NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
493 reportsClear category filter30,100 miles · May 30, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
DRIVING ON FREEWAY AT SPEED AND VEHICLE FUEL SYSTEM SEEMED TO SHUT OFF CAUSING VEHICLE TO STALL AND SHUTTER. I WAS BARELY ABLE TO EXIT FREEWAY WITHOUT INCIDENT. SHUT ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED AND VEHICLE FINALLY RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION, AT WHICH TIME I DROVE DIRECTLY TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION, BUT THEY WERE IN PROCESS OF CLOSIN…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON FREEWAY AT SPEED AND VEHICLE FUEL SYSTEM SEEMED TO SHUT OFF CAUSING VEHICLE TO STALL AND SHUTTER. I WAS BARELY ABLE TO EXIT FREEWAY WITHOUT INCIDENT. SHUT ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED AND VEHICLE FINALLY RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION, AT WHICH TIME I DROVE DIRECTLY TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION, BUT THEY WERE IN PROCESS OF CLOSING FOR THE DAY AND VEHICLE HAD RESUMED PROPER OPERATION BY THEN AND DEALER FELT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT BE DAMAGED TO CONTINUE ON TRIP IF WE WISHED. THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED 2 MORE TIMES BEFORE RETURNING HOME. WHEN HOME, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION AND IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY WHICH AS OF 5/30/13 ARE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO NATIONAL BACK ORDER. EVIDENTLY LOTS OF ESCAPES SEEM TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM. I AM CURRENTLY ON LIST FOR THE PART IN QUESTION. VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY BY 1 MONTH BUT NOT BY MILEAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514377
38,777 miles · May 30, 2013
Engine
TOOK OFF FROM STOP LIGHT, MADE A LEFT TURN AND WHILE IN MIDDLE OF TURN, FELT LOSS OF POWER, CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I LOOKED AT DASH AND NOTICED WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BATTERY SYMBOL IN RED AND THE OIL SYMBOL IN RED. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION TO OFF POSITION, WAITED A SECOND OR TWO AND TURNED BACK ON. VEHICLE ST…
Read full complaint
TOOK OFF FROM STOP LIGHT, MADE A LEFT TURN AND WHILE IN MIDDLE OF TURN, FELT LOSS OF POWER, CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I LOOKED AT DASH AND NOTICED WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BATTERY SYMBOL IN RED AND THE OIL SYMBOL IN RED. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION TO OFF POSITION, WAITED A SECOND OR TWO AND TURNED BACK ON. VEHICLE STARTED RIGHT BACK UP AND I CONTINUED ON MY WAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514265
75,125 miles · May 30, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING ALONG AROUND AT 45 OR 50 MPH AND WENT TO TURN ON THE AIR CONDITIONER AND THE CAR STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND THE CAR RESTARTED.. PREVIOUS TO THIS WHEN TURNING ON THE AC THE CAR GOT VERY SLUGGISH, I WAS STEPPING ON THE GAS BUT THE CAR WOULD NOT GO. AFTER A VERY SHORT TIME THE CAR RECOVERED AND NORMAL SPEED WAS A…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ALONG AROUND AT 45 OR 50 MPH AND WENT TO TURN ON THE AIR CONDITIONER AND THE CAR STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND THE CAR RESTARTED.. PREVIOUS TO THIS WHEN TURNING ON THE AC THE CAR GOT VERY SLUGGISH, I WAS STEPPING ON THE GAS BUT THE CAR WOULD NOT GO. AFTER A VERY SHORT TIME THE CAR RECOVERED AND NORMAL SPEED WAS ATTAINED. I FEAR THIS MAY HAPPEN PULLING INTO TRAFFIC OR MERGING AND THIS HAPPENING WOULD BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. I WAS TOLD BY THE DEALERSHIP I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE FROM THAT FORD IS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THIS PART. WHEN I SEARCHED THE INTERNET I SAW THAT MANY OTHERS HAVE HAD THE SAME OR SIMILAR ISSUES WITH THE 2005 -2011 ESCAPES. I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT FORD IS DOING A REDESIGN OF THIS PART BUT NO DATE AS TO WHEN IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE. MY DEALERSHIP STATED THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND THE SAME PART BUT NO PROMISES IF IT WOULD LAST. THEY ALSO STATED THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM WHILE IN THE SHOP, THUS IT'S AN INTERMITTENT OCCURENCE. THEY RECOMMENDED JUST DRIVING THE VEHICLE AND KEEPING IN TOUCH TO SEE WHEN THE REDESIGN IS AVAILABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514197
59,683 miles · May 29, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE STARTED STALLING WHILE APPROACHING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND CONTINUED TO STALL TO WHERE EVENTUALLY THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON-OPERATIONAL. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND A MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT OPERATING PROPERLY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. FORD STAFF INDICATED THE PART IS NOT COVERED UND…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE STARTED STALLING WHILE APPROACHING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND CONTINUED TO STALL TO WHERE EVENTUALLY THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON-OPERATIONAL. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND A MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT OPERATING PROPERLY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. FORD STAFF INDICATED THE PART IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE POWER TRAIN WARRANTY AND THE REPLACEMENT PART WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID OUT OF POCKET AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514142
66,000 miles · May 28, 2013
Engine
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH IN CRUISE CONTROL AND THE CAR SUDDENLY DIED. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE PEDAL NOTHING HAPPENED. THE AC UNIT AND RADIO CONTINUED TO WORK FINE. WHEN THE CAR FINALLY CAME TO A STOP, I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND RESTARTED IT AND IT CAME BACK ON LIKE NORMAL. THE CHEC…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH IN CRUISE CONTROL AND THE CAR SUDDENLY DIED. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE PEDAL NOTHING HAPPENED. THE AC UNIT AND RADIO CONTINUED TO WORK FINE. WHEN THE CAR FINALLY CAME TO A STOP, I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AND RESTARTED IT AND IT CAME BACK ON LIKE NORMAL. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS NO LONGER ON. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME FINE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513806
56,000 miles · May 26, 2013
Engine
DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY ABOUT 55 MPH AND SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND ENGINE APPEARED TO SHUT OFF CAUSING RAPID DECELERATION, THIS HAPPENED ABOUT APRIL 18, 2013 AND AGAIN MAY 24, 2013 BOTH TIMES ON THE FREEWAY. ALSO NOTED THAT CAR SURGES INTERMITTENTLY WHEN ACCELERATING DRIVING CITY STREETS. CALLED FORD AFTER FIRST INCIDENT AND TO…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY ABOUT 55 MPH AND SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND ENGINE APPEARED TO SHUT OFF CAUSING RAPID DECELERATION, THIS HAPPENED ABOUT APRIL 18, 2013 AND AGAIN MAY 24, 2013 BOTH TIMES ON THE FREEWAY. ALSO NOTED THAT CAR SURGES INTERMITTENTLY WHEN ACCELERATING DRIVING CITY STREETS. CALLED FORD AFTER FIRST INCIDENT AND TOOK CAR IN FOR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE. NO MENTION OF ANY ISSUE WITH SAFETY OF CAR. LAST INCIDENT ASKED FORD TO DO A DIAGNOSIS AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS A RARE OCCURRENCE HAVING TO DO WITH A STUCK THROTTLE AND IT WOULD BE OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE REPLACEMENT THROTTLE PART COMES IN AND I SHOULD NOT DRIVE THE CAR. THE REPAIR IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF 500-700 DOLLARS. FORD ALSO TOLD ME THAT THEY RECOMMENDED I HAVE SENSORS CLEANED ALSO DUE TO BUILD-UP WHICH COULD AFFECT THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER??? CAUSED BY THE THROTTLE PROBLEM?? I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT NONE OF THIS REPAIR IS COVERED UNDER MY FACTORY WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513576
44,000 miles · May 24, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
GOING ABOUT 45 MPH WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CAR STARTED TO COAST,THERE WAS NO WARNING LIGHT. I PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND IT WAS AS THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOT GETTING ANY FUEL TO THE ENGINE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION. I COASTED TO A STOP TURNED OFF THE ENGINE WAITED A FEW MINUTES TURNED THE CAR ON IT SEEMED FINE SO I FINI…
Read full complaint
GOING ABOUT 45 MPH WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CAR STARTED TO COAST,THERE WAS NO WARNING LIGHT. I PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND IT WAS AS THOUGH THE CAR WAS NOT GETTING ANY FUEL TO THE ENGINE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION. I COASTED TO A STOP TURNED OFF THE ENGINE WAITED A FEW MINUTES TURNED THE CAR ON IT SEEMED FINE SO I FINISHED MY ERRAND. ON THE WAY HOME I WAS GOING APPROX. 50MPH ON THE LOCAL HIGHWAY AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED. TOOK MY CAR TO A LOCAL FORD DEALER (I THOUGHT IT WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY) THEY SAID IT WOULD COST $900.00 TO CLEAN THE THROTTLE BODY AS RECOMMENDED BY FORD BUT THEY WERE NOT SURE IT WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM. THE THROTTLE BODY PART WAS ON BACK ORDER AND THEY WERE NOT SURE WHEN THEY COULD GET ONE. SO NOW I HAVE A CAR I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513478
50,200 miles · May 24, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK ON I10 AT 60 MILES PER HR IN HOUSTON TX. THE ESCAPE LOST POWER AND WAS HARD TO STEER. I LIMPED OFF THE ROAD AND SHUT THE ESCAPE DOWN AND RESTARTED IT. THE ESCAPE WORKED FINE AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED TWICE MORE OVER THE NEXT MONTHS. I AM TAKING THE ESCAPE TO RUSSELL SMITH FORD IN HOUSTON TX TO HAVE THEM CORR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK ON I10 AT 60 MILES PER HR IN HOUSTON TX. THE ESCAPE LOST POWER AND WAS HARD TO STEER. I LIMPED OFF THE ROAD AND SHUT THE ESCAPE DOWN AND RESTARTED IT. THE ESCAPE WORKED FINE AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED TWICE MORE OVER THE NEXT MONTHS. I AM TAKING THE ESCAPE TO RUSSELL SMITH FORD IN HOUSTON TX TO HAVE THEM CORRECT THE PROBLEM. PLEASE CHECK WITH THEM ON THE ISSUE AS I OR OTHERS COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED AS THIS HAPPENED DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC IN HOUSTON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513464
52,000 miles · May 23, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS TRAVELING 60MPH, CAR SUDDENLY STALLED ON THE HIGHWAY. GAS PADDLE DID NOT RESPOND. ENGINE LIGHT & WRENCH LIGHT WAS LIT. STOPPED THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY & TURN THE ENGINE OFF. WAITED COUPLE OF MINS AND START AGAIN. NO WRENCH LIGHT BUT ENGINE LIGHT GOES OFF. NOW THIS HAPPENS EVERY DAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513345
40,816 miles · May 22, 2013
Engine
ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING WHILE DRIVING. DIAGNOSTICS SHOWED THAT THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROLLER WAS STUCK IN THE OPEN POSITION. LOCAL SERVICE FACILITY CITED A RECALL P2111-FORD DEALERSHIP DENIED THIS-SAYING THAT I MUST PAY FOR REPAIRS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513137
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.