← New search

2011 Mercury Mariner

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2011 Mercury Mariner do not stand out strongly from 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

68 reports with mileage · 19 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.

  • Power Train. Review the 24 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Steering. Review the 20 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 reports0 fire reports1 injury reports

What owners actually said

87 reports
126,000 miles · May 1, 2018
Steering

REGARDING: NHTSA RECALL NUMBER 14V-284, FORD RECALL NUMBER 14S05 ELECTRIC POWER STEERING THE RECALL INSTRUCTIONS TO DEALERS CALL FOR A SIGNAL TEST AND EITHER REPROGRAMMING A SENSOR OR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR BASED ON THE RESULTS. IT ALSO CALLS FOR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR UPON FAILURE IF THE FAILURE OCCURRED BEFORE T…

Read full complaint

REGARDING: NHTSA RECALL NUMBER 14V-284, FORD RECALL NUMBER 14S05 ELECTRIC POWER STEERING THE RECALL INSTRUCTIONS TO DEALERS CALL FOR A SIGNAL TEST AND EITHER REPROGRAMMING A SENSOR OR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR BASED ON THE RESULTS. IT ALSO CALLS FOR REPLACING THE TORQUE SENSOR UPON FAILURE IF THE FAILURE OCCURRED BEFORE THE VEHICLE HAD THE RECALL SENSOR PERFORMED. THE RECALL INSTRUCTIONS TO DEALERS ALSO TELLS THEM THAT A TORQUE SENSOR THAT FAILS AFTER THE REPROGRAMMING WAS DONE IS NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL. THE PURPOSE OF THE SENSOR REPROGRAMMING WAS TO INITIATE A WARNING IN THE DRIVER CONTROL CENTER UPON IMMINENT SENSOR FAILURE, BUT DOES NOTHING TO FIX, REPAIR OR REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE PART. I HAD THE DEALER PERFORM THE TEST AND SOFTWARE UPGRADE AND WAS UNDER THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT THE RECALL WAS TO ACTUALLY REPLACE THE STATISTICALLY FAULTY PART , AND NOT JUST A POTENTIAL WARNING. THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING ON MY VEHICLE FAILED ON 4-12-2018 AND, INCIDENTALLY, I DID NOT GET A WARNING ON THE DRIVER INFORMATION CENTER BEFORE THE FAILURE; SO THE REPROGRAMMING DID NOTHING FOR MY VEHICLE. MY QUESTION IS WHY IS FORD/MERCURY NOT REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE FAILED SENSORS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE RECALL? I UNDERSTAND FORD NOT BEING REQUIRED TO REPLACE SENSORS THAT MIGHT FAIL BUT GIVING DRIVERS NOTICE OF IMMINENT FAILURE, BUT FORD SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE SENSORS THAT DO FAIL EVEN AFTER THE REPROGRAMMING BECAUSE THE REPROGRAMMING IS NOT INTENDED TO FIX THE PROBLEM JUST WARN DRIVERS. THE SENSOR REPLACEMENT IS NEARLY A $2000 REPAIR THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE COVERED BY THE RECALL. CAN THE NHTSA EXPLAIN THE RATIONAL FOR NOT REQUIRING FORD TO ACTUALLY FIX THE DEFECT THAT CAUSES A SERIOUS HAZARD?

NHTSA ODI #11091146

Mileage unknown · Apr 23, 2018
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER (MANISTEE FORD IN MANISTEE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER (MANISTEE FORD IN MANISTEE, MICHIGAN) WAS MADE AWARE OF THE RECALL AND STATED THAT THE PART WAS UNAVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT.

NHTSA ODI #11089657

10,200 miles · Apr 17, 2018
Visibility/wiper

GOT HOME FROM SHOPPING, FIANCEE WAS GETTING THE REST OF THE GROCERIES. SHE CLOSED THE TRUNK NORMALLY, NEVER SLAMMING OR ANYTHING, AND THE ENTIRE REAR WINDSHIELD SHATTERED AND FELL TO THE GROUND. LUCKILY, NO ONE WAS INJURED, BUT SHE COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED IF ONE OF THE LARGE PIECES HAD FELL ON HER OR A SHARD COULD'VE F…

Read full complaint

GOT HOME FROM SHOPPING, FIANCEE WAS GETTING THE REST OF THE GROCERIES. SHE CLOSED THE TRUNK NORMALLY, NEVER SLAMMING OR ANYTHING, AND THE ENTIRE REAR WINDSHIELD SHATTERED AND FELL TO THE GROUND. LUCKILY, NO ONE WAS INJURED, BUT SHE COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED IF ONE OF THE LARGE PIECES HAD FELL ON HER OR A SHARD COULD'VE FLOWN IN HER EYES. A WINDSHIELD SHOULD NOT SHATTER AND EXPLODE FROM NORMAL USE, THIS IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE AND I WILL BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE MANUFACTURER. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE HYDRAULIC PUMPS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOLDING THE WINDSHIELD UP WHEN IT IS OPENED SOMEHOW MALFUNCTIONED AND PUSHED ON THE WINSHIELD TOO HARD WHEN IT CLOSED, RESULTING IN THE COMPLETE SHATTERING OF THE WINDSHIELD.

NHTSA ODI #11088703

165,000 miles · Apr 3, 2018
Steering

WHILE DRIVING ON I90, RECENTLY NOTICED NOISE IN STEERING COLUMN WHICH HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE AND STEERING WHEEL NOW SHAKES. TAKEN TO FORD DEALER WAS TOLD IT WAS ATORQUE ANGLE STEERING SENSOR. FIX ABOUT $500 UNLESS THE STEERING COLUMN IS BROKEN! FIX THEN 1530. HOW DOES A STEERING COLUMN BREAK? RECALL 14S05 FOR STEERING PR…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON I90, RECENTLY NOTICED NOISE IN STEERING COLUMN WHICH HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE AND STEERING WHEEL NOW SHAKES. TAKEN TO FORD DEALER WAS TOLD IT WAS ATORQUE ANGLE STEERING SENSOR. FIX ABOUT $500 UNLESS THE STEERING COLUMN IS BROKEN! FIX THEN 1530. HOW DOES A STEERING COLUMN BREAK? RECALL 14S05 FOR STEERING PROBLEM. SUPPOSEDLY IF THIS WAS FIXED FORD IS RELEASED FROM ANY RECALL DEALING WITH STEERING IF IT HAS BEEN REPLACED. APPARENTLY FORD OMITTED THIS INFO FROM THE PUBLIC JUST WONDERED IF I HAVE ANY RECOURSE TO RESOLVE THIS. FORD DEALER SAYS NO RECALL. FORD COMPANY SAYS THIS IS NOT UNDER RECALL AS I HAD PRIOR RECALL TAKEN CARE OF. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER COMPLAINTS REGARDING THIS VEHICLE AND THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM WITH THE EXACT SAME OUTCOME. I HAVE HAD OTHER PROBLEMS WITH FORD PRODUCTS RESULTING IN HOSPITALIZATION AND HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHINGG I CAN NOT ALLOW THIS ONE TO GO UNNOTICED. THANK YOU

NHTSA ODI #11083090

71,000 miles · Apr 2, 2018
Steering

FORD HAS NOT FIXED THE ISSUE! VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN DO YOU DO RECALL MY PREVIOUS OWNER AND ONLY SOFTWARE WAS UPDATED PERTAINING TO THE POWER STEERING RECALL. IT IS NOT A SOFTWARE UPDATE ISSUE. THE TORQUE SENSOR MUST BE REPLACED. FORD WILL NOT COVER NOR REIMBURSE THIS ISSUE. MANY OTHER CUSTOMERS ARE HAVING THIS EXACT SAME PROBLEM…

Read full complaint

FORD HAS NOT FIXED THE ISSUE! VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN DO YOU DO RECALL MY PREVIOUS OWNER AND ONLY SOFTWARE WAS UPDATED PERTAINING TO THE POWER STEERING RECALL. IT IS NOT A SOFTWARE UPDATE ISSUE. THE TORQUE SENSOR MUST BE REPLACED. FORD WILL NOT COVER NOR REIMBURSE THIS ISSUE. MANY OTHER CUSTOMERS ARE HAVING THIS EXACT SAME PROBLEM. THE POWER STEERING ASSIST GOES OUT WITHOUT WARNING AND MAKES THE VEHICLE VERY DANGEROUS TO DRIVE. I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE THIS MORNING AND OUT OF NOWHERE THE TURNING BECAME VERY DIFFICULT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #11082509

Mileage unknown · Mar 16, 2018
Fuel/propulsion System

RECALL IS ALWAYS BACK ORDERED

NHTSA ODI #11079822

140,000 miles · Feb 1, 2018
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHEN THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, THE STEERING WHEEL FAILED TO TURN AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE SENSOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REP…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. WHEN THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, THE STEERING WHEEL FAILED TO TURN AND THE POWER STEERING ASSIST WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE SENSOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS ONCE REPAIRED PER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING); HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE RECALL WAS A ONE TIME REPAIR. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000.

NHTSA ODI #11066452

Mileage unknown · Jan 29, 2018
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT CALLED BEAU TOWNSEND FO…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 MERCURY MARINER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT CALLED BEAU TOWNSEND FORD LINCOLN AT (937) 898-5841 (LOCATED AT 1020 W NATIONAL RD, VANDALIA, OH 45377) WHERE AN APPOINTMENT WAS SCHEDULED TWICE. AFTERWARDS, THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND WAS NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM WHEN THE PARTS WERE TO BECOME AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT.

NHTSA ODI #11065681

Mileage unknown · Jan 27, 2018
Unknown Or Other

JUST BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE 1/25/2018. IT HAS A MOLDY SMELL. HOW CAN I TELL IF IT IS A FLOOD VEHICLE? IT ALSO HAS A AIR LEAK IN THE FRONT WINDSHIELD, THAT I CAN HEAR, WHEN DRIVING. THIS VEHICLE, WAS FROM LOUISIANA. I WILL CONTACT THE DEALER, MONDAY MORNING ABOUT THE WINDSHIELD.

NHTSA ODI #11065461

102,000 miles · Dec 7, 2017
Steering

POWER STEERING ASSIST WILL GO OUT WITHOUT WARNING CAUSING THE CAR TO LOSE IT'S POWER STEERING AND MAY EVEN LOCK UP TOTALLY.THIS HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY SINCE JUNE OF 2017 AND HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE. WE HAD TO REPAIR IT IN DECEMBER OF 2017 AT A COST OF $1500.00.

NHTSA ODI #11052972

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.