NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Steering complaints
61 reportsClear category filter180,000 miles · Sep 19, 2020
Steering
ON MY DASH IT'S SAYS "POWER ASSIST FAULT" I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH AND IT SEEMS THERE HAVE BEEN TONS OF THESE MERCURY'S RECALLED BECAUSE OF THE POWER ASSIST FAULT GOING OUT AND VEHICLES LOOSING CONTROL OF THERE VEHICLES. MY VEHICLE IS A FEW MONTHS SHY IF MEETING THE DATE IN WHICH THESE MERCURY'S WERE RECALLED. I THINK IT'S A HUGE…
Read full complaint
ON MY DASH IT'S SAYS "POWER ASSIST FAULT" I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH AND IT SEEMS THERE HAVE BEEN TONS OF THESE MERCURY'S RECALLED BECAUSE OF THE POWER ASSIST FAULT GOING OUT AND VEHICLES LOOSING CONTROL OF THERE VEHICLES. MY VEHICLE IS A FEW MONTHS SHY IF MEETING THE DATE IN WHICH THESE MERCURY'S WERE RECALLED. I THINK IT'S A HUGE SAFETY RISK. AND BEINGS IN A SINGLE MOTHER OF 2 LITTLE GIRLS I THINK MAYBE MY MERCURY SHOULD BE FIXED. MINE IS LEGIT MESSED UP. I CAN BARLEY TURN IT. THE POWER STEERING IS ALL JACKED AROUND AND ITS CAUSING OTHER ISSUES. SUCH AS NOT MY CAR NEEDS ALIGNED. I WANTED TO KNOW HOW COME MINE IS MESSED UP BUT BECAUSE OF JUST A FEW MONTHS MINE DOESN'T HAVE THE RECALL. PLEASE HELP ME KEEP MY KIDS SAFE. THANK YOU I'M LOCATED IN SCOTTSVILLE KY 42164
NHTSA ODI #11359928
185,000 miles · Aug 27, 2020
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING LOST POWER AND WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE FORD LINCOLN OF QUEENS SERVICE CENTER DEALER, LOCATED IN QUEENS, NEW YORK, (888) 705-7067, AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING LOST POWER AND WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE FORD LINCOLN OF QUEENS SERVICE CENTER DEALER, LOCATED IN QUEENS, NEW YORK, (888) 705-7067, AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 185,000.
NHTSA ODI #11351524
148,000 miles · May 6, 2020
Steering
HAS MY GRANDMA WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HERE AND WASN?T ABLE TO MOVE IT. LUCKILY SHE WAS AT THE LAST LANE AND ABLE TO GET ON THE EMERGENCY LANE AND NOT CAR HIT HERE. I DID RESEARCH ON THIS AND IT SAID THAT MANY OTHER YEAR MAKE AND MODELS HAD A RECALL. FOR SOME REASON THEY DIDN?T DO A…
Read full complaint
HAS MY GRANDMA WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HERE AND WASN?T ABLE TO MOVE IT. LUCKILY SHE WAS AT THE LAST LANE AND ABLE TO GET ON THE EMERGENCY LANE AND NOT CAR HIT HERE. I DID RESEARCH ON THIS AND IT SAID THAT MANY OTHER YEAR MAKE AND MODELS HAD A RECALL. FOR SOME REASON THEY DIDN?T DO A RECALL ON ALL OF THEM JUST SOME DONE AT SOME PARTS OF THE STATE WHEN THEY ARE ALL MADE FOR THE SAME COMPANY. IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW HOW OR WHY HER SUV AIN'T UNDER THE RECALL. IF SHE DIDN'T HAVE THAT BIT OF LUCK THAT DAY SHE COULD'VE BE INJURED VERY BAD AND INJURED OTHERS AS WELL FOR THE STEERING WHEEL JUST TO LOCK WHILE DRIVING. THIS HAPPEN IN SAN ANTONIO TX ON HIGHWAY 35. *TR
NHTSA ODI #11323485
148,000 miles · Apr 29, 2020
Steering
THE OTHER DAY MY GRANDMOTHER STREERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HER MERCURY AS SHE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH. THANK GOD SHE WAS ABLE TO STOP THE CAR WITH OUT GETTING HIT. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS MAKE AND MODEL AND THEY HAVE A RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM JUST NOT WITH THE VEHICLES JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE IT WAS MADE. WHICH I …
Read full complaint
THE OTHER DAY MY GRANDMOTHER STREERING WHEEL LOCKED ON HER MERCURY AS SHE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY GOING 60 MPH. THANK GOD SHE WAS ABLE TO STOP THE CAR WITH OUT GETTING HIT. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS MAKE AND MODEL AND THEY HAVE A RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM JUST NOT WITH THE VEHICLES JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE IT WAS MADE. WHICH I THING IS WRONG IF THEY HAVE MANY RECALLS IN THE SAME MAKE AND MODEL THEY SHOULD HAVE THEM ON ALL OF THEM..
NHTSA ODI #11322733
110,000 miles · Feb 14, 2020
Steering
IN MOTION ON A STREET A POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT WARNING CAME ON, SHORTLY AFTER LOST POWER STEERING. INFORMED BY FORD IT WAS FIXED AFTER RECALL ON SEP 22ND 2014, AND IS NO LONGER VALID OR COVERED? SAME PROBLEM HAPPENING AGAIN AS THE FIRST RECALL
NHTSA ODI #11309260
146,054 miles · Feb 10, 2020
Fuel/propulsion SystemSteeringUnknown Or Other
WHEN FILLING GAS TANK YESTERDAY ONCE FULL GAS LEAKED FROM UNDER THE WHEEL WELL ONTO THE TIRES. THE CAR WAS PARKED AT A GAS STATION. I WAS ASKED TO MOVE THE CAR AWAY FROM THE PUMP BY THE GAS ATTENDANT.
NHTSA ODI #11308143
164,400 miles · Oct 16, 2019
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Steering
VEHICLE'S ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING TURNED OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF DRIVING, TURNING ON HIGHWAY, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES, SEEMS LIKE WHEN THE HEAT IS ON. RECALL 14S05C SHOWS UP IN SERVICE RECORDS FROM THIS CAR. WORKS WAS DONE MY MAHOPAC FORD, MAHOPAC, NY. REFLASH IC AND PSCM. THIS RECALL WAS APPARENTLY ADDRESSED, BUT THE PROBLEM H…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE'S ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING TURNED OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF DRIVING, TURNING ON HIGHWAY, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES, SEEMS LIKE WHEN THE HEAT IS ON. RECALL 14S05C SHOWS UP IN SERVICE RECORDS FROM THIS CAR. WORKS WAS DONE MY MAHOPAC FORD, MAHOPAC, NY. REFLASH IC AND PSCM. THIS RECALL WAS APPARENTLY ADDRESSED, BUT THE PROBLEM HAS COME BACK. I JUST BOUGHT THIS CAR USED TWO WEEKS AGO. IT DID NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM UNTIL I TURNED THE HEAT ON. NOT SURE WHAT TO DO.
NHTSA ODI #11268886
70,000 miles · May 29, 2019
Steering
POWER STEERING WENT OUT. THERE WAS A RECALL I SEE BUT FOR SOME REASON MINE ISNT COVERED. ITS A 2010 AND JUST TURNED 70K MILES. I SEE THIS IS COMMON BUT CANT FIND A FIX ONLINE.
NHTSA ODI #11210659
154,000 miles · Mar 15, 2019
Steering
I HAVE A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE POWER STEERING. I DIDN'T GET IT TAKEN IN RIGHT AWAY, JUST TOOK IT IN DECEMBER 2018 FOR OIL CHANGE AND HAD DEALERSHIP TAKE CARE OF RECALL ALSO. THEY UPDATED THE SOFTWARE BUT THAT IS WHEN MY TROUBLE STARTED WITH THE POWER STEERING. STEERING WHEEL HAD A TWITCH, SHAKING BY…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE POWER STEERING. I DIDN'T GET IT TAKEN IN RIGHT AWAY, JUST TOOK IT IN DECEMBER 2018 FOR OIL CHANGE AND HAD DEALERSHIP TAKE CARE OF RECALL ALSO. THEY UPDATED THE SOFTWARE BUT THAT IS WHEN MY TROUBLE STARTED WITH THE POWER STEERING. STEERING WHEEL HAD A TWITCH, SHAKING BY ITSELF WHILE CAR WAS RUNNING AT IDLE. WHEN THE SHAKING GOT REAL BAD I TOOK IT TO DEALER MARCH 7 2019 TO BE FIXED UNDER RECALL FOR POWER STEERING ASSIST LOSS. THE RECALL STARTED JULY 25 2014 WITH NO END DATE OF RECALL. THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY COULDN'T FIX IT UNDER THE RECALL BECAUSE FORD SAID IT HAD BEEN TO LONG AFTER THE RECALL. BASICALLY THEY WERE SAYING THE RECALL WAS OUTDATED. THEY TOLD ME I COULD HAVE IT FIXED FOR $800 OUT OF POCKET. A RECALL SHOULD NEVER BE OUTDATED BUT GO THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE. EVERY VEHICLE IS DIFFERENT WHEN THE THE PART GOES BAD AFTER A RECALL HAPPENS. MINE WAS ALMOST 5 YEARS AFTER RECALL STARTED. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE YOUR POWER STEERING GOES OUT IF NOT FIXED AFTER THE STEERING WHEEL STARTS TWITCHING. MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT 2 DAYS AFTER I HAD TAKEN IT IN TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT FIXED FOR WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A REAL RECALL. APPARENTLY FORD HAS FAKE RECALLS. WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR VEHICLE IN THEY REFUSE TO FIX IT BECAUSE THEY SAY WHAT RECALL. THE POWER STEERING WENT OUT WHEN I STOPPED TO GET GAS. I STARTED THE CAR BACK UP AFTER GETTING GAS IT WAS GONE. I CALLED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE NUMBER MARCH 14 2019. I LET THEM KNOW WHAT MY ISSUE WAS. THEY DID THERE RESEARCH AND CALLED ME BACK MARCH 15 2019 ONLY TO LET ME KNOW THAT THE UPDATE THE DEALERSHIP DID IN DECEMBER 2018 WAS THE FIX. IT WAS ONE AND DONE. THEY WERE NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE, THEY TOLD ME. SO THE UPDATE CANCELLED OUT THE REAL FIX OF CHANGING THE TORQUE SENSOR IN THE STEERING COLUMN WHICH 2 DAYS LATER LEFT ME WITHOUT POWER STEERING.
NHTSA ODI #11187168
140,000 miles · Feb 18, 2019
Steering
IT HAPPENED ABOUT ONCE A MONTH, I WOULD HAVE NO POWER STEERING WHEN IN TRAFFIC, IN MOTION, TURNING FOR ABOUT 3 - 5 SECONDS, THEN BACK TO NORMAL STEERING. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY RECALL AT THE TIME. THEN WHILE IN MOTION, TURNING INTO TRAFFIC POWER STEERING STOPPED COMPLETELY, WITH MESSAGE "POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT" I LOOKED…
Read full complaint
IT HAPPENED ABOUT ONCE A MONTH, I WOULD HAVE NO POWER STEERING WHEN IN TRAFFIC, IN MOTION, TURNING FOR ABOUT 3 - 5 SECONDS, THEN BACK TO NORMAL STEERING. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY RECALL AT THE TIME. THEN WHILE IN MOTION, TURNING INTO TRAFFIC POWER STEERING STOPPED COMPLETELY, WITH MESSAGE "POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT" I LOOKED ONLINE, AND FOUND OUT ABOUT THE RECALL. DEALER SAYS STEERING RECALL WAS COMPLETED BUT I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED WHEN. THE PROBLEM HAS NEVER STOPPED FOR ME. NOW IT IS A PERMANENT PROBLEM, AND DEALER SAYS NO WARRANTY, NO RECALL. CAN I FORCE THE DEALER TO RE-DO THE RECALL SOMEHOW?
NHTSA ODI #11180827
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