← 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
64,500 miles · Jul 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

I HAVE NO THROTTLE RESPONSE, ENGINE RPM DROP BACK TO AN IDLE, ENGINE RUNS ROUGH AND STALLS. NO POWER. MOVING TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURN ENGINE OFF AND RESTART AND WILL RUNS FINE, BUT TODAY THIS PROBLEM RECURRED EVERY 4 MILES. I WAS ONLY 22 MILES FROM HOME BUT THAT IS A LOT OF STOPPING ALONG SIDE OF THE ROAD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10532143

74,000 miles · Jul 25, 2013
Power Train

THROTTLE BODY,,,, DRIVING DOWN THE STREET..ALL OF THE SUDDEN A WRENCH APPEARS AND THE CAR DOES NOT GO... HAVE TO TRY AND SAFELY PULL OVER...HAVE TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND RESTART IT,,, THIS HAS HAPPENED 6 TIMES IN THE PAST WEEK...GOING APPROX 30 MPH---. ALSO HAPPENED ABOUT A MONTH AGO ON THE FREEWAY GOING ABOUT 70 MPH....VERY SCAR…

Read full complaint

THROTTLE BODY,,,, DRIVING DOWN THE STREET..ALL OF THE SUDDEN A WRENCH APPEARS AND THE CAR DOES NOT GO... HAVE TO TRY AND SAFELY PULL OVER...HAVE TO SHUT THE CAR OFF AND RESTART IT,,, THIS HAS HAPPENED 6 TIMES IN THE PAST WEEK...GOING APPROX 30 MPH---. ALSO HAPPENED ABOUT A MONTH AGO ON THE FREEWAY GOING ABOUT 70 MPH....VERY SCARED..THIS CAR IS GOING TO GET ME KILLED! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10531911

52,000 miles · Jul 25, 2013
EnginePower Train

MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER WENT INTO LIMP MODE AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE INPUTS. I RESEARCHED THIS ISSUE AND LEARNED THAT THIS PROBLEM APPEARS TO BE RELATED TO A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY OR ELECTRONIC CONTROL PANEL FOR THE THROTTLE BODY. THIS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CONDITION AS IT APPEARS AT RANDOM WITHOUT WARNING. I BELIEVE …

Read full complaint

MY 2010 MERCURY MARINER WENT INTO LIMP MODE AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE INPUTS. I RESEARCHED THIS ISSUE AND LEARNED THAT THIS PROBLEM APPEARS TO BE RELATED TO A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY OR ELECTRONIC CONTROL PANEL FOR THE THROTTLE BODY. THIS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CONDITION AS IT APPEARS AT RANDOM WITHOUT WARNING. I BELIEVE THIS MUST BE A DEFECT THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN TO FORD FOR SOME TIME AND NEEDS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF A RECALL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10531765

93,300 miles · Jul 23, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WAS DRIVING ON FREEWAY AT ABOUT 70-75 MPH AND HESITATION OCCURRED AND SPEED UNCONTROLLABLY DECREASED. I WENT TO RIGHT LANE (HAD BEEN IN MIDDLE LANE) AND STOPPED ON THE SHOULDER OF THE NEAREST EXIT LANE. LUCKILY IT WAS VERY CLOSE. I WAS AFRAID THAT I WOULD LOSE CONTROL OF STEERING ALSO. THIS IS 3RD TIME THIS HAPPENED, SO T…

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING ON FREEWAY AT ABOUT 70-75 MPH AND HESITATION OCCURRED AND SPEED UNCONTROLLABLY DECREASED. I WENT TO RIGHT LANE (HAD BEEN IN MIDDLE LANE) AND STOPPED ON THE SHOULDER OF THE NEAREST EXIT LANE. LUCKILY IT WAS VERY CLOSE. I WAS AFRAID THAT I WOULD LOSE CONTROL OF STEERING ALSO. THIS IS 3RD TIME THIS HAPPENED, SO TOOK TO DEALERSHIP AND THEY REPLACED THROTTLE BODY ASSM. FOR CLOSE TO $500. TECHNICIAN SAID I SHOULD BE HAPPY NOW, THE NEW PART HAD BEEN RE-DESIGNED. I'D BE ALOT HAPPIER IF FORD HAD TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY EARLIER WHEN THEY REALIZED IT NEEDED TO BE REDESIGNED. THE PREVIOUS OCCURRENCE I WAS IN LEFT LANE AT VERY BUSY TIME ON XPRESSWAY AND HAD TO PULL ONTO THE LEFT HAND SHOULDER....VERY CLOSE TO BEING HIT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10526431

110,000 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Engine

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THERE WAS A LOSS OF ENGINE POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS MANEUVERED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE ENGINE WAS TURNED OFF. UPON RESTARTING, THE VEHICLE RESUMED NORMALLY UNTIL THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN A…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THERE WAS A LOSS OF ENGINE POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS MANEUVERED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE ENGINE WAS TURNED OFF. UPON RESTARTING, THE VEHICLE RESUMED NORMALLY UNTIL THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER, WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED HOWEVER, THE PART WAS ON BACK ORDER AND THE VEHICLE WOULD BE REPAIRED WHEN THE PART BECAME AVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000.

NHTSA ODI #10526413

41,220 miles · Jul 22, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System

WHILE DRIVING ON LOCAL INTERSTAE (271S) MY CAR BEGAN TO LOSE SPEED AND DROPPED FROM 60 MPH TO 10MPH THEN TO A CRAWL. LUCKIY I MADE IT TO THE SHOULDER ( I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE WITH LIMITED TRAFFIC) THE CAR BEGAN TO SPUTTER AND JUMP. I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS POSSIBLE FATAL ACCIDENT IF I HAD BEEN I…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON LOCAL INTERSTAE (271S) MY CAR BEGAN TO LOSE SPEED AND DROPPED FROM 60 MPH TO 10MPH THEN TO A CRAWL. LUCKIY I MADE IT TO THE SHOULDER ( I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE WITH LIMITED TRAFFIC) THE CAR BEGAN TO SPUTTER AND JUMP. I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS POSSIBLE FATAL ACCIDENT IF I HAD BEEN IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. NO WARNING WAS PROVIDED. IT HAPPENED, THE WRENCH SYMBOL POPPED UP AS IT WAS HAPPENING AND THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO. I TRAVEL DAILY ON THE HIGHWAY TO/FROM WORK. THE TRAFFIC IS VERY HEAVY. LUCKILY, I WAS ON THE ROAD ON TH WEEKEND DURING A FAIRLY LOW POPULATED TIME FRAME. I CALLED MERCURY AND AND RECEIVED NO ASSISTANCE . I CALLED MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP AND RECEIVED NO SATISFACTION THERE ALSO. THIS IS A SERIOUS INCIDENT AND HAS HAPENED TO MANY ( I CAN PROVIDE WEBSITE WITH TESTIMONIALS.) SINCE THIS NOT A POWERTRAIN ISSUE AND IT WAS PAST THE 3/35,000 COVERAGE, IM STUCK WITH THE EXPENSE $360.00. WEAR AND TEAR IS ONE THING BUT TO SEE A FLAW LIKE THIS OCCUR FOR MANY AND NOTHING IS DONE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10526126

75,500 miles · Jul 20, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

DESCRIPTION WAS MAD WITH COMPLAINT NO. 10525937 I HAD ENTERED THE WRONG TYPE VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525938

75,500 miles · Jul 20, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

MY DAUGHTER WAS TRAVELING IN LOUISIANA ON BUSINESS, WHEN FOR NO REASON THE SUV STOPPED ON THE INTERSTATE SHE PHONED ME IN TEARS ON THE ISSUE, SHE WAS STRANDED ON THE INTERSTATE FOR A SHORT WHILE. SHE GOT IT STARTED AGAIN AFTER A FEW MINUTES. SHE DROVE FOR ANOTHER FEW MILES AND IT DID IT AGAIN. SHE FINALLY MADE IT TO A DEALER. …

Read full complaint

MY DAUGHTER WAS TRAVELING IN LOUISIANA ON BUSINESS, WHEN FOR NO REASON THE SUV STOPPED ON THE INTERSTATE SHE PHONED ME IN TEARS ON THE ISSUE, SHE WAS STRANDED ON THE INTERSTATE FOR A SHORT WHILE. SHE GOT IT STARTED AGAIN AFTER A FEW MINUTES. SHE DROVE FOR ANOTHER FEW MILES AND IT DID IT AGAIN. SHE FINALLY MADE IT TO A DEALER. THE DEALER RAN A TEST THAT COST HER 125 DOLLARS ONLY TO TELL HER SHE HAD A BAD ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. THEY INFORMED HER THAT THE PART WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND WOULD BE DAYS MAYBE WEEKS BEFORE THEY COULD GET ONE. SHE THAN RETURNED TO HER PLACE OF STAY , THAT TOOK ABOUT AN HOUR BECAUSE SHE COULD TAKE THE INTERSTATE AND HAD TO STOP EVERY FEW MILES TO RESTART THE ENGINE. WHAT A HUGE INCONVENIENCE AND FRIGHTENED SHE WOULD BE REAR ENDED. I HOPE A RESOLUTION IS IN THE WORKS FOR THIS SAFETY ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525937

41,000 miles · Jul 19, 2013
Power Train

DRIVING AT 45 MPH AND CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE. CALLED FOR A TOW TRUCK TO MY DEALER WHERE I BOUGHT THE CAR ONLY 6 MONTHS AGO. THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. DID LOTS OF RESEARCH TO FIND THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE RECALLED. FORD NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE MORE GET INJURED! MY DEALER REFUSES TO COVER T…

Read full complaint

DRIVING AT 45 MPH AND CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE. CALLED FOR A TOW TRUCK TO MY DEALER WHERE I BOUGHT THE CAR ONLY 6 MONTHS AGO. THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. DID LOTS OF RESEARCH TO FIND THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE RECALLED. FORD NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE MORE GET INJURED! MY DEALER REFUSES TO COVER THIS REPAIR NOR CAN GIVE ME AN ETA BECAUSE THIS IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER. BECAUSE THIS HAPPENS SO MUCH. TOO, ONCE THE NEW THROTTLE BODY COMES, I'M SURE I'D HAVE THE SAME ISSUE AS THE PART IS A DEFECT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525738

60,250 miles · Jul 18, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 25 MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD, THEN BEGAN RAPIDLY DECELERATING. I HAD TO GET OFF THE ROAD AND COAST TO A STOP. I TURNED THE CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED IT AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE, BUT THE PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN LATER THAT DAY AND SEVERAL MORE TIMES IN THE COMING WEEKS. IT HAS HAPPENED AT VARIO…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 25 MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD, THEN BEGAN RAPIDLY DECELERATING. I HAD TO GET OFF THE ROAD AND COAST TO A STOP. I TURNED THE CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED IT AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE, BUT THE PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN LATER THAT DAY AND SEVERAL MORE TIMES IN THE COMING WEEKS. IT HAS HAPPENED AT VARIOUS SPEEDS AND UNDER DIVERSE CONDITIONS. IT IS INTERMITTENT AND UNPREDICTABLE. AFTER NEARLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT ON THE INTERSTATE DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE I AM NOW LIMITED TO SURFACE STREETS AND ONLY WHEN I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DRIVE MY CAR. AFTER DOING SOME READING IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS A KNOWN DEFECT WITH THE THROTTLE BODY AND I WORRY THAT EVEN IF I PAY OUT OF POCKET TO HAVE IT REPAIRED I WILL ONLY BE BUYING ANOTHER PART WITH THE SAME DEFECT. MY HOPE IS THAT FORD WILL ISSUE A RECALL OF THE VEHICLES FOR WHICH THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10525630

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.