NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Air Bags complaints
26 reportsClear category filter120,326 miles · Dec 18, 2024
Air BagsSeat Belts
Airbag light on/ flashing. Shop says "passenger side seat belt retractor assembly" needs replaced. I switched it with a known working part, didn't fix the issue. Upon further research I found that it is a known issue. Source: [XXX] April 1, 2011 MANUFACTURER COMMUNICATION NUMBER: SIS-21841 Components: AIR BAGS, ELECTRICAL SYSTE…
Read full complaint
Airbag light on/ flashing. Shop says "passenger side seat belt retractor assembly" needs replaced. I switched it with a known working part, didn't fix the issue. Upon further research I found that it is a known issue. Source: [XXX] April 1, 2011 MANUFACTURER COMMUNICATION NUMBER: SIS-21841 Components: AIR BAGS, ELECTRICAL SYSTEM NHTSA ID Number: 10038965 Manufacturer Communication Number: SIS-21841 Summary: COMM-TRANS LUND: SOME 2009-2011 MODELS MAY HAVE THE AIR BAG INICATOR FLASHING WITH A STORED TROUBLE CODE. THIS IS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM. *RM I have contacted both local dealerships, as well as Ford corporate. The remedy they all 3 offered: Take it in for diagnostics (I'm already fully aware of the issue) which will cost me around $300, then they will tell me if there's even a possibly solution. They were completely unwilling to tell me if they could fix the software issue without first paying for their diagnostic service, even though it's a known and recorded issue, with the NHTSA ID Number: 10038965 as well as the Manufacturer Communication Number: SIS-21841. Upon researching complaints, I have found that I am by far not the only person who has this exact issue. Note: "date of incident" is when I purchased the vehicle, mileage is the mileage at the time of purchase, it has had the light on since before that date and mileage. I tried to resolve this issue then, and recently have been trying again, in hopes that there has been a fix found finally, to no avail. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11631440
206,550 miles · May 17, 2024
Air BagsSteering
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that while his granddaughter was driving 30-35 MPH, the steering wheel was difficult to turn. The air bag warning light was illuminated. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The contact stated that the failure was related to NHTSA C…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that while his granddaughter was driving 30-35 MPH, the steering wheel was difficult to turn. The air bag warning light was illuminated. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The contact stated that the failure was related to NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V284000 (Steering). The manufacturer was not contacted. The failure mileage was approximately 206,550.
NHTSA ODI #11589229
195,500 miles · Jun 2, 2022
Air Bags
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that the air bag warning light was illuminated upon starting the vehicle and remained illuminated while driving. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where they diagnosed that the front passenger’s side air bag sensor was faulty and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that the air bag warning light was illuminated upon starting the vehicle and remained illuminated while driving. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where they diagnosed that the front passenger’s side air bag sensor was faulty and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and confirmed that the vehicle was not included in a recall. The approximate failure mileage was 195,500.
NHTSA ODI #11467163
144,900 miles · Jan 23, 2020
Air BagsCrashInjury
POLICE REPORT; BRUNSWICK, OH 2002113 1/16/2020 UNIT 2 WAS TRAVELING NORTH ON MARKS ROAD. UNIT 3 WAS SOUTH BOUND ON MARKS ROAD ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ONTO SLEEPY HOLLOW ROAD. UNIT 1 WAS TRAVELING SOUTH BOUND ON MARKS ROAD. UNIT 1 CROSSED LEFT OF CENTER TO AVOID HITTING UNIT 3. UNIT 1 STRUCK THE REAR LEFT CORNER OF U…
Read full complaint
POLICE REPORT; BRUNSWICK, OH 2002113 1/16/2020 UNIT 2 WAS TRAVELING NORTH ON MARKS ROAD. UNIT 3 WAS SOUTH BOUND ON MARKS ROAD ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ONTO SLEEPY HOLLOW ROAD. UNIT 1 WAS TRAVELING SOUTH BOUND ON MARKS ROAD. UNIT 1 CROSSED LEFT OF CENTER TO AVOID HITTING UNIT 3. UNIT 1 STRUCK THE REAR LEFT CORNER OF UNIT 3 AND THEN STRUCK UNIT 2 HEAD ON. DRIVER AND PASSENGER OF UNIT1 REPORTED NO INJURIES, THEY WERE CLEARED BY EMS. DRIVER AND PASSENGER OF UNIT 2 REPORTED INJURIES AND WERE TRANSPORTED TO SOUTHWEST GENERAL (ER) BRUNSWICK CAMPUS. DRIVER OF UNIT 3 REPORTED NO INJURIES. THE DRIVER OF UNIT 1 WAS SITED IN VIOLATION OF ORC 4511.21A ASSURED CLEAR DISTANCE (SPEED). CITATION NUMBER; T44852 THE AIRBAGS IN UNIT 2 DID NOT DEPLOY. AIR BAGS IN UNIT 1 DEPLOYED FRONT AND SIDES. INSURANCE CLAIM NUMBER: PROGRESSIVE 205164024 CAR HAS BEEN RELEASED TO INSURANCE COMPANY. TITLE HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED OVER TO THEM YET. TRANS-COUNTY TOWING, 585 STATE STREET, MEDINA, OH (216-407-5282) SAID THE CAR WAS TOTALED. INSURANCE COMPANY HAS NOT REPORTED THEIR RESULTS OF INSPECTION. I HAVE PHOTO OF CARS AND INJURIES BUT DON'T KNOW HOW TO DOWNLOAD THEM. POLICE ALSO TOOK PHOTOS.
NHTSA ODI #11301492
100,000 miles · Sep 9, 2019
Air BagsSteeringCrashInjury
"TAKATA RECALL" ON MAY 11TH 2019, MY AUNTIE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A ACCIDENT THAT WAS NO FAULT OF MY OWN. A BLACK TOYOTA STOP IN FRONT OF WHEN US, I HIT THE BRAKES ON IMPACT, THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED AND BLOWUP IN MY FACE, KNOCKING OUT ONE OF MY CROWNS AND SHIFT MY TEETH, I WENT TO THE DENTIST OFFICE AFTER LEAVING THE HOSPITAL, THE…
Read full complaint
"TAKATA RECALL" ON MAY 11TH 2019, MY AUNTIE AND I WERE INVOLVED IN A ACCIDENT THAT WAS NO FAULT OF MY OWN. A BLACK TOYOTA STOP IN FRONT OF WHEN US, I HIT THE BRAKES ON IMPACT, THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED AND BLOWUP IN MY FACE, KNOCKING OUT ONE OF MY CROWNS AND SHIFT MY TEETH, I WENT TO THE DENTIST OFFICE AFTER LEAVING THE HOSPITAL, THE DOCTOR TOLD ME I SWALLOWED PARTICLES AND MY LEFT SIDE OF MY FACE WOULD NOT STOP HURTING, I ALSO LET THE DENTIST KNOW THE AIRBAG BLOWUP IN MY FACE, HE FOUND MY ROOT CANAL WAS FRAMED IN HALF, IN ORDER TO FIX THE PROBLEM I WOULD HAVE TO PAY 12,000.00 OF MY OWN MONEY TO REPAIR THE TOOTH AND OTHER DAMAGE TEETH THAT WERE SHIFTED OR I WOULD LOOSE THEM IN THE FUTURE, I HAVEN'T SMILED SENSE.I WAS DRIVING NORTH BOUND ON HIGHWAY THEY WERE TRAVELING EAST BOUND AT A FOUR WAY CROSSING INTO A GAS STATION.
NHTSA ODI #11254038
Mileage unknown · Oct 26, 2018
Air Bags
TAKATA RECALL
NHTSA ODI #11143043
75,000 miles · Dec 13, 2017
Air BagsCrashInjury
CAR WAS INVOLVED IN A SIDE IMPACT ACCIDENT AND THE SIDE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY.
NHTSA ODI #11054584
150,000 miles · Nov 8, 2017
Air Bags
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE THE CONTACT'S WIFE WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN, THE POWER STEERING SUDDENLY FAILED. THE VEHICLE BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER AND THE CONTACT'S WIFE HAD TO HAVE THE CONTACT ASSIST WITH DRIVING THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT TAKEN THE VEHICLE T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE THE CONTACT'S WIFE WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN, THE POWER STEERING SUDDENLY FAILED. THE VEHICLE BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER AND THE CONTACT'S WIFE HAD TO HAVE THE CONTACT ASSIST WITH DRIVING THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT FOUND A RECALL REGARDING THE POWER STEERING, BUT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000.
NHTSA ODI #11044471
120,000 miles · Jul 28, 2017
Air BagsCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING OPERATED ON WET ROAD CONDITIONS, IT HYDROPLANED AND THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONT END COLLISION. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING OPERATED ON WET ROAD CONDITIONS, IT HYDROPLANED AND THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONT END COLLISION. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SALVAGE YARD WHERE IT WAS DEEMED DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER AND THE DEALER WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES, WHICH REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 120,000. THE VIN WAS NOT PROVIDED. UPDATED 10/31/17*LJ UPDATED 10/31/2017*JS
NHTSA ODI #11011208
49,000 miles · Dec 23, 2016
Air BagsEngineStructureCrash
DRIVING A 2011 FORD ESCAPE, AND WHILE WAITING AT A STOP LIGHT HEADING SOUTH AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION, UPON THE LIGHT TURNING GREEN, I PROCEEDED TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION AT APPROX. 10 MPH. NEXT THING I KNOW, I AM T-BONING A CAR THAT RAN THE RED LIGHT ENTERING THE INTERSECTION FROM THE EAST AT 40 MILES AND HOUR. I WAS UNABLE TO …
Read full complaint
DRIVING A 2011 FORD ESCAPE, AND WHILE WAITING AT A STOP LIGHT HEADING SOUTH AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION, UPON THE LIGHT TURNING GREEN, I PROCEEDED TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION AT APPROX. 10 MPH. NEXT THING I KNOW, I AM T-BONING A CAR THAT RAN THE RED LIGHT ENTERING THE INTERSECTION FROM THE EAST AT 40 MILES AND HOUR. I WAS UNABLE TO SEE HER APPROACH BECAUSE OF A LARGE TRUCK ON MY LEFT THAT WAS TURNING LEFT TO GO EAST. THE IMPACT SPUN THE CAR THAT RAN THE RED LIGHT AROUND 180 DEGRESS THEN HIT A THIRD CAR AND STOPPED. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AMONGST ANY OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT. MY CONCERN IS THAT MY AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE TOTAL FRONT OF MY CAR WAS SMASHED IN AND THE BUMPER JUST ABOUT TORN OFF. DAMAGE INCURRED BY MY CAR MADE IT A TOTAL LOSS. DRIVERWHO RAN THE RED LIGHT WAS TICKETED BY THE POLICE. LOOKING AT THE DAMAGE TO THE FRONT END OF MY CAR, THE AIRBAGS SHOULD HAVE GONE OFF.
NHTSA ODI #10937229
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
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.
Illustration