← New search

2010 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Escape years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Ford Escape are substantially higher than the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,764 reports with mileage · 305 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 558 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 508 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 493 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

29 crash reports3 fire reports19 injury reports

Fuel/propulsion System complaints

440 reports
Clear category filter
110,000 miles · Jun 14, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH DOWN INTERSTATE MY 2010 ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOST ALL POWER WITHOUT WARNING. THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH CAME ON, THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON-RESPONSIVE AND THE ENGINE IDLED EXTREMELY ROUGH AT A LOW RPM. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD - NEARLY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. UNSURE WHAT TO DO I LOOKED IN THE …

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH DOWN INTERSTATE MY 2010 ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOST ALL POWER WITHOUT WARNING. THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH CAME ON, THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON-RESPONSIVE AND THE ENGINE IDLED EXTREMELY ROUGH AT A LOW RPM. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD - NEARLY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. UNSURE WHAT TO DO I LOOKED IN THE MANUAL AND SAW THAT THE WRENCH LIGHT MEANT POWERTRAIN FAILURE AND IT ADVISED TO CONTACT DEALER. I HAD SHUT THE CAR OFF, BUT DECIDED TO TRY AND MOVE IT FARTHER OFF THE ROAD SO I STARTED IT AGAIN. THE LIGHT WAS NO LONGER ON AND THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING SMOOTHLY. I DECIDED TO ATTEMPT TO GET CLOSER TO HOME AND DROVE ABOUT 5 MILES BEFORE IT HAPPENED AGAIN. I WAS IN THE RIGHT HAND LANE, SO I WAS ABLE TO PULL RIGHT OFF THE ROAD. THIS INCIDENT HAPPENED TWO MORE TIME DURING A 20 MILE TRIP. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS ISSUE. I COULD HAVE CAUSED A HORRIBLE ACCIDENT TONIGHT AND THERE IS NO WARNING THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN. BY THE SOUND OF IT THE THROTTLE BODY IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER. I HOPE FORD STEPS UP AND TAKES CARE OF THIS HUGE SAFETY HAZARD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519760

36,960 miles · Jun 13, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, 60 MPH, WHEN THE ENGINE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE WARNING INDICATING A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN CAME ON. I TURNED THE MOTOR OFF AND RESTARTED THE ENGINE, THE LIGHT WENT OFF, AND I PROCEEDED TO WORK WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. AFTER R…

Read full complaint

I WAS TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, 60 MPH, WHEN THE ENGINE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE WARNING INDICATING A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN CAME ON. I TURNED THE MOTOR OFF AND RESTARTED THE ENGINE, THE LIGHT WENT OFF, AND I PROCEEDED TO WORK WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. AFTER RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET AND TALKING TO MY DEALER, I WAS TOLD IT WAS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY PART AND IS ON "NATIONAL BACK ORDER" AND WILL BE AT LEAST 2 WEEKS BEFORE THEY CAN GET THE PART IN. ON THE SAME DAY, ON THE DRIVE FROM HOME FROM WORK, THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM HAPPENED, BUT THIS TIME AT ABOUT 35 MPH IN TRAFFIC. FORTUNATELY NO ONE WAS RIGHT ON MY BUMPER AT THE TIME. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WARNING WHEN THIS HAPPENS, IT JUST SUDDENLY LOSES POWER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519726

36,100 miles · Jun 13, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

DURING HIGHWAY DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION, STALLING, AND THE THROTTLE/POWER TRAIN INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS FORCED TO PULL OVER ON THE SIDE ON THE ROAD, TURN OFF THE VEHICLE AND RESTART. THE CARE DROVE FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MORE MILES AND THEN THE ISSUE RECURRED. I IMMEDIATELY PR…

Read full complaint

DURING HIGHWAY DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION, STALLING, AND THE THROTTLE/POWER TRAIN INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS FORCED TO PULL OVER ON THE SIDE ON THE ROAD, TURN OFF THE VEHICLE AND RESTART. THE CARE DROVE FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MORE MILES AND THEN THE ISSUE RECURRED. I IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDED TO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP (DEALERSHIP WHERE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED). DURING THAT TRIP, THE "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS ADVISED BY THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN THAT THIS WAS DUE TO A FAULTY/FAILED THROTTLE BODY BUT THAT THE PARTS WERE ON BACK ORDER INDEFINITELY WITH NO WORD FROM FORD AS TO WHEN THEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE. I WAS ADVISED TO CONTINUE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE IN ITS CURRENT STATE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PART WAS AVAILABLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519661

40,000 miles · Jun 13, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

VEHICLE SURGES AND THEN DIES WHEN STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT OR STOP SIGN. VEHICLE WILL INSTANTLY RESTART AFTER PLACING IT IN PARK. AFTER FIRST INCIDENT VEHICLE HAS CONSTANTLY GOTTEN WORSE. DEALER STATED THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE AND ORDERED NEW PART WHICH IS ON BACK ORDER. UNABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR SINCE IT IS SUBJECT TO DIE AT AN…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE SURGES AND THEN DIES WHEN STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT OR STOP SIGN. VEHICLE WILL INSTANTLY RESTART AFTER PLACING IT IN PARK. AFTER FIRST INCIDENT VEHICLE HAS CONSTANTLY GOTTEN WORSE. DEALER STATED THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE AND ORDERED NEW PART WHICH IS ON BACK ORDER. UNABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR SINCE IT IS SUBJECT TO DIE AT ANYTIME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519637

54,000 miles · Jun 13, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST POWER WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. I WAS ABLE TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND STOP. VEHICLE RESTARTED AND HAD THE SAME ISSUE TWO MORE TIMES IN A 40 MILE TRIP. VEHICLE HAS CONTINUED TO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM INTERMITTENTLY BOTH AT SURFACE STREET SPEED AND HIGHWAY SPEEDS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519636

48,000 miles · Jun 13, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System

VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING TURNS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519626

21,610 miles · Jun 12, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WHILE MAKING LEFT HAND TURN VEHICLE ABRUPTLY STALLED, YELLOW WARNING LIGHT SHOWED FAULT WITH POWERTRAIN. VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO DEALER ON 6/10/2013 STILL WAITING FOR THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY THREE DAYS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519542

41,000 miles · Jun 11, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

DRIVING ON HIGHWAY, AT 65 MPH. CAR LOSES POWER AND HAVE TO COST TO A STOP. VERY DANGEROUS SITUATIONS TRYING TO CROSS 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC TO GET TO SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY AND STOP SAFELY. THIS HAPPENED ONCE ON 4/26/13, TOOK TO DEALERSHIP, THEY SAID NOTHING WRONG. CONTINUED TO DRIVE UNTIL HAPPENED AGAIN. HAPPENED ON 5/30 AND 5/31 …

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON HIGHWAY, AT 65 MPH. CAR LOSES POWER AND HAVE TO COST TO A STOP. VERY DANGEROUS SITUATIONS TRYING TO CROSS 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC TO GET TO SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY AND STOP SAFELY. THIS HAPPENED ONCE ON 4/26/13, TOOK TO DEALERSHIP, THEY SAID NOTHING WRONG. CONTINUED TO DRIVE UNTIL HAPPENED AGAIN. HAPPENED ON 5/30 AND 5/31 REPEATEDLY UNTIL GOT THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR SHOP. REPAIR SHOP HAS HAD THE VEHICLE FOR 10 DAYS DUE TO PART NOT AVAILABLE. PART IS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE THIS IS A RECURRING PROBLEM FOR FORD AND THESE VEHICLES. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE AND NEEDS TO BE RECALLED! PLEASE DO SOMETHING! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519355

57,000 miles · Jun 11, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

IN A 35 MPH ZONE, WHEN ACCELERATING AFTER SLOWING TO ALLOW VEHICLE IN FRONT TO TURN, THROTTLE STUCK OPEN & CAR LOST POWER. WAS ABLE TO GET TO SIDE OF ROAD AND RESTART CAR AND PROCEED. SAME THING HAPPENED 4 ADDITIONAL TIMES THAT DAY AT VARIOUS SPEEDS ACCELERATING TO SPEED FOLLOWING A STOP OR USING AN ON-RAMP TO HIGHWAY SPEED. …

Read full complaint

IN A 35 MPH ZONE, WHEN ACCELERATING AFTER SLOWING TO ALLOW VEHICLE IN FRONT TO TURN, THROTTLE STUCK OPEN & CAR LOST POWER. WAS ABLE TO GET TO SIDE OF ROAD AND RESTART CAR AND PROCEED. SAME THING HAPPENED 4 ADDITIONAL TIMES THAT DAY AT VARIOUS SPEEDS ACCELERATING TO SPEED FOLLOWING A STOP OR USING AN ON-RAMP TO HIGHWAY SPEED. HAVE EXPERIENCED "SURGING" PREVIOUSLY BUT DEALER IGNORED REPORTS AS "INTERMITTENT". CAR WAS TOWED TO DEALER ON 22 MAY AND IS STILL THERE AWAITING A NEW THROTTLE CONTROL BODY. SHIPMENT OF NEW PART IS ESTIMATED AS 17 JUNE. DEALER IS NOT PROVIDING LOANER OR RENTAL CAR AS THE PART IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE POWERTRAIN & IS THEREFORE APPROX. 6 MONTHS OUT OF WARRANTY. SINCE THE CAR CANNOT "GO" WITHOUT THE THROTTLE CONTROL BODY - WHY IS IT CONSIDERED PART OF THE EMISSION SYSTEM VICE THE POWERTRAIN? WITH SO MANY CARS DOWN FOR THIS PART, IT SHOULD BE A RECALL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10519294

75,000 miles · Jun 10, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System

I WAS CRUISING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS WHEN THE CAR BEGAN SLOWING DESPITE NO CHANGE IN GAS PEDAL PRESSURE. ADDITIONAL GAS DID NOT RESULT IN THE CAR MAINTAINING SPEED OR SPEEDING UP. I COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I RESTARTED THE CAR AND WAS ABLE TO ACCELERATE TO HIGHWAY SPEEDS. ABOUT A MILE LATER, THE …

Read full complaint

I WAS CRUISING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS WHEN THE CAR BEGAN SLOWING DESPITE NO CHANGE IN GAS PEDAL PRESSURE. ADDITIONAL GAS DID NOT RESULT IN THE CAR MAINTAINING SPEED OR SPEEDING UP. I COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I RESTARTED THE CAR AND WAS ABLE TO ACCELERATE TO HIGHWAY SPEEDS. ABOUT A MILE LATER, THE SAME THING HAPPENED. I CALLED A TOW TRUCK AND THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL FORD DEALER. THE MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT THE PROBLEM IS A BAD THROTTLE BODY AND THAT A NUMBER OF FORDS HAVE THE PROBLEM BUT THERE IS NO RECALL. IT IS SUCH A PROBLEM THAT A REPLACEMENT PART IS ON BACK-ORDERED AND THE DEALER IS UNABLE TO TELL ME WHEN IT WILL BE IN SO THAT THE CAR CAN BE MADE SAFE TO OPERATE. THE POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE OF A FAILURE WHILE DRIVING, AND THE WIDESPREAD NATURE OF THE PROBLEM SUGGEST FORD SHOULD BE MORE PROACTIVELY ADDRESSING THIS AND RECALLING CARS LIKE MINE BEFORE INCIDENTS ARISE WHILE OPERATING THE VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10516063

Official recalls

3

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 26, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 29, 2014

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.

10V222000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

May 24, 2010

FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.

Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

4

DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving

Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System

On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages

PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that

DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.

PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage

Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Additional source detail variants (5)

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems