NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
216 reportsClear category filter60,400 miles · Jan 31, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
THE CAR LOST ENGINE POWER UNEXPECTEDLY WHILE UNDER WAY. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL MADE NO DIFFERENCE, AND THE CAR WOULD NOT COAST - IT LOST SPEED RAPIDLY. UPON TURNING THE CAR OFF AND WAITING A FEW MINUTES, THE CAR WOULD RESTART AND OPERATE NORMALLY. SOMETIMES IT WOULD OPERATE FOR NORMALLY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRIP, OTHER TIMES …
Read full complaint
THE CAR LOST ENGINE POWER UNEXPECTEDLY WHILE UNDER WAY. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL MADE NO DIFFERENCE, AND THE CAR WOULD NOT COAST - IT LOST SPEED RAPIDLY. UPON TURNING THE CAR OFF AND WAITING A FEW MINUTES, THE CAR WOULD RESTART AND OPERATE NORMALLY. SOMETIMES IT WOULD OPERATE FOR NORMALLY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRIP, OTHER TIMES THE CAR WOULD EXHIBIT THE PROBLEM AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10495324
43,000 miles · Jan 2, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
AT FREEWAY SPEED THE CAR LOST POWER. WE WERE ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. A SMALL WRENCH WARNING LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD. WE CHECKED THE OWNER'S MANUAL, AND IT REFERRED TO A "THROTTLE/POWER TRAIN" ISSUE AND TOLD US TO SEEK DEALER ATTENTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ENGINE RESTARTED, SO WE CONTINUED OUR…
Read full complaint
AT FREEWAY SPEED THE CAR LOST POWER. WE WERE ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. A SMALL WRENCH WARNING LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD. WE CHECKED THE OWNER'S MANUAL, AND IT REFERRED TO A "THROTTLE/POWER TRAIN" ISSUE AND TOLD US TO SEEK DEALER ATTENTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ENGINE RESTARTED, SO WE CONTINUED OUR TRIP. WE STOPPED IN SULFUR SPRINGS, TX, AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP. THAT MORNING THE VEHICLE BATTERY WAS DEAD (WHICH WAS THE FIRST PROBLEM WE HAVE EVER HAD WITH THE VEHICLE), AND WE BEGAN OUR TRIP AFTER JUMP-STARTING THE CAR. I THOUGHT THE STALLING WAS RELATED TO THE BATTERY PROBLEM. THE EVENTS WERE EXPLAINED TO THE TECH, WE REPLACED THE BATTERY WHICH WE FELT WOULD ALSO SOLVE THE STALLING PROBLEM. THE STALL OCCURRED THE NEXT DAY, AND AGAIN ON OUR RETURN TRIP. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO OUR LOCAL FORD DEALER WHERE THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WAS REPLACED. WE HAVE NOT, AS OF NOW, TESTED THE REPAIR AT FREEWAY SPEED, BUT WERE ASSURED BY THE DEALER THAT THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490704
29,321 miles · Dec 6, 2012
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion System
ON JUNE 15, 2012, THE 2010 FORD ESCAPE WITH 29321 MILES LOST POWER (I.E. NO GAS, BUT ELECTRONICS REMAINED ON) WHILE MERGING ONTO A CROWDED HIGHWAY AT 50 MPH. AN ACCIDENT WAS BARELY AVOIDED. ERROR LIGHTS WERE LIT ON THE DASHBOARD AND THE CAR WOULD NOT RESTART. HOWEVER, UPON REMOVING THE KEYS FROM THE IGNITION AND REINSERTING T…
Read full complaint
ON JUNE 15, 2012, THE 2010 FORD ESCAPE WITH 29321 MILES LOST POWER (I.E. NO GAS, BUT ELECTRONICS REMAINED ON) WHILE MERGING ONTO A CROWDED HIGHWAY AT 50 MPH. AN ACCIDENT WAS BARELY AVOIDED. ERROR LIGHTS WERE LIT ON THE DASHBOARD AND THE CAR WOULD NOT RESTART. HOWEVER, UPON REMOVING THE KEYS FROM THE IGNITION AND REINSERTING THEM, THE ERROR LIGHTS TURNED OFF AND THE CAR RESTARTED WITHOUT ANY APPARENT PROBLEMS. THE CAR WAS IMMEDIATELY DRIVEN TO THE UNIVERSITY FORD DEALERSHIP IN CHAPEL HILL, NC. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT DETECT A PROBLEM, STATED THAT THE COMPUTER WAS NOT REGISTERING ANY ERRORS, AND RETURNED THE CAR WITHOUT FIXING ANYTHING. ON JUNE 27, 2012, THE CAR (29988 MILES) AGAIN LOST POWER IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN. THE CAR HAD BEEN STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND WAS ACCELERATING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. AGAIN, AN ACCIDENT WAS BARELY AVOIDED. THIS TIME, THE CAR'S COMPUTER DID REGISTER AN ERROR. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AT UNIVERSITY FORD IDENTIFIED A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY SENSOR (PART NO. 9L8Z9E926A) AND REPLACED IT WITH PART NO. DS7Z9E926A. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT ENSURED THE PROBLEM WOULD NOT REPEAT ITSELF. ON NOVEMBER 24, 2012, THE CAR (ROUGHLY 34000 MILES) LOST POWER FOR A THIRD TIME WHILE STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT. REMOVING THE KEYS FROM THE IGNITION AND REPLACING THEM ALLOWED THE CAR TO BE RESTARTED, AND THE CAR WAS PROMPTLY TAKEN TO UNIVERSITY FORD. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT NO ERROR WAS REGISTERED ON THE COMPUTER AND THAT THE CAR WOULD HAVE TO BE RETURNED. THE WARRANTY POLICY STATES THAT NO PARTS CAN BE REPLACED IF A PROBLEM IS NOT DETECTED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10487542
42,000 miles · Nov 14, 2012
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN SUDDENLY I LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND HAD TO COAST OFF THE ROAD. A WRENCH WAS LIT UP ON MY DASHBOARD AND ALTHOUGH I HAD NO ACCELERATION, MY ENGINE WAS STILL SPUTTERING/RUNNING. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTING IT, IT RAN FAN AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF. IT RAN FINE FOR …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN SUDDENLY I LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND HAD TO COAST OFF THE ROAD. A WRENCH WAS LIT UP ON MY DASHBOARD AND ALTHOUGH I HAD NO ACCELERATION, MY ENGINE WAS STILL SPUTTERING/RUNNING. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTING IT, IT RAN FAN AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF. IT RAN FINE FOR THE NEXT WEEK UNTIL IT HAPPEN AGAIN. I WAS PULLIN ONTO THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE HIGHWAY AND THE CAR AGAIN LOST ALL ACCELERATION, BUT CONTINUED TO RUN. THIS CONTINUED ALL THE WAY HOME, WHICH I ARRIVED SAFELY, LUCKILY. I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET A SERVICE MANAGER ON THE PHONE. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO CALL ME BACK, WHICH THEY NEVER DID. I ENDED UP TAKING MY CAR TO ANOTHER SHOP NEAR MY HOME AND THEY TOLD ME THAT MY ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY HAD GONE OUT. THEY HAD RECENTLY MADE THIS FIX TO TWO OTHER FORD ESCAPES, WHICH CONCERNED ME. THEY ALSO HAD TO GET THE REPLACEMENT PIECE DIRECTLY FROM FORD, WHICH ALSO CONCERNS ME BECAUSE I AM NOW CONVINCED IT IS A FAULTY PIECE ALTOGETHER. I STILL FEEL AT RISK AS THEY HAVE ONLY REPLACED THE PIECE WHICH I FEEL MAY STILL BY FAULTY. I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT FORD WAS PUT SO MANY PEOPLE AT RISK AND MY HOPE IS THAT THIS IS RESEARCHED AND IS RECALLED FOR PEOPLES SAFETY. I FEEL SO BLESSED THAT MY CHILD WAS NOT IN THE CAR WITH ME DURING THESE INCIDENTS ALTHOUGH I WAS EXTREMELY SCARED FOR MY OWN WELL BEING. I WOULD LIKE FORD TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10484645
35,700 miles · Sep 2, 2012
Electrical SystemPower Train
TWICE, VEHICLE WENT INTO "LIMP MODE" AND FAILED TO ACCELERATE, ONCE WHILE STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, AND A SECOND TIME WHEN TURNING ONTO ANOTHER ROADWAY. THE ENGINE WOULD ONLY IDLE AND WE HAD TO PULL OUT OF MOVING TRAFFIC AND SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE FOR A MINUTE AND THEN RESTART. IT WOULD THEN RUN FINE. GUESSING THE THROTTLE COMP…
Read full complaint
TWICE, VEHICLE WENT INTO "LIMP MODE" AND FAILED TO ACCELERATE, ONCE WHILE STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, AND A SECOND TIME WHEN TURNING ONTO ANOTHER ROADWAY. THE ENGINE WOULD ONLY IDLE AND WE HAD TO PULL OUT OF MOVING TRAFFIC AND SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE FOR A MINUTE AND THEN RESTART. IT WOULD THEN RUN FINE. GUESSING THE THROTTLE COMPUTER HAD TO REBOOT TO FUNCTION AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10473310
47,500 miles · Jul 31, 2012
Electrical System
THE CAR LITERALLY DIED WHILE DRIVING. I PULLED OVER (COASTED MORE LIKE), TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN TRIED TO RESTART (IT DID). THEN IT DID THE SAME THING AN HOUR LATER. I WAS TOLD BY A TRUSTED MECHANIC IT'S LIKELY A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY (TBA) AND THAT THERE'S A NOTE IN THE DATABASE INDICATING THERE MIGHT BE …
Read full complaint
THE CAR LITERALLY DIED WHILE DRIVING. I PULLED OVER (COASTED MORE LIKE), TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN TRIED TO RESTART (IT DID). THEN IT DID THE SAME THING AN HOUR LATER. I WAS TOLD BY A TRUSTED MECHANIC IT'S LIKELY A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY (TBA) AND THAT THERE'S A NOTE IN THE DATABASE INDICATING THERE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM. I WON'T KNOW FOR SURE UNTIL IT'S REPLACED ON THURSDAY. I CALLED FORD AND THEY SAID IT'S POSSIBLE IT COULD BE COVERED UNDER THEIR 60,000/5YR POWER TRAIN WARRANTY BUT THAT A DEALER MIGHT SAY IT'S UNDER THE 3 YR WARRANTY AND THUS PASSED COVERAGE. I WENT TO A NEARBY FORD DEALERSHIP AND SURPRISE, SURPRISE IT'S NOT COVERED. HOW CAN A CAR LITERALLY DYING WHILE ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NOT BE DUE TO A DEFECTIVE PART?! IT'S A 2010 MODEL. I'VE GOT LESS THAN 50,000 MILES ON IT. ALSO THE EMISSIONS WARRANTY BOOK SPECIFICALLY LISTS THE TBA AS COVERED AND IT'S NOT LIMITED TO 3 YEARS. THIS LOOKS LIKE AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. IT'S NOT A MINOR PROBLEM LIKE THE AIR CONDITIONING GOING OUT. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ISOLATED INCIDENCE IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT CONCERN THAT A MECHANIC CAN SEE A WARNING ON THE PART. HOPE I'M WRONG. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10468462
12,300 miles · Aug 31, 2011
Electrical SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT AND PULL OFF THE RAMP ROAD BEFORE GETTING ON TO I-4. WE TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND SAT FOR A FEW MINUTES TO COMPOSE OURSELVES. I WAS HOPING THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD RESET ITSELF SO WE COULD CONTINUE. WE STARTED THE ENGINE AND WE CONTINUED TO THE AIRPORT WITHOUT ANYMORE PROBLEMS. I DROVE HOME, CALLED JOHN AT BRANDON FORD AND DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM. HE SAID IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE NONE OF THE DASH LIGHTS CAME ON DURING THE INCIDENT. HE SAID TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AND HOPEFULLY IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. I DROVE FOR TWO WEEKS DROVE WITHOUT INCIDENT UNTIL 8/26/2011. THE SAME THING HAPPENED AS BEFORE. THE ENGINE DOWN SHIFTED ABOUT 65 MPH AND THE ENGINE BEGAN REVVING. WE SLOWED THE VEHICLE AND CAME TO A STOP TO MAKE A LEFT TURN. AFTER ACCELERATING WE FELT THE ENGINE OVER REVVING BEFORE SHIFTING. THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. IT IS UNPREDICTABLE AS TO WHEN A PROBLEM WILL OCCUR. IT'S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMETHING BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN. WE NEED THIS PROBLEM FIXED WITH ASSURANCE THAT IT IS TRULY FIXED OR WE NEED RESTITUTION FROM FORD FOR SELLING US AN UNSAFE VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10423609
8,500 miles · Mar 21, 2011
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling
WAS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC - TRAFFIC BEGAN TO MOVE, I PRESSED ON ACCELERATOR AND PROCEEDED. HIT ABOUT 5 MPH AND ENGINE LOST POWER COMPLETELY AND STEERING WHEEL LOCKED UP - RADIO AND A/C REMAINED ON. BATTERY AND OIL WARNING LAMPS ON DASH ILLUMINATED. WAS ABLE TO PUT VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL AND MOVE TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION OFF AND…
Read full complaint
WAS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC - TRAFFIC BEGAN TO MOVE, I PRESSED ON ACCELERATOR AND PROCEEDED. HIT ABOUT 5 MPH AND ENGINE LOST POWER COMPLETELY AND STEERING WHEEL LOCKED UP - RADIO AND A/C REMAINED ON. BATTERY AND OIL WARNING LAMPS ON DASH ILLUMINATED. WAS ABLE TO PUT VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL AND MOVE TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION OFF AND WAS ABLE TO RE-START VEHICLE AS NORMAL. PROCEEDED TO MY DESTINATION AS NORMAL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10392323
10,000 miles · Jan 21, 2011
Electrical System
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WITH REMOTE START MALFUNCTIONED IN 2010 AND 2011. THE UNIT STARTS THE VEHICLE WHEN FOBS ARE LAYING UNTOUCHED ON A TABLE AND AWAY FROM ALL POSSIBLE CONTACT. A REPROGRAMMING OF THE UNIT WAS COMPLETED IN 2010 BUT THE INCIDENT OCCURRED AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2011. THE ENTIRE UNIT WAS REPLACED ON 1/12/2011. CARBO…
Read full complaint
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WITH REMOTE START MALFUNCTIONED IN 2010 AND 2011. THE UNIT STARTS THE VEHICLE WHEN FOBS ARE LAYING UNTOUCHED ON A TABLE AND AWAY FROM ALL POSSIBLE CONTACT. A REPROGRAMMING OF THE UNIT WAS COMPLETED IN 2010 BUT THE INCIDENT OCCURRED AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2011. THE ENTIRE UNIT WAS REPLACED ON 1/12/2011. CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10378143
Mileage unknown · Aug 19, 2010
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, Hydraulic
2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER STATES VEHICLE HAS A FAST IDLE SPEED, IGNITION KEY LOCK PROBLEM AND A SOFT BRAKE PROBLEM. *TGW THE CONSUMER REQUESTED TO HAVE THE IDLE SPEED LOWERED TO 500 RPM. THE DEALER STATED THAT COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE IDLE WAS SET AT THE FACTORY. THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WOULD ROLL FORWARD AND BAC…
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER STATES VEHICLE HAS A FAST IDLE SPEED, IGNITION KEY LOCK PROBLEM AND A SOFT BRAKE PROBLEM. *TGW THE CONSUMER REQUESTED TO HAVE THE IDLE SPEED LOWERED TO 500 RPM. THE DEALER STATED THAT COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE IDLE WAS SET AT THE FACTORY. THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WOULD ROLL FORWARD AND BACKWARDS DUE TO THE FAST IDLE SPEED. HE ALMOST HIT THE BACK OF A BUILDING BECAUSE THE VEHICLE ROLLED BACK WHEN HE STARTED THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE. THE KEY WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN IN THE IGNITION WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT TO START THE VEHICLE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10350929
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.