← 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
118,000 miles · Dec 23, 2014
EngineFuel System, Gasoline

WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, MY CAR DIED TWICE. THE FIRST TIME, WHILE APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT, THE ENGINE CUT OFF. WHEN I CAME TO A STOP; I PUT IT IN PARK TO TRY AND START IT AGAIN, AND IT SEEMED TO STRUGGLE WHEN STARTING AS IF I WERE OUT OF GAS, BUT I HAD JUST FILLED UP MY TANK THAT MORNING. THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, AND THERE WAS A…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, MY CAR DIED TWICE. THE FIRST TIME, WHILE APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT, THE ENGINE CUT OFF. WHEN I CAME TO A STOP; I PUT IT IN PARK TO TRY AND START IT AGAIN, AND IT SEEMED TO STRUGGLE WHEN STARTING AS IF I WERE OUT OF GAS, BUT I HAD JUST FILLED UP MY TANK THAT MORNING. THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, AND THERE WAS A STOP SIGN ABOUT 500 YARDS AWAY, AND AS SOON AS I WAS COMING TO A STOP AGAIN; THE ENGINE DIES. THIS TIME IT TOOK TWICE AS LONG AND SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO GET IT STARTED AGAIN. ALSO, WHEN I AM SITTING IDLE AT A STOP LIGHT OR A STOP SIGN, THE RPMS WILL DROP VERY LOW AND START TO STALL OUT. I AM ABLE TO CATCH IT AND REV THE ENGINE TO PREVENT IT FROM STALLING SOMETIMES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10667852

45,000 miles · Nov 18, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion System

MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE DRIVING HOME TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH. ALL OF A SUDDEN WITHOUT ANY WARNING THE CAR TOTALLY LOST POWER AND I HAD TO COAST INTO A DRIVEWAY. HAD MY DAUGHTER BEEN DRIVING BY HERSELF SHE WOULD NOT KNOW HOW TO REMAIN CALM AND GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. FORTUNATELY I HAVE BEEN DRIVING FOR A LONG TIME A…

Read full complaint

MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE DRIVING HOME TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH. ALL OF A SUDDEN WITHOUT ANY WARNING THE CAR TOTALLY LOST POWER AND I HAD TO COAST INTO A DRIVEWAY. HAD MY DAUGHTER BEEN DRIVING BY HERSELF SHE WOULD NOT KNOW HOW TO REMAIN CALM AND GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. FORTUNATELY I HAVE BEEN DRIVING FOR A LONG TIME AND KNEW WHAT TO DO. ONCE I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND BACK ON IT RAN FINE. I THOUGHT IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENCE AND THOUGHT MAYBE WE HAD JUNK IN THE FUEL. THE NEXT TIME I DROVE THE VEHICLE WE WERE DOING 60 MPH WHEN IT SHUT DOWN AGAIN AND THIS TIME I WAS ON THE FREEWAY NEXT TO A SEMI IN HEAVY TRAFFIC AND HAD TO TURN MY EMERGENCY FLASHERS ON AND COAST TO THE SHOULDER. I HAD TO CUT OFF VEHICLES IN THE RIGHT LANE TO GET SAFELY TO THE SHOULDER. ONCE AGAIN I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN AND WENT HOME. MY HUSBAND DID RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE LOTS OF COMPLAINTS WITH IDENTICAL SYMPTOMS AND WHEN THEY WENT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP WERE TOLD THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. THE OTHER PEOPLE FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY THAT NEEDED REPLACEMENT. WE WENT TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND ASKED ABOUT IT AND THEY PLAYED DUMP AND SAID THEY HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT AND WERE ACTUALLY RUDE TO US. I LOCATED A THROTTLE BODY IN STOCK AT A FORD DEALERSHIP 3 HOURS AWAY. WE PICKED THE PART UP AND MY HUSBAND INSTALLED IT. IT TOOK APPROXIMATELY 1 HOUR TO REPLACE AND COST $207.22. I HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM SINCE. IT IS CRIMINAL TO ALLOW THIS TO GO UNFIXED. IT POSSES A TERRIBLE RISK TO DRIVERS. THE THROTTLE BODY IS NOT JUST ON THE 2009-2013 FORD ESCAPE IT IS ALSO ON : 2010-2012 FORD FUSION, 2011-2013 LINCOLN MKZ, 2010-2011 MERCURY MILAN, AND 2009-2011 MERCURY MARINER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10658868

27,600 miles · Oct 13, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

MY FAMILY AND I WERE TRAVELING HWY 113 IN VA COMING BACK TO PA FROM NC. MY HUSBAND ACCELERATED TO PASS A VEHICLE. AFTER PASSING, OUR VEHICLE BEGAN LOSING ACCELERATION...MY HUSBAND PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND WAS NOT GETTING ANY ACCELERATION. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND WE HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY STOP ON THE SIDE …

Read full complaint

MY FAMILY AND I WERE TRAVELING HWY 113 IN VA COMING BACK TO PA FROM NC. MY HUSBAND ACCELERATED TO PASS A VEHICLE. AFTER PASSING, OUR VEHICLE BEGAN LOSING ACCELERATION...MY HUSBAND PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND WAS NOT GETTING ANY ACCELERATION. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND WE HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY WHILE CARS WERE PASSING US AND COMING UP ON US QUICKLY. WE CAME TO A STOP AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO STALL. MY HUSBAND SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF, WAITING A MINUTE AND RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO RUN FINE THE REST OF THE WAY TO PA. WE CALLED THE DEALERSHIP THE FOLLOWING DAY (MONDAY) AND WERE TOLD THEY COULD NOT GET THE VEHICLE IN UNTIL 8/4. I BEGAN FINDING INFO ON THE WEB REGARDING FORD'S CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM 13N03 REGARDING THE THROTTLE BODY. I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN AND WAS TOLD THERE WERE NOT ANY CODES SHOWING ON THE COMPUTER. THEY REFUSED TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. I WAS TOLD TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AND IF IT HAPPENED AGAIN TO BRING IT BACK. I REFUSED AND INSISTED THEY REPLACE IT. I AM NOW STILL FIGHTING WITH FORD TO REIMBURSE ME. I HAVE SENT LETTERS TO FORD ONLY TO RECEIVE A "FORM LETTER" BACK FROM THEM SUGGESTING THAT I TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP TO DETERMINE IF THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS REPLACEMENT...I HAD IT REPLACED ALREADY...THEY OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ LETTERS SENT TO THEM. I WILL KEEP FIGHTING BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE NHTSA CONTINUES TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT. IT IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE! SHAME ON FORD AND THE NHTSA! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10644250

63,468 miles · Oct 6, 2014
EnginePower Train

CONCERN 25 & 51 - VEHICLE LEAKING OIL AND GREASE FROM ENGINE/TRANSAXLE AREA. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10641788

45,000 miles · Oct 1, 2014
Engine

I WAS STOPPED AT A STOPLIGHT AND AS I ACCELERATED TO GO THROUGH WHEN IT TURNED GREEN, THE CAR JUST COMPLETELY DIED - NO WARNING. IT RESTARTED RIGHT AWAY SO I CONTINUED ON MY WAY. ABOUT AN HOUR LATER, I HAD JUST TURNED INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I WAS GOING ABOUT 10-15 MPH AND IT DIED AGAIN. WE TOOK IT INTO THE SHOP AND SINCE IT WA…

Read full complaint

I WAS STOPPED AT A STOPLIGHT AND AS I ACCELERATED TO GO THROUGH WHEN IT TURNED GREEN, THE CAR JUST COMPLETELY DIED - NO WARNING. IT RESTARTED RIGHT AWAY SO I CONTINUED ON MY WAY. ABOUT AN HOUR LATER, I HAD JUST TURNED INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I WAS GOING ABOUT 10-15 MPH AND IT DIED AGAIN. WE TOOK IT INTO THE SHOP AND SINCE IT WAS NOT DYING FOR THEM, THEY TOLD US THEY COULD NOT PINPOINT THE PROBLEM. WE WENT FOR PROBABLY 9 MONTHS WITHOUT THIS HAPPENING AGAIN, AND THEN ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO, WE WERE DRIVING ABOUT 55 MPH AND IT JUST RANDOMLY DIED AGAIN. WE TOOK IT INTO THE SHOP THIS TIME AND THEY TOLD US THAT IT WAS THE PURGE VALVE. $1500 LATER, THE PROBLEM IS STILL NOT FIXED. TODAY, IT DIED 3 TIMES IN A MATTER OF 5 MINUTES, ALL INSIDE OF A PARKING GARAGE. THIS CAR IS TOO NEW TO BE POURING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO IT - ESPECIALLY IF THIS PROBLEM IS AS COMMON AS IT SEEMS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10640391

75,000 miles · Sep 29, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING INTO WORK WITH MY CRUISE CONTROL SET AT 60MPH, MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY SPUTTERED AND THE CRUISE CONTROL DISENGAGED AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOSS OF POWER. I REMEMBER THIS DESCRIPTION FROM THE THROTTLE BOTTLE NOTIFICATION I RECEIVED FROM FORD A FEW MONTHS BACK. I HAD TAKEN MY ESCAPE INTO THE DEALERSHIP ON 9/11/14 TO H…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING INTO WORK WITH MY CRUISE CONTROL SET AT 60MPH, MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY SPUTTERED AND THE CRUISE CONTROL DISENGAGED AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOSS OF POWER. I REMEMBER THIS DESCRIPTION FROM THE THROTTLE BOTTLE NOTIFICATION I RECEIVED FROM FORD A FEW MONTHS BACK. I HAD TAKEN MY ESCAPE INTO THE DEALERSHIP ON 9/11/14 TO HAVE THIS TAKEN CARE OFF AND NOW 2 WEEKS LATER MY VEHICLE NOW HAS THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN WARNING LIGHT ON AND IS SHOWING ALL SIGNS OF THE NOTIFICATION FROM FORD. I KNOW THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT NOW I AM QUESTIONING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT FORD IS ACTUALLY FIXING THE PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10639699

71,000 miles · Sep 16, 2014
Engine

I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE I-75 WHEN I EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER. I WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER MY CAR TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. I TURNED MY CAR OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTED MY CAR. THE CAR WHEN INTO DRIVE AND ACCELERATED WITH NO PROBLEM. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS A MAJOR HIGHWAY THAT…

Read full complaint

I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE I-75 WHEN I EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER. I WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER MY CAR TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. I TURNED MY CAR OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTED MY CAR. THE CAR WHEN INTO DRIVE AND ACCELERATED WITH NO PROBLEM. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS A MAJOR HIGHWAY THAT I TRAVEL DAILY TO AND FROM WORK IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. THANKFULLY, I WAS NOT HIT IN THE REAR OF THE CAR BY ONCOMING SEMI TRUCKS. I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME ADVICE ON THIS PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10633773

105,000 miles · Sep 15, 2014
EnginePower Train

CAR COASTED TO A STOP WITH ENGINE RUNNING. HAD TO STOP PUT IN PARK, SHUT OFF AND RESTART AND PUT IN GEAR TO MOVE. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD IT IS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE AND NO WARRANTY COVERAGE. IT HAS HAPPENED 4 TIMES SINCE YESTERDAY. IN TRAFFIC IT IS VERY DANGEROUS AND MY WIFE WAS ALMOST REAR ENDED TODAY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10633442

53,200 miles · Sep 8, 2014
EnginePower Train

WHILE ACCELERATING TO PULL OUT INTO TRAFFIC GAS PEDAL QUIT WORKING AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHEN HITTING ABOUT 20 MPH AND CAR SLOWED TO A CRAWL. CAR STAYED IDLING, BUT GAS PEDAL QUIT WORKING ALL TOGETHER. IDLED DOWN FIRST SIDE STREET AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. RESTARTED VEHICLE 2 MINS LATER AND GAS PEDAL STARTED WORKING AGAIN. CA…

Read full complaint

WHILE ACCELERATING TO PULL OUT INTO TRAFFIC GAS PEDAL QUIT WORKING AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHEN HITTING ABOUT 20 MPH AND CAR SLOWED TO A CRAWL. CAR STAYED IDLING, BUT GAS PEDAL QUIT WORKING ALL TOGETHER. IDLED DOWN FIRST SIDE STREET AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. RESTARTED VEHICLE 2 MINS LATER AND GAS PEDAL STARTED WORKING AGAIN. CAR IDLE REVS UP FOR A SECOND SUDDENLY ON ITS OWN AT SLOW SPEEDS LIKE WAITING IN A DRIVE THRU AND CAUSES THE CAR TO JERK FORWARD IF BRAKE PEDAL IS NOT PRESSED ON FIRMLY. SOMETIMES FEELS LIKE THE PERSON BEHIND YOU HAS HIT YOUR CAR WHEN THEY HAVEN'T. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10631708

67,000 miles · Sep 4, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WHILE ON A BUSY 6 LANE HWY., I WAS AT A CENTER TURN LANE AND COMPLETED MY TURN WHEN LIGHT CHANGED, THEN WENT TO MAKE MY RIGHT TURN ON TO THE NEXT ROAD.... WHEN MY CARS STARTED TO SHAKE VERY BADLY AND LOST ALL POWER DOWN TO A CRAWL, AND THEN STALL, WITH CARS BEHIND ME ALMOST REAR ENDING MYSELF!! WITH HORNS BLARING I WAS ABLE TO …

Read full complaint

WHILE ON A BUSY 6 LANE HWY., I WAS AT A CENTER TURN LANE AND COMPLETED MY TURN WHEN LIGHT CHANGED, THEN WENT TO MAKE MY RIGHT TURN ON TO THE NEXT ROAD.... WHEN MY CARS STARTED TO SHAKE VERY BADLY AND LOST ALL POWER DOWN TO A CRAWL, AND THEN STALL, WITH CARS BEHIND ME ALMOST REAR ENDING MYSELF!! WITH HORNS BLARING I WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT TO ONLY HAVE IT DO IT AGAIN, ONLY THIS TIME I WAS ABLE TO PULL INTO THE OIL CHANGE SHOP THERE ON THAT CORNER, WHERE THEY CHECKED FOR CODES & FOUND THE "TAC SYSTEM STUCK OPEN"... THEY CHECKED ALL FLUIDS AND I DROVE TO THE LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND WENT ON TO WORK TO START RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM!! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10630583

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