NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
440 reportsClear category filter59,000 miles · Jul 11, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
THROTTLE BODY FAILURE. FROM NOV 2012 UNTIL JULY 2013 MY FORD ESCAPE HAS BEEN BUCKING AND SURGING AT LOW SPEEDS WITH NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. OCCASIONALLY, THE VEHICLE WOULD DIE COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. ON JULY 11, 2013, MY WIFE TOOK OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE TO ERNEST MCCARTY FORD IN ALABASTER, AL. THEY …
Read full complaint
THROTTLE BODY FAILURE. FROM NOV 2012 UNTIL JULY 2013 MY FORD ESCAPE HAS BEEN BUCKING AND SURGING AT LOW SPEEDS WITH NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. OCCASIONALLY, THE VEHICLE WOULD DIE COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. ON JULY 11, 2013, MY WIFE TOOK OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE TO ERNEST MCCARTY FORD IN ALABASTER, AL. THEY TOLD US THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THIS ISSUE IS VERY DANGEROUS AND SHOULD FORD SHOULD ISSUE A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524383
48,760 miles · Jul 11, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
FIRST IT STARTED WITH THE ENGINE LIGHT COMING ON. I HAD THE CODES READ AT A LOCAL AUTO PARTS STORE AND THEY SAW IT WAS AN "EVAP CENSOR" AND STATED THIS IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A GAS CAP LEAKING. WELL, THE ESCAPE WE HAVE DOESN'T HAVE A GAS CAP!!! IT'S ONE OF THOSE "QUICK FUEL, NASCAR TYPE SYSTEMS", WHERE THERE IS JUST A PLUG T…
Read full complaint
FIRST IT STARTED WITH THE ENGINE LIGHT COMING ON. I HAD THE CODES READ AT A LOCAL AUTO PARTS STORE AND THEY SAW IT WAS AN "EVAP CENSOR" AND STATED THIS IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A GAS CAP LEAKING. WELL, THE ESCAPE WE HAVE DOESN'T HAVE A GAS CAP!!! IT'S ONE OF THOSE "QUICK FUEL, NASCAR TYPE SYSTEMS", WHERE THERE IS JUST A PLUG THAT RETRACTS WHEN YOU INSERT THE GAS NOZZLE AND RETRACTS WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED? SECONDLY, THE SURGING STARTED HAPPENING WHILE STOPPED AT RED LIGHTS. I WOULD SLIDE THE GEAR INTO NEUTRAL, WHICH WOULD KEEP THE VEHICLE FROM LUNGING, BUT YOU COULD STILL SEE THE RPM'S REVVING UP AND DOWN. THIS ISSUE WENT ON FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS. THIRDLY, IT IS NOW STALLING WHILE DRIVING 50 - 60 MPH DOWN THE HIGHWAY. THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY RHYME OR REASON AS TO WHEN IT HAPPENS, IT JUST TOTALLY SHUTS DOWN THE ENGINE!!! VERY DANGEROUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524362
57,300 miles · Jul 11, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
AS I ACCELERATE FROM A STOP POSITION SUCH AS A STOP SIGN, TRAFFIC LIGHT OR ACCELERATE TRYING TO GO UP AN INCLINE OR BRIDGE THE CAR LOSES ALL POWER. THE ENGINE STILL RUNS AND THE POWER STEERING STILL WORKS BUT AS YOU TRY AND PRESS DOWN ON THE PEDAL TO ACCELERATE NOTHING HAPPENS. EVENTUALLY THE CAR STOPS AND BEGINS TO SPUTTER. …
Read full complaint
AS I ACCELERATE FROM A STOP POSITION SUCH AS A STOP SIGN, TRAFFIC LIGHT OR ACCELERATE TRYING TO GO UP AN INCLINE OR BRIDGE THE CAR LOSES ALL POWER. THE ENGINE STILL RUNS AND THE POWER STEERING STILL WORKS BUT AS YOU TRY AND PRESS DOWN ON THE PEDAL TO ACCELERATE NOTHING HAPPENS. EVENTUALLY THE CAR STOPS AND BEGINS TO SPUTTER. I TURN OFF THE CAR AND THEN START IT UP. THE CAR WORKS FINE FOR A FEW MILES BUT THE SITUATION HAPPENS AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524323
110,000 miles · Jul 10, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
PLEASE BE ADVISED WHILE DRIVING ON ROSWELL ROAD IN ATLANTA, GA IN TRAFFIC MY FORD ESCAPE STALLED. I HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE WAS UNRESPONSIVE. UPON TAKING THE VEHICLE TO FORD THEY REPLACED A FAULTY FUEL VAPOR CONTROL VALVE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524059
122,000 miles · Jul 10, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
PLEASE BE ADVISED WHILE DRIVING ON I-285 IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS UNRESPONSIVE AND SLOWED DOWN ON ITS OWN. I HAD TO PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. UPON TAKING THE VEHICLE TO FORD, THEY REPLACED A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524058
69,863 miles · Jul 9, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING WITH MY 7 WEEK OLD SON AND 3 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. I PULLED UP TO A RED LIGHT AND STOPPED. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN I PRESSED THE GAS TO GO. MY VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD INTO THE INTERSECTION AND THEN ONLY SLOWLY MOVED. THERE WAS POWER TO THE CAR, LIGHTS, MUSIC, AND AIR WERE WORKING BUT MY CAR WAS ONLY SLOWLY MOVING A…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING WITH MY 7 WEEK OLD SON AND 3 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. I PULLED UP TO A RED LIGHT AND STOPPED. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN I PRESSED THE GAS TO GO. MY VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD INTO THE INTERSECTION AND THEN ONLY SLOWLY MOVED. THERE WAS POWER TO THE CAR, LIGHTS, MUSIC, AND AIR WERE WORKING BUT MY CAR WAS ONLY SLOWLY MOVING AND SHAKING. IT WAS AS IF NO GAS WAS GETTING TO THE ENGINE. I HAD TO PULL OVER ONTO THE RIGHT LANE, BECAUSE THE ROAD HAD NO SHOULDER. THE SOUND AND FEELING THE CAR WAS MAKING MADE ME FEEL LIKE I NEEDED TO DRIVE WITH MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND THE GAS AT THE SAME TIME. THERE WAS NO WARNING SIGNS THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY CAR, IT JUST ALL OF A SUDDEN STOPPED. IT WAS THE WORST FEELING EVER BEING STUCK ON A BUSY ROAD WITH NO SHOULDER TO PULL OVER ONTO AND HAVING MY 2 BABIES IN THE CAR WITH ME, AS CARS COME DRIVING UP AND HAVING TO SWITCH LANES OR SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES TO AVOID ME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523980
25,100 miles · Jul 7, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE STALLS WHILE DRIVING , STALLS WHILE IDLE , RPM'S SPIKE WHILE DRIVING !!! SCARY !! CODES READ P2112 . (THROTTLE STUCK OPEN ) THINKING BAD THROTTLE BODY ? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523521
67,000 miles · Jul 6, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON A TWO LANE ROAD DOING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH MY VEHICLE LOST POWER. THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT LOST ACCELERATION POWER. WE HAD TO COAST UNTIL WE FOUND A PLACE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO MOVE TO. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523448
55,131 miles · Jul 5, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
AS I WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD AND WAS SLOWING DOWN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACTED LIKE TRANSMISSION KICKED INTO NEUTRAL BUT WHEN I LOOKED DOWN I SAW OPEN WRENCH SYMBOL IN CLUSTER LIT UP AND RPM WAS AT IDLE AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE BEING APPLIED AND ENGINE WAS RUNNING AWFUL. I HAD TO PULL OFF ONTO SHOULDER AND CUT IGNITI…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD AND WAS SLOWING DOWN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACTED LIKE TRANSMISSION KICKED INTO NEUTRAL BUT WHEN I LOOKED DOWN I SAW OPEN WRENCH SYMBOL IN CLUSTER LIT UP AND RPM WAS AT IDLE AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE BEING APPLIED AND ENGINE WAS RUNNING AWFUL. I HAD TO PULL OFF ONTO SHOULDER AND CUT IGNITION OFF AND RESTART VEHICLE BUT WAS ONLY ABLE TO MAKE IT A BOUT A 100 YDS. WHEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. WE CAUGHT A RIDE HOME AND I CAME BACK WITH MY SCANNER AND DROVE IT DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND IT DID IT AGAIN AT 55 MPH. SO I PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND SCANNED FOR CODES AND IT HAD PENDING CODE P2111- THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM STUCK OPEN. I PURCHASED NEW THROTTLE BODY AND INSTALLED MYSELF AT A COST OF 171.68 LESS TAX. NOT COVERED BY POWERTRAIN WARRANTY. CAR OPERATES FINE SO FAR. 2010 FORD ESCAPE 3.0LITER V-6 WITH 55 THOUSAND MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523414
23,000 miles · Jul 4, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I MADE A LEFT TURN FROM A STOP LIGHT AND THE CAR SEEMED TO BE ACCELERATING AND SHIFTING BUT SUDDENLY JUST STARTED "CHUGGING" AND BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO STEER, ALMOST AS IF THE BRAKE WERE ON. I GOT AS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE ROAD AS I COULD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I LOOKED UP THE SYMBOL (WRENCH) IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID "PO…
Read full complaint
I MADE A LEFT TURN FROM A STOP LIGHT AND THE CAR SEEMED TO BE ACCELERATING AND SHIFTING BUT SUDDENLY JUST STARTED "CHUGGING" AND BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO STEER, ALMOST AS IF THE BRAKE WERE ON. I GOT AS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE ROAD AS I COULD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I LOOKED UP THE SYMBOL (WRENCH) IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID "POWERTRAIN FAULT" CALL YOUR AUTHORIZED DEALER. IT WAS TERRIFYING BEING STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET IN THE DARK! I HAD MY HAZARD FLASHERS ON AND WHEN I CALLED MY SON HE ASKED IF I COULD START THE CAR AND GET OFF THE STREET. IT DID START UP AND I WAS ABLE TO MOVE IT ABOUT A 100 FEET BEFORE IT STARTED "CHOKING UP" AGAIN. I WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND DID THAT AGAIN AND WAS ABLE TO GET IT INTO A PARKING LOT AND OFF THE STREET. MY CAR WAS TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND WHEN I CALLED THEM THE NEXT DAY THEY INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND THAT PART IS ON BACK ORDER AND IT MAY BE A COUPLE OF WEEKS. MY WARRANTY EXPIRED IN MAY AT THE THREE YEAR POINT. FORD SAID IT IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY AND WILL BE ABOUT $400 TO REPAIR; THEY WILL NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION AND MY INSURANCE WON'T COVER A RENTAL UNLESS I AM IN A COLLISION. IRONICALLY, HAD I TURNED LEFT WHEN I LEFT THE DRUGSTORE I WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE MAIN STREET IN TOWN AND BETWEEN A STRIP SHOPPING CENTER AND THE MALL AND PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A WRECK! FROM WHAT THE SERVICE MAN TOLD ME THIS IS A PROBLEM THEY ARE AWARE OF, BUT THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN, I HAVE TO FIX THE PROBLEM AND COVER THE COST OF A RENTAL FOR POSSIBLY SEVERAL WEEKS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT KEEP THE PART IN STOCK. INSULT AND INJURY! I AM SINGLE AND DO NOT HAVE ANYONE TO CHAUFFEUR ME. MY SON PICKS ME UP AT WORK, I DROP HIM OFF AND KEEP HIS TRUCK SO I CAN SHOP OR GO TO EAT AND I PICK HIM UP IN THE MORNING. PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS BEFORE SOMEONE IS SERIOUSLY INJURED, AS I COULD HAVE BEEN!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523181
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.