The contact's daughter owns a 2000 Mercury Mountaineer. The contact stated that while her husband and her daughter were inspecting the engine compartment of the vehicle, the hinges of the hood failed, causing the hood to drop inadvertently. The contact's husband sustained a laceration on the arm but did not seek medical assistance. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, where the hood hinges were replaced. Additionally, the contact purchased a stick to hold the hood open. The vehicle was repaired. The dealer and the manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown. The VIN was not available.
The worst 2000 Mercury Mountaineer 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.
- Acceleration28
- Tires22
- Electrical19
- Transmission15
- Airbags9
- Engine9
- Brakes8
- Seats7
- Body6
- Suspension6
- Steering5
- Lights4
- Visibility4
- Fuel system3
- Locks3
- Wheels2
- Driver assistance1
- Seat belts1
Specific symptoms reported on the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer
Fire or smoke 10Adaptive cruise 7No deployment 6Door locks 6Tire blowout 6Sudden acceleration 5Wipers 5
Recalls 6
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
Vehicle speed control: cables
- What is wrong
- On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with speed control and 4.0l sohc engines, if the strand cover on the speed control cable becomes flared at the end, the speed control cable may bind when the speed control is activated.
- Risk
- The throttle return spring force may not be sufficient to overcome the binding condition when the speed control is disengaged. Braking function would be maintained though stopping distances may be increased.
- Remedy
- Dealers will inspect the speed control cable and, if necessary, replace it. Owner notification began august 29, 2003. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.
Recall number 03V280000 · Recall details
Seats: front assembly: recliner
- What is wrong
- On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with high back seats, the upper bolt on the driver's side high back seat, that attaches the seat recliner mechanism to the seat back frame, could fracture. If the bolt fractures and does not jam in the seat back frame, the seat back may recline until it makes contact with an object behind the seat, such as the second row seat cushion.
- Risk
- The driver could potentially lose contact with the steering wheel or foot pedals during such an event, increasing the risk of a crash.
- Remedy
- Dealers will replace the driver seat upper bolt with a metal spacer and bolt. In addition, seats with tubular back frames will have the fully threaded lower recliner bolt replaced with a partially threaded bolt. Owner notification began on august 29, 2003. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.
Recall number 03V281000 · Recall details
Seat belts
- 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
Air bags: side/window
- What is wrong
- Vehicle description: 4-door sport utility vehicles equipped with side air bags. The subject vehicles have a revised level side crash sensor that could deploy the side air bag if the ignition key is in the "run" position and the seatbelt webbing is forcibly extracted from a locked retractor with a jerking motion.
- Risk
- Inadvertent side air bag deployment could cause personal injury to the seat occupant.
- Remedy
- Dealers will replace the side crash sensors with a revised design that will reduce the likelihood of an unexpected side air bag deployment.
Recall number 00V179000 · Recall details
Electrical system: wiring: fuses and circuit breakers
- What is wrong
- Vehicle description: multi-purpose vehicles equipped with 4.0l engines and all-time 4-wheel drive (a4wd) powertrains. The generic electronic module (gem) could experience a condition referred to as "lock-up" in which the gem controlled electronic functions (e.g., front windshield wipers, interior lights, 4x4 system, etc.) could not be turned on or, in some cases if the function is on, could not be turned off.
- Risk
- An inoperative windshield wiper system could affect driver visibility, increasing the risk of a crash.
- Remedy
- Dealers will install a resistor in the gem circuit.
Recall number 00V072000 · Recall details
See all 6 recalls for the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer
Defect investigations
Spark plug ejection from cylinder head
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
Front seat back recliner attachment
By letter dated august 4, 2003, ford notified the agency that it is conducting a voluntary safety recall (the federal safety agency recall no. 03v281) involving certain model year (my) 1998-2001 ford explorer / mercury mountaineer 4-door, my 1998-2000 ford explorer 2-door and my 2001-2002 ford explorer sport and sport trac vehicles equipped with high back seats.complaints allege that the driver's seat back reclined without warning.a bolt between the upper seat recliner attachment and the seat back frame may fracture.ford will replace the bolt that attaches the seat recliner mechanism to the seat back frame on the driver side seat.based on ford's safety recall action, this investigation is closed.
PE03020
Technical service bulletins for the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer 212
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- Safety belt retraction speed
- Front axle leaks fluid from vent tube - vehicles equipped with 4X4 or AWD
- Warning indicators-parking aid-reverse sensing system (RSS) and forward sensing system (fss)-false...
- Aluminum corrosion - service tip
- Rear window defroster grid/integral antenna diagnosis and repair - terminal tab repair
- General (PCM) power train control module programming procedures
- General power train control module (PCM) programming procedures
- Malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) illuminated - system lean diagnostic trouble codes (dtc's) - service tips
- Inoperative electric rear window defroster (heated backlite) grid lines, integral antenna concerns
- Low line pressure reading at wide open throttle (WOT), slipping shifts and / or delayed engagements with...
2000 Mercury Mountaineer 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.0L 6‑cyl | RWD | 14 | 19 | 16 |
| 4.0L 6‑cyl | 4WD | 14 | 19 | 16 |
| 5.0L 8‑cyl | RWD | 13 | 18 | 15 |
| 5.0L 8‑cyl | 4WD | 13 | 18 | 15 |
What 2000 Mercury Mountaineer owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
I unlocked my vehicle, put the key in the ignition and it made a noise, then immediately after that failure to start, everything stopped working. No lights, will not lock doors, no clicking sound as if it were a dead battery.
The o/d light keeps flashing and it doesn't shift into gear when pulling out in front of oncoming traffic its vary dangerous for myself and other drivers please address this on going problem with this transmission
Tl* the contact owns a 2000 mercury mountaineer. While driving, the headlights gradually became dim and shut off. After the contact made several attempts, the headlights turned back on and remained illuminated. The manufacturer was contacted and stated that there were no recalls for the failure. The contact was referred to the federal safety agency. The dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The failure mileage was 82,000.
I was on my way home from work(approx 12 miles) and decided I'd try out the cruise control in my newly acquired 2000 mountaineer 302 awd. The first part of the commute is what I would consider harmless and a very safe stretch to test out this feature so I press the cruise button to set my speed at the posted speed limit of 55mph. All was well until I approached a sharp hair pin curve about 4 miles into the trip. I gently started to apply the brake to cancel the cruise but the vehicle didn't respond to my attempt. In a state of panic, I firmly apply the brake to reduce speed and was only able to drop approximately 6-7 MPH. Still well above the advised limit for that particular curve. After making it though the curve, the mountaineer transmission down shifted and I was off to the races. I panicked and in doing so, failed to process and think clearly. My instinct was to keep pounding on the brakes in hope that the cruise cable with break or pop free. At 70mph my brakes were useless. It accelerated just past 80mph and finally right before my turn off onto the road that I live, my head cleared and I turned the ignition key to the off position and was able to coast into my neighborhood. As I exited the vehicle, every ounce of coolant was being shot out of the radiator and all four brake rotors were glowing cherry red. I was scared the thing was going to catch fire. Like incident report prior to mine, my cruise cable retainer had malfunctioned and was no longer anchored to its usual position. Ford has a major flaw in the way this system was designed and needs to take action so someone doesn't get killed. Hands down, the absolute scariest situation I've ever experienced.
Rear door latch is inoperative. Also right front passenger door lock is inoperative.
Tl* the contact owns a 2000 mercury mountaineer. While parked, the vehicle erupted into flames without warning. The fire was extinguished by the fire department. A police report was not filed and there were no injuries reported. The vehicle remained at the contact's residence where it was not diagnosed or repaired. The vehicle was destroyed. The vehicle parked in front of the contact's vehicle was also destroyed. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The VIN was included in the federal safety agency campaign number: 05v017000 (vehicle speed control). The failure mileage was approximately 155,000.
I was driving to an intersection with my family while going 45 MPH. I noticed black coming through the vents. I pulled off to a gas station parking lot. I proceeded to use fire extinguishers under the hood, the fire department had to come put it out. They did a look through and determined the fire started at the fuse box. I went home and researched that this is a recurring problem with this type of vehicle. I'm now out the 6500 I used to purchase it. I cant fix it or trade it in now.
I was driving don the road to an intersection going 45 MPH and noticed black smoke coming from under the hood. I proceeded to pull over and got my family out the car before the electrical was completely fried. I tried to put the fire out with two extinguishers and help from fellow bystanders. The blaze under the hood had to be put out by the fire department. I received a police and fire report. The area that the fire had originated from was the fuse box. I know this was a factory problem because I didn't do any work in those areas. I would like compensation for my vehicle because I'm now out 6500 dollars and I searched online and read about over a 100 explorer and mountaineer fires under the hood. I never received any recalls for my vehicle and I owned it over 10 years.
Tl* the contact owns a 2000 mercury mountaineer. The contact stated that the door locks became inoperable at times and took numerous attempts before the latch would open. The failure occurred several times. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 150,000.
Compare the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer
Other model years
199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010
Questions about the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer
Is the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer reliable?
Owners have filed 123 complaints about the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer, 1.3 times a typical Mountaineer model year.
What is the most common problem with the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer?
Acceleration and speed control, with 28 complaints, typically around 102,000 miles. Next is tires (22).
How many recalls does the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer have?
6 recalls, covering vehicle speed control, seats and seat belts.
Was there a recall on the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer acceleration?
Yes, 2 recalls: 07V336000, 03V280000. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.
What year does the Mercury Mountaineer have the most acceleration problems?
The Mercury Mountaineer model years with the most acceleration complaints are 1997 (59 complaints), 1998 (36 complaints) and 2000 (28 complaints).
What gas mileage does the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer get?
Official estimates for the 2000 Mercury Mountaineer range from 15 to 16 mpg combined. The most efficient version (4.0L 6-cyl, RWD) gets 14 city and 19 highway.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2000 Mercury Mountaineer?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history