Home · 2017 Ford Mustang Mach-e Bev Bev · Complaints

What 262 owners told NHTSA about the 2017 Ford Mustang Mach-e Bev Bev

These are the actual owner complaints behind this car’s reliability verdict, filed with the federal government, unedited. They’re unverified reports, not confirmed defects: read them as leads for your pre-purchase inspection, not a diagnosis.

All (262)Crash / fire / injury (19)Backup camera & sensors (63)Body & structure (39)Electrical system (32)Latches & locks (29)Engine (26)Transmission & drivetrain (22)Seat belts (16)Steering (11)Airbags (10)Engine & cooling (8)

1 of 262 complaints match · Latches & locks · crash/fire/injury only · clear filters

May 16, 2022Latches & locks1 injury

The contact owns a 2017 Ford Mustang. The contact stated while driving 60 MPH, the front driver's side door or the front passenger's side door was inadvertently unlatched. The door lock chime reminder engaged and the door lock warning light illuminated. The contact veered to the side of the road. The contact then opened the unlatched door and closed it again. The contact stated that the failure had been reoccurring on both the front driver's side and the front passenger's side doors. The contact notified an unknown Nissan dealer, who sold her the vehicle, of the failure. The Nissan dealer referred the contact to the Ford manufacturer. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that they could not assist because the VIN was not included in a recall related to the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 45,000.

NHTSA ODI 11464796

Working with the data? Download all 262 complaints as CSV · fetched from NHTSA July 19, 2026

How to use these: a complaint is one owner’s report, filed voluntarily and published unverified. Patterns matter more than any single story. If several owners describe the same failure at similar mileage, put that system at the top of your pre-purchase inspection list. Back to the full 2017 Ford Mustang Mach-e Bev Bev verdict →