NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
43 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Aug 20, 2022
StructureSuspension
I found a piece of rusted metal on my garage floor. After having both my mechanic and the man who did earlier body work on this vehicle it was found that the shock tower is rusted. To the extent that the driver's side back wheel is leaning into the fuel line. Making my Escape unsafe to drive. There are many Youtube videos that…
Read full complaint
I found a piece of rusted metal on my garage floor. After having both my mechanic and the man who did earlier body work on this vehicle it was found that the shock tower is rusted. To the extent that the driver's side back wheel is leaning into the fuel line. Making my Escape unsafe to drive. There are many Youtube videos that discuss this problem. So, this is not an isolated case. This is a safety concern that should lead Ford to recall and repair the Escape that this affects.
NHTSA ODI #11480362
Mileage unknown · Aug 11, 2022
Structure
I am the second owner of my 2011 Ford Escape Limited. I live in Michigan. The previous owner also lived in Michigan. I purchased this car January of 2021 from Sundance in St John’s. Recently we have had a noise coming from the rear passenger shock and I took my car to a Firestone to get it repaired. They made me aware of my shoc…
Read full complaint
I am the second owner of my 2011 Ford Escape Limited. I live in Michigan. The previous owner also lived in Michigan. I purchased this car January of 2021 from Sundance in St John’s. Recently we have had a noise coming from the rear passenger shock and I took my car to a Firestone to get it repaired. They made me aware of my shock rusting through the body and into my trunk panels. The car was deemed unsafe to drive at just less than 230,XXX miles. This car is just over 10 years old and has been beautifully maintained. I have all documents pertaining to maintenance and I recently spent $9000 dollars on this car from the dealership. Surely this isn’t an issue that started in just this last year as the entire frame where the shock was attached had rusted through. I frequently drive myself and my family around and this not only has been disruptive but could have easily caused harm if gone unnoticed. There was no warning light, there was no indication that it would fail, I am glad I caught it right away. Even July of 2021 I spent about 1.5K on repairs and it was not mentioned to me then that this could be an issue. This is not the kind of issue that happens over night. I am glad no harm was done to me or my family, but I feel cheated.
NHTSA ODI #11478905
167,332 miles · Feb 27, 2020
SteeringStructureWheels
FIRST POWER DOOR LOCKS QUIT WORKING, NEXT TAIL GATE WON'T OPEN, TIRE PRESSURE DASH LIGHT WARNING COMES ON YET THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS. CHECK MOTOR DASH LIGHT GOES ON AND OFF OFTEN YET THEY FIND NO PROBLEM. LATEST IS POWER STEERING WENT OUT WITH NO WARNING WHILE DRIVING AGAIN PLUGGED INTO CHECKING MACHINE NO PROBLEM. STEERING WHEEL…
Read full complaint
FIRST POWER DOOR LOCKS QUIT WORKING, NEXT TAIL GATE WON'T OPEN, TIRE PRESSURE DASH LIGHT WARNING COMES ON YET THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS. CHECK MOTOR DASH LIGHT GOES ON AND OFF OFTEN YET THEY FIND NO PROBLEM. LATEST IS POWER STEERING WENT OUT WITH NO WARNING WHILE DRIVING AGAIN PLUGGED INTO CHECKING MACHINE NO PROBLEM. STEERING WHEEL SHAKES CONTINUOUSLY WHILE STOPPED. AND BELIEVE SUSPENSION IS GIVING OUT. NOT A CAR THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND TO ANYONE. HAS HORRIBLE BLIND SPOTS. ALL OCCURRENCES HAPPEN WHILE DRIVING OR STATIONARY. ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE LIFE OF OUR OWNERSHIP. STEERING WAS YESTERDAY FEB 26,2020
NHTSA ODI #11311853
Mileage unknown · Jun 11, 2019
Electrical SystemStructureUnknown Or Other
FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THE BACK BACK DOOR WONT OPEN & THERE IS NO KEYHOLE TO UNLOCK IT EITHER. SECOND ISSUE IS THAT WHEN IT RAINS HEAVY WATER IS COMING THROUGH FROM THE OUTSIDE INTO ALL MY DOORS & IT STAYS THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLUG TO LET THE WATER OUT. THE CHEAPEST OPTION WAS TO DRILL HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF EACH DOOR TO LET T…
Read full complaint
FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THE BACK BACK DOOR WONT OPEN & THERE IS NO KEYHOLE TO UNLOCK IT EITHER. SECOND ISSUE IS THAT WHEN IT RAINS HEAVY WATER IS COMING THROUGH FROM THE OUTSIDE INTO ALL MY DOORS & IT STAYS THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLUG TO LET THE WATER OUT. THE CHEAPEST OPTION WAS TO DRILL HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF EACH DOOR TO LET THE WATER OUT.
NHTSA ODI #11219295
142,000 miles · Nov 26, 2018
StructureUnknown Or Other
I WAS DRIVING AND MY BACK WINDSHIELD BROKE LOOSE FROM THE CAR. I WAS DRIVING ON MANCHESTER RD NO MORE THAN 40 MILES AN HOUR. UPON CHECKING ,ONE OF THE REAR HINGES HAD BROKE AND THE WINDSHIELD WAS HANIGING BY THE OTHER HINGE. FORTUNATELY FOR MYSELF AND PEOPLE BEHIND ME ON THE HIGHWAY IT HELD ON. IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT THE OTHER HI…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AND MY BACK WINDSHIELD BROKE LOOSE FROM THE CAR. I WAS DRIVING ON MANCHESTER RD NO MORE THAN 40 MILES AN HOUR. UPON CHECKING ,ONE OF THE REAR HINGES HAD BROKE AND THE WINDSHIELD WAS HANIGING BY THE OTHER HINGE. FORTUNATELY FOR MYSELF AND PEOPLE BEHIND ME ON THE HIGHWAY IT HELD ON. IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT THE OTHER HINGE IS ALSO ROTTED AND I'M VERY LUCKY NO ONE WAS INJURED. I WAS TELLING MY COWORKER WHO HAS THE SAME YEAR,MAKE , AND MODEL CAR ABOUT THE INCIDENT AND WE DECIDED TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT HERS. HER HINGES ARE ALSO ROTTED AND THE SAME THING COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO HER AT ANY TIME. WE THEN WENT ON LINE WHERE WE FOUND MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS SAME ISSUE. THE FOLLOWING IMAGE IS OF THE HINGES. A FRIEND CAME AND PUSHED THE WINDSHIELD BACK UP IN PLACE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT DOWNPOURING INTO MY CAR. THEN WE DUCKTAPED IT TO GET ME HOME. I DID NOT WANT TO LET IT HANG AGAIN FOR THE PHOTOS BECAUSE I AM AFRAID IT WILL FALL OF COMPLETELY. ONE IMAGE IS OF MY CAR , THE OTHER OF MY COWORKERS.
NHTSA ODI #11153993
132,000 miles · Oct 2, 2018
Structure
ON 2011 FORD ESCAPTE REAR HATCH HAS DEVOLOPED CORROSION AND BROKE OFF. I HAVE DONE RESEARCH AND FOUND OUT THAT SERIES FROM 2012 AND EARLY IS HAVING THIS PROBLEM. LUCKY I WAS NOT DRIVING ANYWHERE WHEN THIS WAS DONE OR IT COULD HAVE CAUSED ENGERY TO CARS AROUND ME AND TO MYSELF OR MY YOUNG SON WITH GLASS BLOWING INTO THE CAR.
NHTSA ODI #11132926
81,000 miles · Jun 21, 2018
StructureUnknown Or Other
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, I NOTICED THAT THE FORD EMBLEM ON MY STEERING WHEEL WAS OFF CENTER, THEREFORE MAKING MY CAR OUT OF ALIGNMENT BUT I HAD NO IDEA HOW THIS HAD HAPPENED. I MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO BRING MY CAR INTO TOWN FAIR TIRE TO GET IT REALIGNED BUT WAS TOLD THAT THEY COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE MY ENGINE CRADLE WAS EXTREMELY RU…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, I NOTICED THAT THE FORD EMBLEM ON MY STEERING WHEEL WAS OFF CENTER, THEREFORE MAKING MY CAR OUT OF ALIGNMENT BUT I HAD NO IDEA HOW THIS HAD HAPPENED. I MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO BRING MY CAR INTO TOWN FAIR TIRE TO GET IT REALIGNED BUT WAS TOLD THAT THEY COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE MY ENGINE CRADLE WAS EXTREMELY RUSTED SO I WOULD NEED TO HAVE THAT ADDRESSED AT A MECHANIC. THEY ALSO TOLD ME THAT THEY PULLED THE VEHICLE SAFETY CHECK THEY DID ON MY VEHICLE FROM THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN THEY CHANGED MY TIRES AND THERE WERE NO ISSUES SO THIS WAS VERY ODD TO THEM AS WELL AS TO HOW THIS COULD'VE HAPPENED. I NEXT BROUGHT IT INTO MY MECHANIC AND WAS TOLD THAT IN ORDER TO FIX THE ISSUE MY ENTIRE FRONT END FRAME WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. $1600 LATER, MY VEHICLE IS BACK IN LINE. FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS CLAIMING THERE ARE NO RECALLS ON MY VEHICLE EVEN THOUGH THEY DID HAVE RECALLS ON THE 2005 ESCAPES FOR THIS SAME REASON. I'M LUCKY I NOTICED AND ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE BEFORE SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS HAPPENED LIKE MY ENGINE DROPPING OUT OF MY VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAY OR SOMETHING. MY VEHICLE ISN'T THAT OLD AND ONLY HAS 81000 MILES ON IT. SOMETHING SEEMS OFF.
NHTSA ODI #11103079
95,000 miles · Jun 18, 2018
Structure
REAR WINDOW LIFT GATE HINGE BROKE WHEN CLOSED WHILE STATIONARY IN DRIVEWAY.
NHTSA ODI #11102398
71,000 miles · Apr 3, 2017
StructureVisibility/wiper
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT NOTICED STREAKS RUNNING DOWN THE VEHICLE'S GLASS. ALSO, THE HINGES FOR THE GLASS ON THE LIFTGATE EXPERIENCED PREMATURE CORROSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 71,000.
NHTSA ODI #10970344
65,000 miles · Apr 3, 2017
Electrical SystemEngineStructureFire
IGNITION AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, FUSES,ETC FAILURE RESULTED IN TWO SPONTANEOUS FIRES WHILE THE CAR WAS PARKED, DESTROYING THE CAR'S ABILITY TO FUNCTION. LEAWOOD, KS. POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS PHOTOGRAPHED THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AND FILED A POLICE REPORT
NHTSA ODI #10970335
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