1995 Ford Crown Victoria problems

What is wrong

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.

Risk

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.

Recall number 08V051000 · Recall details

What is wrong

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.

Risk

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.

Recall number 07V336000 · Recall details

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

What is wrong

Vehicle description: police and taxi vehicles. The hood latch striker can wear or become detached from the hood.

Risk

Either of these conditions can result in the hood opening without warning while the vehicle is being operated impairing the driver's visibility.

Remedy

Dealers will install an improved hood latch striker (vehicles with 1992 model hoods) or revised striker plate attaching fasteners (vehicles with 1993-1997 model hoods).

Recall number 97V024000 · Recall details

What is wrong

The pitman arms were not fully lubricated at the assembly plant. The "ball joint" at the outer end of the pitman arm can become contaminated and corrode.

Risk

Such corrosion can result in abnormal wear of the joint, resulting in separation of the joint. Loss of steering control can occur increasing the risk of a vehicle accident.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the vehicles and if the joint is found to have significant wear, the arm will be replaced. Those pitman arms not replaced will have the "ball joint" fully greased.

Recall number 96V135000 · Recall details

What is wrong

The rivets holding the rear outboard belt d-rings were not heat treated properly causing the heads of the rivets to fracture under load and fail to hold the d-rings to the straps. This does not conform to the requirements of fmvss no. 210, "seat belt assembly anchorages."

Risk

Consequence of non-compliance: this condition can reduce the restraining capabilities of the safety belt in the event of an accident.

Remedy

Dealers will install a reinforcement plate on the rear outboard seat belt assembly anchorages involved in this campaign.

Recall number 96V045000 · Recall details

What is wrong

These vehicles were built with the non-cycling power window circuit breaker and the cycling headlamp circuit breaker interchanged.

Risk

In the event of a short or overload in the headlampcircuit, both headlamps can go out without warning, rather than flashing as intended with the cycling circuit breaker. This could lead to reduced night time driver visibility, increasing the potential for a vehicle accident.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect these vehicles, remove the circuit breaker and reinstall the breaker in the correct locations.

Recall number 95V189000 · Recall details

What is wrong

The seal material between the fuel filler pipe and fuel tank may not have been fully cured during the molding process which could allow for fuel leakage.

Risk

Fuel leakage could result in a vehicle fire if an ignition source were present.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the fuel filler pipe-to-fuel tank seal with a new seal of different material.

Recall number 95V063000 · Recall details

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 (the federal safety agency 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 the federal safety agency 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.

EA03012

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.

RQ03004

See attached report.

RQ03002

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 the federal safety agency 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.

EA02025

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,the federal safety agency 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.

DP02007

There is no summary currently available

SQ01014

There is no summary currently available

PE96029