NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
87 reports60,000 miles · Jun 26, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY ON MY AFTERNOON COMMUTE HOME WITH MY 3 YR OLD DAUGHTER IN THE BACK SEAT AND MY VEHICLE LOST POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND IT WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 25 MPH. I ALMOST GOT HIT IN THE REAR OF MY VEHICLE CAUSE I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS TO HAPPEN BY ANY MEANS, BUT I WAS ABLE …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY ON MY AFTERNOON COMMUTE HOME WITH MY 3 YR OLD DAUGHTER IN THE BACK SEAT AND MY VEHICLE LOST POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND IT WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 25 MPH. I ALMOST GOT HIT IN THE REAR OF MY VEHICLE CAUSE I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS TO HAPPEN BY ANY MEANS, BUT I WAS ABLE TO COAST OFF THE HIGHWAY AND SHUT THE ENGINE DOWN FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTED IT DROVE ABOUT 5 MILES AND IT DID IT AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10606077
32,200 miles · May 5, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
I WAS DRIVING THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE WAY HOME FROM GOING OUT TO DINNER. I WENT AROUND A CURVE AND THEN WHEN I STARTED GOING UP A SLIGHT HILL, THE ENGINE SURGED. I DIDN'T THINK TO MUCH ABOUT IT UNTIL I LOST ALMOST ALL POWER. I COULD NOT GET UP TO A SPEED HIGHER THAN 5 MILES PER HOUR. I WAS ABLE TO GET WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE WAY HOME FROM GOING OUT TO DINNER. I WENT AROUND A CURVE AND THEN WHEN I STARTED GOING UP A SLIGHT HILL, THE ENGINE SURGED. I DIDN'T THINK TO MUCH ABOUT IT UNTIL I LOST ALMOST ALL POWER. I COULD NOT GET UP TO A SPEED HIGHER THAN 5 MILES PER HOUR. I WAS ABLE TO GET WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF MY RESIDENCE. I WAITED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AS I LOOKED UP THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE THAT MY ODB2 SCANNER GAVE ME. I FOUND OUT THAT IT IS CODE P2111, THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM - STUCK OPEN. I WENT BACK TO MY CAR, AFTER ABOUT AN HOUR, AND IT STARTED JUST FINE. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE MY SUV TO MY LOCAL FORD DEALER, WITH SOMEONE IN ANOTHER CAR FOLLOWING TO MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'T HAVE A REPEATING ISSUE. I DID A NIGHT KEY DROP TONIGHT, THE SAME DAY AS WHEN THE ISSUE HAPPENED. I INCLUDED THE WARRANTY LETTER THAT I HAD RECEIVED FROM FORD REGARDING THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACEMENT. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY FORD WOULD NOT ISSUE AN OFFICIAL RECALL TO FIX THIS ONGOING PROBLEM. I FEEL VERY FORTUNATE THAT I WAS NOT ON A BUSY INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OR OTHERWISE CONGESTED ROAD WHEN THIS HAPPENED. WILL THERE HAVE TO BE NUMEROUS REPORTS OF FATALITIES OR SERIOUS PROPERTY DAMAGE BEFORE THIS ISSUE IS ACTUALLY RECTIFIED? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10586703
38,000 miles · Jan 13, 2014
Engine
THE VEHICLE LOST ALL POWER FROM THE MOTOR AND I HAD TO CROSS LANES TO GET TO THE SHOULDER WHILE FREE WHEELING. THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED ON 3 OCCASIONS. THE MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WITH NO PULLING POWER. ONCE I HAD SWITCHED THE MOTOR OFF AND WAITED A FEW MOMENTS I WAS ABLE TO RESTART AND THE VEHICLE OPERATED PERFECTLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10559592
31,010 miles · Dec 9, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WAS ON A VERY BUSY FOUR-LANE ROAD DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MILES PER HOUR; IT WAS DARK AND RAINING. THE CAR SUDDENLY SLOWED TO ALMOST NO MOVEMENT, BUT THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING. WAS ABLE TO DRIFT INTO A LOWE'S PARKING LOT SAFELY OFF THE HIGHWAY. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED; I CUT THE ENGINE OFF AND WAITED ABOUT…
Read full complaint
WAS ON A VERY BUSY FOUR-LANE ROAD DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MILES PER HOUR; IT WAS DARK AND RAINING. THE CAR SUDDENLY SLOWED TO ALMOST NO MOVEMENT, BUT THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING. WAS ABLE TO DRIFT INTO A LOWE'S PARKING LOT SAFELY OFF THE HIGHWAY. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED; I CUT THE ENGINE OFF AND WAITED ABOUT 10 MINUTES AND RESTARTED. VEHICLE GOT ME TO THE HOTEL WHERE I WAS STAYING ABOUT A 1/2 MILE AWAY. NEXT MORNING, I HAD SOMEONE FOLLOW ME SO THAT I COULD ATTEMPT TO GET IT TO THE FORD DEALER IN PRINCETON, WEST VIRGINIA. CAR STALLED ON 5 OCCASIONS; RESTARTED IT, GO A MILE OR SO AND HAD TO RESTART AGAIN. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WAS EXCELLENT - THEY IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE CAR IN (I WAS IN TOWN FOR A FUNERAL); TECH DISCOVERED IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. IT WAS REPLACED, BUT AT A COST OF $594.85. THIS WAS THE SECOND INCIDENCE IN LESS THAN 4 DAYS WITH THIS SAME PROBLEM. ON DECEMBER 2, I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE LOCAL FORD GARAGE IN GREENEVILLE, TENNESSEE, WHERE I LIVE. THE ENGINE LIGHT HAD COME ON AND I WAS CONCERNED SINCE THE MANUAL SAID TO SEE THE DEALER IMMEDIATELY. LOCAL FORD GARAGE CLEANED OUT THE FUEL LINE AND SAID I SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY MORE PROBLEMS. ENGINE LIGHT WAS OFF AND I THOUGHT THE CAR WAS OKAY. THEN ON DECEMBER 5, DROVE TO PRINCETON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND THE NIGHTMARE BEGAN. IT APPEARS THAT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM SINCE SO MANY OWNERS HAVE COMPLAINED. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RECALL AND THE PROBLEM RESOLVED. IT IS EXTREMELY UNSAFE TO BE ON THE INTERSTATE OR ANY ROAD WHERE TRAFFIC MOVES FAST WHEN YOUR CAR GOES TO A BASIC IDLE AND WILL NOT ACCELERATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10555380
53,000 miles · Dec 7, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
DRIVING DOWN A HIGHWAY AT 60MPH THE 2011 MERCURY MARINER STOPPED ACCELERATING. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WAITED 3 SECONDS AND RESTARTED THE CAR. IT HESITATED TO TURN OVER BUT DID RESTART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10555198
47,589 miles · Nov 20, 2013
Power Train
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING THE 2011 MERCURY MARINER ON THE INTERSTATE AT 60 MPH WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT (THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN) CAME ON AND THE CAR SPEED DROPPED RAPIDLY TO ABOUT 20 MPH. FORTUNATELY SHE WAS ABLE TO PULL THE MARINER OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE AND CAME TO A STOP AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. WHEN SHE RESTARTED THE…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING THE 2011 MERCURY MARINER ON THE INTERSTATE AT 60 MPH WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT (THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN) CAME ON AND THE CAR SPEED DROPPED RAPIDLY TO ABOUT 20 MPH. FORTUNATELY SHE WAS ABLE TO PULL THE MARINER OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE AND CAME TO A STOP AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. WHEN SHE RESTARTED THE MARINER THE LIGHT WENT AWAY AND POWER TO THE MARINER WAS RESTORED. THIS IS HAS HAPPENED TO THE MARINER TWICE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553036
60,884 miles · Sep 30, 2013
EnginePower Train
ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, AFTER ABOUT A 30 MINUTE COMMUTE TO MY PLACE OF WORK, I PULLED INTO MY WORK DRIVEWAY, AND MY 2011 MERCURY MARINER STALLED. THE ENGINE SEEMED TO CUT OFF, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY VEHICLE ROLLED INTO THE PARKING SPOT. UNSURE OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH MY VEHICLE (AS IT HAD NEVER HAPPEN…
Read full complaint
ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, AFTER ABOUT A 30 MINUTE COMMUTE TO MY PLACE OF WORK, I PULLED INTO MY WORK DRIVEWAY, AND MY 2011 MERCURY MARINER STALLED. THE ENGINE SEEMED TO CUT OFF, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY VEHICLE ROLLED INTO THE PARKING SPOT. UNSURE OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH MY VEHICLE (AS IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE), I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT. THE SERVICE MANAGER WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND TOLD ME IT SOUNDED LIKE A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM, AS HIS SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS REPLACED A NUMBER OF THESE ON BOTH THE FORD ESCAPES AND MERCURY MARINERS. ON MY LUNCH BREAK, I DROVE OVER TO THE DEALERSHIP AND MADE IT WITH NO STALLING OUT PROBLEMS. THE MANAGER THEN TOLD ME HE WOULD DRIVE ME BACK TO WORK IN THE VEHICLE TO SEE IF IT WOULD "ACT UP." IT DID NOT "ACT UP" WHILE HE DROVE ME BACK TO MY PLACE OF WORK, BUT ON HIS WAY BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP, IT STALLED OUT ON HIM WHILE HE WAS ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN. HE HAD TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 SECONDS TO LET IT RESET. HE SAID AT THIS POINT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ALSO CAME ON. HE GOT IT INTO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND HOOKED IT UP TO THE COMPUTER. THE COMPUTER GENERATED CODE P2111, ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. HE LUCKILY HAD ONE IN STOCK AND IT WAS PROMPTLY REPLACED. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY MORE STALLING OUT ISSUES WITH MY MARINER AND THE ISSUE APPEARS TO BE RESOLVED. THIS PROBLEM COULD HAVE HAD DEADLY CONSEQUENCES HAD IT STALLED OUT AT THE WRONG PLACE AND WRONG TIME, PARTICULARLY IN AN ONCOMING TRAFFIC SITUATION. AS THE SERVICE MANAGER MENTIONED TO ME, THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM THAT IS FACING A POTENTIAL RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546331
44,589 miles · Sep 26, 2013
Power Train
VEHICLE WAS EXITING A PARKING LOT, STOPPED IN THE RIGHT TURN LANE. PRESSED ACCELERATOR TO PULL OUT OF PARKING LOT AND VEHICLE BEGAN JOLTING VIOLENTLY BACK AND FORTH AND BARELY MOVING FORWARD - BUT DID MOVE INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE. EVENTUALLY VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO MOVE AND ENGINE STOPPED. HAD TO PUSH VEHICLE TO SIDE OF…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS EXITING A PARKING LOT, STOPPED IN THE RIGHT TURN LANE. PRESSED ACCELERATOR TO PULL OUT OF PARKING LOT AND VEHICLE BEGAN JOLTING VIOLENTLY BACK AND FORTH AND BARELY MOVING FORWARD - BUT DID MOVE INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE. EVENTUALLY VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO MOVE AND ENGINE STOPPED. HAD TO PUSH VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD TO RESTART. DEALER ADVISED BROKEN "THROTTLE BODY AND MO" NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY AND FORCED TO PAY FOR REPAIR. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10545508
39,400 miles · Sep 18, 2013
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
SHE PULLED INTO A PATIENTS DRIVEWAY AND STOPPED SHE WENT TO PUT IT IN PARK AND THE CAR JUST TOOK OFF INTO THE HOUSE. SHE (THE DRIVER) HAD TO BE TAKEN TO THE ER. SHE HAD HER FOOT ON THE BRAKE STILL WHEN THE CAR TOOK OFF. I HAVE PICTURES OF HOW THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE WAS DRAGGED THROUGH THE DIRT WHILE BRAKE WAS APPLIED. IT DAMAGED T…
Read full complaint
SHE PULLED INTO A PATIENTS DRIVEWAY AND STOPPED SHE WENT TO PUT IT IN PARK AND THE CAR JUST TOOK OFF INTO THE HOUSE. SHE (THE DRIVER) HAD TO BE TAKEN TO THE ER. SHE HAD HER FOOT ON THE BRAKE STILL WHEN THE CAR TOOK OFF. I HAVE PICTURES OF HOW THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE WAS DRAGGED THROUGH THE DIRT WHILE BRAKE WAS APPLIED. IT DAMAGED THE HOME AND DID OVER 5000.00 DAMAGE TO THE CAR. SHE INSISTS IT ACCELERATED UNEXPECTEDLY. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10544299
49,000 miles · Sep 12, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
TRAVELING ON 2 LANE ROAD AT 55 MPH. ENGINE SET AT CRUISE CONTROL SPEED WHEN POWER WAS LOST. VEHICLE FELT LIKE IT WAS COASTING, THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO A STOP ON A SIDE STREET, THEN HAD MY VEHICLE TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS. I CHECKED WEB SITES LAST NIGHT AND FOUND THIS TO BE A RECURRING PROB…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING ON 2 LANE ROAD AT 55 MPH. ENGINE SET AT CRUISE CONTROL SPEED WHEN POWER WAS LOST. VEHICLE FELT LIKE IT WAS COASTING, THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO A STOP ON A SIDE STREET, THEN HAD MY VEHICLE TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS. I CHECKED WEB SITES LAST NIGHT AND FOUND THIS TO BE A RECURRING PROBLEM WITH FORD ESCAPES AND MARINERS. COST OF REPAIR WAS $382.37 AND NOT COVERED FOR ANY REIMBURSEMENT BY FORD/LINCOLN. CUTTING OFF LIKE THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND PLACES OCCUPANTS AT RISK FOR SERIOUS INJURY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10543368
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