← New search

2010 Mercury Mariner

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Mariner years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Mercury Mariner are substantially higher than the model-year median of 63.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Mariner years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

All reported categories

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

225 reports with mileage · 45 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 66 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Steering. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

2 crash reports2 fire reports3 injury reports

Steering complaints

61 reports
Clear category filter
120,000 miles · Oct 26, 2018
Electrical SystemSteering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING UNKNOWN SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN WHILE MAKING TURNS. IN ADDITION, THE BATTERY WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND REFERRED THE CONTACT …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING UNKNOWN SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN WHILE MAKING TURNS. IN ADDITION, THE BATTERY WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO NHTSA. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.

NHTSA ODI #11142894

14,000 miles · Apr 21, 2018
Steering

I WAS DRIVING MY CAR LIKE ANY DAY NORMALLY CAME HOME PARK THE CAR AND ASKED MY DAUGHTER TO PUT MY CAR IN GARAGE.BUT SHE CAME BACK AND SAID MY STEERING WHEEL WAS HARD TO TURN.I WENT OUT AND TRIED AND I COULD BARELY TURN THE STEERING WHEEL

NHTSA ODI #11089239

85,000 miles · Feb 16, 2018
Steering

MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER I RECENTLY PURCHASED SUDDENLY BECAME EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO STEER REQUIRING ALOT OF EFFORT TO TURN THE VEHICLE. LUCKILY NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED. I LATER FOUND A SAFETY RECALL ON THE NHTSA WEBSITE THAT STATED THIS COULD HAPPEN WITH THIS VEHICLE AND THAT FORD WOULD REPAIR THE PROBLEM FREE OF CHARGE. WHEN I CAL…

Read full complaint

MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER I RECENTLY PURCHASED SUDDENLY BECAME EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO STEER REQUIRING ALOT OF EFFORT TO TURN THE VEHICLE. LUCKILY NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED. I LATER FOUND A SAFETY RECALL ON THE NHTSA WEBSITE THAT STATED THIS COULD HAPPEN WITH THIS VEHICLE AND THAT FORD WOULD REPAIR THE PROBLEM FREE OF CHARGE. WHEN I CALLED FORD/LINCOLN THEY SAID THAT THIS VEHICLE HAD BEEN LOOKED AT A FEW MONTHS AGO AND HAD NOT DISPLAYED THIS PROBLEM AS OF THEN SO NO PARTS WERE REPLACED. NOW THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS DISPLAYED THE LACK OF STEERING PROBLEM THAT THE RECALL STATES IT COULD, FORD SAYS THEY DON'T HAVE TO FIX IT NOW BECAUSE THEY ALREADY LOOKED AT IT BEFORE IT DID IT... WHAT??? I AM HOPING YOU AT THE NHTSA WILL HELP ME TO GET FORD TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON HONORING THEIR SAFETY RECALL WITH MY VEHICLE AS THE RECALL STATES THAT FORD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF REPAIRS TO FIX THIS ISSUE WITH THE STEERING THAT MY VEHICLE IS EXPERIENCING. OBVIOUSLY SINCE MY VEHICLE DID EXACTLY WHAT THE SAFETY RECALL SAID IT COULD DO, FORD DID NOTHING TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM WHEN THEY CLAIM TO HAVE LOOKED AT IT BEFORE. THEREFORE, FORD SHOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO HONOR THE SAFETY RECALL AND CORRECT THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU.

NHTSA ODI #11073280

59,000 miles · Nov 13, 2017
Steering

POWER STEERING ASSIST LITE UP ON DASH BOARD. POWER STEERING WENT OUT. CAN NOT STEER CAR AS I ATTEMPTED TO TURN AND DRIVE OUT OF PARKING LOT. PARKED CAR AND NOT DRIVING CAR.

NHTSA ODI #11045748

126,000 miles · Oct 20, 2017
Steering

WHILE DRIVING WEST ON I-80 AT NIGHT AT 75MPH IN WYOMING THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER STEERING WITHOUT NOTICE. A FORD DEALER SAYS THE EPAS SYSTEM FAILED AND HAS TO BE REPLACED BY THE OWNER FOR $800. THIS OCCURRED EVEN AFTER THE FORD EPAS PSCM RECALL REPROGRAMING WAS PERFORMED IN 07/2014.

NHTSA ODI #11035091

100,000 miles · Sep 5, 2017
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHEN THE GEAR SHIFTER WAS PLACED IN DRIVE, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AT A LOW SPEED BUT THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK, THE POWER STEERING FAILED AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHEN THE GEAR SHIFTER WAS PLACED IN DRIVE, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AT A LOW SPEED BUT THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK, THE POWER STEERING FAILED AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE POWER STEERING ASSIST NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY OR INCLUDED IN A RECALL. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.

NHTSA ODI #11021503

123,300 miles · Apr 3, 2017
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AND THE POWER ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE SENSOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE F…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AND THE POWER ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE SENSOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE WAS PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED, BUT RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 123,300.

NHTSA ODI #10970281

125,000 miles · Feb 28, 2017
SteeringInjury

A MALFUNCTION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING, I CANT STEER MY VEHICLE.IT IS DIFFICULT TO STEER AND CONTROL THE VEHICLE. I WAS DRIVING AND THE STEERING START WOBBLING AND MAKING NOISE VIBRATING AND THE STEERING GO REAL STIFF. I CALLED THE RECALL DEPARTMENT THEY TOLD ME IT WAS A RECALL ON THE TORQUE SENSOR OR PSCM JULY 2014 TO TAK…

Read full complaint

A MALFUNCTION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING, I CANT STEER MY VEHICLE.IT IS DIFFICULT TO STEER AND CONTROL THE VEHICLE. I WAS DRIVING AND THE STEERING START WOBBLING AND MAKING NOISE VIBRATING AND THE STEERING GO REAL STIFF. I CALLED THE RECALL DEPARTMENT THEY TOLD ME IT WAS A RECALL ON THE TORQUE SENSOR OR PSCM JULY 2014 TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALER TO GET APPROVAL TO LET THEM KNOW , I DID THEY CHECKED IT OUT SAID IT WAS THE TORQUE SENSOR, CALLED FORD TO GET APPROVAL BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE RECALL LIST, WAS DENIED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU SAID IF THIS PROBLEM SHOWS A HISTORY LOSS OF THE TORQUE SENSOR SIGNAL OR FAIL CODES RELATING TO THE PSCM WHEN I BROUGHT IN FOR THE RECALL REMEDY, THE AFFECTED COMPONENTS WILL BE REPLACED FREE OF CHARGE. YOU TOLD ME THE RECALL WAS JULY 2014 AND AT THAT TIME YOU RESET THE PSCM AND CLUSTER MODULE. THAT DIDNOT FIX THE PROBLEM ONLY PUT A BANDAID ON THE REAL PROBLEM. I DID NOT OWN MY VEHICLE IN 2014. THIS IS HAPPENING AGAIN. AFTER THE FIRST RECALL. ANOTHER RECALL. WHY WONT YOU FIX IT MY ARMS SHOULDER NECK AND HEAD ARE INJURED BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT FIX WHAT IS A PART THAT CONSISTANTLY BREAK DOWN OR MALFUNCTION THAT'S HAPPENING OVER AND OVER. IT SHOULD BE SET FOR ANOTHER RECALL. THIS COULD NOT BE HAPPENING ONLY TO ME. DRIVING ON CITY STREETS IN MOTION WITH BAD STEERING ISSUES.

NHTSA ODI #10957569

100,000 miles · Feb 6, 2017
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE REVERSING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND THE VEHICLE BECAME DIFFICULT TO STEER IN ADDITION, THE ELECTRICAL POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE REVERSING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND THE VEHICLE BECAME DIFFICULT TO STEER IN ADDITION, THE ELECTRICAL POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000. UPDATED 04/19/17 *LJ UPDATED 09/25/2017*JS

NHTSA ODI #10949788

Mileage unknown · Dec 28, 2016
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED TO RESET THE COMPUTER. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED THE VIN WAS EXCLUDED FROM NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE CONTACT WAS UNCERTAIN OF WHEN THE VEHICLE WOULD BE REPAIRED. IN A…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED TO RESET THE COMPUTER. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED THE VIN WAS EXCLUDED FROM NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE CONTACT WAS UNCERTAIN OF WHEN THE VEHICLE WOULD BE REPAIRED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. UPDATED 02/22/17*LJ *CN

NHTSA ODI #10937857

Official recalls

2

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 26, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 29, 2014

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

3

DP15001 · 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.