NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
216 reportsClear category filter75,000 miles · Aug 11, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
AS I AM DRIVING THE VEHICLE I LOOSE ALL POWER AND ACCELERATION WITHOUT WARNING OF ANY KIND. DIAGNOSTIC CODE READS A P 2111 (THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM STUCK OPEN) THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES AND I HAVE BEEN IN HEAVY TRAFFIC WHAT IT HAS. LUCK I WASN'T KILLED BY A SEMI. AS I SAID IT LOOSES POWER AND ACCELERATION AND STALLS OUT I…
Read full complaint
AS I AM DRIVING THE VEHICLE I LOOSE ALL POWER AND ACCELERATION WITHOUT WARNING OF ANY KIND. DIAGNOSTIC CODE READS A P 2111 (THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM STUCK OPEN) THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES AND I HAVE BEEN IN HEAVY TRAFFIC WHAT IT HAS. LUCK I WASN'T KILLED BY A SEMI. AS I SAID IT LOOSES POWER AND ACCELERATION AND STALLS OUT I HAVE LOOKED AROUND ONLINE AND THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS OUT THERE BUT NO RECALL FOR IT. WHY IS THIS? IF THERE ARE SO MANY OF THESE VEHICLES HAVING IDENTICAL PROBLEMS THAT THE PART TO THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED IS ON BACK ORDER NATION WIDE THEN THERE IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT NOT A PART FAILURE DO TO USE. WHAT IS UP WITH THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10534745
36,000 miles · Aug 9, 2013
Electrical System
UNDER POWER, THE ENGINE LOOSES POWER AND ENTERS "LIMP HOME MODE", IDLING WITH MINIMAL POWER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10534601
65,000 miles · Aug 7, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE HAS THE SAME THROTTLE BODY CONDITION AS OTHER FAILED UNITS. CODE P2111. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533997
51,125 miles · Aug 6, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING ON HIGHWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE SHOOK AND STARTED TO STALL AND SHUT OFF AT 55 MPH. THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN AND THE ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED. VEHICLE WAS SHUTTERING AND SLOWING DOWN WITH THE ENGINE CUTTING OUT. I IMMEDIATELY ATTEMPTED TO GET OFF THE ROAD IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE A REAR END ACCIDENT …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING ON HIGHWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE SHOOK AND STARTED TO STALL AND SHUT OFF AT 55 MPH. THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN AND THE ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED. VEHICLE WAS SHUTTERING AND SLOWING DOWN WITH THE ENGINE CUTTING OUT. I IMMEDIATELY ATTEMPTED TO GET OFF THE ROAD IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE A REAR END ACCIDENT WITH ANY SPEEDING VEHICLES TRAVELING BEHIND THE CAR. ONCE CAR WAS SHUT OFF, VEHICLE HAD A CLICKING NOISE WHEN TURNING THE CAR OVER TO START, THEN RESTARTED TO A NORMAL CONDITION. AT 45 MPH ON A CITY STREET, 3 DAYS LATER THE SAME STALL AND ENGINE CUT OUT OCCURRED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533915
48,000 miles · Aug 6, 2013
Electrical System
WHILE DRIVING MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE IT WOULD OCCASIONALLY GO INTO A LIMP MODE CAUSING ME TO PULL OVER ON THE HIGHWAY AND TURN OFF THE CAR AND ATTEMPT TO RESTART. THERE IS NO TELLING WHEN IT WOULD HAPPEN AS IT WAS INTERMITTENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533899
24,000 miles · Jul 30, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE THE CAR LOSS ALL ACCELERATION. THE NEXT MORNING IT HAPPENED TWICE MORE. MY MECHANIC TOOK THE CAR & ATTACHED TO THE COMPUTER AND THE CODE P2112 APPEARED. HE CLEANED THE THROTTLE BODY AND TOOK A TEST DRIVE. IT LOST ACCELERATION 10 MORE TIMES. THIS IS A DISGRACE AND THE PART MUS…
Read full complaint
WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE THE CAR LOSS ALL ACCELERATION. THE NEXT MORNING IT HAPPENED TWICE MORE. MY MECHANIC TOOK THE CAR & ATTACHED TO THE COMPUTER AND THE CODE P2112 APPEARED. HE CLEANED THE THROTTLE BODY AND TOOK A TEST DRIVE. IT LOST ACCELERATION 10 MORE TIMES. THIS IS A DISGRACE AND THE PART MUST BE RECALLED BY THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532613
Mileage unknown · Jul 29, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
MY HUSBAND WAS DRIVING OUT OF A PARKING LOT WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. THE CAR STARTED TO DECREASE IN ACCELERATION EVEN THOUGH HIS FOOT WAS ON THE GAS PEDAL. HE THEN APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE BRAKES TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE AND THE CAR PULSED TO A STOP. HE PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND SHUT IT OFF. WHEN TRYING…
Read full complaint
MY HUSBAND WAS DRIVING OUT OF A PARKING LOT WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. THE CAR STARTED TO DECREASE IN ACCELERATION EVEN THOUGH HIS FOOT WAS ON THE GAS PEDAL. HE THEN APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE BRAKES TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE AND THE CAR PULSED TO A STOP. HE PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND SHUT IT OFF. WHEN TRYING TO RESTART THE CAR WOULD NOT TURN OVER RIGHT AWAY, AND TOOK AT LEAST 5 SECONDS OR MORE FOR IT TO START. SINCE THIS ISSUE HAS OCCURRED, IT HAS HAPPENED 7 MORE TIMES IN A MATTER OF 5 DAYS. LUCKILY THIS HAPPENED WHILE MY HUSBAND WAS DRIVING MY CAR AND HE CONTINUES TO DRIVE IT UNTIL WE GET IT FIXED. I PRIMARILY DRIVE THIS CAR 99% OF THE TIME AND I AM 7 MONTHS PREGNANT. I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE WHAT I WOULD DO IF THIS HAPPENED TO ME ON THE HIGHWAY OR IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY INTERSECTION. WE ARE VERY LUCKY THAT NO ONE GOT HURT DURING THESE INSTANCES. I CAN'T BELIEVE FORD HAS NOT DONE A MAJOR RECALL ON THIS ISSUE. MY SISTER IN-LAW HAD THE SAME ISSUES WITH HER 2009 ESCAPE AND JUST RECENTLY HAD HER THROTTLE BODY REPLACED AS WELL. THE LACK OF CARING ABOUT ITS CUSTOMERS WILL DEFINITELY MAKE ME RETHINK ABOUT EVER BUYING A FORD AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532408
45,562 miles · Jul 26, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
WHEN DRIVING, THE WRENCH LIGHT WOULD COME AND THE ENGINE WOULD STALL. THE GAS MEDAL GOES LIMP AND YOU CANT GIVE IT GAS. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND TURN IT OFF THAN BACK ON IT BEGAN TO WORK. IT HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR A WEEK AND THEN I GOT A DIAGNOSTIC AND CODE P2112 CAME UP. IT SAID THAT THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM STUCK CLOS…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING, THE WRENCH LIGHT WOULD COME AND THE ENGINE WOULD STALL. THE GAS MEDAL GOES LIMP AND YOU CANT GIVE IT GAS. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND TURN IT OFF THAN BACK ON IT BEGAN TO WORK. IT HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR A WEEK AND THEN I GOT A DIAGNOSTIC AND CODE P2112 CAME UP. IT SAID THAT THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM STUCK CLOSED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532048
64,652 miles · Jul 25, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING MY VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION AND THEN BEGAN TO SHAKE THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON. RECENTLY WENT TO A SHOP AND THE ISSUE IS BECAUSE OF A PART CALLED THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531737
86,000 miles · Jul 22, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WITHOUT WARNING OR HESITATION. I COASTED TO A STOP IN A NEARBY PARKING LOT (LUCKILY!), TURNED IGNITION OFF AND VEHICLE RESTARTED AND RAN WITH NO PROBLEMS FOR ALMOST TWO WEEKS. ON SATURDAY, JULY 13TH WHILE DRIVING IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, THE VEH…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WITHOUT WARNING OR HESITATION. I COASTED TO A STOP IN A NEARBY PARKING LOT (LUCKILY!), TURNED IGNITION OFF AND VEHICLE RESTARTED AND RAN WITH NO PROBLEMS FOR ALMOST TWO WEEKS. ON SATURDAY, JULY 13TH WHILE DRIVING IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, THE VEHICLE AGAIN STALLED AND WOULD NOT RESTART UNTIL I COASTED TO A STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE IGNITION OFF. SINCE THEN THE VEHICLE HAS DONE THIS ABOUT A HALF DOZEN TIMES BUT NOT ALWAYS BY JUST STALLING. THE VEHICLE HAS ALSO WENT INTO 'LIMP HOME' MODE ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION WHEN MY SON WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE CLOSE TO A FRIEND'S HOUSE WHERE IT SAT OVERNIGHT. WHEN WE STARTED IT THE NEXT TIME IT RAN LIKE IT WAS MISFIRING VERY BADLY, SO WE TURNED THE IGNITION OFF AND TAPPED ON THE THROTTLE BODY WITH THE HANDLE OF A SCREWDRIVER. IT THEN STARTED AND IDLED NORMALLY AND WE WERE ABLE TO DRIVE IT ABOUT THREE MILES HOME. IT ALSO HAS SPUTTERED ERRATICALLY SIMILAR TO A VERY BAD REPEATED MISFIRING UNTIL STOPPING AND TURNING THE IGNITION OFF. IT DID THIS TWICE WITHIN A QUARTER MILE AND THEN RAN FINE FOR OVER 15 MILES THAT I DROVE IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP WHO WANTED $107 DOLLARS TO DIAGNOSE A PROBLEM THAT I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN I ALREADY HAD FIGURED OUT. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THEIR 'SPECIALLY TRAINED' TECHNICIANS MAY FIND A DIFFERENT CAUSE THAN THE P2111 CODE I HAD READ WITH A SCANNER FROM A LOCAL AUTO PARTS STORE SUGGESTED. I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THIS PROBLEM WAS SUPPOSED ADDRESSED BY FORD THINKING THAT THERE WAS A PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD PROBLEM IN THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. HOWEVER, THIS VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED IN MARCH OF 2010, AFTER THE OCTOBER 15TH, 2009 DATE THEY HAD STARTED USING THE NEW PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526226
Official recalls
3Oct 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.
May 24, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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
4DP15001 · 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
DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related 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. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.
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.