1997 Mercury Marquis

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCURY MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH ON NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS. THE DRIVER LOSS STEERING CONTROL. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO AN UTILITY POLE, BOULDER AND FENCE. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED MINOR INJURY. THE POLICE WAS NOT CALLED TO THE SCENE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THE FAILURE WAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE STEERING GEAR BOX. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE DAMAGES TO THE STRUCTURE BODY OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 63,000. THE DEFECTIVE STEERING GEAR BOX IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCURY MARQUIS. THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL SWITCH WAS DISCONNECTED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2007. THE DEALER STATED ON THREE OCCASIONS THAT THE PART FOR THE REPAIR WOULD BE AVAILABLE. MORE RECENTLY, THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE PARTS WILL BE AVAILABLE. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 93,045. UPDATE 04-02-08 *BF

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCURY MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WENT TO HIS LOCAL FORD DEALER AND THEY DISCONNECTED THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH. HE BELIEVED THAT THE RECALL REPAIR FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL) WAS BEING PERFORMED; HOWEVER, HE LATER LEARNED THAT THE SWITCH HAD ONLY BEEN DISCONNECTED. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2007. HE FELT THIS INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED EITHER IN THE SAFETY RECALL NOTICE OR THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT, IMPLYING THAT THE REPAIR HAD BEEN MADE. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE PURCHASE DATE WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 69,000.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE PIPE THAT EXTENDS FROM THE FENDER WHERE FUEL IS APPLIED HAS RUSTED OUT. THE FAILURE IS CAUSING A FUEL LEAK. THE CONTACT HAS FOUND LARGE PUDDLES OF GASOLINE UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHO STATED THAT IT NEEDED A GAS FILLER PIPE. THE MECHANIC ALSO STATED THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT PART IS NO LONGER PRODUCED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 56,000.

1997 MOUNTAINEER, ENGINE RACE, COULD NOT STOP THE CAR. USED THE BRAKES BUT ENGINE RACED AND BANGED INTO OUR HOUSE IN ORDER TO STOP. THIS WAS THE FOURTH INCIDENT, IN A MONTH TIME. OTHER INCIDENTS WERE HITTING A CAR IN ORDER FOR THE CAR TO STOP. NO ONE WAS HURT, THANK GOODNESS. BUT THIS WAS SCARY. WE WANT TO SELL THE CAR, BUT CAN'T WITH GOOD CONSCIENCE UNTIL WE CAN FIND THE CULPRIT. PLEASE ADVISE OR CONFIRM DIFFICULTY WITH THE CAR. THANKS. *AK

WHILE DRIVING ON FREEWAY AT FREEWAY SPEED, MY 1997 GRAND MARQUIS, LS WAS RUNNING AT NORMAL TEMP. ALL OF A SUDDEN WITHIN A MATTER OF A MINUTE OR TWO, THE TEMP GAUGE MAXED OUT, CAR STARTED SMOKING, ALL COOLANT WAS LOST. I PULLED OVER IMMEDIATELY, AND UPON INSPECTION I FOUND THAT THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED APPROX A 3-4" CRACK. I WAS STRANDED, HAD TO TOW MY CAR APPROX 134 MILES TO GET HOME. THIS IS A $269.99 PART NOT TO MENTION THE GASKETS, ANTI-FREEZE AND LABOR INVOLVED TO FIX. I FEEL THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND I SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THE COST OF THE PART AT THE VERY LEAST. *JB

MY 93 YEAR OLD AUNT PAID $950.00 TO HAVE THE MANIFOLD REPAIRED 8/6/04 ON HER 1997 MERCURY, AND NOW FORD DOES NOT WANT TO PAY HER, WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP. MY UNCLE CAME BACK FROM WWII BOUGHT A NEW FORD OR MERCURY EVERY 2-3 YEARS FOR 50 YEARS, WHAT GRATITUDE. I SEE WHY FORD AND GM IS GOING DOWN THE TUBES. IT EXCLUDED CARS THAT WERE MORE THAN 7 YEARS OLD WHEN THEY EXPERIENCED MANIFOLD FAILURE. BASED UPON THAT 7-YEAR PERIOD, WE BELIEVE THAT ALL 1996 AND 1997 CARS ( AND MANY 1998'S ) THAT FAILED IN 2004 - 2005 (APPROX.) OR HAVEN'T YET FAILED, WERE DENIED COVERAGE. THE CONCEPT ADOPTED IN THE SETTLEMENT APPEARED TO BE THAT "CIVILIANS" SHOULD NOT GET WARRANTY COVERAGE LONGER THAN THE 7 YEARS THAT WAS GIVEN TO THOSE CARS COVERED BY THE 1999 OWNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAM. ( ONE OF THE LAWYERS TOLD US THAT THEY SETTLED FOR THE 7-YEAR COVERAGE BECAUSE, DURING A COURT HEARING, THE JUDGE HAD SAID THAT SHE WAS NOT LIKELY TO GRANT COVERAGE LONGER THAN WHAT THE "FLEETS" GOT. )*JB