NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
61 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
78,000 miles · Jun 25, 2015
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE SURGES WILDLY AT IDLE SPEEDS IN TRAFFIC. VEHICLE STALLS OUT WHILE DRIVING REGULAR HIGHWAY SPEED, SURGES WILDLY WHILE DRIVING, RPM SPIKES DRASTICALLY WHILE DRIVING AND AT IDLE. STALLS AND SURGES BOTH WHILE ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION AND WHILE DRIVING AT REGULAR PACE. STRUGGLES TO CRANK AFTER FUELING THE V…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE SURGES WILDLY AT IDLE SPEEDS IN TRAFFIC. VEHICLE STALLS OUT WHILE DRIVING REGULAR HIGHWAY SPEED, SURGES WILDLY WHILE DRIVING, RPM SPIKES DRASTICALLY WHILE DRIVING AND AT IDLE. STALLS AND SURGES BOTH WHILE ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION AND WHILE DRIVING AT REGULAR PACE. STRUGGLES TO CRANK AFTER FUELING THE VEHICLE. SPITS AND SPUTTER AND SHAKES WHILE AT IDLE....UPDATED10/20/15 *BF
NHTSA ODI #10730299
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
73,400 miles · Mar 10, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed Control
THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND THE WRENCH SYMBOL ILLUMINATED. I HAD TO PULL OVER TURN OFF THE CAR AND RESTART IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10693356
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
59,800 miles · Jul 17, 2014
EngineFuel System, GasolinePower Train
DURING NORMAL DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY THE ENGINE LOST POWER, THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH LIT. THE VEHICLE SPUTTERED AND SUDDENLY DECREASED IN SPEED, MAKING FOR HAZARDOUS DRIVING CONDITIONS. I MOVED TO THE SIDE OF THE 4 LANE HIGHWAY AND INTO THE BREAKDOWN LANE. I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN PARK, THE ENGINE IDLED ROUGHLY. I TURNED …
Read full complaint
DURING NORMAL DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY THE ENGINE LOST POWER, THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH LIT. THE VEHICLE SPUTTERED AND SUDDENLY DECREASED IN SPEED, MAKING FOR HAZARDOUS DRIVING CONDITIONS. I MOVED TO THE SIDE OF THE 4 LANE HIGHWAY AND INTO THE BREAKDOWN LANE. I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN PARK, THE ENGINE IDLED ROUGHLY. I TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED THE CAR AND THE SYMPTOMS WERE GONE. A WEEK LATER THE SAME TROUBLE RETURNED. PLEASE PRESS FMC TO RESOLVE AT NO-COST TO CONSUMER THE OBVIOUS AND DANGEROUS MANUFACTURE DEFECT WITH A RECALL ON THE AFFECTED PARTS/SYSTEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10611368
56,000 miles · Jul 15, 2014
EnginePower Train
WAS GOING HOME FROM WORK, ABOUT 20 MPH, CAR SPUTTERED AND STOPPED ACCELERATING ON RAMP, ENGINE AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. THIS HAD HAPPENED BEFORE SO I KNEW TO TURN THE CAR OFF AND BACK ON TO GET MY CAR TO WORK AGAIN. BUT ALAS, I AM DRIVING AT ABOUT 30 MPG FOR ONLY 2 MINUTES AND IT HAPPENS AGAIN! I WAS AGAIN ON ANOTHER RAMP, COMP…
Read full complaint
WAS GOING HOME FROM WORK, ABOUT 20 MPH, CAR SPUTTERED AND STOPPED ACCELERATING ON RAMP, ENGINE AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. THIS HAD HAPPENED BEFORE SO I KNEW TO TURN THE CAR OFF AND BACK ON TO GET MY CAR TO WORK AGAIN. BUT ALAS, I AM DRIVING AT ABOUT 30 MPG FOR ONLY 2 MINUTES AND IT HAPPENS AGAIN! I WAS AGAIN ON ANOTHER RAMP, COMPLETELY BLOCKING TRAFFIC. THANK GOD I WAS NOT YET ON I-95 GOING AT A HIGH SPEED, OR EVEN WORSE WITH MY CHILD IN THE CAR. IF I EVER GET IN AN ACCIDENT WITH MY CHILD AND WE ARE INJURED BECAUSE OF THIS, MY FAMILY WILL SUE THE HECK OUT OF FORD. HAS TO CALL MY HUSBAND TO DRIVE THE CAR TO THE DEALER AFTER I PULLED OFF THE ROAD, I WAS SHAKING TOO BAD TO DRIVE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10610842
26,000 miles · Mar 28, 2014
Engine
SLOWED TO MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN INTO A PARKING LOT AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THERE WAS NO WARNING OF AN IMPENDING STALL AND NO CONSOLE LIGHTS CAME ON OTHER THAN THE BATTERY LIGHT AND THE OIL LIGHT. THE INCIDENT DID NOT CREATE AN ERROR CODE IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AS I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A FORD DEALERSHIP FOR SERVICE AND TO CHE…
Read full complaint
SLOWED TO MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN INTO A PARKING LOT AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THERE WAS NO WARNING OF AN IMPENDING STALL AND NO CONSOLE LIGHTS CAME ON OTHER THAN THE BATTERY LIGHT AND THE OIL LIGHT. THE INCIDENT DID NOT CREATE AN ERROR CODE IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AS I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A FORD DEALERSHIP FOR SERVICE AND TO CHECK FOR ANY ISSUES WITH THE VEHICLE. FORD REPAIR SHOP FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH VEHICLE UPON INSPECTION AND SAID THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO WITHOUT AN ERROR CODE IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. A STALLING INCIDENT OCCURRED AGAIN ON 3/18/14. IN THIS INSTANCE, AGAIN THERE WAS NO WARNING. I HAD JUST EXITED OFF OF THE HIGHWAY AND WAS ACCELERATING AFTER A STOP SIGN. THE VEHICLE STALLED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. AGAIN, ONLY THE BATTERY LIGHT AND OIL LIGHT CAME ON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10575436
50,000 miles · Jan 31, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
TWICE IN TWO DAYS WHILE SPEEDING UP TO GET ON HIGHWAY MY MARINER LOOSES COMPLETE POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. LUCKY FOR ME IT WAS JUST BEFORE I WAS TURNING ON TO MERGE. SECONDS LATER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT, DUE TO THE SUDDEN STOP. I HAD TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND START IT BACK UP IN ORDER TO GET GOING AGAIN. …
Read full complaint
TWICE IN TWO DAYS WHILE SPEEDING UP TO GET ON HIGHWAY MY MARINER LOOSES COMPLETE POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. LUCKY FOR ME IT WAS JUST BEFORE I WAS TURNING ON TO MERGE. SECONDS LATER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT, DUE TO THE SUDDEN STOP. I HAD TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND START IT BACK UP IN ORDER TO GET GOING AGAIN. AFTER READING #PE13003 HAS BEEN FILE FOR THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM WITH SAME MAKE AND MODEL. SOMEONE BETTER REACT BEFORE SOMEONE LOOSES A LIFE. THIS IS HORRIBLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10562355
17,000 miles · Jan 13, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
IN 2011, WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL AND COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE STAYED ON BUT I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO TURN ON THE HAZARDS AND PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND AFTER WAITING 5 MINUTES I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND THE GAS PEDAL WAS WORKIN…
Read full complaint
IN 2011, WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL AND COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE STAYED ON BUT I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO TURN ON THE HAZARDS AND PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND AFTER WAITING 5 MINUTES I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND THE GAS PEDAL WAS WORKING. THEN AGAIN IN OCTOBER 2013, I WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH WHEN I LOST ACCELERATION CAPABILITY. THIS TIME THE THROTTLE BODY INDICATOR LIGHT WAS DISPLAYED. I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO A MECHANIC AND HE STATED THAT NOTHING REGISTERED ON THE COMPUTER AS A MALFUNCTION. HE LOOKED AT THE INTAKE VALVE AND COULD NOT SEE ANY BUILD-UP. IN JANUARY 2014 THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES AND I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND PROCEED. HOWEVER, ON JANUARY 11, 2014 AFTER THE MALFUNCTION THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESET IMMEDIATELY NOW THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS DISPLAYED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10559637
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