2005 Mercury Monterey problems

What is wrong

Ford is recalling certain model year 2004-2007 Freestar and Mercury Monterey vehicles manufactured from March 24, 2003, through November 7, 2006, equipped with a third row seat and originally sold in, or currently registered in, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. The third row stowable seat can experience corrosion and structural degradation at the seat anchor mechanism mounted to the rear wheel wells. As a result of the corrosion, the third row seat may not fully latch into its seating position.

Risk

In the event that the vehicle is crashed into from the rear, an unlatched seat may increase the risk of personal injury.

Remedy

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will install new third row seat latch striker mounting brackets, free of charge. The recall began on March 28, 2013. Owners may contact Ford Motor Company Customer Relationship Center at 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 13V081000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Ford is recalling certain model year 2004 and 2005 ford freestar and mercury monterey vehicles. The torque converter output shaft may fail.

Risk

This condition results in a sudden loss of motive power with no warning, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the torque converter free of charge. The safety recall began on august 9, 2012. Owners may contact the ford motor company customer relationship center at 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 12V006000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain vans equipped with the power liftgate option, the power liftgate motor automatically disengages after the liftgate is powered open.

Risk

In the event of a liftgate strut malfunction, the liftgate can fall freely with no prior warning. Anyone standing beneath the liftgate may be injured if the liftgate falls.

Remedy

Dealers will reprogram the power liftgate module to reduce the likelihood that the liftgate could fall free of charge. The recall began on march 15, 2006. Owners may contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 06V069000 · Recall details

Please see the attached closing resume summary.It has been attached to this document as a PDF.

EQ12010

Ford is conducting a safety recall to repair the third-row seat's latch mechanisms in approximately 196,667 model year (MY) 2004 through 2007 Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey vehicles (see the federal safety agency recall 13V‑081 for more details).The recall covers vehicles originally sold, or currently registered, in the salt belt states or high corrosion areas of the United States: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.Approximately 100,000 remaining MY 2004-2007 Freestar and Monterey vehicles--those vehicles that were not originally sold, or are not currently registered, in salt belt states--are not included in the recall action. Although these vehicles are the same as the ones described above, they experience significantly lower failure rates because of reduced road salt exposure.ODI is currently aware of only one complaint on vehicle outside of the recall scope.ODI will monitor complaints and take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For owners of vehicles that are outside of the recall scope but exhibit the defect condition, owners (and affected Ford dealers) can contact Ford to request the recall repair.This Engineering Analysis is closed.See attached report and associated recall file for additional information.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at http://www-odi.the federal safety agency.dot.gov/owners/Searchreference under the following identification numbers: 10399896, 10410491, 10420028, 10424850, 10433928, 10436592, 10438529, 10440616, 10441489, 10441641, 10442809, 10446564, 10450295, 10450559, 10450587, 10452933, 10453826, 10454977, 10455545, 10456985, 10457423, 10457910, 10458738, 10459042, 10460511, 10461074, 10462910, 10463126, 10463262, 10463366, 10463600, 10464243, 10467003, 10467680, 10468429, 10469188, 10469200, 10470216, 10470510, 10471280, 10471520, 10471813, 10471978, 10472514, 10473087, 10473159, 10477025, 10477387, 10477954, 10478449, 10479247, 10479758, 10480611, 10480665, 10481054, 10481412, 10482213, 10482236, 10482613, 10482620, 10487872, 10489445, 10490515, 10490641, 10490663, 10490744, 10491495, 10492220, 10493470, 10493572, 10496348, 10497631, 10497976, 10498310, 10498433, 10499681, 10499861, 10500495.

EA12003

The subject vehicles (SV) are all automatic transmission, front wheel drive vehicles with hand actuated mechanical park brakes. The investigation focused on allegations that the service jack failed and caused the vehicles to fall. The subject scissors-type jack appears to fail at the slotted hinge joints where the jack screw is located (bends at mid-point). The failures occur while the jack is in use, and vehicle movement (forward or backward) is typically reported coincident with the failure. Ford reported that most MY 2003 Windstar and all MY 2006-2007 Freestar/Monterey also use the subject jack, an additional 223,246 vehicles.the federal safety agency has received six consumer complaints (VOQs) involving three injury incidents and a fatality.Ford reported 26 complaints for the SVs involving an additional 4 injuries. In the fatal incident, the van fell on a person working on the engine under the otherwise unsupported vehicle; ODI was unable to determine whether the vehicle was adequately chocked or the park brake was properly set. Reported injuries include a broken arm, head and hand injuries, arm and rib bruises, and muscle strains. the federal safety agency has received just one new report since opening this investigation. The complaint trend in ODI and Ford data is flat if not declining.Ford provides instructions and warnings in the owner's manual, on a placard placed with the jack, and on the jack itself. These instruct consumers to put the vehicle gear selector in Park, properly set the parking brake, chock the opposite wheel, use the jack only for changing a tire, loosen the lug nuts prior to jacking, and to not get under a vehicle supported by the jack only (the federal safety agency also recommends that jacks only be used for tire changing).In the VOQs, roughly half the consumers were using the jack for something other than tire changing, half had not chocked a wheel, and half had not properly set the parking brake. ODI notes that since the front wheels are drive wheels (with an open center differential) the Park gear cannot provide vehicle stability (longitudinally) when a front wheel is raised. All the federal safety agency complaints and most of the complaints to Ford involved failures while a front wheel was raised.In response to ODI's inquiry, Ford conducted testing on a 2004 Freestar. Ford's tests showed that when a front tire was raised the service jack held without failing under various scenarios except when a rocking force was applied and the parking brake was not properly set. Based on its testing and its analysis of field data, Ford concluded that the type of jack failure evidenced in this investigation (bending at mid-point) was likely caused by vehicle movement due to an improperly secured vehicle, or other misuse of the jack. Ford notes that rates in this investigation were similar to those in another investigation (EA91-049) which ODI closed. ODI also analyzed jack data for MY 2003 and newer vehicles to compare to the SV population. To assist with this analysis, ODI requested data from the jack manufacturer (actually its successor company) who provided limited data but did identify other models using the same design jack. ODI was unable to identify a significant difference in the incidence of jack failures (including those involving bending failures) between the SVs, other vehicles which used the same jack, or other vehicles where the jack type was unknown or different.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, investigation PE11-033 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 and ODI reserves

PE11033

The subject vehicles suffered from a design issue whereby water could run down onto the cowling under the hood and located in the area of the windshield wipers and then drip onto a computer module, the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), which could be manifested in a variety of symptoms depending on which part of the circuit board became wet or which of the connector pins shorted out.In addition to causing an engine to stall, which may or may not then restart, the water intrusion could also cause the transmission to shift poorly, the vehicle to have erratic power, a malfunction indicator light to come on, or result in an inability to start the vehicle, an inability to shift the vehicle into either forward or reverse. Also the problem could cause a higher than normal idle RPM in Park, or for the radio to malfunction, or the interior lights to stay on.During this investigation ODI was concerned with the effect of the engine stalling or a drastic and sudden loss of power either of which may create a safety risk.In reviewing the actual number of these types of incidents, collectively referred to here as engine stalls, the number was found to be below what would be considered a defect trend.For example, the number of engine stalls identified in Ford's warranty claims for the model year (MY) 2004 subject vehicles, the MY with the most failures, was 200 out of population of 125,865, for a failure rate of 0.16%.The one crash recorded by a complainant to the federal safety agency, VOQ 10311522, alleged that the engine stalled, due to water intrusion into the PCM, while the road was turning causing her to go off the road and according to the police report the vehicle then hit an embankment and a tree stump. Ford reported in their response that there were three alleged crashes but none of these were validated as being caused by a problem with water intrusion into the PCM causing a stall.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.

PE10033

On January 4, 2012 Ford Motor Company submitted a Defect Information Report (the federal safety agency Recall No. 12V‑006) to the federal safety agency regarding a defect in the performance of the transmission torque converter for approximately 205,896 Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey vehicles.The supplier of the torque converter manufactured converters containing a pump shaft spline that did not consistently meet the specified heat treatment requirements.In normal use, the spline may wear excessively and eventually fails without warning.If a torque converter malfunctions due to a sheared pump drive spline, the vehicle will abruptly lose motive power.This problem affected model year 2004 and 2005 Freestar and Monterey minivans.During the investigation the federal safety agency identified 532 complaints alleging incidents of vehicle stall while driving due to torque converter failure.These failures were sudden and without any prior warning.Of the 490 complaints that reported the speed at the time of the failure:218 (44%) occurred at or above 55 mph; and 344 (70%) occurred at or above 40 mph.Of the 382 complaints that reported the position of the vehicle relative to traffic after it came to a stop following the loss of motive power: 122 (32%) alleged that the vehicle came to a stop in the flow of traffic and remained in the flow of traffic until pushed or towed out of the way; 225 (59%) reported that the vehicle was maneuvered to the side of the roadway and remained there until towed; and 35 (9%) reported that they were able to maneuver to a location away from the flow of traffic, such as a parking lot.Two crashes were allegedly caused by torque converter failure, including an incident in which a Freestar suddenly lost power in 65 mph traffic in an area where there was no shoulder available.As a result, the Freestar stopped in a travel lane and when trailing traffic maneuvered to avoid the stalled vehicle, a four vehicle collision occurred.In these types of circumstances the federal safety agency believes the defect presents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and so advised Ford.In its Defect Information Report, Ford refers to its response to the federal safety agency's Preliminary Evaluation information request, which stated that a vehicle that loses motive power due to torque converter malfunction remains readily controllable; the vehicle will coast during which it can be safely maneuvered and stopped because the engine continues to run.Because the engine continues to run, steering and braking are unaffected, and the vehicle's electrical system and directional signals remain functional.In view of the foregoing, the federal safety agency does not agree with this statement.This investigation is closed based on Ford's recall.

EA09016

Odi has received 227 owner complaints alleging a sudden and unexpected loss of motive power due to an internal transmission failure in the subject vehicles.of those complaints, 124 can be attributed to the torque converter output shaft splines stripping causing a sudden loss of power to the drivetrain.the remaining 103 complaints experienced a loss of motive power but the specific internal failure cause within the transmission is not known.odi has upgraded the investigation to an engineering analysis (ea09-016) to continue its assessment of the scope, frequency and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.

PE09033