← 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

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

66 reports
Clear category filter
58,000 miles · Oct 20, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control

WHEN INTERING TO TUNNEL MY CAR SUDDENLY SPEED UP IT FELT LIKE I HAD THE GAS PEDLE DOWN TO THE FLOOR. EVEN WHILE HOLDING THE BRAKE ALL THE WAY DOWN, THIS DID NOT SLOW THE CAR DOWN MUCH. THERE WERE NO WARNING LIGHTS OR CHECK ENGINE LIGHTS ON THEN OR NOW

NHTSA ODI #10917605

127,005 miles · Aug 27, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control

ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY P2119 CODE. ALL OF THE SUDDEN LOSSES POWER GOING INTO OR OUT OF TRAFFIC AND THE WRENCH TOOL LIGHT "LIGHTS UP" IT MAY GO AWAY BY ITSELF OR NOT , "CUT BE SCARY" AT TIMES IT HAS SHUT DOWN IN SEVERAL INSTANCES ON MY OWN ST OR DOWN THE AVE OR ANOTHER TOWN ETC... FOR NO APPARENT REASON IT HAPPENS WHILE TURNING…

Read full complaint

ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY P2119 CODE. ALL OF THE SUDDEN LOSSES POWER GOING INTO OR OUT OF TRAFFIC AND THE WRENCH TOOL LIGHT "LIGHTS UP" IT MAY GO AWAY BY ITSELF OR NOT , "CUT BE SCARY" AT TIMES IT HAS SHUT DOWN IN SEVERAL INSTANCES ON MY OWN ST OR DOWN THE AVE OR ANOTHER TOWN ETC... FOR NO APPARENT REASON IT HAPPENS WHILE TURNING OR DURING ACCELERATION AT ONE POINT I HAD TO WAIT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES ON THE HIGHWAY BEFORE STARTING THE VEHICLE AGAIN AND I GET SIMILAR CODES RELATED TO TBS POWERTRAIN AND THE FUEL CAP I NOTICED THAT WHEN FILLING UP, I NEED TO STOP PUMPING GAS ONCE IT HAS STOPS AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT ME TOPPING IT OFF NOT EVEN ONCE! AND THE LIGHT WILL MOST LIKELY WILL NOT COME ON,IT MAY GO AWAY BY ITSELF IF NOT I ERASE THE CODE.I CLEAN THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY LAST SUMMER AND IT HAS RUN WITH NO PROBLEMS AT ALL UNTIL NOW! WELL A MONTH A GO! THIS SUMMER I AM GETTING LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE TBS AGAIN SAME SYMPTOMS LIKE BEFORE ALL OVER AGAIN,EXCEPT FOR THE GAS LIGHT. THANK YOU

NHTSA ODI #10901990

78,000 miles · Jun 25, 2015
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

VEHICLE SURGES WILDLY AT IDLE SPEEDS IN TRAFFIC. VEHICLE STALLS OUT WHILE DRIVING REGULAR HIGHWAY SPEED, SURGES WILDLY WHILE DRIVING, RPM SPIKES DRASTICALLY WHILE DRIVING AND AT IDLE. STALLS AND SURGES BOTH WHILE ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION AND WHILE DRIVING AT REGULAR PACE. STRUGGLES TO CRANK AFTER FUELING THE V…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE SURGES WILDLY AT IDLE SPEEDS IN TRAFFIC. VEHICLE STALLS OUT WHILE DRIVING REGULAR HIGHWAY SPEED, SURGES WILDLY WHILE DRIVING, RPM SPIKES DRASTICALLY WHILE DRIVING AND AT IDLE. STALLS AND SURGES BOTH WHILE ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION AND WHILE DRIVING AT REGULAR PACE. STRUGGLES TO CRANK AFTER FUELING THE VEHICLE. SPITS AND SPUTTER AND SHAKES WHILE AT IDLE....UPDATED10/20/15 *BF

NHTSA ODI #10730299

73,400 miles · Mar 10, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed Control

THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND THE WRENCH SYMBOL ILLUMINATED. I HAD TO PULL OVER TURN OFF THE CAR AND RESTART IT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10693356

63,000 miles · Dec 3, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control

DRIVING FROM COLUMBUS TO CINCINNATI AROUND 1:00 AM WITH MY DAUGHTER, SON AND 15 MONTH OLD GRANDDAUGHTER. THE CAR LOST ALL POWER LEAVING US STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AS I PULLED OVER THE CAR BEGAN TO SHAKE, ALMOST LIKE THERE WAS WATER IN THE GAS LINE. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN RESTARTED. THE …

Read full complaint

DRIVING FROM COLUMBUS TO CINCINNATI AROUND 1:00 AM WITH MY DAUGHTER, SON AND 15 MONTH OLD GRANDDAUGHTER. THE CAR LOST ALL POWER LEAVING US STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AS I PULLED OVER THE CAR BEGAN TO SHAKE, ALMOST LIKE THERE WAS WATER IN THE GAS LINE. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN RESTARTED. THE CAR RESET ITSELF AND LUCKILY WE MADE IT THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. NOT TOO LONG AFTER THAT, I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AND IT DID THE SAME THING. EXCEPT THIS TIME, IT WOULD ONLY GO ABOUT 2 MILES BEFORE IT WOULD QUIT AGAIN. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS ISSUE. NO ONLY COULD I HAVE BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT, BUT BEING STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE EXPRESSWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITH AN INFANT WAS TERRIFYING! I HAD THE THROTTLE VALVE SENSOR REPLACED AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ADDITIONAL INSTANCES OF POWER FAILURE.

NHTSA ODI #10662771

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

42,000 miles · Oct 9, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF GAS. WE PULLED OFF THE STREET AND SHUT IT DOWN AND WAITED,WE HAD PLENTY OF GAS. WE STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT SEEMED OK, THE ENGINE AND POWER TRAIN LIGHTS REMAINED ON. SINCE I HAD TAKEN IT IN FOR THE RECALL ALREADY AND WE WERE CLOSE TO SOUTHGATE FORD WE PULLED INTO THE SERVICE AREA I SPOKE TO …

Read full complaint

CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS RUNNING OUT OF GAS. WE PULLED OFF THE STREET AND SHUT IT DOWN AND WAITED,WE HAD PLENTY OF GAS. WE STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT SEEMED OK, THE ENGINE AND POWER TRAIN LIGHTS REMAINED ON. SINCE I HAD TAKEN IT IN FOR THE RECALL ALREADY AND WE WERE CLOSE TO SOUTHGATE FORD WE PULLED INTO THE SERVICE AREA I SPOKE TO THE SERVICE PERSON AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST 600.00 TO FIX. I MENTIONED THE RECALL, HE SAID THAT WAS JUST FOR THE SOFTWARE WE THEN LEFT AN WENT TO AUTO ZONE WHERE THEY PUT THEIR DIAGNOSTIC TOOL ON THE CAR AND THE PRINT OUT READ THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. FORD DEALERS REFUSE TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY UNDER THE RECALL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10643489

30,000 miles · Oct 2, 2014
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

COMING TO A STOP AT A RED STOP LIGHT AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM RED TO GREEN LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION MY VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE, IT LOST POWER. IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE PASS 10MPH. AN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS A ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT. I DROVE AS I COULD AND MADE TO AUTO ZONE. THEY PLUG IN THE HAND HELD CAR COMPUTER AND …

Read full complaint

COMING TO A STOP AT A RED STOP LIGHT AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM RED TO GREEN LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION MY VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE, IT LOST POWER. IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE PASS 10MPH. AN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS A ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT. I DROVE AS I COULD AND MADE TO AUTO ZONE. THEY PLUG IN THE HAND HELD CAR COMPUTER AND IT GAVE THE CODE P2119. WHICH STANDS FOR THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10640939

126,000 miles · Sep 29, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WHEN I WAS DRIVING AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS...IT WOULD NOT MOVE SAFELY. I WAS VERY LUCKY BECAUSE THIS WAS AT A TRAFFIC INTERSECTION ON BEECHMONT AND EIGHT MILE. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE IT TO THE ENTERPRISE PARKING LOT ALBEIT IT WAS EXTREMELY SLOW AND I HAD CARS HONKING AT ME BEC…

Read full complaint

MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WHEN I WAS DRIVING AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS...IT WOULD NOT MOVE SAFELY. I WAS VERY LUCKY BECAUSE THIS WAS AT A TRAFFIC INTERSECTION ON BEECHMONT AND EIGHT MILE. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE IT TO THE ENTERPRISE PARKING LOT ALBEIT IT WAS EXTREMELY SLOW AND I HAD CARS HONKING AT ME BECAUSE OF THE LIGHTS ON THE INTERSECTION. THE MECHANIC REPAIR SHOP SAYS IT'S THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10639775

48,000 miles · May 4, 2014
Unknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control

I HAD TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS OF MY CAR STALLING IN THE PAST THREE DAYS. ON MAY 1ST I WAS TRAVELING AT ABOUT 40 MPH WHEN MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR STALLED OUT. FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A MEDIAN RIGHT BY ME AND I WAS ABLE TO HURRY UP AND MOVE OVER BEFORE THE CAR CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. ON MAY 3RD I WAS TRAVELING AT ABOUT 3…

Read full complaint

I HAD TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS OF MY CAR STALLING IN THE PAST THREE DAYS. ON MAY 1ST I WAS TRAVELING AT ABOUT 40 MPH WHEN MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR STALLED OUT. FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A MEDIAN RIGHT BY ME AND I WAS ABLE TO HURRY UP AND MOVE OVER BEFORE THE CAR CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. ON MAY 3RD I WAS TRAVELING AT ABOUT 35 MPH WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND MY CAR STALLED OUT IN MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. THIS TIME I WAS STUCK IN MIDDLE OF THE ROAD BUT NO ONE WAS BEHIND ME. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE CAR AND CONTINUE DRIVING. IF THIS HAD HAPPENED ON THE MAIN ROAD THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD CHANCE OF AN ACCIDENT OCCURRING AND HARMING ME OR MY CHILDREN.

NHTSA ODI #10586389

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.