IllustrationMY 2006 FORD TAURUS HAS STARTED TO ACCELERATE ITSELF. IT IS HAPPENING MORE OFTEN.THIS IS QUITE SCARY. IS THERE A RECALL REGARDING THIS OR WILL THERE BE ONE? AND IF NOT THEN DOES IT HAVE TO COME TO TO WHAT TOYOTA WENT THROUGH FOR FORD TO ISSUE A RECALL? *TR
2006 Ford Taurus
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2006 Ford Taurus do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 318.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Taurus years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
80–25K
2225–50K
6650–75K
7075–100K
86100–150K
20150K+
272 reports with mileage · 46 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.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 176 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 25 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
19 crash reports4 fire reports8 injury reports
What owners actually said
318 reportsI WAS DRIVING MY CAR TO DROP MY KIDS OFF AT SCHOOL AND DAYCARE WHEN I NOTICED IT WAS RUNNING AT AN EXTREMELY HIGH RPM (5000). I HAD TO DRIVE WITH BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKE PEDAL TO KEEP THE SPEED AT A REASONABLE LIMIT. ONCE I GOT TO THE FIRST SCHOOL, I PARKED AND SHUT IT OFF THINKING MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP. WHEN I STARTED IT BACK UP…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY CAR TO DROP MY KIDS OFF AT SCHOOL AND DAYCARE WHEN I NOTICED IT WAS RUNNING AT AN EXTREMELY HIGH RPM (5000). I HAD TO DRIVE WITH BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKE PEDAL TO KEEP THE SPEED AT A REASONABLE LIMIT. ONCE I GOT TO THE FIRST SCHOOL, I PARKED AND SHUT IT OFF THINKING MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP. WHEN I STARTED IT BACK UP, THE ENGINE RPM IMMEDIATELY SHOT BACK UP TO 5000 AND CLIMBING. THE ENGINE WAS MAKING SUCH A LOUD AND VIBRATORY NOISE THAT I SHUT IT OFF AGAIN AND CALLED MY HUSBAND AND HE CAME OVER AND TRADED VEHICLES WITH ME. SAME THING WHEN STARTED IT; IT IMMEDIATELY STARTED REVVING AND HE PUT IT INTO DRIVE AND THERE WAS LOUD THUD AS IF THE ENGINE HAD HIT THE GROUND. HE LET OFF THE GAS AND IT STARTED PULLING ITSELF. (NOW FROM MY HUSBAND'S EXPERIENCE) HE TOOK IT ON THE INTERSTATE TO SEE HOW HIGH THE SPEED WOULD GET BEFORE IT TOPPED OUT. EVENTUALLY HE HAD TO START APPLYING THE BRAKES AT 93 MPH. FOR WHATEVER REASON, HE WONDERED IF THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN A SAFE SPEED AND HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO RIDE THE BRAKES AT 65-70 MPH. WHEN HIT THE CRUISE CONTROL IT DIDN'T WORK (HE REALIZED HE WAS RIDING THE BRAKES) SO HE HIT THE BRAKE AS FIRMLY AS HE COULD TO GET IT DOWN TO A SLOWER SPEED TO INVOKE THE CRUISE CONTROL. ONCE HE GOT DOWN TO ABOUT 50-60 MPH HE HIT THE CRUISE AGAIN AND IT CAME ON BUT THE CAR WAS STILL SLOWLY ACCELERATING. HE HIT THE BRAKES TO TURN THE CRUISE OFF AND FELT THE GAS PEDAL POP UP AND HIT HIM ON THE SIDE OF THE RIGHT FOOT AND THEN THE CAR STARTED SLOWING DOWN. WE STILL HAVE TO DRIVE IT (HE DOES BECAUSE I?M TERRIFIED TO GET BEHIND THE WHEEL) AND IT DOES THE SAME THING. NOW HE JUST TAPS THE GAS PEDAL UNTIL RELEASES AND TRIES NOT TO PRESS THE GAS PEDAL TO DEEP. *TR
ENGINE KEEP RACING AND CAR TRIES TO GO WHILE BRAKING. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 25 MPH IN AN EXTENDED DRIVEWAY WHEN THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING FRACTURED AND SHREDDED THE INNER SIDE OF THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR THE FAILURE AND OFFERED NO ASSIS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 25 MPH IN AN EXTENDED DRIVEWAY WHEN THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SPRING FRACTURED AND SHREDDED THE INNER SIDE OF THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR THE FAILURE AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 116,000.
I HAVE A 2006 FORD TAURUS. I USED TO LIVE IN TEXAS AND MOVED TO BUFFALO AREA THIS SUMMER. THIS MORNING WHEN I DROVE MY CAR OUT OF THE PARKING LOT AND ONTO THE STREET ROAD, THE DRIVER DOOR SUDDENLY OPENED BY ITSELF. THEN I WAS TRYING TO CLOSE THE DOOR WHILE I WAS TRYING BUT ALL FAILED. THEN I HAD TO PULL MY CAR IN THE NEARBY PARK…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2006 FORD TAURUS. I USED TO LIVE IN TEXAS AND MOVED TO BUFFALO AREA THIS SUMMER. THIS MORNING WHEN I DROVE MY CAR OUT OF THE PARKING LOT AND ONTO THE STREET ROAD, THE DRIVER DOOR SUDDENLY OPENED BY ITSELF. THEN I WAS TRYING TO CLOSE THE DOOR WHILE I WAS TRYING BUT ALL FAILED. THEN I HAD TO PULL MY CAR IN THE NEARBY PARKING SPACE AND STOPPED THE CAR. EVENTUALLY AFTER TRYING QUITE A FEW TIMES, I COULD CLOSE THE DOOR. THIS MORNING WAS PRETTY COLD AND BELOW FREEZING TEMPERATURE. AFTER THIS INCIDENT, I CHECKED WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS. QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO DRIVE FORD TAURUS HAVE EXPERIENCED EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE DRIVER DOOR BEFORE. FURTHER I DID SOME RESEARCH ON INTERNET AND FOUND MANY COMPLAINTS ON THE DOOR CLOSING ISSUE OF FORD TAURUS DURING COLD WINTER. *TR
UNINTENTIONAL AND NEARLY UNCONTROLLABLE ACCELERATION. *TR
ABS CONTROL MODULE WAS IDENTIFIED AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP SHOP AS BAD AND NEEDING REPLACEMENT. $1,284 COST FOR REPLACEMENT WITH 33,785 ORIGINAL MILES. WITHOUT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE ABS BRAKES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. *TR
STARTED WITH JUST ABS AND "CHECK BRAKE SYSTEM" LIGHT COMING ON. ESCALATED TO SHUTTING THE CAR TOTALLY OFF WHILE DRIVING FREEWAY SPEEDS. PART OF THE DRIVING WAS AT NIGHT AND THE LIGHTS TURNED OFF ALSO MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO PULL OVER AND THANKFULLY NO ONE WAS BEHIND ME WHEN IT HAPPENED. TOOK IT TO FORD DEALER IN YAKIMA AND THEY …
Read full complaint
STARTED WITH JUST ABS AND "CHECK BRAKE SYSTEM" LIGHT COMING ON. ESCALATED TO SHUTTING THE CAR TOTALLY OFF WHILE DRIVING FREEWAY SPEEDS. PART OF THE DRIVING WAS AT NIGHT AND THE LIGHTS TURNED OFF ALSO MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO PULL OVER AND THANKFULLY NO ONE WAS BEHIND ME WHEN IT HAPPENED. TOOK IT TO FORD DEALER IN YAKIMA AND THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT GET IT TO DO THAT, EVEN THOUGH IT DID IT 3 TIMES ENROUTE AND ALSO WHEN I LEFT. TELL ME WHAT THIS IS SO I CAN GET IT FIXED! MAKES THE CAR BASICALLY UNDRIVABLEAND DANGEROUS TO PASSENGERS AND OTHER CARS ON THE ROAD. *TR
WHILE DRIVING THE CAR LOSES POWER AND YOU HAVE TO COAST TO A SAFE PLACE TO STOP. AFTER A FEW MINUTES IT STARTS BACK UP AND RUNS FINE. THIS HAS HAPPENED 6 TIMES. 2 DEALERSHIPS, 2 REPLACED FUEL PUMPS AND MODULES, 1 REPLACED PROCESSOR AND BATTERY LATER ITS STILL DOING THE SAME THING! NOW THE FORD DEALERSHIP SAYS THEY CAN'T GO AN…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE CAR LOSES POWER AND YOU HAVE TO COAST TO A SAFE PLACE TO STOP. AFTER A FEW MINUTES IT STARTS BACK UP AND RUNS FINE. THIS HAS HAPPENED 6 TIMES. 2 DEALERSHIPS, 2 REPLACED FUEL PUMPS AND MODULES, 1 REPLACED PROCESSOR AND BATTERY LATER ITS STILL DOING THE SAME THING! NOW THE FORD DEALERSHIP SAYS THEY CAN'T GO ANYFURTHER WITH THE VEHICLE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I AM GUESSING THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER 2006 TAURUS DRIVERS WHO HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE SAME PROBLEM WASN'T ENOUGH FOR FORD TO DO A RECALL. BUT I AM TELLING YOU IF MY HUSBAND WHO DRIVES THE VEHICLE DIES BECAUSE OF THIS FORD WILL HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS BECAUSE I WILL SUE! *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD EXHIBIT A LOUD NOISE WHEN STARTING. IN ADDITION, THE VEHICLE WOULD ALSO STALL SPORADICALLY AND WITHOUT WARNING, THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED AND THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD CONTINUOUSLY DEACTIVATE. NEITHER THE DEALER NOR THE MANUFACTURER …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 FORD TAURUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD EXHIBIT A LOUD NOISE WHEN STARTING. IN ADDITION, THE VEHICLE WOULD ALSO STALL SPORADICALLY AND WITHOUT WARNING, THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED AND THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD CONTINUOUSLY DEACTIVATE. NEITHER THE DEALER NOR THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 117,340.
Official recalls
206V119000 · Electrical System: Instrument Cluster/panel
Apr 10, 2006
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.
05V520000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer:motor
Nov 9, 2005
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 ↗
NHTSA investigations
1PE12005 · Stuck Throttle
Opened Mar 7, 2012 · Closed Oct 22, 2012
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; 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
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