← New search

1988 Motor Coach Intercity Coach

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Intercity Coach years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

No component reports in this snapshot.

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 0 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.

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports

What owners actually said

0 reports

No matching complaints in this snapshot.

Official recalls

0

No recalls in this snapshot.

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

2

EA89034 · Arm Rest Failures

Opened Aug 22, 1989 · Closed Oct 31, 1989

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats

SUMMARY:IN THE MCI RESPONSE TO NHTSA INQUIRY, THE AGENCY LEARNED THAT THESEATS INSTALLED IN THE MCI COACHES WERE MANUFACTURED BY WAKEFIELD.MUCH OFTHE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NHTSA FROM MCI IS IN THE POSSESSION OFWAKEFIELD.A PE HAS BEEN OPENED AND A INFORMATION REQUEST SENT TOWAKEFIELD TO OBTAIN THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.INFORMATION SUPPLIED BYNTSB HAS SUGGESTED THAT ADDITIONAL BUS MANUFACTURERS MAY ALSO BE INVOLVED,AS WELL AS A MANUFACTURER OF SEAT FRAMES WHICH ARE USED BY WAKEFIELD.BASED ON THE NTSB INVESTIGATION AND THE REPORTS WHICH THEY FURNISHED TONHTSA, THIS PROBLEM MAY HAVE SERIOUS SAFETY IMPLICATIONS.AS MCI IS THEMANUFACTURER OF THE COMPLETED VEHICLE, MCI WOULD HAVE PRIMARYRESPONSIBILITY SHOULD RECALL ACTION BE REQUIRED.===ODI ANALYSIS: CLOSE EXAMINATION OF PHOTOS TAKEN OF THE BUS WHICH WASINVOLVED IN THE SINGLE REPORTED INCIDENT, AND AN ACTUAL EXAMINATION OF AMCI BUS OF THE SAME MODEL AS THE MODEL INVOLVED, INDICATE THAT THE SEAT ARM RESTS WOULD MAKE ALMOST PERFECT SETS OF STAIRS FOR ANYONE TRYING TO EXITFROM THE BUS THROUGH EITHER EMERGENCY EXITS OR THE BUS WINDOWS, IF THE BUSWERE RESTING ON ITS SIDE. AS THIS IS THE ONLY REPORT RECEIVED IN THE 9YEARS THAT THE SEAT HAS BEEN IN PRODUCTION, THE WAKEFIELD ANALYSIS SEEMSREASONABLE (EG) ESCAPING PASSENGERS USED THE ARM RESTS AS A STAIRCASE TOESCAPE THE OVERTURNED BUS, AND THE ARMREST FRACTURES WERE RESULTANT FROMTHAT USE.

PE89033 · Seat Arm Rest Failures

Opened Jan 18, 1989 · Closed Aug 22, 1989

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seats

There is no summary currently available