NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Equipment Adaptive/mobility complaints
3 reportsClear category filter41,400 miles · Jun 23, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingEquipment Adaptive/mobility
FORD - COMPLETE AC FAILURE/ AC DRYER FAILURE WHEN I TURNED ON THE AC FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR IT MADE A LOUD GRINDING NOISE THEN NEVER COOLED.TOOK IT IN TO THE DEALERSHIP TO CHECK FOR PROBLEM. CAR HAS 41400 MILES ON IT (LITTLE MORE THAN 5000 OVER THE 36000) BUT STILL HAS 6 MONTHS ON WARRANTY. THE DEALER SAID THERE WAS N…
Read full complaint
FORD - COMPLETE AC FAILURE/ AC DRYER FAILURE WHEN I TURNED ON THE AC FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR IT MADE A LOUD GRINDING NOISE THEN NEVER COOLED.TOOK IT IN TO THE DEALERSHIP TO CHECK FOR PROBLEM. CAR HAS 41400 MILES ON IT (LITTLE MORE THAN 5000 OVER THE 36000) BUT STILL HAS 6 MONTHS ON WARRANTY. THE DEALER SAID THERE WAS NO PROBLEM.(ROSELLE FORD)WHERE PURCHASED. EVEN THOUGH A LOUD GRINDING SOUND WAS PRESENT AND NO COLD AIR.. HE TOLD HER TO BRING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.. SHE DID, THEY VACUUMED &CHARGED. IT WORKED FOR 2 WEEKS THEN STOPPED. SHE BROUGHT TO ANOTHER FORD DEALER AND HE SAID IT WOULD COST $2000 AND HAD TO REPLACE THE WHOLE SYSTEM.. SHE WENT TO PICK IT UP AND HE TOLD HER HE REPLACED A RESISTER ON THE BLOWER SWITCH... I KNOW ITS NOT FIXED.. WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.. BUT IF FORD REALLY WANTS TO BE OUR CAR COMPANY, THEN THEY SHOULD STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT. THAT'S A BIG REPAIR BILL FOR ONLY 41000 MILES. HERE IS WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR AND NO SERVICE BULLETIN ON THIS FROM FORD. DEALER CALLED AND GAVE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM ..."IN THE AC DRYER THERE IS A FILTER BAG WITH "LITTLE BLUE BALLS" OF DESICCANT. IT SEEMS THAT IT IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM THAT THESE FILTER BAGS BURST AND FLOOD THE ENTIRE AC SYSTEM WITH THE BALLS (AKA "DEBRIS") WHICH CAUSES ALL THE PARTS TO FAIL AND OR CLOG. MANY OF THE PARTS CAN'T BE EFFECTIVELY FLUSHED SO THEY HAVE TO BE REPLACED." THE COST TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE AC SYSTEM (ALL VALVES, TUBES, HOSES, EVAPORATOR, COMPRESSOR, CONDENSER, ACCUMULATOR, DRYER, ETC.) CAME TO $2,022.65. THIS DRYER UNIT THAT IS CAUSING ALL THE PROBLEMS IS A NON-SERVICEABLE UNIT AND IS IN NO WAY AFFECTED BY REGULAR MAINTENANCE, AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO PREVENT A FAILURE. TO MAKE MATTERS EVEN WORSE IS THAT WHEN THEY DO REPLACE THE SYSTEM... THEY USE THE SAME DRYER AS THE ONE THAT FAILED. UNBELIEVABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10605338
2,738 miles · May 15, 2013
Air BagsEquipment Adaptive/mobilitySteering
AT 2700 MILES THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT STARTED TO GO ON AND VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER FOR A CHECK ON AIRBAG PROBLEM. SUPPOSEDLY FIXED, HOWEVER ONE WEEK LATER HAD TO RETURN VEHICLE TO DEALER DUE TO AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT AGAIN GOING ON. PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED BY TIGHTENING LOOSE WIRRE CABLES IN CABLE HARNESS BUT ONE MONTH LAT…
Read full complaint
AT 2700 MILES THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT STARTED TO GO ON AND VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER FOR A CHECK ON AIRBAG PROBLEM. SUPPOSEDLY FIXED, HOWEVER ONE WEEK LATER HAD TO RETURN VEHICLE TO DEALER DUE TO AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT AGAIN GOING ON. PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED BY TIGHTENING LOOSE WIRRE CABLES IN CABLE HARNESS BUT ONE MONTH LATER RETURNED VEHICLE AGAIN AS AIR BAG WARNING WAS AGAIN COMING ON AND THERE WAS CONCERN AS WE DIDN'T KNOW IF AIRBAG WOULD DEPLOY IF NEEDED OR WORSE MAY DEPLOY AT ANY TIME. ADVISED THAT CAUSE WAS EXCESSIVE ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE IN WIRE CABLE HARNESS AND DEFECTIVE SENSORS.SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER PROBLEM WITH AIRBAG READINESS WARNING. IN FALL OF 2012 A NEW PROBLEM STARTED WHICH AT FIRST I THOUGHT MIGHT BE DUE TO LEAVING PARKING BRAKE PARTIALLY ON. STEERING AT 40 MPH ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAME VERY DIFFICULT AND CENTER CONSOLE WARNING LIGHTS AND TRACTION WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. AFTER PULLING OFF THE ROAD, STOPPING AND RESTARTING THE VEHICLE THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. PROBLEM STARTED AGAIN IN APRIL 2013 WITH VEHICLE STILL UNDER 10,000 MILES. TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER AND PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED. DROVE ABOUT 6 TO 8 MILES AND PROBLEM OCCURRED AGAIN WITH WARNING LIGHTS COMING ON AND DIFFICULT TO STEER AT FREEWAY SPEED. RETURNED VEHICLE TO DEALER AND PICKED UP TWO DAYS LATER WITH PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY CURED. 4 DAYS LATER ALL WARNING LIGHTS WENT ON AGAIN AND STEERING AS BEFORE WAS DIFFICULT. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALER AS ALL AGREED IT WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE.AFTER A WEEK OF TESTING AND WORK VEHICLE WAS READY . WAS ADVISED THAT PROBLEM WAS LOOSE WIRES IN CABLE HARNESS AND FAULTY SENSORS. I HAVE NOW BEEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE ABOUT 2 WEEKS WITH NO FURTHER PROBLEMS BUT AM GREATLY CONCERNED THAT I MAY HAVE PURCHASED A DEFECTIVE AND POSSIBLY DANGEROUS VEHICLE. WHAT PROTECTION DO WE HAVE? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512044
5,030 miles · Dec 7, 2011
Equipment Adaptive/mobilityVisibility
ON 22 NOV 2011 MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE XLT AUTO AWD 2.5L I4 REAR WINDSHIELD EXPLODED AFTER CLOSING TAILGATE/HATCH! I LOOK INSIDE SOON AFTER TO SEE IF ANYTHING HAD BEEN IN THE WAY TO CAUSE IT AND THEIR WAS NOT! THIS WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN MY THIRD TIME OPENING THE HATCH PART AS I USUALLY OPEN THE GLASS PART MOSTLY AND WHICH I ALSO DID …
Read full complaint
ON 22 NOV 2011 MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE XLT AUTO AWD 2.5L I4 REAR WINDSHIELD EXPLODED AFTER CLOSING TAILGATE/HATCH! I LOOK INSIDE SOON AFTER TO SEE IF ANYTHING HAD BEEN IN THE WAY TO CAUSE IT AND THEIR WAS NOT! THIS WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN MY THIRD TIME OPENING THE HATCH PART AS I USUALLY OPEN THE GLASS PART MOSTLY AND WHICH I ALSO DID THAT DAY AND THERE WAS NOT INDICATION ON MY DASH THAT ANYTHING WAS STILL OPEN SO LATER THAT DAY I HAD TO OPEN MY TAILGATE AND I CLOSED IT AND MY WINDSHIELD EXPLODED! I HAVE SINCE HAD IT REPLACED AND AM WRITING TO YOU TO INFORM YOU OF THIS SO THAT I WILL NOT HAPPEN TO OTHERS! I HAVE LOOKED ONLINE AT CARCOMPLAINTS.COM AND YOUR SITE TO SEE THEIR ARE OTHER COMPLAINTS ABOUT REAR WINDSHIELD EXPLODING WHICH TO BE COULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE FOR OCCUPANT AND THEIR FAMILIES! I WOULD LIKE IF POSSIBLE FOR A REVIEW OF ALL 2011 FORD ESCAPE MODELS TO SEE IF AN UPGRADE TO THE HARDWARE OR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND MAYBE A SAFETY BULLETINS TO ALL 2011 FORD ESCAPE OWNERS TO BE AWARE OF PROBLEM AND HOW TO PREVENT IT! I WAS WONDERING IF MAYBE IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH CABIN PRESSURE????? I SAY THIS BECAUSE WHEN YOU OPEN THE BACKSEAT WINDOWS I HEAR AN ECHOING OF SOUND IN MY SUV AND I WONDER WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PRESSURE APPLIED TO CLOSING REAR GATE THE PRESSURE PUSHING OFF BACKSEATS IS CAUSING REAR WINDSHIELD TO BLOW OUT??????? V/R, CONCERNED FORD OWNER.... *TR
NHTSA ODI #10438911
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