1999 Mercury Grand Marquis
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Mercury › Grand Marquis › 1999
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 1999 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 1999 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.
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.
My significant other and I were in an accident on the interstate. The airbags deployed and the seat belts failed to lock in place.
The contact owns a 1999 Mercury Grand Marquis. The contact stated that the vehicle had a leaking intake manifold. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic and diagnosed that the intake manifold needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The dealer and manufacturer were made aware of the failure but informed the contact that there was no recall associated with the VIN. The failure mileage was approximately 120,000.
My headlights, hazards, and turn signals all just randomly went out while driving. they have not come back on since. after reading forums I believe it to be the lcm but my year model IS not included in the recall. I believe this issue dates back farther than 2000 and ford should step up and recall more of these lcm components.
While driving pins in steering coulm became losse and caused car to shut off while at stop light had to tow to service shop; had found common ford issue with loose steering pins in 1999 mercury grand marquis should be recall very dangerous to happen to some cast IS $300 plus tax and tow I feel ford ouwes me to this that built this car not me its cost as much as a decent used car to day I would like ford to offfer me help; with there past issues with cars
On the 1999 mercury grand marquis LS 4.6 l V8 the original plastic intake manifold cracked and busted wide open causing all the coolant / antifreeze to pour out. From what I gather there was a recall on this years ago and they made a different intake manifold which was aluminum for the part that the thermostat goes into and the rest of it was plastic. If this isn't caught in time and all the fluid leaks out it will completely destroying your engine also. Mine cracked while it was in park just running.
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. While driving 65 mph, the headlights failed to operate intermittently. The contact stated that the vehicle exhibited the same symptoms as listed in nhtsa campaign number: 15v861000 (exterior lighting). the vehicle was not taken to a dealer to be diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified and did not assist. The failure mileage was approximately 160,000.
Vehicle was parked. I went to turn my headlights on. No headlights, turn signals, dash lights, hazard flashers or dome light. The 2003-2005 models were recalled for this same thing with the lcm failing. Please look into this as this IS a serious safety issue.
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. While the vehicle was parked with the engine running, the contact shifted into reverse and noticed steam coming from the hood. The vehicle was then shifted back into park and turned off the engine. Upon opening the hood, the contact noticed that a part of the manifold was missing the thermostat. The contact was unsure of any warning indicators illuminating. The contact went to bill macdonald ford (1200 s carney dr, st clair, mi 48079, (810) 329-6601) and was informed there were no recalls. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the issue. The failure mileage was approximately 135,000.
We own three mercury grand marquis, love the cars however all three( 2000, 1999 and second 1999 all intemitantly loose headlights when high beams are on. If I quickly go to low beams I can see again...its like they are overheating with the amp draw of high beams and circuit breaks. This IS way too common to be ok. It dangerous especially if one gets rattled with complete darkness at night and high speed. Bumps also seam to slightly affect it sometimes. This happens any time the gray 99 has high beams on for about 45mins. Only 10-15mins on blue 1999 and 2000 not as frequent yet but only has about 75K miles, where as the 1999 are 150-210 respectively. started 5 years ago on my first and I just did not use high beam since I purchase second 1999 to replace first and had title issues so bought the 3RD 2000 and found they all have the same flaw!! My cell [xxx]. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(B)(6).
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. While driving approximately 45 mph, the headlights suddenly began to flicker off and on. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the light control module was faulty and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, but no assistance was offered. The local dealer was not notified. The failure mileage was 134,000.
Plastic intake manifold failed, antifreeze leaking from around thermostat due to this failure and leaking into coil packs and causing major misfire in motor. happened suddenly, no indication of leak prior to this failure. was driving when this happened and had to call for help to get vehicle back home, and now can't drive it . cost to fix IS expensive, and the car ran great until this happened. sounded like I has thrown a rod, popping louder on exceleration, so I immediately parked it and turned off the motor.
Intake manifold failed (burned and disintegrated in the area of the thermostat ) and had to be replaced at considerable expense . presently the speedometer fails intermittently dropping to zero at random moments. most importantly the lights cut out intermittently usually when the heat IS on and on longer trips. also, most times it has happened when it has been raining and colder. drove upwards of 40 miles with the headlights cutting out intermittently in the rain and cold, problem has continued to recur but seems to be related possibly to having the heat on. I believe the lighting control module IS located near a heating outlet and may be suffering a failure as a result but this IS just speculation. also, previously when I had pulled into a rest area for awhile, after cooling down, the problem went away for a little while then resumed after about ten miles with the heat on. I believe it IS being caused by the excessive heat the lcm IS subjected to by virtue of the area in which it IS installed. The lighting control module IS of motorola manufacture with siemans relays inside. the part has numerous numbers on it , most prominently: xw7t-13c788-aa , 6mx2794a01, 990429a, and lighting control 95M .others online with similar vehicles (crown victorias) and of other model years manufactured by ford have reported similar problems and that replacing the relays has resolved the issue. I do not know that this part IS the source of the problem but suspect it as many others online have reported that this part was the source of their problems.
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that the ball joints were replaced but the bolt that held it in place was loose and caused the carter key to fail to hold the bolt in place. As a result, the bolt neck detached while the contact was driving approximately 20 mph and caused the vehicle to stop abruptly. As a result, the contact's head hit the steering wheel. the contact suffered a whip lash that required a medical attention. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The vehicle was repaired by the contact who was an independent mechanic. The failure mileage was approximately 200,000.
At night while driving headlights and dashboard lights went out on freeway and could not be turned on again. Has happened on two occasions and vehicle cannot be driven and unsafe. *tr
Seat belts front both sides,nothing but the retracter sticks,slow moving lap&shold. steering shaft separates,rattles when hitting bumps hard.
The passengers side seat beat comes undone at times and the speed sensor works intermittently and it leaks gas from around the fuel pump
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that while driving at approximately 35 mph, the low beam headlights failed intermittently. The contact mentioned that the headlights would activate and deactivate independently. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the control module was damaged and needed replacement. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The approximate mileage was 133,596.
While driving on the expressway, the vehicle suddenly changed lanes and the steering became erratic. Upon examination, the idler arm had separated from the steering link arm. There was no warning and the vehicle had recently passed a safety inspection.
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. While driving approximately 40-45 mph, the headlights stopped functioning independently. The failure happened without warning. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the control module behind the dashboard malfunctioned and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired due to parts no longer being manufactured. The manufacturer was not made aware of the issue. The approximate failure mileage was 140,000.
The 3/4 key on the driver side door randomly quit working. Every other button still works, and when any button other than the 3/4 key IS pressed, the keypad lights up. My key code includes the 3/4 key though, so I cannot use this keypad to unlock my vehicle or trunk. however the keypad lights up on its own, which causes my exterior and interior lights to illuminate. these lights cycle on for about 15 seconds and turn off for about 30 seconds. I had to remove my interior dome lights because they would drain the battery. If I am parking for an extended period of time, I have to disconnect my battery so the lights will not drain it. The ford dealer checked for a recall on the lcm, but the recall does not affect the 1999 model. *tr
My car was in drive at a business traffic intersection drive way on a slight hill with the brakes on when the engine surged and the car started to reverse while still in drive. I had to put considerable pressure on the brakes to stop it. I checked and the shift lever was still in drive. My car has been properly maintained and was recently serviced with all required services done. This really scared me and I would have crashed into a car if it was behind me. Ford should look into this safety problem. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. While driving approximately 30 mph, the headlights shut off independently. The headlights re-illuminated after one minute. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was unavailable.
Driving on the hwy and the car started to overheat with hot steam shooting out from the engine and it also had a strong coolant smell. The car could not be driven until l it had $1,500 in repairs for a known, leaking plastic manifold issue. This failed part cracks and leaks into the hot engine area. And, ford had redesigned the failed part. additionally, ford had once offered free fixes for a few months for police cars and taxi cabs with the same engines under a class action law suit but didn't tell the owners about. thousands of consumers were ripped off because ford should have fixed this issue under the class action recall. But they didn't bother notify anyone about the three month recall window. in checking the nhtsa records, there are thousands of us with the same reported problem. please take some corrective action for us. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 1999 mercury grand marquis. The contact stated that water was leaking from under the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic for diagnosis where the contact was advised that the intake manifold would have to be replaced because it was fractured. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The approximate failure mileage was 114,000.
Plastic intake manifold on 4.6 liter engine found to be cracked and leaking coolant. The loss of coolant results in the vehicle becoming disabled and/or unsafe to drive. Leaking coolant IS also toxic to children and animals, as they are more likely to be in contact with coolant on the ground or garage floor. this defective part (plastic intake manifold) was identified by ford motor company as defective and quietly settled in a class action lawsuit. Replacement parts have been redesigned. However, ford did not contact customers with this model car to notify them of the defective part or to offer resolution. earlier models of this engine (and all other engines) used a metal intake manifold. These were not problematic. Intake manifolds are not a moving part of the vehicle engine, and are not subject to ware. The plastic material used in the problem manifolds are not able to withstand the normal temperature fluctuations of a vehicle engine and are therefore prone to failure. ford has been contacted in an attempt to resolve this issue, but the company has declined to offer any resolution whatsoever. *js
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.