NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter38,500 miles · May 24, 2013
EnginePower Train
TRAVELING AT 35 MPH, HEARD A NOISE AND LOST ALL BUT LIMP HOME MODE POWER. NO SHOULDER ON THE ROAD AND CREATED A DANGEROUS LANE BLOCKAGE. HAD TO BE TOWED TO DEALER THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE NEEDED PART. TOLD IT IS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. WE HAVE EXTENDED WARRANTY WITH RENTAL COVERAGE BUT SINCE THE PART IS NOT AVAILABLE THEY WILL NO…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING AT 35 MPH, HEARD A NOISE AND LOST ALL BUT LIMP HOME MODE POWER. NO SHOULDER ON THE ROAD AND CREATED A DANGEROUS LANE BLOCKAGE. HAD TO BE TOWED TO DEALER THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE NEEDED PART. TOLD IT IS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. WE HAVE EXTENDED WARRANTY WITH RENTAL COVERAGE BUT SINCE THE PART IS NOT AVAILABLE THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR RENTAL WAITING FOR THE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513466
45,000 miles · May 23, 2013
Power Train
VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE ON MAJOR HIGHWAY. WAS ABLE TO COAST OFF WITHOUT INCIDENT. FORD COMPANY IS UNABLE TO FIND REPLACEMENT PART FOR THE THROTTLE BOTTLE, ASSUMING IN HIGH DEMAND. WAS INFORMED NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513325
57,000 miles · May 20, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH ON A BUSY ROAD MY ACCELERATION QUIT AND ONLY THE RPM REVVED UP WHEN I PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR UNTIL THE TRUCK LANDED ME ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WHEN THE ACCELERATION STOPPED IT WAS IMMEDIATE AND IT FELT LIKE THE ENGINE JERKED AND DIED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS TECHNICALLY STILL RUNNING (IDLING) WHILE IN MOT…
Read full complaint
DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH ON A BUSY ROAD MY ACCELERATION QUIT AND ONLY THE RPM REVVED UP WHEN I PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR UNTIL THE TRUCK LANDED ME ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WHEN THE ACCELERATION STOPPED IT WAS IMMEDIATE AND IT FELT LIKE THE ENGINE JERKED AND DIED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS TECHNICALLY STILL RUNNING (IDLING) WHILE IN MOTION. THE VEHICLE JERKED AND SHOOK AS IT SLOWED UNTIL IT DIED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512837
22,600 miles · May 17, 2013
Power Train
WIFE PULLED OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND VEHICLE LOST ALL POWER AND WENT INTO LIMP HOME MODE. SHE STOPPED THE VEHICLE, PUT IT INTO PARK AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. FIRST ATTEMPT TO RESTART VEHICLE FAILED, SECOND ATTEMPT, VEHICLE STARTED AND WRENCH SYMBOL ILLUMINATED AND STAYED ON APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES UNTIL SHE ARRIVED AT WORK. SHE HA…
Read full complaint
WIFE PULLED OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND VEHICLE LOST ALL POWER AND WENT INTO LIMP HOME MODE. SHE STOPPED THE VEHICLE, PUT IT INTO PARK AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. FIRST ATTEMPT TO RESTART VEHICLE FAILED, SECOND ATTEMPT, VEHICLE STARTED AND WRENCH SYMBOL ILLUMINATED AND STAYED ON APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES UNTIL SHE ARRIVED AT WORK. SHE HAS ALSO BEEN EXPERIENCING INTERMITTENT SURGING FORWARD WHILE DRIVING AND TRANSMISSION BANGING INTO REVERSE WHEN BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY. THE RPMS HAVE BEEN SURGING SPORADICALLY WHEN CRANKING THE CAR. TOOK THE CAR TO FORD DEALER ON FRIDAY, 17 MAY 2013, RECEIVED A CALL FROM SERVICE REP. SAYING THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY HAD TO BE REPLACED, BUT HOWEVER, PART IS ON BACKORDER AND THEY ARE SEARCHING NATIONWIDE FOR THE PART TO FIX THE PROBLEM. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE RETURNING THE VEHICLE FOR MY WIFE TO DRIVE UNTIL THE PART IS FOUND DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF HER HAVING A ACCIDENT. HOWEVER, UNTIL THEN, WE ARE OUT A VEHICLE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. FORTUNATELY, THE VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS THE MAGIC NUMBER FOR NTHSB TO FORCE FORD INTO ISSUING A RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO BE INJURED OR DIE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN ??????? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512580
40,538 miles · May 13, 2013
Power Train
I WAS MOVING INTO TRAFFIC AND THE CAR SUDDENLY SURGED FORWARD AND THEN STALLED DOWN TO A ROUGH IDLE. THE WENCH SYMBOL WAS ILLUMINATED AND THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON WITH A CODE OF P2111. THROTTLE BODY ACTUATOR FAILURE - STUCK OPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10511671
44,000 miles · May 9, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING THE CAR IN FLORIDA GOING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH. THE RED LIGHT WITH A WRENCH CAME ON AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. SHE FINALLY GOT PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND CALLED THE DEALERSHIP IN ORLANDO. THEY TOLD HER IT COULD BE A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM OR IT COULD JUST BE TRYING TO RESET. THEY …
Read full complaint
MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING THE CAR IN FLORIDA GOING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH. THE RED LIGHT WITH A WRENCH CAME ON AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. SHE FINALLY GOT PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND CALLED THE DEALERSHIP IN ORLANDO. THEY TOLD HER IT COULD BE A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM OR IT COULD JUST BE TRYING TO RESET. THEY SUGGESTED SHE TURN EVERYTHING OFF (WHICH SHE ALREADY HAD) AND RESTART IN A FEW MINUTES. SHE RESTARTED AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE. ABOUT A WEEK LATER, THE SAME THING HAPPENED, ONLY WORSE, AND SHE TOOK THE CAR IN TO THE DEALERSHIP. IT SEEMED TO HAPPEN AS SHE WAS TURNING A CORNER. SHE HAD TO RESTART THE CAR 3 OR 4 TIMES ON THE WAY TO THE DEALERSHIP. THEY RAN A DIAGNOSTIC TEST AND SAID THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. SO FAR, IT'S BEEN A WEEK AND IT IS STILL NOT FIXED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FIND THE PART. SHE HAS HAD TO RENT A CAR UNTIL THE ESCAPE IS FIXED. ANOTHER EXPENSE! EVIDENTLY, 45,000 OF THESE THROTTLE BODIES HAVE BEEN REPLACED AND THEY ARE USING THE PARTS UP AS FAST AS THEY CAN MAKE THEM. HOW SAFE CAN THIS BE???!!! WE PLAN TO HAVE IT REPAIRED, BUT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS FORD PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10511298
55,300 miles · May 9, 2013
Power Train
VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION BUT STILL HAD POWER, BRAKES, ETC. AFTER SLOWING DOWN, PULLED OVER AND TRIED SELECTING DIFFERENT, GEARS, ETC BUT VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE. WRENCH INDICATING ENGINE PROBLEM WAS ON. AFTER TURNING VEHICLE OFF, RESTARTED VEHICLE AND THE CAR WAS ABLE TO MOVE. VEHICLE HAD SAME PROBLEM ON WAY TO DEALER. COMPUTER …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION BUT STILL HAD POWER, BRAKES, ETC. AFTER SLOWING DOWN, PULLED OVER AND TRIED SELECTING DIFFERENT, GEARS, ETC BUT VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE. WRENCH INDICATING ENGINE PROBLEM WAS ON. AFTER TURNING VEHICLE OFF, RESTARTED VEHICLE AND THE CAR WAS ABLE TO MOVE. VEHICLE HAD SAME PROBLEM ON WAY TO DEALER. COMPUTER TROUBLE CODES WERE NOT STORED. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE SAME PROBLEM THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE HAD. VEHICLE IS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE FWD LIMITED WITH 3.0 V6. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10511275
46,592 miles · May 7, 2013
Power Train
I HAVE A 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE CAR QUIT MOVING FORWARD ON ITS ENGINE POWER. I HAD TO PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START MY VEHICLE TO MAKE IT RUN CORRECTLY. I TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND FOUND OUT THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE. THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH SOME FORD VEHICLES …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE CAR QUIT MOVING FORWARD ON ITS ENGINE POWER. I HAD TO PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START MY VEHICLE TO MAKE IT RUN CORRECTLY. I TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND FOUND OUT THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE. THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH SOME FORD VEHICLES ( ACCORDING TO THE SERVICE MGR IT IS MORE OF AN ISSUE WITH THE FUSION BUT THEY ARE SEEING IT WITH THE ESCAPE ALSO). OF COURSE I'M OUT OF WARRANTY BY 10,000 MILES AND THE REPAIR IS 750.00. I FEEL LIKE FORD IS SIDE STEPPING THIS AND I CONSIDER THIS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. IF MINE WAS NOT THE NORM I COULD UNDERSTAND BUT THE FACT THAT EVEN THE PART IS HARD TO GET AND FORD IS THE ONLY MANUFACTURER OF IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING. NEEDLESS TO SAY--I'M GOING BACK TO GM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510984
48,800 miles · Apr 25, 2013
EnginePower Train
MY ESCAPE HAD BEEN RUNNING ROUGH TODAY AND DECIDED MAYBE I NEEDED TO TAKE IT ON THE INTERSTATE. WHILE DOING ABOUT 65 THE "OPEN WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON AND I LOST COMPLETE POWER. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. I COASTED TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. I PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTED THE ESCAPE AND WAS ABLE …
Read full complaint
MY ESCAPE HAD BEEN RUNNING ROUGH TODAY AND DECIDED MAYBE I NEEDED TO TAKE IT ON THE INTERSTATE. WHILE DOING ABOUT 65 THE "OPEN WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON AND I LOST COMPLETE POWER. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. I COASTED TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. I PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTED THE ESCAPE AND WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT HOME. I HAD READ ABOUT NUMEROUS OTHER RELATED ISSUES ON THIS PROBLEM WITH THE FORD ESCAPE. I AM GLAD I WAS IN THE RIGHT HAND LAND AND NOT THE LEFT LANE; IT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY DANGEROUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10509614
42,184 miles · Apr 20, 2013
Power Train
IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC, THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON DRIVING 60 MPH CAR SLOWED DOWN, WOULD NOT ACCELERATED, JERKED,, WAS ABLE TO EXIT, TURNED OFF RESTARTED , MADE IT WORK OK, DROVE HOME ABOUT 22 MILES, NO PROBLEM. WENT FOR DINNER STOPPED AT RED LIGHT, WOULD NOT GO WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN, TURN OFF RESTART, TAKEN TO DEALER ON SA…
Read full complaint
IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC, THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON DRIVING 60 MPH CAR SLOWED DOWN, WOULD NOT ACCELERATED, JERKED,, WAS ABLE TO EXIT, TURNED OFF RESTARTED , MADE IT WORK OK, DROVE HOME ABOUT 22 MILES, NO PROBLEM. WENT FOR DINNER STOPPED AT RED LIGHT, WOULD NOT GO WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN, TURN OFF RESTART, TAKEN TO DEALER ON SATURDAY MORNING WAS TOLD NOT PART OF POWERTRAIN. COST $531 FOR REPAIR, VERY DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE TO DRIVE ON A MAJOR ROAD IN DALLAS.. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508900
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