NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
35 reportsClear category filter57,750 miles · Nov 7, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS TRAVELING WEST ON I-10 FROM TALLAHASSEE, FL INTENDING TO GO TO PENSACOLA, FL. I WAS DRIVING THE 70 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMIT. AS I NEARED EXIT 192 @ QUINCY, FL I HEARD A NOISE FROM UNDER THE HOOD THAT SOUNDED LIKE A CLUNK. THE CAR'S ENGINE DROPPED BELOW 1000 RPM AND GRADUALLY SLOWED DOWN. I PULLED OFF TO THE EMERGENCY LAN…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING WEST ON I-10 FROM TALLAHASSEE, FL INTENDING TO GO TO PENSACOLA, FL. I WAS DRIVING THE 70 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMIT. AS I NEARED EXIT 192 @ QUINCY, FL I HEARD A NOISE FROM UNDER THE HOOD THAT SOUNDED LIKE A CLUNK. THE CAR'S ENGINE DROPPED BELOW 1000 RPM AND GRADUALLY SLOWED DOWN. I PULLED OFF TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. THE ESCAPE WAS TOWED TO HAVANA FORD IN HAVANA, FL ON SAT., NOV. 2, 2013. THE SERVICE DEPT. OPENED MONDAY AND I WAS INFORMED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY BROKE. I HAD THE THROTTLE BODY AND GASKET REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10551419
76,800 miles · Nov 6, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
THE CAR STALLED WHILE DRIVING. THE FIRST TIME IT STALLED I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH WITH CHILDREN IN THE CAR WITH ME. AFTER I CAME TO A STOP, THE CAR RESTARTED AND AFTER DRIVING 2 MORE MINUTES IT STALLED AGAIN AT 45 MPH. AFTER THE SECOND STALL THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD A DIAGNOSTIC REPORT DONE AND THE REPORT SAID "THROTTLE A…
Read full complaint
THE CAR STALLED WHILE DRIVING. THE FIRST TIME IT STALLED I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH WITH CHILDREN IN THE CAR WITH ME. AFTER I CAME TO A STOP, THE CAR RESTARTED AND AFTER DRIVING 2 MORE MINUTES IT STALLED AGAIN AT 45 MPH. AFTER THE SECOND STALL THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD A DIAGNOSTIC REPORT DONE AND THE REPORT SAID "THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM-STUCK CLOSED" AND "DETECTED THE THROTTLE PLATE IS AT A LOWER ANGLE THAN COMMANDED." I HOPE THIS IS RESOLVED QUICKLY. IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10551093
82,113 miles · Oct 25, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingPower Train
I WAS TRAVELING @ ABOUT 40 MPH WHEN IT SOUNDED & FELT LIKE THE ENGINE QUIT. THERE WAS A WIDE SHOULDER SO, I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT RUNNING POORLY AND WOULDN'T REV UP OVER ABOUT 1000 RPM. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH AN ORANGE "WRENCH" LIGHT. I SWITCHED THE ENGINE OFF, R…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING @ ABOUT 40 MPH WHEN IT SOUNDED & FELT LIKE THE ENGINE QUIT. THERE WAS A WIDE SHOULDER SO, I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT RUNNING POORLY AND WOULDN'T REV UP OVER ABOUT 1000 RPM. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH AN ORANGE "WRENCH" LIGHT. I SWITCHED THE ENGINE OFF, RESTARTED IT, AND IT RAN FINE FOR ABOUT 1/2 MILE. THEN, THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN. IN THE NEXT 2 MILES THE SAME THING HAD HAPPENED 3 MORE TIMES. AFTER ALMOST GETTING REAR-ENDED BY A RAM TRUCK THE LAST TIME IT QUIT, I PULLED INTO A PARKING LOT AND CALLED MY MECHANIC WHO CAME AND TOWED IT TO HIS GARAGE. ALMOST $400 LATER, MY MECHANIC HAD REPLACED THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE ASSEMBLY. HE TOLD ME THE FORD DEALER PARTS PERSON SAID HE KNEW THE PART NUMBER BY HEART BECAUSE THEY HAD REPLACED SO MANY OF THESE PARTS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10549522
Mileage unknown · Sep 19, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
AS I WAS DRIVING, THE ENGINE JUST STOPPED, I TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS, BUT IT WOULDN'T GO. THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN AND I HAD TO PULL OVER. THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT WAS ON. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF, THEN ON AGAIN, AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF, AND THE VEHICLE WAS FINE. THIS HAS HAPPENED ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES SINCE THE INITIAL INC…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING, THE ENGINE JUST STOPPED, I TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS, BUT IT WOULDN'T GO. THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN AND I HAD TO PULL OVER. THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT WAS ON. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF, THEN ON AGAIN, AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF, AND THE VEHICLE WAS FINE. THIS HAS HAPPENED ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES SINCE THE INITIAL INCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10544484
30,800 miles · Aug 23, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. I CAME TO A STOP. THE CAR SHUTS OFF COMPLETELY ON ITS OWN AND WAS UNABLE TO START IT UP FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN EITHER PARK OR DRIVE. THIS ALSO HAPPENED AT APPROX. 7000 MILES. EACH TIME I TAKE IT TO THE SHOP, THEY ARE UNABLE TO REPLICATE OR FIND ANY ERRORS WITHIN THE SYSTEM, SO THEY…
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. I CAME TO A STOP. THE CAR SHUTS OFF COMPLETELY ON ITS OWN AND WAS UNABLE TO START IT UP FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN EITHER PARK OR DRIVE. THIS ALSO HAPPENED AT APPROX. 7000 MILES. EACH TIME I TAKE IT TO THE SHOP, THEY ARE UNABLE TO REPLICATE OR FIND ANY ERRORS WITHIN THE SYSTEM, SO THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT OR TRY FURTHER DIAGNOSTICS TO REPLICATE THE ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537010
87,000 miles · Aug 18, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE STALLS AT ANY SPEED. AFTER SHUTDOWN, VEHICLE RESTARTS AND RUNS FINE FOR A MINUTE OR TWO AND THEN STALLS AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535931
36,250 miles · Aug 2, 2013
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING ON THE PARKWAY IN TRAFFIC THE VEHICLE LOST PROPULSION. I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD BEFORE BEING HIT BY CARS ABLE TO TRAVEL THE SPEED LIMIT. THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES BOTH ON THE PARKWAY AND OTHER ROADS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533290
49,523 miles · Jul 22, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingVehicle Speed Control
THE PROBLEM STARTED ON JULY 09, 2013. MY WIFE WAS DROPPING OUR KIDS OFF AT DAYCARE AND A SUMMER PROGRAM WHEN THE CAR JUST LOST ALL POWER COULDN'T ACCELERATE OR ANYTHING. THE VEHICLE COULD JUST COAST. WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE BEFORE, SO I TOLD HER TO TRY AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE TO RESTART IT. THERE WE…
Read full complaint
THE PROBLEM STARTED ON JULY 09, 2013. MY WIFE WAS DROPPING OUR KIDS OFF AT DAYCARE AND A SUMMER PROGRAM WHEN THE CAR JUST LOST ALL POWER COULDN'T ACCELERATE OR ANYTHING. THE VEHICLE COULD JUST COAST. WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE BEFORE, SO I TOLD HER TO TRY AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE TO RESTART IT. THERE WERE NO WARNING LIGHTS AND IT WORKED FINE. THEN AFTER DROPPING THE KIDS OFF IT HAPPENED TO MORE TIMES TO HER ON HER WAY TO WORK. AFTER I GOT OFF OF WORK, I PICKED UP THE VEHICLE AND DROVE IT AROUND NON-BUSY ROADWAYS TO SEE IF IT COULD HAPPEN TO ME, AND IT DID. I IMMEDIATELY DROPPED IT OFF AT A SERVICE CENTER CLOSE BY. I AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THESE INCIDENTS AFTER LOOKING ONLINE AND FINDING OUT THAT THIS IS NOT A RANDOM INCIDENT. IT IS HAPPENING TO MANY PEOPLE. SOMETHING IN THE THROTTLE BODY GOES BAD CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO GO INTO SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE CALLING "LIMP MODE". MY WIFE WAS DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS WITH VEHICLES BEHIND HER AND MY CHILDREN IN THE CAR. THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN DEVASTATING AND I AM GLAD THAT IT WASN'T. I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE DEVASTATING FOR ANYONE ELSE EITHER THOUGH. I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT CLOSELY. AFTER TALKING TO THE PARTS DEPARTMENT OF A FORD DEALER, IT SEEMS THAT FORD HAS RECOGNIZED THE PROBLEM BY CHANGING THE PART. THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT ONLY HELPS IF YOU CHANGE THE PART. I BELIEVE THAT FORD SHOULD BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS TO ENSURE NOBODY IS INJURED BADLY OR WORSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526042
71,194 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System
6/26/13 - DRIVING IN THE RIGHT LANE ON INTERSTATE 81 IN PENNSYLVANIA AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MILES PER HOUR AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. A LARGE TRUCK WAS BEHIND ME AND I IMMEDIATELY PUT MY FOUR WAY FLASHERS ON. LUCKILY THERE WERE NO VEHICLES IN THE LEFT LANE AND THE TRUCK CHANGED LANES. ADDITIONAL VEHICLES WERE COMING UPON …
Read full complaint
6/26/13 - DRIVING IN THE RIGHT LANE ON INTERSTATE 81 IN PENNSYLVANIA AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MILES PER HOUR AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. A LARGE TRUCK WAS BEHIND ME AND I IMMEDIATELY PUT MY FOUR WAY FLASHERS ON. LUCKILY THERE WERE NO VEHICLES IN THE LEFT LANE AND THE TRUCK CHANGED LANES. ADDITIONAL VEHICLES WERE COMING UPON MY VEHICLE QUICKLY SO I PULLED OVER ON THE BERM AT ABOUT 40 MPH AND APPLIED THE BRAKES AND STOPPED. TURNED OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTED AND PROBLEM WENT AWAY AND CONTINUED ON TRIP. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN THE NEXT DAY 6/27/13 DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 81 AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH. SAME PROBLEM WHERE ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I PUT ON MY FOUR WAY FLASHERS AND APPROACHING TRAFFIC STARTED MOVING TO THE LEFT LANE. PULLED OVER TO THE BERM AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. RESTARTED AND TRIED TO PULL OUT. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN. SHUTOFF AND RESTARTED AND WAS THEN ABLE TO PULL OUT AND FINISH TRIP. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME IN LESS THAN A MONTH THAT THIS HAS OCCURRED. AFTER THE FIRST TIME I CONTACTED FORD AND ORDERED A NEW THROTTLE BODY. PART IS ON BACK ORDER AND KEEP BEING TOLD NEXT WEEK. FORD MADE ME GIVE THEM A CREDIT CARD TO ORDER THE PART AND HAS CHARGED MY ACCOUNT BUT HAS NOT GIVEN ME THE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522032
60,000 miles · Jun 5, 2013
Engine And Engine Cooling
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE NEARLY STALLED (SLOWED ALL THE WAY DOWN) AND I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND SHUT IT OFF. IT HAPPENED 5 TIMES IN TWO DAYS. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP AND MY CAR IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY AND THERE IS NO RECALL. DURING THOSE 5 INSTANCES, I WAS DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS WHEN MY CAR SLOWED TO A NEAR STOP. A COUPLE TIMES IT…
Read full complaint
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE NEARLY STALLED (SLOWED ALL THE WAY DOWN) AND I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND SHUT IT OFF. IT HAPPENED 5 TIMES IN TWO DAYS. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP AND MY CAR IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY AND THERE IS NO RECALL. DURING THOSE 5 INSTANCES, I WAS DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS WHEN MY CAR SLOWED TO A NEAR STOP. A COUPLE TIMES IT HAPPENED IN THE PARKING LOT (SLOW) AND THREE TIMES ON THE ROAD BETWEEN 45 AND 55 MILES AN HOUR. ALL I KNOW IS I'M TOO SCARED TO DRIVE IT AS IT IS UNSAFE AND I HAVE KIDS. NOT SAFE!!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515209
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.