NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
493 reportsClear category filter58,000 miles · Aug 18, 2013
EnginePower Train
CAR STALLED WHILE I WAS DRIVING OVER THE RAILROAD TRACK. AFTER BARELY GOT IT TO GO OVER THE RAILROAD (LUCKLY TRAIN DIDN'T COME WHILE I WAS BARELY MOVING) PULLED OVER TO SIDE AND SHUT THE CAR OFF AND STARTED BACK UP. WRENCH LOOKING LIGHT AND ENGINE CHECK LIGHT CAME ON WHILE IT WAS TRYING TO STALL, IT HAPPENED 2MORE TIMES WHILE TR…
Read full complaint
CAR STALLED WHILE I WAS DRIVING OVER THE RAILROAD TRACK. AFTER BARELY GOT IT TO GO OVER THE RAILROAD (LUCKLY TRAIN DIDN'T COME WHILE I WAS BARELY MOVING) PULLED OVER TO SIDE AND SHUT THE CAR OFF AND STARTED BACK UP. WRENCH LOOKING LIGHT AND ENGINE CHECK LIGHT CAME ON WHILE IT WAS TRYING TO STALL, IT HAPPENED 2MORE TIMES WHILE TRYING TO MAKE IT BACK HOME. AFTER FEW CHECKING AROUND IT IS CAUSED BY THE FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535995
60,000 miles · Aug 17, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY LOST POWER. STEPPING ON THE GAS PRODUCED NO EFFECT. DRIVING SLOWLY TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD I RESTARTED THE ENGINE, AND PROCEEDED TO WORK. THIS WAS A DAILY OCCURRENCE BOTH GOING TO WORK IN THE MORNING, AND RETURNING IN THE EVENING. TOOK THE CAR TO A MECHANIC AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS THE …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY LOST POWER. STEPPING ON THE GAS PRODUCED NO EFFECT. DRIVING SLOWLY TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD I RESTARTED THE ENGINE, AND PROCEEDED TO WORK. THIS WAS A DAILY OCCURRENCE BOTH GOING TO WORK IN THE MORNING, AND RETURNING IN THE EVENING. TOOK THE CAR TO A MECHANIC AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535841
94,013 miles · Aug 16, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
JUST DRIVING ALONG ONE DAY AND UPON CROSSING AN INTERSECTION OF A BUSY STREET THE CALL STALLED. I PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL AND COULDNT ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO PULL OF ON A SIDE STREET WITHOUT HOLDING UP TRAFFIC. WHEN I GOT TO THE SIDE STREET I SHUT THE CAR OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN AND AFTER TAKING AWHILE IT FINALLY STAR…
Read full complaint
JUST DRIVING ALONG ONE DAY AND UPON CROSSING AN INTERSECTION OF A BUSY STREET THE CALL STALLED. I PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL AND COULDNT ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO PULL OF ON A SIDE STREET WITHOUT HOLDING UP TRAFFIC. WHEN I GOT TO THE SIDE STREET I SHUT THE CAR OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN AND AFTER TAKING AWHILE IT FINALLY STARTED BACK UP ONLY TO DO THE SAME THING A BLOCK LATER. THE PROBLEM SEEMED TO HAVE GONE AWAY FOR A COUPLE WEEKS BUT HAS CAME BACK RECENTLY AND IS EVER MORE FREQUENT. WHEN IT SETS OVER NIGHT OR FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME IT IS DRIVEABLE BUT AFTER A FEW MILES IT STARTS TO STALL AGAIN. DRIVING UNDER 30 MPH OR ACCELERATING SUPER SLOW SEEMS TO HELP SOME TIMES BUT NOT ALWAYS. STILL PROBABLY NOT VERY SAFE TO DRIVE IT LIKE THAT ESPECIALLY PULLING ONTO A BUSY STREET OR OUT INTO A BUSY INTERSECTION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535823
52,000 miles · Aug 16, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)EngineVehicle Speed Control
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT, USED ON FEB 28, 2012 FROM A FORD DEALER, NORTHEAST PHILA. IT HAD 52,000 MILES. I PURCHASED AN EXTENDED 3YEAR 36,000MILE BUMPER TO BUMPER EXTENDED WARRANTY FROM DATE OF PURCHASE. UPON DRIVING OFF THE LOT, I NOTICED HIGH IDLE AT REST, LOW ACCELERATION AND SHIFTING BY ITSELF WHEN ACCELERATING A…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT, USED ON FEB 28, 2012 FROM A FORD DEALER, NORTHEAST PHILA. IT HAD 52,000 MILES. I PURCHASED AN EXTENDED 3YEAR 36,000MILE BUMPER TO BUMPER EXTENDED WARRANTY FROM DATE OF PURCHASE. UPON DRIVING OFF THE LOT, I NOTICED HIGH IDLE AT REST, LOW ACCELERATION AND SHIFTING BY ITSELF WHEN ACCELERATING AND TRYING TO SLOW TO STOP. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER, A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER. SERVICE MGR. SAID THAT HE TOOK MY VEHICLE HOME, DROVE IT, FOUND NOTHING WRONG. I SHOWED HIM SERVICE BULLETINS FROM FORD DOCUMENTING VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, SIMILAR COMPLAINTS, AS A RESULT OF THE MAIN COMPUTER PROGRAM OF THE VEHICLE, WRONG CODING, CODES NOT BEING READ CORRECTLY, ETC. SERVICE MANAGER DENIED SEEING THIS INFORMATION, DESPITE ME GIVING HIM COPIES. IT IS NOW AUGUST 16, 2013, VEHICLE IS WORSE, IDLING AT REST 3000 RPM, 10-20 MPH IDLES AT 4,000-5,000 RPM, LOUDER THAN THE RADIO. VEHICLE SHIFTING ITSELF, HESITATING, WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE ONTO A HIGHWAY RAMP, OR GOING UP A HILL. VEHICLE SHIFTING, AND JERKING WHILE TRYING TO SLOW TO A STOP. TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD DEALER ROUTE 1 LANGHORNE, PA, CLOSER TO MY HOME. WAS TOLD BY SERVICE REP THAT COMPUTER CODES FROM VEHICLE NOT BEING PICKED UP BY SERVICE DIAGNOSTIC COMPUTER. "WE HAD TO CLEAR YOUR VEHICLE COMPUTER AND REPROGRAM IT. NOT COVERED UNDER MANUFACTURER OR EXTENDED WARRANTY. THEREFORE YOU PAY THE $90 DIAGNOSTIC FEE". IT IS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE". I SAID HOW IS A COMPUTER MALFUNCTION IN THE VEHICLE, REQUIRING A COMPLETE WIPE AND REPROGRAM ROUTINE MAINTENANCE? THEY REFUSED TO RETURN MY $90. VEHICLE STILL SAME PROBLEM, SLIGHTLY LESS, A LITTLE MORE QUIETER, STILL RUNNING 4000 RPM ON MILD ACCELERATION. I AM AFRAID, BECAUSE IT WAS SHIFTING UP WHEN I WAS TRYING TO SLOW TO A STOP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535822
47,570 miles · Aug 15, 2013
EnginePower Train
THIS IS THE SECOND INCIDENT ON VEHICLE, WHICH OCCURRED ON AUG.13,2013 WHILE DRIVING APPROX.35/40 M.P.H. EVERYTHING WAS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST INCIDENT, EXCEPT THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON UNTIL THE NEXT DAY WHEN I RETURNED IT TO MY FORD DEALER FOR REPAIR. THE FORD DEALER REPLACED ( NOT FOR FREE ) THE THROTT…
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE SECOND INCIDENT ON VEHICLE, WHICH OCCURRED ON AUG.13,2013 WHILE DRIVING APPROX.35/40 M.P.H. EVERYTHING WAS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST INCIDENT, EXCEPT THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON UNTIL THE NEXT DAY WHEN I RETURNED IT TO MY FORD DEALER FOR REPAIR. THE FORD DEALER REPLACED ( NOT FOR FREE ) THE THROTTLE BODY & MOTOR ASY. THEY SAID IT WAS A LOSS OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE TPS SENSOR INSIDE THROTTLE BODY. ANYHOW THE CAR IS BACK ON THE ROAD TONIGHT , AUG 15, 2013 & SEEMS FINE. HOPE IT STAYS LIKE THIS. PS -- AS AN AFTER THOUGHT THE FORD DEALER COULDN'T HAVE BEEN NICER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535660
52,000 miles · Aug 15, 2013
EnginePower Train
MY VEHICLE STARTED SHAKING AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON I PULLED OVER AND TURNED IT OFF, RESTARTED IT AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME THE NEXT DAY IT HAPPENED AGAIN AND I DROVE IT INTO THE DEALER THAT I HAD JUST PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM 6 WEEKS EARLIER AND THEY DETERMINED IT WAS THE THROTTLE MOTOR. THE VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRA…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE STARTED SHAKING AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON I PULLED OVER AND TURNED IT OFF, RESTARTED IT AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME THE NEXT DAY IT HAPPENED AGAIN AND I DROVE IT INTO THE DEALER THAT I HAD JUST PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM 6 WEEKS EARLIER AND THEY DETERMINED IT WAS THE THROTTLE MOTOR. THE VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY BUT THEY WANT ME TO PAY FOR HALF OF REPAIR AND I HAVE DISCOVERED THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM IN THIS VEHICLE AND I AM AFRAID IF THEY PUT IN THE SAME PART I WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535448
54,000 miles · Aug 14, 2013
EnginePower Train
WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, VEHICLE STALLED, NO POWER, WE HAD TO PULL OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER. THE WRENCH ICON WAS DISPLAYED. AFTER TURNING OFF THE VEHICLE, WE WERE ABLE TO RESTART ENGINE AND TRAVEL HOME. THE SAME THING HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES. LUCKILY, WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OVER WITH NO COLLISION, ALTHOUGH ON TWO OCCASION…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, VEHICLE STALLED, NO POWER, WE HAD TO PULL OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER. THE WRENCH ICON WAS DISPLAYED. AFTER TURNING OFF THE VEHICLE, WE WERE ABLE TO RESTART ENGINE AND TRAVEL HOME. THE SAME THING HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES. LUCKILY, WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OVER WITH NO COLLISION, ALTHOUGH ON TWO OCCASIONS, TRAFFIC WAS HEAVY. AFTER THE THIRD INCIDENT, WE MADE AN APPOINTMENT AT OUR FORD DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT. THEY DIAGNOSED THROTTLE BODY FAILURE AND REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY AT THE COST OF $500.00, NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. MILEAGE ON THE ODOMETER IS 55,000. WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO RECALL ON THIS PART? ARE YOU WAITING FOR SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH? THIS IS AN EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS INCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THE NHTSA ARE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND ISSUE A RECALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535385
70,000 miles · Aug 14, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
CAR STALLED IN TRAFFIC! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535324
64,500 miles · Aug 14, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE WOULD STUTTER AND THEN STALL ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. HAPPENED ONCE ON THE FIRST DAY, TWICE ON THE SECOND, AND 5 TIMES (INCLUDING 3 ON THE WAY TO THE DEALERSHIP) ON THE THIRD DAY. THIS IS EXTREMELY UNSAFE, AS YOU ARE NEVER SURE WHEN IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I WAS TOLD THAT I HAVE A "BAD THROTTLE BODY." *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535314
50,245 miles · Aug 13, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
AFTER BEING AT A STOPLIGHT, I WAS ACCELERATING AROUND A CORNER ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND PUT MY HAZARDS ON. I WAS QUICKLY ABLE TO RESTART THE CAR AND DRIVE HOME, ALTHOUGH THE SAME THING HAPPENED TWICE THE VERY …
Read full complaint
AFTER BEING AT A STOPLIGHT, I WAS ACCELERATING AROUND A CORNER ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND PUT MY HAZARDS ON. I WAS QUICKLY ABLE TO RESTART THE CAR AND DRIVE HOME, ALTHOUGH THE SAME THING HAPPENED TWICE THE VERY NEXT DAY WHILE ACCELERATING AFTER BEING AT A STOPLIGHT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535210
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.