NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
270 reports154,000 miles · Mar 15, 2019
Steering
I HAVE A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE POWER STEERING. I DIDN'T GET IT TAKEN IN RIGHT AWAY, JUST TOOK IT IN DECEMBER 2018 FOR OIL CHANGE AND HAD DEALERSHIP TAKE CARE OF RECALL ALSO. THEY UPDATED THE SOFTWARE BUT THAT IS WHEN MY TROUBLE STARTED WITH THE POWER STEERING. STEERING WHEEL HAD A TWITCH, SHAKING BY…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE POWER STEERING. I DIDN'T GET IT TAKEN IN RIGHT AWAY, JUST TOOK IT IN DECEMBER 2018 FOR OIL CHANGE AND HAD DEALERSHIP TAKE CARE OF RECALL ALSO. THEY UPDATED THE SOFTWARE BUT THAT IS WHEN MY TROUBLE STARTED WITH THE POWER STEERING. STEERING WHEEL HAD A TWITCH, SHAKING BY ITSELF WHILE CAR WAS RUNNING AT IDLE. WHEN THE SHAKING GOT REAL BAD I TOOK IT TO DEALER MARCH 7 2019 TO BE FIXED UNDER RECALL FOR POWER STEERING ASSIST LOSS. THE RECALL STARTED JULY 25 2014 WITH NO END DATE OF RECALL. THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY COULDN'T FIX IT UNDER THE RECALL BECAUSE FORD SAID IT HAD BEEN TO LONG AFTER THE RECALL. BASICALLY THEY WERE SAYING THE RECALL WAS OUTDATED. THEY TOLD ME I COULD HAVE IT FIXED FOR $800 OUT OF POCKET. A RECALL SHOULD NEVER BE OUTDATED BUT GO THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE. EVERY VEHICLE IS DIFFERENT WHEN THE THE PART GOES BAD AFTER A RECALL HAPPENS. MINE WAS ALMOST 5 YEARS AFTER RECALL STARTED. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE YOUR POWER STEERING GOES OUT IF NOT FIXED AFTER THE STEERING WHEEL STARTS TWITCHING. MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT 2 DAYS AFTER I HAD TAKEN IT IN TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT FIXED FOR WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A REAL RECALL. APPARENTLY FORD HAS FAKE RECALLS. WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR VEHICLE IN THEY REFUSE TO FIX IT BECAUSE THEY SAY WHAT RECALL. THE POWER STEERING WENT OUT WHEN I STOPPED TO GET GAS. I STARTED THE CAR BACK UP AFTER GETTING GAS IT WAS GONE. I CALLED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE NUMBER MARCH 14 2019. I LET THEM KNOW WHAT MY ISSUE WAS. THEY DID THERE RESEARCH AND CALLED ME BACK MARCH 15 2019 ONLY TO LET ME KNOW THAT THE UPDATE THE DEALERSHIP DID IN DECEMBER 2018 WAS THE FIX. IT WAS ONE AND DONE. THEY WERE NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE, THEY TOLD ME. SO THE UPDATE CANCELLED OUT THE REAL FIX OF CHANGING THE TORQUE SENSOR IN THE STEERING COLUMN WHICH 2 DAYS LATER LEFT ME WITHOUT POWER STEERING.
NHTSA ODI #11187168
140,000 miles · Feb 18, 2019
Steering
IT HAPPENED ABOUT ONCE A MONTH, I WOULD HAVE NO POWER STEERING WHEN IN TRAFFIC, IN MOTION, TURNING FOR ABOUT 3 - 5 SECONDS, THEN BACK TO NORMAL STEERING. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY RECALL AT THE TIME. THEN WHILE IN MOTION, TURNING INTO TRAFFIC POWER STEERING STOPPED COMPLETELY, WITH MESSAGE "POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT" I LOOKED…
Read full complaint
IT HAPPENED ABOUT ONCE A MONTH, I WOULD HAVE NO POWER STEERING WHEN IN TRAFFIC, IN MOTION, TURNING FOR ABOUT 3 - 5 SECONDS, THEN BACK TO NORMAL STEERING. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY RECALL AT THE TIME. THEN WHILE IN MOTION, TURNING INTO TRAFFIC POWER STEERING STOPPED COMPLETELY, WITH MESSAGE "POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT" I LOOKED ONLINE, AND FOUND OUT ABOUT THE RECALL. DEALER SAYS STEERING RECALL WAS COMPLETED BUT I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED WHEN. THE PROBLEM HAS NEVER STOPPED FOR ME. NOW IT IS A PERMANENT PROBLEM, AND DEALER SAYS NO WARRANTY, NO RECALL. CAN I FORCE THE DEALER TO RE-DO THE RECALL SOMEHOW?
NHTSA ODI #11180827
120,000 miles · Feb 14, 2019
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE POWER STEERING WAS FAULTY. THE CONTACT HAD TO EXERT EXCESSIVE STRENGTH TO STEER THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE CONTACT TO DRIVE. THE "POWER ASSIST FAULT" MESSAGE APPEARED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT CONT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE POWER STEERING WAS FAULTY. THE CONTACT HAD TO EXERT EXCESSIVE STRENGTH TO STEER THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE CONTACT TO DRIVE. THE "POWER ASSIST FAULT" MESSAGE APPEARED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
NHTSA ODI #11180149
79,000 miles · Feb 1, 2019
Steering
POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT HAPPENS WHILE DRIVING RECALL SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO COVER MORE VEHICLES
NHTSA ODI #11173483
137,000 miles · Jan 30, 2019
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER TO BE DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 137,000.
NHTSA ODI #11173127
93,000 miles · Jan 8, 2019
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING FAILED AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. LARRY H. MILLER SUPER FORD SALT LAKE CITY (1340 S. 500 W, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115, (801) 783-4473) AND KEN GARFF WEST VALLEY FORD (4091 W 3500 S, WEST VALLEY CITY, …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING FAILED AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. LARRY H. MILLER SUPER FORD SALT LAKE CITY (1340 S. 500 W, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115, (801) 783-4473) AND KEN GARFF WEST VALLEY FORD (4091 W 3500 S, WEST VALLEY CITY, UT 84120, (801) 559-0500) WERE CONTACTED AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED TO BE DIAGNOSED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: DP15001 (STEERING) AND NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO BE DRIVEN DUE TO THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 93,000.
NHTSA ODI #11165887
91,000 miles · Jan 8, 2019
Steering
MY CAR HAS A MALFUNCTION WITH THE POWER STEERING ASSIST. IT WENT OUT OF MY ON THE FREEWAY COMING HOME FROM GLENDALE, AZ TO RIVERTON, UT. IT WAS SO SCARY AND SO DIFFICULT TO GET HOME! MY MECHANIC INFORMED ME THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS PART. HOWEVER, SOMEHOW MY VIN IS NOT SHOWING THIS RECALL EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE EXACT YEAR, MAKE …
Read full complaint
MY CAR HAS A MALFUNCTION WITH THE POWER STEERING ASSIST. IT WENT OUT OF MY ON THE FREEWAY COMING HOME FROM GLENDALE, AZ TO RIVERTON, UT. IT WAS SO SCARY AND SO DIFFICULT TO GET HOME! MY MECHANIC INFORMED ME THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS PART. HOWEVER, SOMEHOW MY VIN IS NOT SHOWING THIS RECALL EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE EXACT YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL AFFECTED. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH IT TURNS OUT THAT FORD ONLY RECALLED A FRACTION OF THE VEHICLES THAT WAS MANUFACTURED WITH THIS FAULTY PART. HOW ARE THEY ONLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOME OF THE VEHICLES AFFECTED? CLEARLY I HAVE THE SAME FAULTY PART IN MY VEHICLE. I'VE CALLED EVERY DEALERSHIP IN THE VALLEY TRYING TO FIND INFORMATION ON WHY IT IS A "LOTTERY" ON WHO GETS THE RECALL FIXED AND WHO DOESN'T. THEY HAVE BASICALLY ALL TOLD ME TO GET STUFFED. I CAN'T DRIVE MY CAR AND THE PART IF VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND OUTSIDE OF THE DEALERSHIP, WHO I DO NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH AFTER HAVING THEM REFUSE TO CORRECT AN ISSUE THAT HAS A RECALL ASSOCIATED WITH IT. FORDS RECALL 14S05.
NHTSA ODI #11165879
105,000 miles · Dec 17, 2018
Steering
WAS SLOWING TO TURN IN SHOPPING PLAZA LOSE POWER STEERING ALMOST RAN WOMEN OVER CROSS DRIVE WAY CAR WOULD NOT STEER WITHOUT MUCH FORCE THIS IS DANGEROUS HOW MANY MUST DIE BEFORE FORD FIXES THIS DO THEY REMEMBER GAS TANKS ? MY NEXT CALL IS TO 60 MINUTES .
NHTSA ODI #11161934
105,000 miles · Dec 17, 2018
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE POWER STEERING SUDDENLY FAILED AND THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME VERY DIFFICULT TO TURN IN EITHER DIRECTION. THE FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER AND LOCAL DEALER (DUNPHY FORD, 7700 FRANKFORD AVE, PHILADELPHIA, PA) WERE NOTIFI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 MERCURY MARINER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE POWER STEERING SUDDENLY FAILED AND THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME VERY DIFFICULT TO TURN IN EITHER DIRECTION. THE FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER AND LOCAL DEALER (DUNPHY FORD, 7700 FRANKFORD AVE, PHILADELPHIA, PA) WERE NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE, BUT NO ASSISTANCE WAS OFFERED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 105,000.
NHTSA ODI #11161924
56,000 miles · Dec 12, 2018
Steering
WHEN I AM DRIVING TURNING THE WHEEL IT MAKE A LOUD CLICKING SOUND
NHTSA ODI #11161034
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