1998 Mercury Grand Marquis
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Mercury › Grand Marquis › 1998
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
7 recalls name the 1998 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.
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.
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.
When driving at highway speeds car feels like it IS swaying back and forth.
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that while examining his vehicle at his residence, he noticed the front ball joints were defective. The vehicle taken to expressway ford of mount vernon (3800 highway 62 e, mount vernon, in 47620) on may 30 2020, where the vehicle was inspected and it was determined that the shocks needed to be replaced. The front shocks were replaced however, several months later the driver's side shock was leaking fluid. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer for repairs. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 165,400.
Cracked air intake manifold allowing it to over heat and messing up mass air flow sensor
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. While driving various speeds, the headlights and instrument panel lighting failed to illuminate. The contact stated that the failure occurred periodically. The vehicle was not taken to a dealer or independent mechanic for diagnostic testing or repairs. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 109,000.
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis equipped with firestone fr380 tires, size: p225/60r16. The contact stated that the tires had premature blisters and tread deterioration. The tire repair facility (firestone complete auto care, 4401 n first ave, evansville, in 47710, (812) 618-3542) diagnosed that the tires needed to be replaced. The tire manufacturer indicated that a similar tire model had been recalled, but not this particular model. The manufacturer recommended that the tires be inspected by an authorized firestone complete auto care facility. The tire and vehicle failure mileage and vin were not available.
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that the interior and exterior lighting operated intermittently. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 165,784.
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. While driving various speeds, the engine misfired and hesitated to respond. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the plastic intake manifold was cracked, which caused anti freeze to leak out and damage the engine coils. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 80,000.
Autozone- valucraft brand- ball joints part number vfa2101 I recently had my ball joints replaced and I had a premature failure of the ball joint fastening hardware while driving down the city road in a straight line at 45 mph. It caused thousands of dollars of damage and it also almost cause me great injury. I suspect autozone IS using low grade nuts cause the nut that was on the ball joint sheared off causing me to bend a control arm, crack my frame, blow a tire, all while barely missing a telephone pole. Had I been going down the highway at the posted speed limit I could have flipped my car, got pulled under a semi, cross the median into oncoming traffic and so on. I would like for an investigation to be started on their poor engineering choices and a recall to be started. Its just not for the safety of me but for the safety of other people. I do have all damage pictures and pictures of the failure point. I have pictures of the nut in question compared to another competitors brand and there IS a noticeable size difference and hardness difference. The ball joints were replaced 9/26/2015 and failed on 4/25/2016. Autozone part number vfa2101. My belief IS the nut IS a lower grade when it should be a grade 8 nut. I say thousands of dollars because the auto body shops around me said they will not repair the frame because its a liability and would recommend a new frame to be put under the vehicle essentially totaling my car out causing me to have to spend thousands to replace my vehicle.
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that while driving at 60 mph, the low beam headlights failed to illuminate. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 86,000.
Low/high beam lights inoperative in park or drive, bulbs & wiring checks good, 25 amp fuse was blown, but replaced fuse caused no change.
While driving the car, the headlights goes out, than on, and out. This IS unsafe for my wife driving with kids.
I observed a coolant leak around the thermostat. I found the plastic intake manifold to be cracked around the thermostat and leaking coolant. I made contact with mercury and found that there had been a recall on the plastic intake manifold in which they would have replaced the part at no charge during the safety recall campaign. I was not made aware of the safety recall and have owned the vehicle since 04/17/02 when I purchased the vehicle used from a mercury dealership. The dealership would no longer honor this recall although there are still thousands upon thousands of these engines still on the road. The all plastic manifold was replaced with an intake manifold with an aluminum crossover channel for the coolant. I was forced to replace this defective part out-of-pocket at a cost of $800. It would have been more had I not been friends with the mechanic. The vehicle had 102,281 miles at the time of the failure. *tr
Vehicle started to buck and when I pulled my vehicle over I lifted the hood. I found anti-freeze flowing on the top of my engine. I had it towed to my local garage & they told me that the intake manifold IS cracked. I did some research and found out there's a recall on this part. When I called my local ford dealer, they told me there IS a recall on this part, but it's only for police and fleet vehicles only. now that this was said to me, I was told by my garage it would cost me $1000 to fix. Something I don't have. Ford was not very cooperative about my situation and I'm very disappointed. *tr
While driving or backing at slow speeds this vehicle(which has very very low miles) makes loud,banging,pounding,binding noises and sounds like the entire front end IS going to fall off. This happens frequently and IS not normal for any car with such low miles 15 years old or not. I have gotten to the point that I am afraid to drive this car. I have also been told that others have this same or a similar issue. The car was driven by an older couple aka my grandparents who bought it new in 98' and they both passed away in 2012. This may be in part due to the "double wishbone" suspension which I know nothing about. I am extra upset as I said due the fact that this car has only had an average of just over 2,000 miles annually and was treated very well. The car looks like new but scares me half to death when I hear this unmistakable loud sound of broken,binding,loose or defective parts. I am able to repair it but was hoping there was a recall due to the same story being posted over and over. This car,either model the GS or LS IS an accident waiting to happen. If you are a prospective buyer,please drive the car slowly then turn in reverse and if it exists the problem will sound off immediately. If backing out with a very slight curb,the car will sound much worse.ford IS not known for its front ends other than the fact that its cars and trucks front ends are either next to impossible to align and/or are very expensive to repair. I have never seen or heard anything like this in any other car maker,ford should pay for this travesty of a front end. Without taking a visual I would say it my car needs both upper and lower ball joints,tie rod ends and a full suspension check or rebuild. If anyone hears this in a car from a dealer or elsewhere=do not buy!!! *tr
During normal driving noticed a squeaking and groaning noise coming from front end of car. Steering has become loose and was told by a mechanic that the ball joints,shocks,bushings are dry and that the vehicle cannot be lubricated because it IS sealed. Seen other complaints on website regarding these same issues. I have been warned that the tires could fall off at high speeds causing serious injury or death. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that the headlights failed while driving at various speeds. The vehicle was taken to an authorized dealer and the contact was informed that the lighting control module needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and offered no assistance. The failure mileage was 120,000. The vin was unavailable.
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that the vehicle abnormally accelerated while attempting to park with the brakes depressed. The vehicle was not taken to the dealer and the manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure and the current mileage was 60,000. updated 01/13/12*lj updated 01/19/12
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. While the vehicle was parked the contact heard a loud booming noise from inside his home. The contact noticed flames underneath the hood. The fire department extinguished the fire and a report was filed. The vehicle was destroyed. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and a complaint was filed. The contact stated there was a recall under nhtsa campaign ID number: 07v336000 (vehicle speed control) that may be related to the failure. The manufacturer stated the vin was not included in the recall. The vehicle was not repaired. The approximate failure mileage was 63,000.
My 1998 mercury grand marquis headlights as well as tailights fail. During this all of a sudden while driving at night the headlights while driving will start flashing on and off, then just completely go off, as well as the lights on the doors and light around the dash controls such as (ac buttons an knobs) this happened rarely, but now it happened every single night. I googled this and many more are having the same problem, it seems as if its common in these vehicles. On the forums some say a light control box needs replacing, and then some say a headlight control module needs replacing. This needs to be investigated. A recall needs to be filed for the replacing of the bad part causing this issue. This can cause serious injury to someone if this happens on a dark windy road. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that the vehicle would overheat abnormally. The vehicle was taken to a local repair shop where the radiator was flushed but to no avail. The contact later inspected the vehicle and discovered that the intake manifold was fractured. The contact believed that the failure was caused because the intake manifold was designed using plastic. The vehicle was not repaired. The vin was unavailable. The failure and current mileage was 64,950.
Vehicle became undriveable due to the fact that the air suspension completely gave out and the shock absorbers were no longer working. the approximate starting time to this problem, when the compressor was acting up, was back in september of 2010. the car sits so low to the ground now that I will have to get rid of it altogether (either have a junk yard buy it or get rid of it as a parts car), as it's unsafe for me to drive, let alone have my daughter in. also, I'm a poor mother, unemployed, who definitely can't afford to pay the large costs of getting this fixed. in talking to people about the problem, it's either the compressor has gone bad, a wiring problem, or a problem with the on/off switch in the trunk. *Tr
1998 mercury grand marquis. Consumer states faulty rear brake pad replacement *tgw the consumer stated when his wife applied the brakes firmly, but not hard, the vehicle lunged forward striking a sign and damaging the right front of the vehicle. the consumer later discovered the brakes were spongy and failed to effectively stop the vehicle. The dealer informed the consumer the spongy brakes were normal. The consumer went to another dealer and they restored the brakes back to normal operation. *jb
The plastic intake manifold in my 1998 grand marquis has cracked resulting in engine coolant fluid leak and engine failure. It IS being repaired today. The car has approximately 87,000 miles. I understand that this occurs because of the material used for the intake manifold. The car IS in otherwise very good condition. *Tr
Tl*the contact owns a 1998 mercury grand marquis. Whenever the contact turned the vehicle on he noticed that the check engine light would appear on the dashboard. While examining the engine he also noticed that anti-freeze was leaking onto the engine. The vehicle has not been diagnosed by the dealer. The failure mileage was 100,000.
I have had all of my electrical components fixed, the alternator,the regulator,all the pig-tails,and a new battery. I am still having a problem with the battery light coming on. I have paid out alot of money to fix the problem. I am a tow truck driver and I tow alot of vehicles of this make and model for the same reason. *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.
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.