NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reports135,000 miles · May 25, 2017
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING ABILITY FAILED. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 TO 70 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SHOOK AND BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE POWER STEERING ASSIST INDICATOR ILLUMINATED WHILE THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TIFFANY FORD DEALER (HOLLISTER, CALIFO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING ABILITY FAILED. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 TO 70 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SHOOK AND BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE POWER STEERING ASSIST INDICATOR ILLUMINATED WHILE THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TIFFANY FORD DEALER (HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA 831-637-4461) IN 2014 TO BE REPAIRED PER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE RECALL REQUIRED AN INSPECTION AND THE PART TO BE REPLACED IF THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED THE FAILURE; HOWEVER, THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE DID NOT EXHIBIT THE FAILURE AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED BACK TO TIFFANY FORD FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING, WHICH CONFIRMED THAT THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILED AND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS EXHIBITING THE FAILURE LISTED IN THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER DENIED ASSISTING WITH THE REPAIR. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 135,000. UPDATED 07/18/17*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10991652
Mileage unknown · May 19, 2017
Fuel System, GasolineUnknown Or Other
2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO REPLACEMENT PARTS NOT AVAILABLE TO REPAIR RECALL NOTICE 16V-777. *SMD UPDATED 05/19/2017*JS UPDATED 08/14/2017*JS
NHTSA ODI #10965710
100,000 miles · May 16, 2017
Power TrainService BrakesSteering
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING AROUND A TURN THE ABS LIGHT AND TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT CAME ON AND THE STEERING BECAME HARD LIKE NO POWER STEERING. SHUT CAR OFF WHEN I ARRIVED AT DESTINATION STARTED VEHICLE AGAIN LIGHTS WERE OFF DROVE A LITTLE WAYS SAME THING HAPPEND AGAIN
NHTSA ODI #10986064
150,000 miles · May 9, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, THE CONTACT NOTED A STRONG FUEL ODOR AND SAW FUEL LEAKING UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FUEL TANK HAD CRACKED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER ALSO PROVIDED A LOANER VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS REP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, THE CONTACT NOTED A STRONG FUEL ODOR AND SAW FUEL LEAKING UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FUEL TANK HAD CRACKED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER ALSO PROVIDED A LOANER VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT ASSIST WITH THE COST OF THE REPAIR. THE FAILURE LATER RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS AGAIN TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FUEL MODULE HAD CRACKED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THEY DID NOT SEE ANY FUEL LEAKAGE IN THE PICTURES THAT THE DEALER SENT. THE MANUFACTURER FURTHER STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE VIN WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE), THE CONTACT SHOULD PAY OUT OF POCKET FOR ANY REPAIRS AND THEN REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT LATER. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10984551
10 miles · May 3, 2017
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, CAR RMPS BECOME ERRATIC AND NO RESPONSE FROM GAS PEDDLE. CAR GOES IDLE AND THEN STALLS. VEHICLE MUST BE RESTARTED. YELLOW 'WRENCH' LIGHT COMES ON HOWEVER ONCE THE CAR IS RESTARTED, IT IS NO LONGER ILLUMINATED. NO CODES AVAILABLE FROM COMPUTER SCAN.
NHTSA ODI #10983374
113,000 miles · May 1, 2017
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER. ALL THE WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON FIVE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DIAGNOSED OR REPLICATED. THE MANU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER. ALL THE WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON FIVE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DIAGNOSED OR REPLICATED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT THE TECHNICIAN WAS STILL WORKING ON THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 113,000.
NHTSA ODI #10981649
170,000 miles · Apr 26, 2017
Steering
WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN A POWER STEERING SENSOR LIT UP. MIKE AT FORD IS TELLING US THE RECALL WAS DONE ON THIS VEHICLE IN AUGUST OF 2014, BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THEREFORE, FORD IS NOT LIABLE, THOUGH IT IS THE SAME PROBLEM. WE HAVE HAD TWO OTHER MECHANICS LOOK AT IT. BOTH HAVE SAID, THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS WIT…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN A POWER STEERING SENSOR LIT UP. MIKE AT FORD IS TELLING US THE RECALL WAS DONE ON THIS VEHICLE IN AUGUST OF 2014, BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THEREFORE, FORD IS NOT LIABLE, THOUGH IT IS THE SAME PROBLEM. WE HAVE HAD TWO OTHER MECHANICS LOOK AT IT. BOTH HAVE SAID, THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS WITH THE SAME THING.
NHTSA ODI #10980869
61,100 miles · Apr 24, 2017
EngineFuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO ACCELERATE FROM A STOP, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE CONTACT R…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO ACCELERATE FROM A STOP, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 61,100. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. UPDATED 06/15/17*LJ *JS UPDATED 9/27/18*JB
NHTSA ODI #10980137
65,000 miles · Apr 20, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
EVERYONE WE FILL UP THE FUEL TANK THE CAR FILLLS UP WITH GAS FUMES MAKING ANYONE IN THE CAR NAUSEOUS. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT 2 YEARS AND I HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERAHIP AT LEAST 3 TIMES BEFORE THE RECALL AND I HAVE TAKEN IT ONCE MORE SINCE THE RECALL BUT ALL I AM TOLD IS THAT THEY DONT HAVE ANY FIX FOR IT YE…
Read full complaint
EVERYONE WE FILL UP THE FUEL TANK THE CAR FILLLS UP WITH GAS FUMES MAKING ANYONE IN THE CAR NAUSEOUS. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT 2 YEARS AND I HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERAHIP AT LEAST 3 TIMES BEFORE THE RECALL AND I HAVE TAKEN IT ONCE MORE SINCE THE RECALL BUT ALL I AM TOLD IS THAT THEY DONT HAVE ANY FIX FOR IT YET. THIS IS A DANGER TO ME AND MY KIDS AND THIS NEED TO BE FIXED IMMEDIATELY.
NHTSA ODI #10979697
Mileage unknown · Apr 20, 2017
Electrical SystemPower TrainStructure
MY CAR IS RUSTING UNDERNEATH THE WHEEL SUSPENSION. THE DEALER IS TRYING TO MAKE ME PAY NEARLY $800.00 TO CLEAR UP THE RUST. THE PAINT IS ALSO BEGINNING TO PEEL OFF THE WHOLE SIDE OF THE CAR.THE TOP MOLDING IS COMING OFF THE TOP OF THE CAR. MY TRUCK WAS DEFECTIVE AND WOULD NOT OPEN. I PAID $140.00 TO REPAIR. I PAID FOR A NOISE IN…
Read full complaint
MY CAR IS RUSTING UNDERNEATH THE WHEEL SUSPENSION. THE DEALER IS TRYING TO MAKE ME PAY NEARLY $800.00 TO CLEAR UP THE RUST. THE PAINT IS ALSO BEGINNING TO PEEL OFF THE WHOLE SIDE OF THE CAR.THE TOP MOLDING IS COMING OFF THE TOP OF THE CAR. MY TRUCK WAS DEFECTIVE AND WOULD NOT OPEN. I PAID $140.00 TO REPAIR. I PAID FOR A NOISE IN THE REAR OF THE CAR WHILE THE CAR WAS UNDER WARRANTY OF $454.00. I HAD TO PAY FOR POWER TRAIN DEDUCTIBLE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A RECALL ITEM. THE DASH MALFUNCTIONED AND THE LIGHTS WENT OUT AND I HAD TO PAY DEALER $100.00. ALL CHARGES WERE INCURRED AT TAYLOR FORD. THE AIR CONDITION WENT OUT LAST YEAR. THE TOP MOLDING IS COMING OFF. I BOUGHT THE CAR IN SUMMER 2013 WITH A FULL FACTORY WARRANTY. THE TRUNK GOT STUCK AND WOULD NOT OPEN IN JANUARY 2017.
NHTSA ODI #10979569
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.
Illustration