NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
440 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Dec 21, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART FOR THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PART FOR THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10936724
Mileage unknown · Dec 20, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE PARTS NEEDED FOR THE RECALL REMEDY WERE STILL NOT AVAILABLE AND THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT HAD …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE PARTS NEEDED FOR THE RECALL REMEDY WERE STILL NOT AVAILABLE AND THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10936545
Mileage unknown · Dec 19, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ISSU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10936264
35,000 miles · Dec 16, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT A CONSTANT FUEL ODOR WAS PRESENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER, BUT THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT A CONSTANT FUEL ODOR WAS PRESENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER, BUT THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 35,000. UPDATED 02/07/2017*CT *CN
NHTSA ODI #10935869
85,160 miles · Dec 15, 2016
Fuel System, GasolineFuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS REFUELED, FUEL SPEWED OUT OF THE FILLER PIPE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART NEEDED FOR THE REPAIR WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS REFUELED, FUEL SPEWED OUT OF THE FILLER PIPE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART NEEDED FOR THE REPAIR WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,160. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10935525
80,000 miles · Dec 14, 2016
Fuel System, GasolineFuel/propulsion System
ABOUT 3 YEARS AGO, WE STARTED HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE COMPONENT WITHIN IN THE FUEL TAKE THAT SHUTS AFTER YOU PUT GAS IN THE VEHICLE. WE KEPT GETTING AN ERROR NOTICE THAT IT WAS NOT SHUTTING. WE TOOK IT IN TO THE FORD DEALER, WHERE THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE FIXED IT. ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER, WE THE CODE CAME UP AGAIN. WE TOOK IT BACK TO …
Read full complaint
ABOUT 3 YEARS AGO, WE STARTED HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE COMPONENT WITHIN IN THE FUEL TAKE THAT SHUTS AFTER YOU PUT GAS IN THE VEHICLE. WE KEPT GETTING AN ERROR NOTICE THAT IT WAS NOT SHUTTING. WE TOOK IT IN TO THE FORD DEALER, WHERE THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE FIXED IT. ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER, WE THE CODE CAME UP AGAIN. WE TOOK IT BACK TO THE FORD DEALER AND THIS TIME, THE NECK OF THE FUEL TANK HAD TO BE REPLACED. THIS SEEMED TO TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE FOR SOME TIME, BUT WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS, WE'VE BEEN GETTING REALLY BAD GAS MILEAGE. WE MAINTAIN OUR VEHICLE VERY WELL, SO THIS WAS CONCERNING. WE PUT NEW TIRES, DID A COMPLETED TUNE-UP, ETC., BUT THIS DIDN'T HELP. ABOUT 4 MONTHS AGO, OUR CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON & THE CODE SAID THERE WAS A PART THAT NEEDED REPLACING; THE VENT VALVE. WE DID THAT, AND THEN 2 WEEKS LATER, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN FOR THE SAME THING. AND THEN, AS WE'RE PUMPING GAS, THE GAS KEEP SHUTTING OFF, AS IF WE ARE TOPPING IT OFF, WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY EMPTY. WE WERE HAVING A HARD TIME JUST FILLING UP OUR TANK. WE FINALLY TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO OUR LOCAL REPAIR SHOP (WHOM WE TRUST). THE VENT VALVE THAT WAS REPLACED WAS FULL OF FUEL. THEY ARE HAVING TO REPLACE THE CANISTER. WE ARE HOPING THIS WILL FIX THE PROBLEM. IF NOT, THEY SAID WE'LL NEED TO REPLACE THE FUEL TANK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ON A NATIONAL BACK ORDER. BUT I CHECKED MY VIN# & WAS TOLD MY PARTICULAR VEHICLE ISN'T PART OF THAT RECALL. I LOVE MY LITTLE ESCAPE, BUT WE'VE HAD PROBLEM AFTER PROBLEM WITH THE FUEL SYSTEM FOR SOME REASON, FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS. IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING & FORD JUST SHRUGS THEIR SHOULDERS AT US NOW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10935221
115,000 miles · Oct 31, 2016
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER FORD ESCAPE OWNERS, I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED V6. FIRST I COMPLETELY LOST ALL PROPULSION/ACCELERATION WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX. 35MPH. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED ENGINE OFF. TURNED ENGINE ON AND VOILA! RUNS JUST FINE. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, AT 75MPH FU…
Read full complaint
LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER FORD ESCAPE OWNERS, I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED V6. FIRST I COMPLETELY LOST ALL PROPULSION/ACCELERATION WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX. 35MPH. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED ENGINE OFF. TURNED ENGINE ON AND VOILA! RUNS JUST FINE. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, AT 75MPH FULL LOSS OF PROPULSION ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY, COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED ENGINE OFF. TURNED ENGINE ON AND VOILA! RUNS JUST FINE, UNTIL ABOUT 5MILES DOWN THE ROAD WHEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. THEN ABOUT ANOTHER 3WKS LATER, IT HAPPENED AGAIN ON A BACKROAD IN NC AT ABOUT 60MPH. THIS TRIP IT HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES AND FINALLY ONCE I GOT PARKED AND TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON (JUST TO CHECK), THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. WHEN I LEFT MY LOCATION, PRAYING I'D MAKE IT HOME, NO ENGINE LIGHT, BUT NOW THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. STOPPED FOR GAS (I HAD TOO, I WAS TRAVELING THROUGH THE COUNTRY) AND WHEN I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE, NO ENGINE LIGHT OR WRENCH LIGHT INDICATOR. THIS PROBLEM HAS HAPPENED AGAIN ON TWO MORE OCCASIONS YET NEITHER PROBLEM INDICATOR LIGHT HAS ILLUMINATED. I'VE HAD THE TRUCK "COMPUTER SCANNED" WITH NO ERROR/PROBLEM CODES SHOWING UP. I'VE CALLED 2 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS, WHO TOLD ME "FLAT OUT" ...NO PROBLEM LIGHTS/CODE...NO FIX UNDER THE "CUSTOMER SERVICE EXTENDED WARRANTY. YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET. MILLIONS OF THESE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE SO CALLED "CUSTOMER SERVICE EXTENDED WARRANTY" YET THE STIPULATIONS IT MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY REPAIRS OF A KNOWN DEFECTIVE PART/SYSTEM MALFUNCTION. IF BY CHANCE THE INDICATOR LIGHTS DO SHOW UP, THEY WON'T EVEN ACCEPT A PICTURE, SHOWING MILEAGE OR SOMETHING TO VERIFY IT'S THAT VEHICLE OR TAKE A DOCUMENT FROM ANOTHER RELIABLE SOURCE (I.E., ADVANCE AUTO, ETC.) WE NEED A RECALL! PLEASE HELP! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10920245
75,000 miles · Oct 26, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON LOSING POWER STALLING FUEL BODY
NHTSA ODI #10918973
92,000 miles · Oct 19, 2016
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THROTTLE BODY "SECRET" RECALL: FOR MORE THAN A YEAR MY GAS PEDAL WOULDN'T WORK WHEN ACCELERATING AFTER BEING STOPPED AT RANDOM TIMES, SOMETIMES GOING MONTHS BEFORE IT DID IT AGAIN, OTHER TIMES DOING IT MULTIPLE TIMES DURING A 2 MILE TRIP. IT NEVER SET OFF ANY CODES RELATING TO THE ISSUE. FOUR MECHANICS OVER A YEAR LOOKED AT THE …
Read full complaint
THROTTLE BODY "SECRET" RECALL: FOR MORE THAN A YEAR MY GAS PEDAL WOULDN'T WORK WHEN ACCELERATING AFTER BEING STOPPED AT RANDOM TIMES, SOMETIMES GOING MONTHS BEFORE IT DID IT AGAIN, OTHER TIMES DOING IT MULTIPLE TIMES DURING A 2 MILE TRIP. IT NEVER SET OFF ANY CODES RELATING TO THE ISSUE. FOUR MECHANICS OVER A YEAR LOOKED AT THE VEHICLE INCLUDING THE DEALERSHIP AND FIXED MULTIPLE THINGS AND THE CAR CONTINUED TO DIE WHILE I WAS DRIVING IT, USUALLY IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. AFTER SPENDING $600+, FORD FINALLY DECIDED TO TRY A NEW PART (THROTTLE BODY), WHICH WAS FREE TO ME BECAUSE OF A RECALL THAT WAS NOT ADVERTISED. AFTER A WEEK, THIS SEEMS TO HAVE FIXED THE ISSUE. NOW I HAVE PAID $600+ FOR PARTS THAT WEREN'T CAUSING THE ISSUE AND SPENT A YEAR TRYING TO SOLVE THE ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10917285
119,000 miles · Sep 20, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
CAP LESS FUEL SYSTEM INDICATES FAILURE ON WARNING SYSTEM. AFTER CONTINUING TO DRIVE ENGINE WARNING ELUMINATES.
NHTSA ODI #10908176
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.
Illustration