IllustrationWHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE CONSUMER APPLIED THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE BRAKES FAILED. THE CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND DROVE IT TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE REAR BRAKES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *AK *JB
1997 Mercury Grand Marquis
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Grand Marquis years
Owner complaints for the 1997 Mercury Grand Marquis are substantially higher than the model-year median of 78.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Grand Marquis 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
10–25K
1225–50K
3550–75K
4375–100K
27100–150K
7150K+
125 reports with mileage · 191 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 124 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
11 crash reports6 fire reports9 injury reports
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
32 reports1. CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN AT NORMAL SPEED, APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, AND BRAKES WERE APPLIED. BRAKE PEDAL TRAVELED FURTHER THAN NORMAL AND BRAKE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME I OPENED THE HOOD AND SAW THE BRAKE FLUID LEVEL IN THE MASTER CYLINDER HAD DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY. ON FURTHER INSPECTION I SAW BRAKE FLUID ON THE…
Read full complaint
1. CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN AT NORMAL SPEED, APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, AND BRAKES WERE APPLIED. BRAKE PEDAL TRAVELED FURTHER THAN NORMAL AND BRAKE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME I OPENED THE HOOD AND SAW THE BRAKE FLUID LEVEL IN THE MASTER CYLINDER HAD DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY. ON FURTHER INSPECTION I SAW BRAKE FLUID ON THE FRAME RAIL ON THE DRIVER SIDE OF THE CAR AT A LOCATION UNDER THE DRIVER SIDE FRONT DOOR (APPROXIMATELY). 2. IT APPEARS THAT THE REAR BRAKE LINE WAS RUBBING ON THE CAR BODY/FRAME STRUCTURE AND WORE THROUGH ALLOWING THE BRAKE FLUID TO LEAK OUT. 3. NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN DONE YET. I AM STILL INVESTIGATING MY OPTIONS: REPAIR AT MY EXPENSE, FILE A CLAIM WITH FORD, ETC.
WITHIN A WEEK OF CHANGING THE TIRES THE BRAKES FAILED. *PH THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED BRAKE FLUID ON THE GROUND. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT TO REAR BRAKE LINE HAD RUPTURED DUE TO RUST. (SON ON BEHALF OF HIS MOTHER ANNETTE MEYERS). *JB
BRAKE LINE FAILURE...RUBBING/EXTREME CORROSION FAILURE OCCURRED AFTER 6 YEARS AND IS CAUSED BY ROUTING/RETAINERS/RUBBER INSULATORS/EXTREMELY POOR CORROSION PROTECTION ON THE EUROPEAN METRIC BUBBLE FLARE LINES. SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED ON OUR PREVIOUS GRAND MARQUIS-1993 AFTER 6 YEARS. IN THIS CASE VEHICLE RESIDED IN SYRACUSE ONLY…
Read full complaint
BRAKE LINE FAILURE...RUBBING/EXTREME CORROSION FAILURE OCCURRED AFTER 6 YEARS AND IS CAUSED BY ROUTING/RETAINERS/RUBBER INSULATORS/EXTREMELY POOR CORROSION PROTECTION ON THE EUROPEAN METRIC BUBBLE FLARE LINES. SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED ON OUR PREVIOUS GRAND MARQUIS-1993 AFTER 6 YEARS. IN THIS CASE VEHICLE RESIDED IN SYRACUSE ONLY 2 YEARS AND SPENT 4 MORE IN S.E. MASSACHUSETTS. BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AND THE NUMBER OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS ON THIS TYPE VEHICLE(1990-1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA/MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS) A SAFETY RECALL SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED/ISSUED. *CB
A REAR BRAKE LINE ON OUR 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS TOTALLY FAILED. WHEN I STEPPED ON THE BRAKE PEDAL, IT WENT TO THE FLOOR RESULTING IN A PUDDLE OF BRAKE FLUID UNDER THE CAR JUST BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SEAT. FORTUNATELY THIS HAPPENED WHEN THE CAR WAS IN OUR DRIVEWAY AND NOT WHILE DRIVING TO WORK ON THE HIGHWAY. WE PURCHASED THIS C…
Read full complaint
A REAR BRAKE LINE ON OUR 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS TOTALLY FAILED. WHEN I STEPPED ON THE BRAKE PEDAL, IT WENT TO THE FLOOR RESULTING IN A PUDDLE OF BRAKE FLUID UNDER THE CAR JUST BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SEAT. FORTUNATELY THIS HAPPENED WHEN THE CAR WAS IN OUR DRIVEWAY AND NOT WHILE DRIVING TO WORK ON THE HIGHWAY. WE PURCHASED THIS CAR NEW IN NOVEMBER 1996 AND HAD ONLY 47,441 MILES ON IT AT THE TIME OF THE FAILURE. AN INSPECTION OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES SHOWED THEY WERE BOTH EXTREMELY CORRODED ALONG THEIR ENTIRE LENGTH. THE MERCURY DEALER HAD TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE BRAKE AND FUEL LINE ASSEMBLY ($1223) ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CAR. THE FINAL COST TO REPAIR THE LEAKING BRAKE LINE WAS $1901. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AT THIS RELATIVELY SMALL MERCURY DEALERSHIP ESTIMATED THEY DO THIS REPAIR ABOUT ONCE A MONTH ON MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS AND LINCOLN TOWN CARS. I BELIEVE THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM RESULTING FROM MERCURY EITHER SPECIFYING OR USING AN INADEQUATE MATERIAL FOR THIS CRITICAL SAFETY PART. WHEN I INVESTIGATED THIS PROBLEM ON THE INTERNET I FOUND THAT NHTSA IS CONDUCTING AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF THIS BASIC PROBLEM (ACTION# EA03-012) AND CONTACTED MERCURY CUSTOMER RELATIONS PRIOR TO MAKING THE REPAIR. THEY POLITELY SAID THE CAR IS OUT OF WARRANTY AND IT IS MY PROBLEM NOT THEIRS. I SUSPECT THAT THE 710 BRAKE LINE FAILURES LISTED IN NHTSA ACTION# EA03-012 FOR 1995-1997 GRAND MARQUIS, TOWN CAR AND CROWN VICTORIA VEHICLES IS JUST THE SURFACE OF THE PROBLEM SINCE MOST REPAIRS LIKE MINE ARE MADE OUT OF WARRANTY AND NOT REPORTED. *JB
THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING IN THE MOUNTAINS WHEN THE BRAKES FADEDON A COLD/RAINY NIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A FORD DEALER WHO REPLACED THE BRAKE LINE. THE HOLE RUBBED IN THE LINE AT THE CROSS MEMBER. THE NEW BRAKE LINE WAS REROUTED AWAY FROM THE BODY AND WAS INSULATED.*SCC REFERENCED IN RQ03-004
NO SUMMARY LISTED FOR ABOVE VEHIVLE. *AK
WHENEVER USING CRUISE CONTROL BRAKES GO OUT. ONCE CONSUMER SLID AND LANDED IN A DITCH. *AK
WHILE DRIVING ABOUT 40 MPH AND STEEPING ON THE BRAKES, PEDAL WENT ALMOST TO THE FLOORBOARD. DEALER REPAIRED METAL BRAKE LINE AND ADDED BRAKE FLUID. AK *SLC REFERENCED IN RQ03-004
MY WIFE DRIVING, COME TO NARROW WITH APPROACHING CAR, HIT BRAKES TO SLOW DOWN WHERE SHE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PASS ON BRIDGE WITH OTHER CAR, HER CAR SLOWED, NOTHING SEEM WRONG WITH BRAKES, BUT SOME MILES LATER, COMING UPON A CURVE, HIT BRAKES TO SLOW TO MAKE CURVE, NO BRAKES. SHE BOUGHT FLUID, AS FLUID WAS GONE, DROVE ABOUT 20 MI…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE DRIVING, COME TO NARROW WITH APPROACHING CAR, HIT BRAKES TO SLOW DOWN WHERE SHE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PASS ON BRIDGE WITH OTHER CAR, HER CAR SLOWED, NOTHING SEEM WRONG WITH BRAKES, BUT SOME MILES LATER, COMING UPON A CURVE, HIT BRAKES TO SLOW TO MAKE CURVE, NO BRAKES. SHE BOUGHT FLUID, AS FLUID WAS GONE, DROVE ABOUT 20 MILES BACK HOME. WHEN I CAME IN, NO FLUID IN RESVERE, PUT SOME IN, PUMPED BRAKES, FLUID POURED OUT ON CONCRETE UNDER FRONT DRIVERS DOOR. HAD TOWED TO DEALER, THE LINE HAD RUBBED WHOLE IN LINE UP AGAINST FRAME. THEY REPAIRED IT, REFLUIDED IT AND CHARGE ME ALMOST 82.00. I DID CALL MERCURY CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND THEY GOT THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP TO BRING IT TO THE PRICE STATED. FIRST PRICE WAS OVER 100.00. MY DAUGHTER AND GRANDDAUGHTER WHO IS 8 MONTHS WITH CHILD WAS IN THE CAR WITH MY WIFE. *AK
Official recalls
408V051000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
Feb 4, 2008
FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
07V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
00V157001 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET DRIVER'S SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
00V157002 · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
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
7DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, 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.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, 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.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, 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.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, 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.
EA03012 · Rear Brake Line Failure
Opened Jul 25, 2003 · Closed Apr 11, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
IN A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2005, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM (FORD NO. 04B26) TO CORRECT A REAR BRAKE LINE CHAFING CONCERN IN APPROXIMATELY 44,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1997 FORD CROWN VICTORIA AND GRAND MARQUIS NON-FLEET VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL THAT WEREBUILT AFTER MARCH 19, 1997.THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL REAR BRAKE LINE AND A MASTIC PATCH CAUSING REDUCED CLEARANCE FROM A STIFFENING RIB IN THE FLOOR PAN.ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED HIGHER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY RATES RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THIS POPULATION THAN IN OTHER SUBJECT VEHICLES AND PEER MID-SIZED PASSENGER CARS THAT WERE EVALUATED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.VEHICLES INVOLVED IN FORD?S PROGRAM WILL HAVE THE REAR BRAKE LINES INSPECTED FOR CONTACT WITH THE FLOOR PAN STIFFING RIB.IF THERE IS CONTACT, BUT NO ABRASION OR LEAKAGE, THE BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPOSITIONED.IF THERE IS ABRASION OR A LEAK IS EVIDENT THE BRAKE LINE WILL BE REPAIRED.IF NECESSARY, BOTH OF THE REAR BRAKE LINES WILL BE REPLACED. THOUGH FORD DOES NOT ADMIT TO A SAFETY-DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE FACTS IN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOW OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IN THE ROUTING OF THOSE BRAKE LINES MAY RESULT IN LEAKS IN THOSE LINES THAT MAY RESULT IN INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES.ODI IS DESIGNATING THE CAMPAIGN A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-086).BECAUSE OF THE LOW RATES OF BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE REMAINING SUBJECT VEHICLES, A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THOSE POPULATIONS AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS IN THOSE VEHICLES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
RQ03004 · Rear Brake Line Failure
Opened Mar 11, 2003 · Closed Jul 25, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
ODI HAS RECEIVED 40 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING 8 THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR.AN ADDITIONAL 192 REPORTS AND 478 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FORD.A LEAK IN THE REAR BRAKE LINE CAN CAUSE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.A SEARCH OF ODI'S COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR PEER VEHICLE COMPLAINTS, USING THE SAME BRAKE LINE FAILURE CRITERIA AS FOR THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE SAME MODEL YEARS (1995-97), IDENTIFIED ONLY 1 COMPLAINT INVOLVING GENERAL MOTORS CAPRICE/IMPLALA/88/98/REGAL VEHICLES AND ONLY 2 COMPLAINTS INVOLVING CHRYSLER LH-CARS.THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE, AND CAUSAL FACTORS RELATED TO REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.
RQ03002 · Ball Joint Separation
Opened Jan 3, 2003 · Closed Jun 3, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
SEE ATTACHED REPORT.
EA02025 · Speed Control Deactivation Switch Fires
Opened Sep 6, 2002 · Closed Jun 30, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling
BASED ON THE LOW RATE OF FIRE INCIDENTS (2.5 INCIDENTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES SOLD) WHERE FAILURE OF THE SCDS IS INVOLVED AND THE AGE OF THE VEHICLES ? 7 TO 11 YEARS ? A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.
DP02007 · FUEL-FED Fires
Opened Aug 22, 2002 · Closed Dec 4, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
THE FARS DATA SHOWS THAT THE RISK OF FIRE FROM IMPACT IN ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS THE SAME AS ALL OTHER SEDANS.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT OVER REPRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE RISK OF FIRE IN REAL-WORLD HIGH-ENERGY CRASHES.A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO POST CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS SET OUT IN THE CLOSING REPORT FOR SQ 01-014 AND THAT REPORT IS IN THE DOCKET FOR THIS PETITION.AFTER REVIEWING THE PETITION AND ITS SUPPORTING MATERIALS, AS WELL AS INFORMATION FURNISHED BY FORD AND GM, AND INFORMATION WITHIN THE AGENCY'S POSSESSION FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS,NHTSA HAS CONCLUDED THAT FUTHER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING POST-CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO A DECISION THAT THE VEHICLES CONTAIN A SAFETY DEFECT.
SQ01014 · Post Rear End Collision Fires
Opened Nov 27, 2001 · Closed Oct 3, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
There is no summary currently available