1992 FORD AEROSTAR — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data
N/A
Safety Rating
439
Owner Complaints
5
Recalls
2
Service Bulletins
2
Investigations
Overview of the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR
The 1992 FORD AEROSTAR has received a total of 439 safety complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). There have been 5 recall campaigns affecting this vehicle, covering issues with SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC, POWER TRAIN:TRANSFER CASE (4-WHEEL DRIVE), ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:IGNITION:SWITCH. 2 technical service bulletins have been issued by Ford Motor Company for this model year. The most commonly reported problems involve the Electrical Systemignitionswitch (34 complaints), Power Trainautomatic Transmission (34 complaints), and Power Trainautomatic Transmissionlever And Linkagecolumn Shift (21 complaints).
Recalls for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR
NHTSA has recorded 5 recalls for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR, potentially affecting up to 879,092 vehicles.
Recall 06E022000 — SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC
| 7,440 vehicles affected
Defect: CERTAIN AFTERMARKET BRAKE HYDRAULIC MASTER CYLINDERS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT BRAKE CYLINDERS FOR CERTAIN FORD, DAIMLERCHRYSLER, AND JEEP PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE BRAKE CYLINDERS WERE SOLD UNDER THE BRAND NAMES OF NAPA, RAYBESTOS, AIMCO, AC DELCO, CARQUEST, BENDIX, AND WAGNER. ONLY PRODUCTS THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM JULY 27, 2005 THROUGH JANUARY 17, 2006 (DATE CODES 0529 THROUGH 0602) ARE SUBJECT TO THIS...
Consequence: LOSS OF BRAKE FLUID CAN LEAD TO A DECREASE IN BRAKE LINE PRESSURE AND AN INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCE, WHICH CAN RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: AFFINIA (BRAKE PARTS, INC.) WILL REPLACE THE SUBJECT BRAKE HYDRAULIC MASTER CYLINDERS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON MARCH 20, 2006. OWNERS CAN CONTACT AFFINA GROUP CUSTOMER SERVICE AT 1-800-323-0354.
View full details →Recall 99V094000 — POWER TRAIN:TRANSFER CASE (4-WHEEL DRIVE)
| 10,951 vehicles affected
Defect: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: ALL WHEEL DRIVE PASSENGER MINIVANS. (THIS INCLUDES ALL 1992 AWD AEROSTARS NOT PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN SAFETY RECALL 97V-204/97S83). THESE VEHICLES CAN DEVELOP POWERTRAIN BENDING RESONANCE OR TRANSFER CASE OUTPUT SHAFT BUSHING DISPLACEMENT. THE POWERTRAIN BENDING RESONANCE OR THE OUTPUT SHAFT BUSHING DISPLACEMENT CAN RESULT IN STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF THE TRANSMISSION AND/OR TRANSFER CASE. FLUID EXPLUSION, DRIVESHAFT SEPARATION OR...
Consequence: THIS CONDITION CAN CAUSE A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, AND, IF THE EXPELLED FLUID CONTACTS THE EXHAUST SYSTEM, A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW TRANSFER CASE REAR OUTPUT SHAFT BUSHING AND AN ALUMINUM DRIVESHAFT WILL BE INSTALLED.
View full details →Recall 99V029000 — ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:IGNITION:SWITCH
| 762,201 vehicles affected
Defect: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: MINI VANS. THESE VEHICLES WERE PRODUCED WITH A HIGHER THAN SPECIFIED ELECTRICAL LOAD THROUGH THE ACCESSORY POWER FEED CIRCUIT. THE POTENTIAL FOR CONTACT BETWEEN THE B2 (BATTERY), A2 (ACCESSORY), AND P1 (PROOF) CIRCUITS CAN OCCUR, CREATING A SHORT CIRCUIT, ALLOWING CURRENT TO FLOW THROUGH THE GROUND WIRE.
Consequence: THIS CAN CAUSE OVER HEATING AND THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A JUMPER HARNESS WITH A RELAY WHICH WILL RE-ROUTE AND ACTIVATE ALL A2 ACCESSORIES THROUGH THE RELAY.
View full details →Recall 98E010000 — SERVICE BRAKES, AIR:DISC:ROTOR
| 23,500 vehicles affected
Defect: EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: AFTERMARKET BRAKE ROTORS FOR USE ON CERTAIN FORD AND MAZDA TRUCKS. CRACKED CASTINGS CAUSED CRACKS TO APPEAR ON THE OUTER DIAMETER OF THE ROTOR HAT OR AROUND THE STUD HOLE.
Consequence: LOSS OF BRAKING CAN RESULT.
Remedy: AIMCO WILL REIMBURSE CONSUMERS/INSTALLERS FOR THE COST OF REPLACEMENT ROTORS AND INSTALLATION. CONSUMERS ARE REQUESTED TO RETURN TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE ROTORS WERE ORIGINALLY PURCHASED/INSTALLED FOR REPLACEMENT.
View full details →Recall 97V204000 — POWER TRAIN:TRANSFER CASE (4-WHEEL DRIVE)
| 75,000 vehicles affected
Defect: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: ALL WHEEL DRIVE PASSENGER MINIVANS. THESE VEHICLES CAN DEVELOP POWERTRAIN BENDING RESONANCE OR TRANSFER CASE OUTPUT SHAFT BUSHING DISPLACEMENT. THE POWERTRAIN BENDING RESONANCE OR THE OUTPUT SHAFT BUSHING DISPLACEMENT CAN RESULT IN STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF THE TRANSMISSION AND/OR TRANSFER CASE. FLUID EXPLUSION, DRIVESHAFT SEPARATION OR LOSS OF VEHICLE DRIVE CAN RESULT.
Consequence: THIS CONDITION CAN CAUSE A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, AND, IF THE EXPELLED FLUID CONTACTS THE EXHAUST SYSTEM, A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW TRANSFER CASE REAR OUTPUT SHAFT BUSHING AND AN ALUMINUM DRIVESHAFT WILL BE INSTALLED.
View full details →Owner Complaints for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR
439 complaints have been filed with NHTSA for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR. Below is a breakdown by vehicle component.
Most Recent Complaints
SEATBELT DONT WORK. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1992 FORD AEROSTAR. UPON PURCHASING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MUFFLER WAS RUSTED AND CRACKED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FINE AND THE FUMES WOULD EXIT OUT OF THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE FUMES WERE ENTERING THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE HOLES. THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY SEALED THE HOLES AND THE VEHICLE WAS FINE. THE MIDAS MECHANIC STATED THAT THE DEALER NEVER SEALED THE HOLES ON THE MUFFLER AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED COMPLETELY. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE FUMES COULD IN FACT GET INSIDE THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. ALSO, THE HORN HAS NEVER WORKED ON THE VEHICLE SINCE IT WAS PURCHASED; THEREFORE, THE DEALER CONSTRUCTED THEIR OWN HORN TO CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE SLIDING DOOR ON THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT OPEN AND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT UNLOCK FROM THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. IN ADDITION, THE REAR LIFTGATE FELL ON THE CONTACT'S HEAD SEVERAL TIMES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1992 FORD AEROSTAR. UPON PURCHASING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MUFFLER WAS RUSTED AND CRACKED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FINE AND THE FUMES WOULD EXIT OUT OF THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE FUMES WERE ENTERING THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE HOLES. THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY SEALED THE HOLES AND THE VEHICLE WAS FINE. THE MIDAS MECHANIC STATED THAT THE DEALER NEVER SEALED THE HOLES ON THE MUFFLER AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED COMPLETELY. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE FUMES COULD IN FACT GET INSIDE THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. ALSO, THE HORN HAS NEVER WORKED ON THE VEHICLE SINCE IT WAS PURCHASED; THEREFORE, THE DEALER CONSTRUCTED THEIR OWN HORN TO CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE SLIDING DOOR ON THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT OPEN AND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT UNLOCK FROM THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. IN ADDITION, THE REAR LIFTGATE FELL ON THE CONTACT'S HEAD SEVERAL TIMES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1992 FORD AEROSTAR. UPON PURCHASING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MUFFLER WAS RUSTED AND CRACKED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FINE AND THE FUMES WOULD EXIT OUT OF THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE FUMES WERE ENTERING THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE HOLES. THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY SEALED THE HOLES AND THE VEHICLE WAS FINE. THE MIDAS MECHANIC STATED THAT THE DEALER NEVER SEALED THE HOLES ON THE MUFFLER AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED COMPLETELY. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE FUMES COULD IN FACT GET INSIDE THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. ALSO, THE HORN HAS NEVER WORKED ON THE VEHICLE SINCE IT WAS PURCHASED; THEREFORE, THE DEALER CONSTRUCTED THEIR OWN HORN TO CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE SLIDING DOOR ON THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT OPEN AND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT UNLOCK FROM THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. IN ADDITION, THE REAR LIFTGATE FELL ON THE CONTACT'S HEAD SEVERAL TIMES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1992 FORD AEROSTAR. UPON PURCHASING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MUFFLER WAS RUSTED AND CRACKED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FINE AND THE FUMES WOULD EXIT OUT OF THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE FUMES WERE ENTERING THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE HOLES. THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY SEALED THE HOLES AND THE VEHICLE WAS FINE. THE MIDAS MECHANIC STATED THAT THE DEALER NEVER SEALED THE HOLES ON THE MUFFLER AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED COMPLETELY. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE FUMES COULD IN FACT GET INSIDE THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. ALSO, THE HORN HAS NEVER WORKED ON THE VEHICLE SINCE IT WAS PURCHASED; THEREFORE, THE DEALER CONSTRUCTED THEIR OWN HORN TO CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE SLIDING DOOR ON THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT OPEN AND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT UNLOCK FROM THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. IN ADDITION, THE REAR LIFTGATE FELL ON THE CONTACT'S HEAD SEVERAL TIMES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
Safety Rating for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR
NHTSA has not yet tested the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR in its New Car Assessment Program.
Technical Service Bulletins for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR
Ford Motor Company has issued 2 technical service bulletins (TSBs) for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR. TSBs are notices sent by manufacturers to their dealers describing a known issue and the recommended repair procedure.
95320 — ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE:GASOLINE
KNOCKING NOISE FROM LOWER FRONT OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT. *TW
94249 — VISIBILITY:POWER WINDOW DEVICES AND CONTROLS
FRONT DOOR GLASS TIPPING AND BINDING DURING DOWNWARD TRAVEL. *TW
NHTSA Investigations for the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR
NHTSA has opened 2 investigations into potential safety defects in the 1992 FORD AEROSTAR.
Investigation PE02076 — STRUCTURE:BODY:HATCHBACK/LIFTGATE:SUPPORT DEVICE/STRUT Closed
Opened:
LUGGAGE COMPARTMENT DOOR DROPS ABRUPTLY
Other Model Years of the FORD AEROSTAR
- 1987 FORD AEROSTAR — 140 complaints
- 1988 FORD AEROSTAR — 230 complaints
- 1989 FORD AEROSTAR — 328 complaints
- 1990 FORD AEROSTAR — 254 complaints
- 1991 FORD AEROSTAR — 282 complaints
- 1992 FORD AEROSTAR (current)
- 1993 FORD AEROSTAR — 541 complaints
- 1994 FORD AEROSTAR — 384 complaints
- 1995 FORD AEROSTAR — 204 complaints
- 1996 FORD AEROSTAR — 124 complaints
- 1997 FORD AEROSTAR — 83 complaints
Other FORD Models
- FORD F-150 — 45,660 total complaints
- FORD EXPLORER — 42,140 total complaints
- FORD ESCAPE — 34,654 total complaints
- FORD FOCUS — 29,539 total complaints
- FORD FUSION — 28,243 total complaints
- FORD TAURUS — 23,867 total complaints
- FORD WINDSTAR — 19,456 total complaints
- FORD EDGE — 17,247 total complaints