← New search

2011 Mercury Mariner

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2011 Mercury Mariner do not stand out strongly from 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

68 reports with mileage · 19 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.

  • Power Train. Review the 24 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Steering. Review the 20 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 reports0 fire reports1 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

6 reports
Clear category filter
148,909 miles · Oct 19, 2015
Electrical SystemSteering

I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE AT A LOW RATE OF SPEED ON A CITY STREET ON 10/16/15 AND AS I TURNED A CORNER, ABOUT TO PULL INTO A DRIVEWAY, THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER STEERING ! THE VEHICLE WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL AND IT TOOK ALL MY STRENGTH IN BOTH ARMS TO COMPLETE THE TURN AND PULL INTO THE DRIVEWAY SAFELY. THE VEHICLE…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE AT A LOW RATE OF SPEED ON A CITY STREET ON 10/16/15 AND AS I TURNED A CORNER, ABOUT TO PULL INTO A DRIVEWAY, THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER STEERING ! THE VEHICLE WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL AND IT TOOK ALL MY STRENGTH IN BOTH ARMS TO COMPLETE THE TURN AND PULL INTO THE DRIVEWAY SAFELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO CREST FORD DEALERSHIP IN FLAT ROCK, MI AND THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE THEY DETECTED INDICATES THEY NEED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE COVERED UNDER FORD'S RECALL 14S05. DAVE IN THEIR SERVICE DEPARTMENT TOOK WHAT HE DESCRIBED AS "THE FIRST STEP" BY SENDING AN EMAIL TO REQUEST THAT THIS REPAIR SERVICE BE PERFORMED UNDER THE RECALL. IT WAS DENIED BY FORD BECAUSE A DIFFERENT CODE, ALSO COVERED BY THIS RECALL, WAS ADDRESSED BY LIBERTY FORD IN BRUNSWICK OH ON 5/11/15 (AT WHICH POINT THEY UPDATED THE POWER STEERING CONTROL MODULE). I CONTACT FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE MYSELF ON 10/19/15 AND WAS TOLD THAT THE "PROGRAM HAD BEEN CLOSED" ON MY VEHICLE BECAUSE SERVICE UNDER THE RECALL HAS ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. IT'S RIDICULOUS THAT THEY AREN'T NOW GOING TO SERVICE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM THAT HAS OCCURRED AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE COVERED BY THIS RECALL!

NHTSA ODI #10783395

55,560 miles · Sep 8, 2013
Electrical System

I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH ON THE FREEWAY WHEN MY ENGINE STALLED. I COSTED TO THE SIDE, TURNED OFF MY CAR, AND RESTARTED THE ENGINE. MY SUV RAN NORMAL FOR THE NEXT 5 MILES BEFORE THE SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED. THIS TIME I WAS AT A LIGHT AND WAS ABLE TO STOP AND RESTART THE ENGINE. THE ENGINE STARTED, BUT WAS RUNNING SLOW AND THE GAS P…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH ON THE FREEWAY WHEN MY ENGINE STALLED. I COSTED TO THE SIDE, TURNED OFF MY CAR, AND RESTARTED THE ENGINE. MY SUV RAN NORMAL FOR THE NEXT 5 MILES BEFORE THE SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED. THIS TIME I WAS AT A LIGHT AND WAS ABLE TO STOP AND RESTART THE ENGINE. THE ENGINE STARTED, BUT WAS RUNNING SLOW AND THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON RESPONSIVE. I COASTED TO A SIDE STREET WHERE I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. ONCE I TRIED TO RESTART THE ENGINE, IT TOOK ABOUT FOUR TIMES LONGER TO START THAN NORMAL. I PUT THE SUV IN DRIVE AND IT JUMPED SLOWLY AT A COSTING PAST WITH EVERY FLUCTUATION OF THE ENGINE RPM PACE. I WOULD HAVE HAD AN ACCIDENT IF THIS WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ON MY WAY HOME FROM WORK IN TRAFFIC. THANKFULLY IT WAS DURING THE DAY WITH LITTLE TRAFFIC. THE DEALERSHIP SEEMS TO THINK IT IS A PROBLEM WITH AN ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. I WILL BE TRADING MY MARINER IN FOR A DIFFERENT CAR BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL SAFE DRIVING THE SUV. I AM FORTUNATE THAT MY SUV STALLING DID NOT CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. HOWEVER, I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS WHO ARE LESS FORTUNATE. PLEASE HELP BY FORCING FORD TO RECALL THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THIS PART BEFORE THIS ISSUE CAUSES A FATAL ACCIDENT. THANK YOU.

NHTSA ODI #10542469

54,000 miles · Aug 16, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

ON JUNE 6TH, IS AS GOING APPROXIMATELY 35 MILES PER HOUR WHEN THE CAR WENT INTO IDLE MODE. I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE CAR RESTARTED AFTER CRANKING IT SEVERAL TIMES. THE PROBLEM CONTINUED BUT ONLY WHEN TRAVELING AT LOWER SPEEDS. I MADE POINT OF TRAVELING THE BACK ROADS WHEN POSSIBLE. ON THE 13TH OF AUGUST, I WAS…

Read full complaint

ON JUNE 6TH, IS AS GOING APPROXIMATELY 35 MILES PER HOUR WHEN THE CAR WENT INTO IDLE MODE. I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE CAR RESTARTED AFTER CRANKING IT SEVERAL TIMES. THE PROBLEM CONTINUED BUT ONLY WHEN TRAVELING AT LOWER SPEEDS. I MADE POINT OF TRAVELING THE BACK ROADS WHEN POSSIBLE. ON THE 13TH OF AUGUST, I WAS ON THE FREEWAY WHEN IT HAPPENED. I WAS ONLY ABLE TO TRAVEL A FEW 100 FEET AND IT CONTINUED THIS WAY TILL I GOT HOME GOING THE BACK ROADS AGAIN. THE CAR HAS SAT THERE EVER SINCE. MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN OUT OF TOWN FOR THREE MONTHS AND RETURNED THAT NIGHT. HE HAD THE CODES CHECKED AND THEY READ P2111 AND P2112. HE DID RESEARCH THE PROBLEM AND CAME UP WITH MANY COMPLAINTS OF DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535736

46,000 miles · Aug 1, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel System, GasolinePower Train

NEEDS A NEW ELECTRIC THROTTLE DUE TO THE SAME ISSUES REPORTED IN PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS. EXACT ISSUE REFERENCED BELOW. "IN TWO RECENT COMPLAINTS TO NCCC, DRIVERS REPORTED INTERMITTENT VEHICLE STALLS AND SURGES AS THEY ENTER TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION OR WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. AS THE PROBLEM WAS INITIALLY INTERMIT…

Read full complaint

NEEDS A NEW ELECTRIC THROTTLE DUE TO THE SAME ISSUES REPORTED IN PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS. EXACT ISSUE REFERENCED BELOW. "IN TWO RECENT COMPLAINTS TO NCCC, DRIVERS REPORTED INTERMITTENT VEHICLE STALLS AND SURGES AS THEY ENTER TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION OR WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. AS THE PROBLEM WAS INITIALLY INTERMITTENT, THE DRIVERS CONTINUED TO OPERATE THEIR VEHICLES IN THIS CONDITION, EVENTUALLY PROGRESSING TO THE POINT OF KEEPING ONE FOOT ON THE BRAKE WHILE STOPPED AND THE OTHER ON THE GAS PEDAL TO KEEP THE VEHICLE RUNNING." *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533090

38,000 miles · Jun 22, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

VEHICLE TRAVELING AT 70 MPH ON INTERSTATE ENGINE QUIT AND LOSS OF STEERING AND CONTROL. PULLED OVER RE STARTED HAPPENED AGAIN. AND ENGINE LIGHT WENT ON. RE STARTED DROVE TO DEALER LATER AND DISCOVERED AFTER $100.00 DIAGNOSTIC THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY . HAPPENED WHEN MILEAGE WAS BETWEEN 38-39000. THEY W…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE TRAVELING AT 70 MPH ON INTERSTATE ENGINE QUIT AND LOSS OF STEERING AND CONTROL. PULLED OVER RE STARTED HAPPENED AGAIN. AND ENGINE LIGHT WENT ON. RE STARTED DROVE TO DEALER LATER AND DISCOVERED AFTER $100.00 DIAGNOSTIC THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY . HAPPENED WHEN MILEAGE WAS BETWEEN 38-39000. THEY WANTED ME TO PAY OVER $590.00 TO REPLACE THEIR DEFECTIVE PART AT FORD DEALERSHIP THEY REFUSED TO PUT IT UNDER ANY WARRANTY OR RECALL . I DID NOT HAVE IT FIXED. IT IS A DANGER TO ALLOW THIS MATTER NOT TO BE RECALLED AS IT HAS HAPPENED THOUSANDS OF TIMES IN MANY FORD VEHICLES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521231

Mileage unknown · May 18, 2011
Electrical System

IF THIS IS THE WRONG FORUM FOR THIS ISSUE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. WE PURCHASED A 2008 MERCURY MARINER NEW, SO THE CAR IS LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD AND WHILE GARAGE KEPT THE VEHICLE MILEAGE EXCEEDS THE NEW CAR WARRANTY. WE TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WERE CHANGED $118.00 TO DIAGNOSE A PROBLEM WITH THE BACKUP SYSTEM/SENSOR…

Read full complaint

IF THIS IS THE WRONG FORUM FOR THIS ISSUE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. WE PURCHASED A 2008 MERCURY MARINER NEW, SO THE CAR IS LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD AND WHILE GARAGE KEPT THE VEHICLE MILEAGE EXCEEDS THE NEW CAR WARRANTY. WE TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WERE CHANGED $118.00 TO DIAGNOSE A PROBLEM WITH THE BACKUP SYSTEM/SENSORS AND WERE INFORMED THAT THE SENSORS WERE FINE BUT THE ELECTRONIC DEVICE WHICH CALCULATES DISTANCE WAS BAD, TO REPLACE AN ADDITIONAL $500.00. WHY HAVE BACKUP SYSTEM/SENSORS ON A VEHICLE IF THE LIFE OF THE ELECTRONICS IS SO SHORT IF THIS SAFETY DEVICE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE BENEFIT, OURS IS NOW PERMANENTLY DISABLED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY "SAFETY" EQUIPMENT IS NOT COVERED FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME. REGARDS, *TR

NHTSA ODI #10401394

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.