NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
493 reportsClear category filter40,000 miles · Sep 3, 2014
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE THROTTLE FAILED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE THROTTLE FAILED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000.
NHTSA ODI #10630420
43,000 miles · Aug 31, 2014
Engine
ENGINE STALLED AT 70 MPH WITHOUT WARNING ON A BUSY HIGHWAY. STILL HAD POWER STEERING. NEEDED TO CROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC WITHOUT ENGINE POWER. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION. ATTEMPTED TO RESTART ENGINE APPROXIMATELY 10 TIMES. EACH TIME ENGINE WOULD START, IDLE FOR SEVERAL SECONDS, AND THEN CUT OFF. EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE …
Read full complaint
ENGINE STALLED AT 70 MPH WITHOUT WARNING ON A BUSY HIGHWAY. STILL HAD POWER STEERING. NEEDED TO CROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC WITHOUT ENGINE POWER. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION. ATTEMPTED TO RESTART ENGINE APPROXIMATELY 10 TIMES. EACH TIME ENGINE WOULD START, IDLE FOR SEVERAL SECONDS, AND THEN CUT OFF. EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO START ENGINE, PUT ENGINE INTO NEUTRAL AND REVVED ENGINE TO MODERATE RPM SPEED. SEEMED TO RESET ISSUE AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE AWAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10629797
69,000 miles · Aug 26, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
ME AND MY SON WERE OUT I WAS DRIVING AROUND 35- 40 MPH AND MY CAR STARTED TO FEEL STRANGE OUT OF THE BLUE MY WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON AND THEN MY ENGINE LIGHT I LOSE ALL POWER I AM HITTING GAS PEDAL NOTHING HAPPENS. JUST STOPS ON BUSY STREET . I WAS TERRIFIED FOR OUR SAFETY. I TURN OFF CAR WAIT A FEW MINS AND START AGAIN IT HAPPENE…
Read full complaint
ME AND MY SON WERE OUT I WAS DRIVING AROUND 35- 40 MPH AND MY CAR STARTED TO FEEL STRANGE OUT OF THE BLUE MY WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON AND THEN MY ENGINE LIGHT I LOSE ALL POWER I AM HITTING GAS PEDAL NOTHING HAPPENS. JUST STOPS ON BUSY STREET . I WAS TERRIFIED FOR OUR SAFETY. I TURN OFF CAR WAIT A FEW MINS AND START AGAIN IT HAPPENED 3 TIMES IN A 3 MILE RADIUS. ITS PARKED AND NOT RISKING MY LIFE OR SOMEBODY ELSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10628603
35,000 miles · Aug 15, 2014
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER AS THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSE OR REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000.
NHTSA ODI #10622438
Mileage unknown · Aug 7, 2014
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD DEACTIVATE WHEN THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD DEACTIVATE WHEN THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10620655
88,000 miles · Aug 4, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE TRAVELING ABOUT 65 MPH DOWN THE HIGHWAY MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE'S ENGINE STOPPED COMPLETELY. A WARNING LIGHT (THE WRENCH ON THE FORD MODELS) CAME ON AS A I COASTED TO A SAFE SPOT ON THE HIGHWAY. STEERING GAVE OUT A BIT TOO. CAR STARTED RIGHT BACK UP AFTER I FOUND A SAFE LOCATION TO STOP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10618661
89,000 miles · Jul 23, 2014
EngineSteeringVehicle Speed Control
THROUGHOUT ALL OF LAST WINTER, I HAD ISSUES WITH MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STALLING. THIS OCCURRED COUNTLESS TIMES, AND NEARLY CAUSED MANY ACCIDENTS. IT MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRED WHEN IT WAS VERY COLD (ZERO OR BELOW), AND ON SOME OCCASIONS WOULD STALL NUMEROUS TIMES IN A ROW, OR FAIL TO RE-START. NO WARNING LIGHT OF ANY SORT EVER CAME …
Read full complaint
THROUGHOUT ALL OF LAST WINTER, I HAD ISSUES WITH MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STALLING. THIS OCCURRED COUNTLESS TIMES, AND NEARLY CAUSED MANY ACCIDENTS. IT MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRED WHEN IT WAS VERY COLD (ZERO OR BELOW), AND ON SOME OCCASIONS WOULD STALL NUMEROUS TIMES IN A ROW, OR FAIL TO RE-START. NO WARNING LIGHT OF ANY SORT EVER CAME ON. AFTER PAYING WELL OVER $1000 TO GET VARIOUS THINGS "FIXED" THAT I WAS TOLD WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, IT CONTINUED HAPPENING. THEN I RECEIVED THE FIRST BULLETIN LETTER REGARDING THROTTLE BODY ISSUES AND TOOK MY CAR TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. THEY PROCEEDED TO TELL ME THAT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T DUPLICATE THE ISSUE, OR GET A CODE, THEY COULDN'T HELP ME. A FEW WEEKS LATER WHEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO I DROVE DIRECTLY TO THE DEALERSHIP AGAIN. I WAS TOLD ONCE AGAIN THAT THEY COULDN'T FIX THE THROTTLE BODY ISSUE, AND TRIED CHARGING ME OVER $300 FOR DIAGNOSING MY CAR (LOOKING INTO THE ISSUE OF WHY THE WRENCH WAS ILLUMINATED). I REFUSED TO PAY, BECAUSE THIS IS A FORD ISSUE, IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED ALL OVER THE INTERNET, AND IT'S SOMETHING THEY NEED TO PAY FOR. MY CAR IS STILL NOT FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10615662
54,099 miles · Jul 22, 2014
Engine
CAME HOME FROM A 45 MILE TRIP. PULLED UP IN FRONT OF OUR HOME. I PUT THE VEHICLE INTO REVERSE & THE ENGINE DIED. FORD HAD JUST REPROGRAMMED THIS VEHICLE PER A RECALL ONLY ABOUT 1,000 MILES BEFORE THIS ENGINE FAILURE. I HAD NOTICED SINCE THE REPROGRAMMING THAT THE ENGINE HESITATED AT TIMES & SOUNDED/FELT LIKE AT OTHER TIMES L…
Read full complaint
CAME HOME FROM A 45 MILE TRIP. PULLED UP IN FRONT OF OUR HOME. I PUT THE VEHICLE INTO REVERSE & THE ENGINE DIED. FORD HAD JUST REPROGRAMMED THIS VEHICLE PER A RECALL ONLY ABOUT 1,000 MILES BEFORE THIS ENGINE FAILURE. I HAD NOTICED SINCE THE REPROGRAMMING THAT THE ENGINE HESITATED AT TIMES & SOUNDED/FELT LIKE AT OTHER TIMES LIKE THE ENGINE WAS GOING TO DIE. FORD REPLACED SPARK PLUGS 1, 2, & 4 STATING THAT THEY WERE INTERMITTENTLY MISFIRING UNDER LOAD. SINCE SPARK PLUGS WERE REPLACED VEHICLE NO LONGER HESITATES BUT THE ENGINE CONTINUES TO SOUND/FEEL LIKE IT IS GOING TO DIE AT TIMES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10615206
33,044 miles · Jul 20, 2014
EnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING AT 40MPH ON A CITY STREET. THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY SHUDDERED AND BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN. I AM NOW AWARE TO LOOK FOR A TROUBLE LIGHT. THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ALTHOUGH DIFFICULT TO SEE THROUGH THE GLARE OF THE WINDSHIELD. I WAS CLEARLY ABLE TO SEE THE LIGHT. THE CAR SLOWED TO A COMPLETE STOP. THE ENGINE CONTINU…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT 40MPH ON A CITY STREET. THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY SHUDDERED AND BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN. I AM NOW AWARE TO LOOK FOR A TROUBLE LIGHT. THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ALTHOUGH DIFFICULT TO SEE THROUGH THE GLARE OF THE WINDSHIELD. I WAS CLEARLY ABLE TO SEE THE LIGHT. THE CAR SLOWED TO A COMPLETE STOP. THE ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN ROUGH AND THERE WAS NO LOSS OF ELECTRICAL POWER. I PUT THE CAR INTO PARK AND RESTARTED THE CAR. THE CAR RAN WITHOUT INCIDENT UNTIL I WAS ABLE TO PARK AT HOME-ABOUT 5 MILES AWAY. THE CAR HAD ROUTINE SERVICE ON 7-16-2014. A THROTTLE BODY READING WAS NOT DONE, AS I REQUESTED AT TIME OF SERVICE, ALTHOUGH IT WAS DOCUMENTED, IN WRITING, THAT THERE WAS A CALIBRATION UPDATE FOR MY VEHICLE AT THIS TIME. A PREVIOUS INCIDENT OF COMPLETE ELECTRICAL FAILURE WAS BLAMED ON A FAULTY BATTERY IN MARCH. I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO PREVIOUS INDICATION "FAILURE" OR CRANKING ISSUES UP UNTIL THE TIME OF ELECTRICAL POWER/BATTERY FAILURE. EVEN THE KEY FOB DID NOT WORK TO UNLOCK THE DOORS. THE BATTERY WAS REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. INQUIRIES ABOUT THE THROTTLE BODY ISSUE WAS WERE ALSO IGNORED, BY THE DEALER, AT THAT TIME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10614858
2,900 miles · Jul 11, 2014
Electrical SystemEngineStructureCrashInjury
I HAD JUST TURNED LEFT UNDER AN UNDERPAS AND WAS IN THE MIDDLE LANE UNDER AN OVERPASS I REMEMBER THINKING "WOW. THIS IS APOWERFUL ENGINE." A CAR WAS COMING IN FRONT OF ME AND WHEN I BRAKE IT DID NOT SLOW DOWN AND I HIT THE CAR AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER WHEN I CAME TOO THE HORN WAS BLOWING AND TWO PEOPLE WERE POUNDING ON MY W…
Read full complaint
I HAD JUST TURNED LEFT UNDER AN UNDERPAS AND WAS IN THE MIDDLE LANE UNDER AN OVERPASS I REMEMBER THINKING "WOW. THIS IS APOWERFUL ENGINE." A CAR WAS COMING IN FRONT OF ME AND WHEN I BRAKE IT DID NOT SLOW DOWN AND I HIT THE CAR AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER WHEN I CAME TOO THE HORN WAS BLOWING AND TWO PEOPLE WERE POUNDING ON MY WINDOWS AND MY EMERGENCY BAG HAD DEPLOYED, I WAS RELEASED. THEY GAVE ME FIRST AID UNTIL THE AMBULANCE CAME, TREATED ME AND TOOK ME TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. THE OTHER DRIVER WAS NOT INJURED. THEY KEPT ME OVERNIGHT. I BELIEVE BECAUSE I HAD A CONCUSSION. I WAS VERY CONFUSED. THEY KEPT ME OVERNIGHT AND WENT HOME THE NEXT DAY. THE DAMAGE TO MY VEHICLE WAS IN ACCESS OF $16,000.00. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10609890
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.