The Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) is an office within the NHTSA which investigates serious safety problems in the design, construction or performance of vehicles. The NHTSA is authorized to order manufacturers to recall and repair vehicles, if the ODI finds a safety issue. NHTSA investigations for the 2010 Mercury Milan, both ongoing and closed, are listed below:

  1. INVESTIGATION: Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

    NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation #PE13003

    • Status:
    • Date Opened: February 21, 2013
    • Date Closed: February 28, 2014
    • Recall: No recall issued

    Component(s): Engine

    Summary: 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 a safety-related defect does not exist. For additional information regarding this investigation, see complete closing resume in the document file for PE13-003.

  2. INVESTIGATION: Fleet Vehicle Recall Completion Audit

    NHTSA Defect Investigation #AQ10001

    • Status:
    • Date Opened: November 18, 2010
    • Date Closed: December 28, 2015
    • Recall: No recall issued

    Component(s): Unknown Or Other

    Summary: On November 18, 2010, NHTSA's Recall Management Division (RMD) opened an audit query (AQ10-001) to investigate recall remedy completion by rental car companies on safety recall campaigns.It was expected to provide the agency an indication of how completely and how quickly rental car fleets perform necessary recall-related remedies on the vehicles owned and then rented/leased for use on the roadways.RMD queried three (3) major motor vehicle manufacturers (Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors) and requested data regarding completion figures for fifteen (15) discreet safety recalls.Analysis of this data demonstrated that rental car recalls completion was neither complete nor consistent.The rental car companies representing the largest market share in the industry were then queried as to their respective policies for the rental, lease, and sale of vehicles with open recalls.The data and responses from the manufacturers and the rental car companies can be found in the document repository by accessing the ""Associated Documents" link above.In December 2015, Congress enacted the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.One section of the Act prohibits rental car companies from renting, leasing, or selling motor vehicles subject to open safety recalls.With the passage of the FAST Act and its prohibition, there is no continuing need for the agency to investigate rental car recall completions.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The agency reserves the right to open any future investigations, including audits of individual recalls, or groups of recalls, or rental car companies, to examine more closely safety recalls performance and completion issues in this area.

  3. INVESTIGATION: Floor mat interference with accelerator

    NHTSA Engineering Analysis #EA12009

    Component(s): Vehicle Speed Control
    Vehicle Speed Control:Accelerator Pedal

    Summary: On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.

  4. INVESTIGATION: Accel Pedal Interference - Acc Floormat

    NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation #PE10019

    • Status:
    • Date Opened: May 28, 2010
    • Date Closed: January 11, 2013
    • Recall: No recall issued

    Component(s): Vehicle Speed Control:Accelerator Pedal

    Summary: Unsecured mats may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle. A heel blocker in the floor pan provides a platform that may lift an unsecured mat into contact with the pedal. Ford introduced new pedals as a running change early in model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. Analysis of complaints received by ODI and Ford show elevated rates of pedal entrapment incidents in MY 2008 through early 2010 production vehicles. Incidents typically occur following hard pedal applications to pass slower traffic or when merging into faster traffic. Drivers allege continued high engine power after releasing the accelerator pedal and difficulty braking, including reports that the incident was controlled by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off. Drivers and service technicians reference observing evidence of mat interference or note unsecured Ford or aftermarket all weather floor mats in post-incident inspections.Based on information gathered during the Preliminary Evaluation the population being investigated has been narrowed to model years 2008 to 2010.This investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis on MY 2008 through early-2010 vehicles (produced through September 2009) to further assess the scope, frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this Engineering Analysis are: 10479693, 10415911, 10379562, 10372674, 10345830, 10342572, 10339330, 10335336, 10334211, 10332233, 10331160, 10329659, 10327597, 10320011, 10232027, 10214131

  5. INVESTIGATION: Wheel Mounting Stud Fracture

    NHTSA Engineering Analysis #EA11009

    Component(s): Wheels:Lugs/Nuts/Bolts

    Summary: To date, the agency is aware of 84 consumer complaints and 361 warranty claims related to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles.In total, 382 subject vehicles reportedly experienced one or more wheel stud fractures, resulting in 7 alleged wheel separation incidents.Most of the reported wheel stud fractures occurred on subject vehicles originally equipped with 17 inch diameter steel wheels (368 of 382) as did all 7 alleged wheel separation incidents.Of the 7 alleged wheel separation incidents, 5 reportedly involved a wheel becoming detached from the subject vehicle's rear axle.The subject vehicles are designed with a safety margin that requires validation of proper wheel joint function with one missing lug nut and all other lug nuts at the minimum torque specification.If multiple stud fractures occur at a wheel location, analysis of reports indicates that the operator may observe vehicle vibration. If the vibration is ignored and the vehicle continues to be driven the remaining studs may fracture, resulting in a wheel separation.By letter dated December 5, 2011, the manufacturer notified the agency that it will conduct a safety recall (identified by NHTSA Recall No.11V-574 and Ford Recall No. 11S23) on certain 2010 and 2011 model year Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles to address the potential for wheel separation.The recall vehicles were originally equipped with 17 inch diameter steel wheels and were built from April 1, 2009, through April 30, 2009, and from December 1, 2009, through November 13, 2010.Approximately 128,616 vehicles are potentially affected as well as approximately 2,940 service steel wheels distributed to authorized Ford dealers.Ford has identified two distinct root causes of wheel stud fracture in the recall vehicles.First, certain steel wheel centers may have been stamped improperly such that the mounting pad lacks the necessary concavity, which reduces the diameter of the outermost radial points of contact with the brake rotor.This reduces the Belleville washer effect, which reduces the clamp load of the joint.Second, the wheel mounting face on certain rear brake discs may have been machined improperly due to a damaged dust boot on a gauge that measures rear brake rotor parallelism (flatness), resulting in a wheel mounting face that is convex.One or both conditions may induce bending fatigue in the wheel studs.Ford's analysis of manufacturing process information showed that one or both of these two conditions may have been out of control during parts of one or both production ranges covered by the recall.Owners will be notified by mail and instructed to take their vehicles to an authorized Ford or Lincoln dealer to have the lug nuts replaced on all four wheels with new lug nuts treated with a proprietary low-friction coating that improves clamp load given the same applied torque value, and to have the rear brake discs inspected for wheel mounting surface flatness and replaced, if required.Ford will instruct dealers to notify customers who purchased service steel wheels, where information is available, to return vehicles for lug nut replacement.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at under the following identification (ODI) numbers: 10364337, 10373257, 10378953, 10381431, 10389641, 10389940, 10392373, 10395676, 10396577, 10400071, 10402309, 10416653, 10419175, 10419734, 10420116, 10424191, 10432393, 10434188, 10436471, 10438725 and 10440830.

  6. INVESTIGATION: Wheel Stud Fracture

    NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation #PE11003

    Component(s): Wheels:Lugs/Nuts/Bolts

    Summary: On January 21, 2011, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE11-003) to investigate alleged wheel stud fractures in certain model year (MY) 2010 Ford Fusion vehicles.ODI sent the manufacturer an information request letter dated February 8, 2011 and Ford responded by letter dated March 25, 2011.Ford provided a supplemental response by letter dated July 15, 2011.To date, ODI is aware of 29 complaints related to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, which now include certain MY2010 Mercury Milan vehicles that are the same or substantially similar to the subject Ford Fusion vehicles in regards to the alleged defect.In total, ODI is aware of 4 reported wheel separation incidents related to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles.The manufacturer's investigation into the root cause of the alleged defect is ongoing.Accordingly, this investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-009) to further study the alleged defect.