NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
248 reportsClear category filter63,990 miles · Jun 10, 2016
Engine
I JUST FILED A COMPLAINT ABOUT MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WITH THE COMPLAINT NUMBER BEING 10873640. I ENTERED THE WRONG VIN NUMBER SO I AM PUTTING IT IN THIS MESSAGE. THE RIGHT VIN NUMBER IS AS FOLLOWS: [XXX] THE OTHER VIN NUMBER WAS FOR MY DAUGHTERS DODGE GRAND CARAVAN. SORRY FOR THE MIX-UP. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FRE…
Read full complaint
I JUST FILED A COMPLAINT ABOUT MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WITH THE COMPLAINT NUMBER BEING 10873640. I ENTERED THE WRONG VIN NUMBER SO I AM PUTTING IT IN THIS MESSAGE. THE RIGHT VIN NUMBER IS AS FOLLOWS: [XXX] THE OTHER VIN NUMBER WAS FOR MY DAUGHTERS DODGE GRAND CARAVAN. SORRY FOR THE MIX-UP. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10873644
63,990 miles · Jun 10, 2016
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND MY VEHICLE STARTED TO IDLE FUNNY, LIKE IT WAS GOING TO STOP RUNNING AND IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AT ALL, I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OR DO ANYTHING ALMOST LIKE IT WAS DISCONNECTED. THE ENGINE LIGHT ALSO CAME ON AT THIS TIME. MY F…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND MY VEHICLE STARTED TO IDLE FUNNY, LIKE IT WAS GOING TO STOP RUNNING AND IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AT ALL, I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OR DO ANYTHING ALMOST LIKE IT WAS DISCONNECTED. THE ENGINE LIGHT ALSO CAME ON AT THIS TIME. MY FIANCEE' CAME TO WHERE I WAS AT AND HE SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS OFF AND THE VEHICLE WAS BACK TO RUNNING AGAIN LIKE NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. I HAVE READ SEVERAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE THROTTLE BODY BEING BAD AND THAT FORD AND FORD GARAGES WHERE REFUSING TO FIX THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE VEHICLES DOING THIS AND I THINK THAT IS SO WRONG ON MANY LEVELS DUE TO FORD BEING A TOP MANUFACTURER OF VEHICLES THEY SHOULD STAND BY THE VEHICLES AND FIX ANY PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WITH THE VEHICLES. I DON'T HAVE ANY WARRANTY AND I AM ON LIMITED INCOME AND CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY A BIG TOW BILL OR PLAY FOR A MAJOR REPAIR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10873640
61,000 miles · May 10, 2016
Electrical SystemEngine
VEHICLE ENGINE SUDDENLY AND RANDOMLY CUTS OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF DRIVING, IN MOTION ON THE HIGHWAY, OR SOON AFTER STARTING TO DRIVE, IN MOTION LEAVING A PARKING LOT. THE ACCELERATOR BECOMES UNRESPONSIVE AND THE CAR SPUTTERS TO A STOP. WHEN YOU TRY TO RESTART THE CAR IT TURNS ON AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED.
NHTSA ODI #10864293
109,000 miles · Feb 3, 2016
EngineVehicle Speed Control
STALLING OUT IN TRAFFIC SPEEDING UP FOR NO REASON.ALL SYMPTOMS POINT TO THROTTLE BODY EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESCRIBED TO ME AT MY LOCAL DEALER! BUT TOLD ME THEY WILL NOT FIX IT UNTIL IT SETS A CODE !!!!!!!!!!! IN THE MEAN TIME I AM AFRAID I WILL GET HURT BECAUSE IT HAS STALLED IN TRAFFIC . I AM REALLY CONCERENED FOR MY SAFETY.
NHTSA ODI #10823896
45,000 miles · Dec 22, 2015
Engine
VEHICLE STALLS, LUNGES, AND SURGES WITH LOSS OF POWER WHILE DRIVING. THIS ISSUE IS WELL DOCUMENTED ON 2011 FORD ESCAPES WITH COUNTLESS SIMILAR EXPERIENCES POSTED ONLINE. PROBLEM HAPPENS UNPREDICTABILITY SO WHEN TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THEY WERE AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT WOULD NOT REPLACE THE CULPRIT PART, THE THROTTLE BODY, WITHOUT…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE STALLS, LUNGES, AND SURGES WITH LOSS OF POWER WHILE DRIVING. THIS ISSUE IS WELL DOCUMENTED ON 2011 FORD ESCAPES WITH COUNTLESS SIMILAR EXPERIENCES POSTED ONLINE. PROBLEM HAPPENS UNPREDICTABILITY SO WHEN TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THEY WERE AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT WOULD NOT REPLACE THE CULPRIT PART, THE THROTTLE BODY, WITHOUT A CHECK ENGINE LIGHT LIT OR THE VEHICLE REPRODUCING THE PROBLEM IN THE LIMITED TIME THEY HAD THE VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10811837
55,000 miles · Dec 15, 2015
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or OtherFire
VEHICLE WAS PARKED FOR 4 DAYS IN DRIVEWAY. VEHICLE ENGINE COMPARTMENT BECAME ENGULFED IN FLAMES UNEXPECTEDLY. CAUSE UNKNOWN. A 2014 RECALL RELATED TO THROTTLE BODY IS SUSPICIOUS. RECALL WAS ADDRESSED UNDER CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM 13N03.
NHTSA ODI #10810615
Mileage unknown · Nov 21, 2015
Engine
BEGINNING OF OCTOBER THE VEHICLE JERKED VIOLENTLY BUT IT STOPPED IMMEDIATELY & THEN DROVE FINE. APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MONTHS LATER, I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY ROAD & THE CAR STARTED JERKING HARD AND WOULDN'T MOVE. I HAD IT TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION & WOULD COST OVER $4,200 TO REPLACE. A VEH…
Read full complaint
BEGINNING OF OCTOBER THE VEHICLE JERKED VIOLENTLY BUT IT STOPPED IMMEDIATELY & THEN DROVE FINE. APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MONTHS LATER, I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY ROAD & THE CAR STARTED JERKING HARD AND WOULDN'T MOVE. I HAD IT TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION & WOULD COST OVER $4,200 TO REPLACE. A VEHICLE WITH 120,000 MILES DOESN'T TYPICALLY HAVE TRANSMISSION FAILURE. MY MECHANIC SUGGESTED I RESEARCH FORD ESCSPES, AS HE NOTED THEIR ENGINE & TRANSMISSION FAILURES ARE WELL KNOWN. AFTER DAYS OF RESEARCHING THE TOPIC, I SEE IT IS A FAR TOO COMMON COMPLAINT ON FORD SUVS AROUND 90,000-130,000 MILES. THIS IS A GRAVE DANGER & SOMETHING FORD MUST BE AWARE OF
NHTSA ODI #10795257
63,000 miles · Nov 10, 2015
EngineSteeringUnknown Or Other
WHEN DRIVING CAR GOING ABOUT 45MPH.CAR SHUT OFF AND WRENCH WILL APPEAR ON DASHBOARD . I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COAST OFF THE ROAD , SHUT OFF CAR WAIT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTART CAR . I AM IN FEAR THAT CAR WILL SHUT OFF IN AREA WHERE THERE IS NO SHOULDER AND I WILL BE HIT FROM BEHIND . THERE SEEMS TO BE A PATTERN BUILDING WITH THI…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING CAR GOING ABOUT 45MPH.CAR SHUT OFF AND WRENCH WILL APPEAR ON DASHBOARD . I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COAST OFF THE ROAD , SHUT OFF CAR WAIT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTART CAR . I AM IN FEAR THAT CAR WILL SHUT OFF IN AREA WHERE THERE IS NO SHOULDER AND I WILL BE HIT FROM BEHIND . THERE SEEMS TO BE A PATTERN BUILDING WITH THIS SAME PROBLEM , SAME MODEL, SAME YEAR .
NHTSA ODI #10789671
60,130 miles · Nov 4, 2015
Engine
I HAD MY OIL CHANGED ON 10-03-15. ON 10-17-15, MY ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND MY CAR STALLED AND JERKED WHEN I WAS STOPPED AT A LIGHT AND WHEN IT WAS IN PARK WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING. I CALLED FORD AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST $110 JUST TO SEE WHAT WAS WRONG AND THAT WOULD NOT GO TOWARD REPAIRS. I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC WHO DID A SYSTE…
Read full complaint
I HAD MY OIL CHANGED ON 10-03-15. ON 10-17-15, MY ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND MY CAR STALLED AND JERKED WHEN I WAS STOPPED AT A LIGHT AND WHEN IT WAS IN PARK WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING. I CALLED FORD AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST $110 JUST TO SEE WHAT WAS WRONG AND THAT WOULD NOT GO TOWARD REPAIRS. I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC WHO DID A SYSTEM CHECK AND SAID IT WAS THE CAMSHAFT TIMER. IT WAS REPLACED BUT THAT DID NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE. I TOOK IT TO ANOTHER REPAIR SHOP WHERE I WAS TOLD I HAD TO HAVE THE VVT SOLENOID TIMER AND THE IGNITION COIL REPLACED. HE SAID THE ENGINE OIL BURNED THESE ITEMS. I ONLY HAVE MY OIL CHANGED BY FORD. I HAD JUST REACHED 60,130 MILES ON MY VEHICLE, SO THERE WAS NO WARRANTY. I THINK THIS WAS AN EXPENSE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS AN OIL ISSUE.
NHTSA ODI #10788280
47,563 miles · Oct 27, 2015
Engine
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WHILE DRIVING AT 65 MPH ON THE FREEWAY IN MERGING TRAFFIC THE ENGINE STALLS LEAVING ME WITH NO POWER TO CONTROL MY SPEED. AS MY CAR QUICKLY REDUCES SPEED ON A MAJOR FREEWAY I ATTEMPT TO GET OVER TO THE SHOULDER OUT OF HARM'S WAY, HIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME TWICE. SO I CALL THE SERVICE AND THEY TELL ME IT'S A PROB…
Read full complaint
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WHILE DRIVING AT 65 MPH ON THE FREEWAY IN MERGING TRAFFIC THE ENGINE STALLS LEAVING ME WITH NO POWER TO CONTROL MY SPEED. AS MY CAR QUICKLY REDUCES SPEED ON A MAJOR FREEWAY I ATTEMPT TO GET OVER TO THE SHOULDER OUT OF HARM'S WAY, HIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME TWICE. SO I CALL THE SERVICE AND THEY TELL ME IT'S A PROBLEM WITH ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY BUT WHEN I TAKE THE CAR TO MY DEALER FOR SERVICE. THEY TOLD ME SORRY AFTER TWO KEY CYCLES THE CODE DISAPPEARS SO THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO. SO I HAVE TO DRIVE THIS UNSAFE CAR AND WAIT FOR IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN BEFORE I CAN BRING IT IN.
NHTSA ODI #10786274
Official recalls
2Oct 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.
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