NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
216 reportsClear category filter80,324 miles · May 8, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT CONTINUES TO HAVE INTERMITTENT OCCURRENCES OF "STALLING IN MOTION" WITH NO WARNING. WE HAVE BEEN LUCKY SO FAR THAT THE VEHICLE WILL COAST TO SHOULDER OR A PARKING LOT. IF WE DRIVE ON INTERSTATE WE ONLY TRAVEL IN THE RIGHT LANE IN CASE WE HAVE TO COAST OFF. VEHICLE THEN IDLES ROUGHLY AT ABOUT 800 RPM. VEH…
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT CONTINUES TO HAVE INTERMITTENT OCCURRENCES OF "STALLING IN MOTION" WITH NO WARNING. WE HAVE BEEN LUCKY SO FAR THAT THE VEHICLE WILL COAST TO SHOULDER OR A PARKING LOT. IF WE DRIVE ON INTERSTATE WE ONLY TRAVEL IN THE RIGHT LANE IN CASE WE HAVE TO COAST OFF. VEHICLE THEN IDLES ROUGHLY AT ABOUT 800 RPM. VEHICLE HAS TO BE PUT IN PARK AND SHUT-OFF. THEN RESTART SO FAR MAKES VEHICLE GO AGAIN SOMETIMES. VEHICLE MAY HAVE TO BE RESTARTED MULTIPLE TIMES TO GET MOVING AGAIN. HOWEVER, THIS IS GETTING MORE COMMONPLACE AND WE WILL NOT ALLOW OUR YOUNG INEXPERIENCED DRIVERS TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE EXTREME SAFETY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING THE VEHICLE. THIS IS PLACING A HUGE BURDEN ON OUR FAMILY AS WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE REPAIRED AT FORD DEALER DUE TO THE HIGH EXPENSE INVOLVED. VEHICLE HAS CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WITH P2111 CODE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHICH SPECIFICALLY ISOLATES THE THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION. THIS SITUATION NEEDS TO BE REMEDIED BY FORD BEFORE A DEATH OCCURS AS IT WILL OCCUR SOON ESPECIALLY ON INTERSTATES OR HIGHWAYS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10511204
51,700 miles · May 3, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
VEHICLE DROPPED TO IDLE DURING MILD ACCELERATION. PULLED THE CODES AND RECIEVED P2111 CODE FOR THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510478
40,000 miles · Apr 29, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
VEHICLE WILL STALL DURING IDLE, ACCELERATING FROM A STOPLIGHT, DECELERATING, AND/OR DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. THERE ARE NO WARNINGS BEFORE THIS HAPPENS, AND WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, THE VEHICLE HAS TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER, TURNED OFF, AND THEN RESTARTED BEFORE CONTINUING. WEATHER HAS NO EFFECT AS IT HAS HAPPENED IN MINUS 5 DEGRE…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WILL STALL DURING IDLE, ACCELERATING FROM A STOPLIGHT, DECELERATING, AND/OR DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. THERE ARE NO WARNINGS BEFORE THIS HAPPENS, AND WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, THE VEHICLE HAS TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER, TURNED OFF, AND THEN RESTARTED BEFORE CONTINUING. WEATHER HAS NO EFFECT AS IT HAS HAPPENED IN MINUS 5 DEGREES TO 80 DEGREES, RAIN, SNOW, HUMID, DRY, SUNNY... THIS HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST 20 TIMES IN THE PAST 3 MONTHS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10509821
41,021 miles · Apr 10, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
WHILE DRIVING FROM CENTRAL FL TO ASHEVILLE, NC. MY 3.0 LITR ESCAPE BASICALLY LOST ALL POWER A TOTAL OF 6 DIFFERENT TIMES ON INTERSTATES 95 AND 26 BETWEEN SAVANNAH, GA AND COLUMBIA, SC. DRIVING ALONG AT POSTED HIGHWAY SPEED LIMIT, ENGINE WOULD UNEXPECTEDLY START LOSING POWER AND EVENTUALLY COME TO A STOP IN THE EMERGENCY LANE. TH…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING FROM CENTRAL FL TO ASHEVILLE, NC. MY 3.0 LITR ESCAPE BASICALLY LOST ALL POWER A TOTAL OF 6 DIFFERENT TIMES ON INTERSTATES 95 AND 26 BETWEEN SAVANNAH, GA AND COLUMBIA, SC. DRIVING ALONG AT POSTED HIGHWAY SPEED LIMIT, ENGINE WOULD UNEXPECTEDLY START LOSING POWER AND EVENTUALLY COME TO A STOP IN THE EMERGENCY LANE. THE TACHOMETER INDICATED THAT THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING AT ABOUT 1000 RPM, BUT IT WOULD NOT TAKE AND THOTTLE AND BARELY MOVE. SWITCHING THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTING, RESET SOMETHING AND ALLOWED ME TO CONTINUE DRIVING NORMALLY BUT ONLY FOR ABOUT 20 MILES BEFORE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING. THIS WAS A SATURDAY ABOUT NOON AND CALLING SEVERAL FORD DEALERS WAS USELESS AS MOST SAID THEY WERE GETTING READY TO CLOSE, OR COULD NOT LOOK AT IT UNTIL MONDAY. NOT WANTING TO RUIN OUR VACATION, WE TRIED TO CONTINUE WITH THE ABOVE SCENARIO REPEATING ITSELF AT LEAST 6 MORE TIMES, EACH TIME GETTING MORE AND MORE DANGEROUS, AS TRAFFIC WAS HEAVY AND EACH TIME THE ENGINE WOULD LOSE POWER INSTANTLY AND ALMOST CAUSED ACCIDENTS BEFORE WE COULD GET OFF THE ROAD INTO THE EMERGENCY LANE. FINALLY CALLED A FORD DEALER IN COLUMBIA, SC THAT WAS OPEN TILL 4PM. AND SAID THEY COULD CHECK IT OUT. MADE IT THERE AT 3:30 PM AND THEY DIAGNOSED THE TROUBLE AS A CODE P2111 THROTTLE BODY STUCK OPEN. THEY HAD THE PART IN STOCK AND $326 LATER WE WERE ON OUR WAY. VEHICLE ONLY HAD 41K MILES. INTERNET RESEARCH HAS REVEALED SEVERAL HUNDRED COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME EXACT TROUBLE HAPPENING TO THEM. THERE IS EVEN A YOUTUBE VIDEO SHOWING THIS DESCRIBED TROUBLE ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE, AFTER A FRUSTRATED DRIVER COULD NOT GET ANY FORD DEALER TO RECREATE THE TROUBLE AND TAKE CARE OF IT, HE VIDEOD IT ACUTALLY HAPPENING. MY CALLS TO FORD MOTOR CO CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND MY EMAILS WERE A WASTE OF TIME. FORD IS IGNORING A VERY DANGEROUS PROBLEM THAT WILL GET THEM MANY LAWSUITS I AM SURE. FORD NEEDS A RECALL NOW! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10505856
65,000 miles · Apr 3, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
THIS IS ABOUT THE 10TH TIME I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS ISSUE. IN EVERY CASE THE CAR STOPS ACCELERATING AND THE CAR DROPS INTO IDLE WITH THE RPM'S RANGING FROM 900-1100. SHIFTING GEARS DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFECT AND YOU HAVE TO SHUT OFF THE CAR TO TURN IN BACK ON. THE AMBER WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON EVERY TIME AND THE FEW TIMES THAT IT HAP…
Read full complaint
THIS IS ABOUT THE 10TH TIME I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS ISSUE. IN EVERY CASE THE CAR STOPS ACCELERATING AND THE CAR DROPS INTO IDLE WITH THE RPM'S RANGING FROM 900-1100. SHIFTING GEARS DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFECT AND YOU HAVE TO SHUT OFF THE CAR TO TURN IN BACK ON. THE AMBER WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON EVERY TIME AND THE FEW TIMES THAT IT HAPPENED CONSECUTIVELY IN ONE TRIP THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. ON MY FIRST VISIT TO A DEALERSHIP THEY REPLACED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE SECOND TIME THEY NOTICED MY TRANSMISSION WAS EATING ITS FLUID SO THE FILLED UP THE FLUID. THE THIRD TIME THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED MY TRANSMISSION AND THE MOST RECENT THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. THIS SEEMS TO COINCIDE WITH THE OPEN INVESTIGATION PE13003. I HAVE HAD THE CAR MALFUNCTION OCCUR WHEN ACCELERATING THROUGH 65 TRYING TO GET ONTO A HIGHWAY. HAD IT HAPPEN TWICE AT 15 MPH IN A PARKING LOT. HAD IT AT 45 MPH IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION AND MULTIPLE TIMES ON BACK ROADS AT 35 MPH. FORTUNATELY FOR ME I WAS ALWAYS ABLE TO FLIP MY HAZARDS ON QUICKLY AND THE OTHER VEHICLES WERE ABLE TO GET AROUND ME WHILE I STOPPED ON THE ROAD, BUT THIS SITUATION IS HIGHLY UNSAFE ESPECIALLY AT HIGHER SPEEDS ON HIGHWAY WHEN YOU HAVE TO PULL OVER AND STOP THE CAR TO FIX THE SITUATION. BASED ON MULTIPLE ONLINE FORUMS IT SEEMS TO BE MAINLY THE THROTTLE BODY THAT IS MALFUNCTIONING, BUT IT SEEMS TO ALSO DEGRADE THE ENGINE OVER TIME AND CAN END UP COSTING YOU AS AN OWNER OVER TIME DUE TO THE DEALERS INABILITY TO ALWAYS PIN POINT THE ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10507012
77,550 miles · Mar 21, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE'S THROTTLE STOPPED WORKING IN TRAFFIC TRAVELING AT 35 MPH AND HAD TO COAST VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD WHERE ENGINE WAS IDLING ROUGHLY BUT NO RESPONSE TO PRESSING ACCELERATOR PEDAL. VEHICLE NEEDED TO BE SHUT OFF AND RESTARTED SEVERAL TIMES TO GET THROTTLE WORKING AGAIN. VEHICLE EXHIBITED THIS PROBLEM MANY TIMES OVER LAST 3…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE'S THROTTLE STOPPED WORKING IN TRAFFIC TRAVELING AT 35 MPH AND HAD TO COAST VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD WHERE ENGINE WAS IDLING ROUGHLY BUT NO RESPONSE TO PRESSING ACCELERATOR PEDAL. VEHICLE NEEDED TO BE SHUT OFF AND RESTARTED SEVERAL TIMES TO GET THROTTLE WORKING AGAIN. VEHICLE EXHIBITED THIS PROBLEM MANY TIMES OVER LAST 30 DAYS (EVEN AT 65 MPH WE LOST THROTTLE ON INTERSTATE AND HAD TO COAST OFF IN TRAFFIC). WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE IN AVOIDING AN ACCIDENT. TOOK VEHICLE TO SERVICE STATION WHICH READ COMPUTER READING AND SAID "THROTTLE BODY ACTUATOR" NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND THAT I SHOULD GO TO LOCAL FORD DEALER ASAP AS THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR A 2 YEAR OLD VEHICLE WITH THIS DANGEROUS CONDITION. FORD DEALER INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL AND THAT ITS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS AND THAT IT WOULD BE $399 TO FIX. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE AND I WILL NOT LET MY FAMILY DRIVE THE VEHICLE UNTIL FORD FIXES THIS ISSUE AT FORD'S EXPENSE. I RESEARCHED ONLINE AND THIS PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING A LOT TO MANY OWNERS. THIS NEEDS AN IMMEDIATE MANDATE BY NHTSA TO FORD TO ISSUE A RECALL FOR THIS LIFE THREATENING DEFECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10504054
75,450 miles · Mar 21, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT (V6) IS HAVING REPEATED INCIDENTS (AT RANDOM INTERVALS) OF THROTTLE FAILURES. VEHICLE SUDDENLY HAS NO "GAS PEDAL", IDLES ROUGHLY (800 TO 1000 RPM) AND HAS TO BE COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. ONLY WAY TO RESET IS TO PUT VEHICLE IN PARK AND TURN OFF (DANGEROUS ON INTERSTATES OR IF IN LEFT LANE AND NO PLACE TO PUL…
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT (V6) IS HAVING REPEATED INCIDENTS (AT RANDOM INTERVALS) OF THROTTLE FAILURES. VEHICLE SUDDENLY HAS NO "GAS PEDAL", IDLES ROUGHLY (800 TO 1000 RPM) AND HAS TO BE COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. ONLY WAY TO RESET IS TO PUT VEHICLE IN PARK AND TURN OFF (DANGEROUS ON INTERSTATES OR IF IN LEFT LANE AND NO PLACE TO PULL OFF), RESTART AND MOST CASES THE PROBLEM IS ELIMINATED FOR HOURS, DAYS OR MORE. SOMETIMES IT CAN OCCUR MANY TIMES WITHIN A SHORT DRIVE PERIOD AND THEN GO AWAY FOR HOURS OF ISSUE-FREE DRIVING. ENGINE SERVICE LIGHT (WRENCH) CAME ON ONE DAY AFTER SOME EXTREMELY ROUGH IDLING CAUSED BY ISSUE (ENGINE BUCKED A BIT) AND SERVICE STATION READ COMPUTER ANALYSIS AS "THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM" WAS STUCK OPEN AND CLOSED. THEY TOLD ME THAT IT WAS PROBABLY DEFECTIVE AND DANGEROUS AND THAT I SHOULD PROCEED TO MY FORD DEALER ASAP. I TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD DEALER (3/20/13) AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THE THROTTLE BODY SHOULD BE REPLACED, BUT SAID NO RECALL HAD BEEN ISSUED SO I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR REPAIR. I COULD NOT BELIEVE THIS FOR A 2 YEAR OLD CAR. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE AND I WOULD EXPECT A MANUFACTURER TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY AND SHOCKED AT THEIR NONCHALANCE REGARDING THIS PROBLEM. I WENT HOME AND GOOGLED THE ISSUE AND I SEE MANY ARTICLES AND AGENCIES LOOKING INTO THIS PROBLEM SO APPARENTLY I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE HAVING THIS PROBLEM. I AM NOT ALLOWING THE MY FAMILY MEMBERS TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE DUE TO THIS SAFETY ISSUE UNTIL IT IS REPAIRED BY FORD AT THEIR EXPENSE. THIS COULD BE A MAJOR LAWSUIT (INJURY OR EVEN FATALITIES) DUE TO THE SAFETY OF HAVING TO "LIMP OFF" A BUSY ROADWAY WITH NO WARNING AND BECOMING A TARGET. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10504051
74,100 miles · Mar 13, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED THE 4 TIMES THE ESCAPE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION. EACH TIME IT NEEDED TO BE TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. 1ST FAILURE (1/24/13) WAS AT ABOUT 20MPH (OR LESS) WHILE MAKING A U-TURN. I WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO BUS LANE. 2ND FAILURE (2/4/13) WAS AT 50MPH AFTER TRAVELING 30 MILES IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. …
Read full complaint
THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED THE 4 TIMES THE ESCAPE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION. EACH TIME IT NEEDED TO BE TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. 1ST FAILURE (1/24/13) WAS AT ABOUT 20MPH (OR LESS) WHILE MAKING A U-TURN. I WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO BUS LANE. 2ND FAILURE (2/4/13) WAS AT 50MPH AFTER TRAVELING 30 MILES IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. I DROVE DIRECTLY TO A TRANSMISSION SHOP AND WAS TOLD "WHAT AN EXTREME SAFETY ISSUE THIS COULD BE AND THAT THIS WAS AN EXPENSIVE TRANSMISSION TO REBUILD AND IT WOULD BE $2000 TO $2500." 3RD FAILURE (2/5/13) AND BY NOW I AM QUICK TO START EMERGENCY FLASHERS. I WAS UNABLE TO RESTART IN N. I WAS ABLE TO PULL INTO A TURN LANE AND HAD TO TURN ESCAPE OFF AND RESTART. I STARTED RESEARCHING ON INTERNET AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. 4TH FAILURE (2/11/13) SAME SENERIO. 2/14/13 I DROVE TO DON REID FORD, MAITLAND, FL. I SPOKE TO THE SERVICE MANAGER WHO AGREED WITH ME THAT THE PROBLEM WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. $300 FIX INCLUDED $99. LABOR WITH A 12 MONTH WARRANTY AT ANY FORD DEALER. THAT POINT SOLD ME SINCE THIS VEHICLE WAS LIKELY TO TRAVEL OUT OF TOWN, AND THAT IT COULD BE DONE WHILE I WAITED. I WAS NOT HAPPY TO CHECK MY PAPERWORK AFTER I GOT HOME AND FIND THAT INSTEAD OF STATING THE ISSUE IT SAID "CUSTOMER STATES REPLACE THROTTLE BODY PER CUSTOMER REQUEST" I CALLED THE SERVICE MANAGER AND EXPRESSED MY CONCERN THAT THIS VERY DANGEROUS SAFETY ISSUE WAS NOT DOCUMENTED ON MY PAPERWORK. I WAS TOLD THAT SINCE THE DEALER DID NOT DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM, WHICH WOULD HAVE COST ANOTHER $99 THAT THIS WAS THE WAY IT HAD TO BE WRITTEN UP. I BELIEVE THAT THIS SUDDEN GAS PEDAL FAILURE COULD CAUSE AN ACCIDENT AND SHOULD BE A RECALL BEFORE A DEATH OCCURS. THIS 2010 WAS BUILT 12/09. WE BOUGHT THIS ESCAPE 10/3/12 WITH 73,600 MILES ON IT. WE HAVE TESTED IT OUT ON A 200 MILE TRIP AND A 1,000 MILE TRIP.NOW TRUST THE 2010 ESCAPE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10502694
40,000 miles · Feb 26, 2013
Electrical SystemService BrakesVehicle Speed Control
UPON ENTERING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE ON ITS OWN AND INCREASING SPEED, REALIZING WHAT WAS HAPPENING I ENGAGED THE BRAKE TO NO AVAIL, I WAS UNABLE TO STOP MY VEHICLE. I NAVIGATED TO THE SHOULDER AND WAS GAINING SPEED ON THE TRAFFIC AHEAD SO I LOOKED FOR AN EXIT INTO A PARKING LOT WI…
Read full complaint
UPON ENTERING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE ON ITS OWN AND INCREASING SPEED, REALIZING WHAT WAS HAPPENING I ENGAGED THE BRAKE TO NO AVAIL, I WAS UNABLE TO STOP MY VEHICLE. I NAVIGATED TO THE SHOULDER AND WAS GAINING SPEED ON THE TRAFFIC AHEAD SO I LOOKED FOR AN EXIT INTO A PARKING LOT WITH NO ONE WALKING IN MY WAY AND TURNED INTO THE LOT LITERALLY ON TWO WHEELS DUE TO MY INCREASING SPEED. I SAW A WOODED AREA WITH A SNOW BANK AND THOUGHT I WOULD HEAD THAT WAY RATHER THAN THE ALTERNATIVE OF OTHER VEHICLES, BUILDING OR PEOPLE. AS I GOT CLOSER I THEN TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND STOPPED BUT NOT AFTER STANDING ON MY BRAKES AND SMELLING BURNING FROM THEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10500171
41,788 miles · Feb 6, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND MY CAR STALLED AND STARTED JERKING BEFORE SHUTTING DOWN ENTIRELY. I WOULD PUSH ON THE GAS AND MY CAR WOULD NOT DRIVE FORWARD, AS IF IT LOST ITS POWER. THE FORD DEALERSHIP HAD TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY, AFTER I OWNED THE CAR FOR LESS THAN A YEAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10496657
Official recalls
3Oct 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.
May 24, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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
4DP15001 · 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
DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related 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. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.
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.