NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Visibility complaints
69 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Jan 2, 2013
Visibility
MY REAR HATCH WINDOW JUST EXPLODED. I PULLED INTO THE CAR PORT AT THE AIRPORT FOR OUR CHRISTMAS FLIGHT HOME, TOOK LUGGAGE OUT THE BACK AND CLOSED THE HATCH AND BOOM GLASS EVERYWHERE. LUCKILY NO ONE WAS HURT BUT WHAT WAS I SUPPOSED TO DO? MISS OUR FLIGHT HOME FOR CHRISTMAS OR CALL A NEIGHBOR AT 8 AM TO COME SWAP OUT VEHICLES SO…
Read full complaint
MY REAR HATCH WINDOW JUST EXPLODED. I PULLED INTO THE CAR PORT AT THE AIRPORT FOR OUR CHRISTMAS FLIGHT HOME, TOOK LUGGAGE OUT THE BACK AND CLOSED THE HATCH AND BOOM GLASS EVERYWHERE. LUCKILY NO ONE WAS HURT BUT WHAT WAS I SUPPOSED TO DO? MISS OUR FLIGHT HOME FOR CHRISTMAS OR CALL A NEIGHBOR AT 8 AM TO COME SWAP OUT VEHICLES SO IT WOULDN'T BE VANDALIZED WHILE I WAS GONE. IT WAS IN THE UPPER 30S WHEN THIS HAPPENED, HOWEVER MY VEHICLE STAYS PARKED OUTSIDE SO IT WARMED UP GRADUALLY LIKE IT ALWAYS DOES. WE I GOT TO MY DESTINATION I CALLED MY FORD DEALER SINCE I BOUGHT THE EXTENDED WARRANTY AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY EVEN THOUGH I STATED THE NUMEROUS ARTICLES THAT I HAVE READ ABOUT THIS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490707
34,000 miles · Dec 25, 2012
StructureVisibilityInjury
WHEN CLOSING THE REAR HATCH OF THE 2010 FORD ESCAPE, THE GLASS SHATTERED. TEMPERATURE BELOW FREEZING AT THE TIME AND MATCHES TSB: TSB-11-2-9. NO REASON FOR THE GLASS TO BREAK AT ALL. GLASS SHATTERED AND CUT MY FINGER. SMALL CHUNK OF GLASS HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM FINGER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490055
17,936 miles · Dec 12, 2012
StructureVisibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED UPON CLOSING THE REAR LIFT GATE, THE GLASS SHATTERED OUTWARDLY. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM AND DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 17,936. ..UPDATE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED UPON CLOSING THE REAR LIFT GATE, THE GLASS SHATTERED OUTWARDLY. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM AND DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 17,936. ..UPDATED 01/30/13 *BF UPDATED 2/5/2013 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10488070
21,000 miles · Nov 27, 2012
VisibilityVisibility/wiper
WIFE WAS DRIVING VEHICLE, WHEN SHE HEARD A POP. WHEN SHE GOT HOME SHE NOTICED THE SUNROOF GLASS HAD EXPLODED. SHE TOLD ME AND I WENT OUT TO SEE IF I COULD FIND A ROCK OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN OBJECT. COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING. THE SUNROOF GLASS JUST FAILED IN AN OUTWARD DIRECTION. FORD HAS DENIED WARRANTY CLAIM AND DENIED OUR APPEAL. …
Read full complaint
WIFE WAS DRIVING VEHICLE, WHEN SHE HEARD A POP. WHEN SHE GOT HOME SHE NOTICED THE SUNROOF GLASS HAD EXPLODED. SHE TOLD ME AND I WENT OUT TO SEE IF I COULD FIND A ROCK OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN OBJECT. COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING. THE SUNROOF GLASS JUST FAILED IN AN OUTWARD DIRECTION. FORD HAS DENIED WARRANTY CLAIM AND DENIED OUR APPEAL. I HAVE READ SEVERAL OTHER REPORTS OF THIS SAME THING HAPPENING WITH THEIR FORD ESCAPES. DRIVING ALONG AND HEAR A POP SOUND. THEN LATER REALIZE THEIR SUNROOF HAS FAILED. THIS CRITICAL SITUATION NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO ATTENTION OF FORD MOTOR CO. AND HAVE THEM STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT, IF SAID PRODUCT IS STILL UNDER THE MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10486175
31,000 miles · Nov 17, 2012
Visibility
MY FAMILY WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE ON A TRIP, MY WIFE CLOSED THE REAR TRUNK OF OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE, AND THE WINDOW ON THE REAR TRUNK SHATTERED COMPLETELY. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO OBSTRUCTION; THE WINDOW EXPLODED ON IMPACT. BROKEN GLASS FELL IN ALL DIRECTIONS: IN THE CAR, IN THE PARKING LOT, ON MY WIFE, AND AROUND THE NEIGHBORING CARS…
Read full complaint
MY FAMILY WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE ON A TRIP, MY WIFE CLOSED THE REAR TRUNK OF OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE, AND THE WINDOW ON THE REAR TRUNK SHATTERED COMPLETELY. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO OBSTRUCTION; THE WINDOW EXPLODED ON IMPACT. BROKEN GLASS FELL IN ALL DIRECTIONS: IN THE CAR, IN THE PARKING LOT, ON MY WIFE, AND AROUND THE NEIGHBORING CARS. WE CLEANED UP THE GLASS ON THE GROUND AND DROVE THE CAR TO OUR DEALERSHIP. WE HAVE A FULL BUMPER-TO-BUMPER WARRANTY, BUT WERE TOLD THIS TYPE OF DAMAGE IS "UNWARRANTABLE." AS IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, ANY INSTANCE IN WHICH A WINDOW SHATTERS COMPLETELY AND GLASS SHARDS FALL INSIDE THE CAR, FORD CONCLUDES THERE MUST HAVE BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION AND DOES NOT COVER THE COST OF REPLACEMENT. FORD'S CORPORATE OFFICE SAID THEY COULD NOT OVERTURN THE SERVICEMAN'S CONCLUSION UNLESS THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE PART IN QUESTION. I BELIEVE THIS IS AN ABUSE. THE WINDOW IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE: I HAVE BEEN DRIVING FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS AND NEVER WITNESSED A WINDOW EXPLODE AS THIS ONE DID, AND THEN I FIND THAT AT LEAST 18 SIMILAR COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE NHTSA FOR THE SAME ISSUE. TO INSIST THAT A PART MUST BE UNDER RECALL BEFORE THEY HONOR A WARRANTY IS AN UNREALISTIC HURDLE THAT FORD PUTS IN PLACE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10485002
53,000 miles · Sep 29, 2012
StructureVisibility
I SHUT MY TAILGATE AND THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. NO ONE WAS INJURED, BUT IT DEFINITELY MADE A HUGE MESS AND IT WAS A SHOCK TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN. THIS IS THE SECOND ISSUE MY VEHICLE HAS HAD THIS YEAR. A FEW MONTHS AGO THE THROTTLE CONTROL WENT ON THE VEHICLE. BOTH NOT COVERED BY FORD, DUE TO THE WARRANTY OV…
Read full complaint
I SHUT MY TAILGATE AND THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. NO ONE WAS INJURED, BUT IT DEFINITELY MADE A HUGE MESS AND IT WAS A SHOCK TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN. THIS IS THE SECOND ISSUE MY VEHICLE HAS HAD THIS YEAR. A FEW MONTHS AGO THE THROTTLE CONTROL WENT ON THE VEHICLE. BOTH NOT COVERED BY FORD, DUE TO THE WARRANTY OVER. I HAVE MANY CONCERNS THAT A TWO YEAR OLD VEHICLE COULD HAVE THESE TYPE OF THINGS GOING WRONG WITH IT. MY OTHER CONCERN IS FORD WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THESE ISSUES WITH RECALLS AND MANY OF MY FELLOW FORD OWNERS ARE HAVING THE SAME ISSUES. PLEASE CHECK INTO THIS FOR US. CAN SAY I DEFINITELY WON'T BE BUYING FORD AGAIN AFTER THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10477976
41,900 miles · Aug 27, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingVisibility
A/C NOT COOLING, AFTER CHECKED BY DEALER I WAS TOLD THE COMPLETE SYSTEM WAS DAMAGED BY COMING APART FROM THE INSIDE OUT. COMPLETE A/C AND LINES REPLACED. OK FOR ABOUT 8 WEEKS, NOW SAME PROBLEM NO A/C AND DEALER WILL NOT STAND BEHIND THEIR WORK, NOR WILL FORD MOTOR. THEY WANT ME TO PAY AGAIN TO HAVE UNIT CHECKED AND THEY ARE NOT…
Read full complaint
A/C NOT COOLING, AFTER CHECKED BY DEALER I WAS TOLD THE COMPLETE SYSTEM WAS DAMAGED BY COMING APART FROM THE INSIDE OUT. COMPLETE A/C AND LINES REPLACED. OK FOR ABOUT 8 WEEKS, NOW SAME PROBLEM NO A/C AND DEALER WILL NOT STAND BEHIND THEIR WORK, NOR WILL FORD MOTOR. THEY WANT ME TO PAY AGAIN TO HAVE UNIT CHECKED AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN WILLING TO GIVE ME A LOANER FOR THE 3 DAYS THEY CLAIM IT IS GOING TO TAKE THEM TO FIND THE PROBLEM. FORD STATES I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CHECK AND THEY ARE UNSURE IF THEY WILL HELP ME PAY TO THE REPAIRS AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10472685
10,000 miles · Mar 29, 2012
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WINDSHIELD GLASS WOULD BREAK WITH THE SLIGHTEST IMPACT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A GLASS MECHANIC WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE WINDSHIELD GLASS WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 10,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 21,643. *JS UPDATED 5/11/12 *CN C…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WINDSHIELD GLASS WOULD BREAK WITH THE SLIGHTEST IMPACT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A GLASS MECHANIC WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE WINDSHIELD GLASS WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 10,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 21,643. *JS UPDATED 5/11/12 *CN CONSUMER STATED THIS VEHICLE WINDSHIELD CRACKED EASIER THAN OTHER VEHICLES OWNED. GLASS MECHANIC STATED WINDSHIELD SHOULD BE ANGLED NOT STRAIGHT. DEALER APOLOGIZED AND THAT ALL COST WERE HER RESPONSIBILITY. UPDATED 6/7/12 *SD
NHTSA ODI #10453472
Mileage unknown · Mar 12, 2012
StructureVisibility
2010 FORD ESCAPE BACK HATCH AND WINDOW FAIL TO OPEN. THIS IS A KEYLESS WINDOW AND HATCH. FORD DEALERSHIP WANTS TO CHARGE 380.00 TO REPAIR. FORD DOES NOT HAVE A MANUAL OR SECONDARY SYSTEM TO OPEN THE BACK HATCH AND/OR WINDOW. THIS FAIL HAS RENDERED THE BACK PORTION OF THE ESCAPE USELESS. IN AN EMERGENCY, A SECONDARY MANUAL …
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE BACK HATCH AND WINDOW FAIL TO OPEN. THIS IS A KEYLESS WINDOW AND HATCH. FORD DEALERSHIP WANTS TO CHARGE 380.00 TO REPAIR. FORD DOES NOT HAVE A MANUAL OR SECONDARY SYSTEM TO OPEN THE BACK HATCH AND/OR WINDOW. THIS FAIL HAS RENDERED THE BACK PORTION OF THE ESCAPE USELESS. IN AN EMERGENCY, A SECONDARY MANUAL OPENING DEVICE FROM THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NEEDS TO BE RETRO-FITTED, AFTER MARKET BY FORD. THE DEALERSHIP WHERE WE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE, HAS NO INTEREST IN RESOLVING THIS OBVIOUS ENGINEERING BLUNDER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10451318
Mileage unknown · Feb 13, 2012
StructureVisibility
I WAS SHUTTING THE TAILGATE WHEN THE BACK GLASS JUST SHATTERED. IT WAS 15 DEGREES OUTSIDE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10447800
Official recalls
3Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
May 24, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
4DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System
On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages
PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that
DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.
PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage
Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.