← New search

2010 Mercury Mariner

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Mariner years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Mercury Mariner are substantially higher than the model-year median of 63.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Mariner years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

All reported categories

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

225 reports with mileage · 45 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 66 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Steering. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

2 crash reports2 fire reports3 injury reports

What owners actually said

270 reports
101,000 miles · Feb 3, 2021
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING AN UNKNOWN FLUID. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH NEEDING THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING PUMP TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. UPON INVESTIGATION, THE CONTACT ASSOCIATED THE FAILURE WITH …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING AN UNKNOWN FLUID. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH NEEDING THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING PUMP TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. UPON INVESTIGATION, THE CONTACT ASSOCIATED THE FAILURE WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) HOWEVER, THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 101,000.

NHTSA ODI #11394546

132,000 miles · Feb 1, 2021
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH, THE STEERING BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. UPON INVESTIGATION, THE CONTACT ASSOCIATED THE FAILURE WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 1…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH, THE STEERING BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. UPON INVESTIGATION, THE CONTACT ASSOCIATED THE FAILURE WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) HOWEVER, THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS INFORMED OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ASSISTANCE IN REPAIRING THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 132,000.

NHTSA ODI #11390977

Mileage unknown · Dec 4, 2020
Electrical System

I WAS LEAVING WORK AND DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT BUT THEN IT CAME BACK AND IT KEPT DOING IT OFF AND ON . LUCKILY I ONLY LIVE 15 MILES FROM WORK. ITS HAPPEN BEFORE WHEN I WAS IN A TURN BUT I DIDN'T THINK MUCH ABOUT IT TILL IT STARTED DOING IT TODAY THANKFULLY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND I DIDN'T HAVE A ACC…

Read full complaint

I WAS LEAVING WORK AND DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT BUT THEN IT CAME BACK AND IT KEPT DOING IT OFF AND ON . LUCKILY I ONLY LIVE 15 MILES FROM WORK. ITS HAPPEN BEFORE WHEN I WAS IN A TURN BUT I DIDN'T THINK MUCH ABOUT IT TILL IT STARTED DOING IT TODAY THANKFULLY TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND I DIDN'T HAVE A ACCIDENT

NHTSA ODI #11377958

115,500 miles · Sep 30, 2020
Steering

I'M VERY UPSET AND ON THE VERGE OF TEARS! AS I PULLED OUT OF THE BANK YESTERDAY, I MADE A LEFT HAND TURN AND MY STEERING WHEEL SUDDENLY LOCKED ON ME! I ALMOST WRECKED! ON JULY 21, 2014 I TOOK MY CAR TO FREEDOM FORD IN MCALESTER, OK FOR RECALL #14S05. I WAS TOLD THE MODELS WOULD BE UPDATED TO " POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT! SO AFT…

Read full complaint

I'M VERY UPSET AND ON THE VERGE OF TEARS! AS I PULLED OUT OF THE BANK YESTERDAY, I MADE A LEFT HAND TURN AND MY STEERING WHEEL SUDDENLY LOCKED ON ME! I ALMOST WRECKED! ON JULY 21, 2014 I TOOK MY CAR TO FREEDOM FORD IN MCALESTER, OK FOR RECALL #14S05. I WAS TOLD THE MODELS WOULD BE UPDATED TO " POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT! SO AFTERWARDS I LEFT ON MY MERRY WAY KNOWING THAT I WOULD NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AGAIN! WRONG! IS THERE ANYTHING FORD CAN DO TO BACK UP WHAT THEY SAID? THEY SAID UPDATING THE MODULES WOULD "PREVENT" THIS FROM HAPPENING? WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST SAY THAT IN A FEW YEARS IT WILL HAPPEN SO BE CAREFUL?? I"M SO UPSET! PLEASE HELP ME! I CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY THE $1,600. PART THAT FORD SAYS I NEED! I REALLY THING THERE SHOULD BE AN UPDATED RECALL FOR THIS ISSUE THAT WAS NOT RESOLVED BY UPDATING MODULES!

NHTSA ODI #11361975

180,000 miles · Sep 19, 2020
Steering

ON MY DASH IT'S SAYS "POWER ASSIST FAULT" I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH AND IT SEEMS THERE HAVE BEEN TONS OF THESE MERCURY'S RECALLED BECAUSE OF THE POWER ASSIST FAULT GOING OUT AND VEHICLES LOOSING CONTROL OF THERE VEHICLES. MY VEHICLE IS A FEW MONTHS SHY IF MEETING THE DATE IN WHICH THESE MERCURY'S WERE RECALLED. I THINK IT'S A HUGE…

Read full complaint

ON MY DASH IT'S SAYS "POWER ASSIST FAULT" I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH AND IT SEEMS THERE HAVE BEEN TONS OF THESE MERCURY'S RECALLED BECAUSE OF THE POWER ASSIST FAULT GOING OUT AND VEHICLES LOOSING CONTROL OF THERE VEHICLES. MY VEHICLE IS A FEW MONTHS SHY IF MEETING THE DATE IN WHICH THESE MERCURY'S WERE RECALLED. I THINK IT'S A HUGE SAFETY RISK. AND BEINGS IN A SINGLE MOTHER OF 2 LITTLE GIRLS I THINK MAYBE MY MERCURY SHOULD BE FIXED. MINE IS LEGIT MESSED UP. I CAN BARLEY TURN IT. THE POWER STEERING IS ALL JACKED AROUND AND ITS CAUSING OTHER ISSUES. SUCH AS NOT MY CAR NEEDS ALIGNED. I WANTED TO KNOW HOW COME MINE IS MESSED UP BUT BECAUSE OF JUST A FEW MONTHS MINE DOESN'T HAVE THE RECALL. PLEASE HELP ME KEEP MY KIDS SAFE. THANK YOU I'M LOCATED IN SCOTTSVILLE KY 42164

NHTSA ODI #11359928

185,000 miles · Aug 27, 2020
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING LOST POWER AND WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE FORD LINCOLN OF QUEENS SERVICE CENTER DEALER, LOCATED IN QUEENS, NEW YORK, (888) 705-7067, AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING LOST POWER AND WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE FORD LINCOLN OF QUEENS SERVICE CENTER DEALER, LOCATED IN QUEENS, NEW YORK, (888) 705-7067, AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 185,000.

NHTSA ODI #11351524

135,000 miles · Aug 21, 2020
Service Brakes

WHEN PULLING UP TO HOME TO PARK ALONG STREET AND BRAKES WOULD NOT ENGAGE.HEAR A LOUD NOISE AND BRAKE MESSAGE POPPED UP ON DASHBOARD. BRAKE PEDAL FELL TO FLOOR. PULLED EMERGENCY BREAK TO STOP VEHICLE. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO CAR DOCS IN ROCKLIN CA WHERE THEY DIAGNOSED THE ABS MODULE (AND OTHER MODULE FAILURE). THEY STATED THAT THIS …

Read full complaint

WHEN PULLING UP TO HOME TO PARK ALONG STREET AND BRAKES WOULD NOT ENGAGE.HEAR A LOUD NOISE AND BRAKE MESSAGE POPPED UP ON DASHBOARD. BRAKE PEDAL FELL TO FLOOR. PULLED EMERGENCY BREAK TO STOP VEHICLE. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO CAR DOCS IN ROCKLIN CA WHERE THEY DIAGNOSED THE ABS MODULE (AND OTHER MODULE FAILURE). THEY STATED THAT THIS TENDS TO HAPPEN ON OLDER FORD/MERCURY HYBRIDS, AND THEY WERE SURPRISED THAT THERE WASN'T A RECALL.

NHTSA ODI #11350623

142,551 miles · Jun 15, 2020
EngineFuel/propulsion System

THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION AT A STOPLIGHT. THE LIGHT HAD TURNED GREEN, AND THE VEHICLE WAS BREAKING TO STOP BEHIND THE FIRST VEHICLE. I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL TO FOLLOW THE FIRST VEHICLE AND THE CAR STALLED. THE CAR COULD NOT BE TURNED BACK ON OR PUT IN MOTION. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF A PROBLEM PRIOR TO THIS THROTTLE BODY FAILU…

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION AT A STOPLIGHT. THE LIGHT HAD TURNED GREEN, AND THE VEHICLE WAS BREAKING TO STOP BEHIND THE FIRST VEHICLE. I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL TO FOLLOW THE FIRST VEHICLE AND THE CAR STALLED. THE CAR COULD NOT BE TURNED BACK ON OR PUT IN MOTION. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF A PROBLEM PRIOR TO THIS THROTTLE BODY FAILURE. THE CAR WAS PUSHED OFF THE ROAD BY 3 PEOPLE AND INTO A NEARBY PARKING LOT. THE PROBLEM THAT MADE THE VEHICLE UNSAFE WAS A DEFECTIVE FORD THROTTLE BODY. THE REFERENCE CONSUMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM 13N03. I RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICE JUNE 2014, BUT FORD ONLY SUGGESTED A RECALIBRATION (NOT REPLACEMENT). THE RECALIBRATION WAS COMPLETED AT FORD AUTONATION ON JUNE 23, 2014. FORD HAD ESTIMATED A THROTTLE BODY REDUCTION IN MOVABILITY AND NOT FAILURE. THE MILEAGE OF THIS MERCURY MARINER ON THE DATE OF REPAIR WAS 142551 AND THE IN-SERVICE DATE, 06/18/2010. THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER FORD'S EXTENDED WARRANTY OF 150000 MILES/10 YEARS. THE REPAIR WAS COMPLETED 06/08/2020. TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE EXTENDED WARRANTY. FORD CLAIMS THEY WILL NOT REIMBURSE FOR THE THROTTLE BODY FAILURE. THIS WAS WELL-DOCUMENTED IN THE PREVIOUS CLAIM 13N03 AND THIS CASE SHOULD BE REOPENED, BASED ON THE FATALITY POSSIBILITY OF A THROTTLE BODY FAILURE WITH THE ORIGINAL PART THAT CAME WITH THE VEHICLE, WHICH WAS ALSO RE-CALIBRATED PER FORD'S RECALL IN 2014. THIS INCIDENT PROVES THAT FORD'S RE-CALIBRATION DID NOT PREVENT FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE BODY. ASKING FOR A RECALL FOR THE THROTTLE BODY FOR THE SIMILAR MAKES AND MODELS STILL IN CIRCULATION AS IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD AND ALSO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIS SERVICE FOR VEHICLES THAT HAD IT COMPLETED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #11328932

148,000 miles · May 6, 2020
Steering

HAS MY GRANDMA WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HERE AND WASN?T ABLE TO MOVE IT. LUCKILY SHE WAS AT THE LAST LANE AND ABLE TO GET ON THE EMERGENCY LANE AND NOT CAR HIT HERE. I DID RESEARCH ON THIS AND IT SAID THAT MANY OTHER YEAR MAKE AND MODELS HAD A RECALL. FOR SOME REASON THEY DIDN?T DO A…

Read full complaint

HAS MY GRANDMA WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HERE AND WASN?T ABLE TO MOVE IT. LUCKILY SHE WAS AT THE LAST LANE AND ABLE TO GET ON THE EMERGENCY LANE AND NOT CAR HIT HERE. I DID RESEARCH ON THIS AND IT SAID THAT MANY OTHER YEAR MAKE AND MODELS HAD A RECALL. FOR SOME REASON THEY DIDN?T DO A RECALL ON ALL OF THEM JUST SOME DONE AT SOME PARTS OF THE STATE WHEN THEY ARE ALL MADE FOR THE SAME COMPANY. IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW HOW OR WHY HER SUV AIN'T UNDER THE RECALL. IF SHE DIDN'T HAVE THAT BIT OF LUCK THAT DAY SHE COULD'VE BE INJURED VERY BAD AND INJURED OTHERS AS WELL FOR THE STEERING WHEEL JUST TO LOCK WHILE DRIVING. THIS HAPPEN IN SAN ANTONIO TX ON HIGHWAY 35. *TR

NHTSA ODI #11323485

148,000 miles · Apr 29, 2020
Steering

THE OTHER DAY MY GRANDMOTHER STREERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HER MERCURY AS SHE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH. THANK GOD SHE WAS ABLE TO STOP THE CAR WITH OUT GETTING HIT. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS MAKE AND MODEL AND THEY HAVE A RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM JUST NOT WITH THE VEHICLES JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE IT WAS MADE. WHICH I …

Read full complaint

THE OTHER DAY MY GRANDMOTHER STREERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HER MERCURY AS SHE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH. THANK GOD SHE WAS ABLE TO STOP THE CAR WITH OUT GETTING HIT. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS MAKE AND MODEL AND THEY HAVE A RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM JUST NOT WITH THE VEHICLES JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE IT WAS MADE. WHICH I THING IS WRONG IF THEY HAVE MANY RECALLS IN THE SAME MAKE AND MODEL THEY SHOULD HAVE THEM ON ALL OF THEM..

NHTSA ODI #11322733

Official recalls

2

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 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.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

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

3

DP15001 · 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.