1997 Mercury Grand Marquis
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Mercury › Grand Marquis › 1997
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 1997 Mercury Grand Marquis. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
5 recalls name the 1997 Mercury Grand Marquis. 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.
Ford IS recalling 225,000 my 1992-2003 econoline, my 1993-1995 taurus sho, my 1992-1998 crown victoria, my 1993 bronco, f-series, my 1995-1997 f-series super duty stripped chassis, my 1992-1998 mercury grand marquis, and my 1992-1995 lincoln town car vehicles. the affected vehicles were previously repaired using a wiring harness that IS not compatible with…
As a result, the fuse IS located in the output circuit rather than in the intended input power feed circuit, and may not offer the intended protection in the event of an electrical short to ground.
Dealers will install a new wiring harness, or replace the mating electrical component. the recall began on february 18, 2008. owners may contact ford at 1-800-392-3673.
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.
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.
Put car in park, and it showed to be in park. But, it was in reverse, going backward, and almost caused an accident.
The speedometer not working properly brakes not working properly ABS light on steering and suspension cross sit
I am an automotive technician and I service many vehicles daily. I currently own a 97 mercury grand marquis LS and have noticed that practically most steering components on my vehicle are in need of replacing. Specifically the tie rod ends, control arms, ball joins all have blown bushings and a pitman arm.... The steering sways so hard on this vehicle. I have noticed that customer's vehicles that I have worked on that are similar to the crown vic, and the marquis are showing signs of steering component concern as well. I see more fords with steering issues than any other vehicle that I service. The vehicles also seem to have issues with anyone sitting in the back that the body will scrape the tires and there are multiple electrical issues. I have had to rig my vent door actuator and I have had to install a shut off switch due to a parasitic draw that I can not locate even with a volt meter. After researching on forums and watching countless youtube videos of owners stating these known issues I believe that it IS beyond maintenance standards for these parts all to be faulty from this car manufacturer.
Recall while driving the steering wheel seems very loose as if its about to come off
I have to put it on neutral most of the time with emg brake on. Because the gearshift IS hard to put in park. My car only has 92,000 miles.
Rusty brake line failed. Leaked brake fluid resulting in loss of braking. all brake lines look rusty. what happened to stainless steel brake lines?
I bought a set of 4 brand new bridgestone turanza serenity plus 225/60r16 tires on april 26, 2015, and have them installed on my wife's car. my wife and two kids were driving to phoenix on I-10 on a clear and sunny day on may 9, 2015 to visit a friend. she said she was driving at the speed limit of 75 mph and wanted to pass a semi-truck on her right so she speed up to pass the semi-truck. she noticed the steering wheel began to vibrate violently and she held on the steering wheel as hard as she can. then she lost control of the car and it began to swerve in the direction of the semi-truck. the car struck the side of the semi-truck and the window glass on the front and the rear passenger side shattered and also the rear windshield shattered because the roof of the car was bent. after the impact, my wife's car then swerved to the left and went into a ditch filled with weeds and bushes on the left side of the road. luckily the car did not flip and everyone in the car was ok because they all were wearing their seat belts. they were shaken up a bit but the ordeal was traumatizing. they were also lucky because there was no car in front or behind them at the time of the accident. the police, fire truck, and ambulance came and examined everything. they noticed that there was a bubble on the sidewall of the front tire on the passenger side. for insurance sake, the police said my wife was at fault because she was speeding while trying to pass the semi-truck and lost control. I believe she lost control because the bridgestone turanza tire was coming apart and cause the steering wheel to shake uncontrollably. the car was totaled and I will never buy another bridgestone tire again.
Coolant leak from crack in plastic intake manifold. this car only has 97,130 miles on it and well cared for. they should not be using plastic in this application - it should be iron or aluminum. this IS a common problem I was told with the 4.6 V8 engine. ford needs to recall these and replace at no cost to customer. I will be writing a letter to ford if the dealer doesn't cover this as a recall. ridiculous to use plastic in this application. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 1997 mercury grand marquis. While driving in reverse, the contact heard a loud abnormal noise and the suspension collapsed on the front driver side. The vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the lower ball joint separated and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 112,000.
Twice this happened I was driving and the car just turned off I couldn't control the wheel I had to hurry and put it on natural and start the car again, and put it in drive. Can you tell me if there was a recall on this vehicle it really scared me I was on the main highway or can you tell me what the problem IS. *tr
1997 mercury grand marquis. consumer writes in regards to cracked intake manifold in vehicle. *smd
While driving home on interstate 35 north of minneapolis, mn, the intake manifold cracked and lost anti freeze. Pulled off the highway at forest lake, mn and had to be towed to tires plus in forest lake to have the car repaired. Total cost for towing, intake manifold replacement and nights lodging came to almost $1500.00. *Tr
Moving slowly in parking lot. Sharp noise under car, gas tank had fallen directly onto road and was being dragged. Both gas tank straps had broken
I was driving my car, thought I smelled something burning. A couple of minutes later I had to slow down and turn right. The brake pedal was soft and I had to go all the way to floor to get the car to slow down. I stopped at my destination a couple of minutes later, popped the hood and there was a fire under the hood. It only lasted a couple of minutes, but burned up an electrical connector. The next day I had it repaired across the street at an auto electrical and marine shop. They said it was at the switch or valve that turned off the cruise control when the brake pedal IS depressed. My car IS a 1997 mercury grand marquis. *tr
Tl*the contact owns a 1997 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that while driving approximately 50 mph, the vehicle suddenly overheated. The vehicle was taken to a local mechanic who replaced the intake manifold. The manufacturer was not notified. the current and failure mileages were approximately 114,000.
Tl*the contact owns a 1997 mercury marquis. The contact stated that when he depressed and held down the accelerator pedal, the vehicle stalled. If he pressed gently on it and released it, the vehicle would begin to accelerate. The vehicle had not been inspected or repaired. The contact believed that the failure could be within the cruise control mechanism or the electrical system. The failure mileage was 80,000 and the current mileage was 98,000.
Purchased an after market inside door handle from an ebay vendor: inside front drivers side door handle for a 1997 mercury grand marquis GS. The return spring on the original oem handle broke, but the original handle even though broken, still remained operational. I ordered and installed a replacement aftermarket door handle "depo" 330-500006-002 purchased from an ebay vendor. 10 days after installation, the replacement door handle failed and the drivers door could not be opened from the inside of the car making this a potential safety hazard had there been an emergency. Obviously the after market part was not properly tested before sale to the public. *Tr
Tl*the contact owns a 1997 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that while driving 65 mph, the service check engine light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where they diagnosed it stating that the intake manifold failed due to the structure. The manifold was replaced at the owners expense. The failure mileage was 47025 and the current mileage was 47050. updated 11/24/10
1997 ford grand marquis - occasional interruptions in electrical power were occurring with the radio going off, the low fuel level light going on, and the battery meter dropping. after replacing the battery the interruptions continued until finally the battery cables caught on fire. I turned off the ignition and by this time the insulation on both the positive and ground cables had completely burned off and the battery continued to supply current. I knocked off the ground terminal and dosed the fire with water. *Tr
This happened while driving my 1997 mercury grand marquis. The lower control arm ball joint broke while driving, resulting in suspension collapse. This breakage resulted in a irrefutable total loss of vehicle control. There was not a crash because luckily I was driving at very low speed in a street while there were not other vehicles around. if this had happened a few minutes before when I was in the expressway I am totally sure it had resulted in a catastrophic multi car accident. car IS in a repair shop. *Tr
TL* the contact owns a 1997 mercury grand marquis. While driving at speeds of 10 mph, the contact observed smoke coming from under the hood and within seconds, the interior cabin was filled with smoke and flames. The vehicle occupants were able to safely exit the vehicle. And the fire and police department were contacted. There were reports filed by both entities. The vehicle was destroyed. the dealer advised there were no recalls for the vehicle and the manufacturer would not provide any assistance. The failure and current mileages were 37,000.
Tl*the contact owns a 1997 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated the drivers side door would not latch properly. The door indicator light would remain illuminated until the door was latched correctly. The dealer provided information on a recall for her year, make and model for the failure of the door latch which was not listed on the nhtsa website. The vehicle was not repaired by the dealer. The vehicle was taken to the independent mechanic where he confirmed that the drivers side door was defective. The dealer was contacted a second time and later stated that there were no recalls related to the door latch. Repairs will be made at the owners expense. The dealer advised the contact to replace the entire drivers side door. There were no repairs made to the vehicle. The failure mileage was unknown and the approximate current mileage was 130,000.
TL* the contact owns a 1997 mercury grand marquis. The headlights were covered with some type of film. He had to use the highbeams to see while driving at night. The vehicle has not been diagnosed by the dealership. The current and failure mileages were 149672.
My 1997 mercury grand marquis just experienced the failure of its intake manifold made of plastic. *Tr
The position of the horn for 1997 mercury grand marquis IS problematic. The horn IS just in front of the left front wheel and prone to get water sprayed by wheel in raining season. this will cause the rust and failure of the horn. *Tr
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 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.