← 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

Power Train complaints

24 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Mar 13, 2019
EquipmentPower Train

2011 MERCURY MARINER. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO THROTTLE BODY WARRANTY EXTENSION. *LD *TR

NHTSA ODI #11184110

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

63,000 miles · Oct 27, 2016
Power Train

I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 60 MILES AN HOUR ON AN EXPRESSWAY WHEN THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON AND I COULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE. AS I PULLED OVER TO STOP, THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10919251

90,000 miles · Sep 28, 2016
Power Train

WRENCH LIGHT ON MERCURY MARINER 2011 WITH SLOW (20-40MPH MAX) AND ROUGH RIDE HOME. YESTERDAY WHILE LEAVING WORK, I TURNED RIGHT OUT OF THE PARKING LOT ONTO THE MAIN ROAD. IMMEDIATELY MY MARINER HESITATED, JERKED FORWARD, AND A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. MY SUV SLOWLY ACCELERATED TO 20MPH AND STRUGGLED TO GET TO 40MPH. IT ROAD ROUGH …

Read full complaint

WRENCH LIGHT ON MERCURY MARINER 2011 WITH SLOW (20-40MPH MAX) AND ROUGH RIDE HOME. YESTERDAY WHILE LEAVING WORK, I TURNED RIGHT OUT OF THE PARKING LOT ONTO THE MAIN ROAD. IMMEDIATELY MY MARINER HESITATED, JERKED FORWARD, AND A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. MY SUV SLOWLY ACCELERATED TO 20MPH AND STRUGGLED TO GET TO 40MPH. IT ROAD ROUGH AND I WASN'T SURE IF IT WOULD STALL OR NOT; HOWEVER, I WAS ABLE TO SLOWLY MAKE IT HOME. I LOOKED UP THE WRENCH LIGHT AND LEARNED I WAS LIKELY HAVING A THROTTLE BODY OR POWERTRAIN PROBLEM. I FOUND ONLINE THAT THE DEALER WOULD FIX IT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS ONLY THROUGH JANUARY 2015 AND HAD EXPIRED (BEFORE THE DEALER EVEN SOLD ME THE SUV.) I STARTED THE SUV THIS MORNING TO TAKE TO THE DEALER TO GET FIXED, BUT THE WRENCH LIGHT HAS GONE OFF AND THERE IS NOT PROOF TO SHOW THE DEALER OF THE PROBLEM. I AM LOOKING INTO REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY AT MY OWN COST AS A PREVENTIVE NATURE. I WISH I WOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THIS BEFORE THE DEALER SOLD ME THE CAR.

NHTSA ODI #10910244

147,000 miles · Jul 29, 2016
Power Train

LAST YEAR, DRIVING ON STATE HIGHWAY AND VEHICLE LOSES POWER. WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON, ENGINE IS RUNNING, NO GAS, ETC. SHUT OFF, WAIT, AND START AGAIN. LIGHT IS OFF AND RUNS OK. THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL MORE TIMES. CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE AND SHOWED THERE WAS A CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE RECALL ON THROTTLE BODY. TOOK IT TO A…

Read full complaint

LAST YEAR, DRIVING ON STATE HIGHWAY AND VEHICLE LOSES POWER. WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON, ENGINE IS RUNNING, NO GAS, ETC. SHUT OFF, WAIT, AND START AGAIN. LIGHT IS OFF AND RUNS OK. THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL MORE TIMES. CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE AND SHOWED THERE WAS A CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE RECALL ON THROTTLE BODY. TOOK IT TO A DEALER AND THEY FOUND NOTHING WRONG. I GOT IT BACK, AND PROBLEM REOCCURRED. TOOK IT BACK TO DEALER,THEY DROVE IT AROUND, AND COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG. FINALLY, IN ANOTHER CITY, LEFT WORK AND LOST POWER AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND DIDN'T GO OFF AFTER RESTART. CONTACTED DEALER AND THEY REPLACED THROTTLE BODY SENSOR (OR SIMILAR) FOR FREE. THIS LAST WEEK, WAS DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 75MPH IN TRAFFIC AND I LOSE POWER IN PASSING LANE. LUCKILY COASTED TO SHOULDER, RESTARTED AND LIGHTS OFF. HAPPENED AGAIN THIS MORNING GOING TO WORK ON STATE HIGHWAY AT 60MPH. TALKED TO FORD AND WAS TOLD THEY CANNOT HELP ME UNTIL I HAVE A DEALER LOOK AT IT. CANNOT GET AN APPOINTMENT UNTIL END OF NEXT WEEK. WORRIED ABOUT DRIVING THIS VEHICLE I'VE HAD LESS THAN 5 YEARS, BUT IF DEALER CANNOT FIND ERROR, I HAVE TO TAKE MY CHANCES AND WAIT UNTIL THEY CAN GET AN ERROR.

NHTSA ODI #10891701

60,000 miles · Feb 3, 2016
Power Train

2011 MERCURY MARINER TRANSMISSION FAILED WITHOUT WARNING, THE COMPUTER CHIPS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN SOME KIND OF WARNING.

NHTSA ODI #10823990

60,000 miles · Jun 26, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY ON MY AFTERNOON COMMUTE HOME WITH MY 3 YR OLD DAUGHTER IN THE BACK SEAT AND MY VEHICLE LOST POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND IT WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 25 MPH. I ALMOST GOT HIT IN THE REAR OF MY VEHICLE CAUSE I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS TO HAPPEN BY ANY MEANS, BUT I WAS ABLE …

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY ON MY AFTERNOON COMMUTE HOME WITH MY 3 YR OLD DAUGHTER IN THE BACK SEAT AND MY VEHICLE LOST POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND IT WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 25 MPH. I ALMOST GOT HIT IN THE REAR OF MY VEHICLE CAUSE I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS TO HAPPEN BY ANY MEANS, BUT I WAS ABLE TO COAST OFF THE HIGHWAY AND SHUT THE ENGINE DOWN FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTED IT DROVE ABOUT 5 MILES AND IT DID IT AGAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10606077

32,200 miles · May 5, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train

I WAS DRIVING THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE WAY HOME FROM GOING OUT TO DINNER. I WENT AROUND A CURVE AND THEN WHEN I STARTED GOING UP A SLIGHT HILL, THE ENGINE SURGED. I DIDN'T THINK TO MUCH ABOUT IT UNTIL I LOST ALMOST ALL POWER. I COULD NOT GET UP TO A SPEED HIGHER THAN 5 MILES PER HOUR. I WAS ABLE TO GET WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF …

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE WAY HOME FROM GOING OUT TO DINNER. I WENT AROUND A CURVE AND THEN WHEN I STARTED GOING UP A SLIGHT HILL, THE ENGINE SURGED. I DIDN'T THINK TO MUCH ABOUT IT UNTIL I LOST ALMOST ALL POWER. I COULD NOT GET UP TO A SPEED HIGHER THAN 5 MILES PER HOUR. I WAS ABLE TO GET WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF MY RESIDENCE. I WAITED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AS I LOOKED UP THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE THAT MY ODB2 SCANNER GAVE ME. I FOUND OUT THAT IT IS CODE P2111, THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM - STUCK OPEN. I WENT BACK TO MY CAR, AFTER ABOUT AN HOUR, AND IT STARTED JUST FINE. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE MY SUV TO MY LOCAL FORD DEALER, WITH SOMEONE IN ANOTHER CAR FOLLOWING TO MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'T HAVE A REPEATING ISSUE. I DID A NIGHT KEY DROP TONIGHT, THE SAME DAY AS WHEN THE ISSUE HAPPENED. I INCLUDED THE WARRANTY LETTER THAT I HAD RECEIVED FROM FORD REGARDING THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACEMENT. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY FORD WOULD NOT ISSUE AN OFFICIAL RECALL TO FIX THIS ONGOING PROBLEM. I FEEL VERY FORTUNATE THAT I WAS NOT ON A BUSY INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OR OTHERWISE CONGESTED ROAD WHEN THIS HAPPENED. WILL THERE HAVE TO BE NUMEROUS REPORTS OF FATALITIES OR SERIOUS PROPERTY DAMAGE BEFORE THIS ISSUE IS ACTUALLY RECTIFIED? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10586703

31,010 miles · Dec 9, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WAS ON A VERY BUSY FOUR-LANE ROAD DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MILES PER HOUR; IT WAS DARK AND RAINING. THE CAR SUDDENLY SLOWED TO ALMOST NO MOVEMENT, BUT THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING. WAS ABLE TO DRIFT INTO A LOWE'S PARKING LOT SAFELY OFF THE HIGHWAY. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED; I CUT THE ENGINE OFF AND WAITED ABOUT…

Read full complaint

WAS ON A VERY BUSY FOUR-LANE ROAD DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MILES PER HOUR; IT WAS DARK AND RAINING. THE CAR SUDDENLY SLOWED TO ALMOST NO MOVEMENT, BUT THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING. WAS ABLE TO DRIFT INTO A LOWE'S PARKING LOT SAFELY OFF THE HIGHWAY. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED; I CUT THE ENGINE OFF AND WAITED ABOUT 10 MINUTES AND RESTARTED. VEHICLE GOT ME TO THE HOTEL WHERE I WAS STAYING ABOUT A 1/2 MILE AWAY. NEXT MORNING, I HAD SOMEONE FOLLOW ME SO THAT I COULD ATTEMPT TO GET IT TO THE FORD DEALER IN PRINCETON, WEST VIRGINIA. CAR STALLED ON 5 OCCASIONS; RESTARTED IT, GO A MILE OR SO AND HAD TO RESTART AGAIN. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WAS EXCELLENT - THEY IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE CAR IN (I WAS IN TOWN FOR A FUNERAL); TECH DISCOVERED IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. IT WAS REPLACED, BUT AT A COST OF $594.85. THIS WAS THE SECOND INCIDENCE IN LESS THAN 4 DAYS WITH THIS SAME PROBLEM. ON DECEMBER 2, I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE LOCAL FORD GARAGE IN GREENEVILLE, TENNESSEE, WHERE I LIVE. THE ENGINE LIGHT HAD COME ON AND I WAS CONCERNED SINCE THE MANUAL SAID TO SEE THE DEALER IMMEDIATELY. LOCAL FORD GARAGE CLEANED OUT THE FUEL LINE AND SAID I SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY MORE PROBLEMS. ENGINE LIGHT WAS OFF AND I THOUGHT THE CAR WAS OKAY. THEN ON DECEMBER 5, DROVE TO PRINCETON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND THE NIGHTMARE BEGAN. IT APPEARS THAT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM SINCE SO MANY OWNERS HAVE COMPLAINED. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RECALL AND THE PROBLEM RESOLVED. IT IS EXTREMELY UNSAFE TO BE ON THE INTERSTATE OR ANY ROAD WHERE TRAFFIC MOVES FAST WHEN YOUR CAR GOES TO A BASIC IDLE AND WILL NOT ACCELERATE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10555380

47,589 miles · Nov 20, 2013
Power Train

MY WIFE WAS DRIVING THE 2011 MERCURY MARINER ON THE INTERSTATE AT 60 MPH WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT (THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN) CAME ON AND THE CAR SPEED DROPPED RAPIDLY TO ABOUT 20 MPH. FORTUNATELY SHE WAS ABLE TO PULL THE MARINER OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE AND CAME TO A STOP AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. WHEN SHE RESTARTED THE…

Read full complaint

MY WIFE WAS DRIVING THE 2011 MERCURY MARINER ON THE INTERSTATE AT 60 MPH WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT (THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN) CAME ON AND THE CAR SPEED DROPPED RAPIDLY TO ABOUT 20 MPH. FORTUNATELY SHE WAS ABLE TO PULL THE MARINER OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE AND CAME TO A STOP AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. WHEN SHE RESTARTED THE MARINER THE LIGHT WENT AWAY AND POWER TO THE MARINER WAS RESTORED. THIS IS HAS HAPPENED TO THE MARINER TWICE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10553036

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.