1995 Lincoln Town Car
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Lincoln › Town Car › 1995
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 1995 Lincoln Town Car. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
9 recalls name the 1995 Lincoln Town Car. 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.
On certain pickup trucks, passenger vehicles, sport utility vehicles, and motor homes chassis, the speed control deactivation switch may, under certain conditions, leak internally and then overheat, smoke, or burn.
This could result in an underhood fire.
Dealers will install a fused wiring harness. owners of the passenger cars included in this campaign will be instructed to return their vehicles to their dealers to have the speed control deactivation switch disconnected as an interim repair. as soon as repair parts are available (expected october 2007), owners will be instructed to return to the dealers for installation of a fused wiring harness. the recall began on august 13, 2007, and mailing completed by september 19, 2007. owners may contact ford at 1-888-222-2751.
Equipment description: passenger vehicles that have had the driver's air bag module replaced after april 5, 2000. the replacement driver's air bag module inflator may have insufficient welds that could prevent proper inflation of the air bag.
In the event of a crash, the driver's air bag may not properly deploy which could potentially result in less than the intended level of occupant protection.
Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the driver's air bag module. owner notification began october 5, 2001. owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1-866-436-7332.
Vehicle description: certain 1996-1999 ford crown victoria police, fleet, natural gas, and 1996-1999 lincoln town car limousine vehicles that were produced with a lower control arm ball joint containing a one piece bearing; and 1990-1996 ford crown victoria police, fleet, and ngv vehicles and 1990-1996 lincoln town car limousine vehicles that have been…
If this occurs while the vehicle IS moving, reduced steering control could occur, increasing the risk of a crash.
Dealers will replace the lower control arm ball joints (2).
This IS not a safety recall in accordance with federal regulation 573. however, it IS deemed a safety improvement campaign by the agency. ford IS initiating an owner notification program for owners of certain 1995-1997 crown victoria model vehicles with police, taxi, and commercial fleet packages and town car vehicles with the livery package. these…
This could lead to brake fluid loss for the rear brakes and, potentially, increased stopping distances.
Dealers will inspect the brake lines for wear, install two new tube bundle clips, and check the brake lines for proper clearances. if the brake lines are worn, the damaged section of the brake line will be replaced.
The pitman arms were not fully lubricated at the assembly plant. The "ball joint" at the outer end of the pitman arm can become contaminated and corrode.
Such corrosion can result in abnormal wear of the joint, resulting in separation of the joint. Loss of steering control can occur increasing the risk of a vehicle accident.
Dealers will inspect the vehicles and if the joint IS found to have significant wear, the arm will be replaced. Those pitman arms not replaced will have the "ball joint" fully greased.
Improper installation of the rear brake line at the point at which the extended brake line first bends and extends over the left rear wheel area of the frame. If not installed with sufficient clearance, chafing of the brake line can occur in an area adjacent to the rear floor pan.
The rear brake line can leak or rupture resulting in reduced braking capability, loss of rear brakes, and/or loss of brake fluid reserves in the master brake cylinder.
Dealers will inspect the brake line for proper installation and/or damage and replace as necessary. Also a protective boot or sleeve over the brake line will be installed.
The seal material between the fuel filler pipe and fuel tank may not have been fully cured during the molding process which could allow for fuel leakage.
Fuel leakage could result in a vehicle fire if an ignition source were present.
Dealers will replace the fuel filler pipe-to-fuel tank seal with a new seal of different material.
The passenger side air bag has an inflator body that cracked during forming of the curl that retains the igniter plug in the end of the inflator. Also the igniter end cap can separate from the inflator.
The passenger side air bag may not inflate properly resulting in reduced occupant protection in a vehicle accident. If the igniter end cap separates in a frontal collision, hot gases can be released and ignite flammable material or cause burn injuries.
Dealers will remove and replace the passenger side air bag module.
Well I was driving home one day and smoke was starting to poor out from underneath my dashboard luckily I was close enough to the house to be able make it home and then after I had gotten home I cut the car off and was not able to start it up since
TL* the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. The contact stated that the air bag warning indicator illuminated. Also, the brake pedal was stiff when depressed. The brake lines were replaced three times by an independent mechanic, but the failure recurred. Furthermore, the steering wheel had to be maneuvered in either direction to prevent it from seizing. The contact stated that the vehicle was not included in nhtsa campaign numbers: 15e082000 (steering), 96v135000 (steering), 98v001000 (service brakes, hydraulic), 01v318000 (air bags), and 95e006002 (air bags). The contact stated that the vehicle exhibited the same failures listed in the recall campaigns. Liberty ford lincoln canton (423 tuscarawas st w, canton, oh 44702) and the manufacturer stated that the vehicle was not included in any recalls to provide a remedy. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The approximate failure mileage was 135,000.
TL* the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. The contact noticed a pool of fluid under the vehicle while idling. Upon inspection, the contact noticed that the brake lines were leaking fluid. While refueling the vehicle, there was an abnormal fuel odor. The dealer and manufacturer were not contacted. The contact referenced nhtsa campaign numbers: 98i001000 (service brakes, hydraulic) and 95v063000 (fuel system, gasoline) as possible causes of the failure due to similar failures. The failure mileage was 106,000.
The ball joint so my 1995 lincoln town car have fell off the lower controller arm IS badly damaged and I get a lot of misfires in the engine IS just a lot of stuff this wrong with it
The 1995 IS very comfortable but air bags, suspension, windows, and electrical system (unlocatable shortage) do not work. good mileage and seats, etc very good. The key switch IS defective and you can remove keys without turning off. No air bags operable. *tr
The headlights have went off at night completely 4 times and back on. I was driving about 45 mph about a block from my house at 4AM when the headlights marker lights and everylight except tail lights went off. I ran off the road into a ditch and back on. I reached for the blinkers which worked and saw I was in the other lane. I went into my lane and stopped. a few seconds later the headlights came back on and all other lights. This has happened again twice. The second time on a major highway. The last time I had to have a wrecker pull me out of a side ditch. I contacted ford motor company and they were very rude and would not help at all. I told them this was a serious safety issue , even more so that the speed control recall. They said they would not pay to have this looked into. They wouldn't even let me speak to a supervisor. There are several other instances where this has happened to other people. The local dealership said it happens often on 05 marquis and town car. They said they probably wouldn't be able to help me. maybe when my whole family IS killed in this thing and whoever IS in the way, they'll care then. p.s. They have recalled other vehicles for the same reason. The dealer called it an lcm module. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 1995 lincoln towncar. The contact stated that while the vehicle was parked in a residential garage, it ignited into flames. The vehicle was unoccupied. The fire department arrived to extinguish the flames and also detected that the fire originated in the area of the cruise control component. The contact's garage and the vehicle were destroyed. The vehicle remained at the contact's residence for further investigation. The manufacturer was not made aware of the problem. The approximate failure mileage was 90,000. ...updated 09-26-13 *bf
[Xxx] drove [xxx] 1995 lincoln town car for day and arrived home between 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. On 3/4/13. [Xxx] pulled lincoln into garage next to [xxx] 1956 ford thunderbird. [Xxx] pulled into driveway outside garage door behind town car with our minivan and went into garage to put some things away. [Xxx] shut garage door and went outside garage door into house to put purse inside. [Xxx]immediately went back outside and went to deck to water plants and smelled and noticed smoke was coming out of side garage door. [Xxx] opened side garage door and saw fire coming out of hood on driver's side of lincoln town car and spreading. [xxx] ran inside house got [xxx] and told him about fire and call 911.[xxx] grabbed keys to minivan and house phone and called 911. [Xxx] came out, and tried to put water on fire but was unable to because of heat. When [xxx] first saw car there was a hole burned through metal hood to about 3 feet in diameter in front of fire wall of driver's side of lincoln town car. There was a burst of flames and engine compartment basically exploded with more fire, and jock ran from garage because flames were burning his head and skin. [Xxx] pulled minivan out of driveway and ran back to garage to find [xxx]. when [xxx] ran back to front yard looking for [xxx], firemen were already at house, [xxx] was yelling at firemen to find jock and dogs. They were able to break through fence on left side (east) of house and get [xxx] and dogs out of back yard. the neighbor behind our house came over to say she heard loud popping noises and saw huge flames from garage; she had called 911 as well. The fire was so extreme it burned whole garage with lincoln and 1956 thunderbird, and then fire consumed house. there were eight fire trucks called to house to eventually control fire. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(B)(6). *tr
The seal material between the fuel filler pipe and the fuel tank IS defective and does not prevent fuel leakage. this fuel leakage could result in a vehicle fire if an ignition source were present. a recall (recall 95v06300) to replace the defective seal was issued. Because of a time lapse, the manufacturer has refused to honor the recall on this vehicle and the hazard still exists. any attempt to fill the fuel tank to full will cause immediate and heavy fuel spillage. a time period does not eliminate a defect nor a potential vehicle fire hazard. *tr
Component: visibility:power window devices and controls summary: comsumer complaining that power windows on driver's and passenger's side doors are malfunctioning due to cable lines that are connected to tracks broke. Both windows stopped working within two month apart, I already replaced the driver side part, and it has broken again, IS there a possible recall on this little plastic part that keeps breaking. Do I have any recourse, it IS so expensive. Can you assist? *tt
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln towncar. While driving approximately 5 mph, the air bag light illuminated on the instrument panel. The light stayed on whether there was a front passenger seated or not. The vehicle was taken to an authorized dealer who stated that the driver side seat belt assembly was defetive. The vehicle was repaired. The failure mileage was 77,000 and the current mileage was 77,998. updated 03/29/11 *bf the dealer informed the consumer an electrical part failed. Updated 10/12/11
Took my 1995 lincoln town car in for recall and it was not performed as stated in the recall... A fused wiring harness was not installed by the dealer. *tr
I have a 1995 lincoln town car. I was driving in downtown portland, in stop and go traffic. I was making a right hand turn when the right front of the car just fell to the ground. the lower ball joint had separated from the lower control arm. there are recalls for this, but it only covers limo, or commercially used vehicles. I had the car towed back to my home while I find out what can be done. Nothing has been repaired yet. *Tr
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. the contact received a recall notice for nhtsa campaign ID number 07v336000 (vehicle speed control). the vehicle was repaired; however, on a separate occasion, the vehicle surged and crashed into a house. the air bags deployed at the time of impact. there were no injuries. the vin was unknown. the failure and current mileages were less than 155,000.
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. whenever the contact reduced the vehicle's speed to turn, he would hear a popping sound coming from the front end on the driver's side. the failure was noticed while driving 10 mph. the vehicle was driven to the dealer for routine oil changes, but the mechanic never stated what caused the noise. approximately one month later, he drove the vehicle to the dealer because he received a recall notice for nhtsa campaign ID number 07v336000 (vehicle speed control). the vehicle was repaired. he informed the dealer of the popping noise when he took the vehicle in for the recall repairs. when he retrieved the vehicle, the mechanic informed him that the upper and lower ball joints were defective and needed to be replaced. the vehicle has not been repaired. the manufacturer stated that the vehicle was not included in any recalls for the ball joints; therefore, they were not liable for the repairs. the current mileage was 95,000 and failure mileage was 88,000.
1995 lincoln town car with recall on speed control switch. Consumer states that the vehicle caught fire under the hood in 2003 which killed his father. Ford sent his deceased father a recall in 2007 for this issue. *kb
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. the contact's mother attempted to place the vehicle into reverse and heard a popping noise. the vehicle accelerated backwards, although her foot was depressing the brake pedal. the vehicle eventually stopped after crashing into a guardrail and three people. the police impounded and inspected the vehicle, but found no failure. a police report was filed. a state farm representative inspected the vehicle and gave the contact's mother a ticket for careless driving. her mother continued to stress that her foot was depressing the brake pedal the entire time. the current and failure mileages were approximately 127,000.
1995 lincoln town car keeps heating up. Consumer states that the car IS heating up very badly. He states that the dealer can't get him in until next thursday. He says he IS scared to drive the vehicle. *kb
Tl*the contact owned a 1995 lincoln town car. after the vehicle had been driven for approximately 30 minutes and then parked, it caught fire under the hood. the fire department extinguished the fire. there were no injuries. a police report was filed. the current and failure mileages were 107,000.
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. the contact received a ford recall for the vehicle speed control in august of 2007. in march of 2008, she received another letter stating that the part would be unavailable for another couple of months. there had been no failure to date. the purchase date and recall number were unknown. the current mileage was 150,000.
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. the contact received a ford safety recall notice for the ford vehicle speed control. the speed control was disconnected in september of 2007. the vehicle has been to the dealer eight or nine times since then and they stated that the parts were on back order. there had been no failure to date. the purchase date and recall number were unknown. the current mileage was 131,200. updated 03-04-08 *bf the consumer stated he IS still waiting on a part to fix the vehicle leak on the vehicle. Updated
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. the contact received a recall notice for the vehicle speed control in august of 2007. the speed control switch was disconnected at that time. ford has stated each month thereafter that the part would be available the following month. there had been no failure to date. the purchase date and recall number were unknown. the current mileage was 133,000. updated 02-25-08 *bf
Tl*the contact owns a 1995 lincoln town car. the contact received a recall notice for nhtsa campaign ID number 07v366000 (vehicle speed control). the part was unavailable. there had been no failure to date. the current mileage was 172,000. updated 03-18-08 *bf the consumer stated since contacting the agency was informed should receive a postcard shortly vehicle part. Updated 03/18/08 *tr
Manufacture recall on lincoln town car and models of mercury and ford models in august 2007 pertaining to fire hazard in wiring harness if cruise control was used. Quick fix was to disable cruise control, which was done. New harness was to be available mid october according to dealer. New date was set for mid december. called dealer dec. 31, 2007. Dealer now stated parts would not be available till feb. 2008. If, as it has been stated by the local dealer that ford motor company has not supplied the part to fix the problem, it IS now my understanding that the ford motor company has no intention of fixing the problem as I have been barraged with weekly mailings from the local dealer trying to sell me a new or later model car. It IS my understanding that others have the same problem and have contacted ford motor company to no avail. Please help! Thank you. *tr
Recall re. Speed control deactivation (scds) lack of timely correction after disconnect - first disconnect service 11/sep /2007 - no replacement to date 12/dec/2007. *tr
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
In a letter dated february 25, 2005, ford motor company (ford) notified odi that it would be conducting a customer satisfaction program (ford no. 04B26) to correct a rear brake line chafing concern in approximately 44,000 model year (my) 1997 ford crown victoria and grand marquis non-fleet vehicles equipped with electronic traction control that werebuilt after march 19, 1997.these vehicles have an additional rear brake line and a mastic patch causing reduced clearance from a stiffening rib in the floor pan.odi?s analysis showed higher complaint and warranty rates related to rear brake line failures in this population than in other subject vehicles and peer mid-sized passenger cars that were evaluated during the investigation.vehicles involved in ford?s program will have the rear brake lines inspected for contact with the floor pan stiffing rib.if there IS contact, but no abrasion or leakage, the brake lines will be repositioned.if there IS abrasion or a leak IS evident the brake line will be repaired.if necessary, both of the rear brake lines will be replaced. Though ford does not admit to a safety-defect in the subject components, odi believes that the facts in this investigation show otherwise because the insufficient clearance in the routing of those brake lines may result in leaks in those lines that may result in increased stopping distances.odi IS designating the campaign a safety recall (nhtsa recall no. 05V-086).because of the low rates of brake line failures in the remaining subject vehicles, a safety-related defect has not been identified in those populations and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that no safety-related defect exists in those vehicles.the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.for additional information, see the attached closing report.
Odi has received 40 complaints alleging rear brake line failure in the subject vehicles, including 8 that have been received this year.an additional 192 reports and 478 warranty claims have been received from ford.a leak in the rear brake line can cause extended stopping distance.a search of odi's complaint database for peer vehicle complaints, using the same brake line failure criteria as for the subject vehicles and the same model years (1995-97), identified only 1 complaint involving general motors caprice/implala/88/98/regal vehicles and only 2 complaints involving chrysler lh-cars.the investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis to further evaluate the frequency, scope, and causal factors related to rear brake line failures in the subject vehicle population.
See attached report.
Based on the low rate of fire incidents (2.5 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold) where failure of the scds IS involved and the age of the vehicles ? 7 to 11 years ? A safety-related defect trend has not been identified and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that no safety-related defect exists.the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.for additional information, see the attached closing report.
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.