| Components - Details | |
|---|---|
| NHTSA Complaint Number: 002287877 | Incident Date: Jun, 18 2002 |
| Consumer's City: LOUISVILLE | Consumer's State: KY |
| Vehicle Transmission Type: AUTO | Manufacturers Name: Ford Motor Company |
| Model Name: COUGAR | Model Year: 1997 |
| Vehicle Involved in a Crash: No | Component's Description: Engine and engine cooling:exhaust system:manifold/header/muffler/tail pipe |
| Vehicle Involved in a Fire: No | Persons Injured: 0 |
| Vehicle's VIN#: 1MELM62W7VH | Date added to File: May, 25 2021 |
| Date Complaint Received: Jul, 08 2004 | Complaint Type: IVOQ |
| Incident Reported To Police: No | Purchase Date: May, 22 1997 |
| Was Original Owner: No | Anti-lock Brakes: No |
| Number of Cylinders: 8 | Date of Manufacturer: - |
| Was Vehicle Towed: - | Description of the Complaints: No warning, driving to work under normal conditions when steam and coolant (which could be smelled) came out from under hood, limiting my vision. i had to stop and low coolant level light came on. i had to have car towed home. took car to a corner mechanic who informed us the intake manifold had cracked and it would cost us $1,200. we were skeptical because on other vehicles we have, this part is cast so it doesn't break. we then had the car towed again to a reputable mechanic that we have used before and he also said the intake manifold was broken. he then had to order a new ford part that cost us $589.17 plus labor of $249.60 and wrecker run of $38.40, for a grand total of $923.12. upon checking with ford.com, we found out that this has happened to several others and upon speaking with someone over the phone we were informed that there was a "customer satisfaction program, service bulletin 97m91" that would have replaced this defective part at no cost to us, if the part would have broken in the month of may, instead of june 19, when it occurred. we were never aware of such a program and are extremely distressed that such a reputable company as ford would not make this an unlimited warranty knowing that the part will fail and that the replacement part is made of aluminum which is dependable. why was this not used during manufacturing of the automobile? surely, the cost then would have been minimal to ford. could this possibly be reason why it was not made a voluntary recall? we want to be reimbursed for this part, considering we were only 3 weeks out of "97m91."*ak |
