lost of steering control because of power steering failed. And caused elec. system to go nuts
2010 Mercury Mariner
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Mariner years
Owner complaints for the 2010 Mercury Mariner are substantially higher than the model-year median of 63.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mariner years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
225 reports with mileage · 45 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 66 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
60 reportsI was driving when it felt like the vehicle was reving in park then the "wrench" icon appeared on my dash. I went a couple blocks & my vehicle felt like it wasn't shifting automatically as it should. I pulled over & turned it off. It started right back up with no lights on, I went half a block & stopped at a stop sign but while …
Read full complaint
I was driving when it felt like the vehicle was reving in park then the "wrench" icon appeared on my dash. I went a couple blocks & my vehicle felt like it wasn't shifting automatically as it should. I pulled over & turned it off. It started right back up with no lights on, I went half a block & stopped at a stop sign but while stopped the engine reved up. I was worried I was going to be in an accident. Then the "wrench" light came back on, since I was close to home I figured I'd just try to get home. About another block, the check engine light came on & was making strange noises. I kept my vehicle at about 5-10 mph & got it home. My car was very jerky.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER WHICH WAS BEING TOWED BY A 2004 FLEETWOOD TIOGA MONTARA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM THE HOOD. THE MOTOR HOME WAS PULLED OVER, THE CONTACT OPENED THE HOOD, AND NOTICED THAT THE TRANSMISSION OVERHEATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER WHICH WAS BEING TOWED BY A 2004 FLEETWOOD TIOGA MONTARA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM THE HOOD. THE MOTOR HOME WAS PULLED OVER, THE CONTACT OPENED THE HOOD, AND NOTICED THAT THE TRANSMISSION OVERHEATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO CHUCK COLVIN FORD NISSAN (1925 N HWY 99 W, MCMINNVILLE, OR 97128, 503-472-6124), BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS A KNOWN OCCURRENCE WITH THE TRANSMISSION AT APPROXIMATELY 50,000 MILES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 56,000. *TT
I WAS DRIVING MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER , WHEN THE ENGINE LITE CAME ON WITH A LITTLE WRENCH LITE. MY CAR STARTED TO LOSE POWER AND I COULD NOT GET IT TO PICK UP POWER. I PULLED OF THE ROAD. I TURNED OFF MY CAR, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD START AGAIN .VERY SCARY.I HAVE ONLY 86000 MILE ON IT .
I WAS DRIVING AT 65+ MPH ON EXPRESSWAY - VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND A VIOLENT SHAKING OF THE VEHICLE OCCURRED FORCING ME OFF THE HIGHWAY - AT THIS TIME NOTICE AN IMAGE OF A "WRENCH" LIT UP ON DASH -- I WAS ABLE TO GET VEHICLE TO THE DEALER - NOT WORRIED DUE TO I STILL HAD 2000 MILES LEFT ON WARRANTY, ONLY TO BE TOLD TH…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT 65+ MPH ON EXPRESSWAY - VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND A VIOLENT SHAKING OF THE VEHICLE OCCURRED FORCING ME OFF THE HIGHWAY - AT THIS TIME NOTICE AN IMAGE OF A "WRENCH" LIT UP ON DASH -- I WAS ABLE TO GET VEHICLE TO THE DEALER - NOT WORRIED DUE TO I STILL HAD 2000 MILES LEFT ON WARRANTY, ONLY TO BE TOLD THIS IS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. MY QUESTION IS THIS IS HUGE SAFETY ISSUE AND SHOULD UNDER NO QUESTIONS BE A CHARGE TO THE CONSUMER. I WAS CHARGED 309.20 TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY MOTOR AND ASSEMBLY. AFTER MUCH RESEARCH THIS IS AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH MANY OF THE FORD VEHICLES. ATTACHED IS THE INVOICE THAT I HAD TO PAY. I HAVE TRIED TO OBTAIN THE ZONE REP FOR MY AREA AND I AM HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THIS INFO FROM MY DEALER. I AM STILL INVESTIGATING AS TO HOW TO OBTAIN THIS INFO AS I BELIEVE SOMEONE IN HIGHER POSITION THEN DEALER NEEDS TO BE AWARE.
CAR STOPPED RUNNING WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON STARTED MOTOR PUT IT IN GEAR TRIED TO GO REGULAR PACE CAR DID NOT GO IT IS VERY SLOW NO GAS PEDDLE TURNED IT OFF LET SET FOR 2 HRS. STARTED BACK UP RUNS OK BUT CHECK ENG. LITE CAME ON CALLED DEALER
INTERMITTENTLY LOOSING POWER, INTERMITTENT WRENCH LIGHT. POWER LOSS HAPPENS WHEN GOING UP HILL FROM A STOP OR EVEN WHEN AT A RATE OF SPEED ON THE FREEWAY. GOES COMPLETELY LIMP, BUT DOES NOT SHUT OFF. ALMOST REAR ENDED BY A SEMI YESTERDAY MORNING. THE WRENCH LIGHT GOES OFF AND STAYS OFF FOR A BIT ONCE YOU SHUT THE CAR OFF, MA…
Read full complaint
INTERMITTENTLY LOOSING POWER, INTERMITTENT WRENCH LIGHT. POWER LOSS HAPPENS WHEN GOING UP HILL FROM A STOP OR EVEN WHEN AT A RATE OF SPEED ON THE FREEWAY. GOES COMPLETELY LIMP, BUT DOES NOT SHUT OFF. ALMOST REAR ENDED BY A SEMI YESTERDAY MORNING. THE WRENCH LIGHT GOES OFF AND STAYS OFF FOR A BIT ONCE YOU SHUT THE CAR OFF, MAKING DIAGNOSES VERY HARD. WHAT ONCE WAS SO INTERMITTENT IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE A FLUKE, IS HAPPENING WITH MORE REGULARITY. AND I SEE OTHER COMPLAINTS BUT NO RECALL FOR THIS ISSUE, SO I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE HAVING THIS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS ISSUE. *TR
WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK LAST NIGHT, VEHICLE SUDDENLY DECLINED IN ACCELERATION...STARTED JERKING AND ILLUMINATION OF A "WRENCH" SYMBOL APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD...NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS VEHICLE IN THE PAST BESIDES ROUTINE MAINTENANCE...SCARED TO DRIVE IT UNTIL PROBLEM IS SOLVED..
OUR 2010 MERCURY MARINER HAD A CLUNKING AND LOSS OF POWER ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE FIRST TIME WE BROUGHT IT TO THE FORD DEALER AND HE CHECKED CODES, ETC, ONLY TO FIND NOTHING. THE CLUNKING OR LOSS OF POWER DID NOT CAME BACK FOR A WHILE. SEVERAL MONTHS LATER WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, THE CLUNKING SOUND APPEARED AGAIN, …
Read full complaint
OUR 2010 MERCURY MARINER HAD A CLUNKING AND LOSS OF POWER ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE FIRST TIME WE BROUGHT IT TO THE FORD DEALER AND HE CHECKED CODES, ETC, ONLY TO FIND NOTHING. THE CLUNKING OR LOSS OF POWER DID NOT CAME BACK FOR A WHILE. SEVERAL MONTHS LATER WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, THE CLUNKING SOUND APPEARED AGAIN, THERE WAS AN EVIDENT LOSS OF POWER AND THE ORANGE WRENCH DISPLAYED ON THE SPEEDOMETER INDICATED AN ISSUE. I HAD TO WORK ON GETTING THE VEHICLE UP TO SPEED AND POWER AGAIN, SLOWING THE TRAFFIC IN BACK OF ME DOWN. THE VEHILE WAS PURCHASED A YEAR AGO, ALMOST TO THE DAY AND HAS APPROXIMATELY 52,000 MILES ON IT. I CALLED THE FORD DEALER WHO MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN FOR A CHECK UP. BASED ON WHAT I'M READING, THESE ARE KNOWN ISSUES WITH A THROTTLE? NOT CERTAIN IF THERE'S A RECALL OR NOT BUT WILL CERTAINLY FIND OUT. BASICALLY, OUR VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE.
I WAS DRIVING MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER PREMIUM FWD TO MY MOTHERS FOR CHRISTMAS '14 WHEN THE ENGINE LIGHT WRENCH CAME ON AND I FELT A LOSS IN POWER. LUCKILY I WAS NEAR A REST STOP AND I SHUT OFF ENGINE AND LET IT SIT AFTER RUNNING A VEHICLE HEALTH REPORT. REPORT SAID: URGENT POWER TRAIN MALFUNCTION / REDUCED POWER. AFTER RESTARTI…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER PREMIUM FWD TO MY MOTHERS FOR CHRISTMAS '14 WHEN THE ENGINE LIGHT WRENCH CAME ON AND I FELT A LOSS IN POWER. LUCKILY I WAS NEAR A REST STOP AND I SHUT OFF ENGINE AND LET IT SIT AFTER RUNNING A VEHICLE HEALTH REPORT. REPORT SAID: URGENT POWER TRAIN MALFUNCTION / REDUCED POWER. AFTER RESTARTING THE VEHICLE, IT SEEMED FINE. THIS WAS WHEN I STILL HAD ABOUT THREE HOURS LEFT OF DRIVING IN MY EIGHT HOUR DRIVE. WHEN I WAS ABOUT AN HOUR AWAY AGAIN THE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE SAME POWER REDUCTION OCCURRED. I TOOK IT TO BE LOOKED AT TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALER NEAR MY MOTHERS AND WAS TOLD THE VALVE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THIS WAS AT 74,000 MILES. SO I DID. I HAD THIS HAPPEN ONCE BEFORE (I HAD 58,000 MILES ON IT) WHEN DRIVING TO A SHOPPING CENTER AFTER DRIVING 45 MINUTES ON THE HIGHWAY FROM HOME. ONLY HAPPENED WHEN DRIVING LONG DISTANCE. WHEN I GOT OFF THE EXIT, IT JERKED AND QUICKLY STOPPED AND I HAD TO PULL OVER. IF A CAR WAS BEHIND ME IT COULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT.. I DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT I HAD A COUPLE RECALLS (COMPUTER UPDATES) AND A SERVICE EXTENSION FOR THE THROTTLE BODY. SHOULD FIX THE ISSUE SO IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN SAID THE MECHANIC. TRANSMISSION FLUID WAS FLUSHED CAUSE IT WAS BURNT ALSO. HAD NO ISSUES AFTERWARDS UNTIL MY CHRISTMAS TRIP. I FEEL I COULD HAVE BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT AND SERIOUSLY HURT IF IT HAD JERKED WHILE CHANGING GEARS ON A BUSY ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THERE IS A THROTTLE BODY RECALL BUT NOT A VALVE BODY RECALL? IF THESE ISSUES CAN CAUSE A QUICK JERK OR LOST POWER CAUSING A QUICK SLOW-DOWN, SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR BOTH. IT APPEARS I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH THESE TYPES OF ISSUES AFTER GOOGLING THE ISSUE. SEEMS LIKE ITS TIME TO GET THESE TRANSMISSIONS FIXED CORRECTLY BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED! PLEASE RECALL NOW B4 IT'S TOO LATE! *TR
Official recalls
216V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
Oct 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.
14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System
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