2000 Ford Crown Victoria
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Ford › Crown Victoria › 2000
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2000 Ford Crown Victoria. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
10 recalls name the 2000 Ford Crown Victoria. Newest first.
Dorman Products, Inc. (Dorman) is recalling certain model Dorman Steering Shafts, part number 425-359, Solutions Steering Shafts, part number 7-0359, and OE Solutions Steering Shafts, part number 425-359, manufactured April 17, 2014, to September 28, 2015. These aftermarket replacement steering shafts are sold for use in 1995-2002 Ford Crown Victoria…
If the shafts separate during vehicle operation, a loss of steering control would result, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.
Dorman will notify owners, and dealers will replace the steering shaft, free of charge. The recall began on October 28, 2015. Owners may contact Dorman customer service at 1-800-523-2492, option 5.
Certain aftermarket fuel filters sold under the purolator brand name, p/n f65277, shipped from january 16 through june 2, 2006, for use on the above listed passenger vehicles. due to incorrect design, the quick connectors may not fully seat with the tube interface, even though the person making the connection may believe that the quick connector IS fully…
Failure of this connection could lead to fuel spillage and, in the presence of an ignition source, a fire could occur.
Ufi will notify owners and replace the filters free of charge. the recall began on august 4, 2006. owners may contact ufi filters USA at 800-230-5876.
On certain natural gas vehicles, if a flame from a vehicle interior fire becomes locally directed at the natural gas fuel tank located immediately behind the rear seat, the flame could damage the fiberglass wrap on the tank weakening the tank.
If the strength of the tank IS significantly compromised, it could rupture, increasing the risk of a fire.
Dealers will install an insulator behind the current seat back. owner notification began on january 7, 2004. owners should contact ford at 1-800-392-3673.
In order to enhance police office safety, model year 1992-2003 crown victoria police interceptor (cvpi) vehicles will be equipped with shields designed to help protect the fuel tank in high-speed rear-impact crashes. ford also will be offering an optional trunk package designed to improve the safe transport of sharp-edged, heavy equipment in these vehicles.
Some high-speed rear-impact crashes have resulted in fuel tank punctures and fires in cvpi vehicles.
Ford has advised us that shield kits have been available since late october and will be installed on police interceptor vehicles at no cost. the optional trank package will be available by the end of 2002. ford has established a new web site at www.cvpi.com to answer additional questions about the safe use of cpvi vehicles.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. these vehicles have jacking instructions which, if followed, could cause the vehicle operator to place the jack on a frame weld when attempting to raise a rear wheel. if the vehicle IS jacked up with the jack placed on the frame weld and if the vehicle IS free to roll (wheels not blocked or chocked), the jack…
If this occurs and any portion of the operator's body IS under the vehicle, the potential for personal injury exists.
Owners will be provided with a revised jack instruction and stowage card and jack warning label, as well as a supplement to the owner guide.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles using aftermarket driver's seat belt assemblies that were sold by ford parts departments from january 1, through june 13, 2000. these seat belt assemblies fail to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 209, "seat belt assemblies." the equipment involved IS service stock seat belt assemblies, model nos. H 9977…
In the event of a collision, these seat belts may not restrain an occupant increasing the risk of injury.
Dealers will inspect these vehicles and replace the service seat belt assemblies that were installed in these vehicles from january 1 through june 13, 2000.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles using aftermarket front passenger side seat belt assemblies that were sold by ford parts departments from january 1, through june 13, 2000. these seat belt assemblies fail to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 209, "seat belt assemblies." the equipment involved IS service stock seat belt assemblies, model…
In the event of a collision, these seat belts may not restrain an occupant increasing the risk of injury.
Dealers will inspect these vehicles and replace the service seat belt assemblies that were installed in these vehicles from january 1 through june 13, 2000.
Vehicle description: a windshield wiper control module may not be capable of carrying the current required during high load conditions on the wipers (i.e., ice, snow, or other debris).
This condition could result in inoperative wipers with no advance warning.
Dealers will inspect the wiper control modules and replace if necessary.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. these vehicles may have been built with the left rear seat belt retractor attaching bolts incorrectly tightened.
In the event of a crash, the vehicle occupant may not be properly restrained, increasing the risk of personal injury.
Dealers will tighten the retractor mounting bolts to the specified torque.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. these vehicles may have been built with lower than the intended level of torque on the bolts that attach the air bag electronic crash sensor module to the vehicle.
A loose module could result in a delayed air bag deployment in the event of a vehicle crash.
Dealers will tighten the air bag electronic crash sensor attaching bolts.
Purchased 2 Cooper Endeavor tires July 2022 from a highly popular national retailer, 225/60-R16. The tires were installed professionally by a Ford Dealership. The first of the 2 tires developed a hazardous outer sidewall "egg" within a few weeks of installation (under 1k mi). Having no visible or known damage it was reluctantly replaced by the tire retailer under their provided Road Hazard warranty. Rolling forward to present, following documented tire rotation schedule and documented monthly tire pressure checks, the 2nd Cooper Endeavor "60k mi marketed tire" developed a hazardous outer sidewall egg 29 mo later with only 21.6k mi. driven. The new tire tread depth was 10.5/32 in. and remaining tread depth is 7/32 in. at it's greatest wear area. This 2nd sidewall egg tire was removed by a reputable tire dealership and inspected showing no visible damage to the inner or outer sidewall, tire tread or the rim bead.
I was driving nd I didn't see a pot hole so after I drove across it like a mile or more my head light started flicking nd after wen I drove for like 30min they turned of nd it also caused all the light to turn off inside nd out the car
TL* the contact owns a 2000 ford crown victoria. The contact stated that the original windshield had some cracks and chips, so he decided to have the windshield replaced. The contact stated that the replacement windshield impaired his vision while driving because he could not see the road clearly. The contact stated that the windshield had a foggy, hazy smoke screen and was not clear. The contact took the vehicle back to the independent mechanic where the windshield was purchased; however, no defect was noticed. The mechanic offered to replace the windshield, but stated that it would be no different than the one that was originally sold to him. The contact took the vehicle to another independent mechanic who stated that they were familiar with these particular fuyao windshields (product number: as1m848 dot-459 solar tint dw1506). The contact drove to the distribution warehouse and was informed that the windshields were not factory replacement windshields, but were aftermarket windshields. The ford manufacturer was notified and informed that the contact's windshield was not a factory authorized windshield replacement. The contact had the replacement windshield for three weeks and had visibility issues each time while driving. The failure mileage was unknown.
While driving at various times electrical problems occur, headlights will go out along with instrument panel. Sometimes the fan on will come on and will cut off even when it IS off. When temp IS cold heater blows cold air. Hot outside heats works. Ac works fine in both climates. Drivers side window will not come down in certain temperatures. Heads have low visibility and lens cover gets moisture inside. You have to drive at night with high beams to try and see at all. suspension IS definitely a problem on steering car has a swaying motion at times especially in warm weather popping, squeaky notices can also be heard. Vehicle has 92,000 actual miles but IS becoming a hazard to drive. vehicle has been inspected by a reputable repair service who states suspension looks good, parts have grease in joints, etc and heater problem everything was in specs. large ford dealership 35 miles away would not schedule an appointment due to car being an older model. if problems are not found, an accident IS waiting to happen! note : electrical problems have been ongoing and have increasingly become worse.
Brought used july 26,2017 first time driving at night headlights flash off and on then go out completely while driving on a main highway.ford has problem with light module tried getting vkp-31f32-z01 relays but my research found discontinued 2009 I'm screwed by ford & relay manufacture.may not be in your data base but it's still a safety hazard & previous owner should had this resolved.
Seat belts don't have elasticity. Steering column steering feels loose, gear shifter feels sloppy. Happens when the car IS stationary or in motion.
When driving for about 30-45 minutes, all lights go off for 1-2 minutes, fuse gets very hot under dash.
I was driving across the causeway when my car started shaking. I turned down the radio and it sounded like it back firing. I pulled over and called my mechanic to meet me where I broked down. H immediately saw the problem but he could not fix it. I had to bring it to another shop to get it repaired. Luckily when this happened I was getting off the causeway because that bridge IS 24 miles long.
Defective plastic intake manifold prone to cracking and leaking coolant. this item was previously reported to nhtsa and ford was required to pay for repairs already done and to extend warranty. I'm told that warranty expired for something that a recall should have taken care of. I'm told that cost to repair IS in excess of $1400. contacted dealer and ford asking for replacement of part and I will pay labor but both declined. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2000 ford crown victoria. While driving various speeds, the headlights and instrument panel lighting flickered. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was 150,000.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 ford crown victoria. The contact stated that while driving 10 mph and attempting a turn, the passenger's side lower ball joint fractured. The vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic. The technician verified the failure and stated that it was due to the bolt joint not getting enough grease since it was not equipped with a grease fitting. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The vin was not available. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure and current mileage was 150,000. *tr
The right rear (passenger side) of the vehicle body continues to raise up higher than the left side. it IS now about 5 inches higher. have noticed this on other crown vic cars in metro area. suspect a weak or broken spring. *tr
I was making a right hand turn at a slow speed (>10mph) when the intermediate steering shaft separated from the lower steering shaft, resulting in a loss of steering. *js
Was steering into an isle of parking spots when suddenly and without warning, the steering wheel began to spin freely and effortlessly. I immediately stopped the car because it could do nothing but go in the direction the tires were turned at the time of the steering failure, which in my case, would have been right into three parked cars. Upon inspection, the steering column had come loose from the rest of the car, causing a loss in control as far as steering was concerned. If this had happened while on the freeway, the results may have been catastrophic, not only to me, but to other drivers around me as well. Will take it directly to ford to see what they have to say about this situation. *tr
My wife was on her way home from work and she called me saying that something was wrong with the car. she said it was swaying back and forth on the highway and was very difficult to drive. she made it home and pulled into the drive way. when she turned the steering wheel strait the front driver side of the car hit the ground. when I got home I looked at it and seen that the lower ball joint had come out of the socket. I looked up my vehicle online and seen that I wasn't the only one with this problem. upon further inspection of my car I noticed there IS no grease port to do regular greasing of the parts. as I looked closer to the socket I seen that the socket was completely dry. no grease at all in the joints. as I inspected the passenger side lower ball joint I noticed that IS very close to failure also. I bought a new lower control arm hoping it would have a grease port and sure enough it doesn't. there IS no way to do regular maintenance on the joints. so this part will have to be replaced over and over. and it IS not cheap. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2000 ford crown victoria. the contact was driving approximately 10 mph when the vehicle exhibited a loud bang. the vehicle was pulled over and upon examination he noticed that the front passenger side tire was slanted inward toward the vehicle. In addition, the frame was severely rusted. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure and current mileage was 146,013.
Intake manifold failure, cracked in rear at heater hose boss that resulted in coolant loss. Also, the #4 ignition coil was damaged by coolant leaking on to it from cracked manifold... *Tr
Crown victoria 2000 has a crack intake manifold resulting in a leak coolant which IS going inside of plug #8 causing a malfunction and car start shaking loosing power. *Tr
On 15 nov 2009, my car started spitting and sputtering, I thought it was bad gasoline. on 16 nov 2009, I had my car checked by my garage, was told that #5 spark plug and coil was bad due to leaking coolant at my intake manifold. after contacting my local ford dealer thinking I could just buy a part vs. A whole manifold (like I was told I needed), I learned that there had been a recall for this problem and repairs were covered by ford for only 7 years of auto's life. well naturally, my car IS 9 yrs old now and I'm facing a $1100.00 repair bill. I was told the manifold could rupture at any time leaving me and my 2 yr old grandson stranded at any time. I feel like ford IS holding me hostage. with the spitting and sputtering the car was doing, we could have been in a serious accident. I have always driven ford/mercury products, but I'm not impressed with what's just happened. I don't want to be "found on road dead" (ford).
Spark plug blew out of the engine due to weak threading in the cylinder head. *Tr
While driving at a low speed (< 25 mph) on a local rural road that leads to my house, I heard a sudden scraping noise and had a difficult time turning the vehicle into my driveway. Upon inspection I found the front passenger side tie road disconnected from the front wheel and dragging on the ground. Upon replacement the mechanic noted the tie rod had failed due to corrosion and material loss. If this failure had happened at highway speed, this would have resulted in loss of control of the vehicle and a severe crash. *Tr
2000 ford crown victoria leaks coolant from the intake manifold. consumer wants to know why the warranty IS only seven years for this part. *nj
Valve stem failure the stems were cracked on all 4 tires my husband had a blowout and 7 days later he had a flat which IS when we seen the cracks. The manager of tire kingdom knew of problem with tr413 lot but was not aware of the recall which we found out on the internet. He IS going to replace the last 2 stem valves tomorrow 7/26 and we are going to keep the old ones. He will not reimburse for the blowout tire. We bought the tires new 5/29/07 from them. *Tr
When I place the left turn signal it blinks very fast. The right turn signal does not function like the lside. I have check other vehicles that are the same make and model and they have the same problem. *tr
Tl*the contact owns a 2000 ford crown victoria. when the contact deactivates the windshield wipers, they will not completely return to the off position. the wipers remained upright on the windshield. the defect began sporadically, but now occurs whenever the wipers are activated. the dealer stated that the failure was related to nhtsa campaign ID number 00v138000 (visibility:windshield wiper/washer). the dealer stated that the vin was excluded from the recall and nothing could be done. the failure and current mileages were 84,000.
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
On september 6, 2005, odi received a petition requesting that the agency investigate allegations of engine spark plug ejection in certain model year 1997 through 2004 ford vehicles with triton V-8 and V-10 engines.odi received a total of 474 non-duplicative complaints on the subject vehicles where the complainant, or the dealer repairing the vehicle, reported that a spark plug detached from the cylinder and/or ejected from the engine.as of december 8, 2005, odi IS not aware of any allegations where the alleged defect resulted in a loss of vehicle control, a crash, an injury, or a fatality in any of the 10,319,810 subject vehicles.in addition, odi IS aware of only two incidents where the vehicle stalled without restart.information contained in the odi consumer complaints and obtained from 72 telephone interviews with complainants showed the following:(1) 99% of the complaints were on my 1997 to 2002 subject vehicles.(2) most the complainants reported hearing a loud pop while driving or upon starting up the vehicle followed by a loud, repetitive clicking or popping sound.(3) many of the complainants reported that the popping sound was accompanied by some loss of vehicle power; however, in 99% of the incidents reported, the vehicle did not stall.in the very few incidents where the vehicle did stall, most vehicles could be restarted.(4) only a small percentage of the complainants cited that they smelled gas or a slight burning smell when the incident occurred.(5) in all but a very few incidents, vehicle damage was limited to the engine.in one incident, the complaint reported that the fuel rail was damaged and replaced after one of the spark plugs ejected from the engine; however, the complainant reported that the damage did not result in any type of fuel leak or fire.in another incident, the only incident where a fire was alleged, the complainant reported that no fluid leak was observed, but that a fire resulted after the spark plug had ejected from the engine and he had restarted the vehicle and driven to another location.none of the complainants reported any damage to the vehicle hood.(6) only two complainants reported that they observed what appeared to be some drops of fuel coming from the cylinder where the spark plug had failed or on the spark plug itself; however, each of these complainants reported that there was no smoke or flames as a result of his incident.as the petitioner noted, and odi?s analysis showed, it IS possible for a spark plug to detach from the engine cylinder threads in the subject vehicles.however, odi?s analysis of 474 complaints describing such incidents found only a very few alleged any safety-related consequences.none of these showed any evidence of a serious safety consequence.given the large population and relatively long exposure time of the subject vehicles, the complaint analysis indicates that the risk to motor vehicle safety from the alleged defect IS very low.in view of the foregoing, it IS unlikely that nhtsa would issue an order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition.therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize nhtsa?s limited resources to best accomplish the agency?s safety mission, the petition IS denied.
In september 2002, a fuel cylinder in a natural gas powered vehicle (ngv) exploded during a fire.ford and vrtc test engineers jointly examined the incident vehicle and reviewed testing to determine whether the performance of the pressure relief valve (prd) was proper.the purpose of a prd IS to protect a compressed natural gas tank from overpressure by allowing the CNG to vent when the temperature reaches a specific point.the prd was removed from the failed tank and subjected to a yield temperature determination test. It was concluded that a direct flame (from the interior of the vehicle) onto the cylinder (located behind the rear seat in the trunk)compromised the hoop strength of the natural gas cylinder, thus allowing the cylinder to fail prior to the prd releasing at itsdesigned temperature.as a result of this testing and review of the involved vehicle, ford has developed an insulator to insulate the natural gas fuel tank from a locally directed flame projecting from the interior of the vehicle.insulators will be installed behind the back seat on subject vehicles to prevent future failures of this type. Ford's action addresses the concerns of odi.therefore, this investigation IS closed.
An explosion of a compressed natural gas (CNG) tank should not be able to occur, as the tank IS fitted with a pressure relief device (prd). This prd should release the CNG in the tank, prior to the pressure reaching the tank burst pressure.the prd did not release in the subject wisconsin police cruiser explosion.nhtsa has recovered the prd valve from the tank that exploded and testing will be necessary to establish why this tank safety valve did not release in the very high temperature fire that occurred in the police cruiser.there IS only the single known event, but due to the catastropic force of such an explosion and the potential for injury and loss of life, this investigation IS being upgraded.
The fars data shows that the risk of fire from impact in all directions in the subject vehicles IS the same as all other sedans.the subject vehicles are not over represented with respect to the risk of fire in real-world high-energy crashes.a further discussion of issues related to post crash fires in the subject vehicles IS set out in the closing report for sq 01-014 and that report IS in the docket for this petition.after reviewing the petition and its supporting materials, as well as information furnished by ford and gm, and information within the agency's possession from previous investigations and other related actions,nhtsa has concluded that futher investigation concerning post-crash fires in the subject vehicles IS not likely to lead to a decision that the vehicles contain a safety defect.
There is no summary currently available
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.