2000 Lincoln Town Car problems

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, and light and medium duty pickup trucks. A switch located in the plastic cover of the wiper motor gear case could malfunction and overheat, potentially resulting in loss of intermittent wiper function, loss of wiper park function, complete loss of wiper function, or ignition of the plastic cover material. Switch malfunction is most likely to occur when the intermittent setting of the wipers is being used, or when snow or ice obstructs the blades from returning to the "parked" position at the bottom of the windshield. These vehicles were built at the following assembly plants: atlanta plant from 2/11/00 through 7/31/00; chicago plant from 2/14/00 through 8/4/00; kansas city plant from 2/26/00 to 9/4/00; kentucky truck plant from 2/18/00 to 8/31/00; michigan truck plant from 2/23/00 through 8/3/00; norfolk plant from 2/21/00 through 7/27/00; wayne stamping and assembly plant from 2/25/00 through 8/15/00; and wixom plant from 2/15/00 through 8/8/00.

Risk

Loss of visibility while driving increases the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the date code on the wiper motor. Motors built with the suspect time frame will have the wiper motor gear case cover replaced. Owner notification began august 20, 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 01V258000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: certain limousines stretched over 60 inches fail to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 109, "new pneumatic tires," and no. 110, "tire selection and rims."

Risk

The vehicle weight could exceed the maximum load rating for the tire, increasing the risk of premature tire wear or blowout.

Remedy

Dealers will replace all 5 tires (including the spare tire) with michelin tires (225/70r16 107t reinforced white sidewall) with a sufficiently higher load rating. Owner notification began january 10, 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 1‑800‑248‑0186.

Recall number 00V356000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: certain passenger vehicles with medium graphite seat belts fail to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 209, "seat belt assemblies." an incorrect front center seat belt and retractor assembly may have been installed.

Risk

In the event of a vehicle crash, the occupant may not be properly restrained.

Remedy

All suspect vehicles have had the seat belts inspected or replaced by ford.

Recall number 00V364000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles with midnight black or medium parchment seat belts manufactured on july 31, 2000, fail to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 209, "seat belt assemblies." an incorrect driver's side rear seat belt and retractor assembly may have been installed.

Risk

In the event of a vehicle crash, the occupant may not be properly restrained.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the seat belts and replace the affected seat belt and retractor assemblies.

Recall number 00V368000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles, and mini vans equipped with trw seat belt buckle assemblies. The buckle base of these seat belt assemblies were not properly heat treated and therefore do not pass the load bearing requirement of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 209, "seat belt assemblies."

Risk

In the event of a vehicle crash, the occupant may not be properly restrained.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the date code on certain seat belt buckles of your vehicle and replace all seat belt buckles that fall within the suspect date code range. Owner notification began october 26, 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 00V228001 · 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

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

Odi has identified 173 complaints alleging inadvertent or non-crash deployment of side air bags on model year (my) 1999-2003 lincoln town cars.most of the complaints allege that one of the side air bags deployed while driving without any impact.analysis showed that my 2001 through early my 2003 town cars have much higher complaint and warranty claim rates (138 complaints and 120 warranty claims) than the remaining vehicles (35 complaints and 32 warranty claims).ford changed its supplier of the side crash sensors for the my 2001 town cars.ford states that the algorithm in the my 2001 town cars is different from the previous model year's design, and that it is designed to provide improved occupant protection in moderate speed side pole impacts.in december 2002 (I.e., early my 2003 vehicle production), the crash sensors were moved from the floor of vehicle to near the base of b-pillars in order to reduce the incidents of inadvertent side air bag deployments.this preliminary evaluation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis (ea03-014) for my 2001-2003 town cars built before december 2002.

PE03011

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