1995 Mercury Grand Marquis

Defect. Dorman Products, Inc. (Dorman) is recalling certain model Dorman Steering Shafts, part number 425-359, Solutions Steering Shafts, part number 7-0359, and OE Solutions Steering Shafts, part number 425-359, manufactured April 17, 2014, to September 28, 2015. These aftermarket replacement steering shafts are sold for use in 1995-2002 Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Car vehicles. These steering shafts may separate during operation if the integral fastener is loose or missing and if the interfacing vehicle shaft is compressed in length.

Risk. If the shafts separate during vehicle operation, a loss of steering control would result, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy. Dorman will notify owners, and dealers will replace the steering shaft, free of charge. The recall began on October 28, 2015. Owners may contact Dorman customer service at 1-800-523-2492, option 5.

Defect. 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.

Defect. 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.

Defect. THE RIVETS HOLDING THE REAR OUTBOARD BELT D-RINGS WERE NOT HEAT TREATED PROPERLY CAUSING THE HEADS OF THE RIVETS TO FRACTURE UNDER LOAD AND FAIL TO HOLD THE D-RINGS TO THE STRAPS. THIS DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 210, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES."

Risk. CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: THIS CONDITION CAN REDUCE THE RESTRAINING CAPABILITIES OF THE SAFETY BELT IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT.

Remedy. DEALERS WILL INSTALL A REINFORCEMENT PLATE ON THE REAR OUTBOARD SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES INVOLVED IN THIS CAMPAIGN.

Defect. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT WITH THE NON-CYCLING POWER WINDOW CIRCUIT BREAKER AND THE CYCLING HEADLAMP CIRCUIT BREAKER INTERCHANGED.

Risk. IN THE EVENT OF A SHORT OR OVERLOAD IN THE HEADLAMPCIRCUIT, BOTH HEADLAMPS CAN GO OUT WITHOUT WARNING, RATHER THAN FLASHING AS INTENDED WITH THE CYCLING CIRCUIT BREAKER. THIS COULD LEAD TO REDUCED NIGHT TIME DRIVER VISIBILITY, INCREASING THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Remedy. DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES, REMOVE THE CIRCUIT BREAKER AND REINSTALL THE BREAKER IN THE CORRECT LOCATIONS.

Defect. THE SEAL MATERIAL BETWEEN THE FUEL FILLER PIPE AND FUEL TANK MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FULLY CURED DURING THE MOLDING PROCESS WHICH COULD ALLOW FOR FUEL LEAKAGE.

Risk. FUEL LEAKAGE COULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE FIRE IF AN IGNITION SOURCE WERE PRESENT.

Remedy. DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FUEL FILLER PIPE-TO-FUEL TANK SEAL WITH A NEW SEAL OF DIFFERENT MATERIAL.

Defect. THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG HAS AN INFLATOR BODY THAT CRACKED DURING FORMING OF THE CURL THAT RETAINS THE IGNITER PLUG IN THE END OF THE INFLATOR. ALSO THE IGNITER END CAP CAN SEPARATE FROM THE INFLATOR.

Risk. THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG MAY NOT INFLATE PROPERLY RESULTING IN REDUCED OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN A VEHICLE ACCIDENT. IF THE IGNITER END CAP SEPARATES IN A FRONTAL COLLISION, HOT GASES CAN BE RELEASED AND IGNITE FLAMMABLE MATERIAL OR CAUSE BURN INJURIES.

Remedy. DEALERS WILL REMOVE AND REPLACE THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG MODULE.

MERGING ONTO HIGHWAY SUDDEN LOSS OF CONTROL /STEERING AIRBAGS DEPLOYED CAUSING INJURIES INCLUDING CHEMICAL BURNS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DECELERATING FROM DRIVING AT 70 MPH, A FUEL ODOR EMITTED FROM THE VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND THE VEHICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY SERVICED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 95V063000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 77,000.

HEADLIGHTS GO OUT WHILE DRIVING. *TR

TOOK CAR IN FOR SQUEAKING NOISE UNDER CAR; DISCOVERED IT WAS U-JOINT SEAL GOING DRY. HOWEVER, UPON INSPECTION TECHNICIAN DISCOVERED FOUR DANGEROUSLY WORN BALL JOINTS, BOTH UPPER AND LOWER BALL JOINTS ON BOTH SIDES, AND DANGEROUSLY WORN IDLER ARM. THIS WAS CONFIRMED VISUALLY BY MYSELF. UPPER LEFT BALL JOINT WAS IN THE BEST CONDITION, ALL OTHERS WERE MISSING JACKETS, HAD NO LUBRICATION, AND WORN TO THE LEVEL THAT VERY LITTLE FORCE WAS NEEDED TO REMOVE THE BALL FROM THE SOCKET AFTER REMOVAL, ONE CAME OUT WITH NO FORCE. THE IDLER ARM WAS BARELY CONNECTED, AND OVER 75% OF METAL AT THE LINK WORN AND RUSTED. NOTHING IN THE CAR'S DRIVING BEHAVIOR GAVE ANY INDICATION THAT ANY OF THESE PARTS WERE WORN. STEERING HAD ONLY SLIGHT AMOUNT OF PLAY WHICH WAS STILL PRESENT AFTER THE PARTS WERE REPLACED AND THE CAR ALIGNED. LEFT UPPER BALL JOINT HAD BEEN REPLACED ONE YEAR AND 3 MONTHS PREVIOUS TO DISCOVERY. NO OTHER SIGNS OF WEAR WERE PRESENT AT THAT TIME. THE PREVIOUS BALL JOINT REPLACED WAS LEAST WORN, BUT JACKET WAS TORN AND NO LUBRICATION PRESENT. WITH ONE EXCEPTION, THE BALL JOINTS APPEARED TO HAVE ONLY GRAVITY AS THE PRIMARY FORCE HOLDING THE BALLS IN THE SOCKETS. MY CONCERN FOR OTHER DRIVERS IS RELATED TO THE LACK OF INDICATIONS THAT THE FRONT END OF THIS CAR HAD DEGRADED TO THIS LEVEL. THE VEHICLE'S STEERING RESPONSES WERE ASYMPTOMATIC, PERIOD. THIS HAD NOT BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST. POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR ASYMPTOMATIC BEHAVIOR IS UNKNOWN (WEIGHT OF VEHICLE AND GRAVITY?) THE EARLIER P

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE HEADLIGHTS SUDDENLY MALFUNCTIONED AND BECAME INOPERABLE. THE CONTACT SWITCHED ON THE HIGH BEAMS THAT ALSO MALFUNCTIONED WITHIN A FEW MINUTES AND FAILED TO FUNCTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEAD LAMP CIRCUIT WAS FAULTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT BUT NO SOLUTION WAS OFFERED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 76,000. UPDATED 07/28/14 MA THE CONSUMER REFERENCED RECALL # 95V189000. UPDATED 07/29/14

ALL THE BRAKE LINES ON CAR FROM FRONT TO REAR ARE ROTTED. CAUSE BRAKE FAILURE WHILE DRIVING. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 55 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD AND DROVE ONTO THE EMERGENCY LANE. THE CONTACT CONFIRMED THAT THE FIRE BEGAN INSIDE THE DASHBOARD AREA AND SPREAD TO THE COMPONENTS UNDER THE HOOD. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE POLICE WERE CALLED AND A REPORT WAS FILED; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 90,000. UPDATED 6/1/10 *CN UPDATED 06/18/10.*JB

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE SPEEDOMETER AND HEADLIGHTS FAILED ON HIS VEHICLE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE DIGITAL DISPLAY BOARD FAILED. THE REPAIR COST WAS ESTIMATED AT $1,000. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THEY WOULD ONLY REPAIR THE VEHICLE ACCORDING TO NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE VEHICLE WILL BE REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 82,000. UPDATED 06/27/09 *BF UPDATED 06/23/09.*JB

I ALSO HAD THE CLUNK NOISE AFTER A LEFT TURN, ABOUT 1 MONTH AS WELL AFTER MY LEFT TIRE FELL OFF AS I WAS BACKING OUT OF GARAGE. BALL JOINTS HAD GIVEN OUT PREMATURELY. 1300.00 TO FIX PLUS TOW CHARGE. *TR

CRUISE CONTROL WAS REPLACE WITH A JUMPER. IT WORKED FOR ABOUT A MONTH, AND NOW IT IS NOT WORKING. THE REPAIR SHOP REFUSE TO FIX IT. THEY SAY THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS WRONG, AND WANT TO CHARGE ME A LOT OF MONEY TO FIX IT. THE CAR HAS BEEN WORKING EVERY SINCE I PURCHASED IT IN 1995. NOW IT IS NOT. *TR

AFTER MAKING A SHARP RIGHT HAND TURN, I HEARD A LOUD CLUNK CLUNK NOISE AND THE CAR MADE A AWKWARD MOVEMENT UNTIL I STRAIGHTEN THE VEHICLE BACK OUT. ABOUT A MONTH LATER AFTER GETTING MY BRAKES SERVICED THE REPAIRMAN TOLD ME THAT THE BALL JOINT SEALS WERE BUSTED PREMATURELY AND I HAD NO PROTECTION. $1000.00 FIX. *TR

VEHICLE SHUDDERS WHEN SHIFTING GEARS. THIS IN AN INTERMITTENT PROBLEM AND OCCURS MORE FREQUENTLY WHEN THERE IS LOW LOAD ON ENGINE AND WHEN TRANSMISSION IS TRYING TO SELECT GEARS. *TR

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD BANGING NOISE AND THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE LOWERED TO THE GROUND. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO HER RESIDENCE. AN INVESTIGATOR FROM HER INSURANCE COMPANY INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE LOWER BALL JOINTS SEPARATED FROM THE VEHICLE. SHE IS IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING THE VEHICLE REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 76,000.

I RECEIVE A RECALL NOTICE ON MY FORD GRAND MARQUIS -1995 TO DISCONNECT MY CRUISE CONTROL BECAUSE IT MAY CAUSE A FIRE (RECALL NUMBER 05S28). ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 WE TOOK OUR VEHICLE TO MATHEWS FORD IN HEATH OHIO TO HAVE THE CRUISE CONTROL DISABLED. WE WERE TOLD THE PART WOULD BE IN SOME TIME IN JANUARY. AFTER CALLING AND CHECKING ON THE PART FOR QUIT SOMETIME, THE PART FINALLY ARRIVE AND WAS INSTALL ON APRIL 8, 2008. AFTER THE PART WAS INSTALL, MY CRUISE CONTROL DID NOT WORK. IT HAD BEEN WORKING FINE PRIOR TO THE CRUISE CONTROL BEING DISABLED. I RETURNED TO MATHEWS FORD ON APRIL 25, 2008 TO COMPLAIN THAT MY CRUISE CONTROL DID NOT WORK. I WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT IT, BUT IF IT WAS NOT THE PART THEY REPLACED I WOULD BE CHARGE $70 FOR THEM TO LOOK AT IT AND RECEIVE AN ESTIMATE TO FIX THE PROBLEM. I REFUSED THE SERVICE. I DO NOT FEEL THIS IS PROPER. IT WAS WORKING BEFORE THEY MESSED WITH. IF THEY WOULD OF MADE THE REPAIR IN SEPTEMBER AND IT WORKED AFTERWARDS AND THEN LATER BROKE I WOULD UNDERSTAND. THEY ARE TELLING ME SOMETHING COULD OF HAPPENED SINCE THEY DISABLED IT. WELL SOMETHING MAY OF HAPPENED WHILE IT WAS DISABLED FOR 8-9 MONTHS IT WAS DISABLED, BUT SINCE I COULD NOT USE IT, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. I FEEL THEY SHOULD RETURN MY VEHICLE TO THE CONDITION IT WAS IN BEFORE THEY MESSED WITH IT. AT A MINIMUM, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY MONEY FOR THEM TO DIAGNOSE A PROBLEM THEY CAUSED! IF THEY DIAGNOSED IT AND IT WAS ANOTHER PART--THEN I COULD DECIDE HOW TO PROCEED AND I

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL: CRUISE CONTROL. WHILE LEAVING HER HOUSE, THE CONTACT WITNESSED HER VEHICLE ON FIRE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE FIRE ORIGINATED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER, WHERE IT CURRENTLY REMAINS. THE POWERTRAIN AND RECALL NUMBER WERE UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 170,000.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE REGARDING THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. SEVERAL DEALERS HAVE INFORMED HIM THAT THE PARTS FOR THE REPAIR ARE UNAVAILABLE. HE HAS EXPERIENCED THE FOLLOWING FAILURES WITH HIS VEHICLE: THE SERPENTINE BELT, BRAKE ROTORS, FRONT PASSENGER SIDE STRUT, AND ODOMETER. THE MILEAGE INFORMATION AND RECALL NUMBER WERE UNKNOWN.

STEERING BOX SEALS WENT TWICE IN 2 WEEKS. ANOTHER COMPLAINT ON THIS SITE TELLS THE SAME STORY. THE SEALS WENT ONCE WHEN I WENT TO DRIVE AND THE OTHER TIME, WHEN I WENT TO BACK INTO A PARKING SPACE. *TR

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL FAILED. IN AUGUST OF 2007, THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL, BUT IT DID NOT MENTION TO PARK THE VEHICLE INSIDE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A SECOND NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 08V051000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL), WHICH ADVISED HIM NOT TO PARK THE VEHICLE INSIDE DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A FIRE. THE CONTACT FELT THAT THE FIRST LETTER SHOULD HAVE STATED THIS INFORMATION. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 70,000.

1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS WITH SPEED CONTROL RECALL. CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO HAVE THE WIRING HARNESS DISCONNECTED. CONSUMER HAS YET TO BE NOTIFIED OF WHEN THE REPLACEMENT PART WILL BE AVAILABLE. *KB

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A FORD SAFETY RECALL NOTICE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2007 FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. THE SWITCH WAS DISCONNECTED AT THAT TIME. HE HAS BEEN INFORMED BY FORD SINCE THAT TIME AND, EVERY MONTH THEREAFTER, THAT THE SWITCH WOULD BE REPAIRED THE FOLLOWING MONTH. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE PURCHASE DATE AND RECALL NUMBER WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 96,000. UPDATED 3/4/08 *CN THE CONSUMER PROVIDED THE RECALL NUMBER 05S28. UPDATED 03/04/08 *TR

1995 MERCURY MARQUIS RECALL PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. CONSUMER STATES THAT SHE WAS TOLD THE PART WASN'T IN WHEN TALKING TO THE DEALER. CONSUMER HAD THE OLD PART REMOVED BUT THE NEW PART WAS NOT INSTALLED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN. *KB

1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS RECALL FOR SPEED CONTROL. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE DEALER HAS INFORMED HER THAT THE PART IS NOT AVAILABLE AND ALL THEY CAN DO FOR THE TIME BEING IS DISCONNECT THE PART. *KB

1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS WITH SPEED CONTROL RECALL. CONSUMER STATES THAT SHE RECEIVED THE RECALL IN AUGUST 2007. SHE STATES THAT THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN DECEMBER NOW THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE IN FEBRUARY TO MAY 2008. *KB

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTIFICATION FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2004. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PART WOULD BE AVAILABLE THE FOLLOWING MONTH. AS OF JANUARY 16, 2008, THE DEALER HAD NOT REPAIRED THE VEHICLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 124,000 AND THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. UPDATED 02-14-08. *KB UPDATED

MY 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS ODOMETER IS OVER 144K. I'VE EXPERIENCED INTERMITTENT FAILURE OF THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH, ESPECIALLY WHEN TEMPERATURE IS NEAR OR BELOW FREEZING. WHEN IT'S COLD OUTSIDE, AND THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN SITTING FOR A WHILE AND THEREFORE COLD WHEN I TURN ON THE HEADLIGHTS, I HAVE TO PLAY WITH THE SWITCH FOR THE HEADLIGHTS TO STAY ON. IT'S NOW TAKING LONGER AND LONGER FOR ME TO GET THE LIGHTS TO STAY LIT. I'VE ONLY EXPERIENCED ONE FAILURE WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, AFTER THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN DRIVEN FOR OVER 20 MINUTES. WHEN I FIRST PURCHASED MY VEHICLE, I REPLACED ALL 4 HEADLAMP BULBS BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO DIM. THE REPLACEMENTS DIDN'T RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. FROM WHAT I'VE READ, THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM IS THE PLASTIC COVERING ON THE HEADLAMPS. THE COMPOSITION OF THE PLASTIC BREAKS DOWN WITH AGE AND DISCOLORS, REDUCING THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE HEADLIGHTS. THIS DESIGN FAULT OF USING PLASTIC OVER GLASS IS A DANGEROUS SAFETY HAZARD. IF I CHANGE FROM LOW TO HIGH, MY HEADLIGHTS APPEAR TO ILLUMINATE THE ROAD WITHIN ALLOWABLE BRIGHTNESS, INCREASING VISIBILITY. DRIVING ON ROADS WITH INSUFFICIENT STREET LIGHTS IS DANGEROUS WITH ONLY THE LOW BEAM HEADLAMPS. I'VE CONSIDERED DRIVING WITH THE HIGH BEAMS AT ALL TIMES, TO ENSURE MY SAFETY, BUT HAVE QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF SUCH A CHOICE. THE NEWER VEHICLES TODAY SEEM TO BE SPORTING THOSE SUPER BRIGHT HEADLIGHTS, ARE EXTREMELY BLINDING TO THOSE WHO HAVE TO DRIVE IN FRONT OF OR IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AS THEY BLIND YOU AS

1995 GRAND MARQUIS CAUGHT FIRE WHILE PARKED. CUSTOMER STATES THERE WAS NO WARNINGS ON WHY THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE. DEALER TOLD HIM THAT HIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF THE RECALL FOR THIS VEHICLE. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED HE RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE SHORTLY AFTER THE INCIDENT PERTAINING TO THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED FORD, HOWEVER FORD STATED THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO. *TR

TL*THE CONTACT'S FATHER OWNED A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE DRIVER VEERED OFF THE ROAD AND DROVE OVER A 10-INCH GAP, WHICH FLATTENED THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT AND REAR TIRES. THE FLAT TIRES CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO ROLLOVER AND LAND ON THE ROOF. AS A RESULT, THE ROOF CAVED IN AND KILLED THE DRIVER. THE CONTACT DID NOT KNOW WHO INSPECTED THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT'S BROTHER BELIEVED THAT THE DEATH WAS DUE TO A MISSING PILLAR ON THE ROOF'S STRUCTURE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VIN APPEARED TO BE INVALID. THE ENGINE SIZE, POWERTRAIN, AND NUMBER OF CYLINDERS WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 400.

I PURCHASED MY 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS USED IN JUNE OF 2005. I'VE HAD INTERMITTENT PROBLEMS WITH THE HORN SINCE THEN. LAST SUMMER, I REPLACED THE HORN BECAUSE ONE OF THE 2 TONES HAD FAILED. UPON REMOVAL OF THE ORIGINAL HORNS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE HORNS HAD SEVERE CORROSION, AND COULD NOT BE REUSED. I PURCHASED 2 NEW HORNS, AND HAD THEM INSTALLED. IF I PRESS THE HORN BUTTON ON THE STEERING WHEEL FOR MORE THAN 5 SECONDS, THE HORN SHORTS OUT THE FUSE, AND I'M LEFT WITH NO HORN ON THE HIGHWAY. I DRIVE 23.5 MILES EACH WAY TO WORK, IN HEAVY HIGHWAY TRAFFIC, AND THE LOSS OF MY HORN IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WHEN YOU ARE AROUND DRIVERS WHO DON'T CHECK BEFORE CHANGING LANES. IN THE PAST YEAR, I HAVE REPLACED THE FUSE 6 TIMES. I AM AGAIN LEFT WITH ONLY 1 OF 2 TONES ON THE HORN, AND WILL NEED TO REPLACE THE HORNS AGAIN. IT APPEARS THAT THE LOCATION OF THE HORN UNDER THE ENGINE BEHIND THE FRONT BUMPER IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE CORROSION PROBLEM. IS THERE ANYTHING AVAILABLE TO RELOCATE THE HORN TO THE TOP OF THE FIREWALL? ALSO THERE APPEARS TO BE A FACTORY INSTALLED ALARM IN THIS VEHICLE, BUT WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO LOCATE THE MASTER CODE WITHIN THE VEHICLE TO RESET THE CODE TO BE ABLE TO USE THE ALARM. ANOTHER PROBLEM WE HAVE BEEN HAVING IS THAT THE WINDSHIELD WASHER SWITCH IS SENSITIVE, AND DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK. WE HAVE TO PLAY WITH THE SWITCH, ROCKING IT BACK AND FORTH TO GET THE WASHER FLUID TO PUMP. IN ADDITION, THE FLUID FREEZES IN THE WINTER, IF YOU DON'T USE THE SUPER DU

STEERING BOX SEAL LET GO, CAUSING ME TO LOSE STEERING. DID THIS TWICE IN 2 WEEKS. SEALS IN THE GEARBOX ARE VERY COMMON. HAPPENED WHEN I STARTED THE CAR AND STARTED TO DRIVE AND THE SEAL WENT BOTH TIMES. *NM

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE, THERE WAS A STRONG ODOR OF SMOKE PRESENT. THE CONTACT WENT OUTSIDE TO DETERMINE THE ORIGIN OF THE SMOKE AND DISCOVERED THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE ENGULFED IN FLAMES. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS ALERTED AND EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE. AFTERWARDS, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND DETERMINED THE FIRE ORIGINATED AT THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED EXTENSIVE FIRE DAMAGE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED. *AK THE CONSUMER STATED THAT HE RECEIVED A RECALL LETTER PERTAINING TO CRUISE CONTROL WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER INFORMED THEM OF THE RECALL NOTICE AND IN TURN THE MANUFACTURER ASKED THEM TO CONTACT THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH ALREADY COMPENSATED THE CONSUMER FOR THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER PROVIDED PHOTOS AND THE RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE. UPDATED 09/18/07 *TR

VEHICLE WAS IN FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND A GENERAL INSPECTION WAS BEING DONE PRIOR TO A FAMILY TRIP. THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS FOUND TO BE "EXTREMELY" RUSTED ABOUT 6 INCHES BACK FROM THE FRONT TIRES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE VEHICLE (DIRECTLY BELOW THE FRONT DOOR HINGE AREA OF THE VEHICLE). THE LOWER CHANNEL OF THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED AND GONE ON THE DRIVER SIDE AND EVEN WORSE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE (THE SAME LOCATION ON BOTH SIDES). THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETELY UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND WAS TAKEN OFF THE ROAD AND PARKED. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY LETHAL FAILURE. COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE FRAME SEEMS THE ONLY REMEDY TO CORRECT THIS FAILURE. THE VEHICLE IS IN OTHERWISE GREAT SHAPE AND SHOWS NO SIGN OF OTHER BODY RUST PROBLEMS. FILING THIS COMPLAINT IS THE ONLY ACTION TAKEN AT THIS TIME TO CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM OPERATION DUE TO SAFETY REASONS. *NM

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPACE THE ENGINE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING AND RESULTED IN A LOSS OF ALL POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP. THE MECHANIC WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED, HOWEVER NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. UPDATED 3/17/2006 - *NM

REAR BRAKE LINE HAD TO BE REPLACED DUE TO SPONGY BRAKES AND EXCESSIVE FLUID LEAKING OUT. PROBLEM CAUSED BY FLOOR PAN STIFFENING RIB CHAFING THE LINE. SECOND PROBLEM WHICH HAS NOT AS YET BEEN CORRECTED IS THAT THE HEADLAMPS ARE COMPLETELY DISCOLORED, YELLOWED MAKING IT DANGEROUS TO DRIVE AT NIGHT. TO REPLACE HEADLAMPS IS OVER $400.00. LAST PROBLEM IS THAT THE EXTERIOR CLEAR COAT IS PEELING. *JB

DT: THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN HE APPLIED THE BRAKES THE PEDAL WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE FLUID LEAKED FROM THE BRAKE LINE. A CERTIFIED MECHANIC REPLACED THE BRAKE LINES ON THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT HAS NOT CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER. THE CONTACT STATED AT ONLY 38,000 MILES, WHILE STOPPED AND MAKING A LEFT TURN, THE PITMAN ARM CAME OFF AND CAUSED LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL. A MECHANIC REPAIRED THE PITMAN ARM . *AK

CONSUMER COMPLAINED ABOUT A BRAKE PROBLEM. WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES BRAKE PEDAL WOULD GO COMPLETELY TO THE FLOOR. OWNER HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE DEALER, AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE BRAKE LINE COMPLETELY RUSTED AND THERE WAS NO BRAKE FLUID IN THE LINES. *AK

FROSTING AND DISCOLORATION OF PLASTIC HEAD LAMP LENSES SEVERELY REDUCE LIGHT OUTPUT, AND ARE A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD. THIS IS CAUSED BY HEAT FROM THE BULBS AND PERHAPS UV RADIATION FROM SUNLIGHT. LENSES ON MY 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS BECAME DANGEROUS TO DRIVE AT NIGHT AT LEAST TWO YEARS AGO (AT 8 YEARS OLD). DEALER (OEM) REPLACEMENTS ARE $205 EACH, WHICH IS PROHIBITIVE FOR RETIRED OWNERS LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY. BY COMPARISON, THE OLD GLASS SEALED-BEAM UNITS LASTED NEAR-FOREVER AND ONLY COST $5 TO REPLACE. MANUFACTURERS SHOULD RECALL AND REPLACE THESE FOR FREE.*AK

COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER ON FATAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THEIR SON WHILE IN DOREL/COSCO CHILD SAFETY SEAT. *BF THE CHILD WAS RESTRAINED IN THE BACK SEAT OF THE VEHICLE SEAT IN A BELTED DOREL CHILD SAFETY SEAT MODEL 22-200 FRW. THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A REAR END COLLISION WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE WHICH CAUSED THE DRIVERS SEAT TO COLLAPSE BACKWARD. THE SEAT STRUCK THE CHILD WHO WAS INADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE CHILD SEAT ALTHOUGH HE WAS PROPERLY BELTED AND SEATED IN THE LEFT REAR PASSENGER SEAT.

ABS BRAKE SYSTEM: THE TWO FRONT ANTI-LOCK SENSOR INDICATORS-STEEL RING ATTACHED TO THE INSIDE OF THE HUBS-ROTTED OUT. THIS CREATED A LOW VOTAGE OUTPUT AND CYCLED THE ABS SYSTEM INCREASING STOPPING DISTANCE ON DRY PAYMENT. WHEN REMOVED, THE INDICATORS WERE ROTTED TO THE EXTEND THAT THERE WERE HOLES IN THE STEEL. UPON REPLACEMENT, THE ABS SYSTEM WORKED AS DESIGNED. A BETTER MATERIAL MUST BE USED IF MANUFACTURERS ARE GOING TO SELL CARS IN AREAS WHERE ROAD SALT IS USED. MY 96 LINCOLN TOWN CAR USUALLY HAS THE SAME FAILURES.*AK

REAR BRAKE LINES FAILED LAST MONTH AND REPORTED. UPON INSPECTION OF THE FRONT BRAKE LINES, THE LINE TO THE RIGHT BRAKE CALIPER BROKE BY TOUCH. THERE APPEARS TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH THE MATERIAL (STEEL) USED. HOW MANY OTHER CARS HAVE THE SAME ROTTED BRAKE LINES?*AK

REAR STEEL BRAKE LINES FAILED DURING A HARD STOP. BOTH STEEL LINES ARE RUST SO BAD THAT IT'S HARD TO TELL WHICH LINE FAILED. THE FAILED SECTION IS LOCATED ABOUT ONE FOOT IN FRONT OF RIGHT REAR TIRE. BUT THE REST OF THE LINES APPEARS VERY RUSTED. BOTH STEEL LINES WILL BE REPLACED. FORD HAD NO REPAIR PROGRAM FOR THIS ISSUE. MY 1965 FORD STILL HAS THE FACTORY LINES WHICH ARE STILL IN GREAT CONDITION.! THIS 1995 MERCURY BRAKE SYSTEM WAS FLUSHED EVERY TWO YEARS. THE UNDERSIDE OF THE CAR WAS WASHED AFTER SNOW STORMS TO REMOVE SALT. EVERY SPRING A HEAVY WASH TO REMOVE SALT, DIRT ETC. LINES FAILED FROM THE OUTSIDE IN.*AK

CAR JERKING SO THAT I TOOK TO RELIABLE MECHANIC. HE DROVE CAR AND SAID THE TRANSMISSION IS SLIPPING. THE MECHANIC SAID THE TRANSMISSION FLUID SMELLED A LITTLE BURNED CONSISTENT WITH SLIPPING OF THE TRANSMISSION. THE MECHANIC'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO WAIT UNTIL TRANSMISSION COMPLETELY FAILED SINCE HE THOUGHT THE ONLY OPTION WAS TO HAVE TRANSMISSION REPLACED. THIS 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS HAS ONLY 34,000 MILES ON IT. I HAD HEARD RECENTLY THAT MANY OF THE MERCURY'S AND FORD'S HAD EARLY TRANSMISSION FAILURE. *AK

TRANMISSION/TORQUE CONVERTER HAS A SHUDDER WHEN SHIFTING AT ABOUT 50 MPH, I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH REGARDING THIS AND HAVE FOUND 19 TSB'S REGARDING THE TRANSMISSION/TORQUE CONVERTER FROM JAN. 1995 TO JULY OF 2003. THIS IS ON MY 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. I HAVE CONTACTED FORD/MERCURY AND HAVE BEEN TOLD THE COST OF DIAGNOSIS AND REPAIR IS MY RESPONSIBILITY. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME WITH SO MANY TSB'S ON THIS PROBLEM THERE IS A MFG. DEFECT INVOLVED, AND SHOULD BE FIXED BY THE MFG.*AK

CONSUMER HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE WINDOWS ON DRIVER SIDE MECHANISM, WINDOWS WON'T WORK PROPERLY. *AK WINDOWS NEITHER WENT UP NOR DOWN AT HALFWAY POINT. CONSUMER ADDED THAT DEALER HAS HUNDREDS OF SUCH FAILURES. *LA

WHILE DRIVING HEADLIGHTS FLICKERED ON/OFF. THIS CAUSED A VISIBILITY PROBLEM DURING NIGHT HOURS. RECALL#95V189000 WAS ISSUED; HOWEVER, DEALERSHIP WOULD NOT REPAIR THIS VEHICLE FREE OF CHARGE BECAUSE THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN RECALL DUE TO VIN. *AK *MR

CONSUMER FELT THAT HIS VEHICLE'S REAR SUSPENSION SHOULD BE RECALLED BECAUSE THE NEWER MODELS HAVE BETTER REAR SUSPENSIONS. *LA WHEN THE WIND BLEW, OR THE ROAD WAS UNEVEN ESPECIALLY IN THE MOUNTAINS, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP THE VEHICLE STRAIGHT, THE PROBLEM ONLY OCCURRED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. THE DEALER REFUSED TO UPGRADE THE CONSUMER'S VEHICLE EVEN THOUGH THE CONSUMER REQUESTED TO PAY. WHEN THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS WERE OFF THE RUBBER PART OF THE BLADE SAT PARTIALLY ON THE GLASS AND ON THE PLASTIC BELOW THE GLASS, THE RUBBER PART OF THE BLADE HAD TO BE CHANGED FREQUENTLY IN ORDER TO WORK PROPERLY WHEN IT RAINED OR SNOWED. THE TIE ROD BROKE WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PARKING LOT. *JB

I LEFT THE HOUSE AND AT THE END OF THE STREET THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. I RETURNED HOME AND CHECK THE CAR OVER AND OBSERVED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF BRAKE FLUID LEAKING IN THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR WHEEL. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION,THE FLUID WAS COMING FROM THE WHEEL WELL WHERE THE BRAKE LINE GOES BETWEEN THE FRAME AND THE BODY OF THE CAR. I COULD NOT SEE EXACTLY WHERE THE LEAK WAS COMING FROM OR THE CAUSE A LEAK. I MADE A TRIP TO THE DEALER TWICE (IN ANOTHER CAR). THEY ADVISED TO GET THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND THAT THE CHARGE WOULD BE $84.00 TO LOOK AT THE CAR AND AT THAT TIME I WOULD GET A ESTIMATE TO REPAIR. I WAS ADVISED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL OR TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETINS FOR THIS CAR. THE CAR REMAINS IN THE DRIVEWAY INOPERABLE AT THIS PRESENT TIME.

CAR KEY IGNITION FAILED TO SHUT OFF THE CAR THE KEY MECH. WAS INOPERATIVE THE KEY COULD BE REMOVED WHILE THE KEY WAS REMOVED

WHILE DRIVING OVER 45 MPH CONSUMER FELT TRANSMISSION SHUDDERING AND VIBRATING. THERE WAS A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN CONCERNING THIS PROBLEM. CONSUMER HAD NOT INFORMED THE MANUFACTURER OR THE DEALER ABOUT THIS PROBLEM.*AK

1 OF MY 4 MICHELIN XH4 TIRES HAS THE SIDEWALL SEPARATING AT THE INTERFACE OF THE WHITE TO BLACK WALL. TIRES HAVE APPROXIMATELY 30,000 MILES AND ARE 3 YEARS OLD. *LA

WH/REFERRAL FWD RE FUEL TANK DEFECT TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN 01-21-14 RECEIVED FOR A 1995 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS.*MR CONSUMER NOTED THE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY IDENTIFIED THIRTY FIRE FATALITIES OUT OF SEVENTY FATAL CRASHES IN THE 1992-2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA'S, MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS AND LINCOLN TOWN CAR. ALTHOUGH FORD STATED THIS FAILURE WAS PROBLEMS FOR POLICE CRUISERS, MORE FATALITIES WERE CIVILIAN VEHICLES WITH THE SAME GAS TANK ASSEMBLY. THE CONSUMER WENT TO TWO LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIPS WHOM REFUSED TO PERFORM THE SERVICE BULLETIN WORK ON HIS VEHICLE EVEN THOUGH HE WANTED TO PAY. THE CONSUMER WANTED THE WORK DONE TO MAKE HIS VEHICLE SAFER. *PH *JB