2004 MERCURY Marauder

Paint is so thin in spots the primer shows through.Dash lamps flicker.Shifter interlock cable clicks applying brake in drive.

Paint bubbling and chipping off car. Car does not even see winter weather.

The steering had become stiff and "notchy" while turning, and the steering wheel would not return to straight ahead on its own. it was found that the lower steering shaft had 1 of the 3 bearing frozen and required replacement. this is the same exact parts and symptoms as listed listed in ford recall 13s08

Tl* the contact owns a 2004 mercury marauder. while operating the vehicle, the low beam headlights would suddenly shut off. the contact indicated that the failure was intermittent, but worsened and recurred more frequently. the vehicle was taken to the dealer, who diagnosed that the light control module was faulty and needed to be replaced. however, the part was not available and no estimated time for receiving the part could be provided. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the failure mileage was 113,000.

I was driving my 2004 mercury marauder on a two lane road in delaware county ny when my headlights went out. driving the back roads takes total concentration due to the large number of nocturnal animals which can cross roads. i am the original owner of this car and i take great pride in maintaining it to the utmost top condition. it is rare to find this model car(a marauder) but it is a grand marquis/ crown vic and while certain parts like tires are hard to come by, a light control module(lcm) is a dime a dozen. ford has a program 14n01 (recall?) to replace these modules. repeated calls to ford customer care and my dealer has proved that ford wants to help yet makes no commitment other then offering me a aftermarket part. the ford part is on back order. i feel ford will help me but only after my 18 year son has crashed due to ford reluctance to immediately correct a potentially dangerous condition. if the proper part is on back order when will the part become available? i purchased the part from a ford dealer and replaced it myself. why? i can buy the lcm from a dealer in texas but my ny dealer can't get the part? ford recognizes the problem uses a excuse of no parts? more important, ford and ford dealers want to correct the problem immediately with a non oem part? why? ford no longer has manufacturing resources? how about a potential head on collision due to a failed relay or relays in the lcm which costs $20 in parts to replace. shame on you ford! how dare you put public safety job # who knows! *tr

Oem tires for rear p245/55-18 not available from manufacturer for extended period of time. part # shows tire is not discontinued yet no tires are available by b.f. goodrich. no solution is offered and bf goodrich does not return phone calls related to this issue. repeated phone calls to bf goodrich over extended period of time shows problem is recognized-no production date of this tire known. *tr

The headlights started to flicker on and off while driving on the highway at night, then the car stalled. i instinctively put it in neutral to try and restart which i did but it stalled again and this time it was completely dead while unfortunately on the curve of a 2 lane bridge with no shoulder or breakdown lane. luckily the hazard lights were enough for on coming traffic and tractor trailers to see me in time or i could have easily been killed on that bridge. great appreciation to dispatch and the state troopers for their assistance. *tr

Wipers continuing for two years to occasionally turn on and off without switch activation. although the issue is well documented in many of the forums for marauders, the fact that ford has made no recall is shameful. only known fix is to remove the fuse when the wipers are not needed, though it is something that should have been recalled and repaired. *tr

2004 mercury marauder headlights occasionally stop functioning without warning. running lights and fog lights continue working, no low/high beam headlights at all. switch seems to be the issue, fuses are fine and no bulbs out. recently had dealership replace driver side headlight, only change to vehicle before issue started. possible issue continues in daytime, but headlights are not as needed in daylight. due to necessary driving at night on high speed and unlit country roads, this is a serious issue. *tr

The headlights became inoperative and turned off while traveling down the road. the light control module was found faulty and replaced. searching the internet revealed this is a common problem for this base model car (ford crown victoria, mercury grand marquis, and mercury marauder) and needs to be addressed as a safety issue as the loss of lights can cause an accident. *tr

The headlight relay portion of the lighting control module intermittently fails causing the headlights to turn off. this results in loss of visibility, and could result in a collision. the lights remain off for an unknown period of time and then turn back on. i have experienced 1-2 minute periods without light. this is a well know issue with 2003-2004 ford crown victoria, mercury grand marquis, and mercury marauder (lincoln town car may also be involved). *js

Back in 2007 noticed small bumps in paint only on the roof,went to ford dealer,they said no problem with the paint. time went on, paint got worse,more bubbles and cracks,.in 2008 wrote to ford about problem they said they had no complaints about roof paint. now the entire roof is bumpy,cracked, with bare rusted metal showing. cost to fix is 1000.00. *tr

While driving at night headlights stopped working fog lights stayed on,just got hard to see,had to hold the signal lever in the ''flash to pass'' to see the road. after work i pray that my headlights will come on.now if i stop for a coffee and shut the car off for a few minutes the headlights will not come back on. i then need to leave the car running so they stay on. *tr

While traveling on 20/59 north past the coaling exit, i hit a pot hole. the pot hole was so big that it burst my tire and bent my rim. since it was around 7:45 pm, i couldn't see it. thank god it only burst one of my tires on the rear of my car. things could have been a lot worse. it also took an hour at least for a trooper to come. this is going to cost me at least $450. i expect to get some assistance from the state with fixing my car. the pot hole needs to be filled asap! *tr

Tl*the contact owns a 2004 mercury marauder. while driving at night approximately 55 mph with the headlights on, the headlights suddenly turned off. the contact was able to maneuver with caution to the side of the road and after waiting ten minutes, the headlights began to function normally. the failure occurred whenever the vehicle was in operation at night with the headlights on. the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. the failure mileage was approximately 117,000. the vin was unavailable.

Headlights in 2004 mercury marauder began going out intermittently at about 60k miles, also intermittently not coming on when turned on by switch. they now rarely stay on for more than 5 minutes at a time. this is undoubtedly related to the widely reported failure of motorola-manufactured ford lighting control module (lcm, ford p/n 4w7z13c788bb) units in many ford 'panther' platform models (crown vic, grand marquis, marauder) through model year 2004. nhtsa action pe08066 addresses this issue. the ford/mercury dealer i sought service for this issue from recommended replacement of the lcm at a cost of $700 for parts and labor. the part is available through internet sources from $300 to $500. the dealer would not guarantee that this part replacement would fix the intermittent headlight problem, so i have decided to purchase and replace the unit myself and return the part if this does not correct the problem. this is an issue of public safety that should be addressed by a recall -- cars traveling at night without headlights are a danger to the driving and pedestrian public. it is hard to fathom why the nhtsa would disagree with this logic and close this investigation. since many owners and third-parties are now sharing stories and home-grown solutions on the internet (replacing/re-soldering the defective nec relay p/n eq1-11111s, which is the root cause of the problem), the nhtsa is passing ownership and responsibility of ford's bad manufacturing decision on to vehicle owners. this is a terrible message to give the public, it further erodes any trust a consumer could possibly have in ford products. the huge volume of fleet vehicles (taxi, police, municipal) that are affected makes this an even more critical safety issue. the nhtsa should have its legal position prepared for a worst-case scenario in which an accident resulting in death is linked to this defect. *tr

I have a 2004 mercury marauder and have had a problem with the paint splitting and blistering on the front hood, roof and rear trunk. i contacted both my local dealership and ford and they both say i'm just outside of my warranty (within a year) and therefore nothing they can do. the dealership looked at the issue and stated it was possibly missing some protective undercoating and is only going to get worse. i did file a complaint with ford. *tr

Normal wear and tear on rear bfgoodrich tires. replacement tires are not available from the oem manufacturer. unique tire size for the rear tires on my car. only one company (bfgoodrich) makes this size. have not been available for some time. received violation for bald rear tires and no replacements are available. was told by manufacturer, they would not be available until june 2009, maybe ????? *tr

I cannot get the correct size tires for my 2004 mercury marauder any more bfg was the original maker of the tires and now they are on hod for manufacturer one knows when they will be made again and think this is a safety hazard because i am and many others are forced to run the wrong size tires on my car. *tr

Bf goodrich is the only manufacturer of tires in the size my car requires (2004 mercury marauder). they are on a national backorder until may/june 2009. this leads to two dangerous options: running on tires that are bald or replacing with incorrect size. both can lead to accidents and fatalities. please require them to start production immediately. many other drives of this car have the same issue. *tr

Tl*the contact owns a 2004 mercury marauder. the contact stated that the headlights would intermittently shut off without. the vin was unknown. the failure and current mileages were less than 110,000.

Tl*the contact owns a 2004 mercury marauder. while driving downhill at an unknown speed, the vehicle stalled. the contact did not realize the failure and the vehicle continued to proceed downhill. the failure and current mileages were 73,137.

Tl*the contact owns a 2004 mercury marauder. while inspecting the vehicle, the contact noticed axle oil on his wheels. he removed the wheel and brakes and found that the rear axle seals failed. the dealer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that they repair hundreds of these failures per year. the parts were purchased and repaired. the manufacturer was notified, but they did not return his call. the failure mileage was 55,000.

Dt*: the contact stated that the vehicle accelerated while braking during good weather and normal braking conditions. there was sporadic failure and the problem occurred three times. the dealer checked the pedal spacing and there were no problems found but according to the dealer, the problem may be that the contact was pressing the pedal and the brakes at the same time. the brakes are 4-wheel antilock. *ak

Gas pedal is too sensitive making vehicle difficult to accelerate smoothly from a stop. also brake pedal is too close to gas pedal. i've hit the gas and brake at the same time almost causing a crash. *jb

Dt*: the contact stated the vehicle has adjustable brake and accelerator pedals to accommodate shorter and taller drivers. the pedals move forward and backward. the pedals are too close together which causes the driver to unknowingly depress the accelerator pedal, while pressing the brake or visa versa. the dealer was notified and could not offer a solution. this happens regardless of where the pedals are adjusted. there was an accident in october, 2004. the contact was driving the vehicle upon a ramp in order to change the oil. when the brake was depressed, the accelerator pedal was also inadvertently depressed, causing the car to surge forward onto the ramp. that incident resulted in $250 worth of damage. updated 3/28/2006 - the consumer has also backed into his garage door twice because of this problem. *nm

Many loud pings from exhaust after the exhaust gets hot, and it starts to cool down probably from the catalytic converter. dealer says it is a characteristic of this model. *nm

Dt: while going 10-20 mph vehicle sudden ly accelerated in the driveway and hit a parked car. vehicle was in drive, and then experienced sudden acceleration. there were black tire marks from the rear wheels from where the car accelerated. then. the vehicle hit the other parked family vehicle. the other vehicle was knocked about 30 feet. there were no reported injuries. upon impact, the airbags did not deploy. consume rhas pictures of the accident., but no police report. dealership has not been contacted. manufacturer had been contacted, but consumer received no response.*ak

While in stop an go traffic had to slam on brakes. however, the vehicle continued to roll. as a result, consumer's vehicle collided with another vehicle. no injuries reported. *ak

On july 7, 2014 the office of defects investigation (odi) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (voqs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. since opening this investigation, odi has received four additional owner complaints.one indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.the other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.the single incident odi identified as a possible crash (voq no. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.no additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.information provided by ford in its september 10, 2014 response to odi's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in march 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.this investigation is closed. the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that a safety-related defect does not exist. the agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.the following voqs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.

On july 7, 2014 the office of defects investigation (odi) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (voqs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. since opening this investigation, odi has received four additional owner complaints.one indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.the other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.the single incident odi identified as a possible crash (voq no. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.no additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.information provided by ford in its september 10, 2014 response to odi's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in march 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.this investigation is closed. the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that a safety-related defect does not exist. the agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.the following voqs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.