NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
270 reports54,151 miles · Sep 30, 2013
Engine
I WAS ON A MAJOR EXPRESSWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTING DECREASING SPEED. I WENT FROM 55 MPH TO 45 TO 35 TO 25 TO 15 TO 5 AND THE STOPPED. LUCKILY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND WHEN THIS STARTED, I PULLED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD WHICH WAS CLOSE TO AN EXIT. I SOMEHOW GOT THE SUV HOME, STARTING THE ENGINE, IT DYING OUT AND GOING…
Read full complaint
I WAS ON A MAJOR EXPRESSWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTING DECREASING SPEED. I WENT FROM 55 MPH TO 45 TO 35 TO 25 TO 15 TO 5 AND THE STOPPED. LUCKILY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND WHEN THIS STARTED, I PULLED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD WHICH WAS CLOSE TO AN EXIT. I SOMEHOW GOT THE SUV HOME, STARTING THE ENGINE, IT DYING OUT AND GOING A COUPLE OF FEET OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO OUR AUTO SHIP AND THEY SAID THAT FORD HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE AND GAVE US A NORTH CAROLINA CONSUMERS COUNCIL ARTICLE. THEY DID NOT HAVE THE DIGITAL EQUIPMENT TO FIX AND REFERRED US TO FORD DEALERSHIP. FORD DEALERSHIP ADVISED IT WAS THE THROTTLE. I TALKED TO FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THEY ADVISED THERE WAS NO RECALL AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO.I WE SPENT $362.56 ON THROTTLE AND TWO LETTERS LATER FORD WILL DO NOTHING SINCE THEY SAY WE DO NOT HAVE THE EXTENDED WARRANTY AND WE ARE BEYOND THREE YEARS/36,000 MILES. I WAS AFRAID WHEN THE CAR DIED OUT ON THE EXPRESSWAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546326
28,000 miles · Sep 27, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE JUST SLOWED DOWN AND WAS NOT GETTING FUEL. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT NOT GETTING FUEL. I TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS OK. A FEW WEEKS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN AND I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT. I WANTED TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE THE WARRANTY EX…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE JUST SLOWED DOWN AND WAS NOT GETTING FUEL. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT NOT GETTING FUEL. I TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS OK. A FEW WEEKS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN AND I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT. I WANTED TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED.THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. I HAD A COUPLE MORE ISSUES BUT I DID NOT DRIVE IT MUCH DURING COLDER WEATHER. IN JUNE OF 2013 I HAD ANOTHER INCIDENT WITH THE SAME ISSUE. OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS IT CONTINUED OCCASIONALLY BUT IN AUGUST OF 2013 IT STARTED MORE OFTEN. ONE INCIDENT WAS IN AN INTERSECTION THAT WAS VERY BUSY AND I CALLED THE SAME FORD DEALERSHIP TO GET IT IN AGAIN AND THEY THEN FOUND THE THROTTLE BODY WAS BAD AND HAD TO BE REPLACED, AT THIS TIME IT NOW CAST ME OVER $500.00 DOLLARS TO FIX IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10545669
28,000 miles · Sep 26, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline
DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH AND THE VEHICLE JUST STOPPED, PULLED TO SHOULDER ,THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT NO FUEL GETTING TO IT TO GO. I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS FINE. IT HAPPENED AGAIN A FEW DAYS LATER AND I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED,I WANED TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE WARR…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH AND THE VEHICLE JUST STOPPED, PULLED TO SHOULDER ,THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT NO FUEL GETTING TO IT TO GO. I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS FINE. IT HAPPENED AGAIN A FEW DAYS LATER AND I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED,I WANED TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE WARRANTY EXPIRED IN DECEMBER OF 2012.I WAS TOLD THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT. I HAD ANOTHER INCIDENT ABOUT A MONTH LATER, AT THIS TIME I DID NOT DRIVE IT MUCH UNLESS I HAD TO UNTIL WARMER WEATHER. IN JUNE OF 2013 I HAD ANOTHER INCIDENT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. I DID NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS UNTIL AUGUST OF 2013. I THEN HAD NUMEROUS INCIDENTS WITH THE SAME PROBLEM AND I CALLED THE FORD DEALERSHIP TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. BY THIS TIME THERE WAS NO WARRANTY ON IT AND THE PROBLEM WAS FOUND. I HAD TO PAY MORE THAN $500.00 FOR IT TO BE REPAIRED. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10545570
52,000 miles · Sep 26, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING TO WORK ON 1431, THE CAR FELT AS THOUGH IT HIT A BUMP, LOST ALL ABILITY TO DRIVE. PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED CAR OFF FOR ABOUT 10 TO 15 SECONDS AND THEN BACK ON. AT THIS POINT IT SEEM TO OPERATE PROPERLY. THEN ABOUT THREE MILES DOWN THE ROAD IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN. THIS TIME THERE WAS NO SHOULDER TO PULL OF…
Read full complaint
DRIVING TO WORK ON 1431, THE CAR FELT AS THOUGH IT HIT A BUMP, LOST ALL ABILITY TO DRIVE. PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED CAR OFF FOR ABOUT 10 TO 15 SECONDS AND THEN BACK ON. AT THIS POINT IT SEEM TO OPERATE PROPERLY. THEN ABOUT THREE MILES DOWN THE ROAD IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN. THIS TIME THERE WAS NO SHOULDER TO PULL OFF ON, SO TRAFFIC WAS TIED UP. WAS TRAVELING AT ABOUT 40 MPH THIS TIME. DID THE SAME THING, TURNED OFF AND THEN BACK ON AND SEEMED TO WORK NORMAL. LATER THAT EVENING GOING HOME FROM WORK THE CAR DID THE SAME THING, TWO MORE TIMES BEFORE I REACHED HOME. ONE TIME AS I WAS GOING FROM PALMER TO 1431 ON A CURVE. THE NEXT TIME IT WAS ON A SLIGHT INCLINE GOING HOME. THE ICON ON DASHBOARD WAS A WRENCH WHICH INDICATES IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE THROTTLE CONTROL. TOOK TO DEALER AND THEY CONFIRMED IT WAS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE CONTROL UNIT, AND CHARGED $650 TO REPAIR. BELIEVE THAT THIS IS/WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM SAFETY WISE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED BY FORD. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10545509
71,825 miles · Sep 17, 2013
Electrical System
I WAS TRAVELING ALONG, WITH MY DAUGHTER IN THE CAR, WHEN IT SEEMED TO JUST SHUT OFF. I WAS ONLY GOING 40MPH BUT IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC. I PULLED THE CAR OVER, IT WAS THEN I COULD TELL IT WAS SORTA STILL RUNNING. I COME TO FIND OUT LATER IT WENT INTO A SAFE MODE. SINCE THEN MY WIFE OR I HAVE BARELY DROVE IT. WE HAD A CLOSE FRIEND C…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING ALONG, WITH MY DAUGHTER IN THE CAR, WHEN IT SEEMED TO JUST SHUT OFF. I WAS ONLY GOING 40MPH BUT IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC. I PULLED THE CAR OVER, IT WAS THEN I COULD TELL IT WAS SORTA STILL RUNNING. I COME TO FIND OUT LATER IT WENT INTO A SAFE MODE. SINCE THEN MY WIFE OR I HAVE BARELY DROVE IT. WE HAD A CLOSE FRIEND CHECK IT OUT AND IT IS THE THROTTLE BODY. I THEN DID SOME RESEARCH ONLINE AND COME TO FIND OUT IT SEEMS I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH THIS PROBLEM. IS ANYONE OUT THERE MAKING FORD MOTOR COMPANY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP, WHERE WE PURCHASED OUR VEHICLE NEW AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO, UNLESS I PAID FOR THIS. I FEEL THIS IS UNFAIR! MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE BRAND NEW WITH ONLY 8 MILES. WHY SHOULD WE BE PUNISHED FOR WHAT CLEARLY IS A DEFECT IN A FORD PRODUCT? PLEASE HELP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10544081
68,000 miles · Sep 12, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED. THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ONTO THE EMERGENCY LANE. THE CONTACT SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHO STATE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED. THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ONTO THE EMERGENCY LANE. THE CONTACT SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THE THROTTLE WAS DEFECTIVE. THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 68,000.
NHTSA ODI #10543346
Mileage unknown · Sep 10, 2013
Power Train
9/8/2013 DRIVING 60MPH I FELT A SLIGHT JOLT AND NOTICE A YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON DASHBOARD.THEN THE MERCURY MARINER DECELERATED AND STALLED TO WHERE I WAS ABLE TO MOVE TO SHOULDER OFF ROAD, AND TURN ENGINE OFF. AT THIS POINT NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO I JUST TURNED CAR OFF FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES AND THEN RE-START. THERE WAS NO WREN…
Read full complaint
9/8/2013 DRIVING 60MPH I FELT A SLIGHT JOLT AND NOTICE A YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON DASHBOARD.THEN THE MERCURY MARINER DECELERATED AND STALLED TO WHERE I WAS ABLE TO MOVE TO SHOULDER OFF ROAD, AND TURN ENGINE OFF. AT THIS POINT NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO I JUST TURNED CAR OFF FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES AND THEN RE-START. THERE WAS NO WRENCH LIGHT, BUT I DID NOTICE A HESITATION FOR THE CAR TO CATCH. I DROVE HOME ABOUT 20 MILES AND THE CAR DROVE ROUGH AS IF IT WAS HAVING A HARD TIME SHIFTING AND NOTICE THE RPM DANCING BACK AND FORTH FROM 3-1 ON ROAD INCLINES. TOOK IT TO MECHANIC AND HAD A DIAGNOSTIC TEST READ NO STORED CODES.WHAT??? THIS HAPPEN WITHIN A 2 DAY PERIOD, CAR WOULD STALL, YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT WOULD APPEAR ON DASH. TOOK IT TO A FORD AUTHORIZED DEALER, AND HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT IS WAS THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTIONING. PAID. $301FOR PARTS AND LABOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10542853
79,000 miles · Sep 9, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)
THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN AND I STARTED TO ROLL FORWARD TO GO, AND MY CAR JUST STOPPED. I DIDN'T NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPEED TO MOVE FROM THE SPOT I WAS IN. STUCK IN MORNING TRAFFIC I HAD TO TURN MY CAR OFF AND TRY TO RESTART IT. IT TOOK A FEW TURNS OF THE KEY AND IT FINALLY STARTED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10542638
57,168 miles · Sep 7, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING TO WORK AT STEADY SPEED WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CAR LOST ACCELERATION. WHILE I WAS ABLE TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAD I BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN OR AN ENTRY ON THE HIGHWAY, IT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND RESTARTED. DROVE ABOUT 1/3 MILE AND IT DI…
Read full complaint
DRIVING TO WORK AT STEADY SPEED WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CAR LOST ACCELERATION. WHILE I WAS ABLE TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAD I BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN OR AN ENTRY ON THE HIGHWAY, IT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND RESTARTED. DROVE ABOUT 1/3 MILE AND IT DID IT AGAIN. THIS TIME WHEN I PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND KEPT IT RUNNING IT FELT LIKE IT WAS TRYING TO JUMP OUT OF GEAR AND ACCELERATE WHICH WAS VERY SCARY. WE DETERMINED BY CALLING INTERNET IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. CALLED THREE FORD DEALERSHIPS WHERE THEY WERE ALL SOLD OUT AND BACK-ORDERED. WE FOUND ONE AT THE FOURTH AND PUT IT ON OURSELF IN 30 MINUTES. COST $180 P/N DS7Z9E926D.FORD NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND RECALL THE AFFECTED VEHICLES AS THEY KNOW IT'S A PROBLEM. THEY HAVE MULTIPLE CARS GETTING THIS PROBLEM FIXED DAILY!!!!!!!
NHTSA ODI #10542455
89,687 miles · Sep 6, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE A DIAGNOSTIC WAS PERFORMED, WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE A DIAGNOSTIC WAS PERFORMED, WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND MILEAGE WAS 88,000. UPDATED 10/17/13*CN THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED ON SEPT 6, 2013
NHTSA ODI #10542300
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