NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
87 reports49,138 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Engine
THE VEHICLE HAS QUIT RUNNING SUDDENLY WITHOUT WARNING AT HIGHWAY SPEED TWO TIMES AND HAS QUIT RUNNING AT LOW SPEED OR AT STOP LIGHTS OR HAS WENT TO ROUGH IDLE IN LIMP HOME MODE WITH NO POWER AVAILABLE TO AVOID HEAVY TRAFFIC. TURNING OFF IGNITION AND WAITING 3 MINUTES AND RESTARTING YIELDS NORMAL ENGINE OPERATION UNTIL IT STALLS …
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE HAS QUIT RUNNING SUDDENLY WITHOUT WARNING AT HIGHWAY SPEED TWO TIMES AND HAS QUIT RUNNING AT LOW SPEED OR AT STOP LIGHTS OR HAS WENT TO ROUGH IDLE IN LIMP HOME MODE WITH NO POWER AVAILABLE TO AVOID HEAVY TRAFFIC. TURNING OFF IGNITION AND WAITING 3 MINUTES AND RESTARTING YIELDS NORMAL ENGINE OPERATION UNTIL IT STALLS AGAIN. FORD SERVICE HAS DIAGNOSED DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY BUT WILL NOT WARRANTY THE DEFECTIVE PART EVEN THOUGH IT IS COVERED UNDER EMISSIONS CONTROLS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525485
41,926 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE EXITING THE HIGHWAY RAMP AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION THEN THE MIL AND CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT PERFORMED A DIAGNOSTIC WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUF…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE EXITING THE HIGHWAY RAMP AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION THEN THE MIL AND CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT PERFORMED A DIAGNOSTIC WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 41,926.
NHTSA ODI #10525290
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
43,000 miles · Jul 1, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522703
54,322 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System
DRIVING HIGHWAY SPEED AND VEHICLE STALLED, ALSO STALLED AFTER TAKING OFF FROM STOPPED POSITION. PULLED OFF OF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED ENGINE OFF AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE ENGINE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522010
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
Mileage unknown · Jun 11, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
I JUST BOUGHT A 2011 MERCURY MARINER IN APRIL 2013..I ONLY HAD IT 6 WEEKS WHEN THIS HAPPENED. I WAS DRIVING IN 5 O'CLOCK TRAFFIC AND MY CAR MOTOR STARTED MAKING FUNNY NOISES, FELT LIKE IT WAS TRYING TO STALL AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THEN MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. MY CAR WOULD BARELY DRIVE, I WAS STUC…
Read full complaint
I JUST BOUGHT A 2011 MERCURY MARINER IN APRIL 2013..I ONLY HAD IT 6 WEEKS WHEN THIS HAPPENED. I WAS DRIVING IN 5 O'CLOCK TRAFFIC AND MY CAR MOTOR STARTED MAKING FUNNY NOISES, FELT LIKE IT WAS TRYING TO STALL AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THEN MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. MY CAR WOULD BARELY DRIVE, I WAS STUCK IN TRAFFIC, THANKFULLY PEOPLE SAW MY HAZARD LIGHTS AND ALLOWED ME TO CUT THROUGH THE LINES OF TRAFFIC AND I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO PULL OVER INTO A PARKING LOT. I FOUND OUT LATER MY CAR HAD GONE INTO "LIMP MODE" & THIS IS A "KNOWN ISSUE" WITH FORD ESCAPES & MERCURY MARINERS MODEL YEARS 2009-2011. IT IS DUE TO A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. MY CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR 2 WEEKS NOW & MY MECHANIC HAS BEEN UNABLE TO GET A NEW PART BECAUSE THEY ARE ON A NATIONAL BACKORDER. OVER 4,000 PARTS ARE ON ORDER AND HAVE BEEN ON BACKORDER SINCE FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR (2013). WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN A RECALL??? CLEARLY, THIS IS A WIDESPREAD ISSUE!!! NEITHER THE DEALERSHIP OR MY MECHANIC CAN GET A PART TO FIX MY CAR. I AM STUCK WITHOUT A VEHICLE OR ANY RECOURSE TO GET MYSELF INTO A WORKING VEHICLE. INSURANCE WILL NOT PAY FOR A RENTAL INDEFINITELY SINCE WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN THESE REPLACEMENT THROTTLE BODY PARTS WILL ACTUALLY SHIP - WE'VE ALREADY BEEN WAITING FOR 2 WEEKS. THE COMPANY KEEPS TELLING MY MECHANIC THEY WILL SHIP IN 3-4 DAYS AND WE ARE STILL WITHOUT A PART. I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER PEOPLE BESIDES MYSELF THAT HAVE ALSO BEEN WAITING ON THIS SHIPMENT EVEN LONGER THAN I HAVE?! THIS IS RIDICULOUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10519325
46,100 miles · May 28, 2013
Power Train
FRIDAY 24TH, THE WRENCH SIGN CAME ON, THE CAR SHUT DOWN IN TRAFFIC. CALLED THE DEALER, TOLD ME TO PULL THE KEY OUT AND THEN RESTART AFTER 5 MINUTES. IT STARTED AND HE OKAYED ME TO DRIVE IT. HE SAID IT WAS A 1TIME GLITCH. LATER IN THE DAY, PULLING OUT OF A RESTAURANT, IT DID THE SAME THING. SO I REPEATED WHAT THE FORD SERVICE TEC…
Read full complaint
FRIDAY 24TH, THE WRENCH SIGN CAME ON, THE CAR SHUT DOWN IN TRAFFIC. CALLED THE DEALER, TOLD ME TO PULL THE KEY OUT AND THEN RESTART AFTER 5 MINUTES. IT STARTED AND HE OKAYED ME TO DRIVE IT. HE SAID IT WAS A 1TIME GLITCH. LATER IN THE DAY, PULLING OUT OF A RESTAURANT, IT DID THE SAME THING. SO I REPEATED WHAT THE FORD SERVICE TECH TOLD ME. THE NEXT MORNING I BROUGHT IT DIRECTLY TO THE FORD SERVICE CENTER WHERE THE TECH TOLD ME THAT SINCE THE LIGHT INDICATOR DIDN'T REMAIN ON, THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHAT THE CAUSE WAS. HE TOLD ME TO DRIVE IT UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN AND THE LIGHT REMAINED ON. 2 DAYS LATER, THIS HAPPENED. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE SERVICE CENTER AND THEY DROPPED IT FOR SERVICE FOR THE NEXT MORNING BECAUSE IT WAS SUNDAY NIGHT. MONDAY, GOT A CALL FROM THE TECH WHO SAID THE LIGHY WENT BACK OFF SO THEY ARE AT SQUARE ONE. I JUST SO HAPPEN TO HAVE GOTTEN THE ENGINE LIGHT CODE RAN BEFORE IT GOT TOWED AND IT CAME UP P2111. TECH DIAGNOSED THAT I NEED A NEW THROTTLE BODY BUT THE PART IS ON BACKORDER WITH NO ETA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513796
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