2000 Ford Crown Victoria problems

What is wrong

On certain natural gas vehicles, if a flame from a vehicle interior fire becomes locally directed at the natural gas fuel tank located immediately behind the rear seat, the flame could damage the fiberglass wrap on the tank weakening the tank.

Risk

If the strength of the tank is significantly compromised, it could rupture, increasing the risk of a fire.

Remedy

Dealers will install an insulator behind the current seat back. Owner notification began on january 7, 2004. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 03V472000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. These vehicles have jacking instructions which, if followed, could cause the vehicle operator to place the jack on a frame weld when attempting to raise a rear wheel. If the vehicle is jacked up with the jack placed on the frame weld and if the vehicle is free to roll (wheels not blocked or chocked), the jack could yield and the vehicle may drop suddenly.

Risk

If this occurs and any portion of the operator's body is under the vehicle, the potential for personal injury exists.

Remedy

Owners will be provided with a revised jack instruction and stowage card and jack warning label, as well as a supplement to the owner guide.

Recall number 00V200000 · Recall details

What is wrong

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.

Risk

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.

Recall number 00V157001 · Recall details

What is wrong

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.

Risk

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.

Recall number 00V157002 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: a windshield wiper control module may not be capable of carrying the current required during high load conditions on the wipers (I.e., ice, snow, or other debris).

Risk

This condition could result in inoperative wipers with no advance warning.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the wiper control modules and replace if necessary.

Recall number 00V138000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. These vehicles may have been built with the left rear seat belt retractor attaching bolts incorrectly tightened.

Risk

In the event of a crash, the vehicle occupant may not be properly restrained, increasing the risk of personal injury.

Remedy

Dealers will tighten the retractor mounting bolts to the specified torque.

Recall number 00V083000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. These vehicles may have been built with lower than the intended level of torque on the bolts that attach the air bag electronic crash sensor module to the vehicle.

Risk

A loose module could result in a delayed air bag deployment in the event of a vehicle crash.

Remedy

Dealers will tighten the air bag electronic crash sensor attaching bolts.

Recall number 00V050000 · Recall details

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 the federal safety agency 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 the federal safety agency?s limited resources to best accomplish the agency?s safety mission, the petition is denied.

DP05005

In september 2002, a fuel cylinder in a natural gas powered vehicle (ngv) exploded during a fire.ford and vrtc test engineers jointly examined the incident vehicle and reviewed testing to determine whether the performance of the pressure relief valve (prd) was proper.the purpose of a prd is to protect a compressed natural gas tank from overpressure by allowing the cng to vent when the temperature reaches a specific point.the prd was removed from the failed tank and subjected to a yield temperature determination test. It was concluded that a direct flame (from the interior of the vehicle) onto the cylinder (located behind the rear seat in the trunk)compromised the hoop strength of the natural gas cylinder, thus allowing the cylinder to fail prior to the prd releasing at itsdesigned temperature.as a result of this testing and review of the involved vehicle, ford has developed an insulator to insulate the natural gas fuel tank from a locally directed flame projecting from the interior of the vehicle.insulators will be installed behind the back seat on subject vehicles to prevent future failures of this type. Ford's action addresses the concerns of odi.therefore, this investigation is closed.

EA03001

An explosion of a compressed natural gas (cng) tank should not be able to occur, as the tank is fitted with a pressure relief device (prd). This prd should release the cng in the tank, prior to the pressure reaching the tank burst pressure.the prd did not release in the subject wisconsin police cruiser explosion.the federal safety agency has recovered the prd valve from the tank that exploded and testing will be necessary to establish why this tank safety valve did not release in the very high temperature fire that occurred in the police cruiser.there is only the single known event, but due to the catastropic force of such an explosion and the potential for injury and loss of life, this investigation is being upgraded.

PE02071

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