← 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 System, Gasoline complaints

71 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Jan 12, 2017
Fuel System, Gasoline

2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO NHTSA RECALL 16V-777 FUEL DELIVERY MODULE. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER DID NOT HAVE THE PARTS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE RECALL. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10943609

85,160 miles · Dec 15, 2016
Fuel System, GasolineFuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS REFUELED, FUEL SPEWED OUT OF THE FILLER PIPE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART NEEDED FOR THE REPAIR WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFA…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS REFUELED, FUEL SPEWED OUT OF THE FILLER PIPE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART NEEDED FOR THE REPAIR WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,160. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10935525

80,000 miles · Dec 14, 2016
Fuel System, GasolineFuel/propulsion System

ABOUT 3 YEARS AGO, WE STARTED HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE COMPONENT WITHIN IN THE FUEL TAKE THAT SHUTS AFTER YOU PUT GAS IN THE VEHICLE. WE KEPT GETTING AN ERROR NOTICE THAT IT WAS NOT SHUTTING. WE TOOK IT IN TO THE FORD DEALER, WHERE THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE FIXED IT. ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER, WE THE CODE CAME UP AGAIN. WE TOOK IT BACK TO …

Read full complaint

ABOUT 3 YEARS AGO, WE STARTED HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE COMPONENT WITHIN IN THE FUEL TAKE THAT SHUTS AFTER YOU PUT GAS IN THE VEHICLE. WE KEPT GETTING AN ERROR NOTICE THAT IT WAS NOT SHUTTING. WE TOOK IT IN TO THE FORD DEALER, WHERE THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE FIXED IT. ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER, WE THE CODE CAME UP AGAIN. WE TOOK IT BACK TO THE FORD DEALER AND THIS TIME, THE NECK OF THE FUEL TANK HAD TO BE REPLACED. THIS SEEMED TO TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE FOR SOME TIME, BUT WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS, WE'VE BEEN GETTING REALLY BAD GAS MILEAGE. WE MAINTAIN OUR VEHICLE VERY WELL, SO THIS WAS CONCERNING. WE PUT NEW TIRES, DID A COMPLETED TUNE-UP, ETC., BUT THIS DIDN'T HELP. ABOUT 4 MONTHS AGO, OUR CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON & THE CODE SAID THERE WAS A PART THAT NEEDED REPLACING; THE VENT VALVE. WE DID THAT, AND THEN 2 WEEKS LATER, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN FOR THE SAME THING. AND THEN, AS WE'RE PUMPING GAS, THE GAS KEEP SHUTTING OFF, AS IF WE ARE TOPPING IT OFF, WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY EMPTY. WE WERE HAVING A HARD TIME JUST FILLING UP OUR TANK. WE FINALLY TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO OUR LOCAL REPAIR SHOP (WHOM WE TRUST). THE VENT VALVE THAT WAS REPLACED WAS FULL OF FUEL. THEY ARE HAVING TO REPLACE THE CANISTER. WE ARE HOPING THIS WILL FIX THE PROBLEM. IF NOT, THEY SAID WE'LL NEED TO REPLACE THE FUEL TANK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ON A NATIONAL BACK ORDER. BUT I CHECKED MY VIN# & WAS TOLD MY PARTICULAR VEHICLE ISN'T PART OF THAT RECALL. I LOVE MY LITTLE ESCAPE, BUT WE'VE HAD PROBLEM AFTER PROBLEM WITH THE FUEL SYSTEM FOR SOME REASON, FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS. IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING & FORD JUST SHRUGS THEIR SHOULDERS AT US NOW. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10935221

115,000 miles · Aug 27, 2015
EngineFuel System, Gasoline

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. IMMEDIATELY AFTER STARTING THE VEHICLE, THE ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE TOP OF THE FUEL TANK ROTTED OUT AND THE EVAP VALVE WAS DEFECTIVE. AS A RESULT, BOTH NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. IMMEDIATELY AFTER STARTING THE VEHICLE, THE ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE TOP OF THE FUEL TANK ROTTED OUT AND THE EVAP VALVE WAS DEFECTIVE. AS A RESULT, BOTH NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 115,000.

NHTSA ODI #10759837

118,000 miles · Dec 23, 2014
EngineFuel System, Gasoline

WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, MY CAR DIED TWICE. THE FIRST TIME, WHILE APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT, THE ENGINE CUT OFF. WHEN I CAME TO A STOP; I PUT IT IN PARK TO TRY AND START IT AGAIN, AND IT SEEMED TO STRUGGLE WHEN STARTING AS IF I WERE OUT OF GAS, BUT I HAD JUST FILLED UP MY TANK THAT MORNING. THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, AND THERE WAS A…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING TO WORK, MY CAR DIED TWICE. THE FIRST TIME, WHILE APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT, THE ENGINE CUT OFF. WHEN I CAME TO A STOP; I PUT IT IN PARK TO TRY AND START IT AGAIN, AND IT SEEMED TO STRUGGLE WHEN STARTING AS IF I WERE OUT OF GAS, BUT I HAD JUST FILLED UP MY TANK THAT MORNING. THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, AND THERE WAS A STOP SIGN ABOUT 500 YARDS AWAY, AND AS SOON AS I WAS COMING TO A STOP AGAIN; THE ENGINE DIES. THIS TIME IT TOOK TWICE AS LONG AND SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO GET IT STARTED AGAIN. ALSO, WHEN I AM SITTING IDLE AT A STOP LIGHT OR A STOP SIGN, THE RPMS WILL DROP VERY LOW AND START TO STALL OUT. I AM ABLE TO CATCH IT AND REV THE ENGINE TO PREVENT IT FROM STALLING SOMETIMES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10667852

28,000 miles · Dec 17, 2014
Fuel System, Gasoline

CAR IS STALLING AND LOCKING UP DUE TO FUEL LINE ISSUE. PER FORD SERVICE DEPT THIS IS DANGEROUS FOR TWO REASONS - STALLING AND POTENTIAL FIRE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10664833

96,632 miles · Jul 30, 2014
Electrical SystemFuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control

VEHICLE HAD EXITED FROM FREEWAY AND WAS STOPPED ON AN EXIT RAMP STOP LIGHT. WHEN GAS WAS PUSHED TO MOVE VEHICLE FROM STOPPED POSITION, THE ENGINE ACCELERATED BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. INITIALLY, THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON DASH AND THEN LATER, THIS DISAPPEARED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. VEHICLE WAS …

Read full complaint

VEHICLE HAD EXITED FROM FREEWAY AND WAS STOPPED ON AN EXIT RAMP STOP LIGHT. WHEN GAS WAS PUSHED TO MOVE VEHICLE FROM STOPPED POSITION, THE ENGINE ACCELERATED BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. INITIALLY, THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON DASH AND THEN LATER, THIS DISAPPEARED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A NEARBY AUTO PARTS FACILITY WHERE A COMPUTER CODE EVALUATION WAS COMPLETED- THIS YIELDED THE SAME CODE APPEARING 3 TIMES: A PROBLEM INVOLVING THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM SENSOR. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT WHEN THE SAME PROBLEM CODE APPEARS 3 TIMES DURING THE CHECK, THIS ACCURATELY PIN-POINTS THE PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10617790

47,000 miles · Jun 9, 2014
Electrical SystemEngineFuel System, Gasoline

THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 2MONTHS AGO (APRIL 2014) AS I WAS DRIVING ON A STATE ROAD (NEW CIRCLE RD IN LEXINGTON KY)AT AROUND 60MPH DURING MY MORNING COMMUTE AROUND 8AM. THE VEHICLE SEEMINGLY STALLED BUT ALL THE SYSTEMS WERE FINE (STILL HAD POWER STEERING, LIGHTS, RADIO, BRAKING SYSTEM ETC) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF T…

Read full complaint

THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 2MONTHS AGO (APRIL 2014) AS I WAS DRIVING ON A STATE ROAD (NEW CIRCLE RD IN LEXINGTON KY)AT AROUND 60MPH DURING MY MORNING COMMUTE AROUND 8AM. THE VEHICLE SEEMINGLY STALLED BUT ALL THE SYSTEMS WERE FINE (STILL HAD POWER STEERING, LIGHTS, RADIO, BRAKING SYSTEM ETC) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ACCELERATOR WHICH DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WHEN I PUT MY FOOT ON THE GAS. I WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TURNED THE ENGINE OFF, SAT FOR ABOUT 5 MINS & WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE ON THE ROAD WITHOUT FURTHER ISSUE (THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT DIDN'T EVEN COME BACK ON). THE MOST RECENT DATE WAS 06/07/14 WITH MY FAMILY IN THE CAR AS PASSENGERS. I WAS AT A STOPLIGHT TURNING LEFT WHEN, AS PREVIOUSLY, THE ENGINE STALLED AS I WAS TURNING. AGAIN, ALL SYSTEMS REGISTERED AND WERE WORKING BUT WHEN I PUT MY FOOT ON THE GAS NOTHING HAPPENED. AGAIN I WAS LUCKILY ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. THIS TIME AFTER WAITING ROUGHLY 5 MINS AND TURNING THE ENGINE BACK ON, NOTHING HAPPENED AFTER I HIT THE ACCELERATOR. I TURNED THE ENGINE BACK OFF AND WAITED AN ADDITIONAL 5 MINS. THIS TIME I WAS ABLE TO GIVE THE CAR GAS AND AS MY HOME WAS NEARBY WAS THANKFULLY ABLE TO MAKE IT TO MY HOUSE. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT HOWEVER DID NOT GO OFF AS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY. I TOOK THE CAR TO MY DEALERSHIP ON 06/09/14 AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10597085

80,000 miles · May 27, 2014
EngineFuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control

THIS IS THE THIRD INCIDENT IN TWO DAYS, I'M DRIVING ALONG WHEN I TAKE MY FOOT OF THE GAS PEDAL AND COAST, THE ENGINE DIES, THE DASH SHOWS THE BATTERY AND OIL LIGHT. YOU CAN STILL STEER, BUT THE CAR SLOWS DOWN DRASTICALLY WITH THE ENGINE NOT RUNNING, I HAD SOMEONE ALMOST REAR END ME, BECAUSE I SLOWED DOWN SO MUCH. ALL INCIDENTS…

Read full complaint

THIS IS THE THIRD INCIDENT IN TWO DAYS, I'M DRIVING ALONG WHEN I TAKE MY FOOT OF THE GAS PEDAL AND COAST, THE ENGINE DIES, THE DASH SHOWS THE BATTERY AND OIL LIGHT. YOU CAN STILL STEER, BUT THE CAR SLOWS DOWN DRASTICALLY WITH THE ENGINE NOT RUNNING, I HAD SOMEONE ALMOST REAR END ME, BECAUSE I SLOWED DOWN SO MUCH. ALL INCIDENTS WERE THE SAME, BUT THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED IT WAS VERY SCARY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. THE CAR WILL START BACK UP IF YOU PARK IT OR PUT IT IN NEUTRAL, BUT I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION THE THIRD TIME, STOPPED TRAFFIC CARS WERE HONKING AT ME. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE, TAKING IT IN TOMORROW TO GET IT FIXED, SHOULD BE A RECALL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10594150

66,000 miles · May 15, 2014
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control

ENTERING I-85 GOING WEST AT APPROX. 60MPH. APPROX 1/4 MILE THE CAR LOST POWER AS I WAS ENTERING THE FREEWAY. TRAFFIC WAS MERGING ONTO THE FREEWAY AROUND ME AND I PUT ON MY BLINKER TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY TO CALL A TOW TRUCK. IT WAS VERY DANGEROUS. THE REPAIR SHOP TOLD ME IT WAS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10588590

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