Ford Taurus Sho 1990
Model Taurus Sho made in 1990 by Ford got 4 consumer complains as well as 1 service bulletin. Consumer complaints with reference, among others things, to electrical system and structure. Technical service bulletines regarding steering.
Model 1990
Bulletins
| Bulletin | Bulletin date | Replacement Bulletin | Item no. | Summary | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STEERING - LINKAGES - TIE ROD ASSEMBLY | |||||
| 12570 | 03/01/1999 | 6091815 | Some vehicles may exhibit front outer tie rods squeak and / or pop noise over bumps and / or turning. *tt | 11/15/2000 | |
Consumer Complaints
| Fail date | miles | occurences | Purchase date |
|---|---|---|---|
| ELECTRICAL SYSTEM - IGNITION - MODULE | |||
| 4 | |||
| The vehicle has had continual problems with stalling, several repairs completed at the dealership to try to rectify the stalling, however all have failed, the dealership has identified the problem as being the ignition module, the vehicle has not been repaired yet due the parts being on national backorder. *mjs | |||
| STRUCTURE - FRAME AND MEMBERS | |||
| 03/12/2008 | 160000 | 1 | 08/01/2007 |
| Tl*the contact owns a 1990 ford taurus sho. while making a right turn into a parking lot, the subframe bolt failed and the vehicle dropped. the engine shut off and the vehicle had to be towed to the contact's residence. the dealer and manufacturer stated that the vehicle was repaired under nhtsa campaign id number 98v323000 (structure:frame and members) in 1990. the contact researched his vehicle and stated that there was no evidence that the recall work was done. the speed was unknown. the current and failure mileages were 160,000. | |||
| 10/21/2003 | 180000 | 1 | 10/15/2001 |
| Subframe mount failure. engine dropped causing loss of steering and destruction of computer controll module with resultant loss of engine function. subject of previous recall nhtsa campaign 98v323000. recall precedure performed but did not fix the underlying cause of failure problem. there are hundred of thousand other tauruses which are likely to suffer the same fate because the corrosion problem was not solved, just delayed, by the recall procedure. talked with ford motor and the dealer who performed the recall procedure and none show any concern other that they did what they had to do to satisfy the previous recall. repeat -- the corrosion problem is not fixed, just delayed and will surely recur to cause safety related failures in affected vehicles due to underlying engineering design failures. | |||
| SUSPENSION - FRONT - CONTROL ARM | |||
| 10/15/2001 | 1 | 10/01/2000 | |
| I purchased a conrol arm from united auto. the part was made by trw. the balljoint failed when driving the vechical. i went back and bought another one, then while doing a routine inspection(i am a mechanic) noticed that the top of the balljoint was 1.2mm(i mesured) from the abs ring. the conrol arm on the oppisite side is about 5mm from the abs ring. i went to my local ford dealership and had them get me 2 new control arms l+r. guess what they were different then the ones that united auto sold me. i went back to united auto, had an employe pull control arms for a taurus and taurus sho. the conrol arms were the same thing. trw is packeging non-sho control arms as sho ones. this is extremely dangerous considering a sho is a high performance car (220hp) compared to (140hp) regular taurus. i spoke with a local rep for trw , explained what had happened. i have not heard anything for almost 6 months. i am going to leave feedback on this toppic on the sho club website, i am sure that other sho owner would like to know there getting the wrong part , and it will fail if installed on a sho. i ended up putting 2 knew conrol arms on my car, the dealership was the only one with the correct part. thank you, hope to here somthing about this soon. *ak | |||
Car dealers selling
| State | City | Zip | Name | Phone |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KS | TOPEKA | LAIRD NOLLER FORD |