← 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

Power Train complaints

508 reports
Clear category filter
61,500 miles · Mar 23, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING ON HIGHWAY USING CRUISE CONTROL SETTING AT 65 MPH, WHEN ALL OF SUDDEN VEHICLE BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN AND STALL ON ME. I HAD TO PULL OVER ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS SHAKING AND I COULD NOT GIVE IT POWER TO STAY WITH TRAFFIC SPEED. I GOT TO THE SIDE PUT THE VEHICLE IN PARK AND IT STILL WAS SHAKEN SO I TURN…

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON HIGHWAY USING CRUISE CONTROL SETTING AT 65 MPH, WHEN ALL OF SUDDEN VEHICLE BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN AND STALL ON ME. I HAD TO PULL OVER ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS SHAKING AND I COULD NOT GIVE IT POWER TO STAY WITH TRAFFIC SPEED. I GOT TO THE SIDE PUT THE VEHICLE IN PARK AND IT STILL WAS SHAKEN SO I TURNED IT OFF. I THEN WAITED A MINUTE OR SO AND STARTED THE VEHICLE BACK UP EVEN THOUGH IT WAS HESITATING TO START. ONCE BACK ON I DROVE WITH MY HAZARD ON AT A SPEED OF 50 MPH. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10574234

59,775 miles · Mar 17, 2014
EnginePower Train

AFTER I CAME TO A STOP IN RESIDENTIAL AREA, I TRAVELED ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO BE IN NEUTRAL, I WAS ABLE TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED WHEN I PUT MORE PRESSURE ON THE ACCELERATOR, THIS WAS REALLY FRIGHTENING TO EXPERIENCE WITHOUT A WARNING, AND I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER FORD VEHICLE, AT ABO…

Read full complaint

AFTER I CAME TO A STOP IN RESIDENTIAL AREA, I TRAVELED ABOUT 25 MPH AND THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO BE IN NEUTRAL, I WAS ABLE TO STEER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED WHEN I PUT MORE PRESSURE ON THE ACCELERATOR, THIS WAS REALLY FRIGHTENING TO EXPERIENCE WITHOUT A WARNING, AND I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER FORD VEHICLE, AT ABOUT 18 MONTHS AFTER OWNING THE VEHICLE THE ENTIRE TRANSMISSION HAD TO BE REBUILT AND I BOUGHT THIS BRAND NEW TO AVOID ISSUES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10572965

55,000 miles · Mar 17, 2014
Power Train

THE FIRST TIME I NOTICED I WAS PUTTING THE CAR INTO PARK AND MY CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS SLIPPING ON ICE. (IT WAS A CLEAR DAY) THE SECOND TIME I WAS GOING AROUND 40MPH AND ALL OF SUDDEN IT STARTED SLOWING DOWN ON IT'S ON TO ALMOST COMPLETELY STOPPING AND I TURNED INTO A DRIVEWAY TO GET OFF THE ROAD. THE WRENCH SYMBOL CAME ON , ON T…

Read full complaint

THE FIRST TIME I NOTICED I WAS PUTTING THE CAR INTO PARK AND MY CAR FELT LIKE IT WAS SLIPPING ON ICE. (IT WAS A CLEAR DAY) THE SECOND TIME I WAS GOING AROUND 40MPH AND ALL OF SUDDEN IT STARTED SLOWING DOWN ON IT'S ON TO ALMOST COMPLETELY STOPPING AND I TURNED INTO A DRIVEWAY TO GET OFF THE ROAD. THE WRENCH SYMBOL CAME ON , ON THE DASHBOARD. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND THEN BACK ON TO TURN AND AROUND AND DRIVE IT TO A SAFE LOCATION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10572954

21,300 miles · Mar 4, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingPower TrainUnknown Or Other

VEHICLE FAILED, AS IT STOPPED AN ALARM LIT UP, SHOWING A WRENCH,DIAGNOSTIC SHOWED A TROTTLE FAILURE. IT HAS HAPPENED (5) TIMES SINCE DEC 04, 2013. LAST TIME, IT FAILED AFTER SEVENTEEN (17) MILES RUN. WHEN VEHICLE IS TURNED OFF, THE ALARM LIGHT GOES OFF AND THE VEHICLE RUNS AGAIN.

NHTSA ODI #10567289

36,100 miles · Feb 5, 2014
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train

RIGHT AFTER THE WARRANTY WENT OUT THE VEHICLE STARTING SLAMMING FROM 1ST INTO 2ND UPON ACCELERATION. THE IDLE IS VERY ROUGH AND QUITE LOUD, THE ENGINE MAKES A FUNNY NOISE AND I TAKE EXTREMELY GOOD CARE OF MY VEHICLE, GETTING ALL OF THE SCHEDULED OIL CHANGES ON TIME, REPLACING THE AIR FILTER, ETC. I ALSO EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT TH…

Read full complaint

RIGHT AFTER THE WARRANTY WENT OUT THE VEHICLE STARTING SLAMMING FROM 1ST INTO 2ND UPON ACCELERATION. THE IDLE IS VERY ROUGH AND QUITE LOUD, THE ENGINE MAKES A FUNNY NOISE AND I TAKE EXTREMELY GOOD CARE OF MY VEHICLE, GETTING ALL OF THE SCHEDULED OIL CHANGES ON TIME, REPLACING THE AIR FILTER, ETC. I ALSO EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THE VEHICLE WASN'T IDLING PROPERLY AND THAT THE ENGINE USED TO BE QUIET. THE WINDSHIELD IS EXTREMELY THIN AS WELL, A SMALL PEBBLE HIT MY WINDSHIELD CAUSING A 8 INCH CRACK IN A MATTER OF MINUTES TO WHERE IT WAS BEYOND GETTING IT FIXED. THEN LIFTGATE STARTED GIVING ME PROBLEMS. WHEN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON, IT WOULD MAKE THE SOUND, BUT SOMETIMES OPEN, THEN ON MAY 17, 2013 IT JUST QUIT WORKING ALL TOGETHER. ON MAY 18, 2013, I TOOK IT TO REYNOLDS FORD FOR A SCHEDULED OIL CHANGE RIGHT BEFORE A TRIP TO MEXICO AND UPON TELLING THEM ABOUT IT, THEY WANTED $250 JUST TO LOOK AT IT BEFORE PARTS AND LABOR. NOW, THE REAR BLINKER DOESN'T WORK AND YOU CAN'T REPLACE IT DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T GET THE LIFTGATE TO OPEN IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE REAR TAILLIGHT ASSEMBLY. SO, WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN, VEHICLES BEHIND YOU DON'T KNOW YOU ARE TURNING AND ALMOST HIT YOU (SAFETY HAZARD). YOU ALSO CAN'T CHANGE A FLAT TIRE SINCE YOU CAN GET TO THE JACK, WHICH IS IN THE REAR COMPARTMENT ACCESSED THROUGH THE LIFTGATE. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM AS THERE IS NO MANUAL RELEASE FOR THE HATCH TO GET IT OPEN PERIOD, ONCE THE LATCH DOESN'T WORK, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10563094

12,214 miles · Jan 27, 2014
Power Train

I WAS ON I-630 CROSSING OVER TO FINANCIAL PARKWAY IN LITTLE ROCK WHEN MY VEHICLE LOST POWER AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO CROSS THE INTERSECTION AND PULL INTO A BANK PARKING LOT WHERE I REQUESTED A WRECKER TO TAKE MY VEHICLE TO THE CRAIN FORD DEALERSHIP. INITIAL TESTING REVEALED NO PROBLEM BUT AFTER DRIVING THE VEHICLE…

Read full complaint

I WAS ON I-630 CROSSING OVER TO FINANCIAL PARKWAY IN LITTLE ROCK WHEN MY VEHICLE LOST POWER AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO CROSS THE INTERSECTION AND PULL INTO A BANK PARKING LOT WHERE I REQUESTED A WRECKER TO TAKE MY VEHICLE TO THE CRAIN FORD DEALERSHIP. INITIAL TESTING REVEALED NO PROBLEM BUT AFTER DRIVING THE VEHICLE FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES THE PROBLEM RE-OCCURRED FOR THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN AND THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS REPLACED AT A TOTAL COST OF 480.97 AS THE WARRANTY ON THE PART HAD EXPIRED 214 MILES PREVIOUSLY. I HAVE SINCE BECOME AWARE THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM AND IS LIKELY THE RESULT OF A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY AT THE POINT OF MANUFACTURE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10561709

49,000 miles · Jan 26, 2014
Electronic Stability Control (esc)EnginePower Train

WAS DRIVING ON THE 101 IN PHOENIX ARIZONA AND THE CAR STARTED JERKING. LUCKILY I WAS CLOSE TO AN EXIT SO I GOT OFF. I TURNED OFF THE CAR, RESTARTED IT, AND STARTED TO DRIVE. I DROVE ABOUT 100 FEET AND IT STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE CAR AND DRIVE IT A HALF MILE TO A GAS STATION. HOWEVER, THE CAR WAS JERKING THE WHOLE TIME.…

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING ON THE 101 IN PHOENIX ARIZONA AND THE CAR STARTED JERKING. LUCKILY I WAS CLOSE TO AN EXIT SO I GOT OFF. I TURNED OFF THE CAR, RESTARTED IT, AND STARTED TO DRIVE. I DROVE ABOUT 100 FEET AND IT STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE CAR AND DRIVE IT A HALF MILE TO A GAS STATION. HOWEVER, THE CAR WAS JERKING THE WHOLE TIME. THE OFFICIAL WORD WAS THAT THE THROTTLE WAS THE ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10561566

40,120 miles · Jan 25, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE INTERSTATE MY ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND SLOWED TO AROUND 5 MPH. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER, PLACED THE CAR IN PARK, SHUT IT OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES, THEN STARTED IT AND CONTINUED ON MY WAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES SINCE, BOTH WHILE TRAVELING 30 MPH IN TOWN. I FOLLOWED THE SAME PROCEDURE AN…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE INTERSTATE MY ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND SLOWED TO AROUND 5 MPH. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER, PLACED THE CAR IN PARK, SHUT IT OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES, THEN STARTED IT AND CONTINUED ON MY WAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES SINCE, BOTH WHILE TRAVELING 30 MPH IN TOWN. I FOLLOWED THE SAME PROCEDURE AND WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE ON MY WAY. I BELIEVE THIS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY, AS I HAVE CONSULTED MY LOCAL MECHANIC. HE CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS SEEN A FEW ESCAPES WITH THE SAME ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10561423

58,427 miles · Jan 15, 2014
Power Train

AS I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD MY VEHICLE LOST POWER, IT DID NOT STALL, IT SLOWED TO ALMOST NO SPEED. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND TURNED IT BACK ON. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT FOR ABOUT 3 MORE MILES UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN. THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. IT TOOK ME THREE TIME OF TURNING ON AND OFF THE ENGINE WITHIN A B…

Read full complaint

AS I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD MY VEHICLE LOST POWER, IT DID NOT STALL, IT SLOWED TO ALMOST NO SPEED. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND TURNED IT BACK ON. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT FOR ABOUT 3 MORE MILES UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN. THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. IT TOOK ME THREE TIME OF TURNING ON AND OFF THE ENGINE WITHIN A BLOCK FROM MY HOUSE. FINALLY I WAS ABLE TO GET IT INTO MY DRIVE WAY. I TOOK INTO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10560130

55,789 miles · Jan 10, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT LIT UP ON MY INSTRUMENT PANEL AND I LOST POWER TO THE WHEELS. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP ON 1/10/14 WHERE THE MECHANICS DIAGNOSED A THROTTLE BODY FAILURE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10559413

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