NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Steering complaints
20 reportsClear category filter126,000 miles · May 1, 2018
Steering
REGARDING: NHTSA RECALL NUMBER 14V-284, FORD RECALL NUMBER 14S05 ELECTRIC POWER STEERING THE RECALL INSTRUCTIONS TO DEALERS CALL FOR A SIGNAL TEST AND EITHER REPROGRAMMING A SENSOR OR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR BASED ON THE RESULTS. IT ALSO CALLS FOR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR UPON FAILURE IF THE FAILURE OCCURRED BEFORE T…
Read full complaint
REGARDING: NHTSA RECALL NUMBER 14V-284, FORD RECALL NUMBER 14S05 ELECTRIC POWER STEERING THE RECALL INSTRUCTIONS TO DEALERS CALL FOR A SIGNAL TEST AND EITHER REPROGRAMMING A SENSOR OR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR BASED ON THE RESULTS. IT ALSO CALLS FOR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR UPON FAILURE IF THE FAILURE OCCURRED BEFORE THE VEHICLE HAD THE RECALL SENSOR PERFORMED. THE RECALL INSTRUCTIONS TO DEALERS ALSO TELLS THEM THAT A TORQUE SENSOR THAT FAILS AFTER THE REPROGRAMMING WAS DONE IS NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL. THE PURPOSE OF THE SENSOR REPROGRAMMING WAS TO INITIATE A WARNING IN THE DRIVER CONTROL CENTER UPON IMMINENT SENSOR FAILURE, BUT DOES NOTHING TO FIX, REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE PART. I HAD THE DEALER PERFORM THE TEST AND SOFTWARE UPGRADE AND WAS UNDER THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT THE RECALL WAS TO ACTUALLY REPLACE THE STATISTICALLY FAULTY PART , AND NOT JUST A POTENTIAL WARNING. THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING ON MY VEHICLE FAILED ON 4-12-2018 AND, INCIDENTALLY, I DID NOT GET A WARNING ON THE DRIVER INFORMATION CENTER BEFORE THE FAILURE; SO THE REPROGRAMMING DID NOTHING FOR MY VEHICLE. MY QUESTION IS WHY IS FORD/MERCURY NOT REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE FAILED SENSORS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE RECALL? I UNDERSTAND FORD NOT BEING REQUIRED TO REPLACE SENSORS THAT MIGHT FAIL BUT GIVING DRIVERS NOTICE OF IMMINENT FAILURE, BUT FORD SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE SENSORS THAT DO FAIL EVEN AFTER THE REPROGRAMMING BECAUSE THE REPROGRAMMING IS NOT INTENDED TO FIX THE PROBLEM JUST WARN DRIVERS. THE SENSOR REPLACEMENT IS NEARLY A $2000 REPAIR THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE COVERED BY THE RECALL. CAN THE NHTSA EXPLAIN THE RATIONAL FOR NOT REQUIRING FORD TO ACTUALLY FIX THE DEFECT THAT CAUSES A SERIOUS HAZARD?
NHTSA ODI #11091146
165,000 miles · Apr 3, 2018
Steering
WHILE DRIVING ON I90, RECENTLY NOTICED NOISE IN STEERING COLUMN WHICH HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE AND STEERING WHEEL NOW SHAKES. TAKEN TO FORD DEALER WAS TOLD IT WAS ATORQUE ANGLE STEERING SENSOR. FIX ABOUT $500 UNLESS THE STEERING COLUMN IS BROKEN! FIX THEN 1530. HOW DOES A STEERING COLUMN BREAK? RECALL 14S05 FOR STEERING PR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON I90, RECENTLY NOTICED NOISE IN STEERING COLUMN WHICH HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE AND STEERING WHEEL NOW SHAKES. TAKEN TO FORD DEALER WAS TOLD IT WAS ATORQUE ANGLE STEERING SENSOR. FIX ABOUT $500 UNLESS THE STEERING COLUMN IS BROKEN! FIX THEN 1530. HOW DOES A STEERING COLUMN BREAK? RECALL 14S05 FOR STEERING PROBLEM. SUPPOSEDLY IF THIS WAS FIXED FORD IS RELEASED FROM ANY RECALL DEALING WITH STEERING IF IT HAS BEEN REPLACED. APPARENTLY FORD OMITTED THIS INFO FROM THE PUBLIC JUST WONDERED IF I HAVE ANY RECOURSE TO RESOLVE THIS. FORD DEALER SAYS NO RECALL. FORD COMPANY SAYS THIS IS NOT UNDER RECALL AS I HAD PRIOR RECALL TAKEN CARE OF. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER COMPLAINTS REGARDING THIS VEHICLE AND THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM WITH THE EXACT SAME OUTCOME. I HAVE HAD OTHER PROBLEMS WITH FORD PRODUCTS RESULTING IN HOSPITALIZATION AND HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHINGG I CAN NOT ALLOW THIS ONE TO GO UNNOTICED. THANK YOU
NHTSA ODI #11083090
71,000 miles · Apr 2, 2018
Steering
FORD HAS NOT FIXED THE ISSUE! VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN DO YOU DO RECALL MY PREVIOUS OWNER AND ONLY SOFTWARE WAS UPDATED PERTAINING TO THE POWER STEERING RECALL. IT IS NOT A SOFTWARE UPDATE ISSUE. THE TORQUE SENSOR MUST BE REPLACED. FORD WILL NOT COVER NOR REIMBURSE THIS ISSUE. MANY OTHER CUSTOMERS ARE HAVING THIS EXACT SAME PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
FORD HAS NOT FIXED THE ISSUE! VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN DO YOU DO RECALL MY PREVIOUS OWNER AND ONLY SOFTWARE WAS UPDATED PERTAINING TO THE POWER STEERING RECALL. IT IS NOT A SOFTWARE UPDATE ISSUE. THE TORQUE SENSOR MUST BE REPLACED. FORD WILL NOT COVER NOR REIMBURSE THIS ISSUE. MANY OTHER CUSTOMERS ARE HAVING THIS EXACT SAME PROBLEM. THE POWER STEERING ASSIST GOES OUT WITHOUT WARNING AND MAKES THE VEHICLE VERY DANGEROUS TO DRIVE. I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE THIS MORNING AND OUT OF NOWHERE THE TURNING BECAME VERY DIFFICULT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #11082509
140,000 miles · Feb 1, 2018
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHEN THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, THE STEERING WHEEL FAILED TO TURN AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE SENSOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHEN THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, THE STEERING WHEEL FAILED TO TURN AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE SENSOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS ONCE REPAIRED PER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING); HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE RECALL WAS A ONE TIME REPAIR. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000.
NHTSA ODI #11066452
102,000 miles · Dec 7, 2017
Steering
POWER STEERING ASSIST WILL GO OUT WITHOUT WARNING CAUSING THE CAR TO LOSE IT'S POWER STEERING AND MAY EVEN LOCK UP TOTALLY.THIS HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY SINCE JUNE OF 2017 AND HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE. WE HAD TO REPAIR IT IN DECEMBER OF 2017 AT A COST OF $1500.00.
NHTSA ODI #11052972
147,500 miles · Sep 8, 2016
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 (NA) MERCURY MARINER. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD ABNORMAL SOUND AND THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE BINS, GEARS, AND STEERING COLUMN FAILED AND WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 (NA) MERCURY MARINER. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD ABNORMAL SOUND AND THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE BINS, GEARS, AND STEERING COLUMN FAILED AND WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THIS FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 147,500.
NHTSA ODI #10904718
129,000 miles · Sep 7, 2016
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A TURN, THE STEERING ABILITY SEIZED. THE VEHICLE STRUCK A CURB AND WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. THE MANUFA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A TURN, THE STEERING ABILITY SEIZED. THE VEHICLE STRUCK A CURB AND WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED LAST YEAR PER AN UNKNOWN RECALL FOR THE STEERING MODULE. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 129,000.
NHTSA ODI #10904314
148,909 miles · Oct 19, 2015
Electrical SystemSteering
I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE AT A LOW RATE OF SPEED ON A CITY STREET ON 10/16/15 AND AS I TURNED A CORNER, ABOUT TO PULL INTO A DRIVEWAY, THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER STEERING ! THE VEHICLE WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL AND IT TOOK ALL MY STRENGTH IN BOTH ARMS TO COMPLETE THE TURN AND PULL INTO THE DRIVEWAY SAFELY. THE VEHICLE…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE AT A LOW RATE OF SPEED ON A CITY STREET ON 10/16/15 AND AS I TURNED A CORNER, ABOUT TO PULL INTO A DRIVEWAY, THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER STEERING ! THE VEHICLE WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL AND IT TOOK ALL MY STRENGTH IN BOTH ARMS TO COMPLETE THE TURN AND PULL INTO THE DRIVEWAY SAFELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO CREST FORD DEALERSHIP IN FLAT ROCK, MI AND THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE THEY DETECTED INDICATES THEY NEED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE COVERED UNDER FORD'S RECALL 14S05. DAVE IN THEIR SERVICE DEPARTMENT TOOK WHAT HE DESCRIBED AS "THE FIRST STEP" BY SENDING AN EMAIL TO REQUEST THAT THIS REPAIR SERVICE BE PERFORMED UNDER THE RECALL. IT WAS DENIED BY FORD BECAUSE A DIFFERENT CODE, ALSO COVERED BY THIS RECALL, WAS ADDRESSED BY LIBERTY FORD IN BRUNSWICK OH ON 5/11/15 (AT WHICH POINT THEY UPDATED THE POWER STEERING CONTROL MODULE). I CONTACT FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE MYSELF ON 10/19/15 AND WAS TOLD THAT THE "PROGRAM HAD BEEN CLOSED" ON MY VEHICLE BECAUSE SERVICE UNDER THE RECALL HAS ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED. IT'S RIDICULOUS THAT THEY AREN'T NOW GOING TO SERVICE THE ADDITIONAL PROBLEM THAT HAS OCCURRED AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE COVERED BY THIS RECALL!
NHTSA ODI #10783395
103,000 miles · Mar 21, 2015
Steering
I WENT TO MY MECHANIC WITH A STEERING PROBLEM, AND IT WAS PART OF THE TORQUE SENSOR ISSUES THAT WAS RECALLED. MY CAR FALLS IN THOSE DATES BUT THERE IS NO RECALL ON MY VIN FOR THAT PART. AND I DON'T GET WHY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10700846
37,900 miles · Dec 15, 2014
Fuel System, GasolineSteeringVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING AT 40 MPH CAR STALLS, PULL OVER, CAR STARTS UP ENGINE LITE ON, (SAT) TAKE TO DEALER ON MON (12/15/2014), EXPLAIN TO DEALER, THEY CALL 3 HOURS LATER TO SAY "PURGE VALVE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED"OK THIS SHOULD BE COVERED RIGHT? SHE SAYS NO! THE COST TO YOU WILL BE $320.33. I TOLD HER THIS IS PART OF THE EMISSIONS, IT HAS TO BE…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AT 40 MPH CAR STALLS, PULL OVER, CAR STARTS UP ENGINE LITE ON, (SAT) TAKE TO DEALER ON MON (12/15/2014), EXPLAIN TO DEALER, THEY CALL 3 HOURS LATER TO SAY "PURGE VALVE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED"OK THIS SHOULD BE COVERED RIGHT? SHE SAYS NO! THE COST TO YOU WILL BE $320.33. I TOLD HER THIS IS PART OF THE EMISSIONS, IT HAS TO BE, SHE SAID NO ITS NOT! I PURCHASED THIS CAR FROM THIS DEALER 3 1/2 YEARS AGO, (BOUGHT IS NEW) STILL UNDERWARRANTY.. BUT THIS IS NOT COVERED! THE 800 NUMBER TO FORDS BLEW ME OFF! AND SAID WHAT THE DEALER SAYS GOES!>. WHY DID SHE SUGGEST I CALL THEM THEN! (NOT GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE) I WAS HOPING FOR EXPLANATION! PLEASE HELP, THIS SHOULD BE COVERED. LOOK AT YOUR ON LINE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS! SHAME SHAME SHAME. OF COURSE I PAID IT, I NEED MY CAR! PLEASE NOTE I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WERE AT 5 OR MORE CARS WITH THE SAME/SIMILAR PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10664424
Official recalls
2Oct 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.
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
3DP15001 · 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.
Illustration