1995 FORD F-150 Complaints

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 FORD F-150. WHENEVER THE CONTACT TURNS THE STEERING WHEEL, THE HORN DOES NOT WORK. THE FAILURE WAS NOTICED WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT YET BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 127,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 129,000. UPDATED 3/11/08 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE HORNS WORKS BUT TURNING THE STEERING WHEEL AND BLOW THE HORN AT THE SAME TIME THE VEHICLE BECOMES INOPERABLE. UPDATED 03/11/08 *TR

1995 FORD F-150 CAUGHT FIRE. CONSUMER STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT HE RECEIVED FOUR NOTICES OF THE RECALL. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED HE WAS NOT AWARE OF A RECALL. HE ALSO STATED THAT PRIOR TO THE FIRE, THE CRUISE CONTROL HAD STOPPED WORKING. *JB

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 FORD F150. THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE IN THE CONTACT'S DRIVEWAY. SHE EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DESTROYED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM WAS BURNED. THE DEALER HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 212,233. UPDATE 04-02-08 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED FORD BOUGHT THE VEHICLE BACK. UUPDATED

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT FLAMES ERUPTED FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS AFTER HE PARKED. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE, BUT WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE. AS OF JANUARY 2, 2008, THE DEALER HAD NOT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE. IN ADDITION, THE FIRE DESTROYED THE VEHICLE. THERE IS A RECALL FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID #07V336000). THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THEY SENT FOUR RECALL NOTICES HOWEVER, THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE NEVER RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICES. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 169,000. UPDATED 01/23/08 *BF UPDATED 01/23/08 *TR

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 FORD F-150. THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD NEAR THE MASTER CYLINDER. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED MAJOR DAMAGE AND IS NOT ABLE TO BE DRIVEN. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE CONTACT DID NOT RECEIVE A RECALL LETTER; HOWEVER, FORD STATED THAT HER VEHICLE IS A PART OF THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL RECALL. THE RECALL NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 284,000.

1995 F150 WITH 120 000 KMS, MADE IN USA, 4/95, #1) BOTH RADIUS ARM BRACKET/BUSHING ASSEMBLIES REPLACED. PART IS RIVETED TO FRAME. BOTH COMPONENTS FAILED: (A) CAUSING RADIUS ARM TO 'FLOP' IN ITS BORE, STEERING & BRAKING CONTROL PROBLEMS; (B) CAUSES RADIUS ARM AND NUT AND INSULATOR TO PROTRUDE FORCEFULLY THROUGH THE BRACKET, DUE TO METAL FATIGUE. THE BRACKETS ACT AS AN EXTENSION OF THE 1/4" THICK FRAME, BUT ARE CONSTRUCTED OF 14 GA MILD STEEL, CONNECTED TO A 3/4" SOLID, TREATED, PIVOTING ROD BY AN 1 1/4" NUT, AT HIGH TORQUE SETTING. TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS COULD POTENTIALLY BE DISASTROUS UPON FAILURE, AS THE PROPER CAMBER OF THE FRONT WHEELS RELY ON THEIR INTEGRITY. -FORD PARTS WORKER ASSURES, "WE REPLACE THOSE ALL THE TIME." #2 FAILURES OF BOTH REAR LEAF SPRING-SHACKLE FRAME BRACKETS. UNDER-ENGINEERED, .020" THICK BRACKETS, INTEGRAL TO 1/4" FRAME, BY 1/2" RIVETS. BOTH PARTS 'RIPPED', CAUSING SHACKLES AND THE LEAF SPRINGS TO BANG INTO THE TRUCK BOX AND BOUNCE UNCONTROLLABLY UPON HIGHWAY DRIVING. FAILURE OF SECOND BRACKET DUE TO CORROSION OF METAL - MUCH TOO THIN FOR THE JOB. PICTURES CONCLUDE THE NEGLIGENCE IN ITS DESIGN.* BRACKETS, GRADE 8 BOLTS AND NUTS, BUSHING AND SHACKLES MUST BE REPLACED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ORDER TO REPAIR THE ISSUE: BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL INFERIORITY. Q: HOW DOES ONE ACCESS DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE SUITABILITY OF A VEHICLE'S STRUCTURAL COMPONENT? --DOES THE GOVERNMENT NOT HAVE ANY STANDARDS FOR FORD TO FOLLOW? --DO THE ENGINEERS FOLLOW THE LAWS OF BASIC PHYSICS WHEN THEY DESIGN THIS SORT OF COMPONENT? --CAN FORD REALLY GET AWAY WITH SELLING A PRODUCT THAT IS EXPECTED TO FAIL, ONLY TO MAKE MONEY ON THE RESALE OF A REPLACEMENT? --SAFETY STANDARDS MUST BE PUT INTO PLACE SOMEWHERE: WHO ENFORCES THEM? -- WHO WAS THE ENGINEER? WHO APPROVED THE PLANS FOR THESE FAILED PARTS, WELL ANTICIPATING THAT THEY WOULD LEND THEMSELVES TO FAILURE?KINDEST REGARDS, SOL KOTT *TR

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 FORD F-150. AFTER BEING PARKED FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE OR SIX HOURS, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY CAUGHT FIRE AND WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SALVAGE YARD. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD NOT RECENTLY BEEN REPAIRED AND WAS RUNNING FINE. HE BELIEVES THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE. THE GARAGE WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AT THE TIME WAS HEAVILY DAMAGED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 164,000.

THERE WAS AN UNDER HOOD FIRE IN THE 1995 FORD F-150. I DROVE IT THE NIGHT BEFORE AND GOT HOME ABOUT 11:00 PM. I WOKE UP TO SEE THE TRUCK IN FLAMES ABOUT 8:00 AM THE NEXT DAY. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PUT THE FIRE OUT, AND SAID IT WAS AN ELECTRICAL FIRE THAT STARTED ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THIS SOUNDED LI,K KE THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH PROBLEM. LUCKILY NO ONE WAS HURT AND NO OTHER PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED.*AK

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 FORD F-150. THE VEHICLE HAD A SAFETY RECALL ON THE CRUISE CONTROL MODULE REGARDING LEAKING FLUID. THE SAFETY RECALL REPAIR WAS PERFORMED TWO YEARS AGO, BUT WAS REPLACED AGAIN ON APRIL 16, 2007 FOR LEAKING FLUID THAT CAUSED THE CRUISE CONTROL TO BECOME INOPERABLE. THE CRUISE CONTROL FAILED WHILE THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING. THE CONTACT PULLED OVER AND FOUND FLUID LEAKING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE LEAKING FLUID IS THE CAUSE OF THE CRUISE CONTROL FAILURE. THE CONTACT BELIEVES THE SWITCH IS DEFECTIVE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 71,094.

1995 FORD F150 SPONTANEOUSLY EXPLODED SPREADING SPARKS AND FIRE TO HOUSE, SURROUNDING AREA PROPERTY, AND LIFT VAN CAUSING EXTENSIVE FIRE DAMAGE TO HOUSE, SURROUNDING AREA PROPERTY, AND LIFT VAN. *NM