NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter73,199 miles · Jul 11, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING I LOST ALL RPM'S ON MY VEHICLE. VEHICLE STARTS TO SHAKE AND IF I PUSH ACCELERATOR NOTHING HAPPENS . I HAVE TO TURN VEHICLE OFF AND RESTART FOR IT TO TRAVEL A LITTLE WAYS FOR IT TO ONLY HAPPEN AGAIN. PUT VEHICLE ON MACHINE AT CAR SHOP AND IT STATES THAT THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK. I HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS REPORTS WHERE OT…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING I LOST ALL RPM'S ON MY VEHICLE. VEHICLE STARTS TO SHAKE AND IF I PUSH ACCELERATOR NOTHING HAPPENS . I HAVE TO TURN VEHICLE OFF AND RESTART FOR IT TO TRAVEL A LITTLE WAYS FOR IT TO ONLY HAPPEN AGAIN. PUT VEHICLE ON MACHINE AT CAR SHOP AND IT STATES THAT THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK. I HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS REPORTS WHERE OTHER PEOPLE ARE HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN A RECALL ISSUED? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10609846
52,800 miles · Jul 1, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE AND THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND NO REPAIRS HAD BEEN MADE TO T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE AND THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND NO REPAIRS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 52,800 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 53,000. UPDATED 08/14/14*LJ THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WAS REPLACED. UPDATED 09/16/14
NHTSA ODI #10607385
49,150 miles · Jun 12, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TURNING A CORNER, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. ALSO, THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD SURGED INTERMITTENTLY ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE F…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TURNING A CORNER, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. ALSO, THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD SURGED INTERMITTENTLY ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 49,150.
NHTSA ODI #10597883
61,000 miles · Jun 3, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
TRAVELING ABOUT 6 PM (RUSH HOUR HEAVY TRAFFIC) 3 LANE EXPRESSWAY WHEN CAR WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE LEFT SHOULDER SINCE WE WERE IN THE LEFT PASSING LANE. THE LEFT SHOULDER WAS NOT AS WIDE AS THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND WE FELT THE SITUATION WAS VERY DANGEROUS WE STAYED IN THE CAR WITH OUR SEATBELTS ON AN…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING ABOUT 6 PM (RUSH HOUR HEAVY TRAFFIC) 3 LANE EXPRESSWAY WHEN CAR WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE LEFT SHOULDER SINCE WE WERE IN THE LEFT PASSING LANE. THE LEFT SHOULDER WAS NOT AS WIDE AS THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND WE FELT THE SITUATION WAS VERY DANGEROUS WE STAYED IN THE CAR WITH OUR SEATBELTS ON AND CALLED FOR ROAD SERVICE (AAA). WE DID NOT RECEIVE HELP FOR TWO HOURS. JUST PURCHASED THIS CAR TWO MONTHS BEFORE THIS INCIDENT - PRE OWNED CERTIFIED BY DEALERSHIP. CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY FORD WAITS UNTIL THE PART FAILS BEFORE REPLACING IT. I FEEL STRONGLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS PART OF THE "CERTIFICATION" PROCESS. THERE WERE NO WARNING LIGHTS OR INDICATIONS THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE IT HAPPENED. AFTER THE CAR "DIED", A WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED, BUT NOT UNTIL AFTER WE HAD COASTED TO A STOP. IF WE HAD BEEN IN THE MIDDLE LANE INSTEAD OF THE LANE NEXT TO THE SHOULDER, I FEEL CERTAIN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A HIGH SPEED POSSIBLE MULTIPLE CAR ACCIDENT AS TRAFFIC WAS HEAVY AND FAST. THIS IS SO VERY WRONG! THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS COMPLAINT POSSIBLE. I HOPE IT HELPS RESULT IN A RECALL BY FORD RIGHT AWAY SO NO ONE HAS TO GET HURT OR EVEN DIE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10595738
35,700 miles · Jun 2, 2014
EngineUnknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control
WHEN DRIVING IN TRAFFIC, THE CAR FAILED TO ACCELERATE, IT RAPIDLY LOST POWER AS IF IT WERE GOING TO STALL. I PULLED OVER AND RESTARTED THE CAR. AT THE TIME I HAD TWO SMALL CHILDREN IN THE CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10595450
36,998 miles · Jun 2, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY (WITH TWO CHILDREN UNDER 4 IN THE CAR), LUCKILY IT WAS STOP AND GO TRAFFIC. THE CAR COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT WARNING LOST POWER AND I COULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO PUT HAZARDS ON AND PULL OVER TO THE BREAK-DOWN LANE (ACROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC), TURN THE CAR OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN. IT REST…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY (WITH TWO CHILDREN UNDER 4 IN THE CAR), LUCKILY IT WAS STOP AND GO TRAFFIC. THE CAR COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT WARNING LOST POWER AND I COULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO PUT HAZARDS ON AND PULL OVER TO THE BREAK-DOWN LANE (ACROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC), TURN THE CAR OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN. IT RESTARTED IMMEDIATELY. (WEATHER WAS WARM- MID 60S, NO HUMIDITY, I HAD DRIVEN THE CAR EARLIER IN THE DAY AND HAD BEEN DRIVING FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES. THE CAR IS WELL MAINTAINED AND HAD RECENTLY HAD AN OIL CHANGE.) *TR
NHTSA ODI #10595448
80,000 miles · May 27, 2014
EngineFuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
THIS IS THE THIRD INCIDENT IN TWO DAYS, I'M DRIVING ALONG WHEN I TAKE MY FOOT OF THE GAS PEDAL AND COAST, THE ENGINE DIES, THE DASH SHOWS THE BATTERY AND OIL LIGHT. YOU CAN STILL STEER, BUT THE CAR SLOWS DOWN DRASTICALLY WITH THE ENGINE NOT RUNNING, I HAD SOMEONE ALMOST REAR END ME, BECAUSE I SLOWED DOWN SO MUCH. ALL INCIDENTS…
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE THIRD INCIDENT IN TWO DAYS, I'M DRIVING ALONG WHEN I TAKE MY FOOT OF THE GAS PEDAL AND COAST, THE ENGINE DIES, THE DASH SHOWS THE BATTERY AND OIL LIGHT. YOU CAN STILL STEER, BUT THE CAR SLOWS DOWN DRASTICALLY WITH THE ENGINE NOT RUNNING, I HAD SOMEONE ALMOST REAR END ME, BECAUSE I SLOWED DOWN SO MUCH. ALL INCIDENTS WERE THE SAME, BUT THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED IT WAS VERY SCARY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. THE CAR WILL START BACK UP IF YOU PARK IT OR PUT IT IN NEUTRAL, BUT I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION THE THIRD TIME, STOPPED TRAFFIC CARS WERE HONKING AT ME. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE, TAKING IT IN TOMORROW TO GET IT FIXED, SHOULD BE A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10594150
66,000 miles · May 15, 2014
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
ENTERING I-85 GOING WEST AT APPROX. 60MPH. APPROX 1/4 MILE THE CAR LOST POWER AS I WAS ENTERING THE FREEWAY. TRAFFIC WAS MERGING ONTO THE FREEWAY AROUND ME AND I PUT ON MY BLINKER TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY TO CALL A TOW TRUCK. IT WAS VERY DANGEROUS. THE REPAIR SHOP TOLD ME IT WAS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10588590
56,580 miles · May 11, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING THE ENGINE STARTED MISFIRING AND IDLING ROUGH. VEHICLE LOST POWER, WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND I ROLLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WHERE I RESTARTED THE CAR AND IT DROVE NORMALLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10587665
94,416 miles · May 4, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, AND SUDDENLY THE CAR BEGAN TO SPUTTER. THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON RESPONSIVE AND THE CAR WAS SURGING FORWARD. I PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. ABOUT 5 MINS LATER I TURNED IT BACK ON AND THE ENGINE AND THROTTLE LIGHTS CAME ON. AFTER A FEW SECONDS THE THROTTLE LIGHT…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, AND SUDDENLY THE CAR BEGAN TO SPUTTER. THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON RESPONSIVE AND THE CAR WAS SURGING FORWARD. I PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. ABOUT 5 MINS LATER I TURNED IT BACK ON AND THE ENGINE AND THROTTLE LIGHTS CAME ON. AFTER A FEW SECONDS THE THROTTLE LIGHT WENT OFF, BUT THE ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON. I THEN TRIED TO DRIVE THE CAR HOME, BUT AFTER ABOUT TWO BLOCKS THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL MORE TIMES UNTIL I COULD GET THE CAR TO A SAFE PLACE AND OUT OF THE ROAD. THE CAR IS STILL IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE I LEFT IT AND I AM CURRENTLY TRYING TO FIND OUT MY TOWING AND REPAIR OPTIONS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10586434
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.