LAST FEBRUARY I HAD TO REPLACE THE 2 FRONT COIL SPRINGS IN MY 2002 FORD TAURUS AFTER THE DRIVES SIDE BROKE PUNCTURING THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE HAD ABOUT 85,000 MILES THEN, AND I WAS MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN INTO A PARKING LOT AT ABOUT 10 MPH. NOW MY 2 REAR COIL SPRINGS HAVE BROKE AND ARE IN NEED OF REPLACING. THE CAR HAS ABOUT 1…
Read full complaint
LAST FEBRUARY I HAD TO REPLACE THE 2 FRONT COIL SPRINGS IN MY 2002 FORD TAURUS AFTER THE DRIVES SIDE BROKE PUNCTURING THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE HAD ABOUT 85,000 MILES THEN, AND I WAS MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN INTO A PARKING LOT AT ABOUT 10 MPH. NOW MY 2 REAR COIL SPRINGS HAVE BROKE AND ARE IN NEED OF REPLACING. THE CAR HAS ABOUT 114,000 MILES, AND WHEN THE PASSENGER SIDE BROKE, I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 60 MPH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10329218
172,000 miles · May 5, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. WHILE DRIVING AT 60 MPH, THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE NOTICED A LOUD, CLICKING NOISE SO HE PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. HE NOTICED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING WAS BROKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP WHERE BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS WERE REPLACED. THE CONTACT HAD NO…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. WHILE DRIVING AT 60 MPH, THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE NOTICED A LOUD, CLICKING NOISE SO HE PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. HE NOTICED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING WAS BROKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP WHERE BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS WERE REPLACED. THE CONTACT HAD NOT SPOKEN WITH THE DEALER OR THE MANUFACTURER AT THE TIME OF THE COMPLAINT. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 172,000.
NHTSA ODI #10328967
63,119 miles · May 5, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE FRONT LEFT SPRING WAS BROKEN. THE MECHANIC REPLACED BOTH FRONT SPRINGS AND STRUTS. WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD NOISE WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED. UPON INSPECTION, SHE SAW THAT THE FRONT RIG…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE FRONT LEFT SPRING WAS BROKEN. THE MECHANIC REPLACED BOTH FRONT SPRINGS AND STRUTS. WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD NOISE WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED. UPON INSPECTION, SHE SAW THAT THE FRONT RIGHT SPRING WAS BROKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE REPAIR SHOP AND THE FRONT SPRINGS AND STRUTS WERE REPLACED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER BUT SHE WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE WITH THE REPAIR COST. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 63,119. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 63,124.
NHTSA ODI #10328922
Mileage unknown · May 3, 2010
Suspension
2002 FORD TAURUS DEFECTIVE SPRINGS *GR THE CONSUMER STATED SHE WAS PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT WHEN SHE HEARD A NOISE. SHE PROMPTLY STOPPED DRIVING, AND DISCOVERED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS FLAT. SHE PUT THE SPARE TIRE ON AND RETURNED TO WHERE SHE PURCHASED THE TIRES, ONLY TO LEARN THE WARRANTY DID NOT COVER THE SITUATI…
Read full complaint
2002 FORD TAURUS DEFECTIVE SPRINGS *GR THE CONSUMER STATED SHE WAS PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT WHEN SHE HEARD A NOISE. SHE PROMPTLY STOPPED DRIVING, AND DISCOVERED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS FLAT. SHE PUT THE SPARE TIRE ON AND RETURNED TO WHERE SHE PURCHASED THE TIRES, ONLY TO LEARN THE WARRANTY DID NOT COVER THE SITUATION. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE TIRE WOULD NOT BE REPLACED, BECAUSE THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY A BROKEN COIL SPRING AND NOT BECAUSE OF ANY INHERENT PROBLEM WITH THE TIRE ITSELF. A MONTH AND A HALF LATER, THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE WAS DAMAGED IN THE SAME MANNER WHICH WAS DUE TO A DEFECTIVE COIL SPRING. THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED A RECALL REGARDING THE COIL SPRINGS FOR THE 1999-2001 MODELS.
NHTSA ODI #10328515
66,344 miles · May 3, 2010
Suspension
I BACKED OUT OF A PARKING SPACE AT WORK AND MY LEFT FRONT TIRE BLEW OUT AFTER BACKING UP ABOUT 2 FEET. COME TO FIND OUT MY COIL SPRING HAD BROKEN AND GASHED THE INSIDE OF MY TIRE AND RUINED THE STABILIZER LINK. I HAD THE COIL SPRING REPLACED (QUICK STRUT) ALONG WITH A NEW STABILIZER LINK AND A WHEEL ALIGNMENT DONE. I ALSO HAD TO…
Read full complaint
I BACKED OUT OF A PARKING SPACE AT WORK AND MY LEFT FRONT TIRE BLEW OUT AFTER BACKING UP ABOUT 2 FEET. COME TO FIND OUT MY COIL SPRING HAD BROKEN AND GASHED THE INSIDE OF MY TIRE AND RUINED THE STABILIZER LINK. I HAD THE COIL SPRING REPLACED (QUICK STRUT) ALONG WITH A NEW STABILIZER LINK AND A WHEEL ALIGNMENT DONE. I ALSO HAD TO PURCHASE A NEW TIRE TODAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10328481
80,040 miles · Apr 29, 2010
Suspension
I WAS DRIVING MY 2002 FORD TAURUS (WITH MY FAMILY IN THE CAR )WHEN I HEARD A LOUD BANG AND I SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES ALMOST HITTING THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. I GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND RETRIEVED A PIECE OF A SUSPENSION: SPRING COIL. IT APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE FRONT SPRINGS. DISASTER WAS AVERTED, BARELY.. I NOTICED THAT THIS PARTIC…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2002 FORD TAURUS (WITH MY FAMILY IN THE CAR )WHEN I HEARD A LOUD BANG AND I SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES ALMOST HITTING THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. I GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND RETRIEVED A PIECE OF A SUSPENSION: SPRING COIL. IT APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE FRONT SPRINGS. DISASTER WAS AVERTED, BARELY.. I NOTICED THAT THIS PARTICULAR PART WAS RECALLED IN 1999-2001 MODELS. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS PART (WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PART) WAS NOT RECALLED IN THE 2002 MODEL. REPAIRS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED AS I FEEL THIS SHOULD NOT BE MY RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY. THIS WAS DANGEROUS AND COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE.... *TR
NHTSA ODI #10328077
120,000 miles · Apr 28, 2010
Suspension
I HAD TO REPLACE A FRONT PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRING ON A 2002 FORD TAURUS AFTER IT COLLAPSED WHILE SHE WAS BACKING OUT OF A PARKING LOT. SHE HAD TRAVELED @200 MILES IN THE PREVIOUS TWO DAYS WITH PASSENGERS IN THE CAR WITHOUT INCIDENT AND HAD NO INDICATION THERE WAS ANY PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE. AS AN OWNER I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE…
Read full complaint
I HAD TO REPLACE A FRONT PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRING ON A 2002 FORD TAURUS AFTER IT COLLAPSED WHILE SHE WAS BACKING OUT OF A PARKING LOT. SHE HAD TRAVELED @200 MILES IN THE PREVIOUS TWO DAYS WITH PASSENGERS IN THE CAR WITHOUT INCIDENT AND HAD NO INDICATION THERE WAS ANY PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE. AS AN OWNER I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF ANY POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD BY THE MANUFACTURER SO WE COULD HAVE HAD THE VEHICLE INSPECTED AND WORK DONE TO PREVENT THE FAILURE. I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE OPTION TO REPLACE THE SPRINGS BEFORE THE COIL FAILED, AS HAD THIS HAPPENED WHEN SHE WAS TRAVELING IT COULD HAVE BEEN A CATASTROPHIC EVENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10327842
165,000 miles · Apr 22, 2010
Suspension
SEE EA08018... REAR SPRINGS BOTH SNAPPED ON MY 2002 FORD TAURUS. THANK GOD I HADN'T MADE IT TO THE INTERSTATE YET. AFTER SOME RESEARCH, IT APPEARS THIS EXTREMELY COMMON ON THE 2002 FORD TAURUS AND THAT FORD IS AWARE OF THE CHRONIC NATURE OF THIS ISSUE. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION…
Read full complaint
SEE EA08018... REAR SPRINGS BOTH SNAPPED ON MY 2002 FORD TAURUS. THANK GOD I HADN'T MADE IT TO THE INTERSTATE YET. AFTER SOME RESEARCH, IT APPEARS THIS EXTREMELY COMMON ON THE 2002 FORD TAURUS AND THAT FORD IS AWARE OF THE CHRONIC NATURE OF THIS ISSUE. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10326988
36,000 miles · Apr 20, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING IN REVERSE AT SPEEDS OF 5 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRING FRACTURED. BOTH THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE CONTACTED AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR THE FAILURE AND THE VEHICLE WAS OUTSIDE OF FACTORY WARRANTY. REPAIRS TO…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING IN REVERSE AT SPEEDS OF 5 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRING FRACTURED. BOTH THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE CONTACTED AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR THE FAILURE AND THE VEHICLE WAS OUTSIDE OF FACTORY WARRANTY. REPAIRS TO THE VEHICLE WOULD BE AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 36,000.
NHTSA ODI #10326684
40,673 miles · Apr 20, 2010
Suspension
I JUST PURCHASED A 2002 FORD TAURUS WITH 40, 673 MILES. I HAD THE VEHICLE SAFETY INSPECTED AND REVEALED THAT BOTH REAR SPRINGS WERE BROKEN. I LEARNED THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE ON THE 2002 TAURUS, AFTER THE FACT THAT I HAD JUST PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. MY DEALER IS REPLACING THEM AT NO CHARGE, BUT I WILL HAVE TO PAY TO …
Read full complaint
I JUST PURCHASED A 2002 FORD TAURUS WITH 40, 673 MILES. I HAD THE VEHICLE SAFETY INSPECTED AND REVEALED THAT BOTH REAR SPRINGS WERE BROKEN. I LEARNED THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE ON THE 2002 TAURUS, AFTER THE FACT THAT I HAD JUST PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. MY DEALER IS REPLACING THEM AT NO CHARGE, BUT I WILL HAVE TO PAY TO REPLACE THE FRONT SPRINGS. HOW CAN A VEHICLE WITH 40,500 MILES HAVE BROKEN SPRINGS? I AM CONCERNED FOR THE SAFETY OF MY YOUNG FAMILY DRIVING ON THE ROADWAYS IF ALL THE SPRINGS ARE NOT REPLACED, AND THE 2002 TAURUS IS NOT RECALLED. *TR
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES ARE BEING RECALLED TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH A MALFUNCTIONING STOP LAMP SWITCH AND/OR ASSOCIATED WIRING. THIS MALFUNCTIONING COULD RENDER THE STOP LAMPS INOPERABLE OR CAUSE THEM TO STAY ON ALL THE TIME. THIS COULD CAUSE CONFUSION TO A FOLLOWING DRIVER, WHICH COULD LEAD TO A CRASH.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN ADDITION, IF THE SWITCH AND/OR ASSOCIATED WIRING FAIL IN THE OPEN POSITION, THE BRAKE LIGHTS WILL NOT ACTUATE AND THE DRIVER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE OUT OF "PARK" IF THEY FAIL IN THE CLOSED POSITION, THE BRAKE LIGHTS WILL REMAIN ON, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW THE SPEED CONTROL TO BE ACTIVATED. THIS COULD ALSO CAUSE THE BATTERY TO DISCHARGE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REMOVE THE STOP LAMP SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING ASSEMBLY AND INSTALL A NEWLY DESIGNED STOP LAMP SWITCH AND WIRE ASSEMBLY. OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON APRIL 5, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 212, "WINDSHIELD MOUNTING." THE WINDSHIELDS MAY POTENTIALLY EXHIBIT INCREASED WIND NOISE, WATER LEAKAGE, AND SQUEAKS AND RATTLES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: POTENTIAL LOSS OF WINDSHIELD RETENTION MAY ALSO REDUCE OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THESE WINDSHIELDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON MARCH 31, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD/MERCURY AT 1-800-392-3673.
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PADELS ARE BEING RECALLED IN ORDER TO ADJUST THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO A MINIMUM OF 50 MM OF LATERAL SEPARATION. SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF BOTH THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS COULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN ENGINE RPM.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A CUSTOMER EXPERIENCING AN "UNINTENDED VEHICLE SPEED INCREASE" OR A PERCEIVED "UNABLE TO STOP" CONDITION.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED AS TO THE PROPER WAY TO SET THE POSITION OF THE PEDALS AND TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE SPACING BETWEEN THE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS MEASURED. IF THE SPACING IS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN 50 MM, THE DEALER WILL ADJUST THE PEDALS TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM TO GREATER THAN 50 MM. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN OCTOBER 28, 2002. OWNERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
4
PE12033 · Speed Control Cable Damage
Opened Oct 24, 2012 · Closed Jun 26, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:cables; Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Vehicle Speed Control:cables
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
Vehicle Speed Control
On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.
EA08018 · Front Suspension Coil Spring Fracture
Opened Aug 28, 2008 · Closed Jun 30, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front:springs:coil Springs
To date, ODI is aware of 2,401 non-duplicative complaints related to the alleged defect. In addition, ODI is aware of 1,411 subject vehicles with one or more warranty claims related to the alleged defect. In total, ODI is aware of 3,645 unique subject vehicles that have experienced one or more front suspension coil spring fractures. ODI is also aware of four minor crashes related to the alleged defect resulting in one minor injury.With greater than eight years of exposure, a large subject vehicle population and approximately 2,052 reported front tire punctures caused by fractured coil springs (at all speeds), there have been no reported severe crashes, deaths or injuries related to the alleged defect. The real world consequences of these defective coil springs have been a small number of minor control problems that resulted in minor damage; suggesting that the effect of the defect on vehicle control is minor.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will continue to monitor this issue and will take further action if warranted by the circumstances. See the EA08-018 Engineering Analysis Closing Report for more details.
RP03001 · Brake/accelerator Pedal Application
Opened Oct 31, 2003 · Closed Mar 23, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:pedals And Linkages
MS. RODMAN REPORTED THAT AFTER HER VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED FOR THE RECALL, HER MOTHER EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN ACCELERATION AND CRASHED THE SABLE INTO A LIGHT POLE.PREVIOUSLY NHTSA HAD CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION FOR THIS ISSUE (PE02-035) THAT RESULTED IN THE RECALL (02V-266) OF 369,000 MY 2000-2002 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO INSURE THAT THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PEDALS WAS AT LEAST 50MM..A REVIEW OF ODI'S DATABASE FOR COMPLAINTS REGARDING RECALL 02V-266 DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY RECALL REMEDY COMPLAINTS OTHER THAN THE PETITIONER'S.MS. RODMAN?S VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY ODI USING FORD?S SPECIAL TOOL AND HER VEHICLE WAS FOUND TO EXCEED 50MM.ALSO, THE LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE PEDALS WAS FOUND NOT TO BE EXCESSIVE RELATIVE TO OTHER COMPARABLE TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES.THEREFORE, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING FORD TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT REMEDY FOR THIS DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS ANALYSIS, PLEASE REFER TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE DATED MARCH 23, 2004 (VOL 69, NO 56, PAGES 13619-13620).
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights:switch
FORD CONDUCTED A RECALL IN MARCH, 2001 TO CORRECT A DEFECT AFFECTING THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2001 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH POWER ADJUSTABLE PEDALS (RECALL 01V-078).RQ03-008 WAS OPENED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE REMEDY AND SCOPE OF 01V-078.ODI'S ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WITH POST-REPAIR FAILURES IN RECALLED VEHICLES,FAILURES IN MY 2001-02 VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL 01V-078, AND FAILURES IN MY 2000 VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.(NOTE: THE MANUFACTURER FAILURE DATA IN THIS RESUME INCLUDES ALL CRASHES AND INJURIES, BUT THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS LIMITED TO MY 2001-02 VEHICLES THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RECALL 01V-078.)ON MARCH 1, 2004, FORD NOTIFIED NHTSA OF A SAFETY DEFECT IN MY 2000 THROUGH EARLY-2003 TAURUS AND SABLE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND MY 2000 SUBJECT VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH FIXED PEDALS (RECALL 04V-106).THE NOTIFICATION IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRAKE LIGHT CIRCUIT FAILURES:(1) CONTINUING GREASE CONTAMINATION ISSUES THAT PROMPTED 01V-078; (2) MISALIGNMENT OF THE BOOSTER ROD PIN AND THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH; AND (3) WIRE ASSEMBLY FATIGUE.THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS WERE LIMITED TO VEHICLES WITH ADJUSTABLE PEDALS AND THE LATTER CONDITION AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH FIXED PEDALS.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS TO BRING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND ASSOCIATED WIRING REPLACED WITH A RE-DESIGNED BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH AND WIRING ASSEMBLY.
2002 Ford Taurus Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year
Illustration