KnownCarProblems2000 Mercury Sable Problems and Recalls
Owners filed 464 complaints with NHTSA about the 2000 Mercury Sable, most often about the suspension (34% of complaints, typically around 67,000 miles). It is the most complained-about Sable model year since 2000 and has 7 recalls.
Most common 2000 Mercury Sable problems
Suspension
158 complaints · 34%Half of these problems showed up before 67,000 miles. Parts named most often: rear, front.
Manufacturer issued a recall notice regarding the replacement of the front coil springs. It was also stipulated that both coil springs would be repaired. However, the left coil spring was repaired in december. This occurred before the issuing of the recall. Currently,the right side needed to be repaired, and the…
I have a 2000 Mercury Sable in which a safety recall notice (04s17) was issued. A week before the safety recall was issued for the front springs a rear spring of mine had snapped, causing a deep groove on the inner wall of the rear tire. I had to have both rear springs replaced as well as a brand new tire. I was told…
Speed control
71 complaints · 15%Half of these problems showed up before 86,000 miles. Parts named most often: accelerator pedal, linkages, cruise control, cables.
The contact owns a 2000 Mercury Sable. The contact was driving 65 MPH when he removed his foot from the accelerator pedal and the vehicle did not decrease in speed. The vehicle continued to accelerate and the contact had to apply the brakes with both feet to get the vehicle to slow down. The contact was able to shift…
Driving vehicle on interstate with a speed of 75 MPH with cruise control activated. The cruise control suddenly accelerated on its own. Pushing the off button for the cruise control would not stop the acceleration as well as pushing on the brake. Had to ride the brake and take the first exit available, upon stopping…
Brakes
67 complaints · 14%Half of these problems showed up before 36,000 miles. Parts named most often: antilock/traction control/electronic limited slip, pedals and linkages, foundation components, antilock.
While braking, the consumer discovered the pedals were designed too close together, which caused the consumer to depress the brake/accelerator pedal at the same time, which caused the consumer to have an accident. The dealership was notified, but the problem was not resolved. Please provide more information.
While driving 50 MPH consumer applied the brake pedal and it went to the floor. Consumer was able to maintain control of the vehicle, and pulled over. Vehicle was towed to the dealer for inspection, and mechanic determined that the brakes needed to be replaced.
Lights
56 complaints · 12%Half of these problems showed up before 40,000 miles. Parts named most often: brake lights, tail lights, headlights, turn signal.
Nhtsa#12945-01-v-075-000: head lamp switch: due to use of incorrect material by a supplier switch lamp can fracture and separate from the head lamp switch:: consumer states she turn the switch off and knob fell off in her hand. Dealer has been notified. Mr
Consumer complains of a brake light problem. The brake lights will not go off. They stay on, even when foot is not on the brake, and vehicle is in motion.
Air bags
33 complaints · 7%Half of these problems showed up before 30,000 miles. Parts named most often: frontal, side/window.
While driving 35 MPH air bags inadvertently deployed. Consumer managed to pull over. Consumer took vehicle to dealership but the problem had not been resolved.
2000 Mercury Sable with adjustable brake and gas pedals was recalled for spacing issue. Told on recall no adjustment needed. Had bad crash. After crash told two more times adjustment not needed. This car has a brake pedal that wobbles side to side 7 mm and a gas pedal that wobbles side to side 1 cm. Odi in washington…
Transmission
31 complaints · 7%Half of these problems showed up before 44,000 miles. Parts named most often: automatic transmission, manual transmission, driveline, axle assembly.
When the gear shifter lever was put into drive from reverse vehicle failed to accelerate when the gas pedal was depressed. This occurred while the consumer was reversing. Vehicle was towed to the dealership, and mechanic determined that the problem was due to a failure in the catalytic convertor because of the weak…
It was hard for the consumer to shift the vehicle out of park to the drive position. Consumer had to start the vehicle in neutral in order for the vehicle to start. Dealership was notified, but did not resolve the problem.
Engine
30 complaints · 7%Half of these problems showed up before 61,500 miles. Parts named most often: exhaust system, engine.
When turning the key in the ignition a loud explosion sound was produced. The engine intake manifold had malfunctioned. As a result the vehicle was towed to the nearest dealer to find the cause. Please provide additional information.
1) intake manifold exploded when starting the car; ) car not driveable; ) towed to white bear lincoln Mercury for service - estimate provided 25, march, 2005.
Electrical
23 complaints · 5%Half of these problems showed up before 62,500 miles. Parts named most often: ignition, wiring, 12v/24v/48v battery.
Tl contact owns a 2000 Mercury Sable. The contact stated that while driving at any speed when the anti-theft light illuminated the vehicle stalled. The failure was experienced numerous times. The vehicle was taken to a local mechanic who performed a diagnostic test and was unable to locate a failure code. The local…
I have a 2000 Mercury Sable station wagon that occasionally without warning the engine will shut off briefly and the theft light flashes. Frequently it will not crank until you go through multiple actions, off unlocking the doors and pushing the alarm button on the remote. One time I could not get it to crank at all…
Complaints are owner reports to NHTSA, not verified defects. One complaint can name several components, so shares add up to more than 100%.
2000 Mercury Sable recalls
Suspension: coil springs
Risk: If this occurs, the tire may rupture resulting in a rapid air loss, which could result in a crash.
Fix: Dealers will install protective spring shields. In addition, ford is extending the warranty coverage of the front coil springs in all other states, for fracture only, up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first. If the vehicle has already accumulated more than 150,000 miles, this coverage will last until july 31, 2005. If either front coil spring fractures, dealers will replace both front springs at no charge to the owner. An interim notice was sent to owners on august 2, 2004. Parts are now available for the 2000-2001 my vehicles and owners were sent a letter on january
Full defect summary
On certain passenger vehicles originally sold in or currently registered in the states of connecticut, delaware, illinois, indiana, iowa, kentucky, maine, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, minnesota, missouri, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, rhode island, vermont, west virginia, wisconsin, and the district of columbia, the front coil springs could fracture due to corrosion associated with salt used on the roadways during the winter. A fractured spring could move past the spring seat and contact a front tire.
Lights: switch
Risk: In addition, if the switch and/or associated wiring fail in the open position, the brake lights will not actuate and the driver will not be able to shift the vehicle out of "park" if they fail in the closed position, the brake lights will remain on, which will not allow the speed control to be activated. This could also cause the battery to discharge.
Fix: Dealers will remove the stop lamp switch and associated wiring assembly and install a newly designed stop lamp switch and wire assembly. Owner notification is expected to begin on april 5, 2004. Owners should contact ford at 1-800-392-3673.
Full defect summary
Certain passenger vehicles are being recalled to correct a problem with a malfunctioning stop lamp switch and/or associated wiring. This malfunctioning could render the stop lamps inoperable or cause them to stay on all the time. This could cause confusion to a following driver, which could lead to a crash.
Brakes: pedals and linkages
Risk: This could result in a customer experiencing an "unintended vehicle speed increase" or a perceived "unable to stop" condition.
Fix: Owners will be instructed as to the proper way to set the position of the pedals and to take their vehicles to a dealer to have the spacing between the brake and accelerator pedals measured. If the spacing is found to be less than 50 mm, the dealer will adjust the pedals to increase the distance between them to greater than 50 mm. Owner notification began october 28, 2002. Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1-866-436-7332.
Full defect summary
Certain passenger vehicles equipped with adjustable padels are being recalled in order to adjust the brake and accelerator pedals to a minimum of 50 mm of lateral separation. Simultaneous application of both the brake and accelerator pedals could result in an increase in engine RPM.
Visibility and wipers: motor
Risk: Loss of visibility while driving increases the risk of a crash.
Fix: Dealers will inspect the date code on the wiper motor. Motors built with the suspect time frame will have the wiper motor gear case cover replaced. Owner notification began august 20, 2001. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1-866-436-7332.
Full defect summary
Vehicle description: passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, and light and medium duty pickup trucks. A switch located in the plastic cover of the wiper motor gear case could malfunction and overheat, potentially resulting in loss of intermittent wiper function, loss of wiper park function, complete loss of wiper function, or ignition of the plastic cover material. Switch malfunction is most likely to occur when the intermittent setting of the wipers is being used, or when snow or ice obstructs the blades from returning to the "parked" position at the bottom of the windshield. These vehicles were built at the following assembly plants: atlanta plant from 2/11/00 through 7/31/00; chicago plant from 2/14/00 through 8/4/00; kansas city plant from 2/26/00 to 9/4/00; kentucky truck plant from 2/18/00 to 8/31/00; michigan truck plant from 2/23/00 through 8/3/00; norfolk plant from 2/21/00 thro
Lights: switch
Risk: This would cause difficulty for the driver to activate the headlamps, which could affect driver visibility, increasing the risk of a crash.
Fix: Dealers will replace the headlamp switch knob. Owner notification began april 9, 2001. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1-800-392-3673.
Full defect summary
Vehicle description: passenger and sport utility vehicles. Due to the use of incorrect material by a supplier, the headlamp switch knob can fracture and separate from the headlamp switch.
Lights: switch
Risk: A short circuit could lead to either the brake lamps staying on, or to a loss of brake lamp function, increasing the risk of a crash.
Fix: Dealers will replace the brake lamp switch and wipe down the adjustable pedal assembly to remove excess grease. Owner notification began march 22, 2001. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1-800-392-3673.
Full defect summary
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles equipped with adjustable pedals. If the grease from the adjustable pedal assembly enters the stop lamp switch, it can contaminate the contacts leading to carbon build up, and potentially, a short circuit.
Equipment: labels
Risk: Excessive loading can cause tire and vehicle damage that could result in a crash.
Fix: Owners will be provided with a supplemental label with the correct information, along with instructions for affixing the label adjacent to the vehicle certification label. Owner notification began october 20, 2000. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1-800-392-3673.
Full defect summary
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. The "vehicle capacity weight" and "designated seating capacity" information was not printed on the safety certification labels affixed to these vehicles. On affected sable sedan vehicles, the "vehicles capacity weight" (and also the luggage load) information printed on this label is incorrect - sable wagon luggage load was incorrectly used for the sable sedan. These vehicles do not comply with the label requirements of fmvss no. 110, "tire selection and rims."
Recall repairs are free at any franchised dealer. Enter your VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls to see which recalls are still open on your car.
NHTSA defect investigations
Speed control cable damage
Summary
On june 21, 2013, ford initiated customer satisfaction program 13b04 to address a concern with speed control cable damage in certain model year (my) 2000 through 2003 taurus and sable vehicles equipped with 3.0l 4v duratec engines and built at the chicago assembly plant.in the dealer letter for the program, ford indicates that the speed control cables on affected vehicles may be susceptible to damage or becoming partially disconnected during under hood vehicle maintenance (e.g., replacing a battery or changing the air filter) and that a damaged speed control cable could interfere with the throttle's full return to idle when the accelerator pedal is released.ford's program instructs dealers t
Rear coil spring fracture
Summary
Odi's analysis identified a high complaint rate for the rear coil springs in the salt belt states (approximately 250 per 100,000 vehicles).approximately 59 percent of the complaints alleged that the coil spring failure caused damage to the adjacent rear tire, with about half of these (30 percent of total complaints) alleging that the damage resulted in air loss.because air loss from a rear tire can result in changes in vehicle handling characteristics, odi examined field data, test data and interviewed consumers to assess the safety consequences of such failures in the subject vehicle population.analysis of all available field data did not identify any crashes or injuries resulting from the
Rear coil spring fracture
Summary
The office of defect investigation (odi) opened preliminary evaluation, pe05-054, based on 131 vehicle owner questionnaires related to alleged rear coil spring fractures.since opening the investigation there have been an additional sixty-three (63) complaints alleging rear coil spring fracture.an analysis of the vehicle owner questionnaires (voqs) submitted to odi reveals that 42% of the complainants allege that the adjacent tire was punctured as result of a rear coil spring fracture. Additionally, an analysis of the complaint data received by odi from ford reveals the following: there were a total of 553 unique vehicle complaints of coil spring fracture. 30% of the complaints allege that th
Front suspension coil spring fracture
Summary
Odi possesses 130 vehicle owners questionnaires (voq) alleging front suspension coil spring failure in the subject (model year 1999-2000) vehicles.an additional 11 voqs concerning my 2001 vehicles have been found, bringing the total to 141.more than 75% of these reports allege that the broken spring damaged or punctured the adjacent tire.all of these reports originated in the salt belt states located in the northeast quadrant of the united states and canada.ford will conduct a safety recall (04v-332) covering vehicles soldor currently registered in connecticut, delaware, illinois, indiana, iowa, kentucky, maine, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, minnesota, missouri, new hampshire, new jerse
Brake/accelerator pedal application
Summary
Ms. Rodman reported that after her vehicle was inspected for the recall, her mother experienced a sudden acceleration and crashed the sable into a light pole.previously NHTSA had conducted an investigation for this issue (pe02-035) that resulted in the recall (02v-266) of 369,000 my 2000-2002 taurus and sable vehicles equipped with adjustable brake and accelerator pedals to insure that the separation between the pedals was at least 50mm..a review of odi's database for complaints regarding recall 02v-266 did not identify any recall remedy complaints other than the petitioner's.ms. Rodman?s vehicle was inspected by odi using ford?s special tool and her vehicle was found to exceed 50mm.also, th
Brake light switch failure
Summary
Ford conducted a recall in march, 2001 to correct a defect affecting the brake light switch in my 2000 through early-2001 taurus and sable vehicles equipped with power adjustable pedals (recall 01v-078).rq03-008 was opened to investigate complaints concerning the remedy and scope of 01v-078.odi's analysis identified concerns with post-repair failures in recalled vehicles,failures in my 2001-02 vehicles with adjustable pedals that were not included in recall 01v-078, and failures in my 2000 vehicles with fixed pedals.(note: the manufacturer failure data in this resume includes all crashes and injuries, but the complaint information is limited to my 2001-02 vehicles that were not included in t
Frontal air bag non-deployment in crash
Summary
This investigation identified a total of 427 reports alleging non-deployment of the frontal air bags.of the 427 reports, two incidents (fatal crashes) have been identified as severe frontal crashes in which the frontal air bags did not deploy.a defect trend has not been identified at this time.further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, 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 take further action if warranted by the circumstances.see attached summary report.
Frontal air bag non-deployment in crash
Summary
Ford motor company has identified 260 reports alleging frontal air bag non-deployment for any (severity) frontal or near-frontal crash on model year 2000-2001 ford taurus and mercury sable vehicles.additional crash reports are contained in NHTSA's fatality analysis reporting system (fars) database.the single odi report listed in the report summary is NHTSA's special crash investigation's case no. Ca00-020 that involved a high-speed crash non-deployment involving a driver fatality and front passenger injury.this preliminary evaluation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis (ea03-010) and odi will collect additional information on certain crash reports and conduct further study of this i
Brake/accel pedal separation
Questions about the 2000 Mercury Sable
- What are the most common problems with the 2000 Mercury Sable?
- By NHTSA owner complaints: suspension (158 complaints, typically around 67,000 miles); speed control (71 complaints, typically around 86,000 miles); brakes (67 complaints, typically around 36,000 miles).
- How many recalls does the 2000 Mercury Sable have?
- 7 recalls listed by NHTSA, the latest from July 15, 2004 (suspension). Check your VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls to see which ones are still open on your car.
- Is the 2000 a bad year for the Mercury Sable?
- It is the most complained-about Sable model year since 2000, with 464 complaints. Complaint counts are not adjusted for how many cars were sold, so popular years collect more of them, and the newest years have had less time to.