NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,426 reports75,000 miles · Jan 12, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AND A LOUD EXPLOSION CAME FROM THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING BROKE WHICH CAUSED THE TIRE TO EXPLODE. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED AT THIS TIME. THE CONTACT HAD CONCERN OF THE SAFETY RISK INVOLVED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAG…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AND A LOUD EXPLOSION CAME FROM THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING BROKE WHICH CAUSED THE TIRE TO EXPLODE. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED AT THIS TIME. THE CONTACT HAD CONCERN OF THE SAFETY RISK INVOLVED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 75,000. UPDATED 02/17/10. *LJ UPDATED 02/19/10
NHTSA ODI #10299493
125,390 miles · Jan 11, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. HE STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH IN REVERSE THE DRIVER SIDE FRONT COIL SPRING BROKE AND CUT THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE IS AT HIS RESIDENCE. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR HIS VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WILL BE REPAIRED AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. HE STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH IN REVERSE THE DRIVER SIDE FRONT COIL SPRING BROKE AND CUT THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE IS AT HIS RESIDENCE. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR HIS VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WILL BE REPAIRED AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 125390.
NHTSA ODI #10299051
107,000 miles · Jan 11, 2010
StructureVisibility
VEHICLE WAS RUNNING FINE. NEXT DAY, NO HEAT. I HAD A MECHANIC BACKFLUSH THE LINE AFTER WHICH I WAS ABLE TO GET SOME(VERY LITTLE) HEAT FOR ABOUT 1 MONTH JUST TO GET ME THROUGH THE WINTER. FOLLOWING YEAR, I HAD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE BACKFLUSHED AGAIN. SAME RESULTS, BUT NOW THE AC IS STAYING ON WITH THE VENT ON AND I HAVE NO HEAT ANY…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS RUNNING FINE. NEXT DAY, NO HEAT. I HAD A MECHANIC BACKFLUSH THE LINE AFTER WHICH I WAS ABLE TO GET SOME(VERY LITTLE) HEAT FOR ABOUT 1 MONTH JUST TO GET ME THROUGH THE WINTER. FOLLOWING YEAR, I HAD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE BACKFLUSHED AGAIN. SAME RESULTS, BUT NOW THE AC IS STAYING ON WITH THE VENT ON AND I HAVE NO HEAT ANY WHERE BUT AT THE FLOOR BOARDS AND THAT IS VERY LITTLE TO NONE. A MECHANIC ADVISED ME THAT IT IS THE HEATER CORE AND WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED. OTHER COMPLAINTS ON THE HEATER CORE SOUND TO BE A RESULT OF AN INCIDENT I HAD: WHEN I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE, I HAD A PROBLEM WITHIN 30 DAYS OF OWNERSHIP WHERE WATER WAS LEAKING UNDER THE HOOD FROM OUTSIDE. I WAS CHARGED FOR REPLACING A FAULTY COWLICK. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THAT THIS PROBLEM WOULD CONTINUE TO HAPPEN WEEKLY WHEN THE CAR GOT WET IF THE COWLICK WAS NOT REPLACED. WHEN I QUESTIONED HOW THIS WAS POSSIBLE THAT I HAD THIS PROBLEM AND THEY NEVER HAD TO REPLACE THIS PART BEFORE; I WAS TOLD THE VEHICLE NEVER GOT WET WHILE IN THEIR OWNERSHIP,(OPEN LOT WITH NO GARAGES TO PROTECT VEHICLES FROM RAIN). I HAD TO PAY OUT OF POCKET TO HAVE THE PART REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298949
105,000 miles · Jan 11, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT 2002 FORD TAURUS SE. THERE WAS A LOUD NOISE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE WHEN THE CONTACT STARTED IT. THE DRIVER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING WAS BROKEN WHICH PUNCTURED THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION. THE VEHICLE IS IN THE PROCESS OF…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT 2002 FORD TAURUS SE. THERE WAS A LOUD NOISE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE WHEN THE CONTACT STARTED IT. THE DRIVER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING WAS BROKEN WHICH PUNCTURED THE TIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION. THE VEHICLE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED. THE CONTACT HAD CONCERN OF THE POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 105,000.
NHTSA ODI #10298948
107,000 miles · Jan 11, 2010
Suspension
WHILE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT, I HEARD A POP AND NOTICED THE FRONT END WAS LEANING. WHEN I LOOKED OUT THE DOOR, I CONCLUDED IT AS A FLAT TIRE. LATER THE TOWING COMPANY STATED IT WAS DUE TO THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE SPRING BREAKING AND PUNCTURING THE TIRE. THE SPRING, MOUNT, AND STRUT ALL HAD TO BE REPLACED. FORD MOTOR COMPAN…
Read full complaint
WHILE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT, I HEARD A POP AND NOTICED THE FRONT END WAS LEANING. WHEN I LOOKED OUT THE DOOR, I CONCLUDED IT AS A FLAT TIRE. LATER THE TOWING COMPANY STATED IT WAS DUE TO THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE SPRING BREAKING AND PUNCTURING THE TIRE. THE SPRING, MOUNT, AND STRUT ALL HAD TO BE REPLACED. FORD MOTOR COMPANY WAS NOTIFIED AND STATED THAT MY VEHICLE WAS NOT ON ANY RECALLS. (APPROX. MILEAGE 107,000) WITHIN THE PAST 2 MONTHS, BOTH REAR SPRINGS BROKE AS WELL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298946
73,300 miles · Jan 7, 2010
Suspension
LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING BROKE ON MY 2002 FORD TAURUS SEL ABRUPTLY WHILE DRIVING DOWN A CLEAR WINTER ROAD RESULTING IN BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS NEEDING TO BE REPLACED ALONG WITH A SWAY BAR LINK. SO FAR NO OTHER DAMAGE TO THE TIRES, STRUTS, VEHICLE, OR OCCUPANTS IS APPARENT. I AM BEING CHARGED FOR THE REPAIRS, PLUS TOWING, AND REN…
Read full complaint
LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING BROKE ON MY 2002 FORD TAURUS SEL ABRUPTLY WHILE DRIVING DOWN A CLEAR WINTER ROAD RESULTING IN BOTH FRONT COIL SPRINGS NEEDING TO BE REPLACED ALONG WITH A SWAY BAR LINK. SO FAR NO OTHER DAMAGE TO THE TIRES, STRUTS, VEHICLE, OR OCCUPANTS IS APPARENT. I AM BEING CHARGED FOR THE REPAIRS, PLUS TOWING, AND RENTAL CAR WHILE MY CAR SITS IN THE GARAGE FOR 5 DAYS OVER THE WEEKEND WAITING FOR PARTS. I SEE THERE IS A RECALL ON TAURUS FOR COIL SPRINGS UP TO THE 2001 MODEL YEAR AND THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE INDICATE COIL SPRING FAILURE ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND 2003 TAURUS. WHY IS THE RECALL NOT EXTENDED TO COVER THESE MODEL YEARS? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298668
124,712 miles · Jan 5, 2010
Suspension
BACKED OUT OF GARAGE, FRONT OF CAR SHOOK THEN LEFT FRONT END DROPPED. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER RETRIEVED A PIECE OF THE BROKEN SPRING OUT OF THE TIRE, WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PUNCTURE. THIS IS THE ONLY OCCURRENCE UNDER CURRENT OWNERSHIP. TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM, THE CAR HAD TO BE TOWED TO THE GARAGE WHERE THE LEFT FRONT SPRING AND…
Read full complaint
BACKED OUT OF GARAGE, FRONT OF CAR SHOOK THEN LEFT FRONT END DROPPED. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER RETRIEVED A PIECE OF THE BROKEN SPRING OUT OF THE TIRE, WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PUNCTURE. THIS IS THE ONLY OCCURRENCE UNDER CURRENT OWNERSHIP. TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM, THE CAR HAD TO BE TOWED TO THE GARAGE WHERE THE LEFT FRONT SPRING AND TIRE WERE REPLACED. IN ADDITION, THE SWAY BAR LINK WAS BROKEN WHEN THE SPRING BROKE THEREFORE THIS PART ALSO HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE BLESSING HERE IS THAT THIS DEFECT OCCURRED WHILE BACKING OUT OF MY OWN GARAGE RATHER THAN A HIGHWAY--HENCE GREATLY DECREASING MY RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298370
112,000 miles · Jan 5, 2010
Suspension
MY TAURUS EXPERIENCED A STRUT COIL SPRING FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN THE CUTTING THE INSIDE WALL OF THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE. BOTH STRUTS HAD TO BE REPLACED. IF THIS HAD HAPPENED THE HIGHWAY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I REPLACED ONE STRUT LAST YEAR SAMETIME AND OTHER THIS WEEK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298353
60,000 miles · Jan 5, 2010
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THE FRONT SUSPENSION ON THE PASSENGER SIDE HAS FAILED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT AS SHE MOVED HER VEHICLE INTO THE DRIVEWAY THE SUSPENSION SNAPPED AND RIPPED THE TIRES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER AND CONTACT WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE NO RELATED RECALLS OR WARR…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THE FRONT SUSPENSION ON THE PASSENGER SIDE HAS FAILED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT AS SHE MOVED HER VEHICLE INTO THE DRIVEWAY THE SUSPENSION SNAPPED AND RIPPED THE TIRES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER AND CONTACT WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE NO RELATED RECALLS OR WARRANTIES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 60,000.
NHTSA ODI #10298334
105,000 miles · Jan 5, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicSuspension
IN THE SUMMER OF 2009 MY 2002 FORD TAURUS WAS TAKEN TO THE SHOP FOR BRAKE ISSUES. WHILE THERE, THE CAR'S BACK SPRINGS WERE FOUND TO BE BROKEN. TO REPAIR THIS PROBLEM NEW PARTS WERE REQUIRED AND SUBSEQUENTLY BOUGHT AND REPLACED IN MY CAR. RECENTLY, IN THE PAST MONTH MY CAR STARTED TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUSPENSION AGAIN. WHEN …
Read full complaint
IN THE SUMMER OF 2009 MY 2002 FORD TAURUS WAS TAKEN TO THE SHOP FOR BRAKE ISSUES. WHILE THERE, THE CAR'S BACK SPRINGS WERE FOUND TO BE BROKEN. TO REPAIR THIS PROBLEM NEW PARTS WERE REQUIRED AND SUBSEQUENTLY BOUGHT AND REPLACED IN MY CAR. RECENTLY, IN THE PAST MONTH MY CAR STARTED TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUSPENSION AGAIN. WHEN I TOOK IT IN TO THE SHOP THEY TOLD ME THAT THE FRONT SPRINGS WERE BROKEN. AGAIN NEW PARTS WERE REQUIRED TO FIX IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298250
NHTSA investigations
4PE12033 · 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.
Illustration