1995 FORD TAURUS SHO — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data

HIT A ROCK IN THE ROAD CAUSING MASSIVE DEFLATION AND LEADING TO WRECK OF CAR. TIRES HAVE BEEN SENT INTO GENERAL/CONTINENTAL AND THEY HAVE DENIED ANY CLAIMS. AFTER LOOKING AT ALL THE COMPLAINTS ON GENERAL ALTIMAX HP,WHY HASN'T THE DOT DONE A RECALL?? WHO IS CORRUPT AND GETTING MONEY IN THE DOT NOT TO FORCE GENERAL INTO A RECALL? I LOOKED AND BFG,MICHELIN,AND THE PARENT COMPANY CONTINENTAL DO NOT HAVE THE COMBINED COMPLAINTS OF GENERAL ALTIMAX. MADE IN CHINA BTW

BRAKE LINES ON 1995 FORD TAURUS SHO AUTO TRANS FAILURE. THE BRAKE LINE IS COATED WITH PLASTIC UP TO THE LAST TWO INCHES. THE FAILURE WAS AT THE MASTER CYLINDER. THIS WAS THE SECOND BRAKE LINE FAILURE. THE FRIST WAS IN THE LINE FROM THE FRONT TO THE REAR OF THE CAR. NEARLY UNDER THE DRIVERS DOOR. FORTUNATELY THE FAILURES OCCURED BEFORE PULLING OUT INTO TRAFFIC. *NM

WHILE DRIVING A 1995 FORD TAURUS SHO I EXPERIENCED A FAILURE OF THE FRONT SUBFRAME WHERE IT DETACHED FROM THE BODY. THIS FAILURE WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT DESCRIBED IN NHTSA RECALL 98V323 AND FORD RECALL 98S36. FORD CLAIMS THIS VEHICLE HAS HAD THE RECALL PERFORMED ON 5/27/1999 - IF THIS IS THE CASE THEN THE VEHICLE FAILED IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS IF THE RECALL WAS NOT PERFORMED. THIS MAKES ME QUESTION THE QUALITY OF THE REPAIR; I ALSO AM CONSIDERING CONTACTING THE DCP TO DETERMINE IF FRAUD WAS COMMITTED, I.E. THE RECALL REPAIR WORK WAS CLAIMED TO BE PERFORMED BUT NOT ACTUALLY COMPLETED. *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

DT: THE VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE, AND THE OWNER BARELY ESCAPED. FOUND OUT LATER THAT CAR WAS UNDER A RECALL, AND HAD BEEN REPAIRED FROM PREVIOUS OWNER. THE CAR WAS BROUGHT TO THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP AS ADVISED BY FORD. DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THE CAUSE OF FIRE TO BE THE RECALLED PART. BUT, FORD REFUSED TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGES. THE RECALL PART INVOLVED COOLING SYSTEM CIRCUIT BREAKER. WHILE DRIVING OWNER SAW A PUFF OF BLACK SMOKE COMING FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. AS THE OWNER EXITED THE CAR, A FEW SECONDS LATER, THERE WERE FLAMES COMING FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD. LOCAL FIRE DEPTMENT CAME, AND CONDUCTED THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION WHICH DETERMINED THE SAME LOCATION OF THE FIRE. CONSUMER HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH FORD SEVERAL TIMES. CONSUMER WANTED CAR TO BE FIXED. *AK