NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
61 reportsClear category filter50,000 miles · Dec 22, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WAS AT STOP LIGHT COMPLETELY STOPPED. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, I STEPPED ON THE ACCELERATOR AND MY CAR DID NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND ANOTHER LIGHT CAME ON. I TRIED MULTIPLE TIMES TO MOVE THE CAR AND NOTHING HAPPENED. I POWERED MY CAR DOWN AND RESTARTED IT, AT THIS TIME THE CAR STARTED MOVING AGAIN WHEN I PRESSED O…
Read full complaint
WAS AT STOP LIGHT COMPLETELY STOPPED. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, I STEPPED ON THE ACCELERATOR AND MY CAR DID NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND ANOTHER LIGHT CAME ON. I TRIED MULTIPLE TIMES TO MOVE THE CAR AND NOTHING HAPPENED. I POWERED MY CAR DOWN AND RESTARTED IT, AT THIS TIME THE CAR STARTED MOVING AGAIN WHEN I PRESSED ON THE ACCELERATOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10556990
47,000 miles · Nov 22, 2013
EngineFuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING IN HEAVY TRAFFIC IN CENTER LANE OF THREE LINE HIGHWAY. VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST POWER CREATING A EMERGENCY SITUATION. I HAD TO FORCE TRAFFIC TO ALLOW ME PROCEED TO SIDE OF THE ROAD. ENDANGERING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY, I SAT FOR ABOUT 30 MIN. BEFORE I COULD MOVE THE VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553301
40,000 miles · Nov 4, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING IN TOWN AND THE CAR BEGAN TO "BUCK" AND SLOW DOWN. AFTER A FEW MINUTES THE ACCELERATOR HAD NO EFFECT ON THE ENGINE. IT APPEARED TO BE IDLING ONLY. SHE PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND STOPPED THE CAR, WAITED A10 MINUTES OR SO, AND STARTED IT AGAIN. THERE WAS NO DIFFICULTY STARTING THE CAR, BUT AGAIN THE ACCELERATOR HA…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING IN TOWN AND THE CAR BEGAN TO "BUCK" AND SLOW DOWN. AFTER A FEW MINUTES THE ACCELERATOR HAD NO EFFECT ON THE ENGINE. IT APPEARED TO BE IDLING ONLY. SHE PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND STOPPED THE CAR, WAITED A10 MINUTES OR SO, AND STARTED IT AGAIN. THERE WAS NO DIFFICULTY STARTING THE CAR, BUT AGAIN THE ACCELERATOR HAD NO EFFECT ON THE ENGINE SPEED. WE HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A BAD THROTTLE BODY AND THROTTLE MOTOR. THE REPAIRS COST APPROXIMATELY $500. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10550871
49,000 miles · Oct 20, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE STARTED TO STALL WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDDLE WAS ENGAGED, AFTER TURNING VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTING IT WOULD TRAVEL APPROXIMATELY 50 TO 100FT. BEFORE AGAIN STALLING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10548605
61,100 miles · Oct 16, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHEN DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED OF 20-25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND BUCKED A LITTLE. THE WRENCH (POWERTRAIN) SIGNAL LIGHT UP ON THE DASH, SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, AND SHUT IT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES I TURNED IT ON AGAIN AND ALL SEEMED FINE, THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOW SLOW MOVING AND LESS SMOOTH…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED OF 20-25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND BUCKED A LITTLE. THE WRENCH (POWERTRAIN) SIGNAL LIGHT UP ON THE DASH, SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, AND SHUT IT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES I TURNED IT ON AGAIN AND ALL SEEMED FINE, THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOW SLOW MOVING AND LESS SMOOTH THROUGH SHIFTING. THE SAME THING OCCURRED 9 DAYS LATER, WITH THE VEHICLE RESPONDING EVEN MORE SLOWLY AFTERWARDS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10548116
95,000 miles · Oct 1, 2013
EnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING ALONG ON THE HIGHWAY (I-77 N) AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED TO JERK. THE WRENCH TOOL LIGHT LIT UP ON THE DASH BOARD AND THE CAR IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TO LOOSE SPEED. THE CHANGE IN POWER AND SPEED WAS QUICK AND I HAD TO QUICKLY CHECK THE SURROUNDING TRAFFIC AND PULL THE CAR OVER TO AVOID AND ACCIDENT. AFTER PULL…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ALONG ON THE HIGHWAY (I-77 N) AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED TO JERK. THE WRENCH TOOL LIGHT LIT UP ON THE DASH BOARD AND THE CAR IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TO LOOSE SPEED. THE CHANGE IN POWER AND SPEED WAS QUICK AND I HAD TO QUICKLY CHECK THE SURROUNDING TRAFFIC AND PULL THE CAR OVER TO AVOID AND ACCIDENT. AFTER PULLING OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD I CUT THE CAR COMPLETELY OFF AND IT STARTED BACK UP. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER WHERE I PURCHASED THE CAR AND I WAS ADVISED TO REPLACE THE FILTER. I PURCHASED A FILTER FROM FORD AND MY CAR RAN SMOOTHLY FOR ABOUT 2 WEEKS. I WOULD PUSH ON THE ACCELERATOR BUT IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. EACH TIME THE WRENCH TOOL WOULD APPEAR AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WOULD COME ON. I HAVE LOST SPEED IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. AFTER MY CAR STARTED TO CUT OFF AGAIN FOLLOWING THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW FILTER I TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE DEALER AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO PURCHASE THROTTLE BODY SPRAY. THEY CLEANED OUT THE THROTTLE BODY AND THE CAR DROVE FINE FOR A FEW DAYS UNTIL I BEGAN EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM. SOME TIMES I WOULD HAVE TO CUT MY CAR OFF A FEW TIMES AND RESTART IT ON ONE ROUND TRIP. I KEEP REGULAR MAINTENANCE ON THIS CAR, CHANGING THE OIL AND ROTATING THE TIRES, ETC. I PURCHASED THE CAR IN DECEMBER 2012 BECAUSE THE CAR I HAD OVER $2,500 OF NEEDED MAINTENANCE. I NEEDED A RELIABLE CAR TO GET AROUND AS THE PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION FOR MY FAMILY. I TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE DEALER A FEW TIMES AND THEY EXPLAINED THE CODE AND EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM: TROUBLE CODE P2111, THROTTLE BODY ACTUATOR STUCK OPEN AND CLOSED. I REALLY HOPE THIS INVESTIGATION IS EXPEDITED AND THAT FORD RECALLS THE MERCURY MARINER 2010 DUE TO THE FAULTY THROTTLE BOTTLE. I HAVE HAD ZERO MAINTENANCE ISSUES WITH MY VEHICLE OTHER THAN THE THROTTLE BODY ISSUES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546454
54,151 miles · Sep 30, 2013
Engine
I WAS ON A MAJOR EXPRESSWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTING DECREASING SPEED. I WENT FROM 55 MPH TO 45 TO 35 TO 25 TO 15 TO 5 AND THE STOPPED. LUCKILY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND WHEN THIS STARTED, I PULLED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD WHICH WAS CLOSE TO AN EXIT. I SOMEHOW GOT THE SUV HOME, STARTING THE ENGINE, IT DYING OUT AND GOING…
Read full complaint
I WAS ON A MAJOR EXPRESSWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTING DECREASING SPEED. I WENT FROM 55 MPH TO 45 TO 35 TO 25 TO 15 TO 5 AND THE STOPPED. LUCKILY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND WHEN THIS STARTED, I PULLED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD WHICH WAS CLOSE TO AN EXIT. I SOMEHOW GOT THE SUV HOME, STARTING THE ENGINE, IT DYING OUT AND GOING A COUPLE OF FEET OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO OUR AUTO SHIP AND THEY SAID THAT FORD HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE AND GAVE US A NORTH CAROLINA CONSUMERS COUNCIL ARTICLE. THEY DID NOT HAVE THE DIGITAL EQUIPMENT TO FIX AND REFERRED US TO FORD DEALERSHIP. FORD DEALERSHIP ADVISED IT WAS THE THROTTLE. I TALKED TO FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THEY ADVISED THERE WAS NO RECALL AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO.I WE SPENT $362.56 ON THROTTLE AND TWO LETTERS LATER FORD WILL DO NOTHING SINCE THEY SAY WE DO NOT HAVE THE EXTENDED WARRANTY AND WE ARE BEYOND THREE YEARS/36,000 MILES. I WAS AFRAID WHEN THE CAR DIED OUT ON THE EXPRESSWAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546326
38,000 miles · Sep 6, 2013
Engine
WE WERE TRAVELING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH WHEN THE ENGINE WENT DEAD LIKE THE SWITCH WAS CUT OFF. I TRIED TO RESTART THE ENGINE AND IT WOULD TRY TO START THEN GO DEAD. I DID THIS 10 TIMES AND IT FINALLY STARTED. I TOOK IT DIRECTLY TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALER. A COMPUTER CHECK DID NOT SHOW ANY PROBLEM. THE DEALER SAID HE DID …
Read full complaint
WE WERE TRAVELING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH WHEN THE ENGINE WENT DEAD LIKE THE SWITCH WAS CUT OFF. I TRIED TO RESTART THE ENGINE AND IT WOULD TRY TO START THEN GO DEAD. I DID THIS 10 TIMES AND IT FINALLY STARTED. I TOOK IT DIRECTLY TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALER. A COMPUTER CHECK DID NOT SHOW ANY PROBLEM. THE DEALER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO WORK ON AND SAID TO RETURN IT WHEN IT HAPPENS AGAIN.
NHTSA ODI #10542223
111,093 miles · Sep 2, 2013
Engine
VEHICLE LOOSING POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON, U WILL HAVE TO SHUT VEHICLE OFF AND RE CRANK IT. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10538344
46,345 miles · Aug 31, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS LEAVING A SOCCER GAME AND THE CAR WENT TO ABOUT 40 MPS AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE PEDAL WENT LIMP. I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED THE CAR AND THE CAR STARTED SHAKING LIKE IT WAS OUT OF TIME. I PUT IT IN PART AND SHUT OFF THE CAR WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON THE LIGHT WAS OFF. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE 20 MILES BACK AND FOR…
Read full complaint
I WAS LEAVING A SOCCER GAME AND THE CAR WENT TO ABOUT 40 MPS AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE PEDAL WENT LIMP. I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED THE CAR AND THE CAR STARTED SHAKING LIKE IT WAS OUT OF TIME. I PUT IT IN PART AND SHUT OFF THE CAR WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON THE LIGHT WAS OFF. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE 20 MILES BACK AND FORTH AND THEN IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO RUN THE CODES AND THERE WERE NONE. TODAY 8/31/13 IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN AND NOW FINALLY THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. CODES WERE RAN AT AUTOZONE AND P1212 THROTTLE BODY SENSOR FINALLY SHOWED UP. I HAD ALREADY CHECKED THE WEB THE FIRST TIME THAT IT DID IT AFTER TALKING WITH A MECHANIC THAT WORKS AT FORD AND HE TOLD ME WHAT IT WAS AND THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. I AM VERY UPSET. I JUST PURCHASED THIS CAR LESS THAN THREE MONTHS AGO!!! SINGLE MOM SOMEONE HELP!!! *JS
NHTSA ODI #10538244
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