NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,316 reports46,300 miles · Jun 30, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AT ABOUT 35 MPH WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER. IT STAYED RUNNING AND I TURNED ON MY FLASHERS AND COASTED TO THE FIRST TURN. I TURNED OFF THE MAIN RD AND PARKED, SHUT OFF THE CAR, THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT WORKED FINE THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. A FEW DAYS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN SO I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AT ABOUT 35 MPH WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER. IT STAYED RUNNING AND I TURNED ON MY FLASHERS AND COASTED TO THE FIRST TURN. I TURNED OFF THE MAIN RD AND PARKED, SHUT OFF THE CAR, THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT WORKED FINE THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. A FEW DAYS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN SO I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD GARAGE, ON A SATURDAY MORNING. THE SERVICE MAN ON DUTY TOLD ME " THIS TIME OF YEAR THERE ARE FUZZIES FROM THE TREES FLYING AROUND, THE GET STUCK IN YOUR AIR FILTER AND WHEN YOU TURN THE CAR OFF AND START IT AGAIN THE FUZZIES GET SUCKED IN THE ENGINE AND THE CAR IS FINE. HE SAID HE KNOWS THIS HAS HAPPENED AND WHAT I DESCRIBED HAPPENED TO MY CAR SOUNDS LIKE THIS. HE SAID IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN TO CALL BACK". I SAID "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?". IT HAPPENED AGAIN SO I CALLED BACK, GOT AN ANSWERING MACHINE AND LEFT A MESSAGE. NO ONE CALLED ME BACK, AND THE CAR STOPPED DOING THIS. TWO WEEKS LATER IT LOST POWER TWICE IN ONE DAY, ONCE ON THE INTERSTATE WHICH WAS SCARY, THEN TWICE MORE ON MY 3 MILE DRIVE TO WORK IN THE MORNING. I HAD MY SON LOOK AT THE AIR FILTER, HE SAID IT LOOKED FINE AND NOTHING SHOULD GET THROUGH IT AND TO TAKE IT TO THE GARAGE. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD GARAGE, THEY SAID IT NEEDS AN ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY AND WILL COST $420, THAT IS THE ESTIMATE. THE CAR HAS BEEN AT THE FORD GARAGE FOR 6 DAYS NOW. THEY DON'T HAVE THE PART BECAUSE IT IS ON BACKORDER. THEY DID GIVE ME A LOANER CAR AT NO COST, WHICH I APPRECIATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522480
44,500 miles · Jun 29, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING WHEN IT APPEARED TO STALL SHUT CAR OFF I DROVE TO DEALERSHIP. I WAS INFORMED IT WAS BAD THROTTLE ASSEMBLY. IT WILL COST $411TO FIX DEALER OFFERED TO TAKE 10% OFF.IF MY WIFE WAS DRIVING SHE WOULD HAVE TOTALLY TOTALLY PANICKED AND MOST LIKELY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. FORD NEEDS TO STEP TO THE PLATE AND FIX THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522402
30,000 miles · Jun 29, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
VEHICLE WENT INTO STALL WHILE TRAVELING OFF OF EXIT RAMP. HAVE READ THAT THIS IS BEING INVESTIGATED AND NEEDS TO BE RECALLED! DANGEROUS AND FELT UNSAFE WITH MY CHILD IN VEHICLE! IF THIS HAPPENED AT A HIGH SPEED ON HWY, IT COULD LEAD TO A CRASH AND INJURY OR EVEN DEATH! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522379
52,000 miles · Jun 28, 2013
EnginePower Train
VEHICLE WOULD LOOSE ALL POWER WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. WOULD HAVE TO PULL OVER TURN ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON TO RESET. WRENCH LIGHT WOULD COME ON BUT WOULD RESET AFTER VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF. TOOK TO SHOP AND NEEDED A NEW THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522336
29,401 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Power Train
VEHICLE LOST PROPULSION AT ABOUT 30-35 MPH AND DRIVER WAS BARELY ABLE TO GET IT OFF MAIN ROAD. A VEHICLE BEHIND IT HAD TO BRAKE TO AVOID REAR-END COLLISION. WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND HAD TO BE TOWED. SUBSEQUENTLY VEHICLE FUNCTIONED AGAIN, BUT ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER THE SAME THING HAPPENED -- CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND F…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE LOST PROPULSION AT ABOUT 30-35 MPH AND DRIVER WAS BARELY ABLE TO GET IT OFF MAIN ROAD. A VEHICLE BEHIND IT HAD TO BRAKE TO AVOID REAR-END COLLISION. WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND HAD TO BE TOWED. SUBSEQUENTLY VEHICLE FUNCTIONED AGAIN, BUT ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER THE SAME THING HAPPENED -- CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND FELT LIKE IT WAS SLIPPING BETWEEN GEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY A FORD DEALER REPAIR DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY HAD FAILED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522319
38,000 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Power Train
AS I BEGAN ACCELERATING FROM A STOP I REACHED ABOUT 15MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND BEGAN TO VIBRATE VIOLENTLY.THE WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE LIGHT REMAINS ON. I WAS ABLE TO GUIDE THE CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD IT TOWED TO THE SHOP.THE MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE…
Read full complaint
AS I BEGAN ACCELERATING FROM A STOP I REACHED ABOUT 15MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND BEGAN TO VIBRATE VIOLENTLY.THE WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE LIGHT REMAINS ON. I WAS ABLE TO GUIDE THE CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD IT TOWED TO THE SHOP.THE MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY AND THE PARTS ARE ON BACKORDER FROM FORD AND HE WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO ETA. THE MECHANIC WAS ALSO TOLD THAT IT COULD TAKE UP TO A YEAR!!! HOW TO I PAY A CAR NOTE FOR A USELESS CAR AND HOW DO I GET TO WORK?! THE CAR IS NOT DRIVABLE AND THE FORD ESCAPES THAT ARE STILL ON THE ROAD ARE A DANGER TO ALL WITHOUT THIS PROBLEM BEING FIXED! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522275
40,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT MERGED TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS HOWEVER, THE MECHANIC WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT MERGED TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS HOWEVER, THE MECHANIC WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522022
19,800 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingPower Train
AT APPROX. 19,800 MILES WAS DRIVING ALONG THE INTERSTATE AND THE ESCAPE STARTED LOSING POWER. I WENT FROM RUNNING 75 MPH TO 40 MPH. THE ESCAPE NOW HAS APPROX. 33,000 MILES AND IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. AS OF APRIL 28, 2013 IT HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR A TOTAL OF 46 DAYS AND HAS HAD 8 REPAIR ATTEMPTS. NO WARNING LIGHTS NOR THE CHE…
Read full complaint
AT APPROX. 19,800 MILES WAS DRIVING ALONG THE INTERSTATE AND THE ESCAPE STARTED LOSING POWER. I WENT FROM RUNNING 75 MPH TO 40 MPH. THE ESCAPE NOW HAS APPROX. 33,000 MILES AND IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. AS OF APRIL 28, 2013 IT HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR A TOTAL OF 46 DAYS AND HAS HAD 8 REPAIR ATTEMPTS. NO WARNING LIGHTS NOR THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT HAS EVER COME ON. THIS ESCAPE CLUNKS, SURGES, LOSES POWER, CUT'S OFF AND AT TIMES WILL NOT EVEN CRANK. THE TRANSMISSIONS HAS BEEN REPROGRAMMED, THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASY - THROTTLE BODY AIR INTAKE HAS BEEN REPLACED, THE VAPOR MANAGEMENT VALVE HAS BEEN REPLACED, THE TORQUE CONVERTOR HAS BEEN REPLACED. LOST IN ARBITRATION WITH THE BBB BECAUSE FORD SAID IN THEIR LAST REPAIR ATTEMPT THAT THE VEHICLE HAS OPERATING AS NORMAL. JUNE 5, 2013 CAR WAS BACK IN SHOP BECAUSE AT 7:45 AM STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT, WHILE MY FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE THE RPM'S SURGED UP TO 4000, COULD HARDLY KEEP IT FROM RUNNING THE LIGHT, ONCE THE LIGHT CHANGED TOOK OFF AND WITHIN 4 TENTHS OF A MILE LOST POWER AND SHUT OFF. IT TOOK ME 8 MINUTES TO GET IT TO CRANK, DROVE ABOUT 15 MILES, SURGING ALL THE WAY, AND THE CAR DIED AGAIN, TAKING ME 10 MINUTES TO GET IT TO CRANK. TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE SHOP, THEY KEPT IT FOR 7 DAYS, RETURNED IT AND SAID THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE PROBLEM. JUNE 20, 2013 TRIED TO CRANK THE CAR AT 10:00 AM, IT WOULD CRANK, BUT GO DEAD, FINALLY AT 11:10 AM IT STAYED CRANKED, DROVE AT 3 TENTHS OF A MILE, CAR GOES DEAD. TAKES ME 5 MINUTES TO RE-CRANK WENT STRAIGHT TO THE SHOP. THIS CAR IS DANGEROUS AND FORD NEEDS TO RE-CALL.
NHTSA ODI #10522370
39,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND SUDDENLY MY VEHICLE LOST ALL RPM'S, I COASTED ON TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED MY VEHICLE OFF. DURING THIS TIME A WRENCH LIGHT ALSO CAME ON MY VEHICLE. A FEW MINUTES LATER I RESTARTED IT AND IT WENT APROX 1/2MILE BEFORE DOING IT AGAIN. I AGAIN PULLED OVER, RESTARTED ENGINE AND WAS ABLE TO DR…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND SUDDENLY MY VEHICLE LOST ALL RPM'S, I COASTED ON TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED MY VEHICLE OFF. DURING THIS TIME A WRENCH LIGHT ALSO CAME ON MY VEHICLE. A FEW MINUTES LATER I RESTARTED IT AND IT WENT APROX 1/2MILE BEFORE DOING IT AGAIN. I AGAIN PULLED OVER, RESTARTED ENGINE AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME WITH NO FURTHER PROBLEMS. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES SINCE IN THE PAST 2 WEEKS. THE FORD SERVICE DEPT TOLD ME THAT THIS IS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY AND THEY ARE UNABLE TO FIX IT WITHOUT US PAYING IN FULL FOR THE REPAIR. THE WRENCH LIGHT DOES NOT STAY ON. WE WERE TOLD THE ACTUATOR WAS STUCK OPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521941
66,250 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS TRAVELING AND SUDDENLY LOST POWER OR THROTTLE CONTROL. THE CAR STARTED STUMBLING AND I HAD NO POWER AS I PUSHED ON ACCELERATOR. THE WRENCH SYMBOL CAME ON MY CONTROL PANEL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521843
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