NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
270 reports86,723 miles · Feb 17, 2015
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) AND HAD THE VEHICLE REPAIRED. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AFTER THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILURE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) AND HAD THE VEHICLE REPAIRED. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AFTER THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILURE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN ASSEMBLY FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 86,723.
NHTSA ODI #10683823
Mileage unknown · Feb 12, 2015
Visibility
2010 MERCURY MARINER. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE REAR WINDOW ISSUES AND DEALERSHIP PROBLEMS. *SMD THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE REAR WINDSHIELD MOTOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10663910
74,500 miles · Jan 15, 2015
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER PREMIUM FWD TO MY MOTHERS FOR CHRISTMAS '14 WHEN THE ENGINE LIGHT WRENCH CAME ON AND I FELT A LOSS IN POWER. LUCKILY I WAS NEAR A REST STOP AND I SHUT OFF ENGINE AND LET IT SIT AFTER RUNNING A VEHICLE HEALTH REPORT. REPORT SAID: URGENT POWER TRAIN MALFUNCTION / REDUCED POWER. AFTER RESTARTI…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER PREMIUM FWD TO MY MOTHERS FOR CHRISTMAS '14 WHEN THE ENGINE LIGHT WRENCH CAME ON AND I FELT A LOSS IN POWER. LUCKILY I WAS NEAR A REST STOP AND I SHUT OFF ENGINE AND LET IT SIT AFTER RUNNING A VEHICLE HEALTH REPORT. REPORT SAID: URGENT POWER TRAIN MALFUNCTION / REDUCED POWER. AFTER RESTARTING THE VEHICLE, IT SEEMED FINE. THIS WAS WHEN I STILL HAD ABOUT THREE HOURS LEFT OF DRIVING IN MY EIGHT HOUR DRIVE. WHEN I WAS ABOUT AN HOUR AWAY AGAIN THE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE SAME POWER REDUCTION OCCURRED. I TOOK IT TO BE LOOKED AT TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALER NEAR MY MOTHERS AND WAS TOLD THE VALVE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THIS WAS AT 74,000 MILES. SO I DID. I HAD THIS HAPPEN ONCE BEFORE (I HAD 58,000 MILES ON IT) WHEN DRIVING TO A SHOPPING CENTER AFTER DRIVING 45 MINUTES ON THE HIGHWAY FROM HOME. ONLY HAPPENED WHEN DRIVING LONG DISTANCE. WHEN I GOT OFF THE EXIT, IT JERKED AND QUICKLY STOPPED AND I HAD TO PULL OVER. IF A CAR WAS BEHIND ME IT COULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT.. I DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT I HAD A COUPLE RECALLS (COMPUTER UPDATES) AND A SERVICE EXTENSION FOR THE THROTTLE BODY. SHOULD FIX THE ISSUE SO IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN SAID THE MECHANIC. TRANSMISSION FLUID WAS FLUSHED CAUSE IT WAS BURNT ALSO. HAD NO ISSUES AFTERWARDS UNTIL MY CHRISTMAS TRIP. I FEEL I COULD HAVE BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT AND SERIOUSLY HURT IF IT HAD JERKED WHILE CHANGING GEARS ON A BUSY ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THERE IS A THROTTLE BODY RECALL BUT NOT A VALVE BODY RECALL? IF THESE ISSUES CAN CAUSE A QUICK JERK OR LOST POWER CAUSING A QUICK SLOW-DOWN, SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR BOTH. IT APPEARS I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH THESE TYPES OF ISSUES AFTER GOOGLING THE ISSUE. SEEMS LIKE ITS TIME TO GET THESE TRANSMISSIONS FIXED CORRECTLY BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED! PLEASE RECALL NOW B4 IT'S TOO LATE! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10672843
63,000 miles · Dec 3, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control
DRIVING FROM COLUMBUS TO CINCINNATI AROUND 1:00 AM WITH MY DAUGHTER, SON AND 15 MONTH OLD GRANDDAUGHTER. THE CAR LOST ALL POWER LEAVING US STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AS I PULLED OVER THE CAR BEGAN TO SHAKE, ALMOST LIKE THERE WAS WATER IN THE GAS LINE. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN RESTARTED. THE …
Read full complaint
DRIVING FROM COLUMBUS TO CINCINNATI AROUND 1:00 AM WITH MY DAUGHTER, SON AND 15 MONTH OLD GRANDDAUGHTER. THE CAR LOST ALL POWER LEAVING US STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AS I PULLED OVER THE CAR BEGAN TO SHAKE, ALMOST LIKE THERE WAS WATER IN THE GAS LINE. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN RESTARTED. THE CAR RESET ITSELF AND LUCKILY WE MADE IT THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. NOT TOO LONG AFTER THAT, I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AND IT DID THE SAME THING. EXCEPT THIS TIME, IT WOULD ONLY GO ABOUT 2 MILES BEFORE IT WOULD QUIT AGAIN. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS ISSUE. NO ONLY COULD I HAVE BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT, BUT BEING STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE EXPRESSWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITH AN INFANT WAS TERRIFYING! I HAD THE THROTTLE VALVE SENSOR REPLACED AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ADDITIONAL INSTANCES OF POWER FAILURE.
NHTSA ODI #10662771
43,757 miles · Nov 18, 2014
Electrical SystemSteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
ON THAT DATE, I WAS DRIVING HOME WITH MY WIFE AT APPROXIMATELY 2 PM. SUDDENLY, THE CAR WENT OFF AND THE STEERING WHEEL WENT STIFF. AS I TRIED TO MOVE UNSUCCESSFULLY, WE WENT DOWN TO A SLOPE OF ABOUT 20 DEGREES. AS A RESULT, BOTH OF US HAD TO BE TAKEN FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT FOR KNOCKS, CUTS AND FOLLOW UP CHECKS. SO FAR, IT HAS …
Read full complaint
ON THAT DATE, I WAS DRIVING HOME WITH MY WIFE AT APPROXIMATELY 2 PM. SUDDENLY, THE CAR WENT OFF AND THE STEERING WHEEL WENT STIFF. AS I TRIED TO MOVE UNSUCCESSFULLY, WE WENT DOWN TO A SLOPE OF ABOUT 20 DEGREES. AS A RESULT, BOTH OF US HAD TO BE TAKEN FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT FOR KNOCKS, CUTS AND FOLLOW UP CHECKS. SO FAR, IT HAS COST US $16,497.00 AND REPAIR OF THE CAR US$6,853.00. THERE HAS BEEN OTHER EVENTS WHERE THE CAR SUDDENLY STOPS AND THE STEERING WHEEL BECOMES STIFF. BUT, I DON T USE THE CAR IN THE HIGHWAY BUT ONLY FOR SHORTS ERRANDS AND WITHIN THE AREA WHERE WE LIVE. ITS BEEN A NIGHTMARE. I HAVE CHANGED THE THROTTLE CASING MODULE, THE RESTRAINT CONTROL MODULE, I PUT A RUBBER STOP ON THE ACCELERATION PEDAL, ETC. AGAIN, OUT OF THE ACCIDENT IT HAS BEEN OVER 4 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN TRYING TO FIX THE CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10658793
17,500 miles · Oct 26, 2014
Electrical System
FIRST STARTED WITH A SUDDENLY A DEAD BATTERY. REPLACED THE BATTERY AND 3 MONTHS LATER HAPPENED AGAIN. SLOWLY DEAD BATTERY EVERY 1-3 MONTHS. REPLACED 4 BATTERIES. WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A BAD ALTERNATOR. ALTERNATOR REPLACED. THREE DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. ANOTHER ALTERNATOR INSTALLED AND AGAIN, TWO DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. FO…
Read full complaint
FIRST STARTED WITH A SUDDENLY A DEAD BATTERY. REPLACED THE BATTERY AND 3 MONTHS LATER HAPPENED AGAIN. SLOWLY DEAD BATTERY EVERY 1-3 MONTHS. REPLACED 4 BATTERIES. WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A BAD ALTERNATOR. ALTERNATOR REPLACED. THREE DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. ANOTHER ALTERNATOR INSTALLED AND AGAIN, TWO DAYS LATER DEAD BATTERY. FORD REFUSED TO HELP EVEN AFTER GIVING ME A CASE NUMBER. SAID BECAUSE I'VE NEVER HAD VEHICLE SERVICED AT A DEALERSHIP THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THEIR DEALERS. ALSO, FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILED TO TELL ME THE PCM WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. TOOK THE CAR TO FORD DEALERSHIP IN DOVER, DE. DIAGNOSED WITH A BAD PCM. PCM INSTALLED BY DEALERSHIP AND TOLD THAT SHOULD FIX THE PROBLEM. DROVE THE VEHICLE HOME AND TRIED RESTARTING. BATTERY DEAD AGAIN. BATTERY REPLACED PER RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEALERSHIP. DROVE THE NEXT DAY, BUT BY THE END OF THE DAY BATTERY DEAD AGAIN. HAD TO BUY A REMOTE BATTERY PACK TO START THE CAR WHEN THE BATTERY IS DEAD. HAVE BEEN STRANDED 10 TIMES AND HAD TO JUMP START TO GET HOME. FORD DEALERSHIP TOLD ME TO REPLACE THE ALTERNATOR WITH A GENUINE FORD ALTERNATOR ANT THAT SHOULD FIX THE PROBLEM. PURCHASED THE ALTERNATOR AND HAD IT INSTALLED. HIGHEST VOLTAGE, EVEN WITH ACCESSORIES TURNED ON, WAS 12.8 VOLTS AND WOULDN'T GO ANY HIGHER. I AM RETURNING BACK TO FORD DEALERSHIP ON TUESDAY, 10/28/14 TO SEE IF THEY WILL CONTACT FORD ENGINEERS FOR SOLUTION. SO FAR, 6 BATTERIES, 2 ALTERNATORS, NEW PCM AND BATTERY IS STILL NOT BEING CHARGED. RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE AND MONEY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10650108
42,000 miles · Oct 9, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF GAS. WE PULLED OFF THE STREET AND SHUT IT DOWN AND WAITED,WE HAD PLENTY OF GAS. WE STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT SEEMED OK, THE ENGINE AND POWER TRAIN LIGHTS REMAINED ON. SINCE I HAD TAKEN IT IN FOR THE RECALL ALREADY AND WE WERE CLOSE TO SOUTHGATE FORD WE PULLED INTO THE SERVICE AREA I SPOKE TO …
Read full complaint
CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF GAS. WE PULLED OFF THE STREET AND SHUT IT DOWN AND WAITED,WE HAD PLENTY OF GAS. WE STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT SEEMED OK, THE ENGINE AND POWER TRAIN LIGHTS REMAINED ON. SINCE I HAD TAKEN IT IN FOR THE RECALL ALREADY AND WE WERE CLOSE TO SOUTHGATE FORD WE PULLED INTO THE SERVICE AREA I SPOKE TO THE SERVICE PERSON AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST 600.00 TO FIX. I MENTIONED THE RECALL, HE SAID THAT WAS JUST FOR THE SOFTWARE WE THEN LEFT AN WENT TO AUTO ZONE WHERE THEY PUT THEIR DIAGNOSTIC TOOL ON THE CAR AND THE PRINT OUT READ THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. FORD DEALERS REFUSE TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY UNDER THE RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10643489
28,000 miles · Oct 8, 2014
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. IT TOOK SEVERAL ATTEMPTS FOR THE CONTACT TO START THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE HOUSING PIECE FOR THE STEERING COLUMN FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 28,000.
NHTSA ODI #10643357
30,000 miles · Oct 2, 2014
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
COMING TO A STOP AT A RED STOP LIGHT AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM RED TO GREEN LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION MY VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE, IT LOST POWER. IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE PASS 10MPH. AN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS A ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT. I DROVE AS I COULD AND MADE TO AUTO ZONE. THEY PLUG IN THE HAND HELD CAR COMPUTER AND …
Read full complaint
COMING TO A STOP AT A RED STOP LIGHT AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM RED TO GREEN LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION MY VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE, IT LOST POWER. IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE PASS 10MPH. AN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS A ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT. I DROVE AS I COULD AND MADE TO AUTO ZONE. THEY PLUG IN THE HAND HELD CAR COMPUTER AND IT GAVE THE CODE P2119. WHICH STANDS FOR THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10640939
126,000 miles · Sep 29, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WHEN I WAS DRIVING AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS...IT WOULD NOT MOVE SAFELY. I WAS VERY LUCKY BECAUSE THIS WAS AT A TRAFFIC INTERSECTION ON BEECHMONT AND EIGHT MILE. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE IT TO THE ENTERPRISE PARKING LOT ALBEIT IT WAS EXTREMELY SLOW AND I HAD CARS HONKING AT ME BEC…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WHEN I WAS DRIVING AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS...IT WOULD NOT MOVE SAFELY. I WAS VERY LUCKY BECAUSE THIS WAS AT A TRAFFIC INTERSECTION ON BEECHMONT AND EIGHT MILE. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE IT TO THE ENTERPRISE PARKING LOT ALBEIT IT WAS EXTREMELY SLOW AND I HAD CARS HONKING AT ME BECAUSE OF THE LIGHTS ON THE INTERSECTION. THE MECHANIC REPAIR SHOP SAYS IT'S THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10639775
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