1995 FORD TAURUS Complaints

I AM THE OWNER OF A 1995 FORD TAURUS WITH AROUND 64000 MILES. I WAS DRIVING THE VEHICLE ON THE DATE OF 11/27/05 WHEN BLACK SMOKE STARTED COMING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD, I WAS ONE LIGHT FROM THE WESTBROOK FIRE DEPARTMENT SO MANAGED TO GET TO THE FIREHOUSE AND OFF THE ROAD TO PREVENT ANY OTHER DAMAGE TO OTHERS AROUND ME. I ENDED UP LOSING MY BRAKES FROM THE FIRE AND EVERY WIRE AND ANYTHING PLASTIC UNDER THE HOOD HAD BEEN DESTROYED. THE VEHICLE IS A TOTAL LOSE. IT SEEMS THE FIRE HAD BEEN CAUSED BY AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM AND STARTED TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. I CHECKED ON THE INTERNET AND FOUND THAT FORD HAD ISSUED A RECALL FOR A PROBLEM WITH THE COOLING FAN CAUSING AN UNDER-HOOD FIRE. I CONTACTED FORD ON 11/28/05 TO VERIFY IF MY VEHICLE WAS AFFECTED BY THIS RECALL AND WAS TOLD YES, BUT I HAD NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED. AFTER THIS I WAS TOLD BY FORD THAT I WOULD BE CONTACTED IN SEVERAL WORKING DAYS WITH FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. I WAS CONTACTED BY FORD ON 12/13/05 AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO UNTIL A FORD DEALER CHECKED THE CAR TO SEE IF THE FIRE WAS CAUSED BY THE COOLING FAN. ON THE DATE OF 12/14/05 I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO HAMMONASSET FORD LINCOLN IN MADISON CT TO LOOK AT THE VEHICLE. THEY LOOKED AT THE VEHICLE AND SAID THERE WAS SO MUCH DAMAGE UNDER THE HOOD, THAT EVERY WIRE HAD MELTED THEY COULD NOT TELL EXACTLY WHERE THE FIRE STARTED. I HAD THE CAR TOWED BACK HOME AND ON 12/20/05 I WAS CONTACTED BY FORD VIA U.S. MAIL AND WAS TOLD DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE THEY WERE UNABLE TO VERIFY A MANUFACTURER''S DEFECT THAT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS UNABLE TO OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE AT THIS TIME. EVERY WIRE UNDER THE HOOD IS STRIPPED OF ITS PLASTIC COATING. AND THE PAINT ON THE HOOD IS BURNED OFF RIGHT OVER THE FAN. THIS SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED TO A CAR WITH ONLY 64000 MILES . *JB

1995 TAURUS FIRE STARTED UNDER THE HOOD. *TS THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING THE VEHICLE WHEN BLACK SMOKE STARTED EMITTING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. THE CONSUMER MANAGED TO PULL OVER BEFORE THE VEHICLE BECAME TOTALLY ENGULFED IN FLAMES. THE CONSUMER SEARCHED THE INTERNET AND FOUND OUT THAT HER VEHICLE HAD BEEN RECALLED FOR A FAULTY COOLING FAN WHICH COULD RESULT IN A FIRE. THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS INFORMED THAT HER VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE CONSUMER WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE TO SEE IF THE FIRE WAS CAUSED BY THE COOLING FAN. THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE BECAUSE THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT WAS SO BADLY DAMAGED THEREFORE THEY PROVIDED THE CONSUMER WITH NO ASSISTANCE. *NM

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THERE WAS NO BRAKE PRESSURE. THIS OCCURRED WITH NO WARNING. THE TRANSMISSION WAS PUT INTO LOW GEAR AND THE ENGINE WAS TURNED OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THE PROPORTIONING VALVE FAILED CAUSING A RUPTURE IN THE BRAKE LINE AND LOSS OF BRAKE FLUID. THE VALVE AND BRAKE LINE ARE BEING REPLACED.

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS THE ENGINE OVERHEATED AND THE FAN WAS INOPERABLE. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, # 01I011000, REGARDING THE ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING SYSTEM FAN. THE VEHICLE HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS AS INDICATED IN THE RECALL; HOWEVER IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN.

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE SPEEDOMETER GAUGE MALFUNCTIONED. THE SPEEDOMETER DOES NOT READ THE CORRECT SPEED. IT FAILED PREVIOUSLY ON TWO OTHER OCCASIONS AND WAS REPAIRED. AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE, THE CONTACT COVERED THE SPEEDOMETER WITH PAPER. THIS MADE THE SPEEDOMETER GAUGE NOT VIEWABLE AND THE SPEEDOMETER NEEDLE DOES NOT DISTRACT THE CONTACT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN FOR INSPECTION AND THERE ARE NO PLANS TO MAKE REPAIRS.

DT: THE CONTACT STATES THERE IS NHTSA RECALL NHTSA 98V323000 CONCERNING THE STRUCTURE FRAME AND MEMBERS. THIS VEHICLE IS EXPERIENCING THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS INDICATED IN THE RECALL, BUT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. THE CONTACT REPAIRED THE VEHICLE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO FURTHER PROBLEMS SINCE THE REPAIRS. *AK UPDATED 11/16/2005 - *NM

PASSENGER REAR COIL SPRING BROKE PRIOR TO PURCHASE IN 2002 @ APPROX 61,185 MILES, DRIVER REAR COIL SPRING BROKE @ APPROX 88,000 MILES. REPAIR SHOP SENT ME TO FORD AS THERE HAS BEEN RECALLS ON SPRINGS. FORD DEALER SAID NO OPEN RECALLS FOR THIS CAR, FAILED TO MENTION THE GOV'T INVESTIGATION. NO CONSEQUENCES YET - TIME WILL TELL. WILL REPAIR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BUT DIFFICULT W/O JOB. OLD PARTS ARE AVAILABLE - IF FORD WANTS THEM THEY CAN HAVE THEM AS SOON AS THEY REPLACE & REPAIR AT NO CHARGE. SPRINGS SHOULDN'T BREAK PRIOR TO 61,185 - WHY ISN'T FORD TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS?? *NM

FAILURE OF CRUISE CONTROL DISCONNECT SWITCH UNDER THE BRAKE MASTER CYLINDER - LIKE THE FAILURE CURRENTLY UNDER RECALL FOR FORD TRUCKS. I WAS UNABLE TO SHIFT OUT OF PARK DUE TO THE INTERLOCK. THE FUSE THAT CONTROLLED THE CRUISE CONTROL AND BRAKES BLEW. WHEN THE CAR WAS DIAGNOSED BY THE REPAIR FACILITY, THEY FOUND THAT THE DISCONNECT SWITCH AND THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR HAD MELTED TO SOME POINT. THE PART HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE FORD PART USED TO REPAIR WAS XW7Z-9F924-BA. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS PART IS A NEW DESIGN, OR THE OLD DESIGN. *NM

HAD BEEN DRIVING AUTO AND WHEN ENTERING PARKING AREA I HEARD A LOAD BANG AND THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE STARTED TO WOBBLE. I STOPPED, GOT OUT AND LOOKED AT THE FRONT OF THE CAR. THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS FLAT AND UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, I FOUND THAT THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT SPRING HAD BROKEN AND PUNCTURED THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE. AT THIS TIME, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO REPAIR DAMAGE OTHER THAN PUTTING ON TEMPORARY SPARE TIRE TO PARK THE VEHICLE. *NM

DT: CONSUMER COULD NOT MOVE TRANSMISSION OUT OF PARK WITHOUT TURNING THE IGNITION SWITCH TO ON. ALSO, BRAKE LIGHTS WERE NOT COMING ON. *AK