NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
60 reportsClear category filter60,250 miles · Jul 18, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 25 MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD, THEN BEGAN RAPIDLY DECELERATING. I HAD TO GET OFF THE ROAD AND COAST TO A STOP. I TURNED THE CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED IT AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE, BUT THE PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN LATER THAT DAY AND SEVERAL MORE TIMES IN THE COMING WEEKS. IT HAS HAPPENED AT VARIO…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 25 MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD, THEN BEGAN RAPIDLY DECELERATING. I HAD TO GET OFF THE ROAD AND COAST TO A STOP. I TURNED THE CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED IT AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE, BUT THE PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN LATER THAT DAY AND SEVERAL MORE TIMES IN THE COMING WEEKS. IT HAS HAPPENED AT VARIOUS SPEEDS AND UNDER DIVERSE CONDITIONS. IT IS INTERMITTENT AND UNPREDICTABLE. AFTER NEARLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT ON THE INTERSTATE DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE I AM NOW LIMITED TO SURFACE STREETS AND ONLY WHEN I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DRIVE MY CAR. AFTER DOING SOME READING IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS A KNOWN DEFECT WITH THE THROTTLE BODY AND I WORRY THAT EVEN IF I PAY OUT OF POCKET TO HAVE IT REPAIRED I WILL ONLY BE BUYING ANOTHER PART WITH THE SAME DEFECT. MY HOPE IS THAT FORD WILL ISSUE A RECALL OF THE VEHICLES FOR WHICH THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525630
51,000 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
CAR WENT INTO 'LIMP MODE" AT ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. HAD TO STOP, TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN RESTARTED. WARNING LIGHT WENT OFF BUT IT OCCURRED AGAIN IN ABOUT 5 MILES. WENT TO FORD DEALER THE NEXT DAY AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG NOR DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN…
Read full complaint
CAR WENT INTO 'LIMP MODE" AT ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. HAD TO STOP, TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN RESTARTED. WARNING LIGHT WENT OFF BUT IT OCCURRED AGAIN IN ABOUT 5 MILES. WENT TO FORD DEALER THE NEXT DAY AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG NOR DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN A COUPLE OF MILES AFTER LEAVING THE DEALERSHIP. I IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THE DEALER AND THEY ONCE AGAIN COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG. TWO DAYS LATER ON I-95 THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP MODE" THE ORANGE LIGHT CAME ON AND I DROVE TO THE SIDE. THE TRAFFIC WAS BACKED UP SO I WAS GOING ABOUT 25 MPH WHEN THIS OCCURRED. WHEN I RESTARTED THE ENGINE THIS TIME, THE "WRENCH" WARNING LIGHT WENT OFF BUT THE "CHECK THE ENGINE" LIGHT CAME ON AND REMAINED ON. NEXT DAY RETURNED TO THE DEALER AND THIS TIME THEY SAID THEY FOUND THE PROBLEM AND IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. IN RESEARCHING ON LINE I FOUND THAT THIS IS OCCURRING WITH SOME FREQUENCY AND WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO SEE FORD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUING A DEFECTIVE PART. AS OF NOW IT LOOKS LIKE I WILL HAVE TO PAY THE BILL AND HOPE THAT THE NEW PART IS NOT DEFECTIVE ALSO. IT IS A REAL SAFETY ISSUE AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE RESOLVED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525219
36,150 miles · Jul 12, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING ALONG NORMALLY WHEN THE CAR LURCHED AND THE ENGINE WENT TO IDLE. I PULLED ONTO A LOT AND STOPPED THE ENGINE WHILE I LOOKED UP WHAT THE WRENCH LIGHT MEANT. WHEN I RESTARTED THE CAR IT SOUNDED NORMAL, BUT WHEN I GOT BACK ON THE ROAD AND ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE IT DID THE SAME THING. I PULLED OFF THE ROAD AGAIN AND…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ALONG NORMALLY WHEN THE CAR LURCHED AND THE ENGINE WENT TO IDLE. I PULLED ONTO A LOT AND STOPPED THE ENGINE WHILE I LOOKED UP WHAT THE WRENCH LIGHT MEANT. WHEN I RESTARTED THE CAR IT SOUNDED NORMAL, BUT WHEN I GOT BACK ON THE ROAD AND ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE IT DID THE SAME THING. I PULLED OFF THE ROAD AGAIN AND STOPPED THE ENGINE AGAIN FOR A SHORT TIME. UPON RESTARTING I PULLED BACK ONTO THE ROAD AND COULD ACCELERATE TO ABOUT 20 MPH WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS. I THEN LIMPED THE CAR TO THE DEALER, ABOUT 2 - 3 MILES AWAY, AND LEFT IT. THE NEXT DAY THE DEALER CALLED AND ADVISED ME THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED (150 MILES OUT OF WARRANTY) AND THE LAST ONE THE DID TOOK 2 MONTHS TO OBTAIN. I HAVE READ ON THE INTERNET THAT THERE HAVE BEEN 27,000 COMPLAINTS LIKE THIS ONE. ISN'T IT ABOUT TIME FOR A RECALL! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524592
36,000 miles · Jul 5, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN LOST THROTTLE. THE VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND POWER CYCLE THE VEHICLE. THIS HAPPENED 8 TIMES IN 40 MILES. EACH TIME THE WRENCH INDICATOR WOULD DISPLAY ON THE DASH. I CHECKED THE ERROR CODES AND THERE WERE SEVERAL OCCURRENCES OF P2111 AND P2112. THIS H…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN LOST THROTTLE. THE VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND POWER CYCLE THE VEHICLE. THIS HAPPENED 8 TIMES IN 40 MILES. EACH TIME THE WRENCH INDICATOR WOULD DISPLAY ON THE DASH. I CHECKED THE ERROR CODES AND THERE WERE SEVERAL OCCURRENCES OF P2111 AND P2112. THIS HAPPENED TO A RELATIVE DRIVING MY VEHICLE A COUPLE DAYS AGO, AND MY WIFE A MONTH AGO. THE ISSUE SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING MORE FREQUENTLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523301
29,067 miles · Jun 29, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
DRIVING ON LOCAL STREET VEHICLE LOST POWER WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON DASH. PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD SHUT OFF ENGINE. RESTARTED ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WENT OFF. THIS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES WITH THE ENGINE CHECK LIGHT ALSO COMING ON. TOOK TO DEALER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CODE P2111 . *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522384
100,000 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING THROUGH ROAD CONSTRUCTION ON THE INTERSTATE MY MARINER LOST POWER. I HAD MY CHILD IN THE BACKSEAT AND WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PULL OVER AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. THE POWER TRAIN LIGHT AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I STARTED IT BACK UP AND CONTINUED UNTIL I COULD EXIT OFF THE INTERSTATE AND CONTINUE ON THE HIGHWAY…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THROUGH ROAD CONSTRUCTION ON THE INTERSTATE MY MARINER LOST POWER. I HAD MY CHILD IN THE BACKSEAT AND WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PULL OVER AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. THE POWER TRAIN LIGHT AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I STARTED IT BACK UP AND CONTINUED UNTIL I COULD EXIT OFF THE INTERSTATE AND CONTINUE ON THE HIGHWAY, WHERE IT HAPPENED AGAIN. AGAIN, I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND GOT IT STARTED BACK UP. THIS HAPPENED ONE MORE TIME BEFORE I GOT IT TO THE MECHANIC. HE SAID THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND THAT IT WAS ON A NATIONAL BACK ORDER. THERE ARE 8,000 REQUESTS FOR THIS PART! WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR FORD TO FINALLY ISSUE A RECALL ON AN OBVIOUSLY DEFECTIVE PART, A FATALITY? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522251
58,849 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EnginePower Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THERE WAS A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AS THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE F…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THERE WAS A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AS THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 58,849 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 59,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521679
37,500 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY HIGHWAY WHEN MY CAR JERKED AND THEN STALLED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND TURN THE CAR OFF. THE CAR RESTARTED AND ACCELERATED NORMALLY. THIS OCCURRED THREE MORE TIMES. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER AND SENT ME HOME (…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY HIGHWAY WHEN MY CAR JERKED AND THEN STALLED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND TURN THE CAR OFF. THE CAR RESTARTED AND ACCELERATED NORMALLY. THIS OCCURRED THREE MORE TIMES. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER AND SENT ME HOME (IN THE UNSAFE CAR). I NOW AM WAITING TO HEAR ABOUT WHEN THEY CAN GET THE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521614
4,600 miles · Jun 24, 2013
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING MY MARINER AND TURN INTO A HEAVY TRAFFIC ROAD AND MY CAR JUST WENT DEAD ONCE I WAS IN TRAFFIC. L WAS LUCKY THAT I WASN'T HIT FROM BEHIND ME. THE CAR WARNINGS DISPLAYED A WRENCH ON THE CAR PANEL. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE SHOP AND IT REQUIRED REPAIRS TO THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN. THE CAR ONLY HAS ABOUT 4600 M…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY MARINER AND TURN INTO A HEAVY TRAFFIC ROAD AND MY CAR JUST WENT DEAD ONCE I WAS IN TRAFFIC. L WAS LUCKY THAT I WASN'T HIT FROM BEHIND ME. THE CAR WARNINGS DISPLAYED A WRENCH ON THE CAR PANEL. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE SHOP AND IT REQUIRED REPAIRS TO THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN. THE CAR ONLY HAS ABOUT 4600 MILES ON IT. I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS PROBLEM ON THE INTERNET AND THIS IS A RECURRING PROBLEMS. THERE WAS NO WARNING OF A PROBLEM. THE CAR JUST DIED IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND SEEM TO BE A KNOWN PROBLEM. DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE THEY GET THIS PROBLEM IS RECALLED? THE PROBLEM OCCURRED SO QUICKLY THAT IF YOU ARE NOT OBSERVANT TO YOUR PANEL, YOU WILL MISS IT. AND, IT YOU ARE IN AN ACCIDENT WHEN IT OCCURS, YOU WILL NEVER SEE IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521569
78,000 miles · Jun 18, 2013
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN MY GAS PEDAL COMPLETELY STOPPED WORKING. THE ONLY INDICATOR WAS THE WRENCH LIGHT THAT CAME ON AT THE SAME TIME THE GAS PEDAL STOPPING FUNCTIONING. I ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT TRYING TO MAKE MY WAY TO A SHOULDER WITH NO WAY TO ACCELERATE DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. AFTER BEING AT THE DEALERSHI…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN MY GAS PEDAL COMPLETELY STOPPED WORKING. THE ONLY INDICATOR WAS THE WRENCH LIGHT THAT CAME ON AT THE SAME TIME THE GAS PEDAL STOPPING FUNCTIONING. I ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT TRYING TO MAKE MY WAY TO A SHOULDER WITH NO WAY TO ACCELERATE DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. AFTER BEING AT THE DEALERSHIP, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS BAD AND HAD TO BE REPLACED COSTING $500.00. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10520378
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