NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
66 reportsClear category filter60,900 miles · Jul 6, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS I WOULD BE DRIVING THE CAR AND IT WOULD LOSE ALL POWER AND THE WRENCH SYMBOL WOULD APPEAR IN THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. I WOULD HAVE TO PULL OVER, STOP THE CAR AND TURN IT OFF. IT WOULD THEN START AND I COULD GO FOR AN UNDETERMINED PERIOD OF TIME AND IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. THIS RESULTED IN MORE THAN ONE NEAR M…
Read full complaint
ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS I WOULD BE DRIVING THE CAR AND IT WOULD LOSE ALL POWER AND THE WRENCH SYMBOL WOULD APPEAR IN THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. I WOULD HAVE TO PULL OVER, STOP THE CAR AND TURN IT OFF. IT WOULD THEN START AND I COULD GO FOR AN UNDETERMINED PERIOD OF TIME AND IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. THIS RESULTED IN MORE THAN ONE NEAR MISS BY OTHER CARS TRAVELING ON AN INTERSTATE. I HAD IT REPAIRED BY THE MERCURY DEALERSHIP WHO HAD TO ORDER THE PART SINCE THEY SAID THIS WAS HAPPENING SO MUCH IT WAS HARD TO GET THE THROTTLE BODY PART NEEDED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523473
51,000 miles · Jul 5, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE SHOOK VIOLENTLY AND STALLED. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WERE ILLUMINATED. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE SHOOK VIOLENTLY AND STALLED. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WERE ILLUMINATED. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THE PARTS NEEDED TO REPAIR THE FAILURE WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 51,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523293
44,926 miles · Jul 4, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE OPERATING VEHICLE AT ABOUT 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE SLOWED TO A LIMP. IT DIDN'T STALL. AFTER TURNING VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTING IT SEEMED FINE FOR A FEW MINUTES THEN SLOWED AGAIN. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO MY MECHANIC. CODE P2112 WAS INDICATED AND A NEW THROTTLE BODY WAS INSTALLED AND RE-PROGRAMMED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523147
42,398 miles · Jun 30, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AT 45 MPH AND THE VEHICLE LOST ALL ENGINE POWER, BUT DID NOT DIE. I STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND SHUT OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTERTED THE VEHICLE AND IT STARTED FINE. I DROVE TWO MILES AND ENGINE LOST POWER AGAIN. THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND RESTERTED. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WA…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AT 45 MPH AND THE VEHICLE LOST ALL ENGINE POWER, BUT DID NOT DIE. I STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND SHUT OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTERTED THE VEHICLE AND IT STARTED FINE. I DROVE TWO MILES AND ENGINE LOST POWER AGAIN. THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND RESTERTED. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS STILL ON, BUT I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ONE MILE TO A FRIENDS HOUSE. I LET IT SIT FOR 4 HOURS AND DROVE 1/10 OF A MILE AND ENGINE LOST POWER AGAIN. MY FRIEND GAVE ME A RIDE HOME AS I WAS 12 MILES FROM HOME. I CALLED A TOWING SERVICE AND HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO LOCAL GARAGE. COMPUTER CODE REGISTERED A P2111. I CONTACTED LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY RECOMMENDED A THROTTLE BODY CLEANING BECAUSE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY BY 6,000 MILES. HAD SERVICE PERFORMED ON 6/24. ON 6/29 THE ENGINE STALLED AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522471
64,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
CAR STALLED MULTIPLE TIMES AND WENT INTO WHAT THE DEALERSHIP CALLS LIMP MODE. I WAS INFORMED I HAVE A BAD THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASY - [DS7Z9E926A], IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS A NATIONWIDE BACK ORDERED ON THIS PART. THE VEHICLE IS USED PRIMARILY ON THE FREEWAY AT SPEEDS IN EXCESS OF 65 MILES PER HOUR. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDI…
Read full complaint
CAR STALLED MULTIPLE TIMES AND WENT INTO WHAT THE DEALERSHIP CALLS LIMP MODE. I WAS INFORMED I HAVE A BAD THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASY - [DS7Z9E926A], IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS A NATIONWIDE BACK ORDERED ON THIS PART. THE VEHICLE IS USED PRIMARILY ON THE FREEWAY AT SPEEDS IN EXCESS OF 65 MILES PER HOUR. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE HAS ONLY BEEN A FEW HUNDRED COMPLAINTS. I WISH TO ADD ONE MORE TO THE LIST. I AM BEING TOLD NO ETA ON WHEN FORD WILL GET THE BACK ORDER OF PARTS CLEARED UP. 6 ? 8 WEEKS WITHOUT MY PRIMARY VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521929
37,500 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY HIGHWAY WHEN MY CAR JERKED AND THEN STALLED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND TURN THE CAR OFF. THE CAR RESTARTED AND ACCELERATED NORMALLY. THIS OCCURRED THREE MORE TIMES. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER AND SENT ME HOME (…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY HIGHWAY WHEN MY CAR JERKED AND THEN STALLED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND TURN THE CAR OFF. THE CAR RESTARTED AND ACCELERATED NORMALLY. THIS OCCURRED THREE MORE TIMES. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER AND SENT ME HOME (IN THE UNSAFE CAR). I NOW AM WAITING TO HEAR ABOUT WHEN THEY CAN GET THE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521614
85,000 miles · Jun 23, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE CAR JUST DIED ON THE MOTORWAY AND LEFT ME IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION. THE PROBLEM IS AN INEFFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY ( CODE P2111 ). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521295
41,000 miles · Jun 17, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AND ACCELERATOR SPEED DROPPED TO A CRAWL. PULLED OVER AND SAW THE WRENCH SYMBOL. GOT THE MANUAL OUT AND IT SAID THROTTLE BODY/POWERTRAIN ISSUE. WAITED AND RESTARTED ONLY 2 MILES DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN AND THAT SAME THING HAPPENED. CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT JUST GOING ABT 2 MPH IF THAT. VERY DANGERO…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AND ACCELERATOR SPEED DROPPED TO A CRAWL. PULLED OVER AND SAW THE WRENCH SYMBOL. GOT THE MANUAL OUT AND IT SAID THROTTLE BODY/POWERTRAIN ISSUE. WAITED AND RESTARTED ONLY 2 MILES DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN AND THAT SAME THING HAPPENED. CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT JUST GOING ABT 2 MPH IF THAT. VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10520088
Mileage unknown · Jun 16, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
HAD TEST DONE AND WAS TOLD THROTTLE BODY IS BAD. CAN NOT GET PART IN BECAUSE ITS ON BACK ORDER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10519992
60,000 miles · Jun 3, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY DECELERATED AND WOULD NOT GO MORE THAN 2 MPH. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY HAD FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 60…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY DECELERATED AND WOULD NOT GO MORE THAN 2 MPH. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY HAD FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 60,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514872
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