← 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

What owners actually said

270 reports
Mileage unknown · Aug 3, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT CALLED MCNELLY-WHALEY M…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT CALLED MCNELLY-WHALEY MOTOR CO (865-453-2833 LOCATED AT 750 DOLLY PARTON PKWY, SEVIERVILLE, TN 37862) WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT.

NHTSA ODI #11012526

Mileage unknown · Aug 1, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM). THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE LOCAL DEALER (SUMMIT FORD 305 GRANT AVENUE, A…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM). THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE LOCAL DEALER (SUMMIT FORD 305 GRANT AVENUE, AUBURN, NY 13021) WAS CONTACTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM WHEN THE PARTS WERE TO BECOME AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #11012020

83,000 miles · Jul 21, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT NOTICED A "CHECK FUEL; FAILED INLET" WARNING MESSAGE AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER (AUTONATION FORD FRISCO 6850 TX-121, FRISCO, TX, 75034) WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED DUE TO THE DIAGNOSTIC FEE AND BECAUSE TH…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT NOTICED A "CHECK FUEL; FAILED INLET" WARNING MESSAGE AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER (AUTONATION FORD FRISCO 6850 TX-121, FRISCO, TX, 75034) WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED DUE TO THE DIAGNOSTIC FEE AND BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS OVER THE 10,000 MILE WARRANTY FOR THE YEAR. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AUTO ZONE WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RETRIEVE ERROR CODES. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:DELIVERY:FUEL PUMP). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT TIME FOR THE REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 83,000. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #11006786

69,965 miles · Jun 22, 2017
EnginePower TrainUnknown Or Other

CAR STOPPED RUNNING WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON STARTED MOTOR PUT IT IN GEAR TRIED TO GO REGULAR PACE CAR DID NOT GO IT IS VERY SLOW NO GAS PEDDLE TURNED IT OFF LET SET FOR 2 HRS. STARTED BACK UP RUNS OK BUT CHECK ENG. LITE CAME ON CALLED DEALER

NHTSA ODI #11000721

Mileage unknown · Jun 1, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MAGIC CITY FORD WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT T…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MAGIC CITY FORD WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS FUEL LEAKING FROM THE FUEL TANK ONTO THE WHEEL WELL. THE CONTACT PAID TO HAVE A FUEL CANISTER REPLACED ON THE VEHICLE; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE PERSISTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE, BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VIN WAS INVALID. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #10992682

123,300 miles · Apr 3, 2017
Steering

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

Read full complaint

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

NHTSA ODI #10970281

125,000 miles · Feb 28, 2017
SteeringInjury

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

Read full complaint

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

NHTSA ODI #10957569

100,000 miles · Feb 6, 2017
Steering

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

Read full complaint

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

NHTSA ODI #10949788

123,000 miles · Jan 26, 2017
Structure

REAR HATCH WINDOW HINGES CRACKED DUE TO THE METAL DETERIORATING CAUSING THE WINDOW TO SHIFT AND BECOME LOOSE AND SUBJECT TO FALLING AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE. I HAD THE HINGES REPLACED ON 1-25-17 PRIOR TO ANY ACCIDENT THAT COULD HAVE RESULTED. MY ONLINE RESEARCH SHOWS FORD HAS NOT TAKEN ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEFECTIVE WINDOW HI…

Read full complaint

REAR HATCH WINDOW HINGES CRACKED DUE TO THE METAL DETERIORATING CAUSING THE WINDOW TO SHIFT AND BECOME LOOSE AND SUBJECT TO FALLING AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE. I HAD THE HINGES REPLACED ON 1-25-17 PRIOR TO ANY ACCIDENT THAT COULD HAVE RESULTED. MY ONLINE RESEARCH SHOWS FORD HAS NOT TAKEN ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEFECTIVE WINDOW HINGE LACHES

NHTSA ODI #10947845

100,000 miles · Jan 16, 2017
Engine

WHILE DRIVING THIS VEHICLE WE HAVE STALLING ISSUES. THE ISSUES HAVE HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING THE CAR ON THE ROAD WHILE MAKING TURNS AND STOPPED WAITING FOR A LIGHT, THE VEHICLE STOPS RUNNING WITHOUT WARNING. THE CAR WILL RESTART AFTER YOU HAVE PLACED THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTART. THE DEALERSHIP HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DUPLICATE THIS P…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING THIS VEHICLE WE HAVE STALLING ISSUES. THE ISSUES HAVE HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING THE CAR ON THE ROAD WHILE MAKING TURNS AND STOPPED WAITING FOR A LIGHT, THE VEHICLE STOPS RUNNING WITHOUT WARNING. THE CAR WILL RESTART AFTER YOU HAVE PLACED THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTART. THE DEALERSHIP HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DUPLICATE THIS PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10945538

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.