← 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
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

44,589 miles · Sep 26, 2013
Power Train

VEHICLE WAS EXITING A PARKING LOT, STOPPED IN THE RIGHT TURN LANE. PRESSED ACCELERATOR TO PULL OUT OF PARKING LOT AND VEHICLE BEGAN JOLTING VIOLENTLY BACK AND FORTH AND BARELY MOVING FORWARD - BUT DID MOVE INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE. EVENTUALLY VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO MOVE AND ENGINE STOPPED. HAD TO PUSH VEHICLE TO SIDE OF…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE WAS EXITING A PARKING LOT, STOPPED IN THE RIGHT TURN LANE. PRESSED ACCELERATOR TO PULL OUT OF PARKING LOT AND VEHICLE BEGAN JOLTING VIOLENTLY BACK AND FORTH AND BARELY MOVING FORWARD - BUT DID MOVE INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE. EVENTUALLY VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO MOVE AND ENGINE STOPPED. HAD TO PUSH VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD TO RESTART. DEALER ADVISED BROKEN "THROTTLE BODY AND MO" NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY AND FORCED TO PAY FOR REPAIR. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10545508

46,000 miles · Aug 16, 2013
Power Train

I WAS DRIVING ALONG WITH A FULL CAR OF SOCCER PLAYERS AND LOST MOMENTUM. HAD TO NAVIGATE TO THE SIDE OF ROAD .. THE VEHICLE THREW AN ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT WHICH IS MY MANUAL SAID IT WAS A POWER TRAIN PROBLEM. I WAS HAPPY TO BE SAFE AND OK WITH THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE COVERED ON POWER TRAIN(MY ASSUMPTION). LATER FOUND OUT IT W…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ALONG WITH A FULL CAR OF SOCCER PLAYERS AND LOST MOMENTUM. HAD TO NAVIGATE TO THE SIDE OF ROAD .. THE VEHICLE THREW AN ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT WHICH IS MY MANUAL SAID IT WAS A POWER TRAIN PROBLEM. I WAS HAPPY TO BE SAFE AND OK WITH THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE COVERED ON POWER TRAIN(MY ASSUMPTION). LATER FOUND OUT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND BECAUSE I AM OUTSIDE MILEAGE WARRANTY ON BUMPER TO BUMPER (BUT INSIDE THE YEARS) IT IS GOING TO COST ME $485.20. I AM ANIMATE AND WILL GET THIS REIMBURSED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535741

45,500 miles · Aug 15, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY, IN MY 2011 MARINER IT SUDDENLY LOST THE POWER TO ACCELERATE (ENGINE STILL RUNNING). THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AT THIS TIME. PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR DID NOTHING. FORTUNATELY THERE WAS NOTHING BEHIND ME SO I COASTED ABOUT 1/4 MILE TO THE NEXT TURN OFF AND COASTED OFF THE HIGHWAY. THEN I T…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY, IN MY 2011 MARINER IT SUDDENLY LOST THE POWER TO ACCELERATE (ENGINE STILL RUNNING). THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AT THIS TIME. PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR DID NOTHING. FORTUNATELY THERE WAS NOTHING BEHIND ME SO I COASTED ABOUT 1/4 MILE TO THE NEXT TURN OFF AND COASTED OFF THE HIGHWAY. THEN I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTED IT. I DROVE ABOUT 20 MILES HOME WITH NO OTHER OCCURRENCE. THE NEXT DAY (AUGUST 14, 2013) I DROVE ABOUT 20 MILES TO WORK WITH NO PROBLEMS. THAT AFTERNOON I LEFT WORK AND DROVE ABOUT 2 MILES AT 25 MPH AND IT LOST ALL ACCELERATION POWER AGAIN (MOTOR STILL RUNNING). I TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED IT. I DROVE ANOTHER 2 MILES AT 25 MPH AND IT LOST ACCELERATION POWER AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME BOTH THE WRENCH LIGHT AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON (ENGINE STILL RUNNING). I THEN DROVE DIRECTLY TO MY FORD/MERCURY DEALER (ABOUT 1 MILE) AND TOLD HIM THE SITUATION. IT IS CURRENTLY IN THEIR SHOP AND I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM THEM YET. THEY GAVE ME A LOANER VEHICLE TO DRIVE WHILE THEY CHECK OUT MY MARINER. -- EXTREMELY SCARY SITUATION! IF THIS HAPPENS TO ME ON AN INTERSTATE IN A CENTER LANE WITH HEAVY TRAFFIC WILL BE LIFE THREATENING. I DON'T WANT TO BE AFRAID DRIVING MY VEHICLE AND THINK A RECALL SHOULD BE DONE ASAP!! TODAY I HAVE READ OTHER SIMILAR SITUATIONS PEOPLE HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH MARINERS AND ESCAPES. PLEASE CHECK INTO THIS ASAP BEFORE THERE IS A TRAGEDY IF THERE HASN'T ALREADY BEEN ONE GONE UNREPORTED!!! THANK YOU!! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535515

63,719 miles · Aug 5, 2013
Power Train

WHILE CRUISING ON I-40 HEADED TOWARDS NASHVILLE, MY CAR WENT INTO AN IDLE STATE AND I FORCED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO TURN OFF THE CAR. TURNED IT BACK ON AND IT RAN FOR ANOTHER 25 MILES AND DID THE EXACT SAME THING. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE THEY LOOKED FOR ANY CODES. THE CODE THAT THEY FOUND WAS P2111 FOR A POWERTRAI…

Read full complaint

WHILE CRUISING ON I-40 HEADED TOWARDS NASHVILLE, MY CAR WENT INTO AN IDLE STATE AND I FORCED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO TURN OFF THE CAR. TURNED IT BACK ON AND IT RAN FOR ANOTHER 25 MILES AND DID THE EXACT SAME THING. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE THEY LOOKED FOR ANY CODES. THE CODE THAT THEY FOUND WAS P2111 FOR A POWERTRAIN THROTTLE BODY. NONE OF THESE PARTS ARE IN STOCK ANYWHERE IN TENN FROM WHAT THE TECH SAID. I WAS FORCED TO TRAVEL BACK TO DALLAS IN A VEHICLE THAT WOULD RANDOMLY GO INTO AN IDLE STATE WHERE I WAS FORCED TO EXIT THE ROAD TO TURN OFF AND RE-START MY VEHICLE. UPON DOING SOME RESEARCH, IT APPEARS THAT SEVERAL FOR VEHICLES ARE HAVING THROTTLE BODY ISSUES. ALSO, I LEARNED JUST TODAY THAT THE PART I NEED, DS7Z9E926D COSTS $324 AT THE DEALER. THE PARTS PERSON MENTIONED THAT ARE NOW ON PART #D AND THAT THE PREVIOUS PARTS ARE DEFECTIVE. MY POWERTRAIN IS UNDER WARRANTY, HOWEVER, "THIS PART IS NOT COVERED EVEN THOUGH IT IS PART OF THE POWERTRAIN" PER THE FORD TECH. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS INTO ANY FORD THROTTLE BODY ISSUES THAT ARE BEING INVESTIGATED. THANKS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533759

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

47,000 miles · Jul 9, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

HTTP://WWW.AUTOBLOG.COM/2013/02/25/NHTSA-INVESTIGATING-725K-FORD-MERCURY-VEHICLES-FOR-STALLING-ISS/ - READ COMMENTS ON THIS SITE. EXACTLY WHAT OUR MARINER IS DOING. 60 TO ZERO IN 2 SECONDS. YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON, VEHICLE NO LONGER ACCELERATES, PULLOVER, TURN OFF, RESTART. HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10524019

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

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

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

Read full complaint

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

NHTSA ODI #10521231

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.