NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes complaints
22 reportsClear category filter60,000 miles · Feb 12, 2020
Electrical SystemService Brakes
THE ABS BRAKING SYSTEM ON THE FORD ESCAPE HYBRID FAILED UNEXPECTEDLY AND WITHOUT WARNING AT ONLY 60K MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION, AND ALL THE LIGHTS CAME ON AT ONCE AND THE SYSTEM READ "CHECK BRAKES." THE BRAKES FELT LOOSE, AND I TOOK IT A MECHANIC THE NEXT DAY. THEY THOUGHT THAT PRESSURE WAS GETTING SENT UNEVENLY TO …
Read full complaint
THE ABS BRAKING SYSTEM ON THE FORD ESCAPE HYBRID FAILED UNEXPECTEDLY AND WITHOUT WARNING AT ONLY 60K MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION, AND ALL THE LIGHTS CAME ON AT ONCE AND THE SYSTEM READ "CHECK BRAKES." THE BRAKES FELT LOOSE, AND I TOOK IT A MECHANIC THE NEXT DAY. THEY THOUGHT THAT PRESSURE WAS GETTING SENT UNEVENLY TO BOTH SIDES OF THE VEHICLE, SO THEY FLUSHED THE BRAKES. HOWEVER, THEY DISCOVERED TOTAL ABS FAILURE, AND A $3000 FIX ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE ALL OVER THE INTERNET. THERE ARE FACEBOOK GROUPS ADVOCATING FOR A RECALL OF THIS VEHICLE. WE WERE LUCKY THAT WE DIDN'T CRASH INTO SOMEONE. THE BRAKES ONLY WORK IF YOU APPLY EXTREME FORCE TO THEM, AND EVEN THEN THEY GET LOOSE AND THE CAR STARTS TO ROLL AWAY. THESE ISSUES ARE BECOMING EXTREMELY PREVALENT NOW IN 2020 THAT THE 2008-2011 ERA OF THIS HYBRID IS GETTING A BIT OLDER. THAT BEING SAID, THIS MODEL ONLY HAS 60K MILES ON IT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD BRAKE FAILURE. HTTP://WWW.CARPROBLEMZOO.COM/FORD/ESCAPEHYBRID/BRAKE-ABS-WARNING-LIGHT-PROBLEMS.PHP HTTPS://FORUMS.EDMUNDS.COM/DISCUSSION/5850/FORD/ESCAPE-HYBRID/FORD-ESCAPE-HYBRID-BRAKE-PROBLEMS/P4
NHTSA ODI #11308785
141,000 miles · Oct 17, 2019
Fuel/propulsion SystemService BrakesUnknown Or Other
WHEN TRUCK HAS A FULL OR EVEN HALF TANK , ALWAYS SMELL A LOUD GAS SMELL COMING FROM TRUCK. GAS SMELL SO LOUD CAN NOT HAVE TRUCK PARKED IN GARAGE DUE TO FUMES. ALSO WITH BRAKES, WHEN FORCED TO STOP IMMEDIATELY THE BRAKES MAKE A WEIRD SOUND AND WONT LOCK PROPERLY.
NHTSA ODI #11269178
95,000 miles · Sep 9, 2019
Service Brakes
FRONT-RIGHT BRAKE DISC LOCKED UP ON AUGUST 21ST, 2019. IT ALSO MADE SMOKE. AFTER ONE HOUR, IT CAN DRIVE AGAIN. NOW IT ALWAYS MAKES BIG NOISE WHEN I PARK.
NHTSA ODI #11254174
40,000 miles · May 28, 2019
Service Brakes
THE PROBLEM IS BRAKE LOSS IN REVERSE. IT HAPPENS INTERMITTENTLY SOMETIMES ONCE A MONTH OR MAYBE 6 MONTHS WITH NO PROBLEM BUT SCARY WHEN BACKING OUT AND CANNOT STOP IMMEDIATELY. THE PEDAL WILL BE ROCK HARD WHEN THIS HAPPENS AND AFTER A COUPLE OF SECONDS WILL DEPRESS AND BRAKES BACK TO NORMAL. IF IN A TIGHT SPOT OR PEDESTRIAN WAL…
Read full complaint
THE PROBLEM IS BRAKE LOSS IN REVERSE. IT HAPPENS INTERMITTENTLY SOMETIMES ONCE A MONTH OR MAYBE 6 MONTHS WITH NO PROBLEM BUT SCARY WHEN BACKING OUT AND CANNOT STOP IMMEDIATELY. THE PEDAL WILL BE ROCK HARD WHEN THIS HAPPENS AND AFTER A COUPLE OF SECONDS WILL DEPRESS AND BRAKES BACK TO NORMAL. IF IN A TIGHT SPOT OR PEDESTRIAN WALKS BEHIND THERE COULD BE BAD CONSEQUENCES AND GOOD LUCK PROVING IT IN COURT THAT THE BRAKES FAILED. SUMMER OR WINTER DOESNT MATTER. I HAVE BROUGHT IT TO DEALERSHIP AND COMPLAINED ON ANOTHER FORUM BUT DEALER CANNOT FIND PROBLEM AS IT IS SO INTERMITTENT. IT SEEMS LIKE A VALVE IN THE SYSTEM STICKS. I HAD IT HAPPEN TO ME SEVERAL TIMES BUT MY WIFE DIDNT BELIEVE ME. WELL IT HAPPENED TO HER LAST WEEK AND SHE WAS SCARED. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS WITHOUT RESOLUTION AND IF NOTHING ELSE WILL PUT THIS CONCERN ON THE RECORD OR HOPEFULLY FORD TAKES THIS MORE SERIOUSLY. I WILL BE CONTACTING DEALER AGAIN AS THIS MUST BE FIXED ONCE AND FOR ALL. ANY IDEAS WELCOME.
NHTSA ODI #11210240
51,051 miles · May 23, 2019
Service Brakes
WE BEGAN HAVING INTERMITTENT BRAKING INCIDENTS. SOMETIME THE CAR WOULD PULL SHARPLY, OR NOT AT ALL. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE CAR SEEMED TO NEED EXTRA PETAL PRESSURE TO STOP. WE TOOK IT TO SPENCER CREEK TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT. INITIAL DIAGNOSTICS WAS POSSIBLE STICKING OF CALIPERS. THE CAR WAS DRIVEN OUTSIDE THE SHOP TO AWAIT…
Read full complaint
WE BEGAN HAVING INTERMITTENT BRAKING INCIDENTS. SOMETIME THE CAR WOULD PULL SHARPLY, OR NOT AT ALL. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE CAR SEEMED TO NEED EXTRA PETAL PRESSURE TO STOP. WE TOOK IT TO SPENCER CREEK TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT. INITIAL DIAGNOSTICS WAS POSSIBLE STICKING OF CALIPERS. THE CAR WAS DRIVEN OUTSIDE THE SHOP TO AWAIT PARTS. WHEN THE IT WAS TIME TO BRING THE CAR BACK INSIDE TO PUT ON THE LIFT, THE RIGHT FRONT BRAKE HAD FROZE UP AND THE CAR WOULD NOT MOVE. SEE ATTACHED WORK ORDER. IF THIS MODULE HAD FAILED AT HIGHWAY SPEED, TI WOULD RESULTED IN LOSS OF CONTROL.
NHTSA ODI #11209554
41,349 miles · Feb 5, 2018
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Service BrakesSteering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE THE CONTACT'S SON WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND THE ABS AND STABILITY WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN HOME. THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO ANDY SHAW FORD (1231 E MAIN ST, SYLVA, NC 28779, (828) 586-0900) WHERE IT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE THE CONTACT'S SON WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND THE ABS AND STABILITY WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN HOME. THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO ANDY SHAW FORD (1231 E MAIN ST, SYLVA, NC 28779, (828) 586-0900) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE STEERING SENSOR AND COLUMN NEEDED REPLACEMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND A CASE WAS OPENED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 41,349. *TT *TR
NHTSA ODI #11067107
94,000 miles · May 14, 2017
Service BrakesCrash
WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SIMULTANEOUS DEPRESSION OF THE VEHICLE BRAKES AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS RESULTING IN THE CAR LURCHING FORWARD OR BACKWARDS UNCONTROLLABLY DEPENDING ON WHETHER TRAVELING FROM STATIONARY IN REVERSE OR GOING FORWARD. MOST RECENTLY, THIS DEFECT HAS RESULTED IN A TOTAL RIGHT -OFF OF OUR VEHICLE WHEN THE CAR REVERSED …
Read full complaint
WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SIMULTANEOUS DEPRESSION OF THE VEHICLE BRAKES AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS RESULTING IN THE CAR LURCHING FORWARD OR BACKWARDS UNCONTROLLABLY DEPENDING ON WHETHER TRAVELING FROM STATIONARY IN REVERSE OR GOING FORWARD. MOST RECENTLY, THIS DEFECT HAS RESULTED IN A TOTAL RIGHT -OFF OF OUR VEHICLE WHEN THE CAR REVERSED INTO A BRICK WALL AS WE WERE BACKING UP SLOWLY FROM A COMPLETE STANDSTILL. LUCKILY, NO INJURY WAS SUSTAINED TO PASSENGERS OR OTHER BY STANDERS BUT IT MOST CERTAINLY COULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF A PASSER BY.
NHTSA ODI #10985584
60,000 miles · Apr 1, 2017
Service Brakes
BRAKES FAIL WHEN CAR IS IN REVERSE. PEDAL BECOMES VERY HARD, DOES NOT DEPRESS, AND CAR DOES NOT STOP. HAS NEVER HAPPENED WHEN DRIVING FORWARD. CONSISTENTLY HAPPENS, DAILY, ON THE FIRST APPLICATION OF BRAKES IN REVERSE.
NHTSA ODI #10969857
113,354 miles · Jun 28, 2014
EngineService BrakesSteering
I WAS TRAVELING NORTHWEST ON I 26 WHEN I HEARD A POP AND LOST SPEED AND CONTROL. I EASED OVER TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND TRIED TO STOP. AT THIS TIME, THE CAR STARTED TO SHAKE VIOLENTLY. EVENTUALLY THE CAR STOPPED AND WOULD NOT START AGAIN. I HAD TO BE TOWED TO NEWBERRY AND LEFT THE CAR AT A GARAGE AND RENTED A CAR T…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING NORTHWEST ON I 26 WHEN I HEARD A POP AND LOST SPEED AND CONTROL. I EASED OVER TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND TRIED TO STOP. AT THIS TIME, THE CAR STARTED TO SHAKE VIOLENTLY. EVENTUALLY THE CAR STOPPED AND WOULD NOT START AGAIN. I HAD TO BE TOWED TO NEWBERRY AND LEFT THE CAR AT A GARAGE AND RENTED A CAR TO CONTINUE MY TRIP TO PICK MY GRANDDAUGHTER AND RETURN TO CHARLESTON. I HAD TO PAY 85.00 TO THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER, 385.00 FOR THE CAR RENTAL AND 486.36 TO THE GARAGE FOR THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACEMENT. NOW I FIND OUT THIS HAS HAD A RECALL. IF I HAD BEEN NOTIFIED, I WOULD NOT BE OUT NEARLY $1000.00, NOT TO MENTION THE SAFETY ASPECT OF THIS WHOLE INCIDENT. I COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10606726
50,948 miles · May 20, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
UPON STARTING THE VEHICLE IT OPERATES AS IT SHOULD, ONCE THE RPM SLOW TO AN IDLE THE VEHICLE WILL SURGE AND STALL AT IDLE. AT SLOW SPEEDS (10-20 MPH) THE VEHICLE WILL SURGE AND STALL WHEN THE THROTTLE IS APPLIED. THE VEHICLE SHUTS DOWN AND STEERING AND BRAKING ABILITIES ARE MINIMAL, THE VEHICLE WILL SURGE AT SPEEDS OF 45MPH HOWE…
Read full complaint
UPON STARTING THE VEHICLE IT OPERATES AS IT SHOULD, ONCE THE RPM SLOW TO AN IDLE THE VEHICLE WILL SURGE AND STALL AT IDLE. AT SLOW SPEEDS (10-20 MPH) THE VEHICLE WILL SURGE AND STALL WHEN THE THROTTLE IS APPLIED. THE VEHICLE SHUTS DOWN AND STEERING AND BRAKING ABILITIES ARE MINIMAL, THE VEHICLE WILL SURGE AT SPEEDS OF 45MPH HOWEVER IT DOES NOT STALL AT THIS SPEED. ON THE HIGHWAY AT A SPEED OF 70 MPH THE VEHICLE WILL SURGE SLIGHTLY, HOWEVER IT IS NOT AS NOTICEABLE OF AN EVENT AS AT SLOWER SPEEDS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10592863
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