← New search

2010 Mercury Milan Hybrid

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Milan Hybrid 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

51 reports with mileage · 8 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.

  • Steering. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Air Bags. Review the 9 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 9 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

0 crash reports1 fire reports0 injury reports

Exterior Lighting complaints

5 reports
Clear category filter
49,500 miles · Jun 2, 2015
Exterior Lighting

MY 2010 MERCURY MILAN HYBRID WAS PURCHASED AS CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED IN MARCH 2013 IN FLORIDA. SINCE IT WAS CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED AND IT WAS ALSO NOT REQUIRED BY FLORIDA TO HAVE ANY SAFETY INSPECTION, I NEVER PAID ANY ATTENTION TO ANY LIGHTS. IN APRIL 2015, I TOOK MY CAR FOR A SAFETY INSPECTION, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A CAR TO…

Read full complaint

MY 2010 MERCURY MILAN HYBRID WAS PURCHASED AS CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED IN MARCH 2013 IN FLORIDA. SINCE IT WAS CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED AND IT WAS ALSO NOT REQUIRED BY FLORIDA TO HAVE ANY SAFETY INSPECTION, I NEVER PAID ANY ATTENTION TO ANY LIGHTS. IN APRIL 2015, I TOOK MY CAR FOR A SAFETY INSPECTION, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A CAR TO BE REGISTERED IN VIRGINIA, SINCE I MOVED BACK TO VIRGINIA. THE CAR DID NOT PASS THE VA SAFETY INSPECTION BECAUSE THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR BRAKE LIGHT WAS ON ALL THE TIME. (I FOUND THERE WERE NUMEROUS POSTS ON THE INTERNET DESCRIBING THIS PROBLEM -- BRAKE LIGHTS STAYING ON). THE ENTIRE LIGHT ASSEMBLY CAN ONLY BE BOUGHT FROM THE DEALERSHIP. I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SINCE I WAS TOLD BY THE DEALERSHIP THE ASSEMBLY WAS NO LONGER COVERED BY THE WARRANTY. THE ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT WAS $365.54 (AFTER TAX). I LIKE TO LODGE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FORD COMPANY ABOUT A RECALL ON THIS INFERIOR LIGHT ASSEMBLIES, AND MONETARY SUPPORT FROM FORD ON THIS ISSUE. I FEEL FORD SHOULD CORRECT THE PROBLEM AND RECALL THE ASSEMBLIES.

NHTSA ODI #10723069

16,699 miles · Jan 29, 2015
Exterior Lighting

MY 2010 MERCURY MILAN HYBRID WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JUNE, 2010. IN FEBRUARY, 2013, THE REAR, PASSENGER SIDE TAIL LIGHT WENT OUT. I TRIED TO BUY A REPLACEMENT BULB AT AN AUTO PARTS STORE ONLY TO DISCOVER THERE WAS NO REPLACEMENT PART NUMBER IN THEIR BOOKS FOR MY CAR. ON FEBRUARY 8, 2013, THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THE ENTIRE REAR LIGHT…

Read full complaint

MY 2010 MERCURY MILAN HYBRID WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JUNE, 2010. IN FEBRUARY, 2013, THE REAR, PASSENGER SIDE TAIL LIGHT WENT OUT. I TRIED TO BUY A REPLACEMENT BULB AT AN AUTO PARTS STORE ONLY TO DISCOVER THERE WAS NO REPLACEMENT PART NUMBER IN THEIR BOOKS FOR MY CAR. ON FEBRUARY 8, 2013, THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THE ENTIRE REAR LIGHT ASSEMBLY HAD TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE IT WAS A SEALED SYSTEM. I WAS FORTUNATE THAT THE WORK COULD BE DONE UNDER WARRANTY AT THAT TIME. THEN IN JAN., 2015, A DRIVER WHO HAD BEEN BEHIND ME, KINDLY TOLD ME THAT THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR BRAKE LIGHT WAS ON ALL THE TIME. THERE ARE NUMEROUS POSTS ON THE INTERNET DESCRIBING BOTH PROBLEMS (BULB BURN OUT AND BRAKE LIGHTS STAYING ON). AGAIN, THE ENTIRE LIGHT ASSEMBLY HAD TO BE REPLACED BY THE DEALERSHIP, THIS TIME AT MY EXPENSE. THE REPLACEMENT COST WAS $547.59. ON JANUARY 29, 2015, I PHONED FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO LODGE A COMPLAINT AND INQUIRE ABOUT A RECALL ON THESE INFERIOR LIGHT ASSEMBLIES, OR MONETARY SUPPORT FROM FORD ON THIS ISSUE. I WAS TOLD ALL COMPLAINTS TO THE MFG. ARE RECORDED AND TRACKED, BUT THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. SHE COULD DO NOTHING FOR ME RETROACTIVELY AND SUGGESTED I CALL THE DEALERSHIP'S SERVICE MANAGER TO SEE IF HE/SHE HAD ANY PROGRAMS IN PLACE TO HELP. (WOULDN'T THOSE PROGRAMS COME FROM THE MFG.??) I ASKED IF THE PART HAD BEEN REDESIGNED AND WAS TOLD THE DEALERSHIP'S SERVICE MANAGER WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION ALSO. I THEN SPOKE TO THE DEALERSHIP'S SERVICE MANAGER WHO TOLD ME THE PART NUMBER FOR THE ASSEMBLY HAS NOT CHANGED, INDICATING THE PROBLEMS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. IT IS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE TO HAVE TO PAY ALMOST $550. TO CHANGE A FAILED TAIL LIGHT BULB, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REPLACEMENT ASSEMBLIES HAVE THE SAME FLAW AND POTENTIAL TO FAIL AGAIN. I FEEL FORD SHOULD CORRECT THE PROBLEM AND RECALL THE ASSEMBLIES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10679859

97,000 miles · Dec 29, 2014
Electrical SystemExterior LightingService Brakes

WAS ALERTED THAT MY LEFT REAR PASSENGER TAIL LIGHT ON MY 2010 MERCURY MILAN HYBRID WAS ABNORMALLY BRIGHT AND THAT BRAKE LIGHT DID NOT CHANGE ILLUMINATION LEVEL. TOOK CAR TO DEALERSHIP AND WAS INFORMED THAT ENTIRE ASSEMBLY WAS FAULTY AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED FOR $600. I HAVE AN EXTENDED WARRANTY, PREMIUMCARE ECP, AND WAS T…

Read full complaint

WAS ALERTED THAT MY LEFT REAR PASSENGER TAIL LIGHT ON MY 2010 MERCURY MILAN HYBRID WAS ABNORMALLY BRIGHT AND THAT BRAKE LIGHT DID NOT CHANGE ILLUMINATION LEVEL. TOOK CAR TO DEALERSHIP AND WAS INFORMED THAT ENTIRE ASSEMBLY WAS FAULTY AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED FOR $600. I HAVE AN EXTENDED WARRANTY, PREMIUMCARE ECP, AND WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS NOT A WARRANTY ELIGIBLE ITEM AND IS INSTEAD CONSIDERED CONSUMABLE BECAUSE THERE ARE LEDS INVOLVED. THERE ARE NO BULBS BURNED OUT, THEY ARE HIGHLY ILLUMINATED ALL THE TIME DUE TO A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE, NOT A CONVENIENCE ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10668810

33,000 miles · Oct 30, 2014
Exterior Lighting

WHILE DRIVING FELLOW MOTORIST ADVISED MY LEFT REAR LIGHT NOT OPERATING. VISIT TO DEALER CONFIRMED AND PRICE TO REPAIR $400 PLUS LABOR. THAT SEEMS A BIT HIGH TO REPLACE A LIGHT BULB! FORGET IT I WILL DRIVE UNTIL TICKETED. HOWEVER JUST BEFORE MY 3 YR WARRANTY WAS UP IT HAPPENED BUT ON THE RIGHT REAR EXTERIOR. THAT INCIDENT WA…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING FELLOW MOTORIST ADVISED MY LEFT REAR LIGHT NOT OPERATING. VISIT TO DEALER CONFIRMED AND PRICE TO REPAIR $400 PLUS LABOR. THAT SEEMS A BIT HIGH TO REPLACE A LIGHT BULB! FORGET IT I WILL DRIVE UNTIL TICKETED. HOWEVER JUST BEFORE MY 3 YR WARRANTY WAS UP IT HAPPENED BUT ON THE RIGHT REAR EXTERIOR. THAT INCIDENT WAS AT NO CHARGE AT THE DEALERSHIP. WHY BOTH IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WITH SUCH A NEW CAR? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10651431

40,693 miles · Oct 24, 2014
Exterior Lighting

REAR LED TAILLIGHT MALFUNCTIONS. COST TO REPLACE IS NEARLY $400.00. THIS SEEMS A VERY HEIGHT COST TO MAINTAIN A NECESSARY AND LEGALLY REQUIRED PIECE OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10649643

Official recalls

0

No recalls in this snapshot.

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

1

DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds

Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System

NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.