NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
253 reportsClear category filter91,000 miles · Nov 22, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
SEVERAL WEEKS EARLIER, AS A WAS STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, MY CAR STARTED BUCKING OR SURGING, FEELING AS THOUGH IT WAS GOING TO STALL. IT DID NOT STALL AT THAT POINT. A FEW MINUTES LATER, AS A WAS SLOWED DOWN BY A BUS, IT DID STALL. RESTARTED VERY EASILY AND I KEPT DRIVING. EVERY FEW DAYS, WE WOULD NOTICE THE SURGING, AND T…
Read full complaint
SEVERAL WEEKS EARLIER, AS A WAS STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, MY CAR STARTED BUCKING OR SURGING, FEELING AS THOUGH IT WAS GOING TO STALL. IT DID NOT STALL AT THAT POINT. A FEW MINUTES LATER, AS A WAS SLOWED DOWN BY A BUS, IT DID STALL. RESTARTED VERY EASILY AND I KEPT DRIVING. EVERY FEW DAYS, WE WOULD NOTICE THE SURGING, AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON. TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THE WAS TOLD THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FUEL SYSTEM, BUT THEY WEREN'T SURE WHAT EXACTLY. STALLED A SECOND TIME POST DEALER VISIT. THIS MORNING, AS I WAS IN MOTION AT 35 MILES AN HOUR, THE CAR SUDDENLY SHUT OFF. I COASTED VERY EASILY TO THE SHOULDER, BUT COULD NOT RESTART. CAR HAS BEEN TOWED TO THE LOCAL DEALER. AWAITING THEIR ANSWER, BUT SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE THE OTHER THROTTLE BODY ISSUES I'VE READ ON HERE. I'M FORTUNATE TO HAVE BEEN ON THE HIGHWAY YET, ESPECIALLY WITH MY YOUNG CHILD IN THE BACK SEAT. THIS WAS A SCARY SITUATION, AND I'M NOT PLEASED THAT THE PREVIOUS RECALL DID NOT INCLUDE THE 2011 MODEL YEAR. PLEASE REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553343
40,229 miles · Nov 21, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ACCELERATOR CEASED WORKING WHILE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION. THIS WAS THE 3RD INSTANCE IN 2 MONTHS; HOWEVER, THE FIRST TIME THAT PUMPING THE ACCELERATOR FAILED TO CORRECT THE ISSUE. TURNING OFF THE ENGINE AND RESTARTING THE VEHICLE WAS REQUIRED TO CORRECT AT THIS POINT. REQUIRED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553255
65,000 miles · Nov 17, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE CUT OFF WHILE DRIVING 65MPH ON HIGHWAY WITH NO WARNING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10552613
48,001 miles · Nov 17, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING ON I-75 SOUTH, ATLANTA AREA, 55 MPH, WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE 2011 LOST ALL POWER AND I COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD DURING RUSH HOUR --- VERY SCARY, AND VERY DANGEROUS. TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD SERVICE AND WAS CHARGED $474.15 TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY (NOT COVERED UNDER TRANSMISSION, ENGINE, POWERTRAIN WARRANTY). READ …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON I-75 SOUTH, ATLANTA AREA, 55 MPH, WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE 2011 LOST ALL POWER AND I COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD DURING RUSH HOUR --- VERY SCARY, AND VERY DANGEROUS. TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD SERVICE AND WAS CHARGED $474.15 TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY (NOT COVERED UNDER TRANSMISSION, ENGINE, POWERTRAIN WARRANTY). READ ON-LINE THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER FORD OWNERS EXPERIENCING THIS SAME DANGEROUS PROBLEM. SURE HOPE YOU WILL WARN OTHER FORD OWNERS AND ORGANIZE A RECALL. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE I CAN CONTACT TO MOVE A RECALL FORWARD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10552607
57,343 miles · Nov 12, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I STARTED ACCELERATING AFTER BEING AT A COMPLETE STOP AT A LIGHT. HALFWAY THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, THE THROTTLE LOST POWER AND I COULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND I HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH MY HAZARDS ON UNTIL I COULD GET OUT OF TRAFFIC. AS I APPLIED THE BREAKS AND THE CAR SLOWED DOW…
Read full complaint
I STARTED ACCELERATING AFTER BEING AT A COMPLETE STOP AT A LIGHT. HALFWAY THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, THE THROTTLE LOST POWER AND I COULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND I HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH MY HAZARDS ON UNTIL I COULD GET OUT OF TRAFFIC. AS I APPLIED THE BREAKS AND THE CAR SLOWED DOWN, IT STARTED SHAKING UNTIL I COULD PUT THE CAR IN PARK. I THEN TURNED OFF THE ENGINE FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS. WHEN I RESTARTED THE ENGINE, IT TOOK LONGER THAN USUAL TO START BUT SEEMED TO BE RUNNING FINE AND WAS NOT SHAKING. AFTER WAITING FOR IT TO RUN WITHOUT PROBLEM, I SLOWLY ACCELERATED THE CAR TO CONTINUE MY COMMUTE. WITHIN 2 MINUTES OF DRIVING, THE ISSUE OCCURRED AGAIN AND BOTH THE WRENCH LIGHT AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I ONCE AGAIN PULLED OVER, STOPPED THE CAR, AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. AFTER I RESTARTED THE CAR, I DROVE TO A GAS STATION WHO WAS ABLE TO HOOK UP THE ENGINE TO A COMPUTER SCANNER. THE TECHNICIAN CAME BACK WITH WHAT HE SAID WAS AN " O2 SENSOR CODE." HE CHECKED MY FLUIDS AND RESET THE COMPUTER TO TURN OFF THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND SAID I SHOULD BE FINE TO DRIVE THE 30 MILES HOME BUT SHOULD GET IT CHECKED OUT ASAP. WITHIN 20 MILES OF DRIVING, THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AGAIN. SO I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER. SINCE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS RESET, THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE CODE THAT CAME UP, SO THE DEALER SPENT AN HOUR TRYING TO GET IT TO ACT UP BUT HAS HAD NO LUCK. THE SERVICE ADVISOR DID SAY THAT ALTHOUGH THEY CANNOT GET THE CAR TO REPEAT THE PROBLEM, THEY HIGHLY SUSPECT THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10551996
65,354 miles · Oct 31, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A FUEL SURGE CAUSING A REACTION THAT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE DRIVER. THE CAR JOLTEDAS IF ONE MASHED THE ACCELERATOR THEN RELEASED REPEATEDLY. ONCE THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP THE CAR SPIT AND SPUTTERED LIKE BAD ENGINE TIMING. WE TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF WHERE IT SAT OVERNIGHT. IT WAS HARD TO START THIS MORNI…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A FUEL SURGE CAUSING A REACTION THAT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE DRIVER. THE CAR JOLTEDAS IF ONE MASHED THE ACCELERATOR THEN RELEASED REPEATEDLY. ONCE THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP THE CAR SPIT AND SPUTTERED LIKE BAD ENGINE TIMING. WE TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF WHERE IT SAT OVERNIGHT. IT WAS HARD TO START THIS MORNING AND EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM TWICE THIS MORNING WHILE TAKING THE KIDS TO SCHOOL. I STOPPED BY AN ADVANCED AUTO PARTS STORE WHERE THE ATTENDANT PULLED THE SERVICE CODE P2112 THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK CLOSED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10550325
49,000 miles · Oct 28, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AT 40 VEHICLE STALLED OUT, HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH AND SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED. DROVE VEHICLE HOME AND STALLED OUT 3 MORE TIMES WITHIN COUPLE MILES. HAVE READ OTHER COMPLAINTS ON THIS AND CANNOT BELIEVE A RECALL HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10549766
37,100 miles · Oct 25, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, ALL THROTTLE RESPONSE STOPPED. I WAS LEFT AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT WITH A CAR THAT WOULD BARELY MOVE. TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER - THEY TRIED TO CHARGE ME TO REPLACE THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THE CAR WAS ONLY OUT OF WARRANTY BY 1000 MILES. ENDED UP COMPROMISING ON PAYING $100. FORD NEEDS TO FIX THIS. TH…
Read full complaint
WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, ALL THROTTLE RESPONSE STOPPED. I WAS LEFT AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT WITH A CAR THAT WOULD BARELY MOVE. TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER - THEY TRIED TO CHARGE ME TO REPLACE THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THE CAR WAS ONLY OUT OF WARRANTY BY 1000 MILES. ENDED UP COMPROMISING ON PAYING $100. FORD NEEDS TO FIX THIS. THEY KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10549498
99,066 miles · Oct 23, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE INTERSTATE AT APROX. 65MPH MY CAR LOST ALL SPEED AND QUIT RESPONDING TO THE GAS PEDAL. I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE. MY CAR WAS STILL RUNNING (ROUGH) SO I TURNED IT OFF. AFTER SEVERAL MIN I TRIED TO RESTART THE CAR (PER MY MECHANIC KNOWLEDGE) AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP. I DROVE TO THE N…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE INTERSTATE AT APROX. 65MPH MY CAR LOST ALL SPEED AND QUIT RESPONDING TO THE GAS PEDAL. I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE. MY CAR WAS STILL RUNNING (ROUGH) SO I TURNED IT OFF. AFTER SEVERAL MIN I TRIED TO RESTART THE CAR (PER MY MECHANIC KNOWLEDGE) AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP. I DROVE TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALER AND AFTER THEY INSPECTED MY CAR WAS TOLD I NEEDED A THROTTLE BODY. SO NEEDLESS TO SAY $461 LATER MY CAR IS FIXED BUT REALLY ANNOYED THAT 9000 MILES OUT OF WARRANTY THINGS ARE ALREADY FALLING APART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10549032
45,000 miles · Oct 22, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY VEHICLE WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY PULL OVER AND ONCE I CAME TO A STOP I NOTICED MY VEHICLE WAS IDLING ROUGH AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THE THROTTLE AND NOTICED THE LIGHT WITH A WRENCH WAS ALSO ON. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAS ABLE TO…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY VEHICLE WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY PULL OVER AND ONCE I CAME TO A STOP I NOTICED MY VEHICLE WAS IDLING ROUGH AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THE THROTTLE AND NOTICED THE LIGHT WITH A WRENCH WAS ALSO ON. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAS ABLE TO START IT BACK UP AND MAKE IT HOME AND AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH THIS SEEMS TO BE A VERY COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE FORD ESCAPE. WILL BE TAKING TO A DEALER TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10548998
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