NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter73,000 miles · Mar 19, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING IN THE LEFT LANE OF I-495 IN LONG ISLAND, NY AROUND 1:00 PM WHEN MY CAR COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL AND FELT THAT THERE WAS NO POWER IN THE ACCELERATOR. THE CAR WAS NOW ONLY MOVING BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS HIGHWAY SPEED THAT I HAD BEEN DRIVING AT, AND I WAS ABLE TO USE THE REMAINING PROPULSION OF …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING IN THE LEFT LANE OF I-495 IN LONG ISLAND, NY AROUND 1:00 PM WHEN MY CAR COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL AND FELT THAT THERE WAS NO POWER IN THE ACCELERATOR. THE CAR WAS NOW ONLY MOVING BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS HIGHWAY SPEED THAT I HAD BEEN DRIVING AT, AND I WAS ABLE TO USE THE REMAINING PROPULSION OF THE CAR TO PASS TO THE RIGHT LANE AND PULL OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER. I HAD TO WAIT 2 HOURS FOR A TOW TRUCK TO ARRIVE WHILE WAITING PRECARIOUSLY CLOSE TO THE RIGHT LANE OF A MAJOR HIGHWAY, BECAUSE I WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE THE CAR FURTHER TO THE RIGHT ON THE SHOULDER DUE TO THE LACK OF POWER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS WAS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS EVENT FOR ME, AS I WAS SURROUNDED BY TRACTOR TRAILERS AND OTHER LARGE VEHICLES THAT WERE DRIVING A MINIMUM OF 65 MPH. I COULD'VE BEEN KILLED HAD I NOT THOUGHT QUICKLY TO GUIDE MY VEHICLE OFF THE HIGHWAY AND ONTO THE SHOULDER. I'VE NOW READ ABOUT NHTSA'S INVESTIGATION INTO THIS STALLING ISSUE WITH FORD VEHICLES AND THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO NOTIFY THE AGENCY ABOUT YET ANOTHER EVENT - MY OWN. MY VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY AT A FORD DEALERSHIP IN LONG ISLAND AND I AM AWAITING NEWS REGARDING THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. BUT AFTER READING ABOUT THE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS WHICH MIRROR MY OWN CAR'S POWER LOSS, I BELIEVE THAT I MAY ALSO HAVE A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE. PLEASE EXPEDITE YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS DANGEROUS PROBLEM. PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT STAKE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10573608
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
24,500 miles · Feb 25, 2014
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PART IS BAD.... I WAS DRIVING ON A OPEN HIGHWAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I HAD NO SPEED, IT WAS AS IF I HAD TAKEN MY FOOT OFF THE ACCELERATOR, I WAS ABLE TO GET IT OFF THE HIGHWAY BUT WHEN IT WAS IDLING, IT WAS RUNNING REALLY ROUGH. AFTER SETTING FOR AWHILE IT SEEMED TO RUN OK BUT OF COURSE BEING A LADY I AM VER…
Read full complaint
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PART IS BAD.... I WAS DRIVING ON A OPEN HIGHWAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I HAD NO SPEED, IT WAS AS IF I HAD TAKEN MY FOOT OFF THE ACCELERATOR, I WAS ABLE TO GET IT OFF THE HIGHWAY BUT WHEN IT WAS IDLING, IT WAS RUNNING REALLY ROUGH. AFTER SETTING FOR AWHILE IT SEEMED TO RUN OK BUT OF COURSE BEING A LADY I AM VERY UNCOMFORTABLE DRIVING IT NOW. MY HUSBAND TOOK IT TO OUR DEALER, ASTORG FORD, THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND THEY WOULD REPLACE THE DEFECTED PART BUT DIDN'T HAVE IT IN STOCK, THEY WOULD GET IT IN A FEW DAYS BUT STILL SENT IT BACK HOME FOR ME TO DRIVE AND OF COURSE I WILL NOT DRIVE IT TILL IT IS FIXED, I THINK IT WAS BAD ON THEIR PART TO SEND THE ESCAPE BACK TO ME THE WAY IT IS. THANK YOU *TR
NHTSA ODI #10565740
35,500 miles · Feb 14, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
LOST THROTTLE CONTROL, PULLED OVER, TURNED ENGINE OFF, AND RESTARTED TO CORRECT PROBLEM. THIS HAPPENED THREE MORE TIMES OVER FOLLOWING MONTH AT 70MPH ON FREEWAY, 50MPH ON SURFACE STREET AND AN INTERSECTION AT A STOPLIGHT. EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR (LOSS OF ACCELERATOR, TURN ENGINE OFF, RESTART). DEALERSHIP REPLACED THROTTLE BODY. …
Read full complaint
LOST THROTTLE CONTROL, PULLED OVER, TURNED ENGINE OFF, AND RESTARTED TO CORRECT PROBLEM. THIS HAPPENED THREE MORE TIMES OVER FOLLOWING MONTH AT 70MPH ON FREEWAY, 50MPH ON SURFACE STREET AND AN INTERSECTION AT A STOPLIGHT. EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR (LOSS OF ACCELERATOR, TURN ENGINE OFF, RESTART). DEALERSHIP REPLACED THROTTLE BODY. FIVE MONTHS (7,000 MILES) LATER PROBLEM OCCURRED AGAIN AT A BUSY INTERSECTION ALMOST RESULTING IN A SERIOUS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT. I TOOK IT BACK TO FORD, THEY PERFORMED TESTS, SAID THEY ALREADY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY WITH THE NEW ONE AND MADE NO REPAIR EVEN THOUGH I TOLD THEM THE CAR WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE WITH THE DEFECT. THERE WILL BE SERIOUS ACCIDENTS THAT RESULT FROM THIS DEFECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10564431
29,000 miles · Jan 30, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
PULLING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY OF MY HOME, THE CAR SURGED FORWARD ON ITS OWN AND NARROWLY MISSED THE NEIGHBOR. THIS SURGING OF THE ENGINE ON ITS OWN IS GOING TO CAUSE A DEATH ONE OF THESE DAYS. FORD REALLY NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10562249
60,000 miles · Jan 27, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE FREEWAY THE CAR SUDDENLY SURGED FOR A SECOND AND THEN LOST ALL POWER. THERE WAS NO GAS GOING TO THE ENGINE AND I COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY SPEED. I HAD TO COAST TO A STOP WHILE MOVING OVER IN THE FREEWAY LANE TO THE SHOULDER. WHEN I DID STOP, THE ENGINE SOUNDED LIKE IT HAD TROUBLE GETTING FUEL TO IT. I TURNED …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE FREEWAY THE CAR SUDDENLY SURGED FOR A SECOND AND THEN LOST ALL POWER. THERE WAS NO GAS GOING TO THE ENGINE AND I COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY SPEED. I HAD TO COAST TO A STOP WHILE MOVING OVER IN THE FREEWAY LANE TO THE SHOULDER. WHEN I DID STOP, THE ENGINE SOUNDED LIKE IT HAD TROUBLE GETTING FUEL TO IT. I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND SAT FOR A SECOND AND WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON IT STARTED UP AND WOULD GO. OVER THE PAST MONTHS THIS HAS HAPPENED ON AND OFF. SOME DAYS IT DRIVES FINE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WILL DO THE SAME ASPECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10561725
24,534 miles · Jan 17, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
AS MY WIFE WAS DRIVING ONE MORNING THE FORD ESCAPE WITH OUT WARNING STARTED TO FEEL LIKE THERE WAS NO THROTTLE WHEN SHE STEPPED IN THE GAS. SHE IMMEDIATELY PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD (COASTING BECAUSE THE GAS PEDDLE WASN'T RESPONDING. A LITTLE WRENCH (THROTTLE BODY/POWERTRAIN) LIGHT CAME ON, ON THE DASH. THIS HAPPENED TWICE …
Read full complaint
AS MY WIFE WAS DRIVING ONE MORNING THE FORD ESCAPE WITH OUT WARNING STARTED TO FEEL LIKE THERE WAS NO THROTTLE WHEN SHE STEPPED IN THE GAS. SHE IMMEDIATELY PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD (COASTING BECAUSE THE GAS PEDDLE WASN'T RESPONDING. A LITTLE WRENCH (THROTTLE BODY/POWERTRAIN) LIGHT CAME ON, ON THE DASH. THIS HAPPENED TWICE ON THIS DAY, BOTH TIMES OUT OF THE BLUE. THE FORD DEALERSHIP LOOKED AT IT AND IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN ON A VEHICLE SO NEW AND SUCH LOW MILEAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10560429
150,000 miles · Jan 13, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ACCELERATING FROM TRAFFIC LIGHT, IN LEFT LANE, IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. THE CAR SLOWED DOWN AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATOR. MANAGE TO MANEUVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. SHUT OFF ENGINE AND RESTARTED ENGINE. ALL APPEARED NORMAL. I MANEUVERED TO A ROAD WITH LESS TRAFFIC TO CONTINUE HOME. THE PROBLEM OCCURRED AGAIN WITHIN A MILE. *T…
Read full complaint
ACCELERATING FROM TRAFFIC LIGHT, IN LEFT LANE, IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. THE CAR SLOWED DOWN AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATOR. MANAGE TO MANEUVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. SHUT OFF ENGINE AND RESTARTED ENGINE. ALL APPEARED NORMAL. I MANEUVERED TO A ROAD WITH LESS TRAFFIC TO CONTINUE HOME. THE PROBLEM OCCURRED AGAIN WITHIN A MILE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10559591
35,266 miles · Dec 29, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND STALLED TO A VERY SLOW SPEED. I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY EXIT THE HIGHWAY AND PULLED INTO A PARKING LOT WITH ENGINE BARELY RUNNING. AFTER TURNING ENGINE OFF AND PREPARING TO CALL AAA, TRIED STARTING ENGINE AND IT RAN FINE. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND I TOOK THE CAR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND STALLED TO A VERY SLOW SPEED. I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY EXIT THE HIGHWAY AND PULLED INTO A PARKING LOT WITH ENGINE BARELY RUNNING. AFTER TURNING ENGINE OFF AND PREPARING TO CALL AAA, TRIED STARTING ENGINE AND IT RAN FINE. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND I TOOK THE CAR FOR A CODE CHECK. CODE WAS P2111 THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK OPEN. I AM JUST GOING OUT OF WARRANTY (30 DAYS AGO IS 3RD ANNIVERSARY OF PURCHASE) AND FEEL THIS IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BEYOND THE WARRANTY. HAD THIS HAPPENED WITH TRAFFIC CLOSE BEHIND AT 70 MPH, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT AS THE SLOWING WAS DRAMATIC WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BRAKES. THIS CONDITION IS A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10557612
28,597 miles · Dec 23, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE TRYING TO ACCELERATE TO ENTER MERGING HIGHWAY, MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE TOOK MANY SECONDS TO STALL AND THEN FINALLY ENGAGE. MY SON ASKED WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN, AND ITS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE NOT KNOWING WHEN ENTERING THE TRAFFIC, THAT YOU WILL NOT KNOW IF THE CAR IS GOING TO MAKE IT IN THE TRAFFIC. I DROVE FAR AND QUITE A BIT …
Read full complaint
WHILE TRYING TO ACCELERATE TO ENTER MERGING HIGHWAY, MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE TOOK MANY SECONDS TO STALL AND THEN FINALLY ENGAGE. MY SON ASKED WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN, AND ITS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE NOT KNOWING WHEN ENTERING THE TRAFFIC, THAT YOU WILL NOT KNOW IF THE CAR IS GOING TO MAKE IT IN THE TRAFFIC. I DROVE FAR AND QUITE A BIT YESTERDAY AND IT HAPPENED 3 TIMES. I AM TAKING THE CAR IN NEXT WEEK, EVEN THOUGH THE DEALER THINKS NOTHING IS WRONG. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10557085
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