NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
32 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Sep 27, 2021
Suspension
Our escape failed Pennsylvania state inspection due to the front subframe (engine cradle) rusting and cracking at the attachment points with the control arms. Our mechanic invited us to come into his garage and inspect the problem. Upon our personal inspection to the problem we noticed holes, cracks and bending at and near these…
Read full complaint
Our escape failed Pennsylvania state inspection due to the front subframe (engine cradle) rusting and cracking at the attachment points with the control arms. Our mechanic invited us to come into his garage and inspect the problem. Upon our personal inspection to the problem we noticed holes, cracks and bending at and near these joints. Our mechanic told us that this problem is a common occurance on the Ford escapes. This item was the first thing he checked in the inspection process. My wife had new tires put on in April. also new control arms were put on to get it lined up at another shop, so apparently they were bad at that time. I checked with one Ford dealer and they said there was no recall for this issue. My wife contacted the Ford dealer where we bought the vehicle and found out the part (subframe) was on back order for weeks. Also both Ford dealers appear to farm out this type of repairs to body shops. After reviewing this issue on line and to find a path forward for repairs I started to find out the extent of the issue with the Ford Escape front frame problems. I did see where a fix to the frame for earlier Escapes was approved for ford to just put a bar from one side of the frame to the other and we’re drilling and attaching to corroded material that should not have been allowed. I feel Ford should be held accountable for the proper repairs to our vehicle as well as the many others and not just try to cover up the fact that this is a major defect in the escapes. The major damage is to the right side frame area of our vehicle but the left side is breaking apart also. The left axil to transmission seal is leaking most likely due to the right side frame bending. We were fortunate in that we did find this before the wheel fell off and someone didn’t get hurt or worse. This repair will most likely be expensive. The part involved is a major structural part to the vehicle. The Frame that holds it together!
NHTSA ODI #11434482
136,000 miles · Apr 28, 2021
SteeringSuspensionWheels
I HAVE A 2011 FORD EACAPE.... WE LOST POWER STEERING 2-3 YEARS AGO IN MY CAR WHILE DRIVING ON TWISTY HILLY ROADS IN ITHICA, NY ON WAY TO GET OUR 3 YOUNG GRANDCHILDREN AND THANK GOD IT WAS MY HUSBAND DRIVING BECAUSE I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT... TONS OF CARS RECALLED... SAME MAKE,SAME MODEL,SAME YEAR AND MA…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2011 FORD EACAPE.... WE LOST POWER STEERING 2-3 YEARS AGO IN MY CAR WHILE DRIVING ON TWISTY HILLY ROADS IN ITHICA, NY ON WAY TO GET OUR 3 YOUNG GRANDCHILDREN AND THANK GOD IT WAS MY HUSBAND DRIVING BECAUSE I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT... TONS OF CARS RECALLED... SAME MAKE,SAME MODEL,SAME YEAR AND MADE AT SAME PLANT IN KANSAS!!!!! BUT FORD NEVER RECALLED MU VIN#..... WE WERE STRANDED THERE AND LOST TIME FROM WORK!!!! WE TOOK IT TO 3 FORD DEALERS WITH NO HELP!!! WANTING ALMOST $2,400!!!!! LOST TIME FROM WORK GETTING IT FIXED WHICH TOOK OVER 3WEEKS AND FINALLY OUR MECHANIC FOUND THE PART!!!! POWER STEERING COLUMN!!!! HOW WITH 1,000S OF COMPLAINTS IS MINE NOT COVERED!!!! IT'S THE STEERING COLUMN!!!! IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A MUFFLER!!!! NOW AFTER PAYING TO GET IT FIXED !!!! I HAVE SINCE GIVEN THIS TO MY 18 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER FOR HER SENIOR YEAR AND SHE LOST POWER STEERING ALMOST SENDING HER INTO HEAD ON TRAFFIC!!!!! MY DAUGHTER ALMOST GOT KILLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YES WE WERE TOLD ITS THE GOD [XXX] STEERING COLUMN AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT DO I HAVE TO SO TO GO AFTER FORD FOR THIS SERIOUS ISSUE!!!!!! THEY MAKE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SELLING FAULTY, DANGEROUS CARS!!!!!!! AND ARE ALLOWED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO GET AWAY WITH IT!!!!!! THEY KNOW FULL WELL THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE AND SHOULD HAVE RECALLED ALL OF THE 2011 ESCAPES TO GET THAT PART FIXED!!!!!! ALL!!!! WHEN ARE YOU OR SOMEBODY GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS [XXX]!!!!!!!!! ALMOST EXACTLY 3 YEARS TO THE DAY OF WHEN THIS HAPPENED BEFORE!!!! NOW I HAVE TO WAIT AGAIN TO FIND A PART, PAY TONS OF MONEY AGAIN!!! AND THANK GOD MY DAUGHTER DIDN'T GET HURT!!!!! PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA ODI #11414354
87,000 miles · Mar 23, 2021
Power TrainSteeringSuspension
I HIT A BUMP IN THE ROAD AND WHEEL ON PASSENGER SIDE OF VEHICLE WHEN UP INTO WHEEL WELL. ALMOST HIT ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHEN I LOST ALL STEERING. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP VIA TOW TRUCK AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FRONT SUBFRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTEN AT 87,000 MILES DRIVER SIDE IS NOT FAR FROM BREAKING I WAS TOLD REPAIRS WOULD COS…
Read full complaint
I HIT A BUMP IN THE ROAD AND WHEEL ON PASSENGER SIDE OF VEHICLE WHEN UP INTO WHEEL WELL. ALMOST HIT ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHEN I LOST ALL STEERING. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP VIA TOW TRUCK AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FRONT SUBFRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTEN AT 87,000 MILES DRIVER SIDE IS NOT FAR FROM BREAKING I WAS TOLD REPAIRS WOULD COST AS MUCH AS THE VEHICLE IS WORTH
NHTSA ODI #11404594
115,000 miles · Oct 23, 2019
Suspension
WHILE DOING THE LAST SEVERAL SERVICES ON MY ESCAPE, I'VE NOTICED THE FRONT CRADLE/CROSSMEMBER SEVERELY RUSTED, BUT NOT RUSTED THROUGH. ON THIS LAST SERVICE,(10/22/19) I NOTICED TWO SPOTS RUSTED THROUGH, VERY SIMILAR TO THE RECALL ON THE PREVIOUS BODY ESCAPES.
NHTSA ODI #11270438
81,000 miles · Jun 24, 2019
Suspension
LOUD RATTLING NOISE COMING FROM THE FRONT SUSPENSION. BELIEVED TO BE STRUTS, SWAY BAR, OR SWAY BAR LINKS. ONLY HAPPENS WHILE IN MOTION ON ALL TYPES OF TERRAIN.
NHTSA ODI #11222028
69,500 miles · Feb 14, 2019
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WHEEL BEARINGS WERE FAULTY ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE WHEELS SHOOK AND AFFECTED THE ENTIRE VEHICLE. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 69,500.
NHTSA ODI #11180060
1 miles · Aug 9, 2018
Electronic Stability Control (esc)SuspensionInjury
SUSPENSIONS ON BACK WHEELS MAKES A TAPPING SOUND AND AFFECTS THE SPRINGS OF THE BALANCE OF THE SUV, CAUSING THE TIRES TO TO WEAR OUT OR DOWN INCONSISTENTLY. POSSIBLY CAUSING TIRES OR STEERING WHEEL TO CAUSE ACCIDENT.
NHTSA ODI #11118809
93,000 miles · Jul 27, 2018
Fuel/propulsion SystemSteeringSuspension
VERY OFTEN AS I'M DRIVING THE POWER STEERING WILL GO OUT MAKING IT VERY DANGEROUS TO TURN THE WHEEL WILL JUST JERK AWAY.. ALSO THE FUEL TANK HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE. NOW I AM UNABLE TO PUMP GAS WITHOUT GAS LEAKING OUT. THE WHEELS AND TIRES ALWAYS GO FLAT I'M THINKING SOMETHING TO DO UNDER TRUCK
NHTSA ODI #11114032
133,000 miles · Jul 20, 2018
SteeringSuspension
FRAME FAILURE, "K" FRAME SUPPORTING THE ENGINE, TRANSMISSION AND STEERING COMPONENTS FRACTURED MAKING THE VEHICLE UNDRIVEABLE. THIS ISSUE WAS A RECALL ON 2001-2004 ESCAPES.
NHTSA ODI #11112600
108 miles · Aug 5, 2017
Fuel/propulsion SystemSteeringSuspension
RIGHT NOW THE FUEL POMP STOP WORKING AND THE CAR TURNS OFF AND THEN AFTER A WHILE TURNS ON AGAIN. IT WAS ON A LOCAL STREET.
NHTSA ODI #11012982
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