NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
440 reportsClear category filter49,000 miles · Jun 10, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND LOST POWER. THE THROTTLE WASN'T WORKING PROPERLY. TOOK THE ESCAPE TO FORD WHERE OTHER SIMILAR VEHICLES HAVE SAME PROBLEM WITH THROTTLE BODY. I HAVE BEEN WAITING ON THE PART FOR OVER A WEEK AND FORD SAYS THERE IS NO RECALL OR WARRANTY FOR THIS ALTHOUGH IT'S HAPPENING TO SO MANY PEOPLE. I'M HAVING…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND LOST POWER. THE THROTTLE WASN'T WORKING PROPERLY. TOOK THE ESCAPE TO FORD WHERE OTHER SIMILAR VEHICLES HAVE SAME PROBLEM WITH THROTTLE BODY. I HAVE BEEN WAITING ON THE PART FOR OVER A WEEK AND FORD SAYS THERE IS NO RECALL OR WARRANTY FOR THIS ALTHOUGH IT'S HAPPENING TO SO MANY PEOPLE. I'M HAVING TO RENT A CAR THIS WHOLE TIME WAITING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515958
39,300 miles · Jun 9, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
DRIVING ON HIGHWAY, HEARD A LITTLE POP AND HAD SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER FROM DEPRESSED ACCELERATOR, BUT ENGINE WAS ON - NO WARNING LIGHT ON DASH. WAS GOING ON DOWNWARD INCLINE, ABLE TO GO FROM LEFT LANE TO SHOULDER ON RIGHT; ENGINE SHOOK VIOLENTLY THEN AND I TURNED IT OFF. WAITED A MINUTES, TURNED BACK ON; IDLING HAD A LITTLE "MIS…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON HIGHWAY, HEARD A LITTLE POP AND HAD SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER FROM DEPRESSED ACCELERATOR, BUT ENGINE WAS ON - NO WARNING LIGHT ON DASH. WAS GOING ON DOWNWARD INCLINE, ABLE TO GO FROM LEFT LANE TO SHOULDER ON RIGHT; ENGINE SHOOK VIOLENTLY THEN AND I TURNED IT OFF. WAITED A MINUTES, TURNED BACK ON; IDLING HAD A LITTLE "MISS" BUT ABLE TO FINISH TRIP. UPON RETURN HOME, TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC, FOUND NO HISTORIC CODE IN COMPUTER AND NOTHING FOUND ON TEST DRIVE. ON 6/07, AGAIN ON HIGHWAY AND WITHOUT WARNING, CAR AGAIN LOST POWER FROM ACCELERATOR - IMMEDIATE LOSS OF MOMENTUM ALMOST CAUSED ME TO BE BROADSIDED BY LARGE SUV MERGING FROM OFF RAMP AS I AM TRYING TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER. SAME THING, ENGINE SHOOK, I TURNED IT OFF; AGAIN NO WARNING LIGHT. OCCURRED TWO MORE TIMES AND WE TURNED AROUND FOR HOME. SAME THING HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES ON THE RETURN TRIP - THE YELLOW WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON THE LAST TWO TIMES. VERY HAZARDOUS CONDITION, I PLAN TO NOT DRIVE AND TAKE TO THE DEALER AS SOON AS I CAN. I SEE THERE IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY AND FEEL A RECALL SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE CONDITION SUDDENLY PUTS A DRIVER IN A VERY DANGEROUS POSITION AND I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR A KNOWN DESIGN / DEVICE PROBLEM TO BE REPAIRED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515854
31,000 miles · Jun 8, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
BOUGHT 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED IN DECEMBER. PURCHASED A $2000 EXTENDED BUMPER TO BUMPER FROM EASY CARE. PUT ABOUT 1200 MILES ON THE VEHICLE BEFORE IT STARTED TURNING OFF AT RANDOM. FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED WAS AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE I LOST THROTTLE RESPONSE TOTALLY AND ALMOST GOT T BONED BY A COAL TRUCK. IT DID IT 5 MORE TI…
Read full complaint
BOUGHT 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED IN DECEMBER. PURCHASED A $2000 EXTENDED BUMPER TO BUMPER FROM EASY CARE. PUT ABOUT 1200 MILES ON THE VEHICLE BEFORE IT STARTED TURNING OFF AT RANDOM. FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED WAS AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE I LOST THROTTLE RESPONSE TOTALLY AND ALMOST GOT T BONED BY A COAL TRUCK. IT DID IT 5 MORE TIMES AS I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET IT HOME. TOOK IT TO FREEDOM FORD IN EBENSBURG PA FOR WARRANTY WORK AND THEY FOUND A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. THE DEALER AND MY WARRANTY COMPANY REFUSED TO PAY ANYTHING FOR THE REPAIR AND THE PART IS BACK ORDERED UNTIL JULY 16TH. NOW I AM PAYING ALMOST $400 A MONTH FOR A FORD ESCAPE WITH ONLY 31000 MILES THAT I DON'T HAVE. AND IT WILL BE SITTING AT THE DEALER FOR 6 MORE WEEKS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515819
42,545 miles · Jun 7, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
I WAS DRIVING FROM THE BANK TO HOME AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN I HAD NO POWER. I STEPPED ON THE GAS AND NOTHING HAPPENED. I HAD TO EASE OVER TO THE RIGHT LANE WITH NO POWER AND WHEN I GOT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD I SHUT OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN I RESTARTED IT. MY ESCAPE THEN RAN FINE THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. I CALLED THE DEALERSHI…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING FROM THE BANK TO HOME AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN I HAD NO POWER. I STEPPED ON THE GAS AND NOTHING HAPPENED. I HAD TO EASE OVER TO THE RIGHT LANE WITH NO POWER AND WHEN I GOT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD I SHUT OFF THE ENGINE AND THEN I RESTARTED IT. MY ESCAPE THEN RAN FINE THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP AND BROUGHT MY ESCAPE INTO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT. THEY SAID I NEED A NEW THROTTLE BOX AND THAT THEY ARE ON BACK ORDER. MY CAR IS ONLY 3 YEARS OLD. I BOUGHT IT BRAND NEW. THERE IS NO REASON FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN. SINCE THE PART IS ON BACK ORDER I HAVE TO DRIVE IT LIKE THIS UNTIL THE PART IS AVAILABLE. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME IT WILL BE AT LEAST 1 WEEK, PROBABLY LONGER. IF MY CAR DIES IN AN INTERSECTION OR WHILE CROSSING AN INTERSECTION, OR ON A FREEWAY, I COULD HAVE AN ACCIDENT. THIS IS VERY FRIGHTENING. I HAVE TO DRIVE IT, IT'S THE ONLY CAR I OWN. I AVOIDED THE FREEWAY TO AND FROM THE DEALERSHIP BECAUSE I KNOW THE SIDE ROADS TO GET THERE. I WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT ALL THE TIME. PLEASE RECALL THIS PART. CONSIDERING THE PART IS ON BACK ORDER AND THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO GET A NEW ONE THAT TELLS ME I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE HAVING THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS A SAFETY CONCERN FOR ALL. IF A CAR STALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC ON THE FREEWAY IT IS ENDANGERING MANY LIVES BESIDES MINE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515744
44,134 miles · Jun 7, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
ENGINE JUST GOES TO IDLE. YOU HAVE TO STOP AND PUT CAR IN PARK TO RESTART. THERE IS NO WARRING AS TO WHEN THE ENGINE WILL CUT OUT. THIS HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST 12 TO 15 TIME OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515620
Mileage unknown · Jun 6, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX 45MPH, VEHICLE STARTED TO DECREASE IN SPEED. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL THE RPMS CONTINUED TO DECREASE AND CAR SLOWED TO A STOP WITHOUT STALLING. VEHICLE BEGAN SPUTTERING AND "WRENCH" LIGHT APPEARED ON DASH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515469
29,500 miles · Jun 6, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE MOTOR IN THE ESCAPE JUST DIED, I WAS FORCED TO MOVE FROM THE LEFT LANE OF THE HIGHWAY TO THE RIGHT WITH ALMOST NO POWER. NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED I TOOK THE TRUCK TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAY THAT PART IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER FORD IS MAKING 4000 OF THE THROTTLE BODIES IN ORDER TO KEEP …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE MOTOR IN THE ESCAPE JUST DIED, I WAS FORCED TO MOVE FROM THE LEFT LANE OF THE HIGHWAY TO THE RIGHT WITH ALMOST NO POWER. NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED I TOOK THE TRUCK TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAY THAT PART IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER FORD IS MAKING 4000 OF THE THROTTLE BODIES IN ORDER TO KEEP WITH THE DEMAND. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515413
55,000 miles · Jun 4, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other
ENGINE LOST POWER AND COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. TOWED TO DEALER, KEYSER MILLER FORD, 8 EAST MAIN ST., COLLEGEVILLE, PA 19426. THEY STATED THE PROBLEM WAS THE "THROTTLE BODY", AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THEY SAID IT WAS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE ESCAPES. PARTS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515104
44,800 miles · Jun 3, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
WHILE DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 24, MY VEHICLE HAD SPONTANEOUSLY LOST POWER AS I WAS PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL. AS I SAFETY STEERED MY VEHICLE TO A PLACE ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, THE SERVICE LIGHT THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. ONCE STOP, I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF; WAITED A FEW MINUTES THEY STARTED IT BACK UP. THE ENGINE WAS ON,…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 24, MY VEHICLE HAD SPONTANEOUSLY LOST POWER AS I WAS PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL. AS I SAFETY STEERED MY VEHICLE TO A PLACE ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, THE SERVICE LIGHT THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. ONCE STOP, I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF; WAITED A FEW MINUTES THEY STARTED IT BACK UP. THE ENGINE WAS ON, THE DASH INDICATOR LIGHTS WERE STILL ONE, BUT NO POWER WAS TRANSFERRING FROM THE ENGINE TO THE TRANSMISSION AS I PRESSED DOWN ON THE GAS PEDAL. THE RPM GAUGE ALSO SHOWED LITTLE TO NO CHANGE WHILE I WAS APPLYING MORE GAS. AFTER I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED BACK TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, THEY WERE QUICK TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM BEING THE THROTTLE BODY. THE PART WAS COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY ONLY AFTER I PAID THE $100.00 DEDUCTIBLE. MY VEHICLE WAS WELL MAINTAINED; HAVING ALL SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE DONE BY FORD DEALERSHIP/SERVICE CENTERS WITHIN THE REQUIRED INTERVALS, AND HAS ONLY 44,800 MILES ON IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514843
51,310 miles · Jun 2, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE LOST THROTTLE RESPONSE, WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. HAD NO PRIOR WARNING/SYMPTOMS. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT (WRENCH) CAME ON. PULLED OFF TO SIDE OF ROAD, HAD TO SHUT OF AND RESTART. THROTTLE RESPONSE RETURNED. SAME INCIDENT HAPPENED THE NEXT DAY AT APPROXIMATELY SAME SPEED. PULLED OFF ROAD, SHUT OFF AND RESTARTED. BROUGHT VEHICLE T…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE LOST THROTTLE RESPONSE, WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. HAD NO PRIOR WARNING/SYMPTOMS. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT (WRENCH) CAME ON. PULLED OFF TO SIDE OF ROAD, HAD TO SHUT OF AND RESTART. THROTTLE RESPONSE RETURNED. SAME INCIDENT HAPPENED THE NEXT DAY AT APPROXIMATELY SAME SPEED. PULLED OFF ROAD, SHUT OFF AND RESTARTED. BROUGHT VEHICLE TO DEALER/REPAIR SHOP AND THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514691
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.