RoadVitals

1990 Ford Taurus Sho Problems

Owner-reported complaints filed with NHTSA, grouped by component

Data refreshed

Owner complaintsComplaints are reports submitted to NHTSA by owners and drivers. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a complaint does not establish that a defect exists. Volume is influenced by how many of a vehicle were sold, how long it has been on the road, and how much attention an issue has received.
4
Latest Mar 31, 2008
Components namedHow many of our component categories appear on at least one report for this model year. One report can name several.
3
Crash or fire reportedComplaints whose submitter recorded that a crash or a fire occurred. These are the reporter's own answers on the NHTSA form, not verified findings.
0

What this page shows

Everything below is an owner-reported complaint submitted to NHTSA about the 1990 Ford Taurus Sho, grouped by the component NHTSA recorded on the report. These are not confirmed defects, and they are not recalls. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a category with more reports in it is not evidence that a part is defective.

Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.

Reports by component

Ranked by how many owner reports name each component category

  • Body & structure250.0%
  • Electrical125.0%
  • Suspension125.0%

Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.

Each component in detail

What the reports in each category say, in the owners' own words

Body & structure

Reports naming the vehicle structure, frame, body panels, doors, hood and trim.

2
reports

From owner reports, verbatim

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.

NHTSA ID 10222886 · filed Mar 31, 2008

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.

NHTSA ID 10043833 · filed Oct 28, 2003

Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.

Electrical

Reports naming the electrical system — wiring, battery, charging, control modules, infotainment and electrical accessories.

1
report

From owner reports, verbatim

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

NHTSA ID 560420 · filed Mar 19, 2001

Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.

Suspension

Reports naming suspension components — springs, struts, shocks, control arms and related hardware.

1
report

From owner reports, verbatim

I PURCHASED A CONTROL ARM FROM UNITED AUTO. THE PART WAS MADE BY TRW. THE BALLJOINT FAILED WHEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE. 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 MEASURED) FROM THE ABS RING. THE CONTROL ARM ON THE OPPOSITE 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 EMPLOYEE PULL CONTROL ARMS FOR A TAURUS AND TAURUS SHO. THE CONTROL ARMS WERE THE SAME THING. TRW IS PACKAGING 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 TOPIC 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 CONTROL ARMS ON MY CAR, THE DEALERSHIP WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE CORRECT PART. THANK YOU, HOPE TO HERE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SOON. *AK *TR

NHTSA ID 758965 · filed Mar 5, 2002

Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.

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.

Elsewhere on this vehicle

Data sources

Data on this page last refreshed .