NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
66 reportsClear category filter76,000 miles · Aug 29, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING MY CAR MERGING ON TO THE EXPRESSWAY IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND AS SOON AS I GOT ON THE CAR COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I COULD NOT PUSH ON THE GAS OR ANYTHING. LUCKILY THERE WAS AN OPENING IN SOME CONES FOR ME TO BARELY HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO GET OUT ON ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE IN MORNING RUSHING HOUR TR…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY CAR MERGING ON TO THE EXPRESSWAY IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND AS SOON AS I GOT ON THE CAR COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I COULD NOT PUSH ON THE GAS OR ANYTHING. LUCKILY THERE WAS AN OPENING IN SOME CONES FOR ME TO BARELY HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO GET OUT ON ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE IN MORNING RUSHING HOUR TRAFFIC. I HAD TO TURN MY CAR OFF AND LUCKILY IT CAME BACK ON. I HAVE READ ONLINE THAT THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO SO MANY PEOPLE THAT THE PART IS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. THIS IS CRAZY! I HAD MY 1 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IN THE CAR AND WE COULD HAVE BEEN HIT. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNSAFE!
NHTSA ODI #10537878
33,985 miles · Aug 28, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
DRIVING TO WORK WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR STARTED TO BUCK. THEN THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR SLOWED DOWN TO 0 WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. HAD TO PULL OVER QUICKLY AS I WAS IN TRAFFIC AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. STARTED IT UP AGAIN AND ONLY THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON - CAR WOULD ONLY GO ABOUT 15 MPH. …
Read full complaint
DRIVING TO WORK WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR STARTED TO BUCK. THEN THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR SLOWED DOWN TO 0 WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. HAD TO PULL OVER QUICKLY AS I WAS IN TRAFFIC AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. STARTED IT UP AGAIN AND ONLY THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON - CAR WOULD ONLY GO ABOUT 15 MPH. FOUND OUT IT WAS A COMMON PROBLEM BEING LOOKED AT BY NHTSA. POWER TRAIN THROTTLE BODY HAD TO BE REPLACED. NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. I AM NOT A HAPPY CAMPER IT WAS NOT CHEAP TO FIX. EEC TEST CODE P2111 I FOUND THIS ON THE WEB AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND OUT IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE MODEL YEAR 2009. SHAME ON FORD. *TT
NHTSA ODI #10537784
48,592 miles · Aug 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE STALLED 3 TIMES AND HAD NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. TURN KEY OFF AND RESTART VEHICLE TO REGAIN THROTTLE RESPONSE. WRENCH LIGHT AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. MECHANIC RETRIEVED MEMORY CODES P2111 AND P2112. *TR PERFORMED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY TEST WITH IDS. THROTTLE BODY FAILED AND HAS A FAULT. MECHANIC REPLACED THROTTLE BODY
NHTSA ODI #10537577
34,100 miles · Aug 26, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY STALLS WITH NO PRIOR WARNING. THE THIRD TIME I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH ON THE PARKWAY. I HAVE A SECOND 2010 MARINER WHICH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM IN AUGUST 2013. BOTH WERE REPAIRED BY THE DEALER BY REPLACING A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537260
35,215 miles · Aug 26, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY STALLS WITH NO PRIOR WARNING. THE THIRD TIME I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH ON THE PARKWAY. A DANGEROUS CONDITION TO SAY THE LEAST. I HAVE A SECOND 2010 MARINER WHICH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM IN JANUARY 2013. BOTH WERE REPAIRED BY THE DEALER BY REPLA…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY STALLS WITH NO PRIOR WARNING. THE THIRD TIME I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH ON THE PARKWAY. A DANGEROUS CONDITION TO SAY THE LEAST. I HAVE A SECOND 2010 MARINER WHICH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM IN JANUARY 2013. BOTH WERE REPAIRED BY THE DEALER BY REPLACING A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537259
45,100 miles · Aug 23, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
VERY DANGEROUS THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION: AS I WAS ACCELERATING FROM APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH I PRESSED THE GAS AND SUDDENLY THERE WAS NO POWER...NOTHING. I HAD POWER STEERING AND BRAKES BUT THE CAR SLOWED DOWN RAPIDLY AND WENT INTO WHAT I LATER FOUND OUT WAS SAFE MODE. IT WAS IDLING ROUGH AND THE CAR WAS SLOWING DOWN RAPIDLY BECA…
Read full complaint
VERY DANGEROUS THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION: AS I WAS ACCELERATING FROM APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH I PRESSED THE GAS AND SUDDENLY THERE WAS NO POWER...NOTHING. I HAD POWER STEERING AND BRAKES BUT THE CAR SLOWED DOWN RAPIDLY AND WENT INTO WHAT I LATER FOUND OUT WAS SAFE MODE. IT WAS IDLING ROUGH AND THE CAR WAS SLOWING DOWN RAPIDLY BECAUSE I WAS ON A SLIGHT INCLINE. A WRENCH APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD. THIS HAPPENED FOUR MORE TIME IN THREE DAYS. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS REPLACED. THIS WAS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS BECAUSE WHERE THIS OCCURED THE SPEED LIMIT WAS 55 MPH, I DO A LOT OF HIGHWAY DRIVING AND I WAS VERY LUCKY THIS DID NOT HAPPEN ON THE EXPRESSWAY. NO CODE APPEARED ON THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE READER EVEN THOUGH THIS OCCURED FOUR MORE TIMES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537020
30,000 miles · Aug 21, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control
I HAD JUST GOTTEN BACK FROM A LONG TRIP, AND WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT - I BARELY ACCELERATED ONCE IT TURNED GREEN, AND THE CAR LOST COMPLETE AND TOTAL POWER, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. NO THROTTLE WAS WORKING AS MUCH AS I PRESSED DOWN. THE CAR KEPT SNAIL PACING UNTIL I GOT TO AN EMPTY PARKING L…
Read full complaint
I HAD JUST GOTTEN BACK FROM A LONG TRIP, AND WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT - I BARELY ACCELERATED ONCE IT TURNED GREEN, AND THE CAR LOST COMPLETE AND TOTAL POWER, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. NO THROTTLE WAS WORKING AS MUCH AS I PRESSED DOWN. THE CAR KEPT SNAIL PACING UNTIL I GOT TO AN EMPTY PARKING LOT WHERE I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF. I TURNED IT BACK ON AND IT REVVED ITSELF, SO I TURNED IT BACK OFF. TURNED IT BACK ON AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WORKED AGAIN. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER WHO CLAIMED IT WAS THE "ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY" FAILING AND CHARGED ME $98 FOR THE DIAGNOSTIC. I DECIDED FOR A SECOND OPINION, AND THEY TOOK EVERYTHING APART TO SEE IF IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE SINCE THE CAR IS ONLY 3 YEARS OLD AND ONLY HAS 30,000 MILES ON IT. AFTER MUCH TESTING THEY CONCLUDED IT WAS IN FACT THE "ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY," AND THE REPAIR COST ME $595. BEFORE THIS HAPPENED, 2 OR 3 DAYS PRIOR, I FELT THE CAR WAS LOSING POWER AND IT WAS HARD TO GET IT TO GO AT IT'S V6 POTENTIAL. CAR STILL HESITATES AND FEELS LIKE THE ENGINE JUMPS OUT WHEN IT STOPS AND MOVES AGAIN... SURE ENOUGH MY ENGINE MOUNTS NOW NEED REPLACING, AND THAT'S ANYWHERE BETWEEN $350-$500. ANOTHER RECALL PERHAPS? IT'S BEEN DOING THIS SINCE DAY 1, AND MY WARRANTY ENDED ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO. GO FIGURE... JUST WHEN 3 YEARS WAS UP! SIGH *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536432
47,170 miles · Aug 16, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
LOST POWER WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN VEHICLE STALLED RESTARTED BUT CONTINUED TO STALL TOWED TO REPAIR SHOP REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535813
42,000 miles · Aug 15, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
SUDDENLY LOST ALL POWER. CAR DID NOT STALL BUT HAD NO THROTTLE. THERE WAS NO SHOULDER ON BUSY ROUTE 46 IN NEW JERSEY. I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO COAST INTO A WENDY'S PARKING LOT TO AVOID A COLLISION FROM THE REAR. EMERGENCY REPAIR WAS PERFORMED BY A LOCAL MECHANIC. IDENTIFIED FAULT CODE AS P2112. CAR RESTARTED AND I WAS FORCE…
Read full complaint
SUDDENLY LOST ALL POWER. CAR DID NOT STALL BUT HAD NO THROTTLE. THERE WAS NO SHOULDER ON BUSY ROUTE 46 IN NEW JERSEY. I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO COAST INTO A WENDY'S PARKING LOT TO AVOID A COLLISION FROM THE REAR. EMERGENCY REPAIR WAS PERFORMED BY A LOCAL MECHANIC. IDENTIFIED FAULT CODE AS P2112. CAR RESTARTED AND I WAS FORCED BY PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCE TO DRIVE THE CAR HOME DESPITE THE INCIDENT. VERY SCARY SINCE I TRAVELED ON NJ TURNPIKE BY NEWARK AIRPORT...ELEVATED HIGHWAY, 3 LANES, NO SHOULDER, 65MPH, 18 WHEELERS. IF CAR HAD STALLED THERE, I WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED!!!! I WANT MY GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ACTION TO FORCE FORD TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND FORCE A SAFETY RECALL FOR THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY.. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535501
100,595 miles · Aug 12, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS AS THE MIL WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED ABOU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS AS THE MIL WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,595.
NHTSA ODI #10534995
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