Check a VIN

1993 Ford Crown Victoria suspension problems

11 complaints (6% of all complaints for this car).

owner complaints
11
of this car's complaints
6%
crashes
0
recalls
2

Which part fails

  • Front: control arm: upper arm
    2
  • Front: control arm: lower arm
    2
  • Front
    2
  • Rear
    1
  • Front: springs: air suspension system
    1
  • Front: control arm: lower ball joint
    1
  • Front: control arm
    1

At what mileage

Complaints by mileage at the time of the problem.

0k-25k
25k-50k
50k-75k
75k-100k
100k-125k
125k-150k
150k-175k
175k-200k
200k+

Ford Crown Victoria suspension problems in other years

19901995200020052011

Specific symptoms reported on the 1993 Ford Crown Victoria suspension

Phrases found in the owners' own descriptions, so one complaint can mention several symptoms.

Ball joint 9

Related recalls

Suspension: front: control arm: lower ball jointReported December 16, 1998 · 175,000 vehicles affected
What is wrong
Vehicle description: certain 1996-1999 ford crown victoria police, fleet, natural gas, and 1996-1999 lincoln town car limousine vehicles that were produced with a lower control arm ball joint containing a one piece bearing; and 1990-1996 ford crown victoria police, fleet, and ngv vehicles and 1990-1996 lincoln town car limousine vehicles that have been serviced with either a ball joint containing the one-piece bearing or a front lower control arm containing a ball joint with a one-piece bearing. The one-piece bearing within the lower control arm ball joint can weaken slowly during use and eventually crack. This could result in separation of the ball and cap of the joint, allowing the control arm to drop to the ground.
Risk
If this occurs while the vehicle is moving, reduced steering control could occur, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy
Dealers will replace the lower control arm ball joints (2).

Recall number 98V322000 · Recall details

Suspension: front: control arm: upper armReported October 11, 1995 · 57,000 vehicles affected
What is wrong
The bolts that attach the front upper control arms to the frame mounting brackets can loosen and fracture at one of the bolt holes causing substantial negative camber and steering pull to the affected side.
Risk
If the driver's side bracket fractured at both bolt holes, the steering control arm can contact the steering column shaft and result in a loss of steering control increasing the potential for an accident.
Remedy
Dealers will inspect the torque levels of the four upper control arm mounting bolts, and if any are loose, the brackets will be inspected for damage. If damage is present, it will be repaired.

Recall number 95V194000 · Recall details

What 1993 Ford Crown Victoria owners say

Most recent owner complaints, unedited.

Filed Feb 27, 2014 · Suspension · 133,000 miles · OR

I was driving and the front of the car fell to the ground with a severe grinding noise.

Filed Sep 15, 2010 · Suspension · 140,000 miles · FL

Tl* the contact owns 1993 ford crown victoria. The contact stated while driving 70 MPH the front driver's side ball joint broke, causing the lower control arm to collaps. The driver's side upper control arm was also damaged as well, causing the contact to lose control of the steering ,which almost caused a crash. The contact had the vehicle towed to his residence. The contact repaired the front passenger side control arm. He referenced the recall for the suspension:front:control arm:upper arm (95v194000) however, his VIN was not included in the recall. The contact stated the manufacturer should honor the recall on this vehicle since this is a manufacturer defect. The failure mileage was 150,000.

Filed Feb 28, 2008 · Suspension · 172,000 miles · TX

Tl*the contact owns a 1993 ford crown victoria. While driving at an unknown speed, the contact noticed that the vehicle sporadically veered to the right. The dealer stated that although he was experiencing the same failure as noted in the federal safety agency campaign id number 95v194000 (suspension:front:control arm:upper arm), the VIN was not included in the recall and they would not repair his vehicle for free. The vehicle is currently being repaired. The failure mileage was 172,000 and current mileage was 173,000.

Filed Jun 8, 2004 · Suspension · 170,421 miles · KS

On june 6, 2004 while driving at approximately 35 MPH the passenger side front end dropped down and scraped the pavement, the steering wheel jumped around and the right front tire blew. Looking under the car revealed that the lower control arm ball joint had separated and pulled free from the control arm. The lower control arm had been forced into the sidewall of the tire and gouged a huge hole in it. Had this happened at highway speeds it could have been catastrophic with loss of control of the vehicle. The exposed ball joint end was dry (no lubricant) and I could see galling on the upper top half of the "ball". These are sealed ball joints that have no grease fitting and thus no provision for lubrication. The car had to be towed. It is sitting in my driveway at this time available for inspection by anyone. I looked up recalls on the internet and found the federal safety agency recall history listing "1992-99: bearing within lower ball joint can weaken slowly during use and eventually crack; could result in separation, allowing control arm to drop to the ground" and elsewhere recall no. 1998251 refers to crown victoria " bearing loads can lead to thinning and eventual cracking of the lower control arm ball joint" . I also found the federal safety agency records of ball joint failures under the odi id numbers of: 835503, 713546, 505865, 700771, 714657, 710815. I also found at alldata.com under automotive recalls a tsb no. 98s37 of dec. '98 "recall - front lower control arm ball joint replacement". I called ford on june 8, 2004 and talked to a rep named norman (I.d. No. 2357) and case reference no. [xxx] and he told me that my car [xxx] had no recall notices and therefore it's not a problem. I told him that this defective vehicle situation could cause a fatal vehicle accident and asked to talk to his supervisor. He told me that there wasn't a superior I could take the matter up with. *ak updated 07/25/2012 *js information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6)

Filed Nov 8, 2000 · Brakes, Suspension · CA

The anti-lock brake cylinder on the driver's side and rear passenger side have both gone out, the brakes attempt to lock at times when the vehicle is being driven.

Filed Nov 11, 1999 · Suspension, Visibility · MA

The pulse windshield wiper does not engage at certain settings. At other times, the pulse wiper becomes inoperable when engaging the turn indicator, causing visual problems during rain/snow. Installing a new battery helped for a while, but the same problems eventually returned. It appears to be a short-circuit/grounding problem of some type. The independent front-end suspension problem concerns a cracking sound of metal on the front-passenger side when the wheel is turned sharply to the right. This problem occurs infrequently, but has been noticed since early purchase date.

Filed Sep 1, 1999 · Suspension · WI

I purchased this car used 03/97 87,000 miles. When you would turn to the left sharp, it always made a clunk and the car would shift over. The clunk continued, so I took it to my local ford dealer, rudig-jensen in new lisbon, they found that the bolts that attach the upper control arms to the frame were loose. The loose bolts had worn out the bolts and the upper control arm. They found that while replacing the parts, that the bolt holes in the frame mounting bracket had worn and had fractured. They were unable to repair the car, and called gary's autobody of new lisbon to look at the frame mounting bracket . Gary's have repaired the bracket by welding it , as the ford dealer told myself, that they could not repair it. I would have to buy a new car. I called the ford motor company, and was told that the car had been in for the recall 95v194000 the federal safety agency at norris vernier ford in tomah, wi. And that ford motor company would not pay for the repairs, because the vehicle had already been in for the recall. The damage done to my vehicle is from the loose bolts, and I feel that ford's faulty product caused this, and that they should repair the damage, as it is due to their problem with these vehicles. The bolts can loosen even after being checked under the recall.

Filed May 10, 1999 · Steering, Suspension · MI

Ball joints & tie rod ends would make groaning noises in the front end. Its an intermittent problem. Took vehicle to dealer & nothing found. Took to another garage & mechanic noticed tie rod end was shot, and that ball joints were rusty & pitted. Therefore, vehicle was making noises when being driven.

Filed Nov 20, 1998 · Suspension · MI

No summary provided by consumer

Filed Nov 10, 1997 · Suspension · CA

Bearings within the front and rear axles failed causing extensive damage to axles.

Questions about the 1993 Ford Crown Victoria suspension

Does the 1993 Ford Crown Victoria have suspension problems?

Owners have filed 11 complaints about the suspension of the 1993 Ford Crown Victoria, 6% of all its complaints.

At what mileage do 1993 Ford Crown Victoria suspension problems start?

Not enough complaints include the mileage to tell.

Was there a recall on the 1993 Ford Crown Victoria suspension?

Yes, 2 recalls: 98V322000, 95V194000. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.

What year does the Ford Crown Victoria have bad suspension?

The Ford Crown Victoria model years with the most suspension complaints are 1996 (51 complaints), 1997 (45 complaints) and 1995 (36 complaints).

Other 1993 Ford Crown Victoria problems

Transmission 43Acceleration 32Brakes 25Electrical 22Seats 14Steering 14Engine 12Fuel system 9Visibility 9Lights 6Airbags 5Locks 5Body 4Tires 2Seat belts 1

VIN decoder

See the problems and recalls for an exact car

Buying a used 1993 Ford Crown Victoria?

Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.

Check its history