2006 Ford E-250

When I go to the lake boating, I always remove my battery from the engine compartment and take it with me as a backup in case my boat battery should fail. on September 26, 2022, when leaving the lake, I reinstalled the battery bas I always do and closed the hood. It appeared closed when the hood surface aligned with the side panel. After leaving the boat ramp I turned onto FM 2272 and was accelerating to the posted speed limit of 55. At 40 mph, all of a sudden, the hood flew up into the windshield shattering it from one side of the vehicle to the other. My view of the road was completely obstructed as I was covered in pieces of broken glass. Fortunately, I was able to see the white lane marker through the bottom of the windshield as there was about a 3-inch gap between the bottom of the hood and the bottom of the windshield so I could safely pull my vehicle off the roadway. I know I closed the hood before leaving the boat ramp and even if I hadn't fully closed the hood the secondary hood latch should have prevented the accident from occurring. The secondary. latch is not dependent on the release mechanism and is 100% a mechanical device requiring a person to physically push on the release lever under the hood in order to open it. Had the hood opened while I was on an interstate highway or at night the accident could have been fatal.

WE PURCHASED A VEHICLE FROM GASCAR AUTO IN MIAMI, FLORIDA ON DECEMBER 31ST, 2019. WE DROVE IT BACK TO MINNESOTA. IT TOOK US 4 MONTHS AND OVER 30 PHONE CALLS TO GET THEM TO SEND US THE TITLE-WHICH THEY WROTE DATE OF SALE AS 4/19/2020. WE JUST RAN THE VEHICLES VIN, (THE DEALERSHIP HAD ALSO RAN A CARFAX, BUT NOT DISCLOSED TO US AN ACCIDENT OR THE DISCREPANCY IN MILEAGE) AND DISCOVERED THE ODOMETER HAD BEEN ROLLED BACK TO READ 100,000 LESS MILES THAN WE WERE TOLD WE WERE PURCHASING IT WITH. WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION WE WERE BUYING WHAT WE WERE TOLD WE WERE BUYING ON THE ODOMETER DISCLOSURE FORM, NOT A VEHICLE WITH 100K MORE MILES. HAD WE KNOWN THAT, AND HAD WE KNOWN THE COMPANY WOULD FALSIFY THE DATES ON THE TITLE AND REFUSE TO GIVE IT TO US, WE NEVER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. THEY LIED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS ABOUT SENDING THE TITLE, AND IT TOOK A NOTIFICATION OUR ATTORNEY WAS INVOLVED TO GET THEM TO MAIL IT AFTER 4 MONTHS. IN CONTACTING THE DEALER TODAY, HE TOLD US IT ISNT HIS PROBLEM BECAUSE HE HAD "EXEMPT" WRITTEN ON THE FRONT OF THE TITLE. HOWEVER, HE DID FILL OUT THE ODOMETER DISCLOSURE, HE DID FALSIFY THE DATE OF SALE, AND HE DID SELL US A TITLE THAT HAD APPARENTLY ORIGINALLY BEEN PURCHASED BY HIS DEALERSHIP MORE THAN 1 YEAR PRIOR, THOUGH HE NEVER TRANSFERRED THE TITLE TO THE DEALERSHIP FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER. I AM INCLUDING DOCUMENTATION OF ALL OF THIS.

I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT THESE TIRES ARE SUBJECT TO A RECALL (RECALL # 13T-012) AND MUST BE REPLACED DUE TO A SAFETY HAZARD. YET THESE TIRES ARE ON NATIONAL BACKORDER WITH MICHELIN, AND NOONE AROUND HERE (SANTA ROSA, CA) HAS ANY, NOR DO THEY HAVE ANY OF THE OTHER TWO SERIES THAT MICHELIN OFFERS AS A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT (LTXA/T2 OR XPS RIB). AND THERE ARE VERY FEW ALTERNATES THAT ANYONE CAN OFFER ME. AS I SEE IT, I AM DRIVING ON TIRES THAT MICHELIN SAYS ARE UNSAFE, YET THEY HAVE NO SIMPLE SOLUTION TO REPLACE THEM WITH ANOTHER ONE OF THEIR TIRES THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE ME SPENDING A LOT MORE TIME THAN I ALREADY HAVE TO BASICALLY DO THEIR JOB. WE BUY MICHELIN FOR THEIR NAME AND QUALITY, YET THEY ARE BAILING ON ME AS A CONSUMER TO MAKE AN ALTERNATE CHOICE ON MANUFACTURERS AND/OR TIRE DISTRIBUTORS THAT I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. THANK YOU MICHELIN. *TR

I OWN I FORD FREESTYLE, I AM CURRENTLY REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY FOR THE SECOND TIME. IT TOOK A MECHANIC MUCH TRIAL AND ERROR TO FIND THE PROBLEM, WHICH COST ME A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY. THE CAR STARTED ACTING THE SAME WAY YESTERDAY! THIS HAS BEEN THE 2ND TIME IN LESS THAN A YEAR! I WISH I COULD GIVE THIS CAR BACK TO FORD! IF THERE IS ANYTHING...ANY KIND OF RECOURSE PLEASE GIVE ME INFORMATION. THANK YOU.... *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 FORD ECONLINE E250. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER EXITING THE VEHICLE, THE SMELL OF GASOLINE FUEL EMITTED FROM UNDER THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT CONFIRMED THAT THE ODOR WAS CAUSED BY A LEAK IN THE FUEL LINE ASSEMBLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS CONFIRMED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VIN DID NOT QUALIFY FOR REPAIRS UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER:08V057000 ( FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM:FUEL RAIL). THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 56,400 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 56,500.

SPARK PLUG EJECTION ON CYLINDER #4, BROKEN TREAD ON CYLINDER. *LN

FRONT PADS AND ROTORS,FRONT UPPER AND LOWER BALL,JOINTS. REAR LOADED CALIPERS,TWO REAR ROTORS REPLACED ON 43,664 MI. 2006 FORD E-250. *TR

TL*CONTACT OWNS A 2006 FORD E250. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE ELECTRONIC MOBILITY CONTROL SYSTEM FAILED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STEER THE VEHICLE, LOST CONTROL AND CRASHED INTO THE WALL OF A BRIDGE. THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VAN WAS DAMAGED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CONTACT WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL DUE TO A FRACTURED KNEE AND RECEIVED A CAST ON HIS LEFT LEG. HE IS CURRENTLY IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COMPANY THAT INSTALLED THE HANDICAPPED EQUIPMENT. THE DEALER INFORMATION IS UNAVAILABLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 5,600, AND THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 5,600. UPDATED 09/18/07 *TR

THRU TESTING BY A INDUSTRIAL HYGENTIST WE HAVE PROOF THAT OUR HANDICAPPED VAN CUSTOMED IN MISS IN 2005 AND SOLD AS A BRAND NEW VEHICLE IN 2006 WAS IN FACT DEFECTIVE AND CONTAINS MORE FORMALDEHYDE ABOVE HUMAN CONSUMPTION. THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED THE DEALERSHIP IN PLANT CITY, FL BY FLATBED SO THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER ENTER IT AGAIN. THE DEALERSHIP KEPT IT FOR A COUPLE OF HRS AND FLAT BEDDED IT BACK TO MY PROPERTY BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY COMBUSTIBLE AND THEY DID NOT WANT THEIR DEALERSHIP TO EXPLODE BUT IT IS OK THAT MY HOUSE AND NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THE EXPLOSION INSTEAD. THEY ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND REFUSING TO SETTLE THRU THE LEMON LAW THEREFORE WE ARE GOING TO COURT. THIS VEHICLE AND ALL OTHER VEHICLES SHOULD BE RESEARCHED AND FIND THEM ALL AND DESTROYED. WHY IS THE NTSHA AND OSHA ALLOWING THIS PRODUCT TO BE USED IN HANDICAPPED OR ANY VEHICLE. THE FORMALDEHYDE AT HIGH TEMP IS A CARRIER OF CANCER. MY FAMILY HAS SEVERE REACTIONS TO THIS VEHICLE. I CAN NOT EVEN GO OUT OF MY HOUSE WITHOUT A REACTION TO THE AIR IN THE FRONT YARD. THE TEMP IS THE VEHICLE IS OVER 125 AT TIMES. THIS DEPT SHOULD HAVE ON THE FIRST COMPLAINT COME OUT AND CHECKED THIS VEHICLE OUT AND IT SHOULD NOT BE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA BUT IN FACT IN THE LOT OF THE DEALERSHIP IN A CORNER WHERE IF IT DID EXPLODE THERE WOULD NOT BE A LARGE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE. THE DEALERSHIP ALSO HAD TWO EMPLOYEES THAT WERE EXTREMELY EXPOSED LIKE WE WERE AND STILL IGNORE THE SITUATION. MY NEXT STEP IS THE NEW MEDIA AND TV STATIONS TO BRING THIS OUT IN THE OPEN. I FILE A REPORT AND BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE HAS FILED THIS COMPLAINT AND MAYBE NOT AWARE OF IT YET YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING TO HELP. IF YOU CHECK CARFAX IT IS AWFULLY STRANGE WHY E250 FORDS ARE BEING SOLD WITH LESS THAN 20,000 ON THEM AND ARE 2006 BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK FROM THEM AND DO NOT KNOW WHY. THIS IS A CUSTOM VAN WHICH IS COMPLETELY RUSTED ON BOTTOM AND WATER MARKS EVERYWHERE AND BUILT IN MISSISSIPPI AND NOT A COINCIDENT. *JB

FORD 2005 E250 HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH FORMALDEHYDE POISON IN IT AT ABOVE DANGER LEVELS TO HUMANS WHICH CAN CAUSE SERIOUS HEALTH ISSUES. THE VAN IS CUSTOM DONE BY A COMPANY IN MISSISSIPPI. THE A/C UNIT IN THE REAR DOESN'T WORK AND WAS IN FOR SERVICE 3 TIMES AND OVER THE 15 DAY REQUIREMENT FOR LEMON LAW IN THE STATE OF FL WHERE IT WAS SOLD. AFTER THE LEMON LAW IS COMPLETED I AM GOING TO REQUEST THAT A NATIONAL ALERT BE ISSUED TO MAKE SURE NO ONE ELSE BECOMES SICK DUE TO THIS TOXIC FUMES BUT WE CAN NOT DO IT AT THIS TIME. *JB

DT: THE CONTACT STATED BOTH SIDE EXTERIOR REAR VIEW MIRRORS DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DRIVER VISIBILITY. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, WHO SUGGESTED REPLACING THE MIRRORS WITH LARGER EXTERIOR MIRRORS FOR EXTENDED MODEL VAN. THE DEALER ATTEMPTED TO REPLACE THE MIRRORS WITH LARGER ONES, BUT THE LARGER MIRRORS WOULD NOT ATTACH PROPERLY TO THE DOORS. HE CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE MATTER. THE MANUFACTURER STATED HE WOULD NEED TO REPLACE THE STANDARD DOORS WITH A LARGER MODEL THEY OFFERED. *AK