← 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
57,720 miles · May 17, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineFuel/propulsion System

EVEN THOUGH THAT HAD HAPPENED SOME MONTHS BEFORE BUT STOPPED, IT DID IT AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2013. THE VEHICLE STALLED UNABLE TO BE ACCELERATED, THE WRENCH SIGN APPEARED AND ALL I COULD DO WAS COAST IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. SINCE THIS HAPPENED BEFORE, I TOOK IT IMMEDIATELY TO FORD TO HAVE IT FIX. …

Read full complaint

EVEN THOUGH THAT HAD HAPPENED SOME MONTHS BEFORE BUT STOPPED, IT DID IT AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2013. THE VEHICLE STALLED UNABLE TO BE ACCELERATED, THE WRENCH SIGN APPEARED AND ALL I COULD DO WAS COAST IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. SINCE THIS HAPPENED BEFORE, I TOOK IT IMMEDIATELY TO FORD TO HAVE IT FIX. I TOLD THEM WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS AND THEY CONFIRMED IT. THE REPAIRED WAS $304. SINCE FORD KNOWS ABOUT THIS EXISTING PROBLEM WITH THE ESCAPES, THEY SHOULD HAVE RECALLED THIS PART AND PAY YOU FOR THE REPAIR. I LIKE THE ESCAPE BUT I THINK FORD HAS NOT BEEN PROACTIVE IN FIXING THIS PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10512494

63,322 miles · May 13, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System

INTERMITTENT VEHICLE STALLS AND SURGES UPON ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION OR WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. PROBLEM WAS INITIALLY INTERMITTENT AND CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE UNDER THIS CONDITION. HOWEVER, A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME/MILEAGE LATER, THE CONDITION EVENTUALLY PROGRESSED TO THE POINT OF KEEPING ONE F…

Read full complaint

INTERMITTENT VEHICLE STALLS AND SURGES UPON ENTERING TRAFFIC FROM A STOPPED POSITION OR WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. PROBLEM WAS INITIALLY INTERMITTENT AND CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE UNDER THIS CONDITION. HOWEVER, A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME/MILEAGE LATER, THE CONDITION EVENTUALLY PROGRESSED TO THE POINT OF KEEPING ONE FOOT ON THE BRAKE WHILE STOPPED AND THE OTHER ON THE GAS PEDAL TO KEEP THE VEHICLE RUNNING AS WELL AS PULLING OFF THE ROADWAYS AND INTERSTATES UNTIL VEHICLE WAS MARGINALLY OPERATIONAL AGAIN. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION, PARTICULARLY DRIVING UNDER HIGH SPEEDS ON THE INTERSTATE. UPON TAKING THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP, THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY, WITH TROUBLE CODES P2111 AND P2112 PRESENT IN THE ON BOARD COMPUTER SYSTEM, INDICATING THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM WAS STUCK OPEN AND CLOSED, RESPECTIVELY. THERE WERE NO WARNING SIGNS PRIOR TO THE INITIAL FAILURE OR PRIOR TO SUBSEQUENT FAILURES, ONLY WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTED SURGING DID THE CHECK ENGINE/MAINTENANCE REQUIRED LIGHTS BEGIN TO ILLUMINATE. VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AS A CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED TO WHICH THIS KNOWN CONDITION WAS NOT COVERED BY ANY CONDITION UNDER THE WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10511691

80,324 miles · May 8, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT CONTINUES TO HAVE INTERMITTENT OCCURRENCES OF "STALLING IN MOTION" WITH NO WARNING. WE HAVE BEEN LUCKY SO FAR THAT THE VEHICLE WILL COAST TO SHOULDER OR A PARKING LOT. IF WE DRIVE ON INTERSTATE WE ONLY TRAVEL IN THE RIGHT LANE IN CASE WE HAVE TO COAST OFF. VEHICLE THEN IDLES ROUGHLY AT ABOUT 800 RPM. VEH…

Read full complaint

2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT CONTINUES TO HAVE INTERMITTENT OCCURRENCES OF "STALLING IN MOTION" WITH NO WARNING. WE HAVE BEEN LUCKY SO FAR THAT THE VEHICLE WILL COAST TO SHOULDER OR A PARKING LOT. IF WE DRIVE ON INTERSTATE WE ONLY TRAVEL IN THE RIGHT LANE IN CASE WE HAVE TO COAST OFF. VEHICLE THEN IDLES ROUGHLY AT ABOUT 800 RPM. VEHICLE HAS TO BE PUT IN PARK AND SHUT-OFF. THEN RESTART SO FAR MAKES VEHICLE GO AGAIN SOMETIMES. VEHICLE MAY HAVE TO BE RESTARTED MULTIPLE TIMES TO GET MOVING AGAIN. HOWEVER, THIS IS GETTING MORE COMMONPLACE AND WE WILL NOT ALLOW OUR YOUNG INEXPERIENCED DRIVERS TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE EXTREME SAFETY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING THE VEHICLE. THIS IS PLACING A HUGE BURDEN ON OUR FAMILY AS WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE REPAIRED AT FORD DEALER DUE TO THE HIGH EXPENSE INVOLVED. VEHICLE HAS CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WITH P2111 CODE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHICH SPECIFICALLY ISOLATES THE THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION. THIS SITUATION NEEDS TO BE REMEDIED BY FORD BEFORE A DEATH OCCURS AS IT WILL OCCUR SOON ESPECIALLY ON INTERSTATES OR HIGHWAYS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10511204

38,000 miles · May 8, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WAS DRIVING AT SPEED OF 65 ON HWY ON 5/3/2013 WHEN VEHICLE LOST ALL POWER, WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND VEHICLE CAME ALMOST TO COMPLETE STOP ALTHOUGH I HAD THE ACCELERATOR COMPLETELY DEPRESSED. COULD ONLY DRIVE ABOUT 1 MILE PER HOUR. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD AND TRIED TO DRIVE TO REPAIR SHOP BUT COULD NOT SAFELY DRIVE SO STOPPED A…

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING AT SPEED OF 65 ON HWY ON 5/3/2013 WHEN VEHICLE LOST ALL POWER, WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND VEHICLE CAME ALMOST TO COMPLETE STOP ALTHOUGH I HAD THE ACCELERATOR COMPLETELY DEPRESSED. COULD ONLY DRIVE ABOUT 1 MILE PER HOUR. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD AND TRIED TO DRIVE TO REPAIR SHOP BUT COULD NOT SAFELY DRIVE SO STOPPED AND CALLED ROAD SIDE ASSISTANCE. THEY SUGGESTED I CALL FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND WHEN I CONTACTED THEM THEY INSTRUCTED ME TO TURN OFF ENGINE AND RESTART WHICH I DID, WRENCH LIGHT WENT OUT AND WAS THEN ABLE TO PROCEED HOME. TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD MOTOR REPAIR SHOP AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH VEHICLE AND THEY DID NOT TELL ME THERE HAVE BEEN ANY PROBLEMS WITH MAKE/MODEL. TALKED TO ANOTHER REPAIR SHOP AND LEARNED ACCORDING TO A TECHNICAL BULLETIN THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THROTTLE BODY OF 2010 FORD ESCAPES MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 2009 TO OCTOBER 2009. THIS PROBLEM PART WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FIXED ON MODELS MANUFACTURED AFTER THAT TIME. MINE WAS MANUFACTURED IN SEPTEMBER 2009. THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED ON ALL VEHICLES IN THE IDENTIFIED MANUFACTURED DATES SINCE IT HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE FORD COMPANY AND FORD REPAIR SHOPS SHOULD ADVISE OWNERS OF THE PROBLEM. I HAVE NO OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND LIVE IN THE MEMPHIS AREA WHERE THERE IS HEAVY INTERSTATE TRAFFIC I CAN NOT SAFELY DRIVE THIS CAR IN MULTIPLE LANE TRAFFIC SINCE IT MAY SUDDENLY LOSE POWER TO 1-2 MPH IN THE MIDDLE OF 70 MPH TRAFFIC. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10511053

52,500 miles · May 7, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING TO WORK GOING ABOUT 40MPH WHEN MY ESCAPE LOST POWER TO THE THROTTLE. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND SHUT IT OFF. I WAITED A FEW MINUTES TO START IT AGAIN. IT STARTED AND DROVE WITH NO PROBLEM FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THEN THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN. AFTER LOOKING FOR SIMILIAR PROBLEMS ONLINE I FOUND THAT IT IS THE THROTTLE…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING TO WORK GOING ABOUT 40MPH WHEN MY ESCAPE LOST POWER TO THE THROTTLE. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND SHUT IT OFF. I WAITED A FEW MINUTES TO START IT AGAIN. IT STARTED AND DROVE WITH NO PROBLEM FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THEN THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN. AFTER LOOKING FOR SIMILIAR PROBLEMS ONLINE I FOUND THAT IT IS THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10510895

72,000 miles · Apr 26, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WAS JUST PULLING OUT OF A GAS STATION AND HEADING TO THE ON-RAMP TO THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER. OPEN WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE AND RESTART THE VEHICLE. FORTUNATELY THIS DID NOT OCCUR WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY. I WAS TRAVELING WITH MY 2 CHILDREN, BOTH UNDER THE AGE OF 2 1/2. I BROUGHT IT TO…

Read full complaint

WAS JUST PULLING OUT OF A GAS STATION AND HEADING TO THE ON-RAMP TO THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER. OPEN WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE AND RESTART THE VEHICLE. FORTUNATELY THIS DID NOT OCCUR WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY. I WAS TRAVELING WITH MY 2 CHILDREN, BOTH UNDER THE AGE OF 2 1/2. I BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TODAY. THEY ADVISED ME OF THE DEFAULT IN THE POWERTHROTTLE. THEY DID NOT TELL ME THAT AN INVESTIGATION IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY, WHICH I FEEL SHOULD BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. I AM BEING CHARGED $500 TO HAVE IT FIXED. THE DEALERSHIP HAS ADVISED ME THAT SHOULD THEIR BE A RECALL THEN I WOULD BE REIMBURSED THE COST. WE PURCHASED THE FORD ESCAPE BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD PRODUCT, WE WILL GO BACK TO PURCHASING JAPANESE VEHICLES GOING FORWARDS. VERY DISAPPOINTED .... *TR

NHTSA ODI #10509636

39,000 miles · Apr 24, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

CRUISING ON A FOUR LANE RURAL HIGHWAY, NOT USING CRUISE CONTROL. VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION AND POWER. ENGINE REMAINED RUNNING BUT STEPPING ON THE GAS WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT LIT UP. TURNED HAZARDS ON, PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE (COASTING), APPLIED BRAKE, SHUT CAR OFF AND RESTARTED. CAR PROCEEDED F…

Read full complaint

CRUISING ON A FOUR LANE RURAL HIGHWAY, NOT USING CRUISE CONTROL. VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION AND POWER. ENGINE REMAINED RUNNING BUT STEPPING ON THE GAS WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT LIT UP. TURNED HAZARDS ON, PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE (COASTING), APPLIED BRAKE, SHUT CAR OFF AND RESTARTED. CAR PROCEEDED FINE TO DESTINATION. SECOND INCIDENT OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 6 HOURS LATER AFTER CAR HAD BEEN SITTING. PROCEDED ONTO ANOTHER FOUR LANE RURAL HIGHWAY CRUISING AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH AND THE VEHICLE DID THE SAME THING. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, I PULLED OVER, TURNED VEHICLE OFF, THEN RESTARTED AND PROCEDED TO MY DESTINATION. AS THIS WAS A SUNDAY, I TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO LOCAL FORD DEALER, WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO CODE TO READ, BUT BASED ON MY ACCOUNT OF THE SITUATION, THEY FELT IT WAS A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. THEY COULD NOT CONFIRM UNTIL THE VEHICLE WOULD THROW THE CODE AGAIN. THEY DROVE VEHICLE FOR OVER 30 MILES AND THE VEHICLE DID NOT EXPERIENCE THE SAME ISSUE. WITH OUT CONFIRMATION OF THE PROBLEM, THEY COULD NOT DEFINITIVELY FIX THE VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10509439

48,000 miles · Apr 18, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System

I WAS COMING DOWN A ROAD TO A STOP LIGHT WHEN THE CAR SHOOK THEN JUST IDLED. WHEN I LIMPPED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TURNED OFF CAR AND WHEN I RESTARTED IT THE LITE WENT OUT AND IT WAS FINE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10508679

47,000 miles · Apr 14, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS TURNING A CORNER, THE CAR LOST POWER, WHEN I PRESSED ON THE ACCELERATOR THERE WAS NO POWER. THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS APPEARED. THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT ALSO NEEDED A BATTERY. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE PROBLEMS WAS WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. SINCE PURCHASING THE VEHICLE I WOULD EVERY NOW…

Read full complaint

I WAS TURNING A CORNER, THE CAR LOST POWER, WHEN I PRESSED ON THE ACCELERATOR THERE WAS NO POWER. THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS APPEARED. THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT ALSO NEEDED A BATTERY. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE PROBLEMS WAS WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. SINCE PURCHASING THE VEHICLE I WOULD EVERY NOW AND THEN FEEL IT LOSING POWER. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE THE TRANSMISSION BUT WHEN I TOOK IT IN FOR THEM TO LOOK AT THEY SAID "NO WE DROVE IT AND NOTHING SEEM WRONG WITH IT." AT THAT POINT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED BY WARRANTY. I FEEL THAT THE SERVICE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE GUEST IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY SINCE SO MANY OF THESE VEHICLES ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. I AM NOW FEELING THAT THERE WAS SOME DECEPTION. THE VEHICLE IS A 2010, THIS VEHICLE IS TOO NEW FOR IT TO NEED SUCH A MAJOR REPAIR. THE WARRANTY ON THESE VEHICLES IS SUBSTANDARD. THE COST OF REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY WAS $465.32 AND THE BATTERY THAT I PURCHASED AT AUTO ZONE WAS $132. I AM VERY UNHAPPY WITH THIS FORD PRODUCT AND WILL NOT PURCHASE ANOTHER FORD. WHILE THE SERVICE PEOPLE WERE PROFESSIONAL DID NOT OFFER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS HAPPENING FREQUENTLY. I BELIEVE THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE REIMBURSED! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10508167

47,310 miles · Apr 11, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THE ESCAPE FELT LIKE IT STALLED ON THE ROAD WITH THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT. PULLED OFF AND TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS BUT THE CAR WOULDN'T GO AND THE RPM'S WERE JUMPING. SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND CALLED MY HUSBAND AND HE SAID TO SHUT IT DOWN AND RESTART THE CAR AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS (HUSBAND HAD A FRIEND WITH ANOT…

Read full complaint

DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THE ESCAPE FELT LIKE IT STALLED ON THE ROAD WITH THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT. PULLED OFF AND TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS BUT THE CAR WOULDN'T GO AND THE RPM'S WERE JUMPING. SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND CALLED MY HUSBAND AND HE SAID TO SHUT IT DOWN AND RESTART THE CAR AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS (HUSBAND HAD A FRIEND WITH ANOTHER ESCAPE DO THE SAME THING). I DID THAT AND IT WAS FINE. HAD A SHOP CHECK FOR CODES BUT THERE WERE NO CODES PRESENT. CALLED FORD AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY/SENSOR AND THAT ITS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY (YET THEY NEW WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS JUST BY ME EXPLAINING IT WHICH TELLS ME THAT ITS A KNOWN PROBLEM THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO FIX). THEN TODAY IT DID THE SAME THING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10505998

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