NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
60 reportsClear category filter50,000 miles · Jan 31, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
TWICE IN TWO DAYS WHILE SPEEDING UP TO GET ON HIGHWAY MY MARINER LOOSES COMPLETE POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. LUCKY FOR ME IT WAS JUST BEFORE I WAS TURNING ON TO MERGE. SECONDS LATER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT, DUE TO THE SUDDEN STOP. I HAD TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND START IT BACK UP IN ORDER TO GET GOING AGAIN. …
Read full complaint
TWICE IN TWO DAYS WHILE SPEEDING UP TO GET ON HIGHWAY MY MARINER LOOSES COMPLETE POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. LUCKY FOR ME IT WAS JUST BEFORE I WAS TURNING ON TO MERGE. SECONDS LATER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT, DUE TO THE SUDDEN STOP. I HAD TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND START IT BACK UP IN ORDER TO GET GOING AGAIN. AFTER READING #PE13003 HAS BEEN FILE FOR THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM WITH SAME MAKE AND MODEL. SOMEONE BETTER REACT BEFORE SOMEONE LOOSES A LIFE. THIS IS HORRIBLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10562355
32,400 miles · Dec 27, 2013
Power Train
WHILE TRAVELING AT 65, WRENCH POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. ABLE TO GET TO SIDE OF ROAD. CALLED FORD ROADSIDE, WRECKER TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. FOUND FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. REPLACED UNDER EXTENDED WARRANTY. SCARY SITUATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10557423
56,000 miles · Dec 26, 2013
Power Train
WAS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY GOING ABOUT 70 WHEN I LOST ALL POWER TO ACCELERATE. I NOTED THE WRENCH SYMBOL ALSO HAD JUST CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER TO THE SHOULDER AND TURN MY CAR OFF. BEFORE IT TURNED OFF THE CAR SHOOK QUITE A BIT. I LET THE CAR SIT FOR ABOUT A MINUTE RE-STARTED AND NOTED THE WRENCH WAS GONE AND I COULD ACC…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY GOING ABOUT 70 WHEN I LOST ALL POWER TO ACCELERATE. I NOTED THE WRENCH SYMBOL ALSO HAD JUST CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER TO THE SHOULDER AND TURN MY CAR OFF. BEFORE IT TURNED OFF THE CAR SHOOK QUITE A BIT. I LET THE CAR SIT FOR ABOUT A MINUTE RE-STARTED AND NOTED THE WRENCH WAS GONE AND I COULD ACCELERATE. LATER THAT DAY IT HAPPENED TO ME AGAIN. CAR IS IN SHOP AND THEY TOLD ME IT IS A BAD THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10557253
48,000 miles · Dec 9, 2013
Power Train
LOSS OF POWER ON HIGHWAY..SO THANKFUL I DIDNT GET HIT BY OTHER VEHICLES..WAS SO SCARED..THE WRENCH CAME UP ON DASH...FORD SAID EITHER DRIVE TRAIN OR THROTTLE. ..LET ME SAY, I HAVE 48000 MILES ..IF HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS, MAY CALL LAWYER..HAVE SO MANY COMPLAINTS AND FORD HAD NOT ANYTHING ABOUT IT...ARE THEY WAITING FOR A DEATH??? M…
Read full complaint
LOSS OF POWER ON HIGHWAY..SO THANKFUL I DIDNT GET HIT BY OTHER VEHICLES..WAS SO SCARED..THE WRENCH CAME UP ON DASH...FORD SAID EITHER DRIVE TRAIN OR THROTTLE. ..LET ME SAY, I HAVE 48000 MILES ..IF HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS, MAY CALL LAWYER..HAVE SO MANY COMPLAINTS AND FORD HAD NOT ANYTHING ABOUT IT...ARE THEY WAITING FOR A DEATH??? MY SUV WAS TAKEN TO TED RUSSELL FORD PARKSIDE DRIVE KNOXVILLE TENNESSEE. ..HAVE NOT HEARD THE PROBLEM YET..VERY DISSAPPOINTED WITH FORD PRODUCT...IF NOT TOOK CARE OF..WILL NEVER BY ANOTHER FORD EVER... *TR
NHTSA ODI #10555376
48,717 miles · Nov 21, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING UPON A ROADWAY IN OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER SUDDENLY STOPPED TRAVELING AT SPEED, AND WENT INTO 'LIMP MODE'. I WAS ABLE TO SLOWLY PULL THE VEHICLE INTO A PARKING LOT. I CALLED MY WRECKER SERVICE AND THEY TOWED (FLATBED) MY VEHICLE BACK TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE I BOU…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING UPON A ROADWAY IN OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER SUDDENLY STOPPED TRAVELING AT SPEED, AND WENT INTO 'LIMP MODE'. I WAS ABLE TO SLOWLY PULL THE VEHICLE INTO A PARKING LOT. I CALLED MY WRECKER SERVICE AND THEY TOWED (FLATBED) MY VEHICLE BACK TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE I BOUGHT IT. I PURCHASED THE 2010 MERCURY MARINER NEW FROM THE SAME DEALER. THEY EXAMINED IT AND DETERMINED THAT THE 'THROTTLE BODY' NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THEY DECLINED TO REPAIR IT UNDER WARRANTY, STATING THAT THE PART WAS NO LONGER COVERED. THEY ALSO STATED THAT A RECALL HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED. I PAID A TOTAL OF $409.27 FOR THE REPAIR. THE TOW BILL WAS COVERED UNDER MY MEMBERSHIP IN AAA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553164
42,000 miles · Nov 12, 2013
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING APPROX. 45 MPH THE WRENCH-SHAPED WARNING LIGHT CAME ON AND I LOST PROPULSION...ENGINE STILL RUNNING, RADIO, A/C STILL OPERATING BUT 0 RPMS. I COASTED TO A STOP ON A SIDE ROAD AND CALLED A TOW TRUCK. MECHANIC TELLS ME IT IS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY AND WILL BE PRETTY EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10551883
103,119 miles · Nov 8, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING WHEN WRENCH SYMBOL CAME ON DASHBOARD AND RPMS DROPPED TO UNDER 1 AND SPEED DROPPED. COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT AT WHICH POINT CAR COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN. COULD TURN CAR BACK ON. HAD TOWED AND THROTTLE BODY REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10551552
61,100 miles · Oct 16, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHEN DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED OF 20-25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND BUCKED A LITTLE. THE WRENCH (POWERTRAIN) SIGNAL LIGHT UP ON THE DASH, SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, AND SHUT IT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES I TURNED IT ON AGAIN AND ALL SEEMED FINE, THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOW SLOW MOVING AND LESS SMOOTH…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED OF 20-25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND BUCKED A LITTLE. THE WRENCH (POWERTRAIN) SIGNAL LIGHT UP ON THE DASH, SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, AND SHUT IT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES I TURNED IT ON AGAIN AND ALL SEEMED FINE, THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOW SLOW MOVING AND LESS SMOOTH THROUGH SHIFTING. THE SAME THING OCCURRED 9 DAYS LATER, WITH THE VEHICLE RESPONDING EVEN MORE SLOWLY AFTERWARDS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10548116
17,000 miles · Oct 14, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING AT 50 MILES PER HOUR THE SUV LOST ALL POWER AND HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED AND RAN FINE. THREE DAYS LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN. TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY ON THE MOTOR WAS BAD. THEY SAID IT WASN'T COVERED UNDER MY DRIVE TRAIN WARRANTY AND …
Read full complaint
DRIVING AT 50 MILES PER HOUR THE SUV LOST ALL POWER AND HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED AND RAN FINE. THREE DAYS LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN. TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY ON THE MOTOR WAS BAD. THEY SAID IT WASN'T COVERED UNDER MY DRIVE TRAIN WARRANTY AND CHARGED ME 300.00 DOLLARS. THE SUV ONLY HAS 17,000 MILES ON IT.. I READ THERE IS 27,000 COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. WHY IS THERE NOT A RECALL ON THESE VEHICLES? SOME ONE IS GOING TO GET HURT OR KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547887
48,400 miles · Oct 12, 2013
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT BOUT 70 MPH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE GAS PEDAL WENT LIMP AND I COULDN'T ACCELERATE ANYMORE. I SLOWED DOWN TO ABOUT 45 MPH WITH CARS FLYING PAST ME. I WAS ABLE TO MOVE TO THE SHOULDER AND TURN THE CAR OFF. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED SO I CALLED MY BOYFRIEND AND HE CAME AND CHECKED THE OIL AND A FE…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT BOUT 70 MPH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE GAS PEDAL WENT LIMP AND I COULDN'T ACCELERATE ANYMORE. I SLOWED DOWN TO ABOUT 45 MPH WITH CARS FLYING PAST ME. I WAS ABLE TO MOVE TO THE SHOULDER AND TURN THE CAR OFF. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED SO I CALLED MY BOYFRIEND AND HE CAME AND CHECKED THE OIL AND A FEW OTHER THINGS BUT EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE OK. I GOT BACK IN THE CAR AND IT STARTED FINE AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT HOME. I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE MY CAR ON THE FREEWAY AGAIN KNOWING THIS PROBLEM COULD AND PROBABLY WILL KEEP HAPPENING UNTIL I GET THE PART REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547717
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