← 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
Mileage unknown · Jul 17, 2006
Suspension

I BACKED THE CAR OUT OF THE GARAGE IN THE MORNING AND LEFT IT IN THE DRIVEWAY THE ENTIRE DAY. AROUND 9:30 PM I PROCEEDED TO MOVE THE CAR BACK INTO THE GARAGE. I MOVED NO MORE THAN THREE FEET WHEN THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE RUPTURED. AAA CAME TO CHANGE THE TIRE BUT WAS UNABLE TO REMOVE IT AS THE FRONT COIL SPRING WAS EMBEDD…

Read full complaint

I BACKED THE CAR OUT OF THE GARAGE IN THE MORNING AND LEFT IT IN THE DRIVEWAY THE ENTIRE DAY. AROUND 9:30 PM I PROCEEDED TO MOVE THE CAR BACK INTO THE GARAGE. I MOVED NO MORE THAN THREE FEET WHEN THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE RUPTURED. AAA CAME TO CHANGE THE TIRE BUT WAS UNABLE TO REMOVE IT AS THE FRONT COIL SPRING WAS EMBEDDED IN THE SIDE WALL OF THE TIRE. THE SIDE WALL WAS SLICED ABOUT 10 INCHES IN LENGTH. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY. THE SERVICE CENTER AT THE DEALERSHIP INFORMED ME THAT THE COIL SPRING HAD BROKEN AND THAT THE CAR WAS NOT COVERED BY AN EARLIER RECALL FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS AND PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE WILL BE REPLACED. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10162608

41,000 miles · Jul 6, 2006
Suspension

I BOUGHT MY 2002 TAURUS SEL DOHC IN MARCH OF 2005 WITH 19,000 MILES ON IT FROM AUTOFAIR FORD IN MANCHESTER, NH. I LIVE IN A SALTY AREA IN THE WINTER, BUT I CLEAN THE UNDERSIDE OF MY CAR OFTEN. IT IS MY DAILY DRIVER AND THE CAR NOW HAS 41,000 MILES ON IT, ALL HIGHWAY. ABOUT 2 WEEKS AGO, I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD , GOING AROUND …

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT MY 2002 TAURUS SEL DOHC IN MARCH OF 2005 WITH 19,000 MILES ON IT FROM AUTOFAIR FORD IN MANCHESTER, NH. I LIVE IN A SALTY AREA IN THE WINTER, BUT I CLEAN THE UNDERSIDE OF MY CAR OFTEN. IT IS MY DAILY DRIVER AND THE CAR NOW HAS 41,000 MILES ON IT, ALL HIGHWAY. ABOUT 2 WEEKS AGO, I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD , GOING AROUND A CORNER AT ABOUT 35 MPH WHEN MY CAR MADE A LOUD SNAP NOISE FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE REAR WHEEL. I PULLED OVER AND EXAMINED THE CAR, AND EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE ALRIGHT. THE REAR END WAS SLIGHTLY SAGGING, BUT TAURUS' ARE KNOWN TO HAVE LOW BACK ENDS.. I FIGURED I CAN OVER A STICK AT A FUNNY ANGLE OR SOMETHING. ABOUT A WEEK LATER, LAST THURSDAY, THE CAR MADE THE NOISE AGAIN, THIS TIME IT SOUNDED LIKE THE WHOLE CAR MADE THE NOISE, AND I COULD FEEL IT IN THE STEERING WHEEL. I PULLED THE CAR OVER AGAIN, GOT OUT, AND THE CAMBER ON BOTH OF THE REAR WHEELS WAS ON THE TOES (THE TOP WAS BENT IN), AND THE REAR END WAS SO LOW I COULDN'T FIT A FINGER IN BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE FENDER AND THE WHEEL. I DROVE 1 MILE HOME, JACKED THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR WHEEL UP, AND WHEN I TOOK THE WHEEL OFF TO MY SURRPRISE THE SPRING WAS ALL RUSTED AND IT HAD SNAPPED. THE JAGGED EDGE WAS LITERALLY CENTIMETERS FROM MY TIRE, THANK GOD IT DID NOT HAPPEN ON THE HIGHWAY OR IT MAY HAVE PUNCTURED THE TIRE AND CAUSED A BLOWOUT. I COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED. I PUT THE WHEEL BACK ON, TOOK THE DRIVERS SIDE REAR WHEEL OFF, AND AGAIN THE SPRING WAS SNAPPED IN TWO. THIS SIDE, AT THE SNAP THE JAGGED EDGE NEXT TO THE TIRE WAS RUSTED, SO THIS SPRING MUST HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO SNAP. I WAS DRIVING WITH A BROKEN SPRING WHICH NEARLY PUNCTURED MY REAR TIRE FOR OVER A WEEK. BOTH REAR SPRINGS BROKE, THEY WERE CLEARLY DEFECTIVE AND THEY MUST BE RECALLED. WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE, A REAR SPRING ON A TAURUS TO SNAP ON THE HIGHWAY, CAUSE A BLOWOUT, AND KILL SOMEBODY? ACTIONS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10161725

120,385 miles · Jul 6, 2006
Suspension

WHILE EXITING THE DRIVEWAY, FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE WENT FLAT ACCOMPANIED BY A LOUD NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS MOVED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP (VIA FLATBED TRUCK) THAT FOUND THE COIL SPRING & STRUT FOR THAT LOCATION & THE RIGHT REAR COIL SPRING HAD FRACTURED. THE BROKEN FRONT SPRING RIPPED THROUGH THE SIDEWALL OF THE TIRE. BOT…

Read full complaint

WHILE EXITING THE DRIVEWAY, FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE WENT FLAT ACCOMPANIED BY A LOUD NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS MOVED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP (VIA FLATBED TRUCK) THAT FOUND THE COIL SPRING & STRUT FOR THAT LOCATION & THE RIGHT REAR COIL SPRING HAD FRACTURED. THE BROKEN FRONT SPRING RIPPED THROUGH THE SIDEWALL OF THE TIRE. BOTH SPRINGS WERE REPLACED, ALONG WITH THE STRUT & TIRE. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, #04V332000 REGARDING THE FRONT SPRINGS; HOWEVER THIS VEHICLE ISN'T INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO IT'S VIN. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10161685

54,008 miles · Jul 5, 2006
Suspension

THE RIGHT REAR COIL SPRING IN THE CONSUMER'S 2002 FORD TAURUS BECAME ROTTEN AND BROKE AND PUNCTURED THE TIRE. *TS THE CONSUMER IS AWARE OF A RECALL ON THE MERCURY SABLE AND BELIEVES HIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER FOR REIMBURSEMENT BUT THEY REFUSED TO COVER THE COST OF REPA…

Read full complaint

THE RIGHT REAR COIL SPRING IN THE CONSUMER'S 2002 FORD TAURUS BECAME ROTTEN AND BROKE AND PUNCTURED THE TIRE. *TS THE CONSUMER IS AWARE OF A RECALL ON THE MERCURY SABLE AND BELIEVES HIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER FOR REIMBURSEMENT BUT THEY REFUSED TO COVER THE COST OF REPAIR. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10161613

85,390 miles · Jul 3, 2006
Suspension

SUNDAY MORNING, JUNE 25, 2006 I FOUND MY 2002 FORD TAURUS IN MY GARAGE LEANING TO THE LEFT FRONT DRIVERS SIDE. UPON CLOSE INSPECTION I FOUND THAT THE LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING HAD SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED THE LEFT FRONT TIRE. SINCE I WORK ON SUNDAY I WAS FORCED TO TRY AND FIND SOME PLACE TO FIX THE CAR. THE ONLY PLACE I COULD FIND …

Read full complaint

SUNDAY MORNING, JUNE 25, 2006 I FOUND MY 2002 FORD TAURUS IN MY GARAGE LEANING TO THE LEFT FRONT DRIVERS SIDE. UPON CLOSE INSPECTION I FOUND THAT THE LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING HAD SNAPPED AND PUNCTURED THE LEFT FRONT TIRE. SINCE I WORK ON SUNDAY I WAS FORCED TO TRY AND FIND SOME PLACE TO FIX THE CAR. THE ONLY PLACE I COULD FIND WITHIN REASONABLE TOWING DISTANCE COULD NOT REPAIR THE CAR UNTIL THE NEXT DAY NECESSITATING ME GETTING A RENTAL CAR TO GO TO WORK. THE COST OF THE TOW, RENTAL CAR AND REPAIR (WHICH CONSISTED OF REPLACING BOTH SPRINGS, STRUTS, DAMAGED TIRE AND FRONT END ALIGNMENT APPROACHED $800. FORD HAS A RECALL ON THE 1999 TO 2001 FORD TAURUS FOR THIS EXACT PROBLEM. I HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS REPORTS OF PEOPLE WITH THE 2002 MODEL HAVING THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM AS I HAVE HAD BUT FORD'S RECALL ONLY COVERS UP TO MODEL YEAR 2001.*JB

NHTSA ODI #10161313

60,000 miles · Jul 3, 2006
Suspension

FRACTURED COIL SPRING ON 2002 FORD TAURUS, RESULTING IN PUNCTURED TIRE AND COSTLY REPAIRS NOT COVERED UNDER RECALL. THIS IS A COMMON AND DANGEROUS PROBLEM IN THE FORD TAURUS AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT OF A RECALL IMMEDIATELY. FORD RECALLED EARLIER MODEL YEARS BUT REFUSES TO EXTEND THE RECALL TO 2002 AND BEYOND. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10161264

50,300 miles · Jul 2, 2006
Suspension

FAILURE OF LEFT FRONT SPRING, RESULTING IN PUNCTURE OF TIRE ON A 2002 FORD TAURUS, PURCHASED IN PENNSYLVANIA. I HAVE NOTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A RECALL OF THE 1999, 2000 AND 2001 FORD TAURUS MODELS FOR EXACTLY THE SAME FRONT SPRING FAILURE ON CARS SOLD IN NORTHERN STATES (INCLUDING PENNSYLVANIA). *NM

NHTSA ODI #10161242

62,000 miles · Jun 21, 2006
Suspension

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN REVERSE THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING FRACTURED, PUNCTURING THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS WERE REPLACED.

NHTSA ODI #10160328

120,000 miles · Jun 16, 2006
Suspension

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PULLING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE WENT FLAT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP THAT DETERMINED THE COIL SPRING IN THAT LOCATION AND THE REAR PASSENGER SPRING HAD FRACTURED. BOTH COIL SPRINGS WERE REPLACED. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, # 04V332000, REGARDING TH…

Read full complaint

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PULLING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE WENT FLAT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP THAT DETERMINED THE COIL SPRING IN THAT LOCATION AND THE REAR PASSENGER SPRING HAD FRACTURED. BOTH COIL SPRINGS WERE REPLACED. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, # 04V332000, REGARDING THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN.

NHTSA ODI #10160035

43,100 miles · Jun 16, 2006
Electrical SystemSuspension

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED TWICE WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRING CAUSED THE TIRE TO BLOW OUT. UPON INSPECTION THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THE REAR COIL SPRINGS NEEDED REPLACED. AFTER REPLACING THE REAR COIL SPRINGS A NOISE CAME FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. AFTER THE DEALER REPLACED THE REAR SHOCKS THE NO…

Read full complaint

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED TWICE WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE COIL SPRING CAUSED THE TIRE TO BLOW OUT. UPON INSPECTION THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THE REAR COIL SPRINGS NEEDED REPLACED. AFTER REPLACING THE REAR COIL SPRINGS A NOISE CAME FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. AFTER THE DEALER REPLACED THE REAR SHOCKS THE NOISE WENT AWAY. THE ALTERNATOR WAS REPLACED. UPDATED 07/05/06. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10159991

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.