TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE AT A STOP LIGHT, THE VEHICLE SHOOK WITH THE ILLUMINATION OF THE MAINTENANCE WARNING LIGHT. THE DEALER VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED FOR THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 58,000.
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Escape years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
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.
Engine complaints
493 reportsWHILE DRIVING AT APPROX 65MPH ON FREEWAY, THE VEHICLE'S THROTTLE DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CAR'S RPM'S TO INCREASE DESPITE PUSHING IT TO THE FLOOR. THE CAR DID NOT STALL, BUT RATHER WAS IN A SUDDEN STATE OF IDLE.THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON, THEN "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" AND MY CAR WENT FROM 65 TO 5…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX 65MPH ON FREEWAY, THE VEHICLE'S THROTTLE DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CAR'S RPM'S TO INCREASE DESPITE PUSHING IT TO THE FLOOR. THE CAR DID NOT STALL, BUT RATHER WAS IN A SUDDEN STATE OF IDLE.THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON, THEN "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" AND MY CAR WENT FROM 65 TO 5MPH IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. AFTER CAR'S IGNITION WAS SHUT OFF, THE CAR RESTARTED WITHOUT PROBLEM. HOWEVER, THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AGAIN AFTER REENTERING FREEWAY NEARLY CAUSING A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. DEALERSHIP WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THE THROTTLE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, BUT NOT UNDER POWERTRAIN WARRANTY. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND NEEDS TO BE RECALLED ASAP. *TR
DRIVING 70 MPH ON HWY TRUCK JUST STARTS TO STALL NO CONTROL OF GAS PEDAL CARS ALMOST CRASHED IN TO ME I WAS LUCKY I WAS ABLE TO COAST OUT OF THE WAY. TROUBLE CODE IS P2111 NEEDS A NEW THROTTLE BODY THAT IS ON BACK ORDER FOR A FORD NATIONAL RECALL AND I HAVE TO WAIT DAYS TO GET, PRICE FOR PART IS $380 . AFTER A CALL TO FORD CUST…
Read full complaint
DRIVING 70 MPH ON HWY TRUCK JUST STARTS TO STALL NO CONTROL OF GAS PEDAL CARS ALMOST CRASHED IN TO ME I WAS LUCKY I WAS ABLE TO COAST OUT OF THE WAY. TROUBLE CODE IS P2111 NEEDS A NEW THROTTLE BODY THAT IS ON BACK ORDER FOR A FORD NATIONAL RECALL AND I HAVE TO WAIT DAYS TO GET, PRICE FOR PART IS $380 . AFTER A CALL TO FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE THEY SAID MY CAR IS NOT RECALLED BUT FUNNY HOW THE PART NUMBER CHANGED AND IT IS THE SAME ONE THEY HAVE A RECALL ON AND THEY WILL NOT REPLACE THE PART SINCE MY CAR IS OUT OF THE 3 YEARS 36,000 MILE WARRANTY MY TRUCK HAS 50,000 MILE. FORD HAS LOST A LONG TIME CUSTOMER !!! BUY AMERICAN MADE !!!! THANKS FORD EX OWNER OF EXPEDITION, EXPLORER, THUNDERBIRD, COUGARS, TOWN CAR, 2 CONTINENTALS NO MORE FORDS AT MY HOUSE.....!!!!!!! *TR
I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 680 IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC. I PUT MY FOOT ON GAS TO GO, BUT MY CAR JUST WOULDN'T GO. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I QUICKLY PULLED OVER IN THE SHOULDER ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE CAR STARTED SHAKING. I PUT MY CAR IN PARKING MODE AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED IT AGAIN, AND IT WORKED. SO…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 680 IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC. I PUT MY FOOT ON GAS TO GO, BUT MY CAR JUST WOULDN'T GO. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I QUICKLY PULLED OVER IN THE SHOULDER ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE CAR STARTED SHAKING. I PUT MY CAR IN PARKING MODE AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED IT AGAIN, AND IT WORKED. SO, I WENT INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO GET BACK ON THE HIGHWAY. AFTER ABOUT A MILE FURTHER IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC, MY CAR DID THE SAME EXACT THING. IT STOPPED WORKING, AND STARTED SHAKING WHEN I PULLED OVER TO THE SHOULDER. I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AGAIN. I WASN'T FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH DRIVING MY CAR SINCE SAME THING HAPPENED TWICE. SO, I HAD TO CALL THE TOW COMPANY AND HAD IT TOWED TO MY HOME. *TR
THROTTLE, CAR STALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY AND STREETS, NO WARNING. *TR
WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX 45MPH, THE VEHICLE'S THROTTLE DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CAR'S RPM'S TO INCREASE DESPITE PUSHING IT TO THE FLOOR. THE CAR DID NOT STALL, BUT RATHER WAS IN A SUDDEN STATE OF IDLE. AFTER CAR'S IGNITION WAS SHUT OFF, THE CAR RESTARTED WITHOUT PROBLEM. HOWEVER, THE INCIDENT HAP…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX 45MPH, THE VEHICLE'S THROTTLE DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CAR'S RPM'S TO INCREASE DESPITE PUSHING IT TO THE FLOOR. THE CAR DID NOT STALL, BUT RATHER WAS IN A SUDDEN STATE OF IDLE. AFTER CAR'S IGNITION WAS SHUT OFF, THE CAR RESTARTED WITHOUT PROBLEM. HOWEVER, THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AGAIN THE FOLLOWING DAY, NEARLY CAUSING A SERIOUS ACCIDENT AS IT HAPPENED IN THE MIDST OF HEAVY TRAFFIC AND THERE WAS NOWHERE TO MOVE THE CAR. WE TOOK IT TO THE DEALER WHO COULD FIND NOTHING ABNORMAL ON THE DIAGNOSTIC COMPUTER. HOWEVER BASED ON THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM, THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY TODAY AND REPROGRAMMED THE POWER TRAIN CONTROL MODULE AT A COST OF OVER $500. *TR
WE WERE TRAVELING AT 55 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY STALLED AND WOULD NO LONGER RESPOND WHEN I PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR. MY SUV SLOWED TO A STOP WHERE I CUT IT OFF. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPEED TO PULL OFF TO A SAFE LOCATION AND WAS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VERY BUSY HIGHWAY WHERE I WAS ALMOST …
Read full complaint
WE WERE TRAVELING AT 55 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY STALLED AND WOULD NO LONGER RESPOND WHEN I PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR. MY SUV SLOWED TO A STOP WHERE I CUT IT OFF. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPEED TO PULL OFF TO A SAFE LOCATION AND WAS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VERY BUSY HIGHWAY WHERE I WAS ALMOST SIDESWIPED BY A TRACTOR TRAILER TRUCK. IT WAS A VERY SCARY SITUATION TO SAY THE LEAST. THIS HAS SINCE HAPPENED 3 MORE TIMES, THE MOST RECENT BEING YESTERDAY AUGUST 23 ON AN INTERSTATE OVERPASS IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. AGAIN I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPEED TO PULL OFF TO A SAFE LOCATION AND WAS STUCK IN THE CENTER LANE OF THE OVERPASS. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART MY CAR SOON AFTER STALLING OUT AND WAS ABLE TO AN AUTO STORE THAT PULLED THE CODE OF P2112, WHICH IS THE THROTTLE BODY CODE. OF COURSE MY WARRANTY RAN OUT IN JUNE 2013 AND FORD ESTIMATES THE REPAIR TO COST $500 MINIMUM. AND SADLY, I AM NOW AFRAID TO DRIVE MY ESCAPE AS I FEAR IT WILL GET ME INTO AN ACCIDENT. I ASK THAT FORD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OBVIOUS FLAW IN THROTTLE BODY AND MAKE THE RECALL! *TR
I HAD JUST LEFT WORK YESTERDAY 0821/2013 AND WAS DRIVING MAYBE 40 MPH. MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE JUST DIED ON ME. I HAD DRIVEN BUT A HALF MILE. I COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT, TURNED IT OFF. I CHECKED UNDER THE HOOD AND ALL LOOKED OK SO I TRIED STARTING IT. AFTER SOME HESITATION, IT DID START. I DROVE IT STRAIGHT TO MY MECHANIC. HE COUL…
Read full complaint
I HAD JUST LEFT WORK YESTERDAY 0821/2013 AND WAS DRIVING MAYBE 40 MPH. MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE JUST DIED ON ME. I HAD DRIVEN BUT A HALF MILE. I COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT, TURNED IT OFF. I CHECKED UNDER THE HOOD AND ALL LOOKED OK SO I TRIED STARTING IT. AFTER SOME HESITATION, IT DID START. I DROVE IT STRAIGHT TO MY MECHANIC. HE COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG SO I PICKED IT BACK UP. THIS MORNING 08/22/2013 IT DID IT AGAIN WHEN I WAS TURNING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION, NOT A MILE FROM MY HOUSE. I WAS ALMOST HIT BY AN ONCOMING CAR. IT DID IT AGAIN, ON THE HIGHWAY, ABOUT 10 MILES LATER. THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I DROVE IT STRAIGHT TO MY MECHANIC BECAUSE I KNEW HE SHOULD NOW BE ABLE TO PULL SOMETHING UP ON THE COMPUTER. HE WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THE THROTTLE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. HE DID TELL ME TO CALL THE FORD DEALERSHIP TO SEE IF THERE WAS A RECALL BUT THERE WASN'T. HE FELT BAD AND GAVE ME A GREAT DEAL, $410, TO REPLACE IT. FORD NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!!! *TR
VEHICLE ABRUPTLY STALLED WITH CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON, AT HIGHWAY SPEED. AN ACCIDENT WAS BARELY AVERTED. CAR WAS TAKEN TO DEALERSHIP AND DIAGNOSED AS A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. THE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY WAS REPLACED. VEHICLE ONLY HAS 32K MILES. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM. *TR
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE FREEWAY WHEN SUDDENLY, MY ENGINE LOST POWER. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY THROTTLE WAS COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE. FORTUNATELY, I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE, SO I WAS ABLE TO COAST SAFELY OFF THE FREEWAY AND ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SHUT MY CAR OFF, WAITED A MINUTE OR TWO, AND THEN RESTARTED MY CAR. EVE…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE FREEWAY WHEN SUDDENLY, MY ENGINE LOST POWER. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY THROTTLE WAS COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE. FORTUNATELY, I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE, SO I WAS ABLE TO COAST SAFELY OFF THE FREEWAY AND ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SHUT MY CAR OFF, WAITED A MINUTE OR TWO, AND THEN RESTARTED MY CAR. EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE AFTER THAT. THIS HAPPENED AGAIN, NOW TOTALING 6 TIMES, ALL WHILE I WAS DRIVING. WENT TO THE MECHANIC, HE CALLED THE DEALERSHIP. HE WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM AND THAT HE COULD PUT A RUSH ORDER ON IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 15% OF THE PRICE, AND IT WOULD STILL TAKE 2 WEEKS. THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS, IT WOULD WAKE SEVERAL MONTHS. I NEED MY CAR TO WORK, AND TWO THINGS BOTHER ME THE MOST: A RUSH ORDER WOULD STILL TAKE 2 WEEKS TO BE DELIVERED, AND IF IT'S A COMMON PROBLEM, IT FEELS AS THOUGH FORD IS DOING NOTHING TO ALLEVIATE IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IMPAIRS MY ABILITY TO DRIVE SAFELY ON THE ROAD. I AM CONSTANTLY PARANOID WHILE DRIVING ON THE ROAD, AND I HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE TO DRIVE MY CAR, SINCE IT'S MY ONLY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. *TR
Official recalls
316V777000 · 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
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.
Illustration