1996 Lincoln Town Car
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Lincoln › Town Car › 1996
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 1996 Lincoln Town Car. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
10 recalls name the 1996 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: 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: 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.
The elr/alr feature IS used to accommodate child restraints. When servicing the rear belt assemblies, wrong parts could have been used which do not contain the automatic locking feature.
In the event of an accident, the seat belt assemblies may not properly secure the child restraint increasing the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant.
Dealers will replace the rear belt assemblies with the appropriate design retractor and tongue assemblies.
When in the secondary latched position, the driver door latches may open when subjected to transverse loads less than that specified in fmvss no. 206, "door locks and door retention components."
The driver's door, when closed only to the secondary latched position, may not sustain a 1,000 pound transverse load.
Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the driver door latch.
The contact owns a 1996 Lincoln Town Car. The contact stated while the vehicle was turned on and he was shifting the vehicle from park(P) to drive(D), with his foot on the brake pedal, the vehicle lunged forward at high speed. The contact stated that the acceleration was extreme. The contact observed smoke coming from the rear tires as the vehicle accelerated. The contact was able to safely stop the vehicle after approximately 50 feet but had to depress the brake pedal with force. The contact stated no warning light was illuminated. The contact stated that the vehicle was not turned off but was shifted to park(P). The contact had tested and shifted the vehicle from park (P), drive (D), neutral (N) and reverse (R) and the vehicle reacted normally to each gear change. The contact had not taken the vehicle to a local dealer or independent mechanic. The vehicle had not been diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer had not been informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 140,000. The contact stated that the vehicle was sold to the mechanic who repaired it.
As per recall cruise control neithrt starts or works on highway
TL* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. While attempting to drive the vehicle and shift the gear into drive with the brake pedal depressed. The pedal traveled to the floorboard and all the warning indicators illuminated. When the contact poured brake fluid into the reservoir and depressed the brake pedal, smoke appeared from the engine compartment near the master cylinder. The contact also stated that the brake line corroded. The vehicle was not taken to a dealer. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not contacted. The approximate failure mileage was 100,000.
TL* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. While driving 35 mph, the vehicle began to vibrate and an unknown clicking sound was heard from the passenger side wheel when making a turn. The failure occurred constantly. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was diagnosed that the front ball joints failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The vin was not included in nhtsa campaign number: 98v322000 (suspension). The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 45,000.
1. Drivers seat belt latch IS broken internally and cannot be used. to circumvent the broken latch, the front center passenger seat belt IS being used. 2. Front right hand passenger seat belt can no longer be latched without first pushing the release button. 3. Cruise control automatically engaged while driving in residential area, causing a rapid acceleration of my vehicle above the speed limit. slamming on the brakes forcefully disengaging the cruise control. one time occurrence.
Tl*the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that while driving at approximately 35 mph, the steering wheel was vibrating and the wheels felt as if there were to detach from the vehicle. the contact also stated that the air bag warning light was continuously illuminated and the seat belts were unable to lock properly. the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 180,000.
TL* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that when the vehicle was started, there was smoke coming from under the hood. As a result, the contact discovered that the battery wires were burned and brake fluid had spilled. In addition, the contact stated that the vehicle failed to switch gears. The vehicle was towed to a dealer where it was diagnosed that the cruise control wire assembly needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The vin was not available. The failure mileage was unknown.
TL* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated while driving 55 mph there was smoke emitting from the engine. The vehicle was maneuvered to the side of the road where the contact observed that anti-freeze was covering the engine. the vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic, who stated that the intake manifold was cracked and would needed to be replaced. the vehicle was repaired. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the failure mileage was 101,000. updated 10/24/2014*lj the consumer stated that the defective plastic intake manifold was covered in a class action lawsuit. The consumer believes that even though the date of the coverage expired the vehicle should still be covered. Updated 04/16/2015 *js
TL* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that smoke was seen coming from under the hood. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic to be repaired and was parked in the mechanic's repair shop when the vehicle caught on fire. The fire spread quickly and destroyed the repair shop building as well as several other businesses, resulting in over 7 million dollars worth of damage. The fire marshall informed the contact that the fire was caused by the parked vehicle being inside the building. The fire occurred prior to the announcement of nhtsa campaign number 07v336000 (vehicle speed control). The contact indicated that the vehicle exhibited the same defect that was listed in the recall campaign. The vin was not available. The failure mileage was 196,000. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. The contact stated that the driver and center seat belt receptacles failed. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who advised that the seat belt system needed to be replaced. The seat belt system was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 125,000 and the approximate current mileage was 35,000. updated 4/24/13 *cn updated 05/29/2013 *js
The vehicle was parked when we were informed that there was smoke coming from our vehicle, I went to investigate and found that the vehicle was smoking terribly, I raised the hood and there was fire, the fire department was called, we got a fire extinguisher and proceed to put the fire out. The fire dept. Arrived and finished up and wrote up some information. I had the vehicle towed home where it now sits. *js
Headlights and dash panel cut off intermittently while driving on smooth pavement for past 10 years. I have had dealership experience this but they could not find any problem. also, the speedometer shows car speed at 100 or more mph when starting car but goes to normal when moving. I just replaced the motorcraft alternator with a rebuild version and the speedometer problem IS gone. can't be sure that the headlight issue IS gone too, but this seems to be the magic fix. I'm wondering if a batch of intermittently defective motorcraft alternators were oem since this seems to be a problem for others. it IS very scary to be driving 55 mph and have the headlights cut off for a short time. months go by and nothing happens; then there it IS again. I was thinking that the car was haunted. I still have the old motorcraft alternator but I will return it to autozone to get my core back unless it can be used to determine it IS defective. over the years I have spent a lot at repair shops and the dealership trying to locate the cause of this. at the suggestion of the dealer service manager, I replaced the speed sensor twice over the years to "fix" the erratic speed at startup but without any change. *kb
I own a 1996 lincoln towncar vin [xxx]. On saturday 7/9/2011 my brake lines broke and my brakes failed in rockwood, tn. Fortunately I was able to safely drive the car to a safe place where I had a friend patch the lines with rubber hoses and was able to again use my brakes. I discovered that ford has issued a recall for certain towncars #79493 4/7/1998 for brake line replacement. I went to 2 ford dealerships and was told this recall didn't cover my car. I feel this recall should cover my car because the same defects on the towncars covered are present on my towncar and caused the brake lines to break. I am asking ford to authorize me to receive the same protection afforded the owners of the covered towncars and cover my repairs at one of my local ford dealerships. I called the customer relations center on 7/12/2011 and was given a case number [xxx]. I called again on 7/13/2011 and was told the recall didn't cover my car. I am only asking for the same treatment afforded many other covered 1996 towncar owners under this recall! information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(B)(6) *kb
Brakes failed - due to severe corrosion on brake lines (right front). Second occurrence different brake line(rear). Also occurred on my neighbors 1996 lincoln town car (rear brake line) both cars are available for inspection. Serious accident avoided by using emergency brake. *tr
I've owned a 96 lincoln town car for about 2 years now and the intake manifold cracked recently what can I do about that cause I've just recently heard about the recall and I don't want to have to worry about that constantly happening, IS there any thing I can do. *Tr
1996 lincoln towncar. Consumer requests reimbursement for the replacement of the heater core *tgw updated 06/01/11. *Jb. updated 06/28/11. *Jb updated 09/12/11. *Jb
Tl*the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car with 92000 miles. The contact stated that when turning the steering wheel he heard a clanking noise. The contact stated that recall 98v322000, suspension:front:control arm:lower ball joint was the cause of failure. The manufacturer was called but they could not find any record of the vehicle being repaired or included in the recall.
While driving my 1996 signature series town car about 25 mis/hr in residential area the right front ball joint suspension collapsed & "rolled" under the car frame. The slow speed enabled the car to be stopped within feet. Driver & a passenger unhurt. Car towed to aaa certified garage that had been used for over 25 years. Suspension replaced as was the left one that mechanic deemed ready to also collapse. Resident municipality literally surrounded by expressways whose speed limit IS 65 mis/hr. Deaths and or severe injuries would most certainly have resulted had collapse occurred while driving at allowed speed limit as this driver does. The car had 92551 carefully driven miles on it. car always garaged and meticulously maintained by owner, dealer and the mechanic used . Worse that did happen was the almost $500 bill & being late for an annual conference being held at nearby university. *Tr
Lincoln town car went on fire in garage from cruise control switch. Total house fire. *Tr
I own a 1996 lincoln town car with approximately 73,000 miles on the odometer. recently, I have been experiencing problems with the front end wobbling. I took the car to sears automotive and discovered that the lower ball joint are defective and control arms. the problem matches exactly your recall below: nhtsa campaign ID number: 98v322000 summary: 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 serviced with either a ball joint containing the one-piece bearing or a front lower control arm containing a ball joint with a one-piece bearing. The one-piece bearing within the lower control arm ball joint can weaken slowly during use and eventually crack. This could result in separation of the ball and cap of the joint, allowing the control arm to drop to the ground. consequence: if this occurs while the vehicle IS moving, reduced steering control could occur, increasing the risk of a crash. remedy: dealers will replace the lower control arm ball joints (2). notes: owner notification IS expected to begin january 18, 1999. 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 1-800-392-3673. Also contact the national highway traffic safety administration's auto safety hotline at 1-888-dash-2-dot (1-888-327-4236). we never receive notice of any recall. however, when I attempted to call ford customer service they could not find this recall or my vin. therefore, I am respectfully requesting that you add our vehicle vin to this recall for repair. *tr
Tl*the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. the contact stated that the battery drains so frequently that the vehicle cannot be driven for long distances or at night. the dealer stated that the light control module caused the failure. the vehicle has not been repaired. the current mileage was 214,778 and failure mileage was 212,733. updated 8/7/09 *cn updated 080/11/09.*jb
My vehicle started smoking out of the exhaust. anti freeze loss and smoke, anytime it IS running. car has been in a garage, awaiting new, improved intake manifold to replace defective original one. I have purchased the parts. Has not been installed yet; big job, I am told by dealer. Ford apparently admitted about the defective part in court. *Tr
Lower ball joint on the rt. Side & LT. Side fail while driving down the road, dropping car to the ground . Towed to fords repair shop and had both replaced. last fall the rt. One broke and was replaced. Know the LT. One. *tr
In 1996 before I purchased my 96 lincoln town car there was a recall on the rear seat belts (96v109000). the rear seat belts have started to not work. I contacted the dealer that sold it to me and was told that they have no record of the recall or if it was a recall. what do I do? I will get a ticket if not using or should a death occur if in an accident. The belts will just not pull down. *tr
Tl*the contact owns a 1996 lincoln town car. the contact received a safety recall notice in september of 2007 for nhtsa campaign ID number 07v336000 (vehicle speed control). the speed control switch was disconnected in march of 2008. once the switch was disconnected, he began hearing a buzzing sound when the brake pedal was depressed and the ABS light illuminated. when taken to the dealer, the contact was informed that the vehicle speed control had nothing to do with the buzzing sound that the brakes were making. he filed complaint number 0377821518 with ford. the current mileage was 29,167 and failure mileage was 28,000.
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.