NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
66 reportsClear category filter50,000 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
25,134 miles · Dec 31, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHEN ACCELERATING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION, MY VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION POWER AND THE POWER BRAKES FAILED. AFTER RESTARTING THE VEHICLE, THE VEHICLE WAS SLOWLY MOVED TO A SIDE STREET, BACKING-UP TRAFFIC ON THE BUSY STREET. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THE DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT THROTTLE BODY NEEDED REPLACING. TH…
Read full complaint
WHEN ACCELERATING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION, MY VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION POWER AND THE POWER BRAKES FAILED. AFTER RESTARTING THE VEHICLE, THE VEHICLE WAS SLOWLY MOVED TO A SIDE STREET, BACKING-UP TRAFFIC ON THE BUSY STREET. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THE DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT THROTTLE BODY NEEDED REPLACING. THE SERVICE COST ME $503 PLUS TAX. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10558026
37,950 miles · Dec 28, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE SHUT OFF WHILE DRIVING. THIS RE-OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE NEXT 8 DAYS ALSO WHILE DRIVING, ONE TIME WHILE MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN ACROSS ONCOMING TRAFFIC. WE RESEARCHED THE PROBLEM AND HAD TWO ESTIMATES DONE AND CONTACTED FORD MOTOR COMPANY. THE THROTTLE BODY HAD TO BE REPLACED AND THE REPAIR COST US $400.0…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE SHUT OFF WHILE DRIVING. THIS RE-OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE NEXT 8 DAYS ALSO WHILE DRIVING, ONE TIME WHILE MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN ACROSS ONCOMING TRAFFIC. WE RESEARCHED THE PROBLEM AND HAD TWO ESTIMATES DONE AND CONTACTED FORD MOTOR COMPANY. THE THROTTLE BODY HAD TO BE REPLACED AND THE REPAIR COST US $400.00 DOLLARS. WE HAVE RESEARCHED THIS PROBLEM AND HAVE SEEN THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON SAFETY PROBLEM. WE SPOKE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE A FORD ESCAPE AND ALREADY HAD THEIR THROTTLE BODY REPLACED AS WELL FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. WE WERE TOLD BY THE DEALERSHIP THAT THE NEW PART IS DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY NOW, SO THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN TO US AGAIN. THIS HAS TO BE A RECALL ITEM. IT IS OBVIOUSLY A MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN. FORD SHOULD HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE CHARGES. WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT FORD HAS NOT TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS ISSUE AND THAT ALL OF US HAVE TO PAY FOR A DEFECTIVE SYSTEM THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY KNOWS IS A PROBLEM, AND COULD HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE OF A MAJOR ACCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10557554
50,000 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
40,000 miles · Nov 23, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
GOING 65 MILES DOWN INTERSTATE DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC AND LOST ALL POWER HAD TO WEAVE TO SIDE OF ROAD TO GET OUT OF TRAFFIC HAD TO HAVE REPAIRED WAS THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553504
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
80,000 miles · Oct 30, 2013
Service BrakesSteeringVehicle Speed Control
CAR STALLED WHILE MY GRANDDAUGHTER WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. IT ALSO DID NOT ACCELERATE. SHE HAD TO STEP ON THE BRAKES TO GET THE CAR TO MOVE. SHE IMMEDIATELY GOT A DIAGNOSIS FROM AUTO ZONE (THROTTLE BODY SYSTEM OPEN- P2111), THEN TOOK THE CAR TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS CONFIRMED AND REPAIRED. AN EMERGENCY L…
Read full complaint
CAR STALLED WHILE MY GRANDDAUGHTER WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. IT ALSO DID NOT ACCELERATE. SHE HAD TO STEP ON THE BRAKES TO GET THE CAR TO MOVE. SHE IMMEDIATELY GOT A DIAGNOSIS FROM AUTO ZONE (THROTTLE BODY SYSTEM OPEN- P2111), THEN TOOK THE CAR TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS CONFIRMED AND REPAIRED. AN EMERGENCY LIGHT CAME ON DURING THIS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10550294
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
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