Reports submitted to NHTSA by owners and drivers, shown in full
Data refreshed
Our database holds 3 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2002 Th!nk Neighbor. Each one is a report filed by an owner or driver and published by NHTSA without most of them being verified. A complaint is not a confirmed defect, not a recall and not a manufacturer bulletin. Narratives are shown exactly as filed.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Showing 1–3 of 3
THE MAIN DISPLAY CLUSTER ON THE VEHICLE SIZZLED AND POPPED UPON TURNING THE VEHICLE ON, MELTING SOME PLASTIC ALONG WITH IT. THE VEHICLE WAS ENTIRELY INOPERABLE AFTER THIS HAPPENED. HAD I BEEN DRIVING WHILE THIS HAPPENED IT COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY PRESENTED A HAZARD TO MYSELF AND OTHER MOTORISTS IF MY MOMENTUM ALONE WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MOVE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. *TR
I JUST PURCHASED A 2002 FORD THINK ELECTRIC VEHICLE. THE CLUSTER IN THE DASH SIZZLED AND EMITTED SMOKE, I THINK A SMALL FIRE WAS STARTED AND WENT OUT ON IT'S OWN. THE VEHICLE LOST POWER AND COULD NOT BE MOVED UNDER IT'S OWN POWER. WHEN I STARTED CHECKING ONLINE, I WAS SHOCKED TO FIND OUT THAT THIS IS EXTREMELY COMMON PROBLEM. I AM CERTAINLY NO SAFETY EXPERT, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT HAVING A COMPONENT BURN UP IN THE DASH, SIZZLING AND SMOKING THAT CAUSES A SUDDEN LOSS OF ELECTRICAL AND DRIVE POWER WOULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE. AGAIN, THIS IS EXTREMELY COMMON FOR THE FORD THINK AND IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL SOMEONE GETS HURT. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A NEW REVISED CLUSTER FROM FORD, BUT IT TOO HAS THE VERY SAME PROBLEM. *TR
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS AN ELECTRIC FORD THINK 2002. ON SEPTEMBER 2003 WITH APPROXIMATELY 100 MILES ON THE ODOMETER THE VEHICLE DID NOT CHARGE AS NORMAL, STILL UNDER WARRANTY IT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHERE THE BATTERY WAS CHANGED. ON MARCH 2004 THE VEHICLE STOPPED CHARGING PROPERLY. IT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER ,WHERE THEY REPLACED THE BATTERY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR THE SAME PROBLEM ON JULY 2004, OCTOBER 2004, MARCH 2005, JUNE 2005, OCTOBER 2005, APRIL 2006, AND NOVEMBER 2006. THE WARRANTY EXPIRED ON OCTOBER 2005. THE VEHICLE WAS AT THE DEALER FOR THE SAME PROBLEM SINCE NOVEMBER 2006, BECAUSE THE DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO REPLACE THE BATTERY WITHOUT A $1700.00 FEE. THE CONTACT FILED A COMPLAINT SINCE THIS PROBLEM WAS ONGOING SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED, THE CONTACT WANTED THE BATTERY TO BE REPLACED OR FIXED AT NO CHARGE. THE NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES WAS 9. *AK
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.
Data on this page last refreshed .