1998 FORD MUSTANG Complaints

WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE OVERHEATED ON ITS OWN. VEHICLE HESITATED WHILE ACCELERATING, THEN STALLED. CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO RESTART VEHICLE, AND HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALER. MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT RECALLED BY VIN OR UNDER WARRANTY. CONSUMER INFORMED THE MECHANIC THAT PART NUMBER F8A2-9424-BC, NOTIFICATION #97M91 FOR INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS RECALLED. MECHANIC INSISTED THAT RECALL WAS NOT FOR THIS VEHICLE. *AK

VEHICLE CONTAINS A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFORD THAT CRACKS DUE TO THE HEAT AND CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN STANDARD ENGINE USE. THE CRACKS ALLOW THE ESCAPE OF RADIATOR FLUID/ANTIFREEZE ... WHICH WILL THEN CAUSE PERMENANT DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE/VEHICLE.*AK FORD IN FACT KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM, AND WARRANTIES CERTAIN VEHICLE STYLES/YEARS AS WELL AS VEHICLES USED AS FLEET/POLICE/TAXI VEHICLES ... BUT NOT ALL AFFECTED VEHICLES FOR CONSUMERS THAT CONTAIN THE IDENTICAL PART IN QUESTION. LATER VEHICLE YEARS WERE FITTED WITH INTAKES WITH EITHER ALUMINUM CROSSOVERS, OR MADE ALL OF ALUMINUM. VEHICLES THAT CONTAIN THE FAILED PART HAVE THE PART REPLACED WITH THE ALUMINUM-CROSSOVER PART AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. 1.) PART FAILS UNDER REGULAR USE OF VEHICLE. 2.) DEFECTIVE PART MUST BE REPLACED AT HIGH COST OF LABOR - DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO REPAIR PART DESPITE TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLITIN #97M91. 3.) NOTHING. - DEALER WILL NOT REPLACE - I CANNOT AFORD REPLACEMENT CURRENTLY.

PROBLEMS WITH GAS LEAKING FROM VEHICLE. *MR EVERYTIME THE GAS TANK WAS FILLED 1/2 TO FULL, GAS LEAKED AT THE CONNECTOR WHERE THE INTAKE PIPE MEETS THE TANK. THE RUBBER SEAL AT THE CONNECTOR WAS VERY LOOSE AND WET WHEN GAS LEAKED. THERE WAS A SMELL OF GAS. *SC *JB

I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. I NOW HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. FORD MOTOR COMPANY KNOWS THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLDS ARE SUBJECT TO FAILURE. THEY ALSO RECALLED SOME OF THE VEHICLES WITH THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT I HAVE IN MY CAR. I WAS TOLD, BY FORD THAT SINCE MY CAR WAS MADE A FEW MONTHS AFTER THOSE BEING RECALLED THAT I DO NOT QUALIFY. THE PART IN QUESTION IS AN INTAKE MANIFOLD MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. THE MANIFOLDS THAT WERE REPLACED BY FORD NOW HAVE ALUMINUM IN PLACE OF THE PLASTIC IN THE AREA OF THE CRACK. I LEARNED OF A FORD DOCUMENT # 97M91 WHICH SHOWS THAT FORD KNOWS OF THE PROBLEM. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT I CAN DO TO TRY AND GET FORD TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.*AK

WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT 60 MPH STARTED TO SMELL ANTI-FREEZE. WHEN I CHECKED THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. I FOUND THAT THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLASTIC, INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED AN WAS LEAKING ANTI-FREEZE. CONTACTED DEALER, THEY WANTED $580 FOR A NEW MANIFOLD PLUS LABOR TO PUT IT ON. I FEEL THAT IF A MANUFACTURE PUTS AN INTAKE MANIFOLD ON ON OF THIER VEHICLES IT SHOUD LAST FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE VEHICLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CRACKED, I THINK THIS IS POOR ENGINERING, AND SHOULD BE REPLACED FREE OF CHARGE BY THE DEALER, SINCE FORD HAS REPLACE ALL POLICE VEHICLE INTAKES.*AK

INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. WAS TOLD NEW ONE WAS REDESIGNED. SPOKE WITH SEVERAL AUTO PARTS DEALERS AND FOUND THIS COMPONENT BREAKS IN SAME LOCATION ON ALL. THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND FORD WILL NOT REPLACE FOR FREE OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY.*AK

THE PLASTIC INTAKE ON THE ENGINE (4.6 SOHC), CRACKED IN THE WATER JACKET AREA CAUSING, AN ANTI-FREEZE FLUID LEAK. *JB

PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. HAPPENS ON MOST 1996-1998 MUSTANG GT 4.6. NEW PART FROM FORD REPLACES PLASTIC PART PRONE TO CRACKING WITH ALUMINUM PART. FORD HAS A SERVICE PROGRAM # 97M91 RELATED TO 4.6 ENGINES FOR CARS BUILT 07/1995 - 06/1997. CARS BUILT AFTER THIS END DATE STILL EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS DUE TO DEFECTIVE PART. *AK

1) VEHICLE STARTED LOSING RADIATOR FLUID THEN 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT CAME ON. 2) TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC WHO STATED THERE IS A CRACK IN THE FRONT PLASTIC PART ON THE ENGINE. MECHANIC STATED HE HAS REPLACED A COUPLE DOZEN OF THESE PARTS ON OTHER NEWER MUSTANGS AND IT WAS COVERED BY WARRANTY. MECHANIC STATED TO TAKE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, THIS WAS A DEFECTIVE PART AND IS BEING REPLACED WITH AN ALUMINUM PART INSTEAD OF PLASTIC BECAUSE OF THIS DEFECT. 3) TOOK VEHICLE TO COLUMBIA, SC DEALERSHIP. THEY STATED OTHER MECHANIC WAS CORRECT AND WOULD IT COST $780 TO REPLACE PART. 4) I FEEL FORD SHOULD PAY FOR THIS SINCE IT IS A DEFECTIVE PART. *AK

CONSUMER STATED SEAT BELTS ON BOTH SIDES WERE DEFECTIVE. THEY WILL NOT RETRACT. CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR REPAIRS, BUT NO ONE WANTED TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE OF THE LIABILITY ISSUES. *AK