NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
38 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Feb 5, 2008
StructureVisibility
FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS I HAVE HAD CONTINUOUS LEAKING IN MY VEHICLE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CAR. I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE BRAND NEW AND HAVE BEEN THE ONLY DRIVER. EVERYTIME IT RAINS MY FLOOR HAS A PUDDLE OF WATER ON IT AND IT TAKES DAYS FOR IT TO DRY. I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE MY FAN MOTOR BLOWER 4 TIMES AND I USE A TOWEL TO WIP…
Read full complaint
FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS I HAVE HAD CONTINUOUS LEAKING IN MY VEHICLE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CAR. I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE BRAND NEW AND HAVE BEEN THE ONLY DRIVER. EVERYTIME IT RAINS MY FLOOR HAS A PUDDLE OF WATER ON IT AND IT TAKES DAYS FOR IT TO DRY. I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE MY FAN MOTOR BLOWER 4 TIMES AND I USE A TOWEL TO WIPE THE HUMIDITY OF THE WINDOW SINCE THE HEATER DOESN'T WORK WELL DUE TO ALL THE MOISTURE. I RECENTLY DISCOVERED THAT I WASN'T THE ONLY ONE WITH THIS PROBLEM AND DECIDED TO REPORT IT HERE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10217037
Mileage unknown · Jan 20, 2008
StructureVisibility
MY 2001 FORD TAURUS HAS BEEN LEAKING WATER INTO THE PASSENGER SIDE FLOOR BOARD. IT ONLY HAPPENS WHEN IT RAINS AND IT ACTUALLY LEAVES A PUDDLE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR MAKING THE CARPET SMELL AND COLLECT MOLD. THIS IS TURN, THE WATER IS ALSO COLLECTING IN THE BLOWER MOTOR CASING AND FILLING UP CAUSING THE BLOWER MOTOR TO STOP WORK…
Read full complaint
MY 2001 FORD TAURUS HAS BEEN LEAKING WATER INTO THE PASSENGER SIDE FLOOR BOARD. IT ONLY HAPPENS WHEN IT RAINS AND IT ACTUALLY LEAVES A PUDDLE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR MAKING THE CARPET SMELL AND COLLECT MOLD. THIS IS TURN, THE WATER IS ALSO COLLECTING IN THE BLOWER MOTOR CASING AND FILLING UP CAUSING THE BLOWER MOTOR TO STOP WORKING. I USED TO BE ABLE TO BANG ON THE BLOWER MOTOR CASING TO HELP THE WATER LEAK OUT OF IT AND ONCE THE WATER DID LEAK OUT THE BLOWER MOTOR WOULD WORK, HOWEVER IT IS NOW WINTER TIME AND GETTING BELOW ZERO AT NIGHT, I WENT TO TAKE MY SON TO SCHOOL IN THE MORNING AND THE BLOWER MOTOR WOULD NOT COME ON AT ALL, LEAVING US WITH NO HEAT IN THE VEHICLE AND ACTUALLY CAUSING A DRIVING HAZARD AS THE WINDOWS FOG UP AND FREEZE INSTANTLY, I ALMOST GOT INTO AN ACCIDENT WITH MY SON IN THE CAR...THIS WAS VERY SCARY AND I WANT SOME ANSWERS AS TO WHY THIS HAS NOT BEEN RECALLED ON THESE CARS. I HAVE READ UP ON THIS AND THIS IS HAPPENING FOR YEARS WITH SEVERAL MAKES AND MODELS BUT MOSTLY ON THE FORD TAURUS'. I NOW HAVE TO REPLACE THE BLOWER MOTOR AND FIND THE LEAK...BEFORE IT HAPPENS AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10215469
Mileage unknown · Jan 15, 2008
Structure
THE PAINT ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE TRUNK DOOR UNDER THE LICENSE PLATE IS PEELING. THE COSMETIC BLEMISH IS ABOUT 18INCHES IN LENGTH AND 3-4INCHES HIGH. I HAVE CONTACTED FORD MOTOR COMPANY, CUSTOMER RELATIONS DIVISION AT 800-392-3673 ABOUT THIS ISSUE; I SPOKE WITH A FRONT LINE REPRESENTATIVE NAMED KEVIN WHOSE EMPLOYEE ID IS 61151, H…
Read full complaint
THE PAINT ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE TRUNK DOOR UNDER THE LICENSE PLATE IS PEELING. THE COSMETIC BLEMISH IS ABOUT 18INCHES IN LENGTH AND 3-4INCHES HIGH. I HAVE CONTACTED FORD MOTOR COMPANY, CUSTOMER RELATIONS DIVISION AT 800-392-3673 ABOUT THIS ISSUE; I SPOKE WITH A FRONT LINE REPRESENTATIVE NAMED KEVIN WHOSE EMPLOYEE ID IS 61151, HE ASSURED ME THIS IS NOT A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND TO TAKE THE VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICING AT MY CLOSEST FORD DEALERSHIP, HE ALSO STATED FORD MOTOR COMPANY WILL NOT PAY FOR NOR PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE REPAIR OF THE COSMETIC BLEMISH; I THEN PROCEEDED TO ASK FOR HIS SUPERVISOR I WAS ASSURED SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE SUPERVISOR WOULD GIVE ME THE SAME RESPONSE AND WAS THEN GIVEN A REFERENCE NUMBER OF 0482120158 AND TRANSFERRED TO RON (41004) WHO AGAIN ASKED ME WHAT THE ISSUE WAS AND UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION RON SAID INDEED THIS WAS NOT A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND SAID HE WOULD NOT OVERTURN HIS EMPLOYEES DECISION ABOUT NOT PROVIDING THE REPAIR OR ASSISTING WITH THE COST OF THE REPAIR HE ASSURED ME NO ONE WOULD OVERTURN HIS DECISION AND I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE MYSELF WITH NO ASSISTANCE FROM FORD. I THANKED HIM FOR HIS TIME, TOLD HIM I WOULD FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE NHTSA AND REQUESTED A CALL BACK FROM THE NEXT HIGHEST FORM OF MANAGEMENT, HE SAID I WOULD RECEIVE A CALL BACK WITHIN 2-5 BUSINESS DAYS AND SAID GOOD LUCK TRYING TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF FORD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10214913
100,000 miles · Sep 11, 2007
StructureVisibility
AIR CONDITIONING / HEATER BLOWER STOPPED WORKING. FRONT PASSENGER SIDE FLOOR WET WHEN IT RAINS. WILL NEED TO BE REPAIRED SOON WITH COLD WEATHER APPROACHING. EXPECTING $500+ REPAIR BILL. NHTSA HAS MANY COMPLAINTS FOR THIS ISSUE. IT IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON A 2001 FORD TAURUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10202724
70,000 miles · Jul 25, 2007
StructureSuspension
REAR COIL SPRING BROKE ON MY 2001 FORD TAURUS AND A PIECE OF STEEL FRACTURED OFF AND DAMAGED THE REAR FENDER. ACCORDING TO THE FORD DEALER THAT SERVICES MY CARE IT IS NOT COVERED BY FORD AND BOTH REAR SPRINGS MUST BE REPLACED. IN ADDITION I NOW HAVE TO HAVE THE REAR FENDER REPAIRED AT A BODY SHOP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10197460
Mileage unknown · Nov 13, 2006
Structure
WATER LEAKING INTO CABIN FROM SOMEWHERE AROUND FRONT WINDSHIELD. FOLLOWING HARD RAIN, DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT AND REAR FLOOR CAN BE COMPLETELY SOAKED. TOOK TWICE TO DEALER, PAID $140, NO HELP. DON'T KNOW LONG-TERM EFFECT THIS MAY HAVE ON OTHER VEHICLE COMPONENTS--BRAKES, ELECTRICAL, ETC. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10173419
65,000 miles · Mar 24, 2006
Structure
2001 FORD TAURUS 65,000 MI VEHICLE INSPECTED OBSERVED FRAME RIGHT SIDE OF VEHICLE WHERE LOWER CONTROL ARM ATTACHES IS SEVERELY CORRODED TO POINT WHERE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO OPERATE. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY PREMATURE CONDITION FOR THIS VEHICLE EVEN WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS OPERATED IN A NORTHERN CLIMATE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10153661
41,000 miles · Jan 16, 2006
Structure
FORD TAURUS ,COMMON FAILURE OF THE BLOWER FOR THE HEATER AND AIR CONDITIONING. FORD SERVICE SAYS WATER GETS INTO THE BLOWER AND THE BLOWER MOTOR WITH THE RESISTOR SHOULD BE REPLACED. COMMON PROBLEM ACCORDING TO FORD SERVICE AND OTHER PEOPLE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10147863
55,266 miles · Oct 13, 2005
Structure
FIRST OF ALL MY WIFE CAME OUT TO THE CAR AFTER WORK TO FIND OUT SHE HAD A DEAD BATTERY. I JUMP STARTED THE CAR AND SHE DROVE IT HOME. I THEN REPLACED THE BATTERY, THINKING IT WAS ABOUT FOUR YEARS OLD AND IT MIGHT NEED TO BE REPLACED. SHE THEN DROVE IT HOME. FIVE DAYS LATER SHE NOTICED THAT THE BLOWER MOTOR WASN'T WORKING. I CHEC…
Read full complaint
FIRST OF ALL MY WIFE CAME OUT TO THE CAR AFTER WORK TO FIND OUT SHE HAD A DEAD BATTERY. I JUMP STARTED THE CAR AND SHE DROVE IT HOME. I THEN REPLACED THE BATTERY, THINKING IT WAS ABOUT FOUR YEARS OLD AND IT MIGHT NEED TO BE REPLACED. SHE THEN DROVE IT HOME. FIVE DAYS LATER SHE NOTICED THAT THE BLOWER MOTOR WASN'T WORKING. I CHECKED THE FUSES AND THEY WERE OK. I THEN CALLED THE FORD DEALER AND TOLD THEM WHAT WAS GOING ON. THEY MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO LOOK AT THE CAR AND DISCOVERED THE BLOWER COMPARTMENT WAS FILLED WITH WATER CAUSING THE BLOWER MOTOR TO SHORT OUT. WHEN THE BLOWER MOTOR SHORTED OUT IT ALSO CAUSED A DRAIN ON THE BATTERY, WHICH CAUSED THE DEAD BATTERY. I ASKED THE SERVICE TECH IF I HAD THE MOTOR REPLACED WOULD I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM FOUR YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN? HE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAVE MADE CHANGES IN THE SEAL AND ALSO HAVE PUT IN A DRAIN TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. NOW THAT TELLS ME IF FORD HAS MADE CHANGES TO THE BLOWER MOTOR COMPARTMENT THEY ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. I CONTACTED FORD COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT AND GOT NOWHERE WITH THEM. ALL THEY SAID WAS THEY WERE SORRY FOR THE PROBLEM. I FEEL THAT IF FORD WAS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM IT SHOULD BE FIXED AT NO COST TO THE CONSUMER. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10139590
67,000 miles · Sep 13, 2004
Seat BeltsService Brakes, HydraulicStructure
ABS OPERATED POORLY. WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED VEHICLE DID NOT COME TO A STOP IMMEDIATELY. VEHICLE MOVED ABOUT 50 FEET BEFORE STOPPING AFTER BRAKES WERE APPLIED. CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND NO WORK WAS DONE. THEY CHARGED THE CONSUMER, AND KEPT THE VEHICLE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD. BUT WHEN THE CONSUMER PICKED…
Read full complaint
ABS OPERATED POORLY. WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED VEHICLE DID NOT COME TO A STOP IMMEDIATELY. VEHICLE MOVED ABOUT 50 FEET BEFORE STOPPING AFTER BRAKES WERE APPLIED. CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND NO WORK WAS DONE. THEY CHARGED THE CONSUMER, AND KEPT THE VEHICLE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD. BUT WHEN THE CONSUMER PICKED UP THE VEHICLE, THE CONSUMER WAS ASSURED THAT THE WORK WAS DONE. THEN, CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO GOODYEAR, AND CONSUMER WAS TOLD THAT NOTHING WAS DONE TO THE VEHICLE. AK THE CONSUMER STATED THE DRIVERS SEAT BELT DID NOT RETRACT AND THE PASSENGERS FRONT DOOR WAS HARD TO OPEN FROM THE OUTSIDE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10087303
Official recalls
9Jul 15, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES ORIGINALLY SOLD IN OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATES OF CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS COULD FRACTURE DUE TO CORROSION ASSOCIATED WITH SALT USED ON THE ROADWAYS DURING THE WINTER. A FRACTURED SPRING COULD MOVE PAST THE SPRING SEAT AND CONTACT A FRONT TIRE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THE TIRE MAY RUPTURE RESULTING IN A RAPID AIR LOSS, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL PROTECTIVE SPRING SHIELDS. IN ADDITION, FORD IS EXTENDING THE WARRANTY COVERAGE OF THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS IN ALL OTHER STATES, FOR FRACTURE ONLY, UP TO 10 YEARS OF SERVICE OR 150,000 MILES, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. IF THE VEHICLE HAS ALREADY ACCUMULATED MORE THAN 150,000 MILES, THIS COVERAGE WILL LAST UNTIL JULY 31, 2005. IF EITHER FRONT COIL SPRING FRACTURES, DEALERS WILL REPLACE BOTH FRONT SPRINGS AT NO CHARGE TO THE OWNER. AN INTERIM NOTICE WAS SENT TO OWNERS ON AUGUST 2, 2004. PARTS ARE NOW AVAILABLE FOR THE 2000-2001 MY VEHICLES AND OWNERS WERE SENT A LETTER ON JANUARY 10, 2005, ADVISING THEM TO BRING IN THEIR VEHICLES FOR REPAIR PARTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 1999 MY VEHICLES BY THE END OF FEBRUARY 2005 AND OWNERS OF THESE VEHICLES WILL BE NOTIFIED THEN. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Mar 2, 2004
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.
Oct 2, 2002
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.
Aug 8, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND LIGHT AND MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS. A SWITCH LOCATED IN THE PLASTIC COVER OF THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COULD MALFUNCTION AND OVERHEAT, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF INTERMITTENT WIPER FUNCTION, LOSS OF WIPER PARK FUNCTION, COMPLETE LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION, OR IGNITION OF THE PLASTIC COVER MATERIAL. SWITCH MALFUNCTION IS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THE INTERMITTENT SETTING OF THE WIPERS IS BEING USED, OR WHEN SNOW OR ICE OBSTRUCTS THE BLADES FROM RETURNING TO THE "PARKED" POSITION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDSHIELD. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT AT THE FOLLOWING ASSEMBLY PLANTS: ATLANTA PLANT FROM 2/11/00 THROUGH 7/31/00; CHICAGO PLANT FROM 2/14/00 THROUGH 8/4/00; KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 2/26/00 TO 9/4/00; KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/18/00 TO 8/31/00; MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 2/23/00 THROUGH 8/3/00; NORFOLK PLANT FROM 2/21/00 THROUGH 7/27/00; WAYNE STAMPING AND ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 2/25/00 THROUGH 8/15/00; AND WIXOM PLANT FROM 2/15/00 THROUGH 8/8/00.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: LOSS OF VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE DATE CODE ON THE WIPER MOTOR. MOTORS BUILT WITH THE SUSPECT TIME FRAME WILL HAVE THE WIPER MOTOR GEAR CASE COVER REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 20, 2001. 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 AT 1-866-436-7332.
Apr 27, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER CARS. THE SEAT BELT BUCKLE TONGUE MAY NOT FULLY EJECT FROM THE BUCKLE ASSEMBLY WHEN THE RELEASE BUTTON IS PUSHED SLOWLY. THIS CONDITION COULD ALSO RESULT IN A PARTIAL LATCH OF THE TONGUE IN THE BUCKLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A VEHICLE CRASH, THE VEHICLE OCCUPANT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER AND RIGHT FRONT PASSENGER SEAT BELT BUCKLES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MAY 4, 2001. 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 AT 1-800-392-3673.
Mar 12, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS. IF THE GREASE FROM THE ADJUSTABLE PEDAL ASSEMBLY ENTERS THE STOP LAMP SWITCH, IT CAN CONTAMINATE THE CONTACTS LEADING TO CARBON BUILD UP, AND POTENTIALLY, A SHORT CIRCUIT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A SHORT CIRCUIT COULD LEAD TO EITHER THE BRAKE LAMPS STAYING ON, OR TO A LOSS OF BRAKE LAMP FUNCTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE BRAKE LAMP SWITCH AND WIPE DOWN THE ADJUSTABLE PEDAL ASSEMBLY TO REMOVE EXCESS GREASE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 22, 2001. 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 AT 1-800-392-3673.
Feb 28, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER SEDANS WITH FACTORY OR DEALER-INSTALLED DECK LID SPOILERS WITH LED CENTER HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMPS (CHMSL). VEHICLES PRODUCED WITH SPOILERS WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MARCH 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2000; AND VEHICLES WITH SPOILERS INSTALLED BY DEALERS WERE MANUFACTURED FROM JANUARY 1 THOROUGH DECEMBER 30, 2000. WITH THE IGNITION SWITCH IN THE START OR RUN POSITIONS AND THE HAZARD WARNING LIGHTS OPERATING, THE CHMSL CAN ILLUMINATE (AT REDUCED INTENSITY) EVEN THOUGH THE SERVICE BRAKES HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED. THIS DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." ALSO, IN SOME CASES THE VEHICLE BRAKE-SHIFT INTERLOCK WOULD NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY, ALLOWING THE SHIFT LEVER TO BE MOVED FROM PARK WITHOUT APPLYING THE BRAKE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARD, THE CHMSL SHALL BE ACTIVATED ONLY UPON APPPLICATION OF THE SERVICE BRAKES. ALSO, THE VEHICLE COULD ROLL INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH, IF THE SHIFT LEVER CAN BE SHIFTED OUT OF PARK WITHOUT DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A JUMPER/RESISTOR ASSEMBLY AT THE SPOILER THAT PROVIDES AN ELECTRICAL RESISTOR TO GROUND AND CORRECTS THE CHMSL AND BRAKE-SHIFT INTERLOCK CONDITIONS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 19, 2001. 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 AT 1-800-392-3673.
Nov 28, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS, AND PASSENGER VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS." THE AFFECTED EXPEDITION/NAVIGATOR OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SEATING POSITIONS EQUIPPED WITH TETHER ANCHORAGES, AND DO NOT PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THESE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE F150 SC OWNER GUIDES DO NOT PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE FOR SECURING CHILD SEATS TO THE TETHER ANCHORAGES. THE TAURUS/SABLE OWNER GUIDES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE CENTER REAR SEATING POSITION AS HAVING LATCH COMPATIBLE LOWER ANCHORAGES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE CHILD SEAT MAY NOT BE PROPERLY ATTACHED INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE CHILD.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH OWNER GUIDE INSERTS REVISED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIXING THESE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES. CUSTOMERS WILL ALSO BE ADVISED THAT IF THEY PREFER, THEIR DEALER WILL AFFIX THE INSERTS TO THEIR OWNER GUIDES.
Aug 24, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT ANCHOR LATCH (ISO-FIX ANCHOR) FASTENERS DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE RESIDUAL TORQUE. THE ANCHORS ARE SECURED TO THE FLOOR PAN WITH A REINFORCEMENT PLATE THAT HAS TWO STUDS THAT EXTEND UPWARD THROUGH THE FLOOR PAN AND THE ISO-FIX ANCHOR. THE SEALER ON THE FLOOR PAN COULD CAUSE A SOFT JOINT AND, EVEN IF THE NUTS ARE PROPERLY TORQUED, ROAD VIBRATIONS COULD CAUSE THE NUT TO WORK ITS WAY COMPLETELY OFF THE STUD.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE ANCHOR MAY NOT HOLD THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT IN POSITION DURING AN ACCIDENT, INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REMOVE AND RE-INSTALL THE BRACKET NUT USING A TORQUE RETENTION MATERIAL (RED LOCTITE). OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN SEPTEMBER 11, 2000. 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 AT 1-800-392-3673.
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
8PE12033 · 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.
EA06002 · Rear Coil Spring Fracture
Opened Jan 24, 2006 · Closed Feb 5, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:rear; Suspension:rear:springs; Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.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 MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Suspension:rear
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.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 MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.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 MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
Suspension:rear:springs
ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED A HIGH COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE REAR COIL SPRINGS IN THE SALT BELT STATES (APPROXIMATELY 250 PER 100,000 VEHICLES).APPROXIMATELY 59 PERCENT OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT REAR TIRE, WITH ABOUT HALF OF THESE (30 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPLAINTS) ALLEGING THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN AIR LOSS.BECAUSE AIR LOSS FROM A REAR TIRE CAN RESULT IN CHANGES IN VEHICLE HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS, ODI EXAMINED FIELD DATA, TEST DATA AND INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.ANALYSIS OF ALL AVAILABLE FIELD DATA DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CRASHES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.VRTC TESTING CONDUCTED TO SIMULATE A COIL SPRING INDUCED REAR TIRE FAILURE DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.WHEN INTERVIEWED BY ODI, NONE OF THE CONSUMERS WHO EXPERIENCED INCIDENTS OF TIRE AIR LOSS DUE TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES CAUSED A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.TIRE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS INVOLVED RUBBING/ABRASIVE WEAR OF THE INNER TIRE SIDEWALL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR LOSS FROM PIN-HOLE SIZED LEAKS IN THE WEAR GROOVE.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS CAUSED ANY SUDDEN, CATASTROPHIC TIRE FAILURES IN EITHER STRAIGHT OR TURNING MANEUVERS.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 MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
PE05054 · Rear Coil Spring Fracture
Opened Sep 27, 2005 · Closed Jan 24, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:rear:springs; Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
THE OFFICE OF DEFECT INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION, PE05-054, BASED ON 131 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES RELATED TO ALLEGED REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES.SINCE OPENING THE INVESTIGATION THERE HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY-THREE (63) COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE.AN ANALYSIS OF THE VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) SUBMITTED TO ODI REVEALS THAT 42% OF THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE ADJACENT TIRE WAS PUNCTURED AS RESULT OF A REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE. ADDITIONALLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED BY ODI FROM FORD REVEALS THE FOLLOWING: THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 553 UNIQUE VEHICLE COMPLAINTS OF COIL SPRING FRACTURE. 30% OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE RESULTED IN THE ADJACENT TIRE BEING PUNCTURED. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-002) IS BEING OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES AS RELATED TO TIRE PUNCTURES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Suspension:rear:springs:coil Springs
THE OFFICE OF DEFECT INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION, PE05-054, BASED ON 131 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES RELATED TO ALLEGED REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES.SINCE OPENING THE INVESTIGATION THERE HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY-THREE (63) COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE.AN ANALYSIS OF THE VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) SUBMITTED TO ODI REVEALS THAT 42% OF THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE ADJACENT TIRE WAS PUNCTURED AS RESULT OF A REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE. ADDITIONALLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED BY ODI FROM FORD REVEALS THE FOLLOWING: THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 553 UNIQUE VEHICLE COMPLAINTS OF COIL SPRING FRACTURE. 30% OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE RESULTED IN THE ADJACENT TIRE BEING PUNCTURED. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-002) IS BEING OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES AS RELATED TO TIRE PUNCTURES.
Suspension:rear:springs
THE OFFICE OF DEFECT INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION, PE05-054, BASED ON 131 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES RELATED TO ALLEGED REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES.SINCE OPENING THE INVESTIGATION THERE HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY-THREE (63) COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE.AN ANALYSIS OF THE VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) SUBMITTED TO ODI REVEALS THAT 42% OF THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE ADJACENT TIRE WAS PUNCTURED AS RESULT OF A REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE. ADDITIONALLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED BY ODI FROM FORD REVEALS THE FOLLOWING: THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 553 UNIQUE VEHICLE COMPLAINTS OF COIL SPRING FRACTURE. 30% OF THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURE RESULTED IN THE ADJACENT TIRE BEING PUNCTURED. AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-002) IS BEING OPENED TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REAR COIL SPRING FRACTURES AS RELATED TO TIRE PUNCTURES.
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.
EA03010 · Frontal Air Bag NON-DEPLOYMENT In Crash
Opened Jul 2, 2003 · Closed Jun 23, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal
THIS INVESTIGATION IDENTIFIED A TOTAL OF 427 REPORTS ALLEGING NON-DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONTAL AIR BAGS.OF THE 427 REPORTS, TWO INCIDENTS (FATAL CRASHES) HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS SEVERE FRONTAL CRASHES IN WHICH THE FRONTAL AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY.A DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.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 TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT.
PE03002 · Frontal Air Bag NON-DEPLOYMENT In Crash
Opened Jan 6, 2003 · Closed Jul 2, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal
FORD MOTOR COMPANY HAS IDENTIFIED 260 REPORTS ALLEGING FRONTAL AIR BAG NON-DEPLOYMENT FOR ANY (SEVERITY) FRONTAL OR NEAR-FRONTAL CRASH ON MODEL YEAR 2000-2001 FORD TAURUS AND MERCURY SABLE VEHICLES.ADDITIONAL CRASH REPORTS ARE CONTAINED IN NHTSA'S FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYSTEM (FARS) DATABASE.THE SINGLE ODI REPORT LISTED IN THE REPORT SUMMARY IS NHTSA'S SPECIAL CRASH INVESTIGATION'S CASE NO. CA00-020 THAT INVOLVED A HIGH-SPEED CRASH NON-DEPLOYMENT INVOLVING A DRIVER FATALITY AND FRONT PASSENGER INJURY.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA03-010) AND ODI WILL COLLECT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CERTAIN CRASH REPORTS AND CONDUCT FURTHER STUDY OF THIS ISSUE.
PE02035 · Brake/accel Pedal Separation
Opened Mar 15, 2002 · Closed Oct 22, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic
No summary supplied.
Illustration