← 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
150,000 miles · Jul 28, 2015
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

WE LOST POWER FROM OUR GAS PEDAL. THEN IT GOT HOT. THEN IT WOULD NOT MOVE.

NHTSA ODI #10744468

48,295 miles · Jul 27, 2015
EnginePower TrainUnknown Or Other

PURCHASED 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT IN APRIL 2015. (1) VEHICLE HAD SOUND COMING FROM ENGINE WHEN ACCELERATING. ISSUED FIXED BY DEALER REPLACING BELT TENSIONER BUT NOISE HAS SINCE RETURNED. (2) VEHICLE ALREADY HAD OR DEVELOPED CONSTANT VIBRATION AT IDLE WHEN IN DRIVE AND FOOT ON BREAK AND GETS WORSE WITH A/C ON. TOOK TO DEALER 3 TIM…

Read full complaint

PURCHASED 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT IN APRIL 2015. (1) VEHICLE HAD SOUND COMING FROM ENGINE WHEN ACCELERATING. ISSUED FIXED BY DEALER REPLACING BELT TENSIONER BUT NOISE HAS SINCE RETURNED. (2) VEHICLE ALREADY HAD OR DEVELOPED CONSTANT VIBRATION AT IDLE WHEN IN DRIVE AND FOOT ON BREAK AND GETS WORSE WITH A/C ON. TOOK TO DEALER 3 TIMES WHO STATED THEY REPLACED RIGHT ENGINE MOUNT AND REAR TRANSMISSION MOUNT BUT VIBRATION CONTINUED AFTER REPAIRS. SERVICE DEPT TECH STATING THAT THERE IS A STRONG VIBRATION BUT THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ENGINE VIBRATION BUT THAT VEHICLE IS OPERATIONAL. VIBRATION IS VERY STRONG AND ALMOST FEELS LIKE ENGINE WANTS TO TURN OFF AT TIMES. IF TRANSMISSION IS PUT IN NEUTRAL OR PARK THEN VIBRATION IS GONE AND NOT NOTICEABLE WHILE DRIVING. (3) TRANSMISSION SHIFTING FROM 1ST TO 2ND IS HARSH AND DELAYED AT TIMES CAUSING A JERKING MOTION ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS DURING CITY DRIVING AND TRANSMISSION OCCASIONALLY JERKS WHEN PUT IN REVERSE BUT NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT. SAFETY CONCERN IS VEHICLE FEELS AS IF IT MAY SHUT DOWN WHILE THIS VIBRATION IS BEING OBSERVED AND CAUSES SAFETY CONCERNS WHEN DRIVING VEHICLE AND THAT TRANSMISSION MAY FAIL SOON. PURCHASED AT FIAT OF FRESNO, FRESNO CA.

NHTSA ODI #10743694

58,100 miles · Jul 1, 2015
EnginePower Train

WHEN I BEGAN TO TAKEOFF THE ENGINE OR TRANS HESITATED BADLY AND THE "WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON UNTIL I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. WHEN I RESTARTED THE ENGINE THE WRENCH LIGHT DID NOT COME ON. NEXT DAY WHILE DRIVING THE ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION HESITATED AGAIN AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME BACK ON. THIS STILL CONTINUES.

NHTSA ODI #10731627

88,500 miles · Jun 8, 2015
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY SEEMED TO STALL. THE 'WRENCH' LIGHT CAME ON AND THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT ONLY MOVING AT IDLE SPEED. PRESSING THE ACCELERATOR DID NOTHING, THE ENGINE KEPT STAYED AT IDLE. I PULLED OVER AND THEN TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. THE CAR RESTARTED AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF. I ACCE…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY SEEMED TO STALL. THE 'WRENCH' LIGHT CAME ON AND THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT ONLY MOVING AT IDLE SPEED. PRESSING THE ACCELERATOR DID NOTHING, THE ENGINE KEPT STAYED AT IDLE. I PULLED OVER AND THEN TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. THE CAR RESTARTED AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF. I ACCELERATED UP TO STREET SPEED (30-35 MPH) AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I AGAIN PULLED OVER, TURNED OFF THE ENGINE, AND THEN RESTARTED THE CAR. THIS TIME THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OFF BUT THE 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR WHERE I NEEDED TO GO BY KEEPING IT UNDER 30 MPH. I DID MAKE IT TO A AUTO-PARTS STORE AND THEY WERE ABLE TO HOOK UP A DIAGNOSTIC MACHINE TO GIVE ME THE P2111 TROUBLE CODE, THROTTLE BODY STUCK OPEN. WHEN I RESTARTED THE CAR, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS OFF AND I WAS ABLE TO ACCELERATE UP TO 55 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WITH NO ISSUES AND LATER WAS ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65-70 MPH. NOTHING MORE HAPPENED OVER THE NEXT WEEK BUT ON MY WAY TO WORK THIS MORNING, 6/8, THE SAME ISSUE HAPPENED 5 TIMES ON MY WAY TO WORK. THE CAR WOULD JUST SUDDENLY LOSE POWER AND THE ENGINE WOULD ONLY RUN AT IDLE SPEED. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON EACH TIME. I WOULD PULL OVER AND STOP, AS TURNING OFF THE CAR WHILE COASTING AND THEN RESTARTING DID NOT SEEM TO 'RESET' THE CAR. WHEN IT RESTARTED, THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS GONE BUT IT CAME BACK ON AND THE CAR STALLED SEVERAL TIMES. AFTER THE THIRD TIME, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND IT HAPPENED TWICE MORE AFTER THAT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10724062

84,698 miles · Jun 5, 2015
Engine

THE INDICATOR SHOWED UPON STARTING THE CAR, A RED WARNING LIGHT "ENGINE CHECK". I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME LESS THAN A MILE IN AT A SLOW SPEED, NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE. THE NEXT MORNING MY HUSBAND FOLLOWED ME TO THE NEAREST LOCAL CAR REPAIR SHOP WHICH IS 12 MILES FROM MY HOME. AGAIN, NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE. THE CAR R…

Read full complaint

THE INDICATOR SHOWED UPON STARTING THE CAR, A RED WARNING LIGHT "ENGINE CHECK". I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME LESS THAN A MILE IN AT A SLOW SPEED, NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE. THE NEXT MORNING MY HUSBAND FOLLOWED ME TO THE NEAREST LOCAL CAR REPAIR SHOP WHICH IS 12 MILES FROM MY HOME. AGAIN, NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE. THE CAR REQUIRED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY BE REPLACED. THERE IS A FIELD SERVICE ACTION ON THIS MODEL. THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE CAR HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, WHERE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED, FOR A VOLUNTARY SAFETY DEFECT CHECK FOR THIS SAME ISSUE. APPARENTLY THE TEMPORARY FIX, REPROGRAMMING THE CONTROL, THAT WAS PERFORMED ON MY VEHICLE THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS NOT SATISFACTORY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. THIS IS A DANGER TO OPERATING VEHICLES, SINCE THERE IS NO WARNING UNTIL THE SERVICE GOES OUT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS PART. FORTUNATELY I WAS NEAR MY HOME AT THE TIME OF THE OCCURRENCE AND WAS ABLE TO SAFELY GET TO A CAR REPAIR SHOP DOWN A RURAL ROAD FOR REPAIRS. I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR ON A CITY STREET OR HIGHWAY. BASICALLY THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOWED IN FOR REPAIRS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10723687

58,000 miles · Apr 22, 2015
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WHILE MOVING IN LEFT OF TWO LANES IN MODERATE TRAFFIC AT ~58 MPH THE CAR LOST ALL POWER. ACCELERATOR DID NOT FUNCTION. 'WRENCH' WARNING LIGHT ON DASHBOARD WAS ILLUMINATED. ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, POWER BRAKES, AND POWER STEERING SEEMED TO FUNCTION NORMALLY. VEHICLE HAD NO POWER, MEANING THAT DRIVER COULD NOT CONTROL SPEED OF V…

Read full complaint

WHILE MOVING IN LEFT OF TWO LANES IN MODERATE TRAFFIC AT ~58 MPH THE CAR LOST ALL POWER. ACCELERATOR DID NOT FUNCTION. 'WRENCH' WARNING LIGHT ON DASHBOARD WAS ILLUMINATED. ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, POWER BRAKES, AND POWER STEERING SEEMED TO FUNCTION NORMALLY. VEHICLE HAD NO POWER, MEANING THAT DRIVER COULD NOT CONTROL SPEED OF VEHICLE. RIGHT TURN SIGNAL WAS ACTIVATED AND THE VEHICLE WAS 'COASTED' TO THE RIGHT BERM -- ALMOST BEING HIT BY ANOTHER VEHICLE! DRIVER SAT IN VEHICLE ASSESSING STATUS OF ALL GAUGES AND (WARNING) LIGHTS. NOTHING APPEARED OUT OF ORDINARY EXCEPT FOR 'WRENCH' LIGHT. VEHICLE WAS TURNED OF. AFTER 30 SECOND PAUSE, VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED. WRENCH LIGHT WAS NOT ILLUMINATED AND, AGAIN, ALL GAUGES AND LIGHTS APPEARED NORMAL. RE-ENTERED TRAFFIC AND SUCCESSFULLY REACHED GROCERY STORE -- 1 MILE AWAY. VEHICLE WAS PARKED. UPON COMPLETION OF SHOPPING VEHICLE WAS STARTED AND DRIVER WAS ABLE TO RETURN HOME (~5 MILES) WITHOUT EVENT RECURRING. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION. IT IS ONLY THROUGH 'GOOD LUCK' THAT OUR VEHICLE WAS NOT HIT BY OTHER TRAFFIC. DRIVER HAD ZERO CONTROL OVER VEHICLE SPEED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10712316

73,165 miles · Apr 18, 2015
EngineService BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrash

TURN INTO A PARKING SPACE AND HIT THE BRAKE TO STOP , CAR SURGED FORWARD AND JUMPED THE CURB. HIT A BUS SHELTER, SIDE SWIPED A TREE , THEN JUMP CURB BACK TO PARKING LOT BEFORE ESCAPE CAME TO A FULL STOP. FIRST TIME SLED ON A SMALL PATCH OF ICE CAR SURGED BRAKES NEVER TOOK HOLD SLID AND AVOIDED AND STREET LIGHT AND A TREE BEFORE …

Read full complaint

TURN INTO A PARKING SPACE AND HIT THE BRAKE TO STOP , CAR SURGED FORWARD AND JUMPED THE CURB. HIT A BUS SHELTER, SIDE SWIPED A TREE , THEN JUMP CURB BACK TO PARKING LOT BEFORE ESCAPE CAME TO A FULL STOP. FIRST TIME SLED ON A SMALL PATCH OF ICE CAR SURGED BRAKES NEVER TOOK HOLD SLID AND AVOIDED AND STREET LIGHT AND A TREE BEFORE COMING TO A FULL STOP. TOOK CAR TO SHOP FOR OIL CHANGE HAD BRAKES CHECKED SAID NO PROBLEM. BUT SOMETIMES THIS SUV HAS A POWER SURGE WHEN APPLING BRAKES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10706440

85,000 miles · Apr 13, 2015
EnginePower Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING AT 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE HESITATED AND THE SPEED DECREASED TO 40 MPH. THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STEER THE VEHICLE, BUT WAS ABLE TO PUMP THE BRAKES AND STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE GEARS IN THE TRANSMI…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING AT 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE HESITATED AND THE SPEED DECREASED TO 40 MPH. THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STEER THE VEHICLE, BUT WAS ABLE TO PUMP THE BRAKES AND STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE GEARS IN THE TRANSMISSION HAD BEEN STRIPPED. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT, OIL LIGHT, AND BATTERY LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER PREVIOUSLY CHANGED THE FUEL GASKET TWICE, BUT THAT DID NOT CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER DEALER WHO DETERMINED THAT THE TRANSMISSION FAILED. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER IN REGARDS TO A NEWSLETTER REGARDING REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY AND REPROGRAMMING THE PCM UNDER INVESTIGATION PE13003. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE DEALER DID NOT FEEL THE REPAIR WAS WARRANTED AND THE MANUFACTURER DECLINED TO PAY FOR THE REPAIR. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000.

NHTSA ODI #10705330

62,000 miles · Apr 5, 2015
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING NORMALLY, THROTTLE CONTROL POWERTRAIN WARNING LIGHT COMES ON, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON, CAR GAS PEDAL DOES NOT WORK, ENGINE IDLES AND DOES NOT ACCELERATE. WHEN YOU SHUT THE CAR ALL THE WAY OFF AND WAIT THEN RESTART THE ENGINE THE CAR WORKS AS NORMAL AGAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10703772

210,000 miles · Feb 15, 2015
EnginePower TrainSteering

WAS DRIVING, AND TRANSMISSION WOULDN'T ALLOW RPM TO GO ABOVE 500 AND CONTINUED TO DROP TO 0 AND SHUT OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10683523

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