← New search

2010 Mercury Mariner

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Mariner years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Mercury Mariner are substantially higher than the model-year median of 63.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Mariner years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

All reported categories

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

225 reports with mileage · 45 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 66 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Steering. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

2 crash reports2 fire reports3 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

29 reports
Clear category filter
51,912 miles · Apr 18, 2014
Electrical System

REPEATED PROBLEMS WITH VEHICLE NOT STARTING. FORD DEALER REPLACED LOCK MODULE AND IGNITION CYLINDER. TOTAL COST $526.50. I PURCHASED VEHICLE NEW, AND SERVICED ONLY AT FORD DEALERSHIP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10583476

Mileage unknown · Oct 30, 2013
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control

I HAVE BEEN HAVING A PROBLEM WITH MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER FOR OVER A MONTH. IT IS STALLING OUT AT RANDOM TIMES AND THEN THE VEHICLE DIES. TOOK TO DEALERSHIP SEVERAL TIMES AND THE COMPUTER IS NOT DETECTING THE PROBLEM SO THEY CANT DETERMINE WHAT TO FIX. THE DEALERSHIP SAYS IT MAY ME THE THROTTLE BODY, BUT THIS IS NOT COVERED IN…

Read full complaint

I HAVE BEEN HAVING A PROBLEM WITH MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER FOR OVER A MONTH. IT IS STALLING OUT AT RANDOM TIMES AND THEN THE VEHICLE DIES. TOOK TO DEALERSHIP SEVERAL TIMES AND THE COMPUTER IS NOT DETECTING THE PROBLEM SO THEY CANT DETERMINE WHAT TO FIX. THE DEALERSHIP SAYS IT MAY ME THE THROTTLE BODY, BUT THIS IS NOT COVERED IN MY EXTENDED WARRANTY AND IS A VERY EXPENSIVE PART TO REPLACE. I AM A SINGLE MOTHER WITH 2 KIDS AND THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS WHEN WE ARE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 75 MPH WITH TRAFFIC. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550268

71,825 miles · Sep 17, 2013
Electrical System

I WAS TRAVELING ALONG, WITH MY DAUGHTER IN THE CAR, WHEN IT SEEMED TO JUST SHUT OFF. I WAS ONLY GOING 40MPH BUT IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC. I PULLED THE CAR OVER, IT WAS THEN I COULD TELL IT WAS SORTA STILL RUNNING. I COME TO FIND OUT LATER IT WENT INTO A SAFE MODE. SINCE THEN MY WIFE OR I HAVE BARELY DROVE IT. WE HAD A CLOSE FRIEND C…

Read full complaint

I WAS TRAVELING ALONG, WITH MY DAUGHTER IN THE CAR, WHEN IT SEEMED TO JUST SHUT OFF. I WAS ONLY GOING 40MPH BUT IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC. I PULLED THE CAR OVER, IT WAS THEN I COULD TELL IT WAS SORTA STILL RUNNING. I COME TO FIND OUT LATER IT WENT INTO A SAFE MODE. SINCE THEN MY WIFE OR I HAVE BARELY DROVE IT. WE HAD A CLOSE FRIEND CHECK IT OUT AND IT IS THE THROTTLE BODY. I THEN DID SOME RESEARCH ONLINE AND COME TO FIND OUT IT SEEMS I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH THIS PROBLEM. IS ANYONE OUT THERE MAKING FORD MOTOR COMPANY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP, WHERE WE PURCHASED OUR VEHICLE NEW AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO, UNLESS I PAID FOR THIS. I FEEL THIS IS UNFAIR! MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE BRAND NEW WITH ONLY 8 MILES. WHY SHOULD WE BE PUNISHED FOR WHAT CLEARLY IS A DEFECT IN A FORD PRODUCT? PLEASE HELP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10544081

30,000 miles · Aug 21, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control

I HAD JUST GOTTEN BACK FROM A LONG TRIP, AND WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT - I BARELY ACCELERATED ONCE IT TURNED GREEN, AND THE CAR LOST COMPLETE AND TOTAL POWER, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. NO THROTTLE WAS WORKING AS MUCH AS I PRESSED DOWN. THE CAR KEPT SNAIL PACING UNTIL I GOT TO AN EMPTY PARKING L…

Read full complaint

I HAD JUST GOTTEN BACK FROM A LONG TRIP, AND WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT - I BARELY ACCELERATED ONCE IT TURNED GREEN, AND THE CAR LOST COMPLETE AND TOTAL POWER, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. NO THROTTLE WAS WORKING AS MUCH AS I PRESSED DOWN. THE CAR KEPT SNAIL PACING UNTIL I GOT TO AN EMPTY PARKING LOT WHERE I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF. I TURNED IT BACK ON AND IT REVVED ITSELF, SO I TURNED IT BACK OFF. TURNED IT BACK ON AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WORKED AGAIN. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER WHO CLAIMED IT WAS THE "ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY" FAILING AND CHARGED ME $98 FOR THE DIAGNOSTIC. I DECIDED FOR A SECOND OPINION, AND THEY TOOK EVERYTHING APART TO SEE IF IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE SINCE THE CAR IS ONLY 3 YEARS OLD AND ONLY HAS 30,000 MILES ON IT. AFTER MUCH TESTING THEY CONCLUDED IT WAS IN FACT THE "ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY," AND THE REPAIR COST ME $595. BEFORE THIS HAPPENED, 2 OR 3 DAYS PRIOR, I FELT THE CAR WAS LOSING POWER AND IT WAS HARD TO GET IT TO GO AT IT'S V6 POTENTIAL. CAR STILL HESITATES AND FEELS LIKE THE ENGINE JUMPS OUT WHEN IT STOPS AND MOVES AGAIN... SURE ENOUGH MY ENGINE MOUNTS NOW NEED REPLACING, AND THAT'S ANYWHERE BETWEEN $350-$500. ANOTHER RECALL PERHAPS? IT'S BEEN DOING THIS SINCE DAY 1, AND MY WARRANTY ENDED ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO. GO FIGURE... JUST WHEN 3 YEARS WAS UP! SIGH *TR

NHTSA ODI #10536432

35,800 miles · Aug 6, 2013
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

I PURCHASED MY 2010 MARINER 03/26/2013 FROM A LOCAL DEALERSHIP. WHILE DRIVING AT AROUND 35 - 40 MPH I NOTICED A GRINDING SOUND AND DIFFICULTY TO INCREASE SPEED. I THEN NOTICED THAT MY LEFT BLINKER WAS FLASHING AT A FASTER SPEED AND THE TAIL LIGHT WENT OUT. THAT WAS REPLACED. THE CAR THEN WOULD SPORADICALLY GO DEAD AND WOULD HAVE…

Read full complaint

I PURCHASED MY 2010 MARINER 03/26/2013 FROM A LOCAL DEALERSHIP. WHILE DRIVING AT AROUND 35 - 40 MPH I NOTICED A GRINDING SOUND AND DIFFICULTY TO INCREASE SPEED. I THEN NOTICED THAT MY LEFT BLINKER WAS FLASHING AT A FASTER SPEED AND THE TAIL LIGHT WENT OUT. THAT WAS REPLACED. THE CAR THEN WOULD SPORADICALLY GO DEAD AND WOULD HAVE TO BE JUMPED. I HAD 3 DIFFERENT SERVICE SHOPS LOOK AT THE VEHICLE AND FOUND NO ISSUES. I DID REPLACE THE BATTERY AND IT APPEARED TO RUN FINE FOR ABOUT 3 - 4 DAYS. IT IS NOW SPORADICALLY DEAD AND THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP WILL LOOK INTO THE ISSUE ON 8/7/2013. UNDETERMINED PROBLEM AT THIS TIME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533848

75,500 miles · Jul 20, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

DESCRIPTION WAS MAD WITH COMPLAINT NO. 10525937 I HAD ENTERED THE WRONG TYPE VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525938

75,500 miles · Jul 20, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

MY DAUGHTER WAS TRAVELING IN LOUISIANA ON BUSINESS, WHEN FOR NO REASON THE SUV STOPPED ON THE INTERSTATE SHE PHONED ME IN TEARS ON THE ISSUE, SHE WAS STRANDED ON THE INTERSTATE FOR A SHORT WHILE. SHE GOT IT STARTED AGAIN AFTER A FEW MINUTES. SHE DROVE FOR ANOTHER FEW MILES AND IT DID IT AGAIN. SHE FINALLY MADE IT TO A DEALER. …

Read full complaint

MY DAUGHTER WAS TRAVELING IN LOUISIANA ON BUSINESS, WHEN FOR NO REASON THE SUV STOPPED ON THE INTERSTATE SHE PHONED ME IN TEARS ON THE ISSUE, SHE WAS STRANDED ON THE INTERSTATE FOR A SHORT WHILE. SHE GOT IT STARTED AGAIN AFTER A FEW MINUTES. SHE DROVE FOR ANOTHER FEW MILES AND IT DID IT AGAIN. SHE FINALLY MADE IT TO A DEALER. THE DEALER RAN A TEST THAT COST HER 125 DOLLARS ONLY TO TELL HER SHE HAD A BAD ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. THEY INFORMED HER THAT THE PART WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND WOULD BE DAYS MAYBE WEEKS BEFORE THEY COULD GET ONE. SHE THAN RETURNED TO HER PLACE OF STAY , THAT TOOK ABOUT AN HOUR BECAUSE SHE COULD TAKE THE INTERSTATE AND HAD TO STOP EVERY FEW MILES TO RESTART THE ENGINE. WHAT A HUGE INCONVENIENCE AND FRIGHTENED SHE WOULD BE REAR ENDED. I HOPE A RESOLUTION IS IN THE WORKS FOR THIS SAFETY ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525937

51,000 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

CAR WENT INTO 'LIMP MODE" AT ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. HAD TO STOP, TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN RESTARTED. WARNING LIGHT WENT OFF BUT IT OCCURRED AGAIN IN ABOUT 5 MILES. WENT TO FORD DEALER THE NEXT DAY AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG NOR DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN…

Read full complaint

CAR WENT INTO 'LIMP MODE" AT ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. HAD TO STOP, TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN RESTARTED. WARNING LIGHT WENT OFF BUT IT OCCURRED AGAIN IN ABOUT 5 MILES. WENT TO FORD DEALER THE NEXT DAY AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG NOR DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN A COUPLE OF MILES AFTER LEAVING THE DEALERSHIP. I IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THE DEALER AND THEY ONCE AGAIN COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG. TWO DAYS LATER ON I-95 THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP MODE" THE ORANGE LIGHT CAME ON AND I DROVE TO THE SIDE. THE TRAFFIC WAS BACKED UP SO I WAS GOING ABOUT 25 MPH WHEN THIS OCCURRED. WHEN I RESTARTED THE ENGINE THIS TIME, THE "WRENCH" WARNING LIGHT WENT OFF BUT THE "CHECK THE ENGINE" LIGHT CAME ON AND REMAINED ON. NEXT DAY RETURNED TO THE DEALER AND THIS TIME THEY SAID THEY FOUND THE PROBLEM AND IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. IN RESEARCHING ON LINE I FOUND THAT THIS IS OCCURRING WITH SOME FREQUENCY AND WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO SEE FORD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUING A DEFECTIVE PART. AS OF NOW IT LOOKS LIKE I WILL HAVE TO PAY THE BILL AND HOPE THAT THE NEW PART IS NOT DEFECTIVE ALSO. IT IS A REAL SAFETY ISSUE AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE RESOLVED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525219

27,000 miles · Aug 5, 2012
Electrical SystemEngineExterior LightingFire

SHORT IN LEFT FRONT HEADLIGHT AND FOR CHANGED LIGHT BULB AND 10 MINUTES AFTER PARKING MY CAR AND OWNING IT 1 1/2 MONTHS THE CAR BLEW UP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10469214

Official recalls

2

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 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.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

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

3

DP15001 · 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.