1997 Lincoln Town Car complaints

THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED. THE PART IS MADE OF PLASTIC AND SPLIT RIGHT ALONG THE SEAM, LEAKING COOLANT ALL OVER THE ENGINE.

THE THEFT ALARM SYSTEM ACTIVATES ON A RANDOM BASIS. BY FOLLOWING THE OWNWERS MANUAL, THE SYSTEM MAY BE DEACTIVATED BY ENTERING THE CODE AT THE DRIVERS DOOR,HOWEVER ON SOMETIMES THE ALARM WILL IMMEDIATELY REACTIVATE. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THIS SYSTEM CANNOT BE DISABLED MANUALLY TO PREVENT FOLLOW ON ALARMS. WAS SUGGESTED THAT I HAVE A NEW IGNITION SWITHCH INSTALLED HOWEVER NO GUARANTEE AS TO THIS SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE UPPER AND LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS LED TO VAGUE STEERING AND A WANDERING CAR PATH. THE CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS THAT WERE REPLACED WERE RUBBER ON METAL WITHOUT ZERK LUBE FITTINGS. THEY WERE DESIGNED TO FAIL. THE REPLACEMENT CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS ARE METAL-ON-METAL WITH ZERK LUBE FITTINGS. IN 1999 THERE WAS A RECALL ON LINCOLN TOWN CARS FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS. THE RECALL NUMBERS ARE NHTSA RECALL NO. 98V322/FORD RECALL NO. 98S37. HOWEVER, WE HAD TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE REPAIR. DEVELOPED A CRACK IN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD COOLANT CROSSOVER PIPE AND LOST ALL ENGINE COOLANT. WE HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED 80 MILES FOR REPAIR. SEVERAL FORD RECALLS WERE ISSUED ON THE 4.6L V8 ENGINE FOR REPLACEMENT OF THIS DEFECTIVE PART; BUT THEY WERE FOR POLICE CARS, LIMO FLEETS, ETC. I WAS TOLD I AM NOT COVERED. THE LITTLE GUY IS LEFT PAYING A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR FORD'S ENGINEERING DEFECT. WITHIN A TIME PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS, WE HAVE HAD TO SPEND ALMOST TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS TO CORRECT FORD'S DESIGN DEFECTS.

WHILE DRIVING STEAM CAME OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD, AND BLOCKED THE DRIVER'S VIEW. THIS WAS CAUSED BY THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKING, AND ANTIFREEZE LEAKING INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. TSB 95M71 BULLETIN WAS ISSUED ON THIS PROBLEM. *AK

WITHOUT ANY INDICATION, THE HOOD POPPED UP WHILE DRIVING . UPON REPLACEMENT OF THE HOOD LATCH ASSEMBLY, THE PROBLEM APPEARED TO BE CORRECTED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE HAD ITS SECOND LATCH REPLACEMENT.*AK THE CONSUMER FEELS IT A BAD LATCH DESIGN BECAUSE OF THE CONSISTENT PROBLEMS. *CB *JB

WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL FELL OFF. THE DRIVER WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND CALL A TOWING TRUCK TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED TO A DEALERSHIP. *AK THE CONSUMER REPLACED THE UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS. *CB *JB

WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT AN UNDETERMINED SPEED THE VEHICLE STALLED, CAUSING THE CONSUMER TO PULL OFF THE ROAD. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A MECHANIC, WHO INFORMED THE OWNER THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD FAILED. PLEASE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. *PH

FAILURE OF INTAKE MANIFOLD - CRACK IN UPPER FRONT OF MANIFOLD. LOSE OF COOLANT FLUIDS. I CONTACTED LINCOLN CUSTOMER SERVICE AT 800/392-3673 AND WAS TOLD THAT LINCOLN IS WELL AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM BUT WILL DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. THEIR RECALL IS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ONLY - THEY WILL NOT ADDRESS PRIVATE VEHICLES. I WAS TOLD THEY HAVE A STANDARD ANSWER FOR THIS COMMON PROBLEM AND NO ONE IN MANAGEMENT WILL TALK WITH ME CONCERNING IT. I CHECKED ON THE INTERNET AND FOUND THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM WITH TOWN CARS FROM 1995 THROUGH 2001, AS WELL AS CROWN VOCTORIAS AND MERCURY MARQUIS. REPAIR RUNS ABOUT $900.00. LINCOLN HAS REDESIGNED THIS PLASTIC MANIFOLD TO A COMBINATION PLASTIC/METAL ONE WITH THE METAL BEING AT THE POINT OF MOST STRESS. *NLM

PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1997 LINCOLN TOWNCAR CRACKED LEAVING MY WIFE AND CHILDREN STRANDED OVER 40 MILES FROM HOME*AK

LINCOLN TOWN CAR 1997 MODEL 4.6L HAS DEFECTIVE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT IS COVERED IN 1998-2000 MODELS BY WAY OF RECALL. THE 1997 MODEL HAS THE SAME DEFECTIVE PART BUT IS NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL. NOT FAIR.

THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON A 97 LINCOLN TOWN CAR WAS ORIGINALLY MADE OF PLASTIC. THIS MANIFOLD HAS CRACKED IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CARS THAT USE THIS MANIFOLD. THESE CARS INCLUDE THE CROWN VICTORIA, THE MUSTANG AND THE TOWN CAR. WHEN PURCHASING A NEW MANIFOLD, IT HAS BEEN REDESIGNED AND A CAST IRON SECTION HAS REPLACED THE FRONT PLASTIC SECTION. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE REST IS STILL PLASTIC. THE MANIFOLD SUPPOSEDLY CRACKS UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE ALTERNATOR, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF THE MANIFOLD. A RECALL WAS ISSUED ONLY FOR FLEET AND POLICE VEHICLES. I BELIEVE THIS IS UNFAIR TO THE CONSUMER. FORD'S ENGINEERS MADE A MISTAKE AND THEY ARE NOT CLAIMING RESPONSIBILITY UNLESS THE VEHICLES ARE PART OF A FLEET. THE COST OF REPLACEMENT OF THE MANIFOLD IS $975. IT'S NOT POCKET CHANGE EVEN FOR A LINCOLN OWNER. AND EVEN IF IT WERE JUST POCKET CHANGE THE OWNER SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR AN ENGINEERING MISTAKE THAT COULD HAVE INJURED SOMEONE. THE CRACK IN THE MANIFOLD CAUSES THE COOLANT TO LEAK OUT OF THE ENGINE, WHICH COULD CAUSE OTHER SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS. I, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER CONSUMERS, FEEL THAT FORD (LINCOLN) SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DEFECT.*AK

LINCOLN TOWNCAR 1997- INTAKE MANIFOLD;CROSS OVER MADE OF PLASTIC CRACKED WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE HWY IN GA, CAUSING THE ANTIFREEZE TO LEAK OUT AND ENDANGER THE DRIVER OF STALLING . VEHICLE W/O ANTIFREEZE STARTED TO OVERHEAT WAS CLOSE TO AN EXIT AND GOT OFF INTERSTATE IN TIME. THERE ARE NUMEREOUS CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE THIS SAME PROBLEM. MANUFACTURER KNEW THAT PLASTIC WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL FOR A COOLING SYSTEM CROSS-OVER DEVICE IN A VEHICLES ENGINE SUCH AS THE LINCOLN.... THIS IS A HIGH END CAR..... SUCH INFERIOR MATERIALS SHOULD NOT BE USED. FORD SHOULD REPLACE THIS PART AT NO COST TO CONSUMER WHEN IT FAILS..THIS IS A DANGEROUS FLAW.. COULD COST SERIOUS ACCIDENTS AND INJURY WHEN VEHICLE OVERHEATS AND STOPS ON A INTERSTATE HIGH SPEED. CONSUMER SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR MANUFACTURERS POOR JUDGEMENT AND MISTAKES. *AK

DEALER REPLACED THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE VEHICLE HAD A COOLANT LEAKED. *AK *PH *JB

WHILE ON A TRIP OUR PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD RUPTURED AND CRACKED LEAVING US STRANDED. WE WERE TOLD THIS EXACT PART WAS COVERED BY WARRANTY ON THE MERCURY MARQUISE AND THE CROWN VICTORIA. WE OWN A 1997 LINCOLN TOWN CAR WHICH COSTS MORE THAN THE MERCURY AND FEEL SINCE THIS IS THE EXACT SAME PART IT SHOULD ALSO BE COVERED, SINCE EVIDENTLY THERE WAS A FLAW WITH THIS PART. THIS COST US 839.00 DOLLARS TO REPAIR. WHEN CALLING FORD THEY SAID IT WAS COVERED ON SOME MAKES BUT NOT ON OURS. OUR BIG QUESTION IS WHY!!!!!?*AK

1997 LINCOLN TOWN CAR INTAKE MANIFOLD: CROSS-OVER CHANNEL COOLANT SEEPAGE (THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IS MADE OF PLASTIC AND PRONE TO CRACKS) COOLANT RUNS THROUGH PART OF THE CROSS-OVER CHANNEL OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD.

HEADLIGHTS CONTINUOUSLY FAIL WHILE DRIVING. THIS IS CAUSED BY THE SWITCH GOING OUT.*AK

THE CONSUMER STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AND WITHOUT WARNING THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD BLEW OUT AND CAUSED COOLANT TO LEAK. THE MANUFACTURER ISSUED A RECALL BUT ONLY FOR CERTAIN VEHICLES. THE CONSUMER REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE REPAIRS. *AK *CB *NLM

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1996-1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET/ NATURAL GAS, AND 1996-1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT WERE PRODUCED WITH A LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CONTAINING A ONE PIECE BEARING; AND 1990-1996 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE FLEET AND NGV VEHICLES, AND 1990-1996 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN SERVICED WITH EITHER A BALL JOINT CONTAINING THE ONE-PIECE BEARING OR A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM CONTAINING A BALL JOINT WITH A ONE-PIECE BEARING. THE ONE-PIECE BEARING WITHIN THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CAN WEAKEN SLOWLY DURING USE AND EVENTUALLY CRACK. THIS COULD RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE BALL AND CAP OF THE JOINT, ALLOWING THE CONTROL ARM TO DROP TO THE GROUND. CONSUMER HAS THE SAME PROBLEM. A RECALL HAS BEEN ISSUED ON SIMILAR MAKES AND MODELS, HOWEVER THIS VEHICLE IS NOT INCLUDED DUE TO VIN.*AK

BRAKE LINE FROM FRONT OF CAR TO REAR EITHER RUSTED THROUGH OR RUBBED AGAINST ANOTHER PART OF THE CAR TO CREATE A HOLE IN THE BRAKE LINE. DEALER ESTIMATED COST TO REPAIR-$3000.00!!*AK REFERENCED IN RQ03-004

WHILE DRIVING ON SUNDAY, WENT TO APPLY THE BRAKES AND THE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR - ALSO NOTICED THE BRAKE LIGHT CAME ON. CHECKED THE FLUID AND FOUND IT ALMOST GONE. TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER ON MONDAY AND WAS TOLD THE BRAKE LINES WERE RUSTED AND NEEDED REPLACING. WAS ALSO TOLD MY FORD EXTENDED WARRANTY WOULD NOT COVER THE PROBLEM SINCE IT WAS CAUSED BY RUST/CORROSION. *NLM REFERENCED IN RQ03-004

WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE'S BRAKE LINE FAILED WHICH RESULTED IN THE CONSUMER VEHICLE REAR ENDING ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. *NLM REFERENCED IN RQ03-004

RECALL#98V322000 WAS NOT VALID. THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS. *JB SCC

INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE...PART MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. DEALER STATES MANUFACTURE HAD ISSUED A "CAMPAIGN" TO REPLACE AT NO CHARGE BECAUSE THEY KNEW PART WAS FAULTY...BUT ONLY IF VEHICLE WAS IN "TAXI OR LIMO" SERVICE. I AM OUTRAGED THAT MANUFACTURE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PART IS FAULTY BUT DOES NOT REPLACE WITH ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT. VEHICLE HAS ONLY 56000 MILES. COST TO ME TO REPAIR ALMOST $900.00. CALL TO FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE HAS YET TO BE RETURNED.

WHEN DRIVING UNDER 10 MILES PER HOUR THE VEHICLE WILL SHUT OFF. THERE IS SOMETIMES A WARNING THAT THIS IS ABOUT TO OCCUR BECAUSE THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WILL FAIL. I EXPERIENCED THIS LAST YEAR AND UPON REPLACING THE BATTERY (WHICH WAS LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD) THE PROBLEM WENT AWAY UNTIL NOW. THIS BATTERY IS A 60 MONTH BATTERY AND IS ONLY 10 MONTHS OLD.

CONSUMER CALLED HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND STATED THAT IF THERE IS A RECALL THEY WIL GET BACK WITH HIM. TS INTAKE MANIFOLD SPLIT AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. *TT

WHILE DRIVING CONSUMER HEARS A "SQUEAKING" NOISE COMING FROM THE LEFT SIDE. CONSUMER SUSPECTS THAT BUSHING AND/OR BALL JOINT IS DEFECTIVE AND POSES A SAFETY HAZARD. RELATED RECALL 98V322000, CONSUMER'S V.I.N. IS NOT INCLUDED.TS

CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO START THE VEHICLE BECAUSE THE STEERING WHEEL WAS LOCKED, THE STEERING WHEEL WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE CONSUMER TO UNLOCK. *TT *JB

CONSUMER STATES UPON IMPACT THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED AND SPLIT PROVIDING NO PROTECTION, CAUSING INJURIES. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY ADDITION INFORMATION. TS *DT

WHILE DRIVING AND WITHOUT WARNING INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED CAUSING COOLANT FLUID TO LEAK. DEALER NOTIFIED. TS. *AK

THE CONSUMER WAS NOT ABLE TO RESTART THE PARKED VEHICLE DUE TO THE LOCKED STEERING COLUMN. THE STEERING COLUMN HAD BEEN EXCESSIVELY DIFFICULT TO UNLOCK. THE CONSUMER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BEING STRANDED WHEN THE SITUATION OCCURS. MR THE INCIDENT HAPPENED IN THE SUMMER OF 1998 AS WELL-POSSIBLY THE FIRST INCIDENT. SCC

THE CONSUMER STATES THAT WHILE PULLING OUT THE GARAGE THE OUTER TIE ROD FELL OFF, UNABLE TO STEER VEHICLE. WHICH COULD HAVE CAUSED A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IF VEHICLE WAS ON THE HIGHWAY. TS THE FRONT END WAS ALIGNED. THE CONSUMER FEELS THAT THERE IS AN ERROR WITH THE TYPE OF TIE RODS BEING USED ON THIS VEHICLE. SCC

CONSUMER STATES THAT THE WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY THE REAR GLASS WINDOW SHATTERED THROWING PIECES OF GLASS ALL OVER THE CONSUMER. CONTACTED DEALER AND THE DEALER IS NOT WILLING TO DO ANYTHING. MR

WHEN BRAKES WAS APPLIED THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP. THE OWNER HAD THE BRAKES CHECKED OUT WHICH INFORMED HIM THE BRAKE LINE HAD RUSTED AND ALLOWED BRAKE FLUID TO LEAK OUT. PLEASE DESCRIBE DETAILS. *MR REFERENCED IN RQ03-004

CONSUMER STATES THAT WHEN TRYING TO APPLY THE BRAKES THEY CAN HEAR A LOUD NOISE AND THE BRAKE PEDAL WILL GO TO THE FLOOR CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO HAVE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. DEALER NOTIFIED. NLM

WHILE IN MOTION, THE PALSTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD SUFFERED A FATIGUE CRACK. THERE ARE THREE RECALL PROGRAMS AND A SEVEN YEAR EXTENDED WARRANTY ISSUED BUT NONE COVERED THIS VEHICLE. CONSUMER REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR MONIES PAID FOR REPAIRS TO THIS VEHICLE AND THAT THIS VEHICLE BE ADDED UNDER THE RECALL PROGRAM. *JG (STEVEN SWANN ATTORNEY AT LAW ON BEHALF OF MR. AND MRS. FABRIKANT.)

OWNER ATTEMPTED TO PULL OUT ONTO A MAJOR ROAD AND BRAKE PEDAL DESCENDED TO FLOOR. OWNER NOTICED THAT ALL FLUID HAD RUN OUT ONTO THE GROUND. A STEEL BRAKE LINE THAT RAN PARALLEL WITH GAS LINE HAD RUSTED THROUGH. *AK *YH REFERENCED IN RQ03-004

WHILE DRIVING ENGINE OVERHEATED AND DIED. VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO DEALER, DEALER INDICATED THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED . CONSUMER STATEED THAT MANIFOLD SHOULD BE METAL. *AK THE CONSUMER WAS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT OF INTAKE MANIFOLD REPAIR COST. *YH

POWER WINDOW ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE FAILED TO ROLL BACK UP. DEALER NOTIFIED, AND REPLACED POWER WINDOW REGULATOR. CURRENTLY, PROBLEM IS REOCCURRING ON THE SAME WINDOW. FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.*AK

MOLDING AROUNG THE FRONT AND REAR WINDOWS ARE DETERIORATING. DEALER WAS NOTIFIED, AND THEY INFORMED CONSUMER THAT BOTH WINDOWS NEED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE THE MOLDING ARE MADE ONTO THE WINDOWS. ASKING NHTSA TO ASSIST IN THIS MATTER. FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.*AK

WHILE DRIVING ON A NARROW CURVE IN THE MOUNTAINS, CONSUMER BRIEFLY FLASHED THE HEADLIGHTS TO HIGH BEAMS, UPON RELEASING THEM TO THE NORMAL POSITION, THE HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT COMPLETELY LEAVING THE CONSUMER TO DRIVE AT NIGHT WITHOUT HEADLIGHTS, A FEW SECONDS LATER, THE LIGHTS CAME BACK ON, THE MECHANIC REMOVED THE STEERING ASSEMBLY AND REPLACED A SWITCH, HOWEVER SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AGAIN, CONSUMER STATES THE PROBLEM HAS RECURRED FOR THE THIRD TIME. *JB *SCC

WHILE DRIVING, VEHICLE STARTED TO OVERHEAT, INTAKE MANIFOLD BROKE.*AK *SLC

CONSUMER STATES THE BATTERY WAS REPLACED. *SLC

AT 65-70 MPH STEAM CAME FROM UNDER THE HOOD, ENOUGH TO FOG UP THE WINDSHIELD. DEALER DETERMINED THAT PLASTIC MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED, FLOODING ENGINE WITH COOLANT.*AK CONSUMER FEELS THAT LINCOLN KNEW OF A PROBLEM WITH THE ORIGINAL MANIFOLD BECAUSE WHEN THE MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED, IT WAS REPLACED WITH AN ALUMINUM MADE MANIFOLD. CONSUMER HAS THE ORIGINAL MOLDING IN POSSESSION AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. *JG

WHILE DRIVING 65-70 MPH, THERE WAS STEAM COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD, VEHICLE LOST ALL COOLING FLUID. DEALER DETERMINED THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD A 3 INCH FATIGUE CRACK.*AK CONSUMER HAD RECEIVED RECALL 97M91 REGARDING THIS PROBLEM AND IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT. *SLC

CONSUMER WAS INFORMED OF WATER LEAKING, VEHICLE TAKEN TO A REPAIR SHOP AND INFORMED OF A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. *AK CONSUMER STATES THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED IN A FORWARD AREA THAT WAS MADE OF PLASTIC, CONSUMER IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT. *SLC

WHILE DRIVING AT 25 MPH CONSUMER NOTICED SMOKE UNDER HOOD AND INSIDE DASHBOARD. CONSUMER PARKED CAR, AND FIRE STARTED DROPPING FROM DASHBOARD, ENTIRE VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.*AK

WHILE DRIVING CONSUMER NOTICED STEAM COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER, WHO DETERMINED THERE WAS A SPLIT IN MANIFOLD, CAUSING COOLANT TO LEAK.*AK

WHILE DRIVING, STEAM CAME FROM THE BOTTOM OF VEHICLE. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER. DEALER STATED THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD HOSE HAD MELTED WHICH WAS MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. *AK

CENTER LINKAGE (DRAG LINK) METALURGICAL FAILURE OF BREAK. *AK

SINCE THE PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLE THE HORN WAS INOPERABLE. THE DEALERSHIP CONFIRMED IT WAS BLOWN OUT AND FIXED IT AT NO CHARGE. NOW THE HORN SOUNDS OFF AT ANY GIVEN TIME. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN WOULD HAVE TO BE PULLED OUT IN ORDER TO GET TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. CONSUMER ISOLATED THE PROBLEM HIS SELF AND FOUND IT WAS A SHORT CIRCUIT IN THE STEERING WHEEL PAD COVER. TO REPLACE THE HORN SWITCH, CONSUMER NEEDS THE ENTIRE AIRBAG ASSEMBLY. THE DEALER WILL NOT SUPPORT THE REPLACEMENT OF THE AIRBAG ASSEMBLY. CONSUMER FEELS THE THAT THERE WAS A DEFECT ALREADY DUE TO THE HORN INITIALLY BEING BURNED OUT. *JG