1993 Mercury Grand Marquis Ls Sedan 4-door 4.6l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

NHTSA advances investigation of Ford Crown Victoria headlights

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening a preliminary evaluation into reports of suddenly failing headlights on 517,945 examples of the 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. The government started looking into this problem in April when the North Carolina Consumers Council filed a defect petition with the agency. Now, the inquiry has moved to the next step. According to NHTSA's documentation (as a PDF), it examined its own database and worked with Ford to come up with a total of 3,609 complaints of the front lighting control module suddenly failing. When this happens, drivers lose the low-beam headlights, but the high-beams can be used by holding the stalk. Sometimes turning the switch off and on fixes the issue. Additionally, there are 15 allegations of crashes, and one reported shoulder injury. NHTSA's preliminary evaluations "evaluate the scope, frequency, and consequence of the alleged defect" and don't necessarily lead to a recall. NHTSA looked into this problem once before in 2008 and 2009 and decided that a recall wasn't necessary. Ford also extended the warranty on the front lighting control module for these vehicles. INVESTIGATION Subject : Loss of headlights Date Investigation Opened: AUG 10, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: PE15028 Component(s): EXTERIOR LIGHTING All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2003-2005 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS 2003-2005 Details Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company SUMMARY: After receiving a defect petition (DP15002) concerning the loss of headlights and other exterior lighting in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure. The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066). Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off. In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.

Does Lincoln Zephyr trademark mean a return to real names?

Lincoln's long history includes many legendary names, and despite its short life, Zephyr retains a spot in that pantheon. Perhaps its will return once again: Ford Motor Co. applied to trademark Zephyr on May 11. Trademark filings can have ambiguous meanings, and often they're legal plays to get or keep the rights to a name. But in the last year, we've seen signs Lincoln is looking to use real names on its vehicles again. Obviously, it's keeping Navigator for its flagship sport-utility vehicle with a new model due next year. Reprising Continental for the MKS replacement was also well received. That said, Lincoln still uses the MKX and MKC "names" for its crossovers. Zephyr is a dustier moniker. It was used in the 1930s and '40s on a mid-level model spearheaded by Edsel Ford. The stylishly aerodynamic model was set between the Ford V8 De Luxe and more expensive Lincolns. It returned in 2006 as the Lincoln version of the Ford Fusion before that model was renamed MKZ. Mercury also used Zephyr on its version of the Ford Fairmont in the late 1970s and early '80s. Ford last held a trademark on the Zephyr name in 2013. The filing says Ford seeks to use Zephyr for "motor vehicles and parts and accessories therefor." That could mean a new car — or just parts. Putting the Zephyr badge back on the MKZ is the most likely bet. Meanwhile, Ford also moved to get the Thunderbird trademark on May 11 for the same vehicles and parts purpose, and it filed for the Mustang trademark for shampoo and lotions on May 4. A Lincoln spokesman said, "In the normal course of our business, we file trademarks for names," but had no further information. Related Video:

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"