2000 Mercury Sable problems

What is wrong

On certain passenger vehicles originally sold in or currently registered in the states of connecticut, delaware, illinois, indiana, iowa, kentucky, 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 front coil springs could fracture due to corrosion associated with salt used on the roadways during the winter. A fractured spring could move past the spring seat and contact a front tire.

Risk

If this occurs, the tire may rupture resulting in a rapid air loss, which could result in a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will install protective spring shields. In addition, ford is extending the warranty coverage of the front coil springs in all other states, for fracture only, up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first. If the vehicle has already accumulated more than 150,000 miles, this coverage will last until july 31, 2005. If either front coil spring fractures, dealers will replace both front springs at no charge to the owner. An interim notice was sent to owners on august 2, 2004. Parts are now available for the 2000-2001 my vehicles and owners were sent a letter on january 10, 2005, advising them to bring in their vehicles for repair parts are expected to be available for the 1999 my vehicles by the end of february 2005 and owners of these vehicles will be notified then. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 04V332000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Certain passenger vehicles are being recalled to correct a problem with a malfunctioning stop lamp switch and/or associated wiring. This malfunctioning could render the stop lamps inoperable or cause them to stay on all the time. This could cause confusion to a following driver, which could lead to a crash.

Risk

In addition, if the switch and/or associated wiring fail in the open position, the brake lights will not actuate and the driver will not be able to shift the vehicle out of "park" if they fail in the closed position, the brake lights will remain on, which will not allow the speed control to be activated. This could also cause the battery to discharge.

Remedy

Dealers will remove the stop lamp switch and associated wiring assembly and install a newly designed stop lamp switch and wire assembly. Owner notification is expected to begin on april 5, 2004. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 04V106000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Certain passenger vehicles equipped with adjustable padels are being recalled in order to adjust the brake and accelerator pedals to a minimum of 50 mm of lateral separation. Simultaneous application of both the brake and accelerator pedals could result in an increase in engine RPM.

Risk

This could result in a customer experiencing an "unintended vehicle speed increase" or a perceived "unable to stop" condition.

Remedy

Owners will be instructed as to the proper way to set the position of the pedals and to take their vehicles to a dealer to have the spacing between the brake and accelerator pedals measured. If the spacing is found to be less than 50 mm, the dealer will adjust the pedals to increase the distance between them to greater than 50 mm. Owner notification began october 28, 2002. Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 02V266000 · Recall details

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: passenger and sport utility vehicles. Due to the use of incorrect material by a supplier, the headlamp switch knob can fracture and separate from the headlamp switch.

Risk

This would cause difficulty for the driver to activate the headlamps, which could affect driver visibility, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the headlamp switch knob. Owner notification began april 9, 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 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 01V075000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles equipped with adjustable pedals. If the grease from the adjustable pedal assembly enters the stop lamp switch, it can contaminate the contacts leading to carbon build up, and potentially, a short circuit.

Risk

A short circuit could lead to either the brake lamps staying on, or to a loss of brake lamp function, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the brake lamp switch and wipe down the adjustable pedal assembly to remove excess grease. Owner notification began march 22, 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 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 01V078000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. The "vehicle capacity weight" and "designated seating capacity" information was not printed on the safety certification labels affixed to these vehicles. On affected sable sedan vehicles, the "vehicles capacity weight" (and also the luggage load) information printed on this label is incorrect - sable wagon luggage load was incorrectly used for the sable sedan. These vehicles do not comply with the label requirements of fmvss no. 110, "tire selection and rims."

Risk

Excessive loading can cause tire and vehicle damage that could result in a crash.

Remedy

Owners will be provided with a supplemental label with the correct information, along with instructions for affixing the label adjacent to the vehicle certification label. Owner notification began october 20, 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 00V242000 · Recall details

On June 21, 2013, Ford initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 13B04 to address a concern with Speed Control Cable damage in certain model year (MY) 2000 through 2003 Taurus and Sable vehicles equipped with 3.0L 4V Duratec engines and built at the Chicago assembly plant.In the dealer letter for the program, Ford indicates that the Speed Control Cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged Speed Control Cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.Ford's program instructs dealers to inspect the Speed Control Cables and replace any with any portion of either collar retention tab missing.Dealers will install a Collar Reinforcement Clip at the Speed Control Cable collar in all vehicles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Speed Control Cable in the engine compartment and the proximity of the battery and air filter.The failure mode of the cable assembly is associated with the plastic collar used to secure the cable to a bracket near the throttle body (Figure 2).Damage to one or both retention tabs used to secure the cable ferrule within the collar may allow the ferrule to become disconnected from the collar when the throttle is opened during accelerator pedal application.Additional examples of Speed Control Cables with damaged collar retention tabs and partial ferrule displacement are shown in Figures 3 through 5.If the displacement pulls the ferrule completely out of the collar, the ferrule end may contact the face of the collar when the accelerator pedal is released and the throttle is returning to idle (Figure 6).This results in a throttle stuck at approximately 26-29% open.Testing conducted at the federal safety agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center found that brake booster vacuum may become depleted, resulting in reduced brake effectiveness, if the brake is applied repeatedly when the throttle is stuck at this position.Drivers who experienced this condition have reported being surprised that the engine speed did not drop as expected and in some cases misjudged the degree of braking required to slow the vehicle.Some drivers reported difficulty in braking the vehicle and responded by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off.One minor crash occurred when the vehicle contacted a roadside fence post after the driver responded to the stuck throttle by shifting the car to neutral, turning the engine off and coasting to the side of a roadway with no shoulder, resulting in approximately $400 damage to the vehicle.There were four crashes reported which were attributed to increased stopping distance caused by the increased engine power and/or reduced brake effectiveness, including two of the complaints to ODI.In one crash reported to ODI (VOQ 10516101), the subject vehicle allegedly hit the back end of a truck at approximately 40 mph causing about $2000 damage.In the other crash complaint to ODI (VOQ 10501834), the subject vehicle side-swiped a vehicle as the driver was unable to stop in time and attempted to maneuver around a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic light.When the tow truck driver subsequently started the incident vehicle, the engine was still racing and it was verified that the Speed Control Cable ferrule was stuck on the collar.After further investigation, ODI does not consider the crashes reported in VOQs 10456249 and 10159399 to be related to the Speed Control Cable problem.

PE12033

Odi's analysis identified a high complaint rate for the rear coil springs in the salt belt states (approximately 250 per 100,000 vehicles).approximately 59 percent of the complaints alleged that the coil spring failure caused damage to the adjacent rear tire, with about half of these (30 percent of total complaints) alleging that the damage resulted in air loss.because air loss from a rear tire can result in changes in vehicle handling characteristics, odi examined field data, test data and interviewed consumers to assess the safety consequences of such failures in the subject vehicle population.analysis of all available field data did not identify any crashes or injuries resulting from the alleged defect in the subject vehicles.vrtc testing conducted to simulate a coil spring induced rear tire failure did not result in a loss of vehicle control.when interviewed by odi, none of the consumers who experienced incidents of tire air loss due to the alleged defect indicated that the failures caused a loss of vehicle control.tire damage resulting from the alleged defect has involved rubbing/abrasive wear of the inner tire sidewall with the potential for air loss from pin-hole sized leaks in the wear groove.there is no evidence that the alleged defect has caused any sudden, catastrophic tire failures in either straight or turning maneuvers.a safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.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 monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.see document file for additional information regarding this resume.

EA06002

The office of defect investigation (odi) opened preliminary evaluation, pe05-054, based on 131 vehicle owner questionnaires related to alleged rear coil spring fractures.since opening the investigation there have been an additional sixty-three (63) complaints alleging rear coil spring fracture.an analysis of the vehicle owner questionnaires (voqs) submitted to odi reveals that 42% of the complainants allege that the adjacent tire was punctured as result of a rear coil spring fracture. Additionally, an analysis of the complaint data received by odi from ford reveals the following: there were a total of 553 unique vehicle complaints of coil spring fracture. 30% of the complaints allege that the rear coil spring fracture resulted in the adjacent tire being punctured. An engineering analysis (ea06-002) is being opened to further examine the potential safety implications of the rear coil spring fractures as related to tire punctures.

PE05054

Odi possesses 130 vehicle owners questionnaires (voq) alleging front suspension coil spring failure in the subject (model year 1999-2000) vehicles.an additional 11 voqs concerning my 2001 vehicles have been found, bringing the total to 141.more than 75% of these reports allege that the broken spring damaged or punctured the adjacent tire.all of these reports originated in the salt belt states located in the northeast quadrant of the united states and canada.ford will conduct a safety recall (04v‑332) covering vehicles soldor currently registered in connecticut, delaware, illinois, indiana, iowa, kentucky, 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, to install spring shields in my 1999-2001 taurus/sable vehicles to prevent a fractured spring from damaging the nearby tire.ford will additionally notify owners of all my 1999-2001 taurus/sable vehicles that warranty coverage for spring fractures has been extended to 10 years of age or 150,000 miles.odi analyzed ford?s warranty and complaint data and found that 99% of the spring fractures occurred in the states covered by the recall.the other incidents occurred in the states of florida, north carolina, texas, alabama, and georgia.in view of the coverage of the spring failures by the recall campaign, odi is closing the preliminary evaluation.odi will continue to monitor the performance of the subject vehicles throughout the remainder of the country.

PE04044

Ms. Rodman reported that after her vehicle was inspected for the recall, her mother experienced a sudden acceleration and crashed the sable into a light pole.previously the federal safety agency had conducted an investigation for this issue (pe02-035) that resulted in the recall (02v‑266) of 369,000 my 2000-2002 taurus and sable vehicles equipped with adjustable brake and accelerator pedals to insure that the separation between the pedals was at least 50mm..a review of odi's database for complaints regarding recall 02v‑266 did not identify any recall remedy complaints other than the petitioner's.ms. Rodman?s vehicle was inspected by odi using ford?s special tool and her vehicle was found to exceed 50mm.also, the lateral movement of the pedals was found not to be excessive relative to other comparable taurus and sable vehicles.therefore, it is unlikely that the federal safety agency would issue an order requiring ford to provide a different remedy for this defect.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.for additional information concerning this analysis, please refer to the federal register notice dated march 23, 2004 (vol 69, no 56, pages 13619-13620).

RP03001

Ford conducted a recall in march, 2001 to correct a defect affecting the brake light switch in my 2000 through early-2001 taurus and sable vehicles equipped with power adjustable pedals (recall 01v‑078).rq03-008 was opened to investigate complaints concerning the remedy and scope of 01v‑078.odi's analysis identified concerns with post-repair failures in recalled vehicles,failures in my 2001-02 vehicles with adjustable pedals that were not included in recall 01v‑078, and failures in my 2000 vehicles with fixed pedals.(note: the manufacturer failure data in this resume includes all crashes and injuries, but the complaint information is limited to my 2001-02 vehicles that were not included in the scope of recall 01v‑078.)on march 1, 2004, ford notified the federal safety agency of a safety defect in my 2000 through early-2003 taurus and sable vehicles equipped with adjustable pedals and my 2000 subject vehicles equipped with fixed pedals (recall 04v‑106).the notification identified three factors contributing to brake light circuit failures:(1) continuing grease contamination issues that prompted 01v‑078; (2) misalignment of the booster rod pin and the brake light switch; and (3) wire assembly fatigue.the first two conditions were limited to vehicles with adjustable pedals and the latter condition affected vehicles with fixed pedals.ford will instruct owners to bring their vehicles to a dealer to have the brake light switch and associated wiring replaced with a re-designed brake light switch and wiring assembly.

RQ03008

This investigation identified a total of 427 reports alleging non-deployment of the frontal air bags.of the 427 reports, two incidents (fatal crashes) have been identified as severe frontal crashes in which the frontal air bags did not deploy.a defect trend has not been identified at this time.further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.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 take further action if warranted by the circumstances.see attached summary report.

EA03010

Ford motor company has identified 260 reports alleging frontal air bag non-deployment for any (severity) frontal or near-frontal crash on model year 2000-2001 ford taurus and mercury sable vehicles.additional crash reports are contained in the federal safety agency's fatality analysis reporting system (fars) database.the single odi report listed in the report summary is the federal safety agency's special crash investigation's case no. Ca00-020 that involved a high-speed crash non-deployment involving a driver fatality and front passenger injury.this preliminary evaluation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis (ea03-010) and odi will collect additional information on certain crash reports and conduct further study of this issue.

PE03002

PE02035