1998 Ford Mustang Engine

COOLANT WAS LEAKING SLOWLY FOR ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS, THEN BEGAN TO LEAK A LOT THE END OF DECEMBER, SO THE CAR WAS UNDRIVEABLE BECAUSE OF RISK OF OVERHEATING, AND HAD TO BE TOWED TO DEALER. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE LEAK RESULTED FROM A CRACK IN THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD WHERE THE THERMOSTAT SITS. THE DEALER REPLACED THE MANIFOLD WITH A NEW MANIFOLD THAT IS METAL WHERE THE CRACK OCCURRED (AN INDICATION OF FORD'S AWARENESS OF THE PROBLEM). THE COST TO REPLACE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS $1,070 AND I HAVE KEPT MY OLD MANIFOLD. THROUGH MY RESEARCH, I DISCOVERED THAT FORD WILL REPLACE THIS PART ON THE 1996-1997 MUSTANGS AND POLICE AND FLEET CARS. A MEMORANDUM TO THE DEALERSHIPS SHOWS THAT THE 1996-1998 MUSTANGS HAVE THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD PART NUMBER, SO FORD SHOULD REIMBURSE ME FOR THE COST TO REPLACE MY INTAKE MANIFOLD. *JB

THERE IS COOLANT LEAKING FROM THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE DUE TO A DEFECT THAT THE INTAKE HAS. *NM

CONSUMER SMELLED ANTIFREEZE. LOOKED UNDER THE HOOD AND DISCOVERED A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT OPERABLE. *AK

I CURRENTLY OWN A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 90,000 MILES ON THE ENGINE. IAM THE SRCOND OWNER. IT HAS THE 4.6 V-8 ENGINE. AT APPROXIMATELY 88,000 MILES THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DEVELOPED A CRACK AND STARTED LEAKING ANTIFREEZE. IT HAS CONTINUALLY GOTTEN WORSE AND IS NOW TO THE POINT THAT THE VEHICLE IS INOPERABLE. I CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE ON 12/27/2004 REGARDING 3 CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION LETTERS I FOUND ON LINE REGARDING THE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURES AND WAS TOLD THAT MY VIN #'S WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE RECALL FOR REPLACEMENT. I HAVE ALSO LEARNED THAT THIS IS VERY COMMON FAILURE. I CONTEND THAT FORD SHOULD REPLACE ALL DEFECTIVE INTAKE MANIFOLDS AS THEY OCCUR INSTEAD OF DESIGNATING ONLY CERTAIN VIN #'S AS A FAILURE IS A FAILURE.*AK

1998 FORD MUSTANG GT - INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACK. ISSUE REFERENCED IN TSB #02-2-2 FROM FORD. FORD IS WILLING TO REPLACE '96-97 MUSTANGS BUT NOT '98 ALTHOUGH IT'S THE SAME PART NUMBER (OWNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS 97M91, 01M02, 99M01). SEVERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ISSUED (ALABAMA/CALIFORNIA). SPOKE WITH LOCAL DEALERSHIP AND FORD CUSTOMER CARE CENTER (REF#1366271768) - BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE PROBLEM BUT TELL ME '98 MUSTANG NOT COVERED ALTHOUGH MEMORANDUM TO ALL FORD DEALERSHIPS DATED DECEMBER OF 2001 SHOWS 1996-1998 MUSTANG WITH THE REPLACEMENT MANIFOLD PART NUMBER. SEARCHES ON INTERNET REVEAL A DISTURBING TREND. FORD RECALLED FLEET AND POLICE UNITS WITH THIS SAME ISSUE BUT LEFT THE CONSUMER TO PAY FOR FORD'S POOR DESIGN. NEW MANIFOLD DESIGN USES A METAL ALLOY INSIDE INTAKE MANIFOLD WHERE COOLANT TRANSFERS - SO THEY KNOW IT'S A DESIGN DEFECT. *LA

FORD AUTOMOBILES EQUIPPED WITH FORD'S 4.6L V-8 CONTAIN AN INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT IS PRONE TO FAILURE. DUE TO ORIGINAL DESIGN, THIS PART HAS A TENDENCY TO CRACK RESULTING IN SOMETIMES OVER HEATING, ENGINE FAILURE AND WORSE CASE DAMAGE TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CAR'S ENGINE. FORD RECOGNIZES THIS PROBLEM BUT WILL NOT RECALL MOST CARS OTHER THAN FLEET VEHICLES AND THOSE LISTED IN THE TSB #97M91. 1. 1998 MUSTANG WAS OVERHEATING WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY. 2. WHEN CAR WAS TAKEN TO A REPAIR SHOP THE MECHANIC NOTICED A CRACK IN THE MANIFOLD AND ADVISED ME TO TAKE IT TO MY LOCAL DEALER. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT IF THIS PART WAS NOT CORRECTED ENGINE FAILURE COULD OCCUR DUE TO COOLANT LOSS RESULTING IN SEVERE DAMAGE. 3. CAR WAS TAKEN TO LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND I GAVE THEM THE TSB #97M91 AND TOLD THEM TO REPLACE THE PART. 1998 MUSTANG WAS NOT LISTED AND THE CAR AND CAN'T BE FIXED AT DEALER'S COST ONLY CONSUMER'S. I CALLED FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND HAVE NOT HAD ANY LUCK TALKING TO CUSTOMER SERVICE ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. FORD OWNERS BE AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM.*AK

(1) FORD MADE THE INTAKE MANIFOLD OUT OF PLASTIC. (2) MANIFOLD CRACKED, AND CAUSED LOSS OF ENGINE COOLANT. (3) REPLACED MANIFOLD.OLD PART IS AVAILABLE. NOTES: NEW ONE IS MADE OF ALUMINUM IN CRACK AREA! FORD HAS ISSUED A RECALL BUT ONLY FOR FLEET VEHICLES. INTERNET IS FULL OF LIKE STORIES. *AK

THE PLASTIC INTAKE ON THE ENGINE (4.6 SOHC), CRACKED IN THE WATER JACKET AREA CAUSING, AN ANTI-FREEZE FLUID LEAK. *JB

I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT. THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD VALVE HAS CRACKED AND WILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED. I HAVE DONE QUITE A BIT OF INTERENT RESEARCH AND FOUND THIS SEEMS TO BE A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THIS PLASTIC PART THAT FORD REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT.*AK

I HAVE LOST 1 QUART OF OIL PER 1000 MILES SINCE 40,000 MILES. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A POOL OF OIL UNDER MY CAR BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE LEAK. MULTIPLE VISITS TO THE DEALERSHIP HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THIS LEAK. MY NEW MECHANIC FINALLY FOUND THE LEAK TO BE A CRACKED TIMING CHAIN COVER. THERE IS A V-SHAPED CRACK ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE COVER. HE SAYS IT'S PROBABLY A CASTING ERROR. THE CAR NOW HAS 90,000 MILES AND OF COURSE IS NOT UNDER ANY WARRANTY. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD AND TWO SETS OF WORN REAR-END BEARINGS.*AK

MY 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH A 4.6 LITER ENGINE SUFFERED A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH WAS REPLACED COSTING APPROXIMATELY $600,00, HAS CRACKED ONCE AGAIN. I HAVE CONTACTED NUMEROUS FORD DEALERSHIPS ABOUT THE PROBLEM, TO WHICH THEY REPLIED IT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. I FEEL THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN RECALLED ON OTHER SIMILAR VEHICLES SHOULD ALSO BE RECALLED AND REPLACED WITH A WORKING PART ON MINE. *AK

WHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH VEHICLE OVERHEATED. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE INDEPENDENT SHOP, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED, AND COOLANT SPILLED INSIDE THE ENGINE. *AK

HELLO, MY FORD MUSTANG OVERHEATED AND DEVELOPED A CRACK IN THE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH RESULTED IN ENGINE COOLANT LEAK AND IT HAD TO BE REPLACED. I READ THAT A RECALL ON THIS PART THAT WAS CALLED BY FORD BECAUSE THE SAME EXACT ENGINE ON THE CROWN VICTORIA GIVES THE SAME PROBLEMS AND A RECALL IS IN EFFECT ON IT. WHY WOULD THEY NOT HAVE A RECALL ON ALL ENGINES IF IT IS ECACTLY THE SAME? I WOULD HONESTLY APPRECIATE AN ANSWER IF IT CAN BE PROVIDED. BEST REGARDS. MUNAZZAR TAPAL.*AK

PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. HAPPENS ON MOST 1996-1998 MUSTANG GT 4.6. NEW PART FROM FORD REPLACES PLASTIC PART PRONE TO CRACKING WITH ALUMINUM PART. FORD HAS A SERVICE PROGRAM # 97M91 RELATED TO 4.6 ENGINES FOR CARS BUILT 07/1995 - 06/1997. CARS BUILT AFTER THIS END DATE STILL EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS DUE TO DEFECTIVE PART. *AK

WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE OVERHEATED ON ITS OWN. VEHICLE HESITATED WHILE ACCELERATING, THEN STALLED. CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO RESTART VEHICLE, AND HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALER. MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THIS VEHICLE WAS NOT RECALLED BY VIN OR UNDER WARRANTY. CONSUMER INFORMED THE MECHANIC THAT PART NUMBER F8A2-9424-BC, NOTIFICATION #97M91 FOR INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS RECALLED. MECHANIC INSISTED THAT RECALL WAS NOT FOR THIS VEHICLE. *AK

VEHICLE CONTAINS A PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFORD THAT CRACKS DUE TO THE HEAT AND CHEMICALS INVOLVED IN STANDARD ENGINE USE. THE CRACKS ALLOW THE ESCAPE OF RADIATOR FLUID/ANTIFREEZE ... WHICH WILL THEN CAUSE PERMENANT DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE/VEHICLE.*AK FORD IN FACT KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM, AND WARRANTIES CERTAIN VEHICLE STYLES/YEARS AS WELL AS VEHICLES USED AS FLEET/POLICE/TAXI VEHICLES ... BUT NOT ALL AFFECTED VEHICLES FOR CONSUMERS THAT CONTAIN THE IDENTICAL PART IN QUESTION. LATER VEHICLE YEARS WERE FITTED WITH INTAKES WITH EITHER ALUMINUM CROSSOVERS, OR MADE ALL OF ALUMINUM. VEHICLES THAT CONTAIN THE FAILED PART HAVE THE PART REPLACED WITH THE ALUMINUM-CROSSOVER PART AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. 1.) PART FAILS UNDER REGULAR USE OF VEHICLE. 2.) DEFECTIVE PART MUST BE REPLACED AT HIGH COST OF LABOR - DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO REPAIR PART DESPITE TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLITIN #97M91. 3.) NOTHING. - DEALER WILL NOT REPLACE - I CANNOT AFORD REPLACEMENT CURRENTLY.

I HAVE A 1998 FORD MUSTANG. I NOW HAVE A CRACKED INTAKE MANIFOLD. FORD MOTOR COMPANY KNOWS THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLDS ARE SUBJECT TO FAILURE. THEY ALSO RECALLED SOME OF THE VEHICLES WITH THE SAME INTAKE MANIFOLD THAT I HAVE IN MY CAR. I WAS TOLD, BY FORD THAT SINCE MY CAR WAS MADE A FEW MONTHS AFTER THOSE BEING RECALLED THAT I DO NOT QUALIFY. THE PART IN QUESTION IS AN INTAKE MANIFOLD MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. THE MANIFOLDS THAT WERE REPLACED BY FORD NOW HAVE ALUMINUM IN PLACE OF THE PLASTIC IN THE AREA OF THE CRACK. I LEARNED OF A FORD DOCUMENT # 97M91 WHICH SHOWS THAT FORD KNOWS OF THE PROBLEM. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT I CAN DO TO TRY AND GET FORD TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.*AK

WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT 60 MPH STARTED TO SMELL ANTI-FREEZE. WHEN I CHECKED THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. I FOUND THAT THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLASTIC, INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD CRACKED AN WAS LEAKING ANTI-FREEZE. CONTACTED DEALER, THEY WANTED $580 FOR A NEW MANIFOLD PLUS LABOR TO PUT IT ON. I FEEL THAT IF A MANUFACTURE PUTS AN INTAKE MANIFOLD ON ON OF THIER VEHICLES IT SHOUD LAST FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE VEHICLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CRACKED, I THINK THIS IS POOR ENGINERING, AND SHOULD BE REPLACED FREE OF CHARGE BY THE DEALER, SINCE FORD HAS REPLACE ALL POLICE VEHICLE INTAKES.*AK

INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACKED. WAS TOLD NEW ONE WAS REDESIGNED. SPOKE WITH SEVERAL AUTO PARTS DEALERS AND FOUND THIS COMPONENT BREAKS IN SAME LOCATION ON ALL. THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AND FORD WILL NOT REPLACE FOR FREE OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY.*AK

1) VEHICLE STARTED LOSING RADIATOR FLUID THEN 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT CAME ON. 2) TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC WHO STATED THERE IS A CRACK IN THE FRONT PLASTIC PART ON THE ENGINE. MECHANIC STATED HE HAS REPLACED A COUPLE DOZEN OF THESE PARTS ON OTHER NEWER MUSTANGS AND IT WAS COVERED BY WARRANTY. MECHANIC STATED TO TAKE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, THIS WAS A DEFECTIVE PART AND IS BEING REPLACED WITH AN ALUMINUM PART INSTEAD OF PLASTIC BECAUSE OF THIS DEFECT. 3) TOOK VEHICLE TO COLUMBIA, SC DEALERSHIP. THEY STATED OTHER MECHANIC WAS CORRECT AND WOULD IT COST $780 TO REPLACE PART. 4) I FEEL FORD SHOULD PAY FOR THIS SINCE IT IS A DEFECTIVE PART. *AK

CAR IS A 1998 FORD MUSTANG GT WITH THE SOHC 4.6L ENGINE. AT AROUND 105K MILES, COOLANT LEVELS STARTED DROPPING RAPIDLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ENGINE WAS REVVED ABOVE 3000 RPMS. EVENTUALLY, LEVELS DROPPED MORE QUICKLY THAN COOLANT COULD BE REPLACED AND CAR OVERHEATED. FOUND A LARGE POOL OF COOLANT IN ENGINE VALLEY BETWEEN CYLINDERS. FOUND RECALL ON COMPOSITE INTAKES FOR 1996 AND 1997 MUSTANG GT'S WITH 4.6L SOHC ENGINE BUT NOT ON 1998 VEHICLES. INTAKE WAS REPLACED WITH NEW VERSION WITH CAST ALUMINUM CROSSOVER TUBE AT OWNER'S EXPENSE. *AK

I WAS DRIVING HOME WHEN I SMELLED COOLANT. WHEN I GOT HOME AND CHECKED FOR LEAKS I FOUND THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS CRACKED AND LEAKING COOLANT IT TO THE ENGINE VALLEY. MY MOMS '96 COUGAR AND FRIENDS '98 MUSTANG DID THE SAME THING. THEY HAD TO HAVE THE MANIFOLD REPLACED. *AK

A USED VEHICLE ('98 MUSTANG GT) WAS FINANCED FROM A USED CAR DEALERSHIP BY MY DAUGHTER APPROX. 3 WEEKS AGO. THE SALESMAN WHO CLOSED THE DEAL STATED THAT THE ONLY ITEMS TO BE COVERED UNDER ANY KIND OF WARRANTY WOULD BE THOSE REGARDED AS SAFETY ITEMS. ENGINE FAILURE OR COSMETIC FEATURES WOULD NOT BE COVERED. APPROX. 17 DAYS AFTER FINANCING THE VEHICLE, THE REAR SWAY BAR BROKE WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING IT. THE CAR WAS IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THE DEALERSHIP TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM WHERE IT SAT WITHOUT NOTIFICATION FOR ANOTHER 2 OR 3 DAYS. WE WERE INFORMED BY A REPRESENTATIVE (I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE OWNER OR THE MANAGER, DUE TO THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE 4 OR 5 PEOPLE I SPOKE TO, NO ONE WOULD CLAIM MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY) THAT THE PART DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A SAFETY ITEM WHICH MEANS MY DAUGHTER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF THE PART AND THE LABOR. THE SWAY BAR WAS REMOVED BY THE DEALERSHIP MECHANIC AND I CURRENTLY HAVE IT IN MY POSSESSION. THERE ARE DEFINITE SIGNS THAT THE PART WAS CRACKED AND READY TO BREAK LONG BEFORE THE PURCHASE WAS MADE. I ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH THE MANAGER AND/OR THE OWNER TO GET SOME RESOLUTION. I HAD OFFERED TO REPLACE THE PART MYSELF IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SIMPLY PURCHASE IT. THE MANAGER SAID THE ONLY THING HE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IS COVER HALF THE COST OF PARTS AND LABOR ($150). I FEEL THAT THIS PART SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE SAFETY CLAUSE THAT THE SALESMAN ORIGINALLY TOLD MY DAUGHTER WOULD BE IN EFFECT. THE COST OF THE PART AND LABOR DOESN'T BOTHER ME NEARLY AS MUCH AS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO STAND BEHIND THE VEHICLES THEY SELL. THEREFORE, I AM REQUESTING THAT A COMPLAINT BE FILED AGAINST BAJA MOTORS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY INSIST A FULL SAFETY INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED ON THIS VEHICLE, BUT THAT THEY REFUSE TO STAND BEHIND A SAFETY ITEM WHICH WAS CLEARLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO MY DAUGHTER TAKING DELIVERY. SINCERELY, [XXX]. *AK INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD. MANIFOLD DEVELOPED CRACK FOR NO REASON. I FOUND OUT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM FROM FORD AND FORD WILL NOT RECALL THE CARS. THE NEW REPLACMENT INTAKE MANIFOLD IS METAL IN THE AREA THAT DEVELOPS A CRACK AND FORD CHARGES ALOT OF MONEY FOR THE REPLACMENT THAT WAS A BAD DESIGN IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT REFUSES TO RECALL THIS PROBLEM OR REFUND THE COST OF A NEW INTAKE MANIFOLD. *AK

WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNDETERMINED SPEED THE VEHICLE STALLED, WHICH CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO PULL OFF THE ROAD. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A MECHANIC. PLEASE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. *JB