NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter101,400 miles · Jul 9, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING THROUGH TOWN, VEHICLE REVVED UP AND THEN STALLED. STOPPED VEHICLE, TURNED OFF, AND RESTARTED. STARTED UP WITHOUT AN ISSUE. 3 DAYS LATER, WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, VEHICLES WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON AND VEHICLE LOST POWER. RESTARTED OKAY. AS THE WEEK PROGRESSED, VEHICLE STARTED LOSING POWER SEVERAL TIMES DURING MY 2…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING THROUGH TOWN, VEHICLE REVVED UP AND THEN STALLED. STOPPED VEHICLE, TURNED OFF, AND RESTARTED. STARTED UP WITHOUT AN ISSUE. 3 DAYS LATER, WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, VEHICLES WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON AND VEHICLE LOST POWER. RESTARTED OKAY. AS THE WEEK PROGRESSED, VEHICLE STARTED LOSING POWER SEVERAL TIMES DURING MY 20 MILE TRIP TO WORK AND BACK, 40 MILES ROUND TRIP. THEN ON 7/7/15, VEHICLE LOST POWER 4 TIMES ON MY WAY HOME, THE SECOND TIME IT LOST POWER THE ENGINE INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. IT ALSO TOOK LONGER TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. CHECKED COMPUTER FOR CODE. CODE STATES P 2112, TAC SYSTEM STUCK SHUT. LOOKED UP THIS CODE AND INFO, AND IT SEEMS TO BE RELATED TO THE THROTTLE BODY. I FOUND SOMETHING THAT STATES THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS PART, BUT I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS PROBLEM FIXED SO I CAN DRIVE MY VEHICLE. I'M NERVOUS ABOUT DRIVING IT AS I HAVE POOR SIGNAL ON MY CELL PHONE BETWEEN HOME AND WORK AND DONT WANT TO BE STRANDED. PLEASE HELP ME IN ANYWAY YOU CAN.
NHTSA ODI #10733069
50,000 miles · Jul 6, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed Control
AS I WAS DRIVING AT 50-55 MILES AN HOUR MY VEHICLE BUCKED AND LOST POWER AND WHEN ACCELERATING IT FEELS AS IF THE CAR IS GOING TO STALL. WHEN STARTING UP FROM A COMPLETE STOP THE CAR WILL HESITATE WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE AND BUCKS.
NHTSA ODI #10732150
71,240 miles · Jun 29, 2015
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control
GOING SOUTH ON I81 TO WATERTOWN, NY. VEHICLE QUIT AND I COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. TRACTOR-TRAILER BEHIND ME SWERVED TO MISS ME. ALMOST HIT A CAR COMING OFF THE EXIT RAMP, HAD NO POWER TO EXCELERATE TO GET BY HIM. COULD HAVE BEEN A WOPPER OF AN ACCIDENT.
NHTSA ODI #10730874
45,000 miles · May 26, 2015
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH AND MAKING A RIGHT TURN, THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE RECURRED MULTIPLE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING, BUT WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 45,…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH AND MAKING A RIGHT TURN, THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE RECURRED MULTIPLE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING, BUT WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 45,000. UPDATED 7/16/15*CN THE CONSUMER STATED NO ACCIDENTS OCCURRED BUT, THERE WERE A FEW NEAR MISSES DUE TO LOSS OF SPEED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED EVERY TIME THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN. UPDATED 9/22/2015 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10721495
65,000 miles · Feb 22, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE TRAVELING FROM VIRGINIA TO MICHIGAN ON PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE AT A SPEED OF 75 MPH MY CRUISE CONTROL SWITCHED OFF AND THE VEHICLE DECELERATED. I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS BECAUSE I HIT A BUMP IN THE ROAD SO I TRIED TO ENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL AGAIN, IT STAYED ON FOR A FEW MINUTES THEN DISENGAGED AGAIN. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST T…
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING FROM VIRGINIA TO MICHIGAN ON PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE AT A SPEED OF 75 MPH MY CRUISE CONTROL SWITCHED OFF AND THE VEHICLE DECELERATED. I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS BECAUSE I HIT A BUMP IN THE ROAD SO I TRIED TO ENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL AGAIN, IT STAYED ON FOR A FEW MINUTES THEN DISENGAGED AGAIN. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED, ON A PREVIOUS TRIP IT DID THE SAME THING. I TOOK MY VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALER, THEY COULDN'T DETERMINE THE CAUSE. OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING ISN'T RIGHT, I'VE SEEN ONE OTHER COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10689825
47,000 miles · Feb 3, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING WITH THE VEHICLE ON CRUISE CONTROL AT 75 MPH, THE VEHICLE DECELERATED. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND THE SERVICE ENGINE SOON WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPER…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING WITH THE VEHICLE ON CRUISE CONTROL AT 75 MPH, THE VEHICLE DECELERATED. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND THE SERVICE ENGINE SOON WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING AS DESIGNED. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 47,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10680820
25,880 miles · Dec 2, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON A REGULAR STREET IN MY AREA AT THE RATE OF 35. THE SPEED LIMIT IS 40, SO I DECIDED TO INCREASE MY SPEED TO THAT OF THE SPEED LIMIT. WHEN I PROCEEDED TO ACCELERATE, IT APPEARED THAT THE ENGINE WAS JUST SPINNING, BUT NOT ACCELERATING, WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT JUST LUNGED FORWARD, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE. THIS WAS QUIT…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON A REGULAR STREET IN MY AREA AT THE RATE OF 35. THE SPEED LIMIT IS 40, SO I DECIDED TO INCREASE MY SPEED TO THAT OF THE SPEED LIMIT. WHEN I PROCEEDED TO ACCELERATE, IT APPEARED THAT THE ENGINE WAS JUST SPINNING, BUT NOT ACCELERATING, WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT JUST LUNGED FORWARD, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE. THIS WAS QUITE FRIGHTENING AS I HAD NO ADVANCED WARNING THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. AFTER THAT INCIDENT, IT APPEARED TO BE DRIVING NORMAL, UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT A WEEK LATER. I AM AFRAID WHENEVER I GET BEHIND THE WHEEL NOW, BUT IT IS THE ONLY VEHICLE I OWN AND I USE IT TO GET BACK AND FORTH TO WORK, SO I AM PROCEEDING WITH EXTREME CAUTION. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10661533
34,000 miles · Nov 22, 2014
Power TrainSteeringVehicle Speed Control
I WAS CROSSING A HIGHWAY AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS I HAD NO POWER! JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE IT WAS AT FORD FOR A TORQUE AND STEERING RECALL. WHEN I CALLED FORD TO INFORM THEM WHAT HAPPENED THEY SAID I WILL HAVE TO PAY $130 FOR THEM TO DIAGNOSE IT! I'M NOT HAPPY WITH FORDS RESPONSE. THIS IS A REAL DANGER AND THEY NEED TO TA…
Read full complaint
I WAS CROSSING A HIGHWAY AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS I HAD NO POWER! JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE IT WAS AT FORD FOR A TORQUE AND STEERING RECALL. WHEN I CALLED FORD TO INFORM THEM WHAT HAPPENED THEY SAID I WILL HAVE TO PAY $130 FOR THEM TO DIAGNOSE IT! I'M NOT HAPPY WITH FORDS RESPONSE. THIS IS A REAL DANGER AND THEY NEED TO TAKE IT SERIOUS! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10660280
49,000 miles · Oct 31, 2014
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ALONG MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY REFUSED TO ACCELERATE, I WAS HOLDING THE GAS TO THE FLOOR AND IT WOULDN'T BUDGE. IT WAS IDLING STRANGELY AND SURGING. A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED IN THE SCREEN ON THE DASH. I WAS ON A HILL AND WAS UNABLE TO PULL OF THE ROAD. LUCKILY, NO ONE WAS BEHIND ME. I WAITED A FEW MOMENTS AND RESTA…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ALONG MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY REFUSED TO ACCELERATE, I WAS HOLDING THE GAS TO THE FLOOR AND IT WOULDN'T BUDGE. IT WAS IDLING STRANGELY AND SURGING. A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED IN THE SCREEN ON THE DASH. I WAS ON A HILL AND WAS UNABLE TO PULL OF THE ROAD. LUCKILY, NO ONE WAS BEHIND ME. I WAITED A FEW MOMENTS AND RESTARTED THE ESCAPE, IT WENT AND THEN CONTINUED TO DECELERATE ONCE AGAIN. I WILL BE TAKING THIS BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP TO BE FIXED. BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED, UPON RESEARCHING THE ISSUE I FOUND MANY MORE COMPLAINTS ONLINE. WHY HASN'T THIS ISSUE BEEN RECALLED? IT IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS AND IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE ESCAPE CUTS OFF AT THE WRONG TIME AND GETS SOMEONE KILLED. THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE IT BECOME AN EPIDEMIC LIKE THE CHEVY COBALT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10651677
95,000 miles · Sep 25, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT 71 MPH WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ON, I NOTICED A SLOWING DOWN FEELING, THE CRUISE CONTROL LIGHT WENT OFF, THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED. I PULLED TO THE BERM. I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. ACCORDING TO THE MANUAL IT WAS THE THROTTLE. IT TOOK 2 TRIES TO RESTART CAR, THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OFF. A FORD DEALERSHIP WAS 5…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT 71 MPH WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ON, I NOTICED A SLOWING DOWN FEELING, THE CRUISE CONTROL LIGHT WENT OFF, THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED. I PULLED TO THE BERM. I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. ACCORDING TO THE MANUAL IT WAS THE THROTTLE. IT TOOK 2 TRIES TO RESTART CAR, THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OFF. A FORD DEALERSHIP WAS 5 MIN. FROM INCIDENT. ACCORDING TO INVOICE, THEY PERFORMED THROTTLE BODY UPDATE. I WAS TOLD IF THE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN, IT MIGHT NEED A THROTTLE BODY. I ASKED IF THEY COULD PERFORM THE WORK, THEY STATED WITHOUT THE LIGHT BEING ON, THEY COULDN'T DO THE WORK UNDER THE WARRANTY. MEANWHILE I WAS OVER 200 MILES FROM HOME, AND NEEDED TO GET HOME. IT FELT SO UNSAFE FOR 5HOURS OF DRIVING. THE CAR HAS SURGES OF POWER, DOWNSHIFTS WITH JOLTS, AND CLUNKING SOUNDS WHEN IT DOES SHIFT. THIS IS HOW IT DROVE FROM THE BEGINNING, I BEGAN TO THINK IT WAS NORMAL SO NEVER REPORTED IT. ALSO, SINCE THE WORK WAS DONE I NOTICED THE RPMS AT IDLING ARE HIGH, I CAN PULL INTO THE GARAGE WITHOUT PUTTING MY FOOT ON THE GAS THE RPMS ARE AT 2 AT 30 MILES AN HOUR, SAME AS AT 70 MILES AN HOUR. I'M CONTACTING FORD ABOUT THE RULES OF THE WARRANTY AND HOW UNSAFE IT FEELS TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE. HOW MANY ACCIDENTS, DEATHS WILL IT TAKE TO GET THE REAL WORK DONE, NOT A PATCH UP JOB. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10639166
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