1996 Mercury Grand Marquis 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

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

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

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

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

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

See attached report.

RQ03002

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

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

The federal safety agency was petitioned to commence a defect investigation of the subject vehicles on july 28, 1998.the petition alleges that the driver's seat head restraint was not high enough at its highest position to protect him from neck injuries sustained during a rear impact collision.other than the subject petitin, odi has received no other complaints of inadequate head restraint height for the subject vehicles.ford motor company's compliance data shows that the subject vehicles met the head restraint height requirement of fmvss no. 202, head restraints. Therefore, the petition is denied.

DP98007