← New search

2002 Ford Taurus

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Taurus years

Owner complaints for the 2002 Ford Taurus are substantially higher than the model-year median of 318.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,229 reports with mileage · 197 unknown

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.

  • Suspension. Review the 962 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Visibility. Review the 98 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 76 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

75 crash reports11 fire reports40 injury reports

Suspension complaints

962 reports
Clear category filter
102,000 miles · Sep 24, 2010
Suspension

ABOUT 5 MONTHS AGO I FILED A COMPLAINT ABOUT MY STRUT SPRING BREAKING AND GOING INTO TIRE! I WAS TOLD THAT ISSUE IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION! PLEASE GIVE ME A STATUS! I HAVE FRIENDS WITH SAME ISSUES,AND THESE CARS SHOULD BE RECALLED,ITS OBVIOUS THAT THE STRUT OR SPRINGS ARE DEFECTIVE. IM AFRAID OF DRIVING THE CAR AND I SHOULD N…

Read full complaint

ABOUT 5 MONTHS AGO I FILED A COMPLAINT ABOUT MY STRUT SPRING BREAKING AND GOING INTO TIRE! I WAS TOLD THAT ISSUE IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION! PLEASE GIVE ME A STATUS! I HAVE FRIENDS WITH SAME ISSUES,AND THESE CARS SHOULD BE RECALLED,ITS OBVIOUS THAT THE STRUT OR SPRINGS ARE DEFECTIVE. IM AFRAID OF DRIVING THE CAR AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS DEFECTIVE PART! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10357431

89,000 miles · Sep 24, 2010
Suspension

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT WAS REVERSING AT AN UNKNOWN LOW SPEED WHEN HE HEARD A LOUD, ABNORMAL POP. HE THEN DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE WAS PUNCTURED BY A BROKEN STRUT. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER STRUT AND BOTH REAR STRUTS WERE FRACTURED AN…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT WAS REVERSING AT AN UNKNOWN LOW SPEED WHEN HE HEARD A LOUD, ABNORMAL POP. HE THEN DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE WAS PUNCTURED BY A BROKEN STRUT. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER STRUT AND BOTH REAR STRUTS WERE FRACTURED AND SEVERELY RUSTED. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED BY THE DEALER THAT HIS VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 04V332000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT:SPRINGS:COIL SPRINGS). THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BY THE CONTACT. THE FAILURE DID NOT RECUR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 89,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 90,000.

NHTSA ODI #10357332

95,000 miles · Sep 13, 2010
Suspension

OVER THE COURSE OF 8 MONTHS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS, 3 OUT OF 4 FACTORY INSTALLED COIL SPRINGS ON MY 2002 FORD TAURUS SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED EACH CORRESPONDING TIRE. THE TAURUS WAS PURCHASED AND USED IN MICHIGAN FOR 6 YEARS, THEN I RELOCATED TO FLORIDA. WITHIN THE FIRST MONTH OF LIVING IN FLORIDA IS WHEN THE SPRINGS BEGAN TO …

Read full complaint

OVER THE COURSE OF 8 MONTHS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS, 3 OUT OF 4 FACTORY INSTALLED COIL SPRINGS ON MY 2002 FORD TAURUS SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED EACH CORRESPONDING TIRE. THE TAURUS WAS PURCHASED AND USED IN MICHIGAN FOR 6 YEARS, THEN I RELOCATED TO FLORIDA. WITHIN THE FIRST MONTH OF LIVING IN FLORIDA IS WHEN THE SPRINGS BEGAN TO SNAP ONE BY ONE. TWO OF THE SPRINGS BROKE WHILE MY VEHICLE WAS IN MY DRIVE WAY: 2 OF 3 SPRINGS SNAPPED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS UNOCCUPIED IN PARK AND 1 OCCURRED WHEN I PUT THE VEHICLE INTO REVERSE. THE TAURUS HADN'T MOVED MORE THAN AN INCH FROM ITS PARKED POSITION WHEN THE THIRD SPRING SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED MY TIRE. AFTER THE FIRST SPRING SNAPPED, I HAD IT (AND THE TIRE) REPLACED AT A VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP. A MONTH LATER WHEN THE SECOND SPRING SNAPPED, I ALSO HAD THAT SPRING AND TIRE REPLACED AT A VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP. THE THIRD SPRING SNAPPED ABOUT 6 MONTHS AFTER THE SECOND SPRING SNAPPED AND AGAIN I HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP FOR A NEW COIL AND TIRE. IT WAS AT THIS TIME- WHEN THE THIRD SPRING WAS IN THE SHOP TO BE REPLACED- THAT I OPTED TO HAVE THE FOURTH AND FINAL SPRING REPAIRED SO AS TO AVOID EMINENT RUPTURE OF A FOURTH TIRE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10355161

117,000 miles · Aug 19, 2010
Suspension

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN DRIVING 10 MPH OR MORE, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL RUBBING NOISE FROM THE REAR TIRE. THE CONTACT LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE COIL SPRINGS WERE FRACTURED AND DAMAGED THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE TIRE. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN DRIVING 10 MPH OR MORE, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL RUBBING NOISE FROM THE REAR TIRE. THE CONTACT LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE COIL SPRINGS WERE FRACTURED AND DAMAGED THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE TIRE. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 117,000.

NHTSA ODI #10350566

Mileage unknown · Aug 16, 2010
Suspension

INSPECTION FOR FRONT END ALIGNMENT REVEALED BOTH REAR COIL SPRING BROKEN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10349590

76,575 miles · Aug 5, 2010
Suspension

2002 FORD TAURUS TAKEN TO REPAIR SHOP FOR ROUTINE SERVICE: OIL CHANGE AND MULTIPOINT INSPECTION. RECEIVED A CALL FROM REPAIR SHOP INDICATING THAT DURING THE MULTIPOINT INSPECTION THEY FOUND THAT THE LEFT REAR COIL SPRING WAS FRACTURED AND SEPARATED. THEY INDICATED THAT THIS COULD HAVE PUNCTURED THE TIRE DURING NORMAL DRIVING.…

Read full complaint

2002 FORD TAURUS TAKEN TO REPAIR SHOP FOR ROUTINE SERVICE: OIL CHANGE AND MULTIPOINT INSPECTION. RECEIVED A CALL FROM REPAIR SHOP INDICATING THAT DURING THE MULTIPOINT INSPECTION THEY FOUND THAT THE LEFT REAR COIL SPRING WAS FRACTURED AND SEPARATED. THEY INDICATED THAT THIS COULD HAVE PUNCTURED THE TIRE DURING NORMAL DRIVING. REAR AND FRONT COIL SPRINGS ARE ORIGINAL AS INSTALLED BY THE VEHICLE MANUFACTURER. REPAIR SHOP WAS AUTHORIZED TO REPLACE THE LEFT AND RIGHT REAR COIL SPRINGS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY WAS CONTACTED. THERE WAS NO PROMISE MADE OF RESTITUTION. EMAIL INDICATED THEY WORK CLOSELY WITH NHTSA. PORTION OF REPAIR BILL DEALING WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF BOTH REAR COIL SPRINGS WAS $640.00. BOTH COIL SPRINGS HAVE BEEN SAVED AND IN OUR IN MY POSSESSION. A COUPLE OF PHOTOS HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN OF THE ONE THAT FRACTURED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10347576

94,000 miles · Jul 29, 2010
Suspension

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL GRINDING NOISE NEAR THE REAR DRIVER SIDE TIRE. THE CONTACT MOVED OFF THE ROADWAY AND WENT TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHERE THE NOISE WAS COMING FROM. THE CONTACTS PERSONAL MECHANIC INSPECTED THE …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL GRINDING NOISE NEAR THE REAR DRIVER SIDE TIRE. THE CONTACT MOVED OFF THE ROADWAY AND WENT TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHERE THE NOISE WAS COMING FROM. THE CONTACTS PERSONAL MECHANIC INSPECTED THE VEHICLE BUT WAS ALSO UNABLE TO LOCATE THE ORIGIN OF THE ABNORMAL NOISE. THE CONTACT STATED THE FAILURE WOULD OCCUR INTERMITTENTLY AND ONLY WHEN ATTEMPTING A TURN. THE DEALER FOUND THAT THE COIL SPRING WAS RUSTED AND FRACTURED. THE NOISE WAS CAUSED BY THE SOIL SPRING RUBBING AGAINST THE INTERIOR OF THE TIRE. THE COIL SPRING WAS REPLACED AS WELL AS THE REAR STABILIZER LINKS. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 94,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 94,225.

NHTSA ODI #10346200

160,843 miles · Jul 28, 2010
Suspension

TWO NIGHTS EARLIER I WAS IN MY GARAGE WORKING WHEN I HEARD A LOUD BANG. I WAS STARTLED ENOUGH TO GO OUTSIDE. BELIEVING IT WAS A VEHICLE THAT HAD JUST DRIVEN BY I WENT BACK TO WORK. THAT EVENING MY SON WAS GOING TO BORROW OUR 2002 FORD TAURUS SEL. AS HE WAS BACKING OUT TO LEAVE THE FRONT PASSENGER TIRE BLEW OUT. FURTHER INVESTIGA…

Read full complaint

TWO NIGHTS EARLIER I WAS IN MY GARAGE WORKING WHEN I HEARD A LOUD BANG. I WAS STARTLED ENOUGH TO GO OUTSIDE. BELIEVING IT WAS A VEHICLE THAT HAD JUST DRIVEN BY I WENT BACK TO WORK. THAT EVENING MY SON WAS GOING TO BORROW OUR 2002 FORD TAURUS SEL. AS HE WAS BACKING OUT TO LEAVE THE FRONT PASSENGER TIRE BLEW OUT. FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE SPRING SNAPPED IN HALF. YOU COULD SEE BY THE TIRE THAT THE SPRING RUBBED A GROOVE ON THE TIRE AND ONCE HE TURNED THE STEERING WHEEL THE SPRING TORE A HUGE LONG HOLE INTO THE TIRE. THE TIRES HAVE APPROX. 20,000 MILES ON THEM. I WENT ON-LINE TO SEE WHAT IT TAKES TO REPLACE A SPRING WHEN I SAW A BUNCH OF FORUMS WHERE THIS HAS BEEN A FAIRLY COMMON OCCURRENCE/PROBLEM. I WILL PURCHASE A NEW SPRING AND HAVE IT INSTALLED BUT ACTUALLY IT SEEMS LIKE THE SAFEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO REPLACE THEM ALL. I WILL ALSO KEEP MY RECEIPTS FOR THE WORK IF THERE IS EVER A RECALL. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE UNTIL THERE ARE SOME TRAGIC ACCIDENTS FORD DOESN'T SEE THIS AS A BIG PROBLEM. I JUST WARNED A COWORKER WHOSE WIFE OWNS A 2003 TAURUS ABOUT THIS AND SHE HAD ONE SNAP A YEAR AGO BUT THE TIRE WASN'T PUNCTURED. THIS IS CRAZY!! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS HASN'T BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. THANKS! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10345845

103,000 miles · Jul 27, 2010
Suspension

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE WAS FLAT. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE THE TIRE, THE CONTACT FOUND THAT THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS WERE FRACTURED. THE DEALER REPLACED THE COIL SPRINGS. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 103,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 109,000.

NHTSA ODI #10345682

120,000 miles · Jul 19, 2010
Suspension

ON JULY 18, 2010, WHILE PUTTING MY 2002 FORD TAURUS INTO REVERSE, THE COIL SPRING ON THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED MY TIRE. THIS HAPPENED AS SOON AS I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE TO BEGIN BACKING UP. I CURRENTLY HAVE IT AT A BODY SHOP TO LOOK INTO THE REPAIR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10343913

Official recalls

3

04V106000 · Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch

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.

03V087000 · Visibility:windshield

Mar 10, 2003

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.

02V266000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:pedals And Linkages

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.

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).

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.