Open safety recalls, the components owners report failing most often, crash-test results and running costs for the 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis, assembled from NHTSA and EPA records.
Everything on this page applies to the model as a whole. Run its VIN to decode that exact car, its engine, trim, assembly plant and factory equipment, alongside these records.
Open a VIN recordRecalls and complaints are filed against a specific model year, so figures differ from one year to the next even within a single generation. See every Mercury Grand Marquis year.
19.3 mpg average · 13–29 range · EPA says 18
Over 5 years this costs $6,250 more in fuel than an average new vehicle.
NHTSA lists 6 recalls for this make, model and year. Recalls apply to the model, so some may already be fixed on this specific car. A dealer can confirm from the VIN.
Issue: Dorman Products, Inc. (Dorman) is recalling certain model Dorman Steering Shafts, part number 425-359, Solutions Steering Shafts, part number 7-0359, and OE Solutions Steering Shafts, part number 425-359, manufactured April 17, 2014, to September 28, 2015. These aftermarket replacement steering shafts are sold for use in 1995-2002 Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Car vehicles. These steering shafts may separate during operation if the integral fastener is loose or missing and if the interfacing vehicle shaft is compressed in length.
Risk: If the shafts separate during vehicle operation, a loss of steering control would result, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Dorman will notify owners, and dealers will replace the steering shaft, free of charge. The recall began on October 28, 2015. Owners may contact Dorman customer service at 1-800-523-2492, option 5.
Campaign 15E082000
Issue: FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Risk: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Campaign 08V051000
Issue: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Risk: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Campaign 00V157002
Issue: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET DRIVER'S SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Risk: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Campaign 00V157001
Issue: ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Risk: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
Campaign 07V336000
Issue: WHEN IN THE SECONDARY LATCHED POSITION, THE DRIVER DOOR LATCHES MAY OPEN WHEN SUBJECTED TO TRANSVERSE LOADS LESS THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN FMVSS NO. 206, "DOOR LOCKS AND DOOR RETENTION COMPONENTS."
Risk: THE DRIVER'S DOOR, WHEN CLOSED ONLY TO THE SECONDARY LATCHED POSITION, MAY NOT SUSTAIN A 1,000 POUND TRANSVERSE LOAD.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THE DRIVER DOOR LATCH.
Campaign 96V070000
7 open NHTSA investigations into this model. Investigations come before recalls, so these are potential defects not yet covered by one.
Rated configuration: 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis 4-DR.
The parts named most often across 284 owner complaints filed with NHTSA for this make, model and year.
8 fires · 8 injured
1 crash
2 crashes · 4 fires · 1 injured
3 injured
Complaints are self-reported and skew toward problems people find alarming, so read this as where to look rather than as a defect rate.
2 complaint-reported fatalities on this model.
The contact owns a 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis. The contact stated while driving approximately 60 MPH the instrument panel began started flashing off and on before going black. The contact stated that he was headed to an off ramp the head lights stopped functioning. The contact stated no warning light was illuminated. The contact had stopped driving the vehicle for several days and then tested the head lights and stated that the functionality had returned. The contact had not taken the vehicle to a dealer or independent mechanic. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer had not been informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 225,000.
The contact owns a 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis. The contact stated while driving approximately 70 MPH at night, the headlights became inoperable. While driving for approximately 30 more miles and exiting the off ramp, the headlights started to flicker. The headlights momentarily worked but then became inoperable again. The instrument panel warning lights illuminated and were flashing. The contact also detected an abnormal clicking noise from the steering column. The contact stated that the windshield wipers became stuck in the on position. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not contacted. The approximate failure mileage was 210,000.
WHEN DRIVING AND TURN TO LEFT VEHICLES STEERING WANTS TO LOCK UP
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE HEADLIGHTS BECAME VERY DIM AND HINDERED THE CONTACT'S VISIBILITY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT THE TRANSMISSION FLUID LEAKED ONTO THE GASKET PAN. THERE WAS NO FLUID VISIBLE ON THE GROUND. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE CONVERTER, TRANSMISSION PUMP, AND PAN NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. ADDITIONALLY, THE TRANSMISSION REAR MAIN SEAL AND DRIVE SHAFT REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER DISCONNECTED THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH AS AN INTERIM REPAIR UNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS BECAME AVAILABLE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER TO COMPLETE THE RECALL REPAIRS; HOWEVER, THE DEALER REFUSED TO HONOR THE RECALL REPAIR. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO ACTIVE THE SPEED CONTROL ACTIVATION SWITCH. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 08V051000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,000. ....UPDATED 07/22/15 *BF UPDATED 10/11/2017*CN
ON 9/17/2003 @ 11:23 PM, MY 1996 GRAND MARQUIS CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD AND WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED WHILE SITTING IDLE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THE HENRICO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED. I HAVE THE FIRE REPORT, WHICH INDICATES THAT NO CAUSE FOR THE FIRE WAS DETERMINED. IN JUNE 2014, I RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY STATING THAT MY 1996 GRAND MARQUIS HAS A POTENTIAL UNDER HOOD FIRE RISK. THE ISSUE AS STATED WAS THAT "FORD CANNOT BE CONFIDENT THAT AFTER MANY YEARS IN SERVICE, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH IN YOUR VEHICLE WILL NOT LEAK, POSING THE RISK OF AN UNDER HOOD FIRE. UNTIL THIS REPAIR IS PERFORMED, A FIRE COULD OCCUR AT ANY TIME. A FIRE CAN OCCUR EVEN IF THE KEY IS NOT IN THE IGNITION, AND CAN OCCUR EVEN IF THE SPEED CONTROL SYSTEM IS NEVER USED." AFTER RECEIVING THE LETTER, I FILED A REPORT WITH FORD TO POSSIBLY GET SOME FORM OF COMPENSATION FOR MY CAR SINCE I MY CAR WAS INSURED FOR LIABILITY ONLY. FORD RESPONDED BACK THAT MY CLAIM WAS CLOSED DUE TO THE FACT THAT I KNOW LONGER OWNED THE CAR, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO INSPECT IT. I FIND THIS TO BE ABSURD SINCE THE CAR WAS TOTALED, AND NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. *TR
PLASTIC HEADLIGHT LENSES HAVE BECOME YELLOWED AND CLOUDY. THIS HAS SEVERELY REDUCED NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY ON UNLIT STREETS, WHICH IS A SAFETY ISSUE. DID SOME INTERNET RESEARCH AND DISCOVERED THAT THIS IS A WIDESPREAD ISSUE WITH NUMEROUS EXPENSIVE AFTERMARKET PRODUCTS THAT WILL SUPPOSEDLY RESTORE LENS CLARITY. I BOUGHT AND USED ONE OF THESE PRODUCTS, BUT WAS UNABLE TO RESTORE FULL LENS CLARITY. I'M GUESSING THAT THE CLOUDINESS WILL RETURN AND I'LL HAVE TO REPEAT THE "RESTORATION" PROCESS. I WENT TO A NEARBY SHOPPING MALL AND NOTICED NUMEROUS VEHICLES WITH CLOUDY HEADLIGHTS, ALL WITH PLASTIC LENSES. THIS SAFETY ISSUE WAS A NON-ISSUE WHEN ALL HEADLIGHTS WERE REQUIRED TO USE GLASS LENSES. PLEASE RESTORE THE REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR SAFE NIGHTTIME DRIVING OVER THE LIFE OF A VEHICLE, ALL HEADLIGHTS USE GLASS LENSES. OR, REQUIRE AUTO MAKERS TO REPLACE OR RESTORE CLOUDY PLASTIC LENSES AT NO CHARGE FOR THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE. THANKS. *TR
THE CAR ALL OF A SUDDEN FELT DIFFERENT WHILE DRIVING ONE DAY, KIND OF SLUGGISH AND THEN THE ENGINE LIGHT WENT ON. THE TEMP ROSE AND SMOKE STARTED COMING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD. WHEN I PULLED OVER TO LET COOL DOWN I COULDN'T START IT UP AGAIN. HAD IT TOWED TO A MECHANIC WHO SAID THAT THE ENGINE WAS SHOT. NOT WORTH REPAIRING. HAD IT TOWED BACK HOME AND ITS BEEN PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY EVER SINCE. *TR
A CRACK IN MY EXHAUST MANIFOLD BEHIND THE ALTERNATOR CAUSING COOLANT TO SPRAY ALL OVER UNDER MY HOOD AND NOW MY ENGINE OVERHEATS..THANKS FOR USING PLASTIC PARTS FORD . *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS EQUIPPED WITH A DURALAST BALL JOINT, PART NUMBER FA2101. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STUD ON THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE LOWER BALL JOINT BROKE AFTER BEING USED FOR 253 MILES. THE PARTS DEALER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE MANUFACTURER WOULD LIKE TO EXAMINE THE BALL JOINT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED IT WAS INSTALLED INCORRECTLY. THE CONTACT EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE STUD BREAKING, NOT THE ACTUAL BALL JOINT. THE CURRENT MILEAGE ON THE VEHICLE WAS 102,511. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
THE STEERING WHEEL HAS BECOME VERY LOOSE, AND IT SQUEAKS ALOT. I AM UNABLE TO ADJUST THE STEERING WHEEL HEIGHT ANY MORE. I BELIEVE THIS COULD BE A POTENTIAL HAZARD, AND RESULT IN LOSS OF CONTROL OF STEERING FOR THIS VEHICLE. *TR
Showing 12 of 284 complaints.