IllustrationWHILE DRIVING ON MAJOR HIGHWAY THE CONTROL ARM PULLED LOOSE FROM THE BALL JOINTS- NO SERIOUS INJURIES. TT
1982 Lincoln Continental
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
Counts are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. A lower count does not establish that a car is problem-free.
About this comparison →1Owner complaints
Model-year median: 32
1Recall campaignsView recall details →
1InvestigationsView investigation details →
Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗ Model-level counts do not show whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.
Inspection summary
1982 Lincoln Continental
NHTSA snapshot: September 18, 2026. 1 owner complaints · 1 recall campaigns · 1 investigations.
Counts are not failure probabilities and are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. One report may name several categories. Comparison method and limitations.
Top reported categories (up to 5)
- Suspension: 1 reports
Full reported-category list and vehicle report
Recall links
Check a VIN with NHTSA. Model-level history does not establish whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.
Print the top reported categories, recall links, snapshot date and comparison limits.
How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Continental years →Counts vary with age, sales, mileage exposure and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 0 of 1 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports
What owners actually said
1 reportsRecall campaigns
182V041000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly:filler Pipe And Cap
Apr 27, 1982
THE INVOLVED VEHICLES MAY HAVE BEEN PRODUCED WITH AN INADEQUATE SEAL BETWEEN THE FUEL FILLER PIPE-HOUSING ASSEMBLY AND THE FUEL FILLER OPENING-COLLAR ASSEMBLY. TWO ATTACHING SCREWS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS JOINT WERE OMITTED DURING ASSEMBLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A SMALL QUANTITY OF OVERFLOW FUEL COULD LEAK INTO THE RIGHT REAR FENDER WELL BEHIND THE LUGGAGE COMPARTMENT TRIM PANEL IF FUEL "SPIT-BACK" OR OVERFILLING WERE TO OCCUR DURING REFUELING.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Not supplied
Remedy: DEALER WILL INSTALL THE TWO MISSING FASTENERS AND A LOWER FLANGE REINFORCEMENT AT NO COST TO OWNER.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
Defect investigations
1PE89039 · Parking Brake Failure
Opened Feb 9, 1989 · Closed Jun 13, 1989
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Parking Brake
SUMMARY:THE SPRING UNDER INVESTIGATION CAUSES THE LATCHING PAWL TOENGAGE THE TEETH OF THE RATCHET WHEREBY THE PARKING BRAKE IS RETAINEDIN THE APPLIED POSITION.IF THE SPRING FAILS, THE PEDAL FOLLOWS THEOPERATORS FOOT BACK UP INTO THE RELEASED POSITION.FORD STATES THAT IT ISSUED THE BULLETIN IN ORDER TO INFORM DEALERSTHAT THE SPRING WAS NEWLY AVAILABLE AS A SEPARATE PART.PREVIOUSLY,IT WAS NECESSARY TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE PARKING BRAKE CONTROL ASSEMBLY INORDER TO OBTAIN A NEW SPRING.SINCE THE FAILURE OF THE SPRING WILL NOT CAUSE THE PARKING BRAKE TOSUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY RELEASE AND SINCE THERE IS ADEQUATE WARNINGOF THE FAILURE, NO SAFETY DEFECT TREND WAS FOUND.===
An investigation is not a finding of a defect, and closure does not prove a vehicle is problem-free.