NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
29 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Sep 8, 2025
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other
Me and my wife purchased a vehicle from a private seller to use for personal commute. A month later we started to notice more issue were occurring with the car then stated from the seller. I took it to an auto body shop to get it inspected and possibly serviced and upon that inspection the clerk stated that there was a milage ad…
Read full complaint
Me and my wife purchased a vehicle from a private seller to use for personal commute. A month later we started to notice more issue were occurring with the car then stated from the seller. I took it to an auto body shop to get it inspected and possibly serviced and upon that inspection the clerk stated that there was a milage adjustment done to the vehicle. We contacted the seller to try and return the vehicle and receive our money back, but the dealer refused and requested us to resell it.
NHTSA ODI #11685632
Mileage unknown · Jun 5, 2022
Electrical SystemEngine
When the weather is hot (close to 100 degrees or more) and I am driving with the a/c - my vehicle on 3 occasions will not start after parking the vehicle and trying to restart it. The red padlock sign blinks and it won't start. At first it is trying to turnover but then will continually sound worse and all other warning lights …
Read full complaint
When the weather is hot (close to 100 degrees or more) and I am driving with the a/c - my vehicle on 3 occasions will not start after parking the vehicle and trying to restart it. The red padlock sign blinks and it won't start. At first it is trying to turnover but then will continually sound worse and all other warning lights go haywire. I leave the car alone for half a day and it starts up again like nothing happened. On the fourth occasion, the car stopped while driving, just a quiet shutdown and the car glided. This time it did not work for over 24 hours and then started up again like nothing happened. Multiple mechanics and also the dealership cannot figure out the problem because by the time i have it towed to shop, it works again. They did a full check on the car and cannot find anything wrong and there were no diagnostic codes. This issue happens when the weather is hot and poses a safety concern as now it is shutting off while driving and I become stranded each time. (First incident happened 8/25/18, last incident 5/14/22) Total of 4.
NHTSA ODI #11467626
Mileage unknown · Dec 4, 2020
Electrical System
I WAS LEAVING WORK AND DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT BUT THEN IT CAME BACK AND IT KEPT DOING IT OFF AND ON . LUCKILY I ONLY LIVE 15 MILES FROM WORK. ITS HAPPEN BEFORE WHEN I WAS IN A TURN BUT I DIDN'T THINK MUCH ABOUT IT TILL IT STARTED DOING IT TODAY THANKFULLY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND I DIDN'T HAVE A ACC…
Read full complaint
I WAS LEAVING WORK AND DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT BUT THEN IT CAME BACK AND IT KEPT DOING IT OFF AND ON . LUCKILY I ONLY LIVE 15 MILES FROM WORK. ITS HAPPEN BEFORE WHEN I WAS IN A TURN BUT I DIDN'T THINK MUCH ABOUT IT TILL IT STARTED DOING IT TODAY THANKFULLY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND I DIDN'T HAVE A ACCIDENT
NHTSA ODI #11377958
164,400 miles · Oct 16, 2019
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Steering
VEHICLE'S ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING TURNED OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF DRIVING, TURNING ON HIGHWAY, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES, SEEMS LIKE WHEN THE HEAT IS ON. RECALL 14S05C SHOWS UP IN SERVICE RECORDS FROM THIS CAR. WORKS WAS DONE MY MAHOPAC FORD, MAHOPAC, NY. REFLASH IC AND PSCM. THIS RECALL WAS APPARENTLY ADDRESSED, BUT THE PROBLEM H…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE'S ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING TURNED OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF DRIVING, TURNING ON HIGHWAY, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES, SEEMS LIKE WHEN THE HEAT IS ON. RECALL 14S05C SHOWS UP IN SERVICE RECORDS FROM THIS CAR. WORKS WAS DONE MY MAHOPAC FORD, MAHOPAC, NY. REFLASH IC AND PSCM. THIS RECALL WAS APPARENTLY ADDRESSED, BUT THE PROBLEM HAS COME BACK. I JUST BOUGHT THIS CAR USED TWO WEEKS AGO. IT DID NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM UNTIL I TURNED THE HEAT ON. NOT SURE WHAT TO DO.
NHTSA ODI #11268886
120,000 miles · Oct 29, 2018
Electrical SystemExterior LightingSteering
POWER STEERING SUDDENLY STOPPED WORKING WHILE I WAS DRIVING. THE VEHICLE IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE BUT I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD TO A SAFE AREA. AFTER SHUTTING THE CAR OFF FOR 15 MINUTES AND RESTARTING THE LACK OF POWER STEERING REMAINED, BUT THERE WAS NOW A MESSAGE SAYING "POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT". THIS …
Read full complaint
POWER STEERING SUDDENLY STOPPED WORKING WHILE I WAS DRIVING. THE VEHICLE IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE BUT I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD TO A SAFE AREA. AFTER SHUTTING THE CAR OFF FOR 15 MINUTES AND RESTARTING THE LACK OF POWER STEERING REMAINED, BUT THERE WAS NOW A MESSAGE SAYING "POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT". THIS CAR HAS SEVERAL OTHER ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WITH REGARD TO THE A/C & BLOWER, AND ALSO THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW AND DOME LIGHTS WORK SPORADICALLY.
NHTSA ODI #11143853
120,000 miles · Oct 26, 2018
Electrical SystemSteering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING UNKNOWN SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN WHILE MAKING TURNS. IN ADDITION, THE BATTERY WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND REFERRED THE CONTACT …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING UNKNOWN SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN WHILE MAKING TURNS. IN ADDITION, THE BATTERY WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO NHTSA. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
NHTSA ODI #11142894
59,000 miles · Jan 8, 2018
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN THE KEY IN THE IGNITION. THE FAILURE HAS OCCURRED FOR TWO YEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 59,000. *TT *TR
NHTSA ODI #11061247
75,000 miles · Aug 23, 2017
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Unknown Or Other
SWITCH FOR AC WONT BLOW OUT AIR. TOOK IT TO VALOLINE TO ADD FREON.. THEY SAID, IT WAS FULL.. COLD WORKED FOR 5 DAYS THEN AC STOPPED WORKING AT HOTEST TIME OF MONTH... TOOK VEHICLE BACK AND THEY STATED, IT WAS FULL STILL BUT ADDED MORE FREON TO MAKE ME HAPPY.. AFTER A FEW DAYS NO AC AND I TOOK TO A MECHANICS BUSINESS. THE …
Read full complaint
SWITCH FOR AC WONT BLOW OUT AIR. TOOK IT TO VALOLINE TO ADD FREON.. THEY SAID, IT WAS FULL.. COLD WORKED FOR 5 DAYS THEN AC STOPPED WORKING AT HOTEST TIME OF MONTH... TOOK VEHICLE BACK AND THEY STATED, IT WAS FULL STILL BUT ADDED MORE FREON TO MAKE ME HAPPY.. AFTER A FEW DAYS NO AC AND I TOOK TO A MECHANICS BUSINESS. THE OWNER AND 4 OTHERS STATED THAT THE BELT IS TURNING MAYBE THEY OVERFILLED IT.. TOLD ME TO TAKE IT BACK TO VALOLINE AND HAVE THEM TAKE OUT ALL FREON THEN PUT AMOUNT BACK IN BUT NOT TO FULL. I DID, WORKED FOR 2 DAYS NOW AGAIN NO AC. BLOWER WORKED BUT NO AC COMES OUT.. I CANT AFFORD ANYMORE VISITS. NOW AS OF YESTERDAY THE BLOWER WILL ONLY WORK ON NUMBER 4. 1 2 3 NOTHING COMES OUT. PLEASE ASSIST ME WITH THIS PROBLEM.. I HAVE BEEN SO HAPPY WITH THIS CAR FOR 3 YEARS. I TAKE EXCELLENT CARE OF EVERYTHING IT NEEDS. FIRST FORD I EVER OWNED... HOPE ITS NOT THE LAST ONE I OWN IF THIS DOESNT GET SOLVED. THANK YOU FOR THIS SITE. THIS IS MY LAST RESORT.. I HAVE HAD IT IN SHOP TO MANY TIMES CONCERNING THIS MATTER.. DENISE SAFTEY ISSUE HERE . I WAS GOING TO WORK VERY FOGGY AND I TURNED ON HEATER TO CLEAR WINDSHILD NO BLOWER WORKED ON NUMBERS 123 BUT 4 WOULD.. CANT HAVE IT RUNNING FULL BLAST ALWAYS.. AC IF FULL BUT WONT WORK WITH BLOWER ON..BEING HOT REALLY MAKES ME CRANKY AND THAT CAN CAUSE RAOD RAGE SAFETY ISSUE THERE TOO. LOL LOL PLEASE HELP ME...
NHTSA ODI #11019078
80,000 miles · Dec 15, 2016
Electrical SystemEngine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, AN UNKNOWN WRENCH WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, BUT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. AFTER WAITING A FEW MOMENTS, THE VEHICLE RESTARTED. THE FAILURE RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, AN UNKNOWN WRENCH WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, BUT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. AFTER WAITING A FEW MOMENTS, THE VEHICLE RESTARTED. THE FAILURE RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 80,000.
NHTSA ODI #10935491
98,000 miles · Jun 6, 2016
Electrical System
WHILE I AM DRIVING MY CAR WILL ALL OF A SUDDEN TURN OFF
NHTSA ODI #10872775
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
3DP15001 · 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
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