NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter50 miles · Aug 20, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 50MPH AND I COMPLETELY LOST POWER TO MY 2011 ESCAPE. THE ACCELERATOR DID NOT FUNCTION AND WOULD NOT REV THE ENGINE. I TRIED PUTTING IT IN NEUTRAL AND RESTARTING WITH NO SUCCESS. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT I HAD NO POWER. I PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. A COUPLE OF MINUTE…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 50MPH AND I COMPLETELY LOST POWER TO MY 2011 ESCAPE. THE ACCELERATOR DID NOT FUNCTION AND WOULD NOT REV THE ENGINE. I TRIED PUTTING IT IN NEUTRAL AND RESTARTING WITH NO SUCCESS. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT I HAD NO POWER. I PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. A COUPLE OF MINUTES LATER I TRIED TO RESTART IT SO I COULD WAIT IN A BETTER LOCATION AND THE CAR STARTED. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE TO MY DESTINATION BUT IN GOING HOME THE CAR STALLED AGAIN. AGAIN I HAD TO TURN OFF THE ENGINE IN ORDER TO RESTART. I TOOK IT INTO THE DEALERSHIP THE NEXT MORNING AND THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE AT A COST OF $505.00. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536342
49,000 miles · Aug 15, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MERGE ONTO THE HIGHWAY I LOST ENGINE POWER IN MY CAR. I WAS UNABLE TO ACCELERATE OR MOVE AND WHEN I PUT THE CAR INTO PARK IT BEGAN TO SHAKE. I HAD TO TURN IT OFF AND TRY TO GET IT TO START SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE IT WOULD START AGAIN... *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535576
34,375 miles · Aug 15, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON A MAYOR HIGHWAY A 65/70 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER, WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCELERATE, COASTED TO THE SIDE, AN ORANGE WRENCH SIGN AND CHECK ENGINE SIGN APPEAR ON THE DASH,AFTER TURNING VEHICLE ON AND OFF SEVERAL TIMES IT WENT BACK TO NORMAL, THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, THE FIRST TIME…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON A MAYOR HIGHWAY A 65/70 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER, WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCELERATE, COASTED TO THE SIDE, AN ORANGE WRENCH SIGN AND CHECK ENGINE SIGN APPEAR ON THE DASH,AFTER TURNING VEHICLE ON AND OFF SEVERAL TIMES IT WENT BACK TO NORMAL, THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, THE FIRST TIME DEALER CLAIMED THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE AND CHARGED ME $ 74.95 FOR A" THROTTLE BODY SERVICE" ( THANK YOU HEMBORG FORD - NORCO, CALIFORNIA ) TOOK VEHICLE BACK TO DEALER A YEAR LATER 7-23 2013 AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE ETB (ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY ) NEEDED TO BE REPLACED ( SAME PART THAT I PAID $74.95 TO HAVE IT "CLEANED" BEFORE) NOW THIS VEHICLE MISFIRE AND JERKS ON TAKE OFF FROM A DEAD STOP. I CALL FORD, BUT WAS TOLD THAT THERE IS NOT AN SERVICE CALL OR RECALL FOR THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535569
23,610 miles · Aug 13, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING HOME ON 4 LANE HIGHWAY AT POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 45 MPH. SUDDENLY ENGINE SEEMED TO LOOSE POWER AND BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN. PUSHING DOWN ON ACCELERATOR HAD NO EFFECT. FINALLY ENGINE DIED. RESTARTED ENGINE BUT CAR ONLY JERKED AND JOLTED AS IT TRIED TO GO FORWARD. ENGINE DIED AND RESTARTED A COUPLE MORE TIMES, THEN DIDN'T …
Read full complaint
DRIVING HOME ON 4 LANE HIGHWAY AT POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 45 MPH. SUDDENLY ENGINE SEEMED TO LOOSE POWER AND BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN. PUSHING DOWN ON ACCELERATOR HAD NO EFFECT. FINALLY ENGINE DIED. RESTARTED ENGINE BUT CAR ONLY JERKED AND JOLTED AS IT TRIED TO GO FORWARD. ENGINE DIED AND RESTARTED A COUPLE MORE TIMES, THEN DIDN'T WANT TO RESTART AT ALL. WARNING LIGHT ON INSTRUMENT PANEL SHOWED AN ORANGE WRENCH. A CITY PATROLMAN CAME SOON AND CALLED FOR A TOW TRUCK AS IT WAS DARK AND WE WERE ON A NARROW SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. HE SAID WE WERE IN A DANGEROUS PLACE. AFTER REPAIRS AT FORD DEALER, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY. THIS IS THE SECOND FORD ESCAPE IN OUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY TO INCUR THIS THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM/FAILURE IN JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS. THE OTHER ONE STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY INTERSECTION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535186
86,000 miles · Aug 13, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF 55MPH. WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY WENT DEAD. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE IF THE ROAD IN HEAVY TRAFFIC, AND CALL FOR HELP. I HAD MY VEHICLE TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY TOLD US IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY THAT HAD WENT OUT AND WASN'T COVERED UNDER THE WARR…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF 55MPH. WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY WENT DEAD. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE IF THE ROAD IN HEAVY TRAFFIC, AND CALL FOR HELP. I HAD MY VEHICLE TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY TOLD US IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY THAT HAD WENT OUT AND WASN'T COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY. I THINK THAT AFTER REVIEW THE THROTTLE BODY SHOULD BE RECALLED IN THIS MAKE AND MODEL DUE TO FAULTY PARTS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535129
41,800 miles · Aug 13, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS LOW SPEEDS, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE RESUMED NORMALLY; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED EIGHT TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS LOW SPEEDS, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE RESUMED NORMALLY; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED EIGHT TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY WERE REPLACED. THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 41,800.
NHTSA ODI #10535055
56,900 miles · Aug 12, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING TO WORK ON THE FREEWAY IN THE EXPRESS LANE AND TRYING TO ACCELERATE AND GOT NO RESPONSE FROM THE ENGINE. HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE DURING MORNING RUSH HOUR. SHUT CAR OFF. TRIED TO RESTART AND IT WORKED. TOOK OFF AGAIN AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT THREE MILES DOWN THE ROAD. IT JUST CUTS OFF WITH NO WARNING. HAPPENED AB…
Read full complaint
DRIVING TO WORK ON THE FREEWAY IN THE EXPRESS LANE AND TRYING TO ACCELERATE AND GOT NO RESPONSE FROM THE ENGINE. HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE DURING MORNING RUSH HOUR. SHUT CAR OFF. TRIED TO RESTART AND IT WORKED. TOOK OFF AGAIN AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT THREE MILES DOWN THE ROAD. IT JUST CUTS OFF WITH NO WARNING. HAPPENED ABOUT 4 MORE TIMES BEFORE I COULD GET IT IN THE SHOP. IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY.$291.91 FOR THE PARTS AND $296.0 FOR LABOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535015
43,744 miles · Aug 12, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
CAR DIED WHILE CROSSING FOUR LANE HIGHWAY- NO THROTTLE RESPONSE, ALMOST GOT HIT B Y SEMI SUPPOSE TO HAVE 60000 MILE WARRANTY ON DRIVE TRAIN FORD GARAGE SAID NO TO WARRANTY CLAIM. THROTTLE BODY HAD TO BE REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10534945
36,800 miles · Aug 12, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER AS THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER AS THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 36,800.
NHTSA ODI #10534940
64,250 miles · Aug 12, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING THE CAR, AND IT LOST POWER, AND THERE WAS NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. AFTER SHUTTING IGNITION OFF, DROVE THE CAR A LITTLE FARTHER, AND THE SAME THING OCCURRED, AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. GARAGE DIAGNOSED IT AS THE THROTTLE BODY CONTROL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10534903
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