WAS GOING BECAUSE THE SPEEDOMETER WAS NOT WORKING. WHEN GETTING OFF AT THE EXIT THE VEHICLE WAS BEGINNING TO SLOW DOWN. HE THOUGHT THE CAR WAS OVERHEATING. WHILE TRYING TO GET OFF OF THE ROAD SAW SMOKE APPEARING FROM THE RIGHT TIRE ON THE FRONT. SOMEONE CAME UP TO HIM AND HE TURNED THE CAR OFF AND JUMPED OUT OF THE CAR HE LOOKED UNDER THE CAR AND SAW FIRE COMING FROM THE GAS TANK. THE AIR INTAKE AND BATTERY MELTED. ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS STILL WORKED BECAUSE IT DID NOT GET INTO THE FIRE WALL. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD ENOUGH TIME TO SALVAGE MOST OF THE VEHICLE. IT WAS UNKNOWN WHERE THE FIRE STARTED. THE DOME LIGHT WOULD NOT GO OFF THE VEHICLE. ALSO, THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR LIGHT WOULD NOT GO OFF. WHEN CONTACT NOTICED THESE LIGHTS WERE ON HE TOOK THE FUSE OUT THAT CONTROLS THESE LIGHTS BUT SINCE HE WAS GOING ON A LONG DRIVE . BACK HOME HE PUT THE FUSE BACK IN TO LISTEN TO THE RADIO. THEN WHILE DRIVING HOME THE VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE. *AK

'RECALL CAMPAIGN' FORD TAURUS 1995 RECALLED THE ENGINE COOLING FAN ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLING CIRCUIT BREAKER. *BF THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER REPLACED THE MOTOR AND FAN, BUT NEVER INSTALLED THE BREAKER. THE DEALER FOUND A LEAK IN THE RADIATOR BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE A REPLACEMENT SO THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER SHOP. AFTER THE RECALL WAS PERFORMED ON JUNE 11. 2002 THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED ON JUNE 28, 2002. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED BY THE MECHANIC WHO PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED THE RECALL WORK, STATED THE VEHICLE HAD A BLOWN HEAD GASKET AND POSSIBLY A CRACKED HEAD FROM OVERHEATING. THE MECHANIC STATED THE FAN MOTOR DID NOT CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO OVERHEAT. THE CONSUMER STATED HE LEARNED OF A RECALL REGARDING THE HEAD GASKET WHICH THE MECHANIC AT THE DEALERSHIP DENIED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE DEALERSHIP AGAIN AND THEY FOUND THE FAN MOTOR AND CIRCUIT BREAKER NOT WORKING PROPERLY, THEY DENIED THERE WAS A PROBLEM, HOWEVER THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED AGAIN, AND THE MOTOR HAD TO BE REPLACED FOR A SECOND TIME. THE BATTERY WAS REPLACED BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START AT TIMES. *JB