NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
29 reportsClear category filter130,980 miles · Aug 26, 2015
Electrical SystemEngine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE MAINTENANCE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE JERKED VIOLENTLY. IN ADDITION, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO INSP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE MAINTENANCE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE JERKED VIOLENTLY. IN ADDITION, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO INSPECTED THE VEHICLE BUT WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. AFTER LEAVING THE DEALER, THE MAINTENANCE AND THE ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 130,980.
NHTSA ODI #10759606
52,000 miles · Jun 22, 2015
Electrical SystemEngine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 75 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 52,000.
NHTSA ODI #10726561
6,602 miles · Mar 25, 2015
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 20 MPH, THE VEHICLE JERKED THEN SUDDENLY STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 6,602.
NHTSA ODI #10701792
99,901 miles · Mar 14, 2015
Electrical System
1. OUTSIDE REVIEW MIRRORS DO NOT DEFROST. THEY WERE FROZEN AND I WAS ON THE HIGHWAY PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER BECAUSE I COULD NOT SEE OUTSIDE VEHICLES PASSING TO BE ABLE TO GO RIGHT OR LEFT. THEN A WEEK LATER THEIR WAS FROST ON THE MIRRORS AND STILL THEY WOULD NOT DEFROST AGAIN I COULDN'T SEE OTHER VEHICLES ON EITHER SIDE OF MY …
Read full complaint
1. OUTSIDE REVIEW MIRRORS DO NOT DEFROST. THEY WERE FROZEN AND I WAS ON THE HIGHWAY PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER BECAUSE I COULD NOT SEE OUTSIDE VEHICLES PASSING TO BE ABLE TO GO RIGHT OR LEFT. THEN A WEEK LATER THEIR WAS FROST ON THE MIRRORS AND STILL THEY WOULD NOT DEFROST AGAIN I COULDN'T SEE OTHER VEHICLES ON EITHER SIDE OF MY VEHICLE. 2. THERE IS A GEAR SHIFTING PROBLEM AS WELL. WHENEVER I TAKE OFF AT A STOP MY CAR KICKS REAL HARD AND LOUD ENOUGH TO SCARE ME. I HAVE REPORTED THIS SEVERAL TIMES WITH THE DEALER THAT I BOUGHT MY VEHICLE FROM AND THEY CANNOT FIND THE PROBLEM. THEY HAVE HEARD IT DO THIS BUT CANNOT SEEM TO FIND THE PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10694280
39,189 miles · Mar 3, 2015
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB) WAS REPLACED AT VETERANS FORD DEALERSHIP IN TAMPA, FL DUE TO THIS PART SEVERELY EFFECTING ABILITY OF THE VEHICLE TO RUN PROPERLY (SEVERAL TIMES). CUSTOMER PAID FOR THIS REPAIR. SOMETIME AFTER 3/4/14 WHEN NHTSA COMPLETED THEIR INVESTIGATION, WE RECEIVED A NOTICE THAT FORD WAS REPLACING THIS …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB) WAS REPLACED AT VETERANS FORD DEALERSHIP IN TAMPA, FL DUE TO THIS PART SEVERELY EFFECTING ABILITY OF THE VEHICLE TO RUN PROPERLY (SEVERAL TIMES). CUSTOMER PAID FOR THIS REPAIR. SOMETIME AFTER 3/4/14 WHEN NHTSA COMPLETED THEIR INVESTIGATION, WE RECEIVED A NOTICE THAT FORD WAS REPLACING THIS ITEM. SINCE WE ALREADY PAID FOR THE REPAIR ($381.32) AT A FORD DEALERSHIP, WE TRIED TO GET THE REIMBURSEMENT THAT FORD OWES US. WE WERE INFORMED WE HAD TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT, WHICH TO THIS DAY IS STILL PACKED UP IN STORAGE IF WE HAVE IT AT ALL BECAUSE WE MOVED FROM FL TO NC AND ARE STILL INVOLVED IN BUYING A NEW HOME. THE BOTTOM LINE IS FORD (CORP) IS REFUSING TO HONOR THEIR AGREEMENT TO REIMBURSE CUSTOMERS. THE CRAZIEST PART OF THIS WHOLE DILEMMA IS THAT FORD HAS AND CONTROLS 100% OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PROCESS OUR REIMBURSEMENT, BUT ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DO SO WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT. I COULD UNDERSTAND IF WE HAD THIS REPAIR DONE AT SOME UNRELATED, THIRD PARTY SERVICE FACILITY. HOWEVER, WE WENT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY HAVE RECORD OF COMPLETING THE REPAIR AND US PAYING THEM FOR THE REPAIR. SO AGAIN, FORD HAS ALL THE INFORMATION (PROOF) IN THEIR POSSESSION TO TAKE CARE OF THIS REIMBURSEMENT, BUT REFUSES TO DO SO. I HAVE CALLED THE CUSTOMER (DIS)SATISFACTION DEPARTMENT AT FORD CORPORATE, BUT THAT IS LIKE TALKING TO A BRICK WALL AS FAR AS ANYONE HAVING IN COMMON SENSE, ACCOUNTABILITY OR DECENCY TO DO THE RIGHT THING (CERTAINLY ANY KIND OF GOOD WILL IS LACKING IN THAT ORGANIZATION). SO HERE I AM HAVING TO COMPLAIN TO THE NHTSA TO GET FORD TO DO WHAT THEY PROMISED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I LOOK FORWARD TO A TIMELY REPLY LETTING ME KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE THIS HANDLED. ADDITIONALLY, FORD SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED SEVERELY FOR SUCH [XXX] BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE. MAYBE A CONSUMER REPORTER NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED IN ALL THIS. THANKS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10691772
43,757 miles · Nov 18, 2014
Electrical SystemSteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
ON THAT DATE, I WAS DRIVING HOME WITH MY WIFE AT APPROXIMATELY 2 PM. SUDDENLY, THE CAR WENT OFF AND THE STEERING WHEEL WENT STIFF. AS I TRIED TO MOVE UNSUCCESSFULLY, WE WENT DOWN TO A SLOPE OF ABOUT 20 DEGREES. AS A RESULT, BOTH OF US HAD TO BE TAKEN FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT FOR KNOCKS, CUTS AND FOLLOW UP CHECKS. SO FAR, IT HAS …
Read full complaint
ON THAT DATE, I WAS DRIVING HOME WITH MY WIFE AT APPROXIMATELY 2 PM. SUDDENLY, THE CAR WENT OFF AND THE STEERING WHEEL WENT STIFF. AS I TRIED TO MOVE UNSUCCESSFULLY, WE WENT DOWN TO A SLOPE OF ABOUT 20 DEGREES. AS A RESULT, BOTH OF US HAD TO BE TAKEN FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT FOR KNOCKS, CUTS AND FOLLOW UP CHECKS. SO FAR, IT HAS COST US $16,497.00 AND REPAIR OF THE CAR US$6,853.00. THERE HAS BEEN OTHER EVENTS WHERE THE CAR SUDDENLY STOPS AND THE STEERING WHEEL BECOMES STIFF. BUT, I DON T USE THE CAR IN THE HIGHWAY BUT ONLY FOR SHORTS ERRANDS AND WITHIN THE AREA WHERE WE LIVE. ITS BEEN A NIGHTMARE. I HAVE CHANGED THE THROTTLE CASING MODULE, THE RESTRAINT CONTROL MODULE, I PUT A RUBBER STOP ON THE ACCELERATION PEDAL, ETC. AGAIN, OUT OF THE ACCIDENT IT HAS BEEN OVER 4 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN TRYING TO FIX THE CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10658793
17,500 miles · Oct 26, 2014
Electrical System
FIRST STARTED WITH A SUDDENLY A DEAD BATTERY. REPLACED THE BATTERY AND 3 MONTHS LATER HAPPENED AGAIN. SLOWLY DEAD BATTERY EVERY 1-3 MONTHS. REPLACED 4 BATTERIES. WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A BAD ALTERNATOR. ALTERNATOR REPLACED. THREE DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. ANOTHER ALTERNATOR INSTALLED AND AGAIN, TWO DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. FO…
Read full complaint
FIRST STARTED WITH A SUDDENLY A DEAD BATTERY. REPLACED THE BATTERY AND 3 MONTHS LATER HAPPENED AGAIN. SLOWLY DEAD BATTERY EVERY 1-3 MONTHS. REPLACED 4 BATTERIES. WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A BAD ALTERNATOR. ALTERNATOR REPLACED. THREE DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. ANOTHER ALTERNATOR INSTALLED AND AGAIN, TWO DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. FORD REFUSED TO HELP EVEN AFTER GIVING ME A CASE NUMBER. SAID BECAUSE I'VE NEVER HAD VEHICLE SERVICED AT A DEALERSHIP THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THEIR DEALERS. ALSO, FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILED TO TELL ME THE PCM WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. TOOK THE CAR TO FORD DEALERSHIP IN DOVER, DE. DIAGNOSED WITH A BAD PCM. PCM INSTALLED BY DEALERSHIP AND TOLD THAT SHOULD FIX THE PROBLEM. DROVE THE VEHICLE HOME AND TRIED RESTARTING. BATTERY DEAD AGAIN. BATTERY REPLACED PER RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEALERSHIP. DROVE THE NEXT DAY, BUT BY THE END OF THE DAY BATTERY DEAD AGAIN. HAD TO BUY A REMOTE BATTERY PACK TO START THE CAR WHEN THE BATTERY IS DEAD. HAVE BEEN STRANDED 10 TIMES AND HAD TO JUMP START TO GET HOME. FORD DEALERSHIP TOLD ME TO REPLACE THE ALTERNATOR WITH A GENUINE FORD ALTERNATOR ANT THAT SHOULD FIX THE PROBLEM. PURCHASED THE ALTERNATOR AND HAD IT INSTALLED. HIGHEST VOLTAGE, EVEN WITH ACCESSORIES TURNED ON, WAS 12.8 VOLTS AND WOULDN'T GO ANY HIGHER. I AM RETURNING BACK TO FORD DEALERSHIP ON TUESDAY, 10/28/14 TO SEE IF THEY WILL CONTACT FORD ENGINEERS FOR SOLUTION. SO FAR, 6 BATTERIES, 2 ALTERNATORS, NEW PCM AND BATTERY IS STILL NOT BEING CHARGED. RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE AND MONEY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10650108
30,000 miles · Oct 2, 2014
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
COMING TO A STOP AT A RED STOP LIGHT AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM RED TO GREEN LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION MY VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE, IT LOST POWER. IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE PASS 10MPH. AN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS A ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT. I DROVE AS I COULD AND MADE TO AUTO ZONE. THEY PLUG IN THE HAND HELD CAR COMPUTER AND …
Read full complaint
COMING TO A STOP AT A RED STOP LIGHT AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM RED TO GREEN LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION MY VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE, IT LOST POWER. IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE PASS 10MPH. AN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS A ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT. I DROVE AS I COULD AND MADE TO AUTO ZONE. THEY PLUG IN THE HAND HELD CAR COMPUTER AND IT GAVE THE CODE P2119. WHICH STANDS FOR THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10640939
63,968 miles · Aug 27, 2014
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling
THIS VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED USED FROM A LINCOLN MERCURY DEALER IN EARLY JULY, 2014. MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 63,500 MILES. AT THE TIME THE AIR CONDITIONING WORKED FINE. EARLY IN AUGUST WE NOTICED THE AIR CONDITIONING WAS NO LONGER COOLING THE VEHICLE. THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING RECALL --- 14S05 -- RELATED TO THE POWER STEERING. I…
Read full complaint
THIS VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED USED FROM A LINCOLN MERCURY DEALER IN EARLY JULY, 2014. MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 63,500 MILES. AT THE TIME THE AIR CONDITIONING WORKED FINE. EARLY IN AUGUST WE NOTICED THE AIR CONDITIONING WAS NO LONGER COOLING THE VEHICLE. THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING RECALL --- 14S05 -- RELATED TO THE POWER STEERING. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL FORD DEALER TO HAVE THE RECALL WORK DONE. AS A SIDE ISSUE I ASKED THAT THE A/C BE CHECKED. TO MY HORRIFIED SURPRISE I WAS TOLD A "DESICCANT BAG" IN THE A/C ACCUMULATOR HAD BURST AND THE TINY DESICCANT PARTICLES HAD SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM, CLOGGING UP VARIOUS PARTS AND CAUSING THE SYSTEM TO FAIL. THESE PARTICLES CANNOT BE FLUSHED OUT COMPLETELY AND THE ONLY FIX IS TO REPLACE ALL OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE A/C, FOR $2700!!!!! BECAUSE OF THE COST I HAVE NOT HAD THE WORK DONE. THE DEALER PEOPLE ADVISED ME TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH NHTSA AND TO CONTACT FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONS. I HAVE DONE THAT, BUT NO RELIEF HAS BEEN OFFERED. I WANT TO REGISTER MY OUTRAGE AT THIS SITUATION PARTICULARLY AS A BASIC GOOGLE SEARCH:" FORD ESCAPE/MERCURY MARINER AIR CONDITIONING PROBLEMS OR DESICCANT BAG" REVEALS MANY HUNDREDS, PROBABLY THOUSANDS OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS (REPAIR COSTS UP TO $4000!) AND SHOW THAT FORD HAS BEEN AWARE OF THIS ISSUE FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF YEARS BUT HAS TAKEN NO ACTION. I URGE YOU TO HAVE FORD RECALL THE AFFECTED VEHICLES AND REPAIR THEM AT FORD'S EXPENSE. THANK YOU. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10628781
58,000 miles · Jul 6, 2014
Electrical System
P2112 THROTTLE STUCK. REMOVED THROTTLE BODY 7-2-14 CLEANED CARBON/OIL RESIDUE RESULTING FROM PCV RECURC, AND REINSTALLED THROTTLE BODY, CLEARED CODES. DRIVING 7-6-14 SAME SYMPTOMS (MIL P2112 AND LIMP HOME IDLE ONLY) WHILE IN TRAFFIC. IDLED OUT OF TRAFFIC, SHUT ENGINE OFF, KEY ON ENGINE OFF REPEATEDLY TAPPED THROTTLE PEDAL …
Read full complaint
P2112 THROTTLE STUCK. REMOVED THROTTLE BODY 7-2-14 CLEANED CARBON/OIL RESIDUE RESULTING FROM PCV RECURC, AND REINSTALLED THROTTLE BODY, CLEARED CODES. DRIVING 7-6-14 SAME SYMPTOMS (MIL P2112 AND LIMP HOME IDLE ONLY) WHILE IN TRAFFIC. IDLED OUT OF TRAFFIC, SHUT ENGINE OFF, KEY ON ENGINE OFF REPEATEDLY TAPPED THROTTLE PEDAL TO WORK THROTTLE BODY MOTOR AND PLATE. CLEARED CODES, DROVE HOME, PULLED THROTTLE BODY. STILL CLEAN WITH NO CARBON/RESIDUE OR OTHER SIGNS OF MATERIAL THAT WOULD OBSTRUCT THROTTLE VALVE MOVEMENT. SOURCING NEW THROTTLE BODY NOW. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10608427
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