The contact owns a 1996 Lincoln Town Car. The contact stated while the vehicle was turned on and he was shifting the vehicle from park(P) to drive(D), with his foot on the brake pedal, the vehicle lunged forward at high speed. The contact stated that the acceleration was extreme. The contact observed smoke coming from the rear tires as the vehicle accelerated. The contact was able to safely stop the vehicle after approximately 50 feet but had to depress the brake pedal with force. The contact stated no warning light was illuminated. The contact stated that the vehicle was not turned off but was shifted to park(P). The contact had tested and shifted the vehicle from park (P), drive (D), neutral (N) and reverse (R) and the vehicle reacted normally to each gear change. The contact had not taken the vehicle to a local dealer or independent mechanic. The vehicle had not been diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer had not been informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 140,000. The contact stated that the vehicle was sold to the mechanic who repaired it.
The worst 1996 Lincoln Town Car problems
Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.
Problems by type
Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.
- Engine90
- Acceleration33
- Brakes30
- Suspension24
- Electrical19
- Steering18
- Seat belts15
- Lights14
- Fuel system10
- Airbags9
- Visibility8
- Locks6
- Body4
- Seats2
- Transmission2
- Wheels2
Specific symptoms reported on the 1996 Lincoln Town Car
Stalling 21Ball joint 20Overheating 18Brake failure 15Adaptive cruise 14Headlights 13Fire or smoke 11ABS 6Power steering loss 5Sudden acceleration 5
Recalls 8
Vehicle speed control
- 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
Air bags: frontal: driver side: inflator module
- What is wrong
- Equipment description: passenger vehicles that have had the driver's air bag module replaced after april 5, 2000. The replacement driver's air bag module inflator may have insufficient welds that could prevent proper inflation of the air bag.
- Risk
- In the event of a crash, the driver's air bag may not properly deploy which could potentially result in less than the intended level of occupant protection.
- Remedy
- Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the driver's air bag module. Owner notification began october 5, 2001. 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 1‑866‑436‑7332.
Recall number 01V318000 · Recall details
Seat belts: front: anchorage
- 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
Seat belts: front: anchorage
- 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
Suspension: front: control arm: lower ball joint
- 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
Steering: linkages
- 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
Seat belts: rear/other
- What is wrong
- The elr/alr feature is used to accommodate child restraints. When servicing the rear belt assemblies, wrong parts could have been used which do not contain the automatic locking feature.
- Risk
- In the event of an accident, the seat belt assemblies may not properly secure the child restraint increasing the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant.
- Remedy
- Dealers will replace the rear belt assemblies with the appropriate design retractor and tongue assemblies.
Recall number 96V109000 · Recall details
Latches/locks/linkages: doors: latch
- What is wrong
- When in the secondary latched position, the driver door latches may open when subjected to transverse loads less than that specified in fmvss no. 206, "door locks and door retention components."
- Risk
- The driver's door, when closed only to the secondary latched position, may not sustain a 1,000 pound transverse load.
- Remedy
- Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the driver door latch.
Recall number 96V070000 · Recall details
See all 8 recalls for the 1996 Lincoln Town Car
Defect investigations
Rear brake line failure
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
Rear brake line failure
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
Ball joint separation
See attached report.
RQ03002
Speed control deactivation switch fires
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
Fuel-fed fires
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
Post rear end collision fires
There is no summary currently available
SQ01014
Technical service bulletins for the 1996 Lincoln Town Car 124
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- Ford/lincoln mercury: certain 1992-2001 model year crown victoria, grand marquis, and town car vehicles...
- Customer satisfaction program 05B31 - information only
- Extended coverage program 05N04 - extended coverage for composite intake manifold
- Remote keyless entry (RKE) - service tips
- New transmission cooler flusher - service tips
- New service part - number 5 needle bearing and race kit - 4R70W transmission - service tip
- Climate control a/c service tech tips
- Transfer service tips for the front wiper motor mount bracket and depressed park output arm
- Some vehicles may exhibit an intake manifold crossover (first runner) coolant seepage condition
- Some engine assemblies with aluminum cylinder heads repaired in-vehile have been found to leak coolant...
1996 Lincoln Town Car fuel economy
Official EPA estimates in miles per gallon (MPGe for electric). Ranges cover trims that share the same engine.
| Engine | Drive | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.6L 8‑cyl | RWD | 15 | 23 | 18 |
What 1996 Lincoln Town Car owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
As per recall cruise control neithrt starts or works on highway
Tl* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. While attempting to drive the vehicle and shift the gear into drive with the brake pedal depressed. The pedal traveled to the floorboard and all the warning indicators illuminated. When the contact poured brake fluid into the reservoir and depressed the brake pedal, smoke appeared from the engine compartment near the master cylinder. The contact also stated that the brake line corroded. The vehicle was not taken to a dealer. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not contacted. The approximate failure mileage was 100,000.
Tl* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. While driving 35 MPH, the vehicle began to vibrate and an unknown clicking sound was heard from the passenger side wheel when making a turn. The failure occurred constantly. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was diagnosed that the front ball joints failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The VIN was not included in the federal safety agency campaign number: 98v322000 (suspension). The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 45,000.
1. Drivers seat belt latch is broken internally and cannot be used. To circumvent the broken latch, the front center passenger seat belt is being used. 2. Front right hand passenger seat belt can no longer be latched without first pushing the release button. 3. Cruise control automatically engaged while driving in residential area, causing a rapid acceleration of my vehicle above the speed limit. Slamming on the brakes forcefully disengaging the cruise control. One time occurrence.
Tl*the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that while driving at approximately 35 MPH, the steering wheel was vibrating and the wheels felt as if there were to detach from the vehicle. The contact also stated that the air bag warning light was continuously illuminated and the seat belts were unable to lock properly. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 180,000.
Tl* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that when the vehicle was started, there was smoke coming from under the hood. As a result, the contact discovered that the battery wires were burned and brake fluid had spilled. In addition, the contact stated that the vehicle failed to switch gears. The vehicle was towed to a dealer where it was diagnosed that the cruise control wire assembly needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The VIN was not available. The failure mileage was unknown.
Tl* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated while driving 55 MPH there was smoke emitting from the engine. The vehicle was maneuvered to the side of the road where the contact observed that anti-freeze was covering the engine. The vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic, who stated that the intake manifold was cracked and would needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 101,000. Updated 10/24/2014*lj the consumer stated that the defective plastic intake manifold was covered in a class action lawsuit. The consumer believes that even though the date of the coverage expired the vehicle should still be covered. Updated 04/16/2015
Tl* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that smoke was seen coming from under the hood. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic to be repaired and was parked in the mechanic's repair shop when the vehicle caught on fire. The fire spread quickly and destroyed the repair shop building as well as several other businesses, resulting in over 7 million dollars worth of damage. The fire marshall informed the contact that the fire was caused by the parked vehicle being inside the building. The fire occurred prior to the announcement of the federal safety agency campaign number 07v336000 (vehicle speed control). The contact indicated that the vehicle exhibited the same defect that was listed in the recall campaign. The VIN was not available. The failure mileage was 196,000.
Tl* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that the driver and center seat belt receptacles failed. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who advised that the seat belt system needed to be replaced. The seat belt system was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 125,000 and the approximate current mileage was 35,000. Updated 4/24/13 *cn updated 05/29/2013
Compare the 1996 Lincoln Town Car
Other model years
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011
Questions about the 1996 Lincoln Town Car
Is the 1996 Lincoln Town Car reliable?
Owners have filed 258 complaints about the 1996 Lincoln Town Car, 3.1 times a typical Town Car model year.
What is the most common problem with the 1996 Lincoln Town Car?
Engine and cooling, with 90 complaints, typically around 90,000 miles. Next is acceleration (33).
How many recalls does the 1996 Lincoln Town Car have?
8 recalls, covering vehicle speed control, air bags and seat belts.
What year does the Lincoln Town Car have bad engine?
The Lincoln Town Car model years with the most engine complaints are 1997 (91 complaints), 1996 (90 complaints) and 1992 (47 complaints).
What gas mileage does the 1996 Lincoln Town Car get?
Official estimates for the 1996 Lincoln Town Car range from 18 mpg combined. The most efficient version (4.6L 8-cyl, RWD) gets 15 city and 23 highway.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 1996 Lincoln Town Car?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history