SUBJECT: HEAD REST CONSTRUCTION IN NEW 2006 FORD FOCUS IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEAD REST IS ANGLED FORWARD ACUTELY SO THAT IT STRIKES ON A HORIZONTAL LINE ACROSS THE BACK OF THE HEAD. THE HEAD REST FORCES THE HEAD DOWNWARD INTO THE CHIN, AND MOST IRRITATINGLY CREATES A CONTINUING DISTRACTION TO THE DRIVER WHO…
Read full complaint
SUBJECT: HEAD REST CONSTRUCTION IN NEW 2006 FORD FOCUS IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEAD REST IS ANGLED FORWARD ACUTELY SO THAT IT STRIKES ON A HORIZONTAL LINE ACROSS THE BACK OF THE HEAD. THE HEAD REST FORCES THE HEAD DOWNWARD INTO THE CHIN, AND MOST IRRITATINGLY CREATES A CONTINUING DISTRACTION TO THE DRIVER WHO FEELS AS IF SOMEONE IS CONSTANTLY PLAYING WITH THEIR HAIR. WE WERE ADVISED THAT THERE IS "NOTHING" THAT THE DEALERSHIP CAN DO TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM AS IT IS A DESIGN ISSUE GIVEN THE DEALERSHIP BY FORD MOTOR CO. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT OTHER FOCUS MODELS, CONFIRMS THAT OF THE TWO HEAD REST IN EVERY VEHICLE, ONE IS PREDOMINATELY "PUSHED FORWARD" OF THE OTHERS, AND THAT THE FORWARD ANGLES IN ALL EXAMINED HEAD REST IS DIFFERENT. WE HAVE TOLD THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT REPAIRABLE, BUT CAN BE MODIFIED. FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR DEALERSHIP CONSUMER AFFAIRS MANAGER HAVE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM SEEN NOT JUST IN THE FOCUS, BUT IN OTHER FORD MODELS AS WELL. IT APPEARS THAT THE USUAL FIX IS TO SIMPLY SWAP HEAD REST - I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT IN SOME CASES THE HEAD REST ARE SIMPLY TURNED AROUND THE OTHER DIRECTION TO RESOLVE THE CUSTOMER COMPLAINT - OR REMOVED ALTOGETHER. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED AN ACCIDENT AS A RESULT OF THIS CONCERN, MY WIFE HAS REPORTED ONE "INCIDENT" IN WHICH SHE ALMOST BACKED INTO A VEHICLE BECAUSE SHE KNEE-JERK REACTED TO REACH BACK TO MOVE AWAY "SOMETHING CRAWLING ON MY HEAD." I AM CONCERNED THAT WHAT APPEARS TO BE A DEFECT THAT CAN BE RANDOMLY WORSE ON SOME VEHICLES MORE THAN OTHERS, CREATES A DISTRACTION WHILE DRIVING THAT MAY PRECIPITATE AN ACCIDENT. FURTHER, DEALERSHIP SOLUTIONS MAY EXPOSE CONSUMERS TO SOLUTIONS THAT SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE HEAD REST AS A SAFETY DEVICE ARE YOU AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, AND IS ANY EFFORT BEING MADE TO RECALL THE DEFECTIVE HEAD REST AND REPLACE THEM WITH ERGONOMIC REPLACEMENTS? THANK YOU. *NM
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES BUILT FOR ONE SPECIFIC FLEET CUSTOMER WERE MODIFIED FOR OPTIONAL HANDS-FREE CELLULAR PHONE OPERATING CAPABILITY. TO PROVIDE THIS FUNCTIONALITY, A SPECIAL OVERLAY WIRE HARNESS WAS INSTALLED THAT INADVERTENTLY DID NOT INCLUDE THE CIRCUITS FOR PASSENGER AIR BAG DEACTIVATION INDICATOR (PADI) LAMP FUNCTION. AS A RESULT, THESE VEHICLES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 208, 'OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION.'
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE PADI LAMP WILL FAIL TO ILLUMINATE AND THE AIR BAG WARNING LAMP IN THE CLUSTER WILL STAY ILLUMINATED.
Remedy: THE FLEET CUSTOMER WAS NOTIFIED AND ALL VEHICLES HAVE BEEN REPAIRED. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 28, 2006.
ON CERTAIN TRUCKS, PASSENGER CARS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THE WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR MAY HAVE BEEN PRODUCED WITHOUT GREASE BEING APPLIED TO THE OUTPUT SHAFT GEAR.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AFTER A PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS USE ON THE HIGH SPEED SETTING, LACK OF GREASE ON THE OUTPUT SHAFT GEAR MAY CAUSE THE GEAR TO DISTORT OR FRACTURE DURING OPERATION RESULTING IN A LOSS OF WIPER FUNCTION. INOPERATIVE WIPERS UNDER INCLEMENT WEATHER CONDITIONS COULD CAUSE A CRASH DUE TO IMPAIRED VISIBILITY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE WIPER MOTOR FOR THE PRESENCE OF GREASE AND GREASE THE WIPER MOTOR GEARS IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON NOVEMBER 22, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673 OR LINCOLN/MERCURY AT 1-800-521-4140.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
Preliminary Evaluation (PE)12-005 was opened to investigate allegations of speed control cables detaching from the throttle body and subsequently interfering with the throttle closing fully to the idle position in model year (MY) 2005 and 2006 Ford Taurus vehicles.The speed control cable, throttle body attachment arm (?nail head?) for the speed control cable, cable mounting bracket and cable routing for the MY 2005 and 2006 Ford Taurus are common to all MY 2004 through 2006 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable vehicles equipped with either the 155 HP 3.0L 2-valve Vulcan engine or the 200 HP 3.0L 4-valve Duratec engine (the ?subject vehicles?). Figures 1 and 2 show the throttle body cam and speed control cable installed and a cable interference condition caused by contact between a detached cable and the ?nail head.?Ford?s assessment of the condition in incident vehicles noted that the interference conditions produced tended to be short in duration as the cable end tended to dislodge itself from the throttle body due to vibration, road loads or engine roll in addition to tapping the acceleration pedal.Ford inspected three incident vehicles and measured maximum throttle openings of 5.8% to 14.9%, resulting in engine speeds ranging from 1600 to 2200 rpm with the transmission selector in Drive.A Ford stack-up analysis of the speed control cable length from the attachment bracket to the throttle body indicated a maximum theoretical throttle opening of 16.4% that could result from the alleged defect. Engineers at the NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) inspected an incident vehicle to evaluate throttle positions and engine speeds that could result from the alleged defect and performed brake testing of a vehicle with the throttle stuck at the worst case throttle opening that could result from the condition.The VRTC vehicle inspection noted that, depending on the orientation of the detached cable end, the amount of throttle opening that could result from interference by a detached speed control cable end varied from 4.8% to 11.3%.VRTC brake testing of a MY 2006 Taurus with a Vulcan engine and the throttle held open at 16% found that, even with multiple brake applications, sufficient vacuum was available for the brake booster assist and the brake pedal efforts required to stop the vehicle did not increase significantly from normal operating conditions. ODI?s analysis of 100 complaints related to the alleged defect found that drivers were generally able to free the interference condition or safely brake to a stop without incident.Approximately one-third (32) reported that the stuck throttle condition was corrected with no action or by tapping the accelerator pedal while the vehicle was still moving, another third (34) reported braking to a stop with the vehicle in Drive prior to correcting the condition, and the remaining third (34) reported that the driver responded to the incident by shifting to Neutral before stopping the vehicle.One complaint alleged that stuck-throttle type symptoms caused the vehicle to pass partially through a traffic light and into an intersection before stopping, however,ODI was unable to contact the owner to verify the cause or relationship to the alleged defect condition.ODI has not identified any crashes related to the alleged defect. Tables 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of complaints and warranty claims related to the alleged defect by engine and model year.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 do
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:cables
Preliminary Evaluation (PE)12-005 was opened to investigate allegations of speed control cables detaching from the throttle body and subsequently interfering with the throttle closing fully to the idle position in model year (MY) 2005 and 2006 Ford Taurus vehicles.The speed control cable, throttle body attachment arm (?nail head?) for the speed control cable, cable mounting bracket and cable routing for the MY 2005 and 2006 Ford Taurus are common to all MY 2004 through 2006 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable vehicles equipped with either the 155 HP 3.0L 2-valve Vulcan engine or the 200 HP 3.0L 4-valve Duratec engine (the ?subject vehicles?). Figures 1 and 2 show the throttle body cam and speed control cable installed and a cable interference condition caused by contact between a detached cable and the ?nail head.?Ford?s assessment of the condition in incident vehicles noted that the interference conditions produced tended to be short in duration as the cable end tended to dislodge itself from the throttle body due to vibration, road loads or engine roll in addition to tapping the acceleration pedal.Ford inspected three incident vehicles and measured maximum throttle openings of 5.8% to 14.9%, resulting in engine speeds ranging from 1600 to 2200 rpm with the transmission selector in Drive.A Ford stack-up analysis of the speed control cable length from the attachment bracket to the throttle body indicated a maximum theoretical throttle opening of 16.4% that could result from the alleged defect. Engineers at the NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) inspected an incident vehicle to evaluate throttle positions and engine speeds that could result from the alleged defect and performed brake testing of a vehicle with the throttle stuck at the worst case throttle opening that could result from the condition.The VRTC vehicle inspection noted that, depending on the orientation of the detached cable end, the amount of throttle opening that could result from interference by a detached speed control cable end varied from 4.8% to 11.3%.VRTC brake testing of a MY 2006 Taurus with a Vulcan engine and the throttle held open at 16% found that, even with multiple brake applications, sufficient vacuum was available for the brake booster assist and the brake pedal efforts required to stop the vehicle did not increase significantly from normal operating conditions. ODI?s analysis of 100 complaints related to the alleged defect found that drivers were generally able to free the interference condition or safely brake to a stop without incident.Approximately one-third (32) reported that the stuck throttle condition was corrected with no action or by tapping the accelerator pedal while the vehicle was still moving, another third (34) reported braking to a stop with the vehicle in Drive prior to correcting the condition, and the remaining third (34) reported that the driver responded to the incident by shifting to Neutral before stopping the vehicle.One complaint alleged that stuck-throttle type symptoms caused the vehicle to pass partially through a traffic light and into an intersection before stopping, however,ODI was unable to contact the owner to verify the cause or relationship to the alleged defect condition.ODI has not identified any crashes related to the alleged defect. Tables 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of complaints and warranty claims related to the alleged defect by engine and model year.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 do
Vehicle Speed Control
Preliminary Evaluation (PE)12-005 was opened to investigate allegations of speed control cables detaching from the throttle body and subsequently interfering with the throttle closing fully to the idle position in model year (MY) 2005 and 2006 Ford Taurus vehicles.The speed control cable, throttle body attachment arm (?nail head?) for the speed control cable, cable mounting bracket and cable routing for the MY 2005 and 2006 Ford Taurus are common to all MY 2004 through 2006 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable vehicles equipped with either the 155 HP 3.0L 2-valve Vulcan engine or the 200 HP 3.0L 4-valve Duratec engine (the ?subject vehicles?). Figures 1 and 2 show the throttle body cam and speed control cable installed and a cable interference condition caused by contact between a detached cable and the ?nail head.?Ford?s assessment of the condition in incident vehicles noted that the interference conditions produced tended to be short in duration as the cable end tended to dislodge itself from the throttle body due to vibration, road loads or engine roll in addition to tapping the acceleration pedal.Ford inspected three incident vehicles and measured maximum throttle openings of 5.8% to 14.9%, resulting in engine speeds ranging from 1600 to 2200 rpm with the transmission selector in Drive.A Ford stack-up analysis of the speed control cable length from the attachment bracket to the throttle body indicated a maximum theoretical throttle opening of 16.4% that could result from the alleged defect. Engineers at the NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) inspected an incident vehicle to evaluate throttle positions and engine speeds that could result from the alleged defect and performed brake testing of a vehicle with the throttle stuck at the worst case throttle opening that could result from the condition.The VRTC vehicle inspection noted that, depending on the orientation of the detached cable end, the amount of throttle opening that could result from interference by a detached speed control cable end varied from 4.8% to 11.3%.VRTC brake testing of a MY 2006 Taurus with a Vulcan engine and the throttle held open at 16% found that, even with multiple brake applications, sufficient vacuum was available for the brake booster assist and the brake pedal efforts required to stop the vehicle did not increase significantly from normal operating conditions. ODI?s analysis of 100 complaints related to the alleged defect found that drivers were generally able to free the interference condition or safely brake to a stop without incident.Approximately one-third (32) reported that the stuck throttle condition was corrected with no action or by tapping the accelerator pedal while the vehicle was still moving, another third (34) reported braking to a stop with the vehicle in Drive prior to correcting the condition, and the remaining third (34) reported that the driver responded to the incident by shifting to Neutral before stopping the vehicle.One complaint alleged that stuck-throttle type symptoms caused the vehicle to pass partially through a traffic light and into an intersection before stopping, however,ODI was unable to contact the owner to verify the cause or relationship to the alleged defect condition.ODI has not identified any crashes related to the alleged defect. Tables 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of complaints and warranty claims related to the alleged defect by engine and model year.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 do
2006 Ford Taurus Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year
Illustration