1997 Mercury Grand Marquis complaints

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL) IN AUGUST OF 2007. THE DEALER DISABLED THE CRUISE CONTROL AND STATED THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN NOVEMBER. THE MANUFACTURER DID NOT KNOW WHEN THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE. AS OF DECEMBER 21, 2007, THE DEALER HAD NOT REPAIRED THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT FELT THAT THE WAIT TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR WAS EXCESSIVE. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 81,000.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH IN EARLY SEPTEMBER OF 2007 UNDER RECALL NUMBER 05S28. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS IN DANGER OF CATCHING FIRE BECAUSE THE BRAKE FLUID WAS LEAKING INTO THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH. THE BRAKE FLUID IS CURRENTLY LEAKING ONTO THE GROUND. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 128,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 124,479.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. HE RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID # 07V336000). AS OF DECEMBER 5, 2007, THE DEALER HAD NOT REPAIRED THE VEHICLE BECAUSE THE PARTS WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT FELT THAT THE RECALL HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED IN A TIMELY MANNER. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 179,880 AND THERE HAD BEEN FAILURE TO DATE. THE VEHICLE PURCHASE DATE WAS UNAVAILABLE. UPDATED 01-10-08. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED 8 MONTHS TO REPAIR A RECALL IS UNACCEPTABLE. UPDATED 12/31/07 *TR

JUST LEFT HIGHWAY REST STOP IN KENTUCKY, NO SIGNS OF COOLANT LEAKAGE OR ANY PROBLEMS. WITHIN 5-7 MILES AT 65MPH, A BEEP, BEEP SOUND, THEN TEMPERATURE GAUGE ROSE IMMEDIATELY TO HIGH , BEGAN TO SLOW VEHICLE & TURNED HEATER ON. STEAM WAS SCENE FROM UNDER THE HOOD AS WE APPROACHED A CONSTRUCTION AREA. WE BARELY MADE IT TO A CLOSED WEIGH STATION. FAILURE WAS SUDDEN & CATASTROPHIC. HAD WE REMAINED ON THE HIGHWAY, AN ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE SURELY OCCURRED, NO SHOULDER WAS AVAILABLE. TWO HOURS WAITING FOR A TOW TRUCK, WHICH FINALLY TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALER. BEING A SUNDAY, WE HAD TO OBTAIN OVERNIGHT STAY IN A HOTEL. MONDAY THE DEALER DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. DEALER REPLACED THE PART, INCLUDING THERMOSTAT & COOLANT. DEALER KEPT THE OLD PARTS. DEALER SAID NO RECALL WAS MADE FOR THIS PART. I BELIEVE THIS WAS A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT WHICH HAS VERY SERIOUS OR DEADLY CONSEQUENCE & SHOULD BE REIMBURSED/CORRECTED BY RECALL OF ALL OF THESE PLASTIC MANIFOLDS. PLEASE HELP. THANK YOU *TR

PURCHASED A USED 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS FROM ROUNDTREE FORD IN SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA. I LEFT WITH THE VEHICLE AND THE DRIVER SEATBELT SEEMED TO LATCH PROPERLY. I RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE TO RUN AN ERRAND AND THE SEATBELT FAILED TO LATCH. NO MATTER WHAT I TRIED THE LATCH WOULD NOT FASTEN TO THE BELT. THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED TO THE RUDE USED CAR MANAGER BILLY FLOWERS WHO DID SAY TO BRING THE CAR IN FOR REPAIR BUT THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE A POLICY THAT SAFETY RESTRAINTS BE CHECKED BY SERVICE PERSONNEL PRIOR TO SALE OF A VEHICLE. *JB

THIS INCIDENT INVOLVES A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS GS AND THE FAILURE (CRACKING) OF THE MANIFOLD INTAKE WHICH IS IN THE PROCESS OF LEADING TO A HIGH REPAIR BILL. I'D LIKE TO REFERENCE THE FORD MANIFOLD INTAKE SETTLEMENT. THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 9 MONTHS AFTER THE MARCH DEADLINE. WE WERE NOT NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN ON-GOING SETTLEMENT OR AN IDENTIFIED PROBLEM WITH THE MANIFOLD INTAKE. WE REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING ANY RECOURSE IN THIS MATTER AND SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM FORD. BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN AND ON A FIXED INCOME, IT IS EXTREMELY HARD WHEN GETTING HIT WITH A HUGE REPAIR BILL ESPECIALLY WHEN IT INVOLVES A MANUFACTURERS DEFECT. IT IS A SHAME THAT INDIVIDUALS LIKE MYSELF CAN BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY BIG BUSINESS AND THE SEEMINGLY HUSH HUSH ATTITUDE OF THIS DEFECT BY NOT MAKING THIS CASE WELL KNOWN. IT SEEMS INDIVIDUALS LIKE MYSELF HAVE FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACKS AND REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE AND GUIDANCE IN THIS MATTER. I AWAIT YOUR REPLY TO MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. *NM

COMPOSITE HEADLIGHT LENSES TURNED MILKY TO THE POINT THAT VEHICLE BECAME UNUSABLE FOR NIGHT DRIVING. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER UNWILLING TO REPLACE OR ASSIST WITH REPLACEMENT COSTS. DEALERSHIP WANTS $583.84 TO REPLACE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES. *JB SAFETY DEFECTS CAUSING LIFE THREATENING SITUATION.

THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1997 GRAND MARQUIS HAS CRACKED LEAKING COOLANT. I AM TOLD MERCURY HAD AN "EXTENDED WARRANTY" FOR SUCH FAILURES, BUT MY CAR IS NOT INCLUDED. THIS IS A VERY COSTLY ITEM AND THE RESULT OF FORD USING INFERIOR PLASTIC FOR THEIR MANIFOLDS IS THERE ANY WAY TO RECOVER THESE COSTS? *NM

1997 GRAND MARQUIS CRUISE CONTROL STOP WORKING. THE BRAKE LIGHT ILLUMINATED FOLLOWED BY THE BRAKE FLUID LEAKING OUT. *TS *JB

WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE ON A SIDE STREET, THE DRIVER HEARD A LOUD NOISE COMING FROM THE FRONT RIGHT SIDE OF THE VEHICLE, SHE LOST STEERING CONTROL AND THE CAR VEERED RIGHT. THE DRIVER APPLIED THE BRAKE SLOWLY UNTIL THE CAR CAME TO A STOP. THE DRIVER CALLED A MECHANIC TO TOW THE CAR TO THE SHOP. UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CHASSIS SECTION THAT SUPPORTS THE TIRE WAS SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE CHASSIS. THE WELDED CONNECTION HAD SEPARATED AND SHEARED. HAD THE INCIDENT OCCURRED ON A HIGHWAY, THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE DRIVER, PASSENGER AND OTHER CARS ON THE ROAD, COULD HAVE BEEN MAJOR. THIS CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW BY THE CURRENT OWNER AND HAS NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY ACCIDENT. THE CAR DEALER REFUSED TO REPAIR THE CAR OR ACCEPT A WARRANTY CLAIM. HE CLASSIFIED THE DEFECT AS CORROSION PERFORATION, WHEN IT IS A CLEAR CHASSIS WELD FAILURE. *JB

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT 65 MPH, THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE ROSE QUICKLY AND THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED. HOT WATER LEAKED OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD AND THE UNDERSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE REPAIR SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED. UPDATED 8/30/2006 - *NM

DURING A RECENT TRIP THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DEVELOPED A CRACK CAUSING ANTI-FREEZE TO LEAK. THE MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED AND THE COOLANT PASSAGE IS NOW ALUM. INSTEAD OF PLASTIC. SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE AND A RECALL NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE. *JB

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK THE VEHICLE THE BRAKES FAILED. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SPONGY AND HAD TO BE DEPRESSED TO THE FLOOR TO STOP THE VEHICLE WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP FOR INSPECTION. UPON INSPECTION IT WAS DETERMINED THE BRAKE LINES FRACTURED CAUSING THE BRAKE FLUID LEAKED OUT ONTO THE GROUND. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, # 05V086000, REGARDING THE SERVICE BRAKES, HOSES, LINES AND FITTINGS. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED. THE BRAKE LINES HAD RUSTED. UPDATED 07/05/06. *JB

RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ON SUSAN CHAMBERLAN ET AL. V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, CASE NO.[XXX] TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I AM THE OWNER OF A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, [XXX], THAT EXPERIENCED CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IN QUESTION. I OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THE ADDITIONAL DAMAGE THAT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THERE IS CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THIS PART. AFTER HAVING THE INTAKE MANIFOLD REPLACED WE EXPERIENCED ABNORMAL PERFORMANCE, WHICH INCLUDED ABNORMALLY HIGH COOLANT TEMPERATURES DURING A ROAD TRIP, WHICH CAUSED US TO HAVE TO HAVE THE CAR TOWED FROM OUT OF THE AREA TO THE LOCAL MERCURY DEALER. THEY DISCOVERED NO PROBLEM WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD, BUT THE HEADS AND BLOCK HAD WARPED AT THE TIME OF THE FAILURE REQUIRING A COMPLETE ENGINE REPLACEMENT. IF THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN UNDER WARRANTY THEN THE TOTAL COST OF ENGINE REPLACEMENT AND THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED. FOR THIS REASON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF JUST RETROACTIVELY PROVIDING AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE MANIFOLD ALONE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IF THE VEHICLE WARRANTY HAD BEEN IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE FAILURE THEN ALL REPAIR COSTS WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED. AS A RESULT OF POOR ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND LACK OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DEFECT BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY IT HAS COST ME $6082.00, NOT INCLUDING THE AGGRAVATION, TOWING, AND OTHER FEES ASSOCIATED WITH FORD'S NEGLIGENCE. PLEASE ADVISE ME HOW I CAN GET THE REIMBURSEMENT I DESERVE. *N

I HAVE 3 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, 1997, 1996, & 1992. WITHIN THE LAST 14 MONTHS, 5 OF THE 12 WINDOW REGULATORS HAVE FAILED. ALL VEHICLES HAVE BEEN GARAGE KEPT FOR THE MOST. NO UNUSUAL OR EXCESSIVE USAGE TO ANY OF THESE WINDOWS. 1992-HAS ~162K MILES-HAD 2 WINDOW REGULATORS FAIL-DRIVER & FRONT PASSENGER SIDE 1996-HAS ~33K MILES-HAD 1 WINDOW REGULATOR FAIL-DRIVER DOOR 1997-HAS ~62K MILES-HAD 2 WINDOW REGULATORS FAIL-DRIVER DOOR & REAR DRIVER SIDE TWO OF THESE WINDOWS (1997) HAVE BEEN REPAIRED BY A LOCAL FORD DEALER AT APPROX $190.00 EACH. THIS IS A VERY POOR RECORD (42% FAILURE RATE) FOR THESE PARTS AND I BELIEVE THERE MUST BE A MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND SOME MEDIATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. *JB

PLASTIC HEADLIGHT COVERS HAVE DEVELOPED A DEEP HAZE, SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING LIGHT OUTPUT. *JB

I HAVE A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS [XXX]THE BRAKES FAILED EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED IN THEIR RECALL 04B26 FOR 97 MERC MARQUIS. THE DEALER AND FORD MOTOR CO. REP CURLINE #2139 SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FAILURE IS EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED IN THE RECALL, AND THAT MY MODEL AND YEAR MATCHES THE RECALL, THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR. I SUGGEST THAT THE PROBLEM IS WIDER THAN THEY WILL ADMIT AND THINK MY REPAIR FALLS UNDER THIS RECALL. *NM UPDATED 07/17/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

RE-FORD INTAKE MANIFOLDS: THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ON MY 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS FAILED ON 12/23/05. ONLY THEN DID I LEARN OF THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FORD JUST LOST. MY CAR IS OUTSIDE THE ARBITRARY 7 YEAR LIMIT AND THEREFORE IT COST ME $711.12 TO HAVE IT REPLACED. I WAS ON THE ROAD TRAVELING FROM GEORGETOWN TEXAS TO PHOENIX FOR CHRISTMAS. THE PART IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE. FORD KNEW THAT. IT REPLACED ALL MANIFOLDS, EVEN THOSE THAT HAD NOT FAILED YET, ON SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLES AS FAR BACK AS 2002. I THINK MY VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED. I THINK FORD SHOULD REIMBURSE ME FOR THE REPAIR. THERE MUST BE MANY OTHERS IN MY SITUATION. *JB

DT: THE CONSUMER OWNS A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AND USING THE STEERING WHEEL THERE WAS A SQUEAKING NOISE. THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE MECHANIC WHO SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS NO LUBRICATION ON THE BALL JOINTS NOR WAS THERE ANY WAY TO LUBRICATED THEM DUE TO THE DESIGN. THE MECHANIC SAID THAT THE BALL JOINTS SHOULD BE ALRIGHT FOR A WHILE. NO REPAIRS OR CORRECTIONS WERE MADE AT THAT TIME. ON ANOTHER OCCASION WHILE DRIVING 29 MPH UPHILL, THE LEFT FRONT BALL JOINT CRACKED AND DROPPED TO THE GROUND DAMAGING THE TIE ROD AND BALL JOINT ASSEMBLY AND THE LEFT FRONT TIRE. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO TRAVEL FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 30 FEET AFTER THE VEHICLE DROPPED TO THE GROUND AND THE DRIVER LOST DIRECTIONAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THIS HAPPENED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE DEALER SAID THAT THE OTHER SIDE WAS AFFECTED AS WELL. THE DEALER REPAIRED BOTH FRONT BALL JOINTS ALONG WITH THE TIE ROD ASSEMBLY. *AK NOTE: FAILED COMPONENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION UPON REQUEST. *MJJ (11/211/05) THE CONSUMER FOUND THE COOLANT CROSSOVER CRACKED ON INTAKE. *SC *NM

DROVE APPROX. SIX MILES FROM HOME TO CHRISTMAS EVE. CHURCH SERVICE WITH FAMILY. WHEN ARRIVED, STEAM AND SMOKE WERE COMING FROM FRONT GRILLE, AND AROUND ENGINE HOOD. THOUGHT THE CAR WAS GOING TO START ON FIRE. ALSO MAKING A HISSING AND GURGLING NOISE. WAS QUITE AN "EVENT" IN THE PARKING LOT! HAD INSPECTED TWO DAYS LATER (AFTER CHRISTMAS) AND FOUND FRONT INTAKE MANIFOLD (PLASTIC?) PASSAGE CRACKED AND LEAKING ENGINE COOLANT ONTO TOP OF ENGINE BLOCK. ALSO COOLING FAN WAS BLOWING LEAKING COOLANT OVER THE PASSENGER SIDE, ENTIRE TOP OF ENGINE. NO COOLANT LEFT IN COOLANT RESERVOIR AND NO COOLANT FLOW THROUGH ENGINE; DUE TO AIR BUBBLE / LOSS OF VACUUM? I NOW HEAR MERCURY HAS A "SECRET RECALL" ADMITTING THIS IS A COMMON FAILURE AND REPAIRING VEHICLES LESS THAN SEVER YEARS OLD FOR FREE, ALSO HAVE READ THAT "FLEET" VEHICLES ARE BEING REPAIRED FOR FREE, BUT DENYING OWNER ASSISTANCE TO SAME VEHICLE, ENGINE AND INTAKE MANIFOLD TYPE TO "OLDER" MODELS. *NM

DT: THE CONTACT STATED THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED TWICE. THE FIRST FAILURE WAS IN 2001, AND THE SECOND FAILURE WAS IN 2005. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP ON BOTH OCCASIONS WHERE THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED AT THE CONTACT'S EXPENSE. THE MANUFACTURER HAS OFFERED NO FREE REMEDY. *AK THE ENGINE HAD TO BE REPLACED IN 2001, AND IN 2005 HAD TO REPLACE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND PAY TO HAVE IT INSTALLED AT LINCOLN MERCURY IN CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE. WHEN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED, ANTIFREEZE LEAKED ALL OVER THE ENGINE. AFTER IT WAS FIXED, THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILED AGAIN. THE CONTACT HAD TO PAY FOR REPAIRS, AND THERE WAS NO RECALL. *AK

CONSUMER COMPLAINT REGARDING GRAND MARQUIS POSSIBLE COOLANT SEEPAGE AT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD CROSS-OVER. *TS ***NO ANSWER REQUIRED*** THE CONSUMER SERVICE BULLETIN HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER HE NEVER NOTIFICATION. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD HIS VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN BULLETIN *JB

DT: THE CONTACT STATES THERE IS CLOUDING IN THE HEADLIGHT LENSES. THE HEADLIGHTS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE BRIGHT AS THEY SHOULD BE. *AK

REAR BRAKE LINE FAILURE. RECALL NOTICE WAS FOR FRONT FAILURE, UPON INSPECTION, THOSE LINES WERE FINE. *JB

DT: CONTACT STATES THE TIE ROD ON THE DRIVERS SIDE OF 1997 GRAND MARQUIS FELL OFF JUST BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GREASE FITTINGS ON THE TIE RODS . THE CAR ONLY HAD 63,000 MILES ON IT. HE HAD NOT BEEN HAVING ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE CAR PRIOR TO THIS PROBLEM. HAD THEM BOTH REPLACED. HE WENT TO A MERCURY DEALER AND THEY TOLD HIM THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT. HE HAS NOT TALKED TO THE MANUFACTURER.*AK *JB

DT: THE BRAKE LINE RUSTED AND BROKE. THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING AND COULD TELL THAT HE WAS LOSING BRAKE FLUID. HE WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE SAFELY HOME. THE PROBLEM OCCURRED ON JUNE 15, 2005. THE CONSUMER FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE BRAKE LINE WAS EXTREMELY CORRODED. THE CONSUMER REPLACED THE ENTIRE BRAKE LINE. *AK

DT: THE CALLER SAID VEHICLE HAD A CRACKED MANIFOLD. WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 45 MPH STEAM STARTED COMING OUT OF THE HOOD. HE PULLED OVER AND HAD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED TO A GARAGE. HE HAD THE GARAGE REPLACE THE MANIFOLD. DEALER WILL NOT HELP WITH PROBLEM. MANUFACTURER HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED YET.*AK UPDATED 12/27/2005 - *NM

VEHICLE WAS SERVICED FOR RECALL PARTS CONSUMER WAS TOLD THAT THE MASTER CYLINDER NEED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE IT WAS LEAKING. IT TOOK THE SERVICE MANAGER DAYS BEFORE HE SERVICED VEHICLE AND NEVER RETURNED THE CONSUMER PHONE CALLS. *TS THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM IN THE MAIL REGARDING THE ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND WAS THEN TOLD THE MASTER CYLINDER WAS LEAKING. THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER NEVER MENTIONED IF THE ELECTRONIC TRACTION CONTROL WAS REPLACED. THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A SECOND OPINION REGARDING THE MASTER CYLINDER AND WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT LEAKING. *JB

DT: THE CONSUMER OWNED A 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO OVERHEAT. THERE WAS ALSO SOME SMOKING. THE CONSUMER STOPPED AND ADDED ANTIFREEZE. THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, AND THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE WENT ALL THE WAY TO HOT. CONSUMER WAS OUT OF TOWN AND SHE HAD TO FIND A LOCAL MECHANIC AS THERE WAS NO DEALERSHIPS NEARBY. THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE DRIVEN, AND THEN STOPPED TO COOL AND ADD WATER. THERE WERE NO TOW TRUCKS IN THE AREA. THE VEHICLE WAS FIXED. IT WAS REPLACED WITH A METAL INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE CONSUMER ALSO STATED THAT SHORTLY AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASE BOTH FRONT WINDOWS NEEDED NEW MOTORS. *AK *NM

MY WIFE, AND I WERE COMEING HOME, AFTER EATING LUNCH, GOING ABOUT 50 MPH, WHEN A BIG CLOUD OF SMOKE,STEAM COME FROM THE MOTOR COMPARTMENT," I ALMOST HIT A ON COMEING CAR, BECAUSE THE SMOKE, AND STEAM WAS SO "SUDDEN, AND THICK". I PULLED OVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, TO FIND ANTI-FREEZE ALL OVER THE MOTOR COMPARTMENT, AND ALL UNDER NEITH THE CAR, EVEN ON ALL (4) TIRES. IF WE HAD BEEN ON A MUCH BUSYER HWY, SOME ONE COULD HAVE EASILY GOTTEN HURT, ARE KILLED ! AFTER GETTING A CAR HAULER TO TAKE THE CAR TO MY HOME, WE FOUND OUT THE MANIFOLD WAS A DEFECTED PART ON THE FAULT OF THE MANUFACTURER OF THE MANIFOLD ! THIS IS A PART THAT IS DEFECTED, NOT WARN-OUT. MY CAR DOES`NT HAVE BUT 77,000 MILES," I KNOW THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN CORRECTED," BUT "WHO" IS GOING TO FIX MY CAR? THE LOWEST ESTIMATE WAS $624.00 ! MY WIFE AND I ARE BOTH DISABLE,AND WE LIVE MONTH, BY MONTH ON A VERY LOW DISABITY CHEECK, AND WE CAN`T AFFORD TO BE PAYING WHAT WE LIVE ON, BECAUSE A MANUFACTURER`S DID`NT PREFORM THE TEST ENOUGH,ARE TRIED A SHOURT-CUT THAT COULD, AND WILL HURT, ARE MAYBY KILL SOME ONE," IF NOT ALREADY.

DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH., WHEN THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD SUDDENLY RUPTURED DUMPING OUT ALL THE ANTIFREEZE. HIGH VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, WE COULD BARELY GET OFF HIGHWAY, STEAM COMING FROM MY CAR BLOCKING VISION. COULD HAVE CAUSED A MAJOR ACCIDENT. CAR HAD TO BE TOWED TO LOCAL GARAGE, THEN TOWED TO MY HOME AND LOCAL GARAGE FOR REPAIRS. WE HAD TO RENT CAR TO GET HOME. MECHANIC SAID OUR INTAKE MANIFOLD RUPTURED CAUSING HEAD GASKET FAILURE AND POSSIBLE ENGINE FAILURE. ON 8-23-05, GOT CLASS ACTION SUIT PAPERS IN MAIL STATING PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLDS COULD RUPTURE CAUSING COOLANT TO LEAK AND FORD WOULD REIMBURSE PEOPLE WHO HAD THE PROBLEM AND PAID FOR REPAIRS. WHEN I GOT THE PAPER I WENT TO MECHANIC AND TOLD HIM TO STOP REPAIRS TO SEE WHERE I STOOD IN SUIT. SUIT DID NOT MENTION GASKET REPAIR REIMBURSEMENT AND ENGINE FAILURE REIMBURSEMENT. I CALLED FORD TODAY AND GOT THE USUAL STORY THAT THEIR WAS NO RECALL ON MY CAR, ETC. HOWEVER FORD DID RECALL POLICE CARS, TAXIS AND FLEET CARS WITH THE SAME ENGINE THAT I HAVE. FORD KNEW ABOUT THE POORLY DESIGNED PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLDS FOR YEARS AND DID NOT CARE ABOUT CUSTOMER SAFETY. WE COULD HAVE DIED FROM THEIR NEGLECT. W

DT: CONTACT HAD TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE- INTAKE MANIFOLD ON 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. IT BLEW ANTI-FREEZE ALL OVER HIS ENGINE. THIS HAPPENED ON 7-20-05 , AND HE JUST GOT THE CAR BACK ON 7-26-05. CONTACT HAD A LOCAL SERVICE DEALER REPLACE THE MANIFOLD. HE WOULD LIKE TO FILE A COMPLAINT BECAUSE HE FELT THIS WAS A DEFINITE DEFECT. THE SERVICE DEALER STATED HE HAD TO REPLACE A LOT OF OTHER MANIFOLDS. CONTACT TALKED TO FORD, AND THEY BASICALLY TOLD HIM THAT IF THEY WON THE LAW SUIT AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE MANIFOLD THEY MAY GET THE $1,100.00 THAT HE HAD TO PAY REFUNDED TO HIM.*AK

1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE HAS HAPPENED TWICE, UNKNOWN IF THERE IS ANY OTHER DAMAGE BECAUSE OF THIS FAILURE. THIS IS A PLASTIC MANIFOLD BOTH HAVE CRACKED. FORD HAS REFUSED TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE FIRST FAILURE WAS IN 2003. THE SECOND IN 2005. FLUID LOSS AND STEAM WAS SO HEAVY ON THE SECOND FAILURE THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT SEE AND ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT ON THE ROADWAY.

DT: THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION NOTICE, 04B26 ON 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. IT STATED THE REAR BRAKE TUBE MAY ABRADE AND LEAK UNDER THE FRONT SEATS. THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THIS VEHICLE. CONSUMER CALLED THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE REPAIR WORK SCHEDULED. ON THE WAY OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY TO GET THE VEHICLE REPAIRED THE BRAKE LINE BURST. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP CONSUMER WAS TOLD THAT THE BRAKE LINE DID NOT BRAKE WHERE THE NOTICE HAD STATED, AND IT WAS NOT COVERED. ALSO WAS TOLD THE BRAKE LINES WERE RUSTED. THE SERVICE MANAGER TOLD CONSUMER THEY WOULD DISCOUNT THE WORK. FORD MOTOR COMPANY WAS NOTIFIED, AND THEY STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT HELP CONSUMER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WARRANTY.*AK

CONSUMER HAS DEFECTIVE MANIFOLDS IN BOTH OF HIS 1996 TOWN CAR AND THE 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS.*MR THE MANUFACTURER REFUSED TO REIMBURSE THE CONSUMER FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD IN EITHER OF THE VEHICLE'S . *NM

THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCED A COOLANT LEAK FROM THE INTAKE MANIFOLD GASKET ON HIS/HER 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. *JB *NM

THE HEADLIGHT SURROUNDS (CLEAR PLASTIC POD THAT ENCLOSE THE HEADLIGHT BULBS) ON MANY FORD AND MERCURY MODEL CARS AND TRUCKS TURN FROM "CLEAR" TO A FOGGED UP "MILKY-WHITE", REDUCING SEVERALLY THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT THAT CAN REACH THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE AFFECTED VEHICLE, THEREBY CREATING A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD. OTHER COMPANIES SUCH AS HONDA USE PLASTIC AROUND THEIR HEADLIGHT BULBS AND THEIR PLASTIC STAYS CLEAR ALLOWING HEADLIGHT BULBS TO PROPERLY LIGHT UP THE ROAD. I HAVE CONTACTED FORD BY E-MAIL, SEVERAL TIMES TO ASK FOR ANY HELP THEY WOULD OFFER-FROM REPLACEMENT TO FREE INSTALL: THEY SENT OUT COMPUTER GENERATED "FORM" LETTERS AND TOTALLY IGNORED MY SAFETY PROBLEM. THERE MUST BE A MILLION FORD PRODUCT CARS AND TRUCKS AFFECTED THE SAME WAY (I CAN BARELY SEE IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE).

DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY, 60 MPH, TEMPERATURE GUAGE SHOWED AN EXTREME INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. I SMELLED ANITFREEZE INSIDE THE CAR. THE VOLTAGE METER GUAGE WAS INCREASING AND DECREASING. I THEN PULLED OFF THE HIGHWAY AND TURNED CAR OFF. STEAM WAS COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. POPPED THE HOOD, ANTIFREEZE WAS EVERYWHERE, NONE LEFT IN RESEVOIR. INTAKE MANIFOLD IS CRACKED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE ALTERNATOR, CAUSING CAR TO LEAK ALL ANTIFREEZE. HAD TO HAVE CAR TOWED HOME.

MOTOR HEATED UP, WAS EXTREMELY HOT, HAD TO HAVE VECHICLE TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP.THEY FOUND A CRACKED PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD . IT WAS REPLACED AND RESOLVED THE PROBLEM

1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS DEVELOPED A CRACK IN THE CROSSOVER DUCT PORTION OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. *MR THE UNIT WAS MADE OF PLASTIC. THE CONSUMER REQUESTED TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THE PART. *SC *JB

4.6L ENGINE LEAKED COOLANT FROM THE INTAKE MANIFOLD, AND CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVERHEAT WHILE DRIVING. CONSUMER HAS A CONCERN THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. DEALER WAS NOTIFIED, AND INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT THIS PART WAS NOT COVERED UNDER A RECALL. *AK

REGULAR USE OF CAR ON A 90 DEGREE DAY. ENGINE WOULD OVERHEAT SHOW ON DASH. ALL COOLANT WAS LOST. REAR INTAKE HAD TO BE REPLACED AND INJECTOR CLEANED, COOLANT REPLACED. *NM

1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, COOLANT LEAKAGE AT INTAKE MANIFOLD CROSS-OVER. *BF

VEHICLE IS EXPERIENCING A PROBLEM WITH A CRACKED MANIFOLD WHICH IS MADE OF PLASTIC, AND THE CRACK IS BEHIND THE ALTERNATOR. *AK

VEHICLE WAS LEAKING FLUID OUT OF THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH WIRE, WHICH COULD HAVE STARTED A FIRE. MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BY OWNER.*AK

BRAKES DID NOT OPERATE WHEN DRIVER APPLIED PRESSURE ON THE PEDAL. TOOK VEHICLE DEALER FOR CHECK UP, AND RESULTS INDICATED THAT THE REAR BRAKE LINES RUSTED.*AK WHILE PULLING FROM A PARKING LOT THE BRAKES FAILED. BRAKES REPAIRED BY NEARBY TIRE AND BRAKE SPECIALIST. *TC

FAILURE OF PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD, ALONG FRONT EDGE. ALLOWING WATER TO EXIT ENGINE. REPLACEMENT METAL MANIFOLD OVER $250.00 PLUS LABOR. STRANDING MY WIFE 30 MILES FROM HOME WITH A VEHICLE THAT WAS OVERHEATED, AND COULD NOT BE FILLED WITH WATER. *NM

DURING TRAVEL ON FM 1604 (OUTER LOOP ROAD AROUND SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS), I NOTICED ENGINE OVERHEATING. I PULLED OVER AND TOOK STEPS TO DELAY MAJOR SEIZING OF ENGINE. VEHICLE WAS SPEWING STEAM - LOOKING LIKE HOSE CRACKED OR LOOSENED. TAKEN TO FIRESTONE FACILITY. FIRESTONE UNABLE TO REPAIR DUE TO DAMAGE BEING CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD! VEHICLE REPAIRED AT MY EXPENSE (APPROXIMATELY $1,000.00). IN MY OPINION, VEHICLE HAD INSUFFICIENT MILEAGE TO JUSTIFY SUCH DAMAGE. UNABLE TO OBTAIN REPAIR FREQUENCY INFORMATION FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FMC) OR ANY OTHER DATA, INCLUDING INFORMATION CONCERNING POSSIBLE RECALL EFFORTS AFTER REPEATED ATTEMPTS. UNABLE TO RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE FROM FMC. IN 2004, FOUND OUT THAT FIRESTONE HAD ISSUED REPAIR KIT TO THEIR FACILITIES FOR CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD REPAIRS FOR VARIOUS VEHICLES, INCLUDING 1997 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. FMC CONTINUES TO COMMENT OR RESPOND TO MY QUERIES. *JB

WHILE DRIVING MIL CODE P0420 SET. FORD TSB 03-24-5 INDICATES PCM REPROGRAMMING RATHER THAN REPLACEMENT OF CATALYTIC CONVERTERS REQUIRED. DESPITE BEING WITHIN EMISSIONS WARRANTY COVERAGE PERIOD DEALER CHARGED $119 FOR THIS WORK, CLAIMING EMISSIONS WARRANTY DID NOT COVER THIS WORK. DEFECTIVE PROGRAMMING OF PCM TO CAUSE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT TO COME ON, REQUIRING A VISIT TO DEALER. CAN'T PASS EMISSIONS TEST WITH LIGHT ON, SHOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW. IN ANY CASE THE REPROGRAMMING OF THE PCM SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN NO CHARGE. THIS FAILURE RESULTED IN A MANDATED, DUE TO STATE EMISSIONS TESTING, VISIT TO DEALER AND A CHARGE FOR SERVICE TO FIX A MANUFACTURING DEFECT.*AK THE PCM WAS REPROGRAMMED, ACCORDING TO DEALER, AND CURRENTLY LIGHT IS OFF. IT IS VERY EASY TO PROGRAM THE PCM TO SEND ERRONEOUS CODES AT ANY TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN OUT OF WARRANTY, ALLOWING THE CAR DEALERS TO CREATE A CASH FLOW THEY MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE HAVE. THIS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!

THE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD; THE VEHICLE STARTED TO SMOKE. THE ANTI-FREEZE COMPLETELY DRAINED FROM THE VEHICLE. CONSUMER MANAGED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO THE NEAREST DEALER. FOUND THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED. CONTACTED FORD MANUFACTURER. *AK