STEERING
2000 Ford Crown Victoria
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 85 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2000 Ford Crown Victoria, most frequently naming the engine, fuel system and exterior lighting categories. 10 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 5 NHTSA investigations name it; and 145 manufacturer communications are on file.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Complaint activity over time
When owners filed reports about this model year
View as table
| Month | Complaints filed | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 2000 | 1 | 8 |
| Nov 2000 | 1 | 9 |
| Dec 2000 | 2 | 11 |
| Jan 2001 | 2 | 13 |
| Feb 2001 | 1 | 14 |
| Apr 2001 | 2 | 16 |
| Jul 2001 | 1 | 17 |
| Aug 2001 | 2 | 19 |
| Sep 2001 | 1 | 20 |
| Oct 2001 | 1 | 21 |
| Jan 2002 | 2 | 23 |
| Feb 2002 | 1 | 24 |
| Mar 2002 | 1 | 25 |
| Apr 2002 | 1 | 26 |
| May 2002 | 1 | 27 |
| Jul 2002 | 4 | 31 |
| Oct 2002 | 1 | 32 |
| Nov 2002 | 1 | 33 |
| Jan 2003 | 2 | 35 |
| Mar 2003 | 1 | 36 |
| Apr 2003 | 2 | 38 |
| May 2003 | 2 | 40 |
| Jun 2003 | 2 | 42 |
| Jul 2003 | 1 | 43 |
| Oct 2003 | 1 | 44 |
| Jan 2004 | 1 | 45 |
| Feb 2004 | 2 | 47 |
| May 2004 | 2 | 49 |
| Jun 2004 | 1 | 50 |
| Jul 2004 | 1 | 51 |
| Jan 2005 | 2 | 53 |
| Mar 2005 | 1 | 54 |
| Dec 2005 | 1 | 55 |
| Sep 2006 | 1 | 56 |
| Dec 2006 | 1 | 57 |
| May 2007 | 1 | 58 |
| Aug 2007 | 2 | 60 |
| Jan 2008 | 1 | 61 |
| May 2008 | 1 | 62 |
| Jul 2008 | 1 | 63 |
| Sep 2008 | 1 | 64 |
| Mar 2009 | 1 | 65 |
| Oct 2009 | 1 | 66 |
| Nov 2009 | 1 | 67 |
| Feb 2010 | 1 | 68 |
| Aug 2010 | 1 | 69 |
| Oct 2010 | 1 | 70 |
| Dec 2012 | 1 | 71 |
| Jun 2013 | 1 | 72 |
| Sep 2013 | 1 | 73 |
| Oct 2013 | 1 | 74 |
| Mar 2014 | 1 | 75 |
| Sep 2014 | 2 | 77 |
| Jun 2015 | 1 | 78 |
| Feb 2016 | 2 | 80 |
| Oct 2017 | 1 | 81 |
| Apr 2018 | 1 | 82 |
| Sep 2019 | 1 | 83 |
| Mar 2020 | 1 | 84 |
| Dec 2024 | 1 | 85 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Engine2120.8%
- Fuel system1211.9%
- Exterior lighting1110.9%
- Suspension98.9%
- Steering87.9%
- Tires & wheels76.9%
- Electrical65.9%
- Driver assistance65.9%
Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.
Safety recalls
10 campaigns cover this model year
Recalls apply to specific vehicles, not to every vehicle of a model year. Check your VIN with NHTSA or your manufacturer's dealer to confirm whether a recall affects your vehicle.
Check a VIN on NHTSA.govFUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE
FUEL SYSTEM, OTHER:STORAGE:TANK ASSEMBLY
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
SPARK PLUG EJECTION FROM CYLINDER HEAD
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.
CNG TANK EXPLOSION
IN SEPTEMBER 2002, A FUEL CYLINDER IN A NATURAL GAS POWERED VEHICLE (NGV) EXPLODED DURING A FIRE.FORD AND VRTC TEST ENGINEERS JOINTLY EXAMINED THE INCIDENT VEHICLE AND REVIEWED TESTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE (PRD) WAS PROPER.THE PURPOSE OF A PRD IS TO PROTECT A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS TANK FROM OVERPRESSURE BY ALLOWING THE CNG TO VENT WHEN THE TEMPERATURE REACHES A SPECIFIC POINT.THE PRD WAS REMOVED FROM THE FAILED TANK AND SUBJECTED TO A YIELD TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION TEST. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT A DIRECT FLAME (FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE) ONTO THE CYLINDER (LOCATED BEHIND THE REAR SEAT IN THE TRUNK)COMPROMISED THE HOOP STRENGTH OF THE NATURAL GAS CYLINDER, THUS ALLOWING THE CYLINDER TO FAIL PRIOR TO THE PRD RELEASING AT ITSDESIGNED TEMPERATURE.AS A RESULT OF THIS TESTING AND REVIEW OF THE INVOLVED VEHICLE, FORD HAS DEVELOPED AN INSULATOR TO INSULATE THE NATURAL GAS FUEL TANK FROM A LOCALLY DIRECTED FLAME PROJECTING FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE.INSULATORS WILL BE INSTALLED BEHIND THE BACK SEAT ON SUBJECT VEHICLES TO PREVENT FUTURE FAILURES OF THIS TYPE. FORD'S ACTION ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF ODI.THEREFORE, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
CNG TANK EXPLODING IN A FIRE
AN EXPLOSION OF A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) TANK SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OCCUR, AS THE TANK IS FITTED WITH A PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICE (PRD). THIS PRD SHOULD RELEASE THE CNG IN THE TANK, PRIOR TO THE PRESSURE REACHING THE TANK BURST PRESSURE.THE PRD DID NOT RELEASE IN THE SUBJECT WISCONSIN POLICE CRUISER EXPLOSION.NHTSA HAS RECOVERED THE PRD VALVE FROM THE TANK THAT EXPLODED AND TESTING WILL BE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH WHY THIS TANK SAFETY VALVE DID NOT RELEASE IN THE VERY HIGH TEMPERATURE FIRE THAT OCCURRED IN THE POLICE CRUISER.THERE IS ONLY THE SINGLE KNOWN EVENT, BUT DUE TO THE CATASTROPIC FORCE OF SUCH AN EXPLOSION AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY AND LOSS OF LIFE, THIS INVESTIGATION IS BEING UPGRADED.
FUEL-FED FIRES
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.
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
Purchased 2 Cooper Endeavor tires July 2022 from a highly popular national retailer, 225/60-R16. The tires were installed professionally by a Ford Dealership. The first of the 2 tires developed a hazardous outer sidewall "egg" within a few weeks of installation (under 1k mi). Having no visible or known damage it was reluctantly replaced by the tire retailer under their provided Road Hazard warranty. Rolling forward to present, following documented tire rotation schedule and documented monthly tire pressure checks, the 2nd Cooper Endeavor "60k mi marketed tire" developed a hazardous outer sidewall egg 29 mo later with only 21.6k mi. driven. The new tire tread depth was 10.5/32 in. and remaining tread depth is 7/32 in. at it's greatest wear area. This 2nd sidewall egg tire was removed by a reputable tire dealership and inspected showing no visible damage to the inner or outer sidewall, tire tread or the rim bead.
- NHTSA ID
- 11631514
- Incident
- Dec 15, 2024
I WAS DRIVING ND I DIDN'T SEE A POT HOLE SO AFTER I DROVE ACROSS IT LIKE A MILE OR MORE MY HEAD LIGHT STARTED FLICKING ND AFTER WEN I DROVE FOR LIKE 30MIN THEY TURNED OF ND IT ALSO CAUSED ALL THE LIGHT TO TURN OFF INSIDE ND OUT THE CAR
- NHTSA ID
- 11318531
- Incident
- Jan 29, 2020
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL WINDSHIELD HAD SOME CRACKS AND CHIPS, SO HE DECIDED TO HAVE THE WINDSHIELD REPLACED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REPLACEMENT WINDSHIELD IMPAIRED HIS VISION WHILE DRIVING BECAUSE HE COULD NOT SEE THE ROAD CLEARLY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WINDSHIELD HAD A FOGGY, HAZY SMOKE SCREEN AND WAS NOT CLEAR. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE WINDSHIELD WAS PURCHASED; HOWEVER, NO DEFECT WAS NOTICED. THE MECHANIC OFFERED TO REPLACE THE WINDSHIELD, BUT STATED THAT IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SOLD TO HIM. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO STATED THAT THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH THESE PARTICULAR FUYAO WINDSHIELDS (PRODUCT NUMBER: AS1M848 DOT-459 SOLAR TINT DW1506). THE CONTACT DROVE TO THE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE WINDSHIELDS WERE NOT FACTORY REPLACEMENT WINDSHIELDS, BUT WERE AFTERMARKET WINDSHIELDS. THE FORD MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND INFORMED THAT THE CONTACT'S WINDSHIELD WAS NOT A FACTORY AUTHORIZED WINDSHIELD REPLACEMENT. THE CONTACT HAD THE REPLACEMENT WINDSHIELD FOR THREE WEEKS AND HAD VISIBILITY ISSUES EACH TIME WHILE DRIVING. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
- NHTSA ID
- 11255160
- Incident
- Aug 18, 2019
WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS TIMES ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS OCCUR, HEADLIGHTS WILL GO OUT ALONG WITH INSTRUMENT PANEL. SOMETIMES THE FAN ON WILL COME ON AND WILL CUT OFF EVEN WHEN IT IS OFF. WHEN TEMP IS COLD HEATER BLOWS COLD AIR. HOT OUTSIDE HEATS WORKS. AC WORKS FINE IN BOTH CLIMATES. DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW WILL NOT COME DOWN IN CERTAIN TEMPERATURES. HEADS HAVE LOW VISIBILITY AND LENS COVER GETS MOISTURE INSIDE. YOU HAVE TO DRIVE AT NIGHT WITH HIGH BEAMS TO TRY AND SEE AT ALL. SUSPENSION IS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM ON STEERING CAR HAS A SWAYING MOTION AT TIMES ESPECIALLY IN WARM WEATHER POPPING, SQUEAKY NOTICES CAN ALSO BE HEARD. VEHICLE HAS 92,000 ACTUAL MILES BUT IS BECOMING A HAZARD TO DRIVE. VEHICLE HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY A REPUTABLE REPAIR SERVICE WHO STATES SUSPENSION LOOKS GOOD, PARTS HAVE GREASE IN JOINTS, ETC AND HEATER PROBLEM EVERYTHING WAS IN SPECS. LARGE FORD DEALERSHIP 35 MILES AWAY WOULD NOT SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT DUE TO CAR BEING AN OLDER MODEL. IF PROBLEMS ARE NOT FOUND, AN ACCIDENT IS WAITING TO HAPPEN! NOTE : ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN ONGOING AND HAVE INCREASINGLY BECOME WORSE.
- NHTSA ID
- 11085086
- Incident
- Oct 1, 2017
BROUGHT USED JULY 26,2017 FIRST TIME DRIVING AT NIGHT HEADLIGHTS FLASH OFF AND ON THEN GO OUT COMPLETELY WHILE DRIVING ON A MAIN HIGHWAY.FORD HAS PROBLEM WITH LIGHT MODULE TRIED GETTING VKP-31F32-Z01 RELAYS BUT MY RESEARCH FOUND DISCONTINUED 2009 I'M SCREWED BY FORD & RELAY MANUFACTURE.MAY NOT BE IN YOUR DATA BASE BUT IT'S STILL A SAFETY HAZARD & PREVIOUS OWNER SHOULD HAD THIS RESOLVED.
- NHTSA ID
- 11032620
- Incident
- Jul 28, 2017
- Mileage
- 275,000 mi
SEAT BELTS DON'T HAVE ELASTICITY. STEERING COLUMN STEERING FEELS LOOSE, GEAR SHIFTER FEELS SLOPPY. HAPPENS WHEN THE CAR IS STATIONARY OR IN MOTION.
- NHTSA ID
- 10824824
- Incident
- Jan 6, 2016
WHEN DRIVING FOR ABOUT 30-45 MINUTES, ALL LIGHTS GO OFF FOR 1-2 MINUTES, FUSE GETS VERY HOT UNDER DASH.
- NHTSA ID
- 10823540
- Incident
- Jan 29, 2016
- Mileage
- 190,000 mi
I WAS DRIVING ACROSS THE CAUSEWAY WHEN MY CAR STARTED SHAKING. I TURNED DOWN THE RADIO AND IT SOUNDED LIKE IT BACK FIRING. I PULLED OVER AND CALLED MY MECHANIC TO MEET ME WHERE I BROKED DOWN. H IMMEDIATELY SAW THE PROBLEM BUT HE COULD NOT FIX IT. I HAD TO BRING IT TO ANOTHER SHOP TO GET IT REPAIRED. LUCKILY WHEN THIS HAPPENED I WAS GETTING OFF THE CAUSEWAY BECAUSE THAT BRIDGE IS 24 MILES LONG.
- NHTSA ID
- 10730648
- Incident
- Jun 14, 2015
- Mileage
- 114,908 mi
Manufacturer communications
A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.
STRUCTURE
This article supersedes TSB 19-2026 to update the vehicle model years affected. Some 2000 and newer Ford/Lincoln/Mercury vehicles equipped with aluminum body panels may exhibit corrosion concerns appearing as bubbled and/or peeling paint with or without accompanying white dust. Panel replacement is recommended.
EQUIPMENT; STRUCTURE
Some 2000 and newer Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles equipped with aluminum body panels may exhibit corrosion concerns appearing as bubbled and/or peeling paint with or without accompanying white dust. Panel replacement is recommended. Follow the Service Procedure steps to correct the condition
STRUCTURE
Some 2000 and newer Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles equipped with aluminum body panels may exhibit corrosion concerns appearing as bubbled and/or peeling paint with or without accompanying white dust. Panel replacement is recommended. Follow the Service Procedure steps to correct the condition
ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:EXHAUST SYSTEM:EMISSION CONTROL:CATALYTIC CONVERTOR
FORD: CERTAIN 1999-2001 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES UP TO 6000 LB GVWR REGISTERED IN NEW YORK AND CERTAIN 2001 VEHICLES UP TO 6000 LB GVWR REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF MAINE, CERTIFIED FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA-FEDERAL EMISSION WARRANTY REFUND. *PE
FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:STORAGE:TANK ASSEMBLY; FUEL SYSTEM, OTHER:STORAGE:TANK ASSEMBLY
FORD/LINCOLN MERCURY: CERTAIN 1992-2001 MODEL YEAR CROWN VICTORIA, GRAND MARQUIS, AND TOWN CAR VEHICLES REGISTERED IN THE STATES OF WISCONSIN AND CONNECTICUT UPGRADE MODIFICATIONS FOR HIGH SPEED REAR IMPACTS. *PE
ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE
SOME 1997-2008 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A 4.6L 2V, 5.4L 2V, OR 6.8L 2V ENGINE--SPARK PLUG THREAD REPAIR PROCEDURE--NOT COVERED UNDER NEW VEHICLE LIMITED WARRANTY. *NJ THIS INCLUDES F-53 MOTORHOME CHASSIS. UPDATED 2/23/10. *PE
Manufacturers file copies of the bulletins they send to dealers with NHTSA. These often describe diagnostic or repair procedures for a known condition. They are not recalls: repairs described in a bulletin are usually only free if the vehicle is still under warranty or the manufacturer has extended coverage.
Compare model years
Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model
| Year | Complaints | Recalls | Investigations | Issue Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 2011 | 23 | 2 | 0 | 41.9 |
| 2010 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 53.4 |
| 2009 | 44 | 2 | 0 | 50.1 |
| 2008 | 50 | 3 | 3 | 63.9 |
| 2007 | 50 | 4 | 4 | 68.7 |
| 2006 | 53 | 3 | 3 | 64.4 |
| 2005 | 193 | 6 | 7 | 61.5 |
| 2004 | 138 | 3 | 6 | 56.9 |
| 2003 | 249 | 7 | 9 | 62.7 |
| 2002 | 58 | 5 | 3 | 67.1 |
| 2001 | 53 | 7 | 7 | 66.5 |
| 2000Viewing | 85 | 10 | 5 | 58.5 |
| 1999 | 134 | 8 | 7 | 60.7 |
| 1998 | 119 | 10 | 9 | 62.4 |
| 1997 | 288 | 11 | 10 | 62.7 |
| 1996 | 276 | 12 | 10 | 63.9 |
| 1995 | 250 | 12 | 7 | 64.4 |
| 1994 | 192 | 7 | 4 | 65.9 |
| 1993 | 182 | 9 | 10 | 65.4 |
| 1992 | 310 | 9 | 10 | 65.8 |
| 1991 | 55 | 4 | 2 | 64.8 |
| 1990 | 43 | 3 | 3 | 67.7 |
| 1989 | 72 | 2 | 3 | 67.0 |
| 1988 | 42 | 2 | 2 | 65.0 |
| 1987 | 41 | 4 | 3 | 70.4 |
| 1986 | 27 | 1 | 3 | 65.6 |
| 1985 | 21 | 0 | 2 | 57.4 |
| 1984 | 6 | 1 | 2 | — |
| 1983 | 5 | 2 | 2 | — |
| 1982 | 3 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 1981 | 2 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 1980 | 2 | 0 | 1 | — |
Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers. Older model years have had longer for reports to accumulate.