← 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

Fuel System, Gasoline complaints

7 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Feb 11, 2026
Fuel System, Gasoline

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was a strong fuel odor inside the vehicle. In addition, the contact stated that the fuel odor was noticeable all the way to the rear seat. The vehicle was taken to the dealer; however, the contact was informed that the t…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was a strong fuel odor inside the vehicle. In addition, the contact stated that the fuel odor was noticeable all the way to the rear seat. The vehicle was taken to the dealer; however, the contact was informed that the tools needed to perform the repair were not available. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or the dealer. The contact was informed by the Insurance Provider of an unrepaired recall, under NHTSA Campaign Number: 16V777000 (Fuel System, Gasoline). The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown.

NHTSA ODI #11717360

116,000 miles · Sep 22, 2023
Fuel System, Gasoline

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle lost motive power and failed to accelerate above 10 MPH. The contact was able to pull to the shoulder of the roadway, after which the vehicle stalled. After restarting the vehicle, the vehicle briefly returned to n…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle lost motive power and failed to accelerate above 10 MPH. The contact was able to pull to the shoulder of the roadway, after which the vehicle stalled. After restarting the vehicle, the vehicle briefly returned to normal functionality, but the failure reoccurred. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, who diagnosed a failure with the throttle body. The vehicle was not repaired. After investigating the failure, the contact related it to Customer Satisfaction Program 13N03, but the VIN was not included. The manufacturer was notified of the failure but referred the contact to the NHTSA hotline for assistance. The failure mileage was 116,000.

NHTSA ODI #11546074

Mileage unknown · May 29, 2018
Fuel System, GasolineFuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. LOUDON MOTORS FORD (3476 UNION AVE …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. LOUDON MOTORS FORD (3476 UNION AVE SE, MINERVA, OH 44657, (330) 868-2277) WAS CONTACTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM WHEN THE PARTS WERE TO BECOME AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT.

NHTSA ODI #11098511

Mileage unknown · May 9, 2018
Fuel System, Gasoline

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE) EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR REPAIR. THE CONTACT RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTIFICATION IN JANUARY OF 2017. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH OURISMAN FORD & LINCOLN (6129 RICHMOND HIGHWAY, ALEXANDRIA VA, 2230…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE) EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR REPAIR. THE CONTACT RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTIFICATION IN JANUARY OF 2017. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH OURISMAN FORD & LINCOLN (6129 RICHMOND HIGHWAY, ALEXANDRIA VA, 22303, (703) 660-9000) SEVERAL TIMES CONCERNING PART AVAILABILITY. THE DEALER STATED THAT PARTS WERE UNAVAILABLE FOR THE REPAIR. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT TO CALL BACK IN TWO WEEKS. THE CONTACT CALLED BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND WAS INFORMED THAT PARTS WERE STILL UNAVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND PROVIDED A CASE NUMBER. THE MANUFACTURER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE SITUATION CONCERNING PART AVAILABILITY WAS ESCALATED. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT. *TT *JS

NHTSA ODI #11092746

32,012 miles · Jan 1, 2017
Fuel System, GasolinePower Train

THE THROTTLE IS NOT WORKING RIGHT. I WAS ALMOST IN 2 ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OF THIS. I STEP ON THE GAS AND NOTHING HAPPENS. I HEAR THAT 1000S ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM BUT NO RECALL. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS WHEN IN A 75 MPH ZONE AND SUDDENLY NO POWER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10938982

37,900 miles · Dec 15, 2014
Fuel System, GasolineSteeringVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING AT 40 MPH CAR STALLS, PULL OVER, CAR STARTS UP ENGINE LITE ON, (SAT) TAKE TO DEALER ON MON (12/15/2014), EXPLAIN TO DEALER, THEY CALL 3 HOURS LATER TO SAY "PURGE VALVE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED"OK THIS SHOULD BE COVERED RIGHT? SHE SAYS NO! THE COST TO YOU WILL BE $320.33. I TOLD HER THIS IS PART OF THE EMISSIONS, IT HAS TO BE…

Read full complaint

DRIVING AT 40 MPH CAR STALLS, PULL OVER, CAR STARTS UP ENGINE LITE ON, (SAT) TAKE TO DEALER ON MON (12/15/2014), EXPLAIN TO DEALER, THEY CALL 3 HOURS LATER TO SAY "PURGE VALVE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED"OK THIS SHOULD BE COVERED RIGHT? SHE SAYS NO! THE COST TO YOU WILL BE $320.33. I TOLD HER THIS IS PART OF THE EMISSIONS, IT HAS TO BE, SHE SAID NO ITS NOT! I PURCHASED THIS CAR FROM THIS DEALER 3 1/2 YEARS AGO, (BOUGHT IS NEW) STILL UNDERWARRANTY.. BUT THIS IS NOT COVERED! THE 800 NUMBER TO FORDS BLEW ME OFF! AND SAID WHAT THE DEALER SAYS GOES!>. WHY DID SHE SUGGEST I CALL THEM THEN! (NOT GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE) I WAS HOPING FOR EXPLANATION! PLEASE HELP, THIS SHOULD BE COVERED. LOOK AT YOUR ON LINE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS! SHAME SHAME SHAME. OF COURSE I PAID IT, I NEED MY CAR! PLEASE NOTE I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE AT 5 OR MORE CARS WITH THE SAME/SIMILAR PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10664424

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

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.