2000 Ford Windstar body problems

What is wrong

Ford is recalling certain model year 1999-2003 windstar vehicles originally sold in or currently registered in the states of connecticut, delaware, the district of columbia, illinois, indiana, iowa, kentucky, maine, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, minnesota, missouri, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, rhode island, utah, vermont, west virginia, and wisconsin. A separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation. A separation of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.

Risk

This could result in reduced steering control increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect both front lower control arm rear attaching brackets, and both body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe, and make the necessary repairs free of charge. If repairs cannot be made to a vehicle, ford will offer to repurchase the vehicle. The safety recall is expected to begin on or before february 21, 2011. Owners may contact ford at 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 11V030000 · Recall details

In a January 26, 2011 Defect Information Report, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the federal safety agency that it will conduct a safety recall to address corrosion related fractures in the front lower control arm rear attaching brackets and body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe in approximately 425,288 model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles manufactured from April 1998 to July 2003 and either sold or currently registered in the following high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (the federal safety agency Recall No. 11V‑030, Ford Recall No. 11S16).According to Ford, separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation and separations of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.Either condition could result in diminished vehicle directional control, increasing the risk of a crash.Dealers will inspect the lower control arm rear attachment flanges and the rear body mount sections of the subframe on the right (passenger) and left (driver) sides of the vehicle.Owners of vehicles that pass the inspection will be notified when to return for installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the durability of the front subframe assembly in affected areas in the presence of corrosion.Owners of vehicles that do not pass inspection, but can be repaired, will be offered transportation until parts become available.Repurchase offers will be extended to owners of vehicles that cannot be repaired with the reinforcement brackets.This investigation is closed.

EA10007

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 346 complaints to ODI and Ford alleging fracture, cracking and or excessive corrosion of the front subframes in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles.Approximately 97 percent of these complaints (334) involve vehicles that have been operated in Salt Belt states, which make up approximately 60 percent of the subject vehicle sales in the United States.The front subframe, sometimes referred to as the engine cradle, is a structural component of the Windstar vehicles that carries the engine, transaxle, steering rack and certain front suspension components (e.g., lower control arm).For complaints with sufficient information to identify the location of the failure, most describe problems with the rear mounting bracket for the front passenger-side lower control arm with some related to the rear body mount attachment located in the same general area of the subframe (right-rear section near the front passenger wheel).The remainder of the reports allege fracture of the front subframe at other or, most often, unspecified locations.Almost all of the complaints that specified the side of the vehicle indicated that the problem occurred on the right/passenger side (106), with only a few indicating the left/driver side (2) or both sides (3) were affected.Ford and several complainants attributed the right-side failures to the routing of the air-conditioning lines above the front subframe on that side of the vehicle, further noting that condensation has been observed dripping onto the front subframe in the area of the affected components (the A/C drain tube is also located on the right side, near the front subframe).ODI has identified 93 complaints related to lower control arm attachments, including 80 that appear to involve complete separations.All but one of these involved vehicles from Salt Belt states.All three crash incidents appear to be related to lower control arm separations, including one road departure into a road-side sign resulting in a totalled vehicle and a lane departure into another vehicle.Almost half of the ODI complaints related to control arm separation occurred at speeds greater than 20 mph and about a quarter occurred at highway speeds.Three-quarters of these complaints allege experiencing difficulty controlling the vehicle and about 40 percent appear to have resulted in departures from the intended lane of travel.Testing by both Ford and the federal safety agency have demonstrated that lower control arm separation from the rear attachment bracket results in significant toe out of the affected wheel, which affects the driver's ability to control vehicle direction.According to Ford, moderate braking improved vehicle controllability by reducing the amount of toe out, possibly explaining incidents that did not allege a loss of control.ODI's analysis of complaints related to the rear body mount identified 41 complaints (ODI only).These complaints generally report experiencing progressively worsening noise concerns when turning, accelerating or braking.Although, some of the complaints that appeared to involve a complete separation of the body mount alleged difficulty steering, the effects on vehicle control from this failure mode do not appear to be as great as those resulting from control arm separation.However, ODI is seeking more information regarding two complaints which alleged that body mount failure resulted in disconnection of the steering wheel from the steering rack (one occurred during vehicle service).This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-007) for subject vehicles sold or currently re

PE10026

The subject vehicles are equipped with single or dual power sliding doors (psd).approximately 111,000 vehicles have dual power sliding doors.the psd is opened by any of 5 methods, the inside or outside manual door handle, the key fob, the overhead console switch and the b-pillar switch.the door may be opened only under these conditions: ignition key is in off/accessories/on/start position, gear selector in park, vehicle speed less than 6 MPH, and door unlocked.the psd latch is located at the rear of the door and has a secondary and primary latch position.full and proper closure engages both the secondary and primary latch.with the ignition in the on position, as the gear selector is moved out of park the door automatically locks and that action mechanically isolates the latch, secondary and primary, from all latch release connections.in addition to the reports alleging door opening while driving, ford has received approximately 5,700 reports that allege the door does not close properly or pops open with no mention of while driving.ford's investigation into these report included owner interviews, vehicle by-backs and testing of consumer vehicles.it found that allegations of door opening while driving were in fact reports of doors not being properly closed initially and subsequently opening to the secondary latch position as a result of vehicle vibrations or driving maneuvers.ford's testing of consumer vehicles did not result in any recurrence of psd opening while being driven.odi interviews with owners affirmed the allegations of psd opening while driving; however owners indicated the event is not a regular occurrence (I.e.,it occurred only once or has not occurred recently) and that the unintended psd opening may not be able to be duplicated.in contrast, the improper closing of the psd (latching on the secondary but not the primary latch) can be duplicated, and odi verified this during an inspection of a consumer vehicle.in this condition (secondary but no primary latch), when the vehicle's gear selector is moved out of park position, a warning chime sounds and warning message appears on the instrument panel.most reports and warranty claims were filed in the early service-life of the vehicle and peaked around the 18-month in-service time period.odi and mfr complaint trends are declining over the last 8 quarters.there is no alleged injury associated with occupant falling out while the vehicle is in motion.no failure mode causing full door opening while vehicle is in motion has been verified (reproduced by odi or by trained service technicians at dealerships) during this investigation.a safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exist.the agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

PE04022