NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
57 reportsClear category filter83,000 miles · Jul 21, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT NOTICED A "CHECK FUEL; FAILED INLET" WARNING MESSAGE AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER (AUTONATION FORD FRISCO 6850 TX-121, FRISCO, TX, 75034) WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED DUE TO THE DIAGNOSTIC FEE AND BECAUSE TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT NOTICED A "CHECK FUEL; FAILED INLET" WARNING MESSAGE AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER (AUTONATION FORD FRISCO 6850 TX-121, FRISCO, TX, 75034) WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED DUE TO THE DIAGNOSTIC FEE AND BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS OVER THE 10,000 MILE WARRANTY FOR THE YEAR. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AUTO ZONE WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RETRIEVE ERROR CODES. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:DELIVERY:FUEL PUMP). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT TIME FOR THE REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 83,000. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #11006786
Mileage unknown · Jun 1, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MAGIC CITY FORD WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MAGIC CITY FORD WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS FUEL LEAKING FROM THE FUEL TANK ONTO THE WHEEL WELL. THE CONTACT PAID TO HAVE A FUEL CANISTER REPLACED ON THE VEHICLE; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE PERSISTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE, BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VIN WAS INVALID. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10992682
Mileage unknown · Nov 7, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
ON FRIDAY THERE WAS A FUEL ODOR IN THE CABIN WAS SLIGHT AS I WAS DRIVING AROUND TOWN (DROPPING THE KIDS OFF AT SCHOOL) THE ODOR INCREASED. I LEFT IT PARKED FOR A DAY AND THE FOLLOWING THE DAY THE FUEL ODOR INCREASED TO THE POINT THAT I COULD NOT DRIVE IT AROUND ANYMORE. IT WAS STILL DRIVING IN WHAT SEEMED LIKE NORMAL DRIVING CON…
Read full complaint
ON FRIDAY THERE WAS A FUEL ODOR IN THE CABIN WAS SLIGHT AS I WAS DRIVING AROUND TOWN (DROPPING THE KIDS OFF AT SCHOOL) THE ODOR INCREASED. I LEFT IT PARKED FOR A DAY AND THE FOLLOWING THE DAY THE FUEL ODOR INCREASED TO THE POINT THAT I COULD NOT DRIVE IT AROUND ANYMORE. IT WAS STILL DRIVING IN WHAT SEEMED LIKE NORMAL DRIVING CONDITIONS BUT THE ODOR WAS TOO MUCH.
NHTSA ODI #10924812
60,000 miles · Mar 24, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
MY ENGINE LIGHT KEEPS COMING ON AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD ITS THE LITTLE FLAP TO THE GAS TANK BUT THEY CAN REPAIR IT YET AS A RECALL HOW IS THAT WHEN THEY ALREAY KNOW WHAT IT IS?
NHTSA ODI #10851364
78,000 miles · Jun 25, 2015
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE SURGES WILDLY AT IDLE SPEEDS IN TRAFFIC. VEHICLE STALLS OUT WHILE DRIVING REGULAR HIGHWAY SPEED, SURGES WILDLY WHILE DRIVING, RPM SPIKES DRASTICALLY WHILE DRIVING AND AT IDLE. STALLS AND SURGES BOTH WHILE ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION AND WHILE DRIVING AT REGULAR PACE. STRUGGLES TO CRANK AFTER FUELING THE V…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE SURGES WILDLY AT IDLE SPEEDS IN TRAFFIC. VEHICLE STALLS OUT WHILE DRIVING REGULAR HIGHWAY SPEED, SURGES WILDLY WHILE DRIVING, RPM SPIKES DRASTICALLY WHILE DRIVING AND AT IDLE. STALLS AND SURGES BOTH WHILE ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION AND WHILE DRIVING AT REGULAR PACE. STRUGGLES TO CRANK AFTER FUELING THE VEHICLE. SPITS AND SPUTTER AND SHAKES WHILE AT IDLE....UPDATED10/20/15 *BF
NHTSA ODI #10730299
39,189 miles · Mar 3, 2015
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB) WAS REPLACED AT VETERANS FORD DEALERSHIP IN TAMPA, FL DUE TO THIS PART SEVERELY EFFECTING ABILITY OF THE VEHICLE TO RUN PROPERLY (SEVERAL TIMES). CUSTOMER PAID FOR THIS REPAIR. SOMETIME AFTER 3/4/14 WHEN NHTSA COMPLETED THEIR INVESTIGATION, WE RECEIVED A NOTICE THAT FORD WAS REPLACING THIS …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB) WAS REPLACED AT VETERANS FORD DEALERSHIP IN TAMPA, FL DUE TO THIS PART SEVERELY EFFECTING ABILITY OF THE VEHICLE TO RUN PROPERLY (SEVERAL TIMES). CUSTOMER PAID FOR THIS REPAIR. SOMETIME AFTER 3/4/14 WHEN NHTSA COMPLETED THEIR INVESTIGATION, WE RECEIVED A NOTICE THAT FORD WAS REPLACING THIS ITEM. SINCE WE ALREADY PAID FOR THE REPAIR ($381.32) AT A FORD DEALERSHIP, WE TRIED TO GET THE REIMBURSEMENT THAT FORD OWES US. WE WERE INFORMED WE HAD TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT, WHICH TO THIS DAY IS STILL PACKED UP IN STORAGE IF WE HAVE IT AT ALL BECAUSE WE MOVED FROM FL TO NC AND ARE STILL INVOLVED IN BUYING A NEW HOME. THE BOTTOM LINE IS FORD (CORP) IS REFUSING TO HONOR THEIR AGREEMENT TO REIMBURSE CUSTOMERS. THE CRAZIEST PART OF THIS WHOLE DILEMMA IS THAT FORD HAS AND CONTROLS 100% OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PROCESS OUR REIMBURSEMENT, BUT ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DO SO WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT. I COULD UNDERSTAND IF WE HAD THIS REPAIR DONE AT SOME UNRELATED, THIRD PARTY SERVICE FACILITY. HOWEVER, WE WENT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY HAVE RECORD OF COMPLETING THE REPAIR AND US PAYING THEM FOR THE REPAIR. SO AGAIN, FORD HAS ALL THE INFORMATION (PROOF) IN THEIR POSSESSION TO TAKE CARE OF THIS REIMBURSEMENT, BUT REFUSES TO DO SO. I HAVE CALLED THE CUSTOMER (DIS)SATISFACTION DEPARTMENT AT FORD CORPORATE, BUT THAT IS LIKE TALKING TO A BRICK WALL AS FAR AS ANYONE HAVING IN COMMON SENSE, ACCOUNTABILITY OR DECENCY TO DO THE RIGHT THING (CERTAINLY ANY KIND OF GOOD WILL IS LACKING IN THAT ORGANIZATION). SO HERE I AM HAVING TO COMPLAIN TO THE NHTSA TO GET FORD TO DO WHAT THEY PROMISED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I LOOK FORWARD TO A TIMELY REPLY LETTING ME KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE THIS HANDLED. ADDITIONALLY, FORD SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED SEVERELY FOR SUCH [XXX] BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE. MAYBE A CONSUMER REPORTER NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED IN ALL THIS. THANKS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10691772
42,000 miles · Oct 9, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF GAS. WE PULLED OFF THE STREET AND SHUT IT DOWN AND WAITED,WE HAD PLENTY OF GAS. WE STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT SEEMED OK, THE ENGINE AND POWER TRAIN LIGHTS REMAINED ON. SINCE I HAD TAKEN IT IN FOR THE RECALL ALREADY AND WE WERE CLOSE TO SOUTHGATE FORD WE PULLED INTO THE SERVICE AREA I SPOKE TO …
Read full complaint
CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF GAS. WE PULLED OFF THE STREET AND SHUT IT DOWN AND WAITED,WE HAD PLENTY OF GAS. WE STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT SEEMED OK, THE ENGINE AND POWER TRAIN LIGHTS REMAINED ON. SINCE I HAD TAKEN IT IN FOR THE RECALL ALREADY AND WE WERE CLOSE TO SOUTHGATE FORD WE PULLED INTO THE SERVICE AREA I SPOKE TO THE SERVICE PERSON AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST 600.00 TO FIX. I MENTIONED THE RECALL, HE SAID THAT WAS JUST FOR THE SOFTWARE WE THEN LEFT AN WENT TO AUTO ZONE WHERE THEY PUT THEIR DIAGNOSTIC TOOL ON THE CAR AND THE PRINT OUT READ THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. FORD DEALERS REFUSE TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY UNDER THE RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10643489
126,000 miles · Sep 29, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WHEN I WAS DRIVING AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS...IT WOULD NOT MOVE SAFELY. I WAS VERY LUCKY BECAUSE THIS WAS AT A TRAFFIC INTERSECTION ON BEECHMONT AND EIGHT MILE. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE IT TO THE ENTERPRISE PARKING LOT ALBEIT IT WAS EXTREMELY SLOW AND I HAD CARS HONKING AT ME BEC…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WHEN I WAS DRIVING AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS...IT WOULD NOT MOVE SAFELY. I WAS VERY LUCKY BECAUSE THIS WAS AT A TRAFFIC INTERSECTION ON BEECHMONT AND EIGHT MILE. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE IT TO THE ENTERPRISE PARKING LOT ALBEIT IT WAS EXTREMELY SLOW AND I HAD CARS HONKING AT ME BECAUSE OF THE LIGHTS ON THE INTERSECTION. THE MECHANIC REPAIR SHOP SAYS IT'S THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10639775
50,900 miles · Jun 11, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
LOSS OF ALL POWER, WENT TO LIMP MODE. HAPPENED AFTER NEXT 10 RESTARTS IN RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC THEN CLEARED. ENGINE THREW P2112 CODE, STICKING THROTTLE BODY. PLEASE ISSUE RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10597736
17,000 miles · Jan 13, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
IN 2011, WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL AND COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE STAYED ON BUT I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO TURN ON THE HAZARDS AND PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND AFTER WAITING 5 MINUTES I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND THE GAS PEDAL WAS WORKIN…
Read full complaint
IN 2011, WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL AND COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE STAYED ON BUT I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO TURN ON THE HAZARDS AND PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND AFTER WAITING 5 MINUTES I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND THE GAS PEDAL WAS WORKING. THEN AGAIN IN OCTOBER 2013, I WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH WHEN I LOST ACCELERATION CAPABILITY. THIS TIME THE THROTTLE BODY INDICATOR LIGHT WAS DISPLAYED. I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO A MECHANIC AND HE STATED THAT NOTHING REGISTERED ON THE COMPUTER AS A MALFUNCTION. HE LOOKED AT THE INTAKE VALVE AND COULD NOT SEE ANY BUILD-UP. IN JANUARY 2014 THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES AND I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND PROCEED. HOWEVER, ON JANUARY 11, 2014 AFTER THE MALFUNCTION THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESET IMMEDIATELY NOW THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS DISPLAYED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10559637
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
3DP15001 · 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
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