NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
270 reports53,000 miles · May 29, 2013
EnginePower Train
THE CAR LOST ALL POWER WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65 MPH. I WAS ABLE TO STEER IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, AND TO RESTART IT. THE SAME THING HAPPENED IN 3 MILES AND THEN AGAIN IN 1 MILE. IT WAS OKAY FOR THE NEXT 3 MONTHS. THEN I TRIED TO PASS A TRACTOR AND MY CAR STALLED. I GOT IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WAS ABL…
Read full complaint
THE CAR LOST ALL POWER WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65 MPH. I WAS ABLE TO STEER IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, AND TO RESTART IT. THE SAME THING HAPPENED IN 3 MILES AND THEN AGAIN IN 1 MILE. IT WAS OKAY FOR THE NEXT 3 MONTHS. THEN I TRIED TO PASS A TRACTOR AND MY CAR STALLED. I GOT IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WAS ABLE TO LIMP INTO A FORD SERVICE CENTER WHERE THEY DIAGNOSED A " THROTTLE BODY FAILURE". I AM WAITING ON A PART BACK ORDER TO GET IT FIXED! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513993
50,000 miles · May 17, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 70MPH - IN CRUISE CONTROL, CAR SUDDENLY STARTING LOSING SPEED. TRIED TO RESUME SPEED BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCELERATE, SO I PULLED OVER. WHILE STOPPED, CAR STARTED ACTING LIKE IT WANTED TO STALL SO I SHUT CAR OFF AND HAD IT TOWED TO SHOP. MECHANIC STATES THEY ARE GETTING A THROTTLE BODY ERROR. …
Read full complaint
WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 70MPH - IN CRUISE CONTROL, CAR SUDDENLY STARTING LOSING SPEED. TRIED TO RESUME SPEED BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCELERATE, SO I PULLED OVER. WHILE STOPPED, CAR STARTED ACTING LIKE IT WANTED TO STALL SO I SHUT CAR OFF AND HAD IT TOWED TO SHOP. MECHANIC STATES THEY ARE GETTING A THROTTLE BODY ERROR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512517
36,900 miles · Apr 14, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET IN OUR MERCURY MARINER WHEN IT SUDDENLY WENT FROM 30 TO 0 MPH FOR NO REASON. HER FOOT WAS ON THE ACCELERATOR WHEN IT SUDDENLY SLOWED TO A STOP, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. WHEN SHE TRIED TO DRIVE IT AGAIN THE POWERTRAIN ALARM WAS ON SO WE HAD IT TOWED TO THE DEALER. FORD MECHANICS FOU…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET IN OUR MERCURY MARINER WHEN IT SUDDENLY WENT FROM 30 TO 0 MPH FOR NO REASON. HER FOOT WAS ON THE ACCELERATOR WHEN IT SUDDENLY SLOWED TO A STOP, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. WHEN SHE TRIED TO DRIVE IT AGAIN THE POWERTRAIN ALARM WAS ON SO WE HAD IT TOWED TO THE DEALER. FORD MECHANICS FOUND IT TO BE AN INTERNAL SHORT IN THE THROTTLE BODY AND REPLACED IT. UNBELIEVABLY, WE HAD TO PAY $342.47, AFTER FORD REFUSED TO DO THE REPLACEMENT OF AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ENGINE EVEN THOUGH THE POWERTRAIN WARRANTY WAS STILL IN EFFECT AND IT WAS A POWERTRAIN ALARM. NOT ONLY DO I BELIEVE THIS REPAIR SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY FORD UNDER THE WARRANTY, BUT I BELIEVE WE WERE FORCED TO CORRECT A DANGEROUS DEFECT THAT SHOULD HAVE HAD A RECALL, AS MANY OTHERS HAVE HAD THIS SAME PROBLEMS WITH THEIR FORD PRODUCTS AND IT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS FOR A CAR TO COME TO A SUDDEN HALT FOR NO REASON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508144
41,179 miles · Apr 9, 2013
Engine
SEVERAL TIMES, WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE, ENGINE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON SOON AFTERWARD. AT TIMES I WAS DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, AND AT TIMES SLOWER--THE LAST TIME BEFORE SERVICE WAS APPROX. 40 MPH. HAD TO PULL OVER SEVERAL TIMES TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STOP THE ENGINE, THEN RESTART AND TRY TO CON…
Read full complaint
SEVERAL TIMES, WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE, ENGINE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON SOON AFTERWARD. AT TIMES I WAS DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, AND AT TIMES SLOWER--THE LAST TIME BEFORE SERVICE WAS APPROX. 40 MPH. HAD TO PULL OVER SEVERAL TIMES TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STOP THE ENGINE, THEN RESTART AND TRY TO CONTINUE DRIVING. AFTER SEVERAL MORE LOSSES OF COMPRESSION AND POWER, RETURNED HOME AND TOOK THE VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED. THEY RAN DIAGNOSTICS, BUT WERE UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. PROBLEM RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES AFTERWARD, AND WITH THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT STILL ON, RETURNED FOR SERVICE ON 4/02/12, WHERE THE DIAGNOSTICS CONFIRMED A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. IT WAS REPLACED AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEMS SINCE THEN. I HAD TO SPEND THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS FOR SERVICE: DIAGNOSTICS ON 3/30/12: $59. ACTUAL REPAIR ON 4/02/12: $450.61. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10505649
Mileage unknown · Apr 2, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
2010 MERCURY MARINER. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE HESITATION INTERMITTENTLY AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED SHE BEGAN NOTICING THE PROBLEM IN 2011, AFTER A 2010 UPDATE OF THE TRANSMISSION SOFTWARE IN A FACTORY RECALL. IN ADDITION TO THE HESITATION WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE, THERE WERE ALSO A FEW INSTANCE…
Read full complaint
2010 MERCURY MARINER. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE HESITATION INTERMITTENTLY AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED SHE BEGAN NOTICING THE PROBLEM IN 2011, AFTER A 2010 UPDATE OF THE TRANSMISSION SOFTWARE IN A FACTORY RECALL. IN ADDITION TO THE HESITATION WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE, THERE WERE ALSO A FEW INSTANCES WHERE THE CRUISE CONTROL SEEMED TO EITHER SURGE OR BACK DOWN, AS IF IT DIDN'T KNOW QUITE HOW TO RESPOND, USUALLY, BUT NOT ALWAYS, WHEN ON A SLIGHT INCLINE. THE CONSUMER STATED ON ONE OCCASION, WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS IN PARK, WITH THE MOTOR IDLING, SHE WAS UNABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO GO INTO TO GEAR ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT, WHEN IT DID SHIFT, IT SHIFTED VERY HARD AND NOISILY INTO GEAR ON THE 2ND ATTEMPT. ALSO, THE VEHICLE WOULD SHIFT ROUGH IN LOWER GEARS, TYPICALLY FROM AS TOP OR ACCELERATING AFTER SLOWING TO ALMOST A STOP. THE CONSUMER WENT TO ANOTHER DEALER, AFTER THE DEALER WHERE SHE ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM, FAILED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS SHE EXPERIENCING. THE SECOND DEALER INFORMED HER, THE TRANSMISSION VALVE BODY WAS DAMAGED EVEN BEFORE THE RECALL CAME OUT IN 2012. THE PART WAS REPLACED. HOWEVER, THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCED A HESITATION IN JANUARY 2013. THE CONSUMER STATED AFTER READING ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION OF FORD VEHICLE, WHICH INCLUDED HER MODEL YEAR, SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE THROTTLE BODY, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REPLACED.
NHTSA ODI #10505082
41,000 miles · Mar 17, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER, ENGINE IDLES BUT NO PROPULSION, SPEEDOMETER INSTANTLY DROPS TO ZERO. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10503310
43,039 miles · Mar 2, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
ENGINE STALLED WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, STARTED SURGING, RUNNING VERY ROUGH AND WOULD NOT GO ANY FASTER THAN ABOUT 15 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED AND SHUT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED AND SEEMED TO RUN NORMALLY. THE VEHICLE RAN NORMALLY UNTIL 10/05/2012 WHEN IT STALLED AND RAN VERY ROUGH AGAIN. AT THI…
Read full complaint
ENGINE STALLED WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, STARTED SURGING, RUNNING VERY ROUGH AND WOULD NOT GO ANY FASTER THAN ABOUT 15 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED AND SHUT OFF. AFTER A FEW MINUTES THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED AND SEEMED TO RUN NORMALLY. THE VEHICLE RAN NORMALLY UNTIL 10/05/2012 WHEN IT STALLED AND RAN VERY ROUGH AGAIN. AT THIS TIME THE VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER FOR A CHECK. WHILE WAITING FOR A CALL BACK FROM THE DEALER THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED AND SEEM TO RUN NORMALLY AGAIN. AFTER TALKING TO THE SERVICE MGR., IT WAS LEARNED THAT THE PROBLEM MOST LIKELY WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND IT WOULD NOT BE UNDER WARRANTY. AT THIS TIME IT WAS DECIDED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL SHOP THAT WE WERE VERY PLEASED WITH FOR PAST SERVICE FOR OTHER VEHICLES WITHIN OUR FAMILY. THE LOCAL SHOP ORDERED AND INSTALLED A NEW THROTTLE BODY AND THE VEHICLE HAS PERFORMED NORMALLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10501049
48,000 miles · Feb 28, 2013
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT ANY WARNINGS. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE DRIVER WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE IMMEDIATELY AFTER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 4…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT ANY WARNINGS. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE DRIVER WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE IMMEDIATELY AFTER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 48,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 50,200.
NHTSA ODI #10500857
47,100 miles · Feb 26, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
THIS IS A LETTER I WROTE TO MY REPAIR SERVICE ON 8-3-12. "THIS HAS HAPPENED THREE TIMES IN THE LAST TWO DAYS AND IS A VERY DANGEROUS VEHICLE TO DRIVE. WHEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE ON A SIDE STREET ONCE AND TWICE ON THE EXPRESSWAY, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOSES POWER AND WHILE THE ENGINE IS RUNNING I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE …
Read full complaint
THIS IS A LETTER I WROTE TO MY REPAIR SERVICE ON 8-3-12. "THIS HAS HAPPENED THREE TIMES IN THE LAST TWO DAYS AND IS A VERY DANGEROUS VEHICLE TO DRIVE. WHEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE ON A SIDE STREET ONCE AND TWICE ON THE EXPRESSWAY, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOSES POWER AND WHILE THE ENGINE IS RUNNING I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND TOOL LIGHT BOTH CAME ON AND TWICE JUST THE TOOL LIGHT CAME ON (THE WRENCH). NOTHING COULD BE DONE TO REGAIN SPEED. IT SEEMED AS THOUGH THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DISABLED. I HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD, TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTART THE CAR. IF I HAD NOT BEEN CLOSE TO A SHOULDER, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN MOST DANGEROUS FOR ME AND FOR THE TRAFFIC BEHIND ME. THE CAR JUST LOSES ALL POWER AND GETTING IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND OUT OF THE WAY OF TRAFFIC IS A DANGEROUS ENDEAVOR. THIS CAR CANNOT BE DRIVEN SAFELY. " I DROVE THE CAR TO A CLOSE BY LOCAL REPAIR SHOP. THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO A SHOP EMPLOYEE. THE OWNER OF THE SHOP RECOMMENDED TAKING THE CAR TO A DEALER. I AM NOT A TIMID DRIVER, BUT I WAS AFRAID TO DRIVE THE CAR AND HAD IT TOWED ($52.50) TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP. THE COST TO REPLACE A THROTTLE BODY WAS $516.08. I READ RECENTLY THAT THE CAR WAS REPORTED TO SUPPLY LIMP-HOME SPEEDS. I DID NOT EXPERIENCE THIS AND DEFINITELY FEEL THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10500121
96,000 miles · Jan 20, 2013
Visibility
WENT TO SHUT BACK DOOR ON VEHICLE AND THE BACK GLASS JUST EXPLODED. GLASS WENT EVERY WHERE ME AND MY CHILDREN WERE HIT WITH GLASS BUT NO INJURIES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10493558
Official recalls
2Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System
On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages
PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that
PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage
Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Illustration