NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel System, Gasoline complaints
33 reportsClear category filter120,000 miles · Feb 22, 2018
Fuel System, Gasoline
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ODOR OF FUEL WAS PRESENT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT FUEL HAD LEAKED FROM WHERE THE FILLER HOSE CONNECTED TO THE FUEL TANK. THE FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE DEALER (NEWINS FORD IN BAYSHORE, NEW YORK) WAS NOTIFIED O…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ODOR OF FUEL WAS PRESENT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT FUEL HAD LEAKED FROM WHERE THE FILLER HOSE CONNECTED TO THE FUEL TANK. THE FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE DEALER (NEWINS FORD IN BAYSHORE, NEW YORK) WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000. *TT *TR
NHTSA ODI #11074335
Mileage unknown · Feb 15, 2018
Fuel System, Gasoline
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. 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 CONTACT CALLED MULLINEX FORD OF KISSI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. 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 CONTACT CALLED MULLINEX FORD OF KISSIMMEE (1810 IRLO BRONSON MEMORIAL HWY, KISSIMMEE, FL 34744) AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE PART WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. *TT *TR
NHTSA ODI #11073029
12 miles · Jan 30, 2018
Fuel System, Gasoline
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. 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. GEWEKE FORD IN YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. 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. GEWEKE FORD IN YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA WAS MADE AWARE OF THE RECALL AND STATED THAT THE PARTS WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT SMELLED A FUEL ODOR IN THE CABIN OF THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT. *TT THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BY GEWEKE FORD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #11065949
Mileage unknown · Oct 5, 2017
Fuel System, Gasoline
2011 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO DEFECTIVE FUEL SYSTEM. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED THE PARTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE RECALL WERE UNAVAILABLE. UPDATED 10/05/2017*JS
NHTSA ODI #11029814
Mileage unknown · May 8, 2017
Fuel System, Gasoline
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE LOCAL DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN NOVEMBER OF 2017. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE LOCAL DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN NOVEMBER OF 2017. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10984313
26,011 miles · Sep 22, 2016
Fuel System, Gasoline
2011 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE POWER FAILURE WHILE DRIVING. CONSUMER STATES VEHICLE HAD A DEFECTIVE FUEL PUMP DRIVER MODULE AND SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIRS. *SMD
NHTSA ODI #10909014
38,527 miles · Apr 19, 2015
Fuel System, Gasoline
I NOTICED A LIGHT GAS SMELL IN MY GARAGE ONE DAY AND FIGURED PERHAPS BECAUSE MY CAR DOES NOT HAVE A GAS LID THAT IS WHY I WAS SMELLING IT. THE NEXT DAY, MY DAUGHTER USED MY CAR TO PICK UP A GAS GRILL FOR A CHRISTMAS GIFT WHICH SHE LEFT IN MY CAR OVERNIGHT. THE FOLLOWING MORNING THE GAS SMELL WAS REALLY STRONG SO I IMMEDIATELY …
Read full complaint
I NOTICED A LIGHT GAS SMELL IN MY GARAGE ONE DAY AND FIGURED PERHAPS BECAUSE MY CAR DOES NOT HAVE A GAS LID THAT IS WHY I WAS SMELLING IT. THE NEXT DAY, MY DAUGHTER USED MY CAR TO PICK UP A GAS GRILL FOR A CHRISTMAS GIFT WHICH SHE LEFT IN MY CAR OVERNIGHT. THE FOLLOWING MORNING THE GAS SMELL WAS REALLY STRONG SO I IMMEDIATELY TOOK IT INTO THE DEALER WHERE I HAD PURCHASED IT, HUNTINGTON FORD. WHEN THE SERVICE MAN CAME NEAR IT HE SAID TO STEP AWAY FROM THIS CAR AS IT WAS DANGEROUS TO BE NEAR IT AND THAT I HAD TO LEAVE IT. AFTER A DAY OR SO, THEY TOLD ME THAT SOME KIND OF "PEBBLE" MUST HAVE RUBBED A HOLE IN MY FUEL LINE AND THAT IS WOULD BE $634.62 FOR PARTS AND REPAIR. I'M A SENIOR CITIZEN ON A FIXED INCOME AND I AM VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS. HOW CAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN AND PUT PEOPLES LIVES IN DANGER? MY DAUGHTER COULD HAVE BEEN IN DANGER WHEN THEY PUT THE HEAVY OBJECT IN IT IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN SMOKING NEARBY. I HAVE SPOKEN TO HUNTINGTON FORD, FORD MOTOR AND WRITTEN 2 SEPARATE LETTERS TO FORD MOTOR AND NO ONE IS WILLING TO HELP ME GET A REFUND FOR PARTS OR LABOR ON THIS. IN MY MIND THEY SHOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH ME SINCE I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS PUT INTO HARMS WAY. I DON'T LIVE ON A DIRT ROAD, IN FACT I DON'T KNOW WHEN I EVEN DROVE ON ONE LAST. HOW COULD A "PEBBLE" DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND IF SO, HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE IN DANGER THAT MAY LIVE ON A DIRT ROAD AND NOT BE AS FORTUNATE AS I AM THAT NO ONE WAS INJURED. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT I THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE NHTSA AWARE OF. I HAVE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE TO YOU INCLUDING MY REPAIR RECEIPT FROM HUNTINGTON FORD AND THE LETTERS THAT I SENT TO FORD MOTOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP AND FOR LISTENING. I FEEL THAT I HAVE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AS A CONSUMER AND I AM REGRETTING MY DECISION FOR PURCHASING A VEHICLE FROM FORD MOTOR BECAUSE OF THIS MATTER. *TR UPDATED 02/25/16.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10706526
66,000 miles · Mar 19, 2015
EngineFuel System, Gasoline
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND CHECK FUEL INLET ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THE WATER PUMP FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 66,000. THE VIN W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND CHECK FUEL INLET ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THE WATER PUMP FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 66,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. UPDATED 4/29/15*CN
NHTSA ODI #10695414
51,580 miles · Mar 3, 2014
EngineFuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING ON A WINDING, MOUNTAINOUS ROAD THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE ACCELERATOR. THERE WAS NO SHOULDER, SO I KEPT GOING, VERY SLOWLY, AND THEN IT RESUMED NORMAL OPERATING RESPONSIVENESS, ONLY TO LOSE POWER AGAIN. THIS CONTINUED FOR THE 4 MILES IT TOOK FOR ME TO GET HOME. I HOPED IT WAS SOME BAD GA…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON A WINDING, MOUNTAINOUS ROAD THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE ACCELERATOR. THERE WAS NO SHOULDER, SO I KEPT GOING, VERY SLOWLY, AND THEN IT RESUMED NORMAL OPERATING RESPONSIVENESS, ONLY TO LOSE POWER AGAIN. THIS CONTINUED FOR THE 4 MILES IT TOOK FOR ME TO GET HOME. I HOPED IT WAS SOME BAD GAS AND WAS A ONE-TIME EVENT - UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN, AND I WAS AGAIN ABLE TO GET HOME. I AM NOW AFRAID TO DRIVE IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10566810
28,399 miles · Nov 26, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
AFTER SITTING AT A RED LIGHT, I TRIED TO ACCELERATE VEHICLE TO GET ON THE HIGHWAY THEN VEHICLE HESITATED AND WOULDN'T RESPOND TO ANY ATTEMPTS TO ACCELERATE AND THE ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. AFTER COMPLETELY TURNING THE CAR OFF AND TRYING TO RESTART IT, IT TOOK APPROX 7 SECONDS TO TURN OVER AND AFTER MAKING ANOTHER A…
Read full complaint
AFTER SITTING AT A RED LIGHT, I TRIED TO ACCELERATE VEHICLE TO GET ON THE HIGHWAY THEN VEHICLE HESITATED AND WOULDN'T RESPOND TO ANY ATTEMPTS TO ACCELERATE AND THE ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. AFTER COMPLETELY TURNING THE CAR OFF AND TRYING TO RESTART IT, IT TOOK APPROX 7 SECONDS TO TURN OVER AND AFTER MAKING ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO ACCELERATE THERE WASN'T ANY CHANGE. I DID THIS TWO MORE TIMES AND ON THE THIRD TRY, THE VEHICLE RESPONDED TO PROMPTS FROM THE ACCELERATOR. BOTH THE ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT WERE STILL LIT UP, BUT I DROVE THE CAR TO THE AUTOPORT AND WAS GIVEN THE TROUBLE CODE P2112 AND WAS TOLD THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553822
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