← New search

2010 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Escape years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Ford Escape are substantially higher than the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,764 reports with mileage · 305 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 558 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 508 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 493 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

29 crash reports3 fire reports19 injury reports

Engine complaints

493 reports
Clear category filter
61,000 miles · Sep 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING TO SCHOOL AND SHE INFORMED ME THAT SHE LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO JERK FORWARD. THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES IN FOUR DAYS. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND A "WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL FORD DEALER APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES AWAY. THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION 10 TIMES DURING THE TR…

Read full complaint

MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING TO SCHOOL AND SHE INFORMED ME THAT SHE LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO JERK FORWARD. THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES IN FOUR DAYS. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND A "WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL FORD DEALER APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES AWAY. THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION 10 TIMES DURING THE TRIP. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT WORK AND THE ENGINE WOULD LOWER TO IDLE AND BEGIN TO JERK, AS IF IT WERE GOING TO STALL. I HAD TO SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND WAIT A FEW MINUTES BEFORE CRANKING AGAIN. I WOULD MAKE IT 100 YARDS TO 3 MILES BETWEEN EACH INCIDENT. THE FORD DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS REPLACING. IT IS BEING REPLACED THIS WEEK. LUCKILY I HAD PURCHASED AN EXTENDED WARRANTY THAT COVERS THIS REPAIR OR IT WOULD BE OVER $400.00. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10545622

43,500 miles · Sep 24, 2013
Engine

VEHICLE'S ENGINE SHUT OFF AT 60 MPH. HAD TO PULL OVER AND RESTART CAR TO GET POWER. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10545185

88,000 miles · Sep 23, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other

THIS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING BACK FROM WORK, I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE USED AND IT PASSED INSPECTION FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP. I HAVE OWNED VEHICLE FOR ALMOST 5 MONTHS WHEN THIS FAILURE OCCURRED. THE SYMPTOMS THAT I EXPERIENCED WERE LOSS OF POWER WHILE ACCELERATING AND ENGINE AUTOMATICALLY GOES INTO "LIMP MODE" (ENGINE ECU PROTECTION …

Read full complaint

THIS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING BACK FROM WORK, I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE USED AND IT PASSED INSPECTION FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP. I HAVE OWNED VEHICLE FOR ALMOST 5 MONTHS WHEN THIS FAILURE OCCURRED. THE SYMPTOMS THAT I EXPERIENCED WERE LOSS OF POWER WHILE ACCELERATING AND ENGINE AUTOMATICALLY GOES INTO "LIMP MODE" (ENGINE ECU PROTECTION PROTOCOL SO NO MORE DAMAGE WOULD BE DONE TO THE ENGINE) I NOTICED THAT THE ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON IN THE DASHBOARD, SO I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A ANOTHER FORD DEALERSHIP AND I EXPLAINED WHAT HAPPENED, RIGHT OF THE BAT THE WOMAN BEHIND THE COUNTER SAID IT WAS A TRANSMISSION FAILURE (WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE VEHICLE) SO I BECAME SUSPICIOUS. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER FORD DEALERSHIP AND I GOT A HOLD OF THE ACTUAL MECHANIC AND RIGHT AWAY HE SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY, OUT OF GOOD FAITH HE ADVISE THAT I CAN CHANGE THAT PART MYSELF WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY FORD FOR THEM TO FIX. THE ESTIMATE FOR GETTING IT FIXED THROUGH THE DEALERSHIP WAS CLOSE TO $600 +TAX, WHEN THE PART ITSELF COST ONLY AROUND $200 +TAX. I BOUGHT THE PART FROM THE DEALERSHIP AND CHANGED IT, EVER SINCE THAT FIX MY VEHICLE IS RUNNING EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE. THE MAN BEHIND THE COUNTER THAT GAVE ME THE PART MENTIONED THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVING THIS ISSUE AND THAT USUALLY CHANGING THE THROTTLE BODY FIXES THE ISSUE, HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT IF A RECALL IS TO BE MADE TO JUST BRING BACK THE DEFECTIVE PART AND THE PROOF OF PURCHASE IN ORDER TO GET MY MONEY BACK. FORD SHOULD JUST STOP DENYING THIS ISSUE AND JUST ADMIT THAT THE ISSUE WAS NEVER FULLY FIXED.

NHTSA ODI #10544982

70,000 miles · Sep 23, 2013
EnginePower Train

WE WERE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AS A FAMILY WITH 4 TOTAL PEOPLE IN THE CAR. THE ENGINE AND MOTOR LOST TOTAL POWER. YOU COULD PUT YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR ON THE GAS PEDAL AND THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE NO POWER AND NOT REV UP WITH NO RPM. WE ALMOST GOT REAR ENDED AND BLASTED FROM BEHIND BY A SEMI-TRUCK. THE SEMI-TRUCK HAD TO TAKE EVAS…

Read full complaint

WE WERE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AS A FAMILY WITH 4 TOTAL PEOPLE IN THE CAR. THE ENGINE AND MOTOR LOST TOTAL POWER. YOU COULD PUT YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR ON THE GAS PEDAL AND THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE NO POWER AND NOT REV UP WITH NO RPM. WE ALMOST GOT REAR ENDED AND BLASTED FROM BEHIND BY A SEMI-TRUCK. THE SEMI-TRUCK HAD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AND IF THE OUTSIDE LANE HAD BE BLOCKED AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO CHANGE LANES THEN HE WOULD OF HIT US AS HE SHOWED HIS DISPLEASURE BY BLASTING HIS HORN AT ME AND MY FAMILY AS HE SKATED BY. WE HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. ONCE ON THE SHOULDER WITH CARS ZIPPING BY AND CHILDREN SCARED IN THE CAR WE WAS ABLE TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF. THEN RESET IT AND RE-START THE CAR AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE FINE AGAIN FOR A WHILE. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON BUT AFTER YOU RESET AND RESTART THE CAR THE LIGHT GOES OFF TILL THE NEXT TIME. THIS STARTED AS A RANDOM THING BUT HAS DEVELOPED INTO A DAILY DEAL AND BECOME VERY DANGEROUS IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC. THIS HAPPENS DAILY NOW WHILE DRIVING AT A SPEED OF 25 MPH PLUS AND HAS NO WARNING SIGN. BEING TOLD IT IS A FAULTY CIRCUIT BOARD IN THE THROTTLE BODY BY THE DEALERSHIP AND A $500 PLUS DEAL TO FIX. THIS OCCURRENCE IS RISKING THE HEALTH, LIVELIHOOD AND SAFETY OF MY FAMILY AND KIDS. WEAR AND TEAR MAINTENANCE ON A VEHICLE I AM OK WITH FIXING BUT A FACTORY FAULTY CIRCUIT BOARD IS NOT ONE OF THOSE PARTS AND IS ON THE LIABILITY OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY AS A MANUFACTURE DEFECT.

NHTSA ODI #10544914

47,000 miles · Sep 22, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WITH CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED AT 55 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY DISENGAGED CRUISE CONTROL AND WENT TO AN EXTREMELY ROUGH IDLE WITH THE VEHICLE SHAKING LIKE A LEAF IN THE WIND. HAD TO EXIT HIGHWAY THROUGH TRAFFIC AS THE THROTTLE WOULD NOT RESPOND IN ANY POSITION. IT WAS EARLY MORNING WITH LIGHT TRAFFIC THANKFULLY. THIS COULD HAVE BEE…

Read full complaint

WITH CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED AT 55 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY DISENGAGED CRUISE CONTROL AND WENT TO AN EXTREMELY ROUGH IDLE WITH THE VEHICLE SHAKING LIKE A LEAF IN THE WIND. HAD TO EXIT HIGHWAY THROUGH TRAFFIC AS THE THROTTLE WOULD NOT RESPOND IN ANY POSITION. IT WAS EARLY MORNING WITH LIGHT TRAFFIC THANKFULLY. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE PROBLEM HAD OCCURRED LATER IN THE DAY DURING HEAVY TRAFFIC.

NHTSA ODI #10544869

59,724 miles · Sep 21, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System

STANDARD TRANSMISSION VEHICLE. TRAVELING ON CITY STREET AT 35 MPH, VEHICLE STARTED LOSING POWER AND ENGINE DIED. INITIALLY NOT ABLE TO RESTART, WAITED 4 MINUTES AND ENGINE STARTED. FEW MINUTES LATER AT A STOP, BEGAN ACCELERATING BUT ENGINE DIED AGAIN. AFTER FIRST OCCURRENCE, ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND WRENCH LIGHT WENT ON AND OFF.…

Read full complaint

STANDARD TRANSMISSION VEHICLE. TRAVELING ON CITY STREET AT 35 MPH, VEHICLE STARTED LOSING POWER AND ENGINE DIED. INITIALLY NOT ABLE TO RESTART, WAITED 4 MINUTES AND ENGINE STARTED. FEW MINUTES LATER AT A STOP, BEGAN ACCELERATING BUT ENGINE DIED AGAIN. AFTER FIRST OCCURRENCE, ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND WRENCH LIGHT WENT ON AND OFF. WAS ABLE TO GET VEHICLE STARTED AND PROCEEDED TO FORD DEALER. FORD DEALER DIAGNOSED PROBLEM AS FAULTY THROTTLE BODY AND REPLACED.

NHTSA ODI #10544772

66,000 miles · Sep 20, 2013
EnginePower TrainSteering

1ST - VEHICLE WAS REFUELED WITH 87 OCTANE AND JUST DROVE ONE MILE DOWN AND UP A HILL WERE IT STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT. LIGHT TURNED GREEN AND THE THROTTLE WAS APPLIED AND VEHICLE LURCHED AND STALLED. 2ND - VEHICLE WAS DRIVING AROUND NEIGHBORHOOD GOING 20 MPH AND STARTED TO SPUTTER AND HESITATE 3RD - RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC WERE IT WAS…

Read full complaint

1ST - VEHICLE WAS REFUELED WITH 87 OCTANE AND JUST DROVE ONE MILE DOWN AND UP A HILL WERE IT STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT. LIGHT TURNED GREEN AND THE THROTTLE WAS APPLIED AND VEHICLE LURCHED AND STALLED. 2ND - VEHICLE WAS DRIVING AROUND NEIGHBORHOOD GOING 20 MPH AND STARTED TO SPUTTER AND HESITATE 3RD - RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC WERE IT WAS STOPPED THEN THROTTLE APPLIED AND LURCHED AND STALLED 4TH - USING CRUISE CONTROL DRIVING 75 MPH DOWN PARKWAY, VEHICLE HESITATED AND THEN QUICKLY SLOWED DOWN TO 20 MPH AND STALLED 5TH - DRIVING TO DEALER TO FIGURE OUT HESITATION AND STALL, ACCELERATED FROM RED LIGHT AND HESITATED AND STALLED 6TH - STILL ENROUTE TO DEALER, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS NOW ILLUMINATED, AND VEHICLE STALLS AGAIN ONLY 300 FEET FROM LAST STALL. ENGINE HAS ROUGH IDLE. POLICE OFFICER SUGGESTED THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM BECAUSE HIS FORD EXPEDITION RECENTLY HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AND SYMPTOMS. DEALER DIAGNOSED A BAD THROTTLE BODY. VEHICLE DID NOT HAVE ANY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED UNTIL THE LAST 6TH STALL. EVERY TIME VEHICLE EXPERIENCED PROBLEM THERE WAS NO THROTTLE RESPONSE AND RESTART IN NEUTRAL LED TO RE-STALLING. VEHICLE HAD TO BE STOPPED AND RE-STARTED AFTER TRANSMISSION WAS PLACED IN PARK. ENGINE SPUTTERED AND WAS RESISTANT TO ACCELERATION AFTER 6TH STALL BUT SLOW SMOOTH ACCELERATION PROVED EFFECTIVE. ALL STALLS WERE EXPERIENCED WITH LIGHT TO MODERATE ACCELERATION. *LN

NHTSA ODI #10544689

67,000 miles · Sep 18, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHEN THE FORD ESCAPE IS DRIVING AND STOPS AT A LIGHT THE ENGINE STARTS TO RIDDLE. ONCE YOU HIT THE GAS THE CAR GOES INTO SECOND GEAR THEN THE GAS PEDALS STOPS WORKING. CAN'T USE THE GAS PEDAL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10544326

50,976 miles · Sep 18, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train

DRIVING MY VEHICLE HOME FOR LUNCH MY VEHICLE STARTED SPUTTERING AND MY CRUISE CONTROL KICKED OFF. VEHICLE RPM'S DROPPED AND ACCELERATOR PEDAL QUIT WORKING. SO I PULLED OVER. I USED MY DTC DEVICE TO SEE WHAT CODE IS POPPING UP AND IT WAS P2111. I PUT CAR IN PARK, SHUT IT OFF, WAITED 30 SECONDS AND STARTED IT BACK UP AND DROVE HOM…

Read full complaint

DRIVING MY VEHICLE HOME FOR LUNCH MY VEHICLE STARTED SPUTTERING AND MY CRUISE CONTROL KICKED OFF. VEHICLE RPM'S DROPPED AND ACCELERATOR PEDAL QUIT WORKING. SO I PULLED OVER. I USED MY DTC DEVICE TO SEE WHAT CODE IS POPPING UP AND IT WAS P2111. I PUT CAR IN PARK, SHUT IT OFF, WAITED 30 SECONDS AND STARTED IT BACK UP AND DROVE HOME. NOW I'M HERE TYPING THIS UP.

NHTSA ODI #10544248

53,393 miles · Sep 17, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

TONIGHT I WAS DRIVING HOME DOING ABOUT 55MPH WHEN MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY SHUDDERED AND LOST ALL POWER. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO COAST IT TO WHERE IT WAS MOSTLY OFF OF THE ROAD. IT DID NOT DIE BUT CONTINUED TO SHAKE WHILE IN HIGH IDLE. THE POWER STEERING WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY AND NO ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON. PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL PR…

Read full complaint

TONIGHT I WAS DRIVING HOME DOING ABOUT 55MPH WHEN MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY SHUDDERED AND LOST ALL POWER. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO COAST IT TO WHERE IT WAS MOSTLY OFF OF THE ROAD. IT DID NOT DIE BUT CONTINUED TO SHAKE WHILE IN HIGH IDLE. THE POWER STEERING WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY AND NO ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON. PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL PRODUCED ZERO RESULTS. I SHUT IT DOWN AND PONDERED WHETHER TO TRY AND START IT BACK UP OR JUST CALL A TOW TRUCK. BEING OUT IN THE COUNTRY I DECIDED TO TAKE A CHANCE. IT STARTED UP AND RAN FINE...FOR LESS THAN TWO MILES...WHEN IT REPEATED THE SAME SCENARIO ONLY IN A MUCH MORE DRAMATIC LOSS OF POWER SHUDDER AND REAL ROUGH IDLE. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE DISPLAY PANELS. DIDN'T NOTICE THE LOSS OF POWER STEERING THAT TIME AND THE ENGINE DID NOT DIE. CALLED THE DEALERSHIP... NO TOW TRUCK AVAILABLE. TOOK MY CHANCES AGAIN AND DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP SINCE IT WAS ONLY A FEW MILES FURTHER THEN GOING HOME. DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM DURING THAT DRIVE BUT DETECTED AN ENGINE WHINE SOUND THAT I HAD NEVER NOTICED BEFORE. VEHICLE HAS 53,393 MILES ON IT. ENGINE WAS PULLED AT 8K FOR OIL LEAKS. HAVE HAD NUMEROUS INCIDENTS OF SHIFTING CLUNKING SOUND AT TAKE OFF OVER THE LIFE OF IT. HAVE HAD BRAKES FAIL IN REVERSE. ALWAYS PUMP THEM BEFORE BACKING OUT OF MY GARAGE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE WORKING OK THAT DAY. ALL WORK, RIGHT DOWN TO TIRE ROTATIONS HAVE BEEN DONE ONLY AT THE DEALERSHIP I PURCHASED THIS BRAND NEW AT. LUCKILY I PURCHASED AN EXTENDED WARRANTY. GUESS I'LL LEARN TOMORROW WHAT'S UP WITH IT THIS TIME. SAD TO HAVE A $28,000 VEHICLE THAT I'VE NEVER REALLY TRUSTED SINCE ITS EARLY FAILURE. JUST THANKFUL I WASN'T STILL ON THE INTERSTATE MOVING ALONG IN 70+ MPH RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. I WILL NEVER TRUST THIS VEHICLE AGAIN AFTER EXPERIENCING THIS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10544150

Official recalls

3

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 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.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

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.

10V222000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

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

4

DP15001 · 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.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems