← 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
84,700 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

TWICE IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS, THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP HOME" MODE COMPLETE WITH WRENCH INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE ENGINE DROPPED AND WOULD NOT COME ABOVE 1000 RPM, AND WOULD ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO LURCH FORWARD AT NO MORE THAN 15-20 MILES PER HOUR. THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED ON 6/24 AT AN INTERSECTION, UPON …

Read full complaint

TWICE IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS, THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP HOME" MODE COMPLETE WITH WRENCH INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE ENGINE DROPPED AND WOULD NOT COME ABOVE 1000 RPM, AND WOULD ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO LURCH FORWARD AT NO MORE THAN 15-20 MILES PER HOUR. THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED ON 6/24 AT AN INTERSECTION, UPON THE LIGHT TURNING GREEN. AS I ACCELERATED TO GO THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, THE VEHICLE DROPPED INTO "LIMP" MODE AND FORCED A LEFT TURN TO PARK AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. DOING SO AND ALLOWING IT TO SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES GOT IT TO RESET AND NOT HAPPEN AGAIN ON MY WAY HOME. THE SECOND OCCURRENCE WAS THE MORNING OF 6/25, IN THE MIDDLE OF I-95 ON MY WAY TO WORK; APPROXIMATE SPEED WAS 55-60 MILES PER HOUR. THANKFULLY, I WAS IN THE FAR RIGHT LANE AND ABLE TO DRIFT TO THE SHOULDER TO REPEAT LAST NIGHT'S PROCEDURE. CONSIDERING THE NEGATIVE PRESS THE "LIMP HOME" MODE AND THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY GET FROM VARIOUS FORUMS RECOUNTING VERY SIMILAR OCCASIONS TO MY OWN EXPERIENCE, THIS NEEDS TO BE A RECALL BEFORE SOMEBODY GETS KILLED! A TSB OR "SUGGESTED SOLUTION" IS NOT ENOUGH! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521734

51,490 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM LOUISVILLE HEADED BACK TO CINCINNATI MY DAUGHTER EXPERIENCED OUR VEHICLE STALLING OUT AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES. SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK HER WAY OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND RESTART THE VEHICLE EACH TIME. HOWEVER THIS WAS VERY SCARY AS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THE SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND SPEED CAUS…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM LOUISVILLE HEADED BACK TO CINCINNATI MY DAUGHTER EXPERIENCED OUR VEHICLE STALLING OUT AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES. SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK HER WAY OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND RESTART THE VEHICLE EACH TIME. HOWEVER THIS WAS VERY SCARY AS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THE SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND SPEED CAUSED TRAFFIC TO ALMOST REAR END HER VEHICLE ON TWO OF THE THREE OCCASIONS. WHEN I CONTACTED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER UPON SAFELY RETURNING HOME THEY MADE IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY AND THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM IN THESE VEHICLES. I WAS ALSO TOLD BY MY SON THAT I NEEDED TO REPORT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM. HE DID A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH AND WAS ABLE TO SEE THE INVESTIGATION INTO THIS ISSUE. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BEFORE THERE IS INNOCENT LOSS OF LIFE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521711

47,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WHILE AT STOP LIGHTS OR WHEN THE CAR WAS JUST IDLING I NOTICE THE CAR WOULD SHAKE/SPUTTER/HESITATE, LIKE IT WAS NOT GETTING ENOUGH FUEL TO THE ENGINE TO IDLE, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE BUT IT DID NOT STALL OUT COMPLETELY IT WOULD RECOVER. THEN WHILE DRIVING HOME ON JUNE 23, 2013 AT 40MPH I TOOK MY FOOT …

Read full complaint

FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WHILE AT STOP LIGHTS OR WHEN THE CAR WAS JUST IDLING I NOTICE THE CAR WOULD SHAKE/SPUTTER/HESITATE, LIKE IT WAS NOT GETTING ENOUGH FUEL TO THE ENGINE TO IDLE, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE BUT IT DID NOT STALL OUT COMPLETELY IT WOULD RECOVER. THEN WHILE DRIVING HOME ON JUNE 23, 2013 AT 40MPH I TOOK MY FOOT OFF OF THE GAS PEDAL FOR A SECOND TO BEGIN TO SLOW DOWN AS I WAS APPROACHING A RED LIGHT, HOWEVER, THE LIGHT CHANGED BEFORE I GOT TO THE INTERSECTION AND THEN THE CAR MADE A SHUTTER/THUD NOT A LOUD SOUND BUT YOU KNEW SOMETHING HAS JUST HAPPENED, I THOUGHT MAYBE MY TRANSMISSION HAD JUST GONE OUT BECAUSE WHEN I WAS PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL IT DID NOT RESPOND. I PUSHED THE PEDAL ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I COULD NOT TELL IF THE CAR REALLY STALLED OUT IT SEEMED MORE LIKE THE GAS PEDAL WAS JUST NOT RESPONDING. I LOST SPEED RAPIDLY AND COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT. THE FIRST TIME I RESTARTED THE CAR THE GAS PEDAL STILL DID NOT WORK BUT THE CAR DID GO INTO GEAR SO I THOUGHT IT MUST NOT BE THE TRANSMISSION. THE SECOND TIME I RESTARTED THE CAR I GAVE THE GAS PEDAL A COUPLE OF PUMPS BEFORE PUTTING INTO GEAR TO MAKE SURE IT WAS RESPONDING THAT WORKED AND I MADE IT HOME. THE CAR DID HESITATE AND SPUTTER WHEN I WAS SITTING STILL AT THE LIGHTS SO I WOULD PUT IT IN PARK AND REV THE ENGINE UNTIL THE LIGHT CHANGED. I TOOK THE CAR TO A FORD DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AND OF COURSE THAT IS AN OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE AS MY WARRANTY IS EXPIRED. HOW MANY OF THESE COMPLAINT HAVE TO BE FILED BEFORE FORD HAS TO ADMIT THIS IS THERE FAULT FOR PUTTING FAULTY THROTTLE BODIES IN THESE CARS AND ISSUES A RECALL ? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521659

37,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING 60MPH ON HIGHWAY WHEN FORD ESCAPE BUCKED, SLOWED, DID NOT ACCELERATE WHEN GAS WAS APPLIED. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD WHERE ENGINE SPUTTERED AND DIED. RESTARTED TRUCK, DROVE ANOTHER 10 MILES WHEN SAME OCCURRED. THIS HAS OCCURRED NUMEROUS TIMES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. I ASSUMED I HAD BOUGHT GAS WITH WATER IN IT "BAD GAS". …

Read full complaint

DRIVING 60MPH ON HIGHWAY WHEN FORD ESCAPE BUCKED, SLOWED, DID NOT ACCELERATE WHEN GAS WAS APPLIED. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD WHERE ENGINE SPUTTERED AND DIED. RESTARTED TRUCK, DROVE ANOTHER 10 MILES WHEN SAME OCCURRED. THIS HAS OCCURRED NUMEROUS TIMES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. I ASSUMED I HAD BOUGHT GAS WITH WATER IN IT "BAD GAS". SEVERAL TIMES I HAVE USED A PRODUCT TO REMOVE WATER FROM THE GAS, THIS ONLY WORKS SOMETIMES. I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT WITH FORD ON JULY 5TH, I BELIEVE ITS ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE ECOBOOST ENGINE IN MY SUV. FORD SHOULD RECALL THIS ENGINE BEFORE A FATALITY OCCURS, I HAVE VISIONS OF SOMEONE PLOWING INTO THE BACK OF MY VEHICLE WHILE MY ENGINE STALLS UNEXPECTEDLY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521621

35,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

FIRST TIME I NOTICED A PROBLEM WITH THE CAR IT STARTED TO SURGE AT A STOP LIGHT. THIS HAS HAPPENED A FEW TIMES IN THE LAST MONTH. THEN WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AT APPROX. 65 MPH THE CAR STALLED OUT AND HAD TO PULL OVER. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED CAR AND DROVE IT STRAIGHT TO THE DEALERSHIP. DEALERSHIP CHECKED CO…

Read full complaint

FIRST TIME I NOTICED A PROBLEM WITH THE CAR IT STARTED TO SURGE AT A STOP LIGHT. THIS HAS HAPPENED A FEW TIMES IN THE LAST MONTH. THEN WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AT APPROX. 65 MPH THE CAR STALLED OUT AND HAD TO PULL OVER. TURNED OFF VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED CAR AND DROVE IT STRAIGHT TO THE DEALERSHIP. DEALERSHIP CHECKED CODES AND SAID THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY FAILED. PART IS ON BACK ORDER. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521616

74,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Engine

THE VEHICLE JUST DIES AS THOUGH IT RAN OUT OF GAS. THE VEHICLE STAYS RUNNING, DOES NOT LOOSE THE POWER TO RADIO OR LIGHTS ETC, BUT DIES AS IF OUT OF GAS. I PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND IT IDLES VERY ROUGH. PLACE IN PARK, TURN THE KEY TO THE OFF POSITION AND RESTART NO PROBLEMS. HOWEVER THE VEHICLE NOW DOES IT ON THE…

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE JUST DIES AS THOUGH IT RAN OUT OF GAS. THE VEHICLE STAYS RUNNING, DOES NOT LOOSE THE POWER TO RADIO OR LIGHTS ETC, BUT DIES AS IF OUT OF GAS. I PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND IT IDLES VERY ROUGH. PLACE IN PARK, TURN THE KEY TO THE OFF POSITION AND RESTART NO PROBLEMS. HOWEVER THE VEHICLE NOW DOES IT ON THE HIGHWAY WHILE TRAVELING AT 80 MILES PER HOUR. THERE OBVIOUSLY IS SOME THING WRONG WITH THIS....A HUGE SAFETY PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521615

49,100 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineFuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control

ON JUNE 23, 2013 DRIVING ON STREET ABOUT 25 M.P.H. WHEN CAR SUDDENLY DROPPED IN SPEED TO ALMOST AN IDLE. AFTER PULLING TO SIDE OF ROAD, WAS ABLE TO TURN AROUND AND RETURN HOME AT ABOUT 1 M.P.H. FORTUNATELY, THERE WERE NO VEHICLES BEHIND ME, OTHERWISE, BECAUSE OF THE ABRUPT STOPPING OF THE VEHICLE A REAR END ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE O…

Read full complaint

ON JUNE 23, 2013 DRIVING ON STREET ABOUT 25 M.P.H. WHEN CAR SUDDENLY DROPPED IN SPEED TO ALMOST AN IDLE. AFTER PULLING TO SIDE OF ROAD, WAS ABLE TO TURN AROUND AND RETURN HOME AT ABOUT 1 M.P.H. FORTUNATELY, THERE WERE NO VEHICLES BEHIND ME, OTHERWISE, BECAUSE OF THE ABRUPT STOPPING OF THE VEHICLE A REAR END ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. FORD ROADSIDE SERVICE TOWED CAR TO KINDLE FORD, CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE, NJ ON MONDAY JUNE 24, 2013. I WAS LATER ADVISED BY THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED A THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY AT A COST OF $378.00 AND THAT IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE POWER TRAIN WARRANTY PERIOD. WORSE YET, I WAS TOLD THAT THE PART WAS BACK ORDERED, SERVICE COULD GIVE NO DATE WHEN THE PART WOULD BE AVAILABLE, AS IT WAS ON NATIONWIDE BACK ORDER AND COULD BE SEVERAL WEEKS OR MORE BEFORE THE PART WAS AVAILABLE. NO LONER CAR WAS OFFERED FOR USE DURING THIS UNREASONABLE DELAY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521610

51,000 miles · Jun 24, 2013
EnginePower Train

WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 30MPH WHEN THE ENGINE CUT DOWN TO WHAT I WOULD LATER FIND OUT WAS "LIMP HOME MODE". THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS WENT ON AND THE VEHICLE BECAME UNRESPONSIVE TO THE ACCELERATOR. I HAD TRAFFIC BEHIND ME AND WAS GOING UP A HILL WHICH I WAS BARELY ABLE TO SPUTTER TO THE TOP OFF BEFORE TURNING OFF THE VEHIC…

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 30MPH WHEN THE ENGINE CUT DOWN TO WHAT I WOULD LATER FIND OUT WAS "LIMP HOME MODE". THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS WENT ON AND THE VEHICLE BECAME UNRESPONSIVE TO THE ACCELERATOR. I HAD TRAFFIC BEHIND ME AND WAS GOING UP A HILL WHICH I WAS BARELY ABLE TO SPUTTER TO THE TOP OFF BEFORE TURNING OFF THE VEHICLE. I TRIED STARTING IT AGAIN AND IT HARD STARTED BUT IDLED FINE AND RAN FINE FOR ABOUT 50 YARDS BEFORE THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO ROLL ONTO A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND PULL OVER. I EVENTUALLY CHANCED A DRIVE TO THE DEALER AND MADE IT THERE WITHOUT THE VEHICLE FAILING. I WAS LATER TOLD THAT IT WAS A FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE BODY AND THE PART WAS ON BACKORDER FOR 1-2 WEEKS. I SAW THAT THE 2005-2012 ESCAPES ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE NHTSA FOR THIS ISSUE SO I ASSUME BACKORDER WAIT IS BECAUSE THE PART HAS BEEN FAILING WITH FREQUENCY. ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT CAUSE AN ACCIDENT, THE SUDDEN CHANGE IN RESPONSIVENESS OF THE VEHICLE AND THE FAILURE TO ACCELERATE COULD HAVE EASILY LEAD TO AN ACCIDENT AND/OR BODILY INJURY. AS IT IS, I AM WITHOUT MY VEHICLE FOR 1-2 WEEKS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521480

43,250 miles · Jun 24, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

POWER WAS LOST AND THE THROTTLE HAD NO RESPONSE-ENGINE RAN ROUGH BUT WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE-HAD TO RESTART TO REGAIN POWER-VERY,VERY, FRIGHTENING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521478

42,000 miles · Jun 24, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System

ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STALLED WHILE DRIVING. VEHICLE WAS UNRESPONSIVE WHEN PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL AND REQUIRED A RESTART IN ORDER TO TEMPORARILY CORRECT THE ISSUE. IN ALL INSTANCES, I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC AND STRUGGLED TO MAKE MY WAY TO THE SHOULDER TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT OR INJURY TO MYSELF AND OT…

Read full complaint

ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STALLED WHILE DRIVING. VEHICLE WAS UNRESPONSIVE WHEN PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL AND REQUIRED A RESTART IN ORDER TO TEMPORARILY CORRECT THE ISSUE. IN ALL INSTANCES, I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC AND STRUGGLED TO MAKE MY WAY TO THE SHOULDER TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT OR INJURY TO MYSELF AND OTHERS. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION FROM LOCAL FORD DEALER, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE AND CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO STALL. DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS ONLY COVERED UNDER WARRANTY THROUGH 36K MILES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521458

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