← 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

Engine complaints

11 reports
Clear category filter
53,000 miles · Sep 10, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion System

DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS (60PMH) IT WOULD LOSS POWER AND KINDA LIMP ALONG. I CAN PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURN THE CAR OFF AND START IT BAKE ON AGAIN AN RUN JUST FIND AFTER THAT. THIS HAS HAPPEN THREE TIME SINCE. IT IS BECOME REALLY DANGEROUS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10632274

43,000 miles · Jul 7, 2014
Engine

I WAS DRIVING AND THE ENGINE CUT OUT ON ME AND I HAD TO PULL OVER IT WOULDN'T TAKE ANY GAS WHEN I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED I SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND TURNED IT BACK ON I RAN RUFF I SHUT IT OFF AGAIN AND TURNED IT BACK ON THEN IT RAN FINE. THEN ABOUT 3 HOURS LATER IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN. I AM AFRAID TO GO ON THE HIGHWAY WITH T…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING AND THE ENGINE CUT OUT ON ME AND I HAD TO PULL OVER IT WOULDN'T TAKE ANY GAS WHEN I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED I SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND TURNED IT BACK ON I RAN RUFF I SHUT IT OFF AGAIN AND TURNED IT BACK ON THEN IT RAN FINE. THEN ABOUT 3 HOURS LATER IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN. I AM AFRAID TO GO ON THE HIGHWAY WITH THIS VEHICLE WHAT IF I AM IN THE HIGH SPEED LANE AND THIS HAPPENS I HAVE ONLY HAD THE VEHICLE 3 MONTHS I BOUGHT IT FROM RODMAN FORD IN FOXBORO MASSACHUSETTS. THANK YOU [XXX]. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #10608499

38,000 miles · Jan 13, 2014
Engine

THE VEHICLE LOST ALL POWER FROM THE MOTOR AND I HAD TO CROSS LANES TO GET TO THE SHOULDER WHILE FREE WHEELING. THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED ON 3 OCCASIONS. THE MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WITH NO PULLING POWER. ONCE I HAD SWITCHED THE MOTOR OFF AND WAITED A FEW MOMENTS I WAS ABLE TO RESTART AND THE VEHICLE OPERATED PERFECTLY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10559592

60,884 miles · Sep 30, 2013
EnginePower Train

ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, AFTER ABOUT A 30 MINUTE COMMUTE TO MY PLACE OF WORK, I PULLED INTO MY WORK DRIVEWAY, AND MY 2011 MERCURY MARINER STALLED. THE ENGINE SEEMED TO CUT OFF, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY VEHICLE ROLLED INTO THE PARKING SPOT. UNSURE OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH MY VEHICLE (AS IT HAD NEVER HAPPEN…

Read full complaint

ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, AFTER ABOUT A 30 MINUTE COMMUTE TO MY PLACE OF WORK, I PULLED INTO MY WORK DRIVEWAY, AND MY 2011 MERCURY MARINER STALLED. THE ENGINE SEEMED TO CUT OFF, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY VEHICLE ROLLED INTO THE PARKING SPOT. UNSURE OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH MY VEHICLE (AS IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE), I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT. THE SERVICE MANAGER WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND TOLD ME IT SOUNDED LIKE A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM, AS HIS SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS REPLACED A NUMBER OF THESE ON BOTH THE FORD ESCAPES AND MERCURY MARINERS. ON MY LUNCH BREAK, I DROVE OVER TO THE DEALERSHIP AND MADE IT WITH NO STALLING OUT PROBLEMS. THE MANAGER THEN TOLD ME HE WOULD DRIVE ME BACK TO WORK IN THE VEHICLE TO SEE IF IT WOULD "ACT UP." IT DID NOT "ACT UP" WHILE HE DROVE ME BACK TO MY PLACE OF WORK, BUT ON HIS WAY BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP, IT STALLED OUT ON HIM WHILE HE WAS ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN. HE HAD TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 SECONDS TO LET IT RESET. HE SAID AT THIS POINT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ALSO CAME ON. HE GOT IT INTO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND HOOKED IT UP TO THE COMPUTER. THE COMPUTER GENERATED CODE P2111, ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. HE LUCKILY HAD ONE IN STOCK AND IT WAS PROMPTLY REPLACED. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY MORE STALLING OUT ISSUES WITH MY MARINER AND THE ISSUE APPEARS TO BE RESOLVED. THIS PROBLEM COULD HAVE HAD DEADLY CONSEQUENCES HAD IT STALLED OUT AT THE WRONG PLACE AND WRONG TIME, PARTICULARLY IN AN ONCOMING TRAFFIC SITUATION. AS THE SERVICE MANAGER MENTIONED TO ME, THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM THAT IS FACING A POTENTIAL RECALL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10546331

49,000 miles · Sep 11, 2013
Engine

MY SON AND I WERE ON THE WAY HOME FROM FOOTBALL PRACTICE AROUND 8:30PM AND AS I WAS TURNING RIGHT FROM A STOP LIGHT THE VEHICLE STARTED SLOWING DOWN AND SHAKING. I PULLED RIGHT OVER TURNED THE CAR OFF AND ON. ONCE I GOT BACK ON THE ROAD IT DID IT A SECOND TIME AND SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER AND TURN CAR OFF AND ON AGAIN. I WAS …

Read full complaint

MY SON AND I WERE ON THE WAY HOME FROM FOOTBALL PRACTICE AROUND 8:30PM AND AS I WAS TURNING RIGHT FROM A STOP LIGHT THE VEHICLE STARTED SLOWING DOWN AND SHAKING. I PULLED RIGHT OVER TURNED THE CAR OFF AND ON. ONCE I GOT BACK ON THE ROAD IT DID IT A SECOND TIME AND SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER AND TURN CAR OFF AND ON AGAIN. I WAS CLOSE TO HOME AND FINALLY MADE IT HOME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10543034

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

69,000 miles · Jul 29, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

AS I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 MERCURY MARINER IT SUDDENLY LOST THE POWER TO ACCELERATE (ENGINE STILL RUNNING). THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATES AT THIS TIME. I COULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO INCREASE SPEED (PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR DID NOTHING). THE ONLY FIX IS TO SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE AND RE-START. THE MILEAGE IS 69,XXX. THIS FIRST OCCUR…

Read full complaint

AS I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 MERCURY MARINER IT SUDDENLY LOST THE POWER TO ACCELERATE (ENGINE STILL RUNNING). THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATES AT THIS TIME. I COULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO INCREASE SPEED (PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR DID NOTHING). THE ONLY FIX IS TO SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE AND RE-START. THE MILEAGE IS 69,XXX. THIS FIRST OCCURRENCE HAPPENED ON 7/25/2013, HOWEVER, THE SAME SYMPTOMS HAVE OCCURRED RANDOMLY SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THAT TIME. I EXPLAINED THE SYMPTOMS TO MY LOCAL FORD DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND INDICATIONS ARE A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10532353

49,138 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Engine

THE VEHICLE HAS QUIT RUNNING SUDDENLY WITHOUT WARNING AT HIGHWAY SPEED TWO TIMES AND HAS QUIT RUNNING AT LOW SPEED OR AT STOP LIGHTS OR HAS WENT TO ROUGH IDLE IN LIMP HOME MODE WITH NO POWER AVAILABLE TO AVOID HEAVY TRAFFIC. TURNING OFF IGNITION AND WAITING 3 MINUTES AND RESTARTING YIELDS NORMAL ENGINE OPERATION UNTIL IT STALLS …

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE HAS QUIT RUNNING SUDDENLY WITHOUT WARNING AT HIGHWAY SPEED TWO TIMES AND HAS QUIT RUNNING AT LOW SPEED OR AT STOP LIGHTS OR HAS WENT TO ROUGH IDLE IN LIMP HOME MODE WITH NO POWER AVAILABLE TO AVOID HEAVY TRAFFIC. TURNING OFF IGNITION AND WAITING 3 MINUTES AND RESTARTING YIELDS NORMAL ENGINE OPERATION UNTIL IT STALLS AGAIN. FORD SERVICE HAS DIAGNOSED DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY BUT WILL NOT WARRANTY THE DEFECTIVE PART EVEN THOUGH IT IS COVERED UNDER EMISSIONS CONTROLS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525485

45,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EnginePower Train

DRIVING AROUND 50 MPH, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ENGINE THROTTLES DOWN AND THE POWERTRAIN LIGHT COMES ON. THE ENGINE IS STILL RUNNING, BUT NO RESPONSE WHEN YOU PRESS THE ACCELERATOR. HAD TO PULL OVER, SHUT OFF THE ENGINE, RESTARTED THE ENGINE AND IT FUNCTIONED NORMALLY. IT HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES IN THE SAME TRIP. IT HAS BEEN HAPPENIN…

Read full complaint

DRIVING AROUND 50 MPH, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ENGINE THROTTLES DOWN AND THE POWERTRAIN LIGHT COMES ON. THE ENGINE IS STILL RUNNING, BUT NO RESPONSE WHEN YOU PRESS THE ACCELERATOR. HAD TO PULL OVER, SHUT OFF THE ENGINE, RESTARTED THE ENGINE AND IT FUNCTIONED NORMALLY. IT HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES IN THE SAME TRIP. IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING INTERMITTENTLY. BRINGING IT IN NOW BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL ROAD HAZARD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521802

27,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

STARTED VEHICLE IN THE MORNING FOR WORK & YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, COMBINED WITH "LIMP MODE" SYMPTOMS OF NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. GOOGLED & FOUND MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FOR SIMILAR ISSUES WITH THIS MOTOR. CALLED LOCAL FORD DEALER WHO SAID THE THROTTLE BODY HAS HAD 3 DIFFERENT PART NUMBERS WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS BE…

Read full complaint

STARTED VEHICLE IN THE MORNING FOR WORK & YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, COMBINED WITH "LIMP MODE" SYMPTOMS OF NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. GOOGLED & FOUND MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FOR SIMILAR ISSUES WITH THIS MOTOR. CALLED LOCAL FORD DEALER WHO SAID THE THROTTLE BODY HAS HAD 3 DIFFERENT PART NUMBERS WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A KNOW ISSUE FOR A WHILE NOW. ORDERED THE LATEST VERSION OF THE THROTTLE BODY & WILL HAVE IT REPLACED BY MY MECHANIC WHO SAID ITS A 1/2 HR INSTALL. I WILL BE KEEPING THE RECEIPTS & HOPEFULLY FORD WILL BE KIND ENOUGH TO REIMBURSE THOSE WHO HAVE HAD THIS FIXED, IF THE ISSUE DOES END UP BECOMING A RECALL. WHAT A HEADACHE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521672

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.