NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Steering complaints
61 reportsClear category filter88,500 miles · Dec 5, 2016
Steering
ORIGINAL OWNER: THE VEHICLE WOULD WAS PARKED WITHOUT ISSUE YESTERDAY. BACKED IT UP THIS MORNING AND THERE WAS NO POWER STEERING. SHUT IT OFF AND TRIED AGAIN AND THERE WAS STILL NO POWER STEERING. ON THE THIRD ATTEMPT, THE POWER STEERING RETURNED AND I VERY CAUTIOUSLY DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. THERE WERE NO ERROR MESSAGES DISPL…
Read full complaint
ORIGINAL OWNER: THE VEHICLE WOULD WAS PARKED WITHOUT ISSUE YESTERDAY. BACKED IT UP THIS MORNING AND THERE WAS NO POWER STEERING. SHUT IT OFF AND TRIED AGAIN AND THERE WAS STILL NO POWER STEERING. ON THE THIRD ATTEMPT, THE POWER STEERING RETURNED AND I VERY CAUTIOUSLY DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. THERE WERE NO ERROR MESSAGES DISPLAYED OR WARNINGS WHILE IT WAS OUT. (CHANGE OIL REMINDER WAS LIT). DEALERSHIP RAN DIAGNOSTICS AND TRIED TO RECREATE THE ISSUE WITHOUT PROBLEMS. THIS VEHICLE WAS BUILT IN THE KANSAS CITY PLANT DURING THE TIME OF THE RECALL FROM OCT 2014, BUT FOR SOME REASON, THE VIN IS NOT INCLUDED. AUTHORIZED FORD DEALERSHIP RECOMMENDED "BASED ON CONCERN ONLY" TO "REPLACE THE ELEC. STEERING TORQUE SENSOR AND RECALIBRATION." I DON'T FEEL SAFE DRIVING THIS OR SELLING TO SOMEONE ELSE, EVEN WITH THE REPAIR!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10930063
110,000 miles · Apr 21, 2016
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER WHILE TRYING TO BACK OUT OF A PARKING SPACE. THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING), BUT THE REMEDY FAILED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE.…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER WHILE TRYING TO BACK OUT OF A PARKING SPACE. THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING), BUT THE REMEDY FAILED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000.
NHTSA ODI #10860738
107,000 miles · Mar 25, 2016
Steering
MY TORQUE SENSOR FAILED AFTER RECALL 14S05 WAS PERFORMED. THIS ALMOST CAUSED AN ACCIDENT GOING 70 MPH ON I70 BECAUSE THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WENT INTO MANUAL MODE WITH NO WARNING. HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO LARRY H MILLER FORD FOR SERVICE FOUND BAD TORQUE SENSOR WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN FIXED WITH THE RECALL. I HAVE TR…
Read full complaint
MY TORQUE SENSOR FAILED AFTER RECALL 14S05 WAS PERFORMED. THIS ALMOST CAUSED AN ACCIDENT GOING 70 MPH ON I70 BECAUSE THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WENT INTO MANUAL MODE WITH NO WARNING. HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO LARRY H MILLER FORD FOR SERVICE FOUND BAD TORQUE SENSOR WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN FIXED WITH THE RECALL. I HAVE TRIED TO WORK WITH FORD AND HAVE HAD NO LUCK WITH ANY RESOLUTION AND I AM GETTING THE RUN AROUND. FROM DOING MY RESEARCH, I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH THIS ISSUE AND I DO BELIEVE FORD HAS NOT MET THEIR OBLIGATION TO THIS RECALL. I WAS TOLD THAT IF I HAD NOT BROUGHT MY VEHICLE IN FOR THE RECALL I MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE REPLACEMENT. SO IF I HAD LET IT GO THEY WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM. BUT, BECAUSE I HAD THE RECALL ADDRESSED IT'S MY PROBLEM. DO NOT THINK FORD IS FIXING THE PROBLEM THEY ARE PUTTING A BANDAGE ON IT. FORD'S RECALL FIX, ONLY RE-FLASHED THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND DID NOT PROVIDE A HARDWARE FIX FOR THE TORQUE SENSOR ITSELF, WHICH FAILED FOR A SECOND TIME.
NHTSA ODI #10851649
201,000 miles · Mar 14, 2016
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A U TURN AT APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED NOR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A U TURN AT APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED NOR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 201,000.
NHTSA ODI #10846463
45,000 miles · Jan 25, 2016
EngineSteeringInjury
I SUFFERED AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE WHILE DRIVING IN A HIGHWAY, I COULD NOT STEER THE WHEEL AND THE ENGINE STOP WORKING. I WROTE BEFORE BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN ANSWER. WHAT CAN I DO? THANK YOU *TR
NHTSA ODI #10821954
25,012 miles · May 29, 2015
Steering
CANNOT GET ANY INFO ABOUT WHETHER MY WIFE'S VEHICLE HAS A RECALL. I PUT IN THE VIN IN YOUR WEBSITE AND IT TELLS ME THAT I MUST INPUT A VALID VIN. THIS FORM INDICATES THAT MY VIN IS VALID. WHAT GIVES?
NHTSA ODI #10722245
86,723 miles · Feb 17, 2015
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) AND HAD THE VEHICLE REPAIRED. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AFTER THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILURE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) AND HAD THE VEHICLE REPAIRED. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AFTER THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILURE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN ASSEMBLY FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 86,723.
NHTSA ODI #10683823
43,757 miles · Nov 18, 2014
Electrical SystemSteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
ON THAT DATE, I WAS DRIVING HOME WITH MY WIFE AT APPROXIMATELY 2 PM. SUDDENLY, THE CAR WENT OFF AND THE STEERING WHEEL WENT STIFF. AS I TRIED TO MOVE UNSUCCESSFULLY, WE WENT DOWN TO A SLOPE OF ABOUT 20 DEGREES. AS A RESULT, BOTH OF US HAD TO BE TAKEN FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT FOR KNOCKS, CUTS AND FOLLOW UP CHECKS. SO FAR, IT HAS …
Read full complaint
ON THAT DATE, I WAS DRIVING HOME WITH MY WIFE AT APPROXIMATELY 2 PM. SUDDENLY, THE CAR WENT OFF AND THE STEERING WHEEL WENT STIFF. AS I TRIED TO MOVE UNSUCCESSFULLY, WE WENT DOWN TO A SLOPE OF ABOUT 20 DEGREES. AS A RESULT, BOTH OF US HAD TO BE TAKEN FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT FOR KNOCKS, CUTS AND FOLLOW UP CHECKS. SO FAR, IT HAS COST US $16,497.00 AND REPAIR OF THE CAR US$6,853.00. THERE HAS BEEN OTHER EVENTS WHERE THE CAR SUDDENLY STOPS AND THE STEERING WHEEL BECOMES STIFF. BUT, I DON T USE THE CAR IN THE HIGHWAY BUT ONLY FOR SHORTS ERRANDS AND WITHIN THE AREA WHERE WE LIVE. ITS BEEN A NIGHTMARE. I HAVE CHANGED THE THROTTLE CASING MODULE, THE RESTRAINT CONTROL MODULE, I PUT A RUBBER STOP ON THE ACCELERATION PEDAL, ETC. AGAIN, OUT OF THE ACCIDENT IT HAS BEEN OVER 4 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN TRYING TO FIX THE CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10658793
28,000 miles · Oct 8, 2014
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. IT TOOK SEVERAL ATTEMPTS FOR THE CONTACT TO START THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE HOUSING PIECE FOR THE STEERING COLUMN FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 28,000.
NHTSA ODI #10643357
100,000 miles · Apr 1, 2014
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED WITHOUT WARNING ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS UPON MAKING A TURN. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY EXCESSIVE FORCE IN ORDER TO FULLY TURN THE STEERING WHEEL LEFT OR RIGHT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED WITHOUT WARNING ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS UPON MAKING A TURN. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY EXCESSIVE FORCE IN ORDER TO FULLY TURN THE STEERING WHEEL LEFT OR RIGHT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE VEHICLE WILL BE REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.
NHTSA ODI #10576231
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