NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,316 reports154,000 miles · Jan 4, 2021
Steering
THE POWER STEERING HAS FAILED MULTIPLE TIMES. IT SEEMS TO HAPPEN WHENEVER I TAKE A HEAVY U-TURN. THE POWER STEERING GOES OUT AND AI HAVE NO CONTROL OVER MY STEERING. ACCORDING TO DEALERSHIPS THE POWER STEERING IS COMPUTERIZED, SO IS QUITE COSTLY TO FIX. BUT THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY HAZARD WHEN DRIVING. THIS HAS HAPPENED ON CITY ST…
Read full complaint
THE POWER STEERING HAS FAILED MULTIPLE TIMES. IT SEEMS TO HAPPEN WHENEVER I TAKE A HEAVY U-TURN. THE POWER STEERING GOES OUT AND AI HAVE NO CONTROL OVER MY STEERING. ACCORDING TO DEALERSHIPS THE POWER STEERING IS COMPUTERIZED, SO IS QUITE COSTLY TO FIX. BUT THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY HAZARD WHEN DRIVING. THIS HAS HAPPENED ON CITY STREETS ONLY WHEN MAKING U-TURNS.
NHTSA ODI #11386544
118,000 miles · Jan 3, 2021
Steering
WHILE MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN AT AN INTERSECTION PULLING OUT FROM A STOP SIGN. I WAS TURNING FROM A CITY STREET ONTO A HIGHWAY. THE POWER STEERING STOPPED WORKING MAKING THE VEHICLE HARD TO STEER AND ALMOST HITTING A STONE BARRIER BETWEEN THE LANES. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN PARKED AND TURNED OFF, AND LATER STARTED AND THE POWER STE…
Read full complaint
WHILE MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN AT AN INTERSECTION PULLING OUT FROM A STOP SIGN. I WAS TURNING FROM A CITY STREET ONTO A HIGHWAY. THE POWER STEERING STOPPED WORKING MAKING THE VEHICLE HARD TO STEER AND ALMOST HITTING A STONE BARRIER BETWEEN THE LANES. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN PARKED AND TURNED OFF, AND LATER STARTED AND THE POWER STEERING HAD RETURNED. THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME THE POWER STEERING WAS LOST. THE FIRST TIME WAS ON A CITY STREET WHILE PULLING OUT FROM A PARKING SPOT AND VEHICLE WAS THEN PARKED. A SHORT TIME LATER THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED AND THE POWER STEERING HAD RETURNED. THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED A THIRD TIME WHILE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT THE POWER STEERING STOPPED WORKING , THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AND SHUT OFF. IT WAS THEN LATER STARTED AND THE POWER STEERING HAD RETURNED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHO HOOKED THE VEHICLE TO A CODE SCANNER AND FOUND THE CODE FOR THE POWER STEERING TORQUE SENSOR HAD MALFUNCTIONED.
NHTSA ODI #11386311
67,000 miles · Jan 2, 2021
Steering
WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE, THE POWER STEERING FAILED. I CONTINUED TO MY DESTINATION USING MANUAL STEERING AND PARKED THE VEHICLE. I COMPLETED MY ERRAND AND WHEN I STARTED THE VEHICLE THE POWER STEERING WAS WORKING. THE FOLLOWING DAY, I DROVE THE VEHICLE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE MY WIFE BOUGHT IT TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BY TH…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE, THE POWER STEERING FAILED. I CONTINUED TO MY DESTINATION USING MANUAL STEERING AND PARKED THE VEHICLE. I COMPLETED MY ERRAND AND WHEN I STARTED THE VEHICLE THE POWER STEERING WAS WORKING. THE FOLLOWING DAY, I DROVE THE VEHICLE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE MY WIFE BOUGHT IT TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BY THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND WAS TOLD THAT THE PROBLEM WAS WITH THE STEERING TORQUE SENSOR AND THAT IT SHOULD BE REPLACED. RATHER THAN REPAIR THE VEHICLE, WE TRADED IT IN FOR A NEW FORD ESCAPE.
NHTSA ODI #11386075
153,000 miles · Jan 2, 2021
Service BrakesWheels
WHEN THE VEHICLE IS ROLLING, THE RIGHT TIRE LOCKS UP AND STARTS SMOKING, THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. MECHANIC CANNOT FIND IT TO FIX IT IF FIXABLE AND NOT A RECALL? I AM DRIVING CITY STREETS (IN VIRGINIA-SUBURBIA.
NHTSA ODI #11386052
Mileage unknown · Dec 5, 2020
Steering
POWER STEERING ASSIT FAULT SINCE LAST RECALL IT HAS NEVER DISAPPEARED AND THE STEERING IS STIFF.
NHTSA ODI #11378034
64,210 miles · Dec 3, 2020
Fuel/propulsion System
RECEIVED NOTICE OF RECALL IN DEC 2017, CALLED KENDAL FORD IN ANCHORAGE FOR SCHEDULING OF REPAIR. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE PART NEEDED AND WOULD CALL WHEN IT CAME IN. OCTOBER 2018, CALLED KENDALL AFTER RECEIVING SECOND NOTICE. THE SERVICE DEPT. SAID THEY'D CALL WHEN IT CAME IN. KENDALL FORD SER…
Read full complaint
RECEIVED NOTICE OF RECALL IN DEC 2017, CALLED KENDAL FORD IN ANCHORAGE FOR SCHEDULING OF REPAIR. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE PART NEEDED AND WOULD CALL WHEN IT CAME IN. OCTOBER 2018, CALLED KENDALL AFTER RECEIVING SECOND NOTICE. THE SERVICE DEPT. SAID THEY'D CALL WHEN IT CAME IN. KENDALL FORD SERVICE DEPT. 866-957-4040. THIRD NOTICE RCVD 7/12/2019. CALLED AGAIN AND, TERESA, STATED THEY'D CALL WHEN THE PART CAME IN. THREE YEARS TO GET A PART IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE FORD DEALER HAS DEMONSTRATED BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT RECALLS, UNABLE TO BE TRUTHFUL, AND HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT ANYTHING BUT MONEY.
NHTSA ODI #11377736
50,000 miles · Dec 3, 2020
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE TRACTION CONTROL WARNING LIGHT AND AN UNKNOWN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE POWER STEERING CONTROL MODULE WAS FAULTY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE TRACTION CONTROL WARNING LIGHT AND AN UNKNOWN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE POWER STEERING CONTROL MODULE WAS FAULTY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVABLE HOWEVER, THE CONTACT DID NOT FEEL SAFE DRIVING THE VEHICLE. A DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE FAILURE HOWEVER, THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE APPROXIMATELY 50,000.
NHTSA ODI #11377735
147,000 miles · Dec 1, 2020
Electrical SystemService BrakesVehicle Speed ControlInjury
THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER STARTED BY FLASHING ALL LIGHTS TO STAYING ON. THEN THE SPEED CONTROLS, SPEEDOMETER, RPM GAUGE, AND HEAT SENSOR WOULD NOT WORK. ON TOP OF ALL THIS. THE BRAKES BEGAN TO MAKE A CLICKING NOISE WHEN THIS ISSUE WOULD HAPPEN AND THE BRAKES WOULD ACT ROUGH. NO MECHANIC COULD FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM UNTIL IT WAS TO …
Read full complaint
THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER STARTED BY FLASHING ALL LIGHTS TO STAYING ON. THEN THE SPEED CONTROLS, SPEEDOMETER, RPM GAUGE, AND HEAT SENSOR WOULD NOT WORK. ON TOP OF ALL THIS. THE BRAKES BEGAN TO MAKE A CLICKING NOISE WHEN THIS ISSUE WOULD HAPPEN AND THE BRAKES WOULD ACT ROUGH. NO MECHANIC COULD FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM UNTIL IT WAS TO LATE. THIS NEEDS TO BE BETTER KNOWN AND BETTER MANAGED.
NHTSA ODI #11377241
120,000 miles · Nov 30, 2020
Steering
MY POWER STEERING ASSIST IS LOST ON MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE. 915,000 OTHER FORDS HAVE HAD THIS ISSUE AND FORD HAS ALLOWED THIS RECALL. MY VIN# DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE CARS THAT FORD ALLOWS RECALLED. FORD TELLS ME THAT MY CAR WAS MFG. IN JUNE 2011 SO THIS POWER STEERING ASSIST WILL NOT HAPPEN. AND YET I HAD MY CAR TOWED BECAUSE MY…
Read full complaint
MY POWER STEERING ASSIST IS LOST ON MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE. 915,000 OTHER FORDS HAVE HAD THIS ISSUE AND FORD HAS ALLOWED THIS RECALL. MY VIN# DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE CARS THAT FORD ALLOWS RECALLED. FORD TELLS ME THAT MY CAR WAS MFG. IN JUNE 2011 SO THIS POWER STEERING ASSIST WILL NOT HAPPEN. AND YET I HAD MY CAR TOWED BECAUSE MY POWER STEERING ASSIST WAS NOT WORKING. I AM AFRAID OF DRIVING MY CAR AS THIS ISSUE CREATES A DANGEROUS DRIVING SITUATION.
NHTSA ODI #11377097
77,000 miles · Nov 23, 2020
Steering
WHILE DRIVING, MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT TO WHERE I COULD NOT TURN THE STEERING WHEEL TO TURN A CORNER WHICH ALMOST LEAD TO ME AND MY HUSBAND GETTING HIT BY A SEMI TRUCK. THE CAR HAD BEEN RUNNING AND TURNING JUST FINE UP TO STOPPING AT THE STOP SIGN. ONCE I WENT TO TURN RIGHT, I COULDN'T TURN THE STEERING WHEEL AND WENT STRAIGH…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING, MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT TO WHERE I COULD NOT TURN THE STEERING WHEEL TO TURN A CORNER WHICH ALMOST LEAD TO ME AND MY HUSBAND GETTING HIT BY A SEMI TRUCK. THE CAR HAD BEEN RUNNING AND TURNING JUST FINE UP TO STOPPING AT THE STOP SIGN. ONCE I WENT TO TURN RIGHT, I COULDN'T TURN THE STEERING WHEEL AND WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION INSTEAD WHICH IS WHEN I WAS ALMOST HIT BY A SEMI TRUCK THAT WAS HEADED IN THE OTHER DIRECTION BECAUSE I COULDN'T TURN RIGHT, MY CAR WENT STRAIGHT THE THE INTERSECTION. HAD TO TURN THE CAR OFF SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES, TURN IT BACK ON AND THEN IT WORKED. TOOK IT TO THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP 3 DAYS LATER AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN TO THEM. THE POWER STEERING JUST STOPS WORKING WHILE THE CAR IS ALREADY DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WHICH IS NOT SAFE AT ALL. THANKFULLY I WAS NOT IN THE HIGHWAY YET. THERE IS A CURRENT RECALL FOR THIS POWER STEERING TORQUE ISSUE AND IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE WHOLE POWER STEERING CONTROL MODULE BE REPLACED. WAS TOLD BY FORD THAT THIS IS VIN SPECIFIC. HOWEVER, MY 2011 WAS MANUFACTURED IN KANSAS CITY AND CAME OFF THE MANUFACTURING LINE ON 9/27/2010. RECALL STATES THAT THIS AFFECTED 2011 FORD ESCAPES FROM THE KANSAS CITY PLANT THROUGH 9/16/2010. FORD WOULD NOT TELL ME WHEN THE STEERING COLUMN PORTION OF MY CAR WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED BEFORE COMING OFF THE LINE ON 9/27/2010 AND COULD NOT VERIFY PARTS THAT WERE USED IN THE STEERING COLUMN MODULE YET THE ISSUE THIS CAR IS HAVING MATCHES EXACTLY WHAT THAT RECALL WAS FOR. I DO THINK THIS RECALL NEEDS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATED AS IT HAS OBVIOUSLY EFFECTED MORE VEHICLES THAN FORD IS WILLING TO ADMIT OR LOOK INTO ESPECIALLY SINCE MY CAR'S MANUFACTURING DATE WAS ONLY 16 DAYS AFTER THE RECALL DATE FROM THE SAME MANUFACTURING PLANT OF KANSAS CITY.
NHTSA ODI #11375915
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