← 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

Steering complaints

20 reports
Clear category filter
96,000 miles · May 19, 2026
Steering

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the power steering became inoperable with no warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where it was diagnosed that the steering shaft port sensor had failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not …

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the power steering became inoperable with no warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where it was diagnosed that the steering shaft port sensor had failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 96,000.

NHTSA ODI #11738857

141,968 miles · Jan 24, 2025
Steering

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while attempting to make a turn from a complete stop, the steering wheel became significantly difficult to turn. The contact was able to turn the vehicle by using physical force. The contact stated that the failure persisted. The vehicle was taken to an unknown dea…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while attempting to make a turn from a complete stop, the steering wheel became significantly difficult to turn. The contact was able to turn the vehicle by using physical force. The contact stated that the failure persisted. The vehicle was taken to an unknown dealer, where it was diagnosed with electric power steering system torque sensor failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 141,968.

NHTSA ODI #11638337

125,000 miles · Jul 5, 2023
Steering

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated while entering a fast-food drive-thru, the power steering warning light illuminated, and the steering wheel became difficult to turn. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. A dealer was not contacted. Upon investigation, the contact associated the failure with NHTSA…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated while entering a fast-food drive-thru, the power steering warning light illuminated, and the steering wheel became difficult to turn. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. A dealer was not contacted. Upon investigation, the contact associated the failure with NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V284000 (Steering) however, the VIN was not included. The manufacturer had not been informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 125,000.

NHTSA ODI #11530378

Mileage unknown · Jan 21, 2023
Steering

While my wife was driving the vehicle, the power assisted steering failed and produced a "power assist fault code" on the display. The car became too hard for a 74 year old woman to be able to steer. I took the car to the Ford dealer near me who confirmed it was the steering torque sensor had failed and needed to order in one an…

Read full complaint

While my wife was driving the vehicle, the power assisted steering failed and produced a "power assist fault code" on the display. The car became too hard for a 74 year old woman to be able to steer. I took the car to the Ford dealer near me who confirmed it was the steering torque sensor had failed and needed to order in one and would cost $600 to replace. I did a VIN search on your data base, but it didn't show any recalls for this problem. However a google search showed a recall for my vehicle make, model and date of manufacturer and part of the Ford 14SO5 recall. The information on your web site shows that Mercury Mariners manufactured prior to Sept.11, 2010 were affected. Mine was manufactured in August of 2010. According to the Ford notices as published on your web site my car should be part of that recall and should receive a software update that would prevent the steering assist from being turned off. The Ford dealer is refusing to do the update and sensor replacement for free since that recall doesn't show up under my VIN. Its funny, because my car is doing the exact thing the recall was for and fits the vehicle description and date of manufacture to qualify.

NHTSA ODI #11502990

200,732 miles · Jun 24, 2022
Steering

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that the steering wheel was difficult to turn. The contact stated that the steering wheel was spinning in circles. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer where it was diagnosed that the steering column needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that the steering wheel was difficult to turn. The contact stated that the steering wheel was spinning in circles. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer where it was diagnosed that the steering column needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and referred the contact to NHTSA. The failure mileage was approximately 200,732.

NHTSA ODI #11470844

140,000 miles · Feb 25, 2022
Steering

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds, the steering wheel became difficult to turn in either direction. After turning off the vehicle and restarting the engine, the vehicle would operate normally. The vehicle was taken to and independent mechanic who diagnosed that the s…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2011 Mercury Mariner. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds, the steering wheel became difficult to turn in either direction. After turning off the vehicle and restarting the engine, the vehicle would operate normally. The vehicle was taken to and independent mechanic who diagnosed that the steering shaft torque sensor was faulty and need to be replaced. The vehicle was not yet repaired. The manufacturer and local dealer were notified of the failure. The contact was informed that the vehicle was not included in the NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V284000 (Steering). The contact indicated that the vehicle had experienced the failure listed in the recall. The failure mileage was 140,000. THE CONSUMER STATED THE DIAGNOSTIC TROUBLE CODE WAS B2278. THE CONUSMER STATED DUE TO THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCING THE SAME FAILURE DETAILED IN THE RECALL NOTICE, THAT THE VEHICLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.

NHTSA ODI #11454150

125,000 miles · Dec 24, 2020
Steering

I'M VERY UPSET AND ON THE VERGE OF TEARS! MY STEERING WHEEL SUDDENLY LOCKED ON ME! I ALMOST WRECKED! THIS HAS HAPPENED A FEW TIMES & I HAVE NO WARNING LIGHT ON MY DASHBOARD

NHTSA ODI #11384878

Mileage unknown · Oct 30, 2020
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED INTERMITTENT POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILURE WITH AN UNKNOWN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE VEHICLE FOR THE POWER …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED INTERMITTENT POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILURE WITH AN UNKNOWN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE VEHICLE FOR THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO BRIGHT BAY LINCOLN, INC. (1174 SUNRISE HWY, BAY SHORE, NY 11706) AND NEWINS BAY SHORE FORD (219 W MAIN ST, BAY SHORE, NY 11706) WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE CONTACT ALSO CALLED HASSETT FORD (3530 SUNRISE HWY, WANTAGH, NY 11793, (516) 785-7800) AND WAS PROVIDED THE SAME INFORMATION AS THE OTHER DEALERS. THE MANUFACTURER HAD WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE BUT OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.

NHTSA ODI #11372391

170,000 miles · Jul 15, 2019
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ASSOCIATED THE FAILURE WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO K C MOTORSPORTS (LOCATED AT 2401 E 11TH ST, TULSA, OK 74104, (…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ASSOCIATED THE FAILURE WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO K C MOTORSPORTS (LOCATED AT 2401 E 11TH ST, TULSA, OK 74104, (918) 599-0066) TO BE DIAGNOSED, BUT THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 170,000.

NHTSA ODI #11232013

91,000 miles · Nov 16, 2018
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE STEERING ABILITY BECAME VERY DIFFICULT. THE CONTACT DECREASED THE SPEED AND DROVE HOME. THE DEALER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 91,…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE STEERING ABILITY BECAME VERY DIFFICULT. THE CONTACT DECREASED THE SPEED AND DROVE HOME. THE DEALER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 91,000.

NHTSA ODI #11151916

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.