1999 Ford Econoline 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

Vehicle description: bi-fuel cng pickup trucks and bi-fuel cng vans, modified by cfi control systems, inc., fail to conform to the requirements of fmvss no. 303, "fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles." the label affixed to the fuel filler door by the vehicle modifier contains the inspection date and expiration date of the cng tank. However, it does not contain the statement "see instructions on the fuel container for inspection and service life."

Risk

These vehicles do not comply with the requirements.

Remedy

Owners will be provided a label with the required statement, along with instructions for affixing the label at the fuel filler door. Owner notification began november 2, 2000. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 00V284000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: cutaways and stripped chassis with single rear wheels. The lug nuts can potentially bottom out on a shoulder on the studs.

Risk

If this occurs, there can be an inadequate clamp load to attach the wheel to the axle, resulting in noise, damage to the wheel and hub, or in extreme cases, loss of a rear wheel while the vehicle is being driven.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the rear wheel attaching studs.

Recall number 00V115000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: utility vans equipped with the "60/40" hinged side cargo doors. The strikers for the 60/40 door single latch system were found to contain stress cracks at the striker wire lower stake joint. Strikers with stress cracks may not meet the requirements of fmvss no. 206, "door locks and door retention components."

Risk

In the event of a crash, the door strikers may not hold the door, increasing the risk of personal injury or property damage.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the door striker.

Recall number 99V046000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: pickup trucks built with single rear wheels and equipped with 3.55:1 and 3.73:1 axle ratio. These vehicles were built with incorrect speedometer driven gears, resulting in a lower speedometer reading than the actual vehicle speed being driven.

Risk

This can result in the vehicle being driven at an unsafe or illegal speed should the driver not realize that his vehicle road speed is greater than the speedometer indication.

Remedy

Dealers will install the correct speedometer gear.

Recall number 98V257000 · 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