1962 Mercury Monterey on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1973 Mercury Montego MX Brougham Sawzall Convertible Edition

You know how it goes— the weather is warm, you want to do some top-down driving, and you lack a proper convertible... but you do have a hooptie Detroit car on one side of the garage and a big ol' Sawzall on the other. Put the two together and you have a Sawzall Convertible, which generally lasts for about one summer before it gets scrapped. Here's a fine example of such a car, photographed in a San Francisco Bay Area self-service junkyard. Most Sawzall Convertibles (yes, it should be called a roadster, but nobody does that) have raw, ragged metal edges, or maybe duct tape over the stumps of the amputated pillars, but someone went to the trouble to weld nice smooth metal covers over the hackage on this one. The windshield is gone. Instead, the windshield frame is ringed by tongue depressors held in place by gooey roofing tar. No, we don't know why. The Montego MX Brougham was a hot-selling personal luxury coupe in its day, selling for $3,041 in 1973. That's just under $17,000 in 2017 dollars. It must have been fun, cruising this thing on Bay Area streets with no roof and a rattle-can spray-bomb job. This one has the optional 400-cubic-inch V8 engine, rated at 171 horsepower. What would this car's original buyer have thought of its fate? This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. It's like a Marquis Brougham after you squish it in the car crusher! Featured Gallery Junked 1973 Mercury Montego MX Brougham Sawzall Convertible View 22 Photos Auto News Mercury Convertible Luxury Classics montego

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.'"

NHTSA investigating 500k Ford and Mercury cars for lighting failures

The Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis might be long gone as new models in showrooms, but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration might check them out yet again for a potential problem. At the urging of North Carolina Consumers Council, the agency may open another investigation into the front lighting control module on vehicles from the 2003-2005 model years, and NHTSA estimates the issue could affect 517,945 vehicles. If the module stops working, it can cause a complete failure of all forward lighting, including the headlights. NHTSA previously investigated the issue in 2008 and 2009 but found no need for a recall, according to Bloomberg. Ford also extended the warranty on the part to 15 years or 250,000 miles. To prompt this new request, the North Carolina Consumers Council received a letter from a woman experiencing the module's failure. Upon further investigation, the council found 604 complaints of this problem on NHTSA's website, including seven crashes. Furthermore, the group has alleged that dealers told customers that the parts to perform the replacement weren't available, despite the extended warranty. According to the government agency, "A defect petition has been opened to evaluate the issue and make a grant or deny decision." Ford spokesperson Kelli Felker tells Autoblog via email, "We will cooperate with NHTSA, as we always do." You can read the council's complete letter to the Feds in PDF format, here. INVESTIGATION Subject : Loss of headlamp/exterior lighting Date Investigation Opened: APR 01, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: DP15002 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: The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received a petition from the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The petition letter is attached for review. The petitioner alleges a defect in the lighting control module that powers the headlights which can result in the loss of vehicle headlights and/or all exterior lighting while driving. ODI has previously investigated this issue under PE08-066 which was closed without a defect finding.