1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS Service Brakes, Hydraulic Problems

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 30 MPH WHEN A VEHICLE ABRUPTLY PULLED IN FRONT OF HIM. THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE BRAKE PEDAL FELL INTO THE FLOORBOARD AND DID NOT ENGAGE. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO AVOID CRASHING INTO THE SECOND VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A LOCAL REPAIR FACILITY WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENTIRE BRAKE LINE WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 81,000.

Mileage: 80,000

2 BRAKE LINE FAILURES METAL BRAKE 1996 GRAND MARQUIS WITHIN A YEAR..THIS IS A MIDWEST CAR BUT SPENT HALF OF ITS WINTER IN AZ..BRAKE LINES SEEM TO RUST MUCH FASTER THAN OTHER VEHICLES WE HAVE OWNED..FAILURE FOUND DRIVING AT SLOW SPEED. TOOK VEHICLE FOR REPAIR PARTS FROM SECOND REPAIR COULD BE AVAILABLE. *TR

2 BRAKE LINE FAILURES METAL BRAKE 1996 GRAND MARQUIS WITHIN A YEAR..THIS IS A MIDWEST CAR BUT SPENT HALF OF ITS WINTER IN AZ..BRAKE LINES SEEM TO RUST MUCH FASTER THAN OTHER VEHICLES WE HAVE OWNED..FAILURE FOUND DRIVING AT SLOW SPEED. TOOK VEHICLE FOR REPAIR PARTS FROM SECOND REPAIR COULD BE AVAILABLE. *TR

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN MAKING A KNOCKING NOISE AND THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE RISING FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. SHE PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER AND HAD IT TOWED TO THE REPAIR SHOP. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE PLASTIC INTAKE VALVE MELTED. THE PURCHASE DATE WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 89,021. THE DEALER STATED 1 SET OF DISC PADS, 2 NEW ROTORS, AND CLUTCH FAN. UPDATED 09/25/07 *TR

Mileage: 89,021

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN MAKING A KNOCKING NOISE AND THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE RISING FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. SHE PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER AND HAD IT TOWED TO THE REPAIR SHOP. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE PLASTIC INTAKE VALVE MELTED. THE PURCHASE DATE WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 89,021. THE DEALER STATED 1 SET OF DISC PADS, 2 NEW ROTORS, AND CLUTCH FAN. UPDATED 09/25/07 *TR

Mileage: 89,021

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH ON NORMAL DRIVING CONDITIONS, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE WAS APPLIED TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE BRAKE LINE BLEW AND BRAKE FLUID WAS LEAKING DUE TO A HOLE ON THE BRAKE LINE. THE DESIGN OF THE BRAKING SYSTEM WAS ANTI-LOCK. THERE WERE NO WARNING SIGNALS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THAT THE REAR AND FRONT BRAKES WERE DEFECTIVE RESULTING IN THE WHOLE BRAKE LINES BEING REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND OFFERED REIMBURSEMENT BUT THE CONTACT HAD NOT HEARD FROM THE MANUFACTURER SINCE THEN. UPDATED 01/10/07. *JB

Mileage: 45,000

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE APPLYING BRAKE PRESSURE AT 25 MPH ON A SUBURBAN STREET, THE BRAKES FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING. ALTHOUGH FIRM, CONSTANT BRAKE PRESSURE WAS APPLIED, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED FORWARD UNTIL THE EMERGENCY PARKING BRAKE WAS ENGAGED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP, WHO DETERMINED THE BRAKE LINES FRACTURED AND BRAKE FLUID WAS LEAKING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. UPDATED 11/21/06. *JB

Mileage: 42,000

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 30 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND LOWERED TO THE FLOOR. THE CONTACT USED THE PARKING BRAKE TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND DROVE IT TO THE RESIDENCE. THE CONTACT INSPECTED UNDER THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED THE BRAKE LINE HAD RUPTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE BRAKE LINES WERE REPLACED. UPDATED 9/13/2006 - THE BRAKE LINES WERE BADLY RUSTED. THE REAR END HOUSING WAS ALSO BADLY RUSTED. *NM

Mileage: 42,000

DT: WHILE DRIVING THE BRAKE LINES FAILED AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE OWNER CAME OUTSIDE AND SAW THE BRAKE FLUID ON THE GROUND AND REALIZED THAT THE BRAKE LINES FAILED. THE OWNER DROVE THE VEHICLE WITH NO BRAKES TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY REPAIRED IT. THEN THE OWNER REALIZED THAT THE BRAKE LINES WERE RUSTED.*AK THE LEFT REAR SEAT BELT WAS REPLACED TWICE. THE WIPER MOTOR, WIPER SWITCH, DRIVERS SIDE MIRROR SWITCH AND ROTORS WERE ALL REPLACED. THE TURN SIGNAL SWITCH, DRIVER WINDOW SWITCH , TAIL LIGHT , CATALYTIC CONVERTER WERE REPLACED. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE BALL JOINTS AND SHOCKS WERE BAD. THE BATTERY WAS REPLACED. *JB

Mileage: 90,473

BRAKE FAILURE, REPLACEMENT OF LINE. BRAKE LINE HAD CORRODED. *BF THE BRAKE WARNING LIGHT HAD COME ON. THE BRAKE WAS ALMOST ON THE FLOOR IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THERE WAS LEAKING WHERE THE CORROSION WAS. *SC *JB

Mileage: 78,251

REAR BRAKE FAILURE.REAR BRAKE LINES RUSTED AND SPRUNG A LEAK LOSING ALL BRAKE FLUID AND THE BRAKES TO BE ABLE TO STOP. *AK

I PURCHASED A PRE-OWNED,LOW MILEAGE 1996 GRAND MARQUIS MERCURY LS[XXX] FROM A LOCAL CAR DEALER IN JANUARY 2000. THE CAR WAS IN IMMACULATE CONDITION WITH ONLY 57800 MILES ON THE ODOMETER. NOVEMBER,2003,WHILE DRIVING THE CAR,I LOST ALL BRAKING.MY LOCAL REPAIR SHOP FIXED THE PROBLEM[BRAKE LINE FAILURE].WHILE AT MY STATE INSPECTION IN MARCH,04,THE BRAKE LINE "BLEW" OUT AGAIN WHILE THE TECHNICIAN WAS TESTING THE BRAKES. I FEEL THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY FACTOR. I VALUE MY LIFE AND I FEEL THERE SHOULD BE A RE-CALL ON THIS PROBLEM. SO FAR,REPAIR BILLS TOTAL OVER $500. THIS IS A GREAT AUTOMOBILE EXCEPT FOR THE BRAKE PROBLEM I AM EXPERIENCING. *AK UPDATED 07/26/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Mileage: 62,819

CONSUMER STATED WHEN BRAKES ARE APPLIED VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD OR BACKWARD AND DID NOT STOP EVENLY. TS DEALER MACHINED WARPED REAR AND FRONT ROTORS AND REPLACED THE BRAKE PADS. *TT

Mileage: 8,179

CONSUMER STATES THERE IS VIBRATION WHEN BRAKING. *TT

THIS ALMOST LEAD TO AN ACCIDENT DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE. *AK

REAR CROSS OVER LINE SEVERE WEAR TO DIFFERENTAIL RUBBED THROUGH BRAKE LINE POOR DESIGN ON LINE MOUNTING THIS HAPPENED IN THE REAR RIGHT WHERE LINE IS ROUTED TO THE LEFT BRAKE. SOME ONE HAS MAYBE BEEN KILLED DUE TO THIS POSSIBLEY BEING OVER LOOK AT AN ACCIDENT.*AK REFERENCED IN RQ03-004

NO SUMMARY LISTED FOR ABOVE VEHICLE. *AK

THE BRAKES ARE NOISY DUE TO FAILURE OF THE BRAKE BOOSTER, FIVE REPLACEMENT BOOSTER HAVE BEEN INSTALLED, HOWEVER CONTINUE TO FAIL. *MJS

THIS AUTOMOBILE WAS PURCHASED NEW IN SEPTEMBER, 1996. THE CAR NOW HAS 31,066 ORIGINAL OWNER DRIVEN MILES ON IT. ON 11/27/99, I TOOK THE CAR INTO A LOCAL SHOP (EXPRESS OIL CHANGE) FOR BRAKE INSPECTION. THE CAR NEEDED FRONT BRAKE PADS AND WHEN THE FRONT WHEEL BRAKE ROTORS WERE TURNED, ALL THAT WAS LEFT ON THEM WAS .965 IN USEABLE METAL. THE MECHANIC TOLD ME THE ROTORS WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED ON MY NEXT BRAKE PAD REPLACEMENT. I WALKED ACROSS THE STREET TO VULCAN LINCOLN-MERCURY DEALERSHIP AND ASKED MR. MARSHALL AVERY (SERVICE ADVISOR) WHY THE PROBLEM WITH BRAKE ROTORS ON MY AUTOMOBILE, AND HE STATED THAT FORD WAS NOT USING THE SAME METAL THICKNESS ONCE USED IN MANUFACTURE OF BRAKE ROTORS WOULD BE HIS GUESS. WHY DOES AN AUTOMOBILE WHICH IS MINIMALLY DRIVEN TO AND FROM WORK NOT HAVE FRONT BRAKE ROTORS LARGE ENOUGH IN THICKNESS TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE TURNING? IT WOULD SEEM THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY HAS REDUCED THE THICKNESS OF ITS BRAKE ROTORS TO A DANGEROUSLY THIN LEVEL. THIS IS A RIP-OFF OF THE AUTOMOTIVE CONSUMER IN THAT ONLY 31,000 MILES CAN BE EXPECTED WITH A PAIR OF FRONT BRAKE ROTORS AND ON THE NEXT BRAKE REPLACEMENT THE ROTORS MUST BE DISCARDED AND NEW ONES PURCHASED. IN ADDITION, IT IS A DANGEROUS CONDITION WHEREAS A SET OF ROTORS WHICH IS TURNED ONCE NOW IS BELOW THE MINIMUM DOT REQUIREMENT (.974) FOR THICKNESS. I HAVE SENT A NOTE VIA E-MAIL TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO THEIR CONSUMER ASSISTANCE CENTER, BUT HAVE NOT RECEIVED A REPLY. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW THIS SITUATION HAS COME ABOUT. I HAVE OWNED MANY VEHICLES, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME FRONT BRAKE ROTORS HAVE BEEN AN ALARMING ISSUE IN MY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR MY CAR. THIS SITUATION CONCERNS ME DUE TO THE FACT THAT MY WIFE ALONE USES THIS CAR, AND I AM NO LONGER SURE OF THE SAFETY OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM. IT IS MY PERSONAL THINKING THAT THE USE OF A SPECIFIC FRONT BRAKE PAD WHICH IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROTOR THICKNESS HAS CAUSED UNDUE AND EARLY ROTOR WEAR ON THIS SIZE AUTOMOBILE. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. WHEN DEPLOYMENT OCCURS THE BRAKES SHOULD AUTOMATICLY LOCK TO PREVENT A RUNAWAY CAR.

WHEN THE BRAKE WAS APPLIED THE BRAKES WOULD MOMENTARILY WORK, THEN THE PEDAL WOULD GO TO THE FLOOR. THE ONLY TO KEEP THE AUTOMOBILE STOPPED WAS TO SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL AND APPLY THE PARKING BRAKE. I HAD TO SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL BECAUSE OF THE AUTOMATIC PARKING BRAKE RELEASE MECHANISM. ALTHOUGH THE CAR HAS ONLY 21K MILES ON THE ODOMETER THE 36 MONTH WARRANTLY EXPIRED TECHNICALLY ON 23 MAY 1999. I BOUGHT THE CAR FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER ON 28 MAY 1999 AFTER HE HAD THE TRANSMISSION REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY. THE CAR WAS DISABLED FOR MOST OF THE MONTH OF MAY. I ASKED THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY ASSISTANCE NUMBER (800) PERSONNEL TO COVER THIS BRAKE FAILURE BECAUSE THE BRAKES WOULD HAVE FAILED IN THE 36 MONTH WARRANTLY PERIOD HAD THE CAR NOT BEEN IN THE REPAIR FACILITY SO LONG. THEY REFUSED. I HAD TRONCALLI LINCOLN MERCURY COMPLETE THE REPAIR OF THE BRAKES WHICH THEY DETERMINED TO BE A DEFECTIVE MASTER CYLINDER. *AK

BREAKS SQUEAK.

BRAKES MAKES NOISE.

BRAKES MAKE NOISE.

GEAR INDICATOR WAS IN THE REVERSE POSITION VEHICLE SURGED BACKWARDS, BRAKING SYSTEM WOULD NOT OVERRIDE THE ACCELERATION, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO HIT A HOUSE. *AK