THE VEHICLE STARTED TO STALL WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDDLE WAS ENGAGED, AFTER TURNING VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTING IT WOULD TRAVEL APPROXIMATELY 50 TO 100FT. BEFORE AGAIN STALLING. *TR
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
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.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
66 reportsWHEN DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED OF 20-25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND BUCKED A LITTLE. THE WRENCH (POWERTRAIN) SIGNAL LIGHT UP ON THE DASH, SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, AND SHUT IT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES I TURNED IT ON AGAIN AND ALL SEEMED FINE, THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOW SLOW MOVING AND LESS SMOOTH…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING AT A SLOW SPEED OF 20-25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND BUCKED A LITTLE. THE WRENCH (POWERTRAIN) SIGNAL LIGHT UP ON THE DASH, SO I PROCEEDED TO PULL OVER, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, AND SHUT IT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES I TURNED IT ON AGAIN AND ALL SEEMED FINE, THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOW SLOW MOVING AND LESS SMOOTH THROUGH SHIFTING. THE SAME THING OCCURRED 9 DAYS LATER, WITH THE VEHICLE RESPONDING EVEN MORE SLOWLY AFTERWARDS. *TR
DRIVING AT 50 MILES PER HOUR THE SUV LOST ALL POWER AND HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED AND RAN FINE. THREE DAYS LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN. TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY ON THE MOTOR WAS BAD. THEY SAID IT WASN'T COVERED UNDER MY DRIVE TRAIN WARRANTY AND …
Read full complaint
DRIVING AT 50 MILES PER HOUR THE SUV LOST ALL POWER AND HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED AND RAN FINE. THREE DAYS LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN. TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY ON THE MOTOR WAS BAD. THEY SAID IT WASN'T COVERED UNDER MY DRIVE TRAIN WARRANTY AND CHARGED ME 300.00 DOLLARS. THE SUV ONLY HAS 17,000 MILES ON IT.. I READ THERE IS 27,000 COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. WHY IS THERE NOT A RECALL ON THESE VEHICLES? SOME ONE IS GOING TO GET HURT OR KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. *TR
I WAS DRIVING ON A VERY BUSY AVENUE AT ABOUT 5:45PM AND MY VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING. THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON MY DASHBOARD AND MY VEHICLE WAS BASICALLY PUTT-PUTTING DOWN THE ROAD AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. DUE TO THE FACT THAT MY VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING, I WAS ALMOST IN A VERY BAD ACCIDENT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER TO …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON A VERY BUSY AVENUE AT ABOUT 5:45PM AND MY VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING. THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON MY DASHBOARD AND MY VEHICLE WAS BASICALLY PUTT-PUTTING DOWN THE ROAD AT A VERY SLOW SPEED. DUE TO THE FACT THAT MY VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING, I WAS ALMOST IN A VERY BAD ACCIDENT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER TO A PARKING SPACE ABOUT A 1/4 OF A MILE AND SHUT OFF MY CAR VEHICLE. I CALLED MY LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND TOLD THEM TO EXPECT ME. I HAD PLANS OF HAVING THE CAR TOWED. AFTER ABOUT 5 MINUTES OF HAVING MY VEHICLE OFF, I TRIED TO START IT AND IT WAS RUNNING NORMALLY. MY REPAIR SHOP TEST DROVE THE VEHICLE AND THE NEXT DAY AND DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG. THEY ALSO DIDN'T FIND ANY CODES APPEARING IN THE VEHICLES MEMORY. THEY DID FIND AN ARTICLE ONLINE ABOUT THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO THE SAME TYPE VEHICLES. I CALLED MY FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THERE WERE NO RECALLS AND WERE GOING TO CHECK IF THERE WERE ANY BULLETINS. I AM WAITING A PHONE CALL BACK. *TR
THROTTLE BODY IS GONE I GET THE P2111 CODE THIS PART IS COSTING ME 440.00 DOLLARS THE WARRANTY THE COMPANY SOLD ME DOES NOT COVER IT AND THAT IS A JOKE ALSO. *TR
DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE JUST SLOWED DOWN AND WAS NOT GETTING FUEL. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT NOT GETTING FUEL. I TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS OK. A FEW WEEKS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN AND I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT. I WANTED TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE THE WARRANTY EX…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE JUST SLOWED DOWN AND WAS NOT GETTING FUEL. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT NOT GETTING FUEL. I TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS OK. A FEW WEEKS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN AND I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED OUT. I WANTED TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED.THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. I HAD A COUPLE MORE ISSUES BUT I DID NOT DRIVE IT MUCH DURING COLDER WEATHER. IN JUNE OF 2013 I HAD ANOTHER INCIDENT WITH THE SAME ISSUE. OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS IT CONTINUED OCCASIONALLY BUT IN AUGUST OF 2013 IT STARTED MORE OFTEN. ONE INCIDENT WAS IN AN INTERSECTION THAT WAS VERY BUSY AND I CALLED THE SAME FORD DEALERSHIP TO GET IT IN AGAIN AND THEY THEN FOUND THE THROTTLE BODY WAS BAD AND HAD TO BE REPLACED, AT THIS TIME IT NOW CAST ME OVER $500.00 DOLLARS TO FIX IT. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED. THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ONTO THE EMERGENCY LANE. THE CONTACT SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHO STATE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED. THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ONTO THE EMERGENCY LANE. THE CONTACT SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THE THROTTLE WAS DEFECTIVE. THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 68,000.
DRIVING TO WORK AT STEADY SPEED WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CAR LOST ACCELERATION. WHILE I WAS ABLE TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAD I BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN OR AN ENTRY ON THE HIGHWAY, IT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND RESTARTED. DROVE ABOUT 1/3 MILE AND IT DI…
Read full complaint
DRIVING TO WORK AT STEADY SPEED WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CAR LOST ACCELERATION. WHILE I WAS ABLE TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAD I BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN OR AN ENTRY ON THE HIGHWAY, IT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND RESTARTED. DROVE ABOUT 1/3 MILE AND IT DID IT AGAIN. THIS TIME WHEN I PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND KEPT IT RUNNING IT FELT LIKE IT WAS TRYING TO JUMP OUT OF GEAR AND ACCELERATE WHICH WAS VERY SCARY. WE DETERMINED BY CALLING INTERNET IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. CALLED THREE FORD DEALERSHIPS WHERE THEY WERE ALL SOLD OUT AND BACK-ORDERED. WE FOUND ONE AT THE FOURTH AND PUT IT ON OURSELF IN 30 MINUTES. COST $180 P/N DS7Z9E926D.FORD NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND RECALL THE AFFECTED VEHICLES AS THEY KNOW IT'S A PROBLEM. THEY HAVE MULTIPLE CARS GETTING THIS PROBLEM FIXED DAILY!!!!!!!
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE A DIAGNOSTIC WAS PERFORMED, WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE A DIAGNOSTIC WAS PERFORMED, WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND MILEAGE WAS 88,000. UPDATED 10/17/13*CN THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED ON SEPT 6, 2013
I WAS LEAVING A SOCCER GAME AND THE CAR WENT TO ABOUT 40 MPS AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE PEDAL WENT LIMP. I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED THE CAR AND THE CAR STARTED SHAKING LIKE IT WAS OUT OF TIME. I PUT IT IN PART AND SHUT OFF THE CAR WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON THE LIGHT WAS OFF. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE 20 MILES BACK AND FOR…
Read full complaint
I WAS LEAVING A SOCCER GAME AND THE CAR WENT TO ABOUT 40 MPS AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE PEDAL WENT LIMP. I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED THE CAR AND THE CAR STARTED SHAKING LIKE IT WAS OUT OF TIME. I PUT IT IN PART AND SHUT OFF THE CAR WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON THE LIGHT WAS OFF. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE 20 MILES BACK AND FORTH AND THEN IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO RUN THE CODES AND THERE WERE NONE. TODAY 8/31/13 IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN AND NOW FINALLY THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. CODES WERE RAN AT AUTOZONE AND P1212 THROTTLE BODY SENSOR FINALLY SHOWED UP. I HAD ALREADY CHECKED THE WEB THE FIRST TIME THAT IT DID IT AFTER TALKING WITH A MECHANIC THAT WORKS AT FORD AND HE TOLD ME WHAT IT WAS AND THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. I AM VERY UPSET. I JUST PURCHASED THIS CAR LESS THAN THREE MONTHS AGO!!! SINGLE MOM SOMEONE HELP!!! *JS
Official recalls
216V777000 · 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
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