← 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
77,410 miles · Nov 25, 2013
EnginePower Train

I HEARD A POP SOUND AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE WHEN PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR. IDLE WAS ROUGH, I WAS ABLE TO COAST INTO A PARKING LOT.I LET IT IDLE AND TRIED TO INCREASE RPM. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO PEDAL. THE CAR IDLE ROUGHLY. I SHUT CAR OFF AND RESTARTED. IT CRANKED LONGER THAN NORMAL, LIKE IT WASN'T GETTING FUEL. THEN IT …

Read full complaint

I HEARD A POP SOUND AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE WHEN PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR. IDLE WAS ROUGH, I WAS ABLE TO COAST INTO A PARKING LOT.I LET IT IDLE AND TRIED TO INCREASE RPM. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO PEDAL. THE CAR IDLE ROUGHLY. I SHUT CAR OFF AND RESTARTED. IT CRANKED LONGER THAN NORMAL, LIKE IT WASN'T GETTING FUEL. THEN IT RAN FINE. AFTER ABOUT 20 MORE MILES IT REPEATED PROCESS, LEAVING ME TO COAST OFF THE ROAD IN TRAFFIC. I HAVE A WARNING LIGHT (WRENCH) MEANING THROTTLE BODY OR DRIVE TRAIN ON MY DASH DURING THE SHUT DOWN. I HAVE HAD THIS VEHICLE IN FORD REPAIR SHOPS OVER FOUR TIMES FOR POWERTRAIN REPAIRS, STARTING BEFORE WARRANTY WAS EXPIRED. THE LAST ONE FORD WOULD NOT COVER THE REPAIR UNDER PREVIOUS WARRANTY, EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST REPAIR DURING WARRANTY PERIOD WAS NEVER FIXED. NOW I AM ENDANGERING MYSELF AND ALL THOSE AROUND ME BY THE NEW PROBLEM. IF THE VEHICLE DOES THIS IN A CENTER LANE A PILE UP COULD OCCUR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10553767

34,646 miles · Nov 18, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train

FIRST INCIDENT: 05/03/2013: AC STOPPED WORKING PROPERLY. CAR SPUTTERED. STOPPED. WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. DASH LIGHTS CAME ON: BATTERY, WRENCH, ETC. LOST POWER. THEN WOULD ACCELERATE. PULLED OVER AND HAD TOWED. DEALER FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTED. REPLACED BAD FLOOR ACTUATOR MOTOR - CC42.. FIXED UNDER WARRANTY AS OW…

Read full complaint

FIRST INCIDENT: 05/03/2013: AC STOPPED WORKING PROPERLY. CAR SPUTTERED. STOPPED. WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. DASH LIGHTS CAME ON: BATTERY, WRENCH, ETC. LOST POWER. THEN WOULD ACCELERATE. PULLED OVER AND HAD TOWED. DEALER FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTED. REPLACED BAD FLOOR ACTUATOR MOTOR - CC42.. FIXED UNDER WARRANTY AS OWNER WAS ONLY 3 WEEKS OUT OF 3 YEAR WARRANTY, WITH A MILEAGE OF ONLY 34,646 MILES. (INVOICE RECEIPT: TEST CODES PERFORMED BY DEALER: P2111, P2112, MONITOR PIDS. OASIS-SSM 32170. REPLACED THROTTLE BODY, RESET KAM, CC42.) SECOND INCIDENT: 11/17/2013: SIMILAR TO 05/03/2013 INCIDENT. AC STOPPED COOLING. TURNED OFF CAR. TRIED TO START AND DASH LIGHTS CAME ON. CAR ACTED LIKE IT WOULD START, SPUTTERED AND WOULD NOT START BACK UP. WAITED 30 MINUTES. CAR STARTED BACK UP. LEFT PARKED, AS FELT DANGEROUS SITUATION IF WERE TO OCCUR ON INTERSTATE. WILL HAVE TOWED TO MY MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION. WHY, IF DEALER REPLACED ACTUATOR MOTOR 6 MONTHS EARLIER WOULD SAME SITUATION OCCUR? THERE MUST BE ANOTHER ISSUE CAUSING THE ACTUATOR MOTOR FAILURE OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL MOTOR FAILURE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10552753

76,800 miles · Nov 6, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train

THE CAR STALLED WHILE DRIVING. THE FIRST TIME IT STALLED I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH WITH CHILDREN IN THE CAR WITH ME. AFTER I CAME TO A STOP, THE CAR RESTARTED AND AFTER DRIVING 2 MORE MINUTES IT STALLED AGAIN AT 45 MPH. AFTER THE SECOND STALL THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD A DIAGNOSTIC REPORT DONE AND THE REPORT SAID "THROTTLE A…

Read full complaint

THE CAR STALLED WHILE DRIVING. THE FIRST TIME IT STALLED I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH WITH CHILDREN IN THE CAR WITH ME. AFTER I CAME TO A STOP, THE CAR RESTARTED AND AFTER DRIVING 2 MORE MINUTES IT STALLED AGAIN AT 45 MPH. AFTER THE SECOND STALL THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD A DIAGNOSTIC REPORT DONE AND THE REPORT SAID "THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM-STUCK CLOSED" AND "DETECTED THE THROTTLE PLATE IS AT A LOWER ANGLE THAN COMMANDED." I HOPE THIS IS RESOLVED QUICKLY. IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10551093

65,000 miles · Nov 4, 2013
Power Train

DRIVING HOME DURING RUSH HOUR, ACCELERATION WAS ACTING ODD. FLUTTERING IN A SENSE. I THOUGHT THE COLD WEATHER MAY BE THE CAUSE AND IT WAS JUST WARMING UP. DRIVING NORMAL IT SPUTTERED AND SLOWED DOWN. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO CREEP ALONG TO A BUS STOP TURN OUT. IDLED ROUGH. I STOPPED THE ENGINE, AND WAITED. IT RESTARTE…

Read full complaint

DRIVING HOME DURING RUSH HOUR, ACCELERATION WAS ACTING ODD. FLUTTERING IN A SENSE. I THOUGHT THE COLD WEATHER MAY BE THE CAUSE AND IT WAS JUST WARMING UP. DRIVING NORMAL IT SPUTTERED AND SLOWED DOWN. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO CREEP ALONG TO A BUS STOP TURN OUT. IDLED ROUGH. I STOPPED THE ENGINE, AND WAITED. IT RESTARTED A FEW MINUTES LATER FINE, AND WAS ABLE TO GET HOME. THE WHOLE WAY ROUGH IDLE, ROUGH ACCELERATION AS WELL. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN SO MUCH WORSE IF I WAS ON THE FREEWAY. IT WILL BE TOWED TOMORROW TO FORD TO FIND ISSUE AND FIX. I SURE HOPE THIS IS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550894

71,621 miles · Nov 4, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH ON HIGHWAY, VEH LOST POWER, NO ACCELERATION,WRENCH SYMBOL AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, HAD TO COAST OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. TURNED KEY OFF AND LET SIT A COUPLE MINUTES, RESTARTED AND WAS OK, BUT INTERMITTENTLY PROBLEM RECURRED UNTIL UNABLE TO DRIVE MORE THAN A FEW MILES BETWEEN OCCUR…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH ON HIGHWAY, VEH LOST POWER, NO ACCELERATION,WRENCH SYMBOL AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, HAD TO COAST OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. TURNED KEY OFF AND LET SIT A COUPLE MINUTES, RESTARTED AND WAS OK, BUT INTERMITTENTLY PROBLEM RECURRED UNTIL UNABLE TO DRIVE MORE THAN A FEW MILES BETWEEN OCCURRENCES. DIAGNOSIS WAS A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. REPLACED THROTTLE BODY AND NO PROBLEMS SINCE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550883

17,821 miles · Nov 4, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

AFTER STOPPING AT A LIGHT ON A HIGHWAY I PROCEEDED TO TURN LEFT AND PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR AND THE ENGINE CUT OUT. I HAD TO COAST ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550729

37,530 miles · Nov 1, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

AFTER WAITING FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL, I BEGAN MY TURN LEFT. JUST PAST THE INTERSECTION, I LOST POWER WITH SORT OF A CHUGGING MOTION IN THE VEHICLE. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF THE ROAD. THE INDICATOR ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WAS OF A SMALL WRENCH, INDICATING THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN IN THE MANUAL. I CALLED THE DEALER AND WAS ABLE TO…

Read full complaint

AFTER WAITING FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL, I BEGAN MY TURN LEFT. JUST PAST THE INTERSECTION, I LOST POWER WITH SORT OF A CHUGGING MOTION IN THE VEHICLE. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF THE ROAD. THE INDICATOR ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WAS OF A SMALL WRENCH, INDICATING THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN IN THE MANUAL. I CALLED THE DEALER AND WAS ABLE TO START THE CAR AND DRIVE IN. THE CHARGE FOR INSTALLING DS7Z 9E926 D (THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR AS) WAS $400.46 PLUS TAX. WITH LESS THAN 38000 MILES ON THIS VEHICLE, I DID NOT EXPECT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF REPAIR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550534

124,300 miles · Nov 1, 2013
EnginePower Train

I AM A HOMEHEALTH NURSE, I WORK IN A VERY MOUNTAINOUS, RURAL AREA WHERE I DO NOT EVEN HAVE CELLPHONE SERVICE. I WAS ON A VERY NARROW, CURVY ROAD, WHEN THE CAR JUST QUIT ACCELERATING, THE SMALL WRENCH APPEARED ON THE DASH, I WAS ABLE TO COAST FAR ENOUGH TO GET TO A WIDE SPOT WHERE I COULD GET THE VEHICLE SAFELY OUT OF THE ROAD, B…

Read full complaint

I AM A HOMEHEALTH NURSE, I WORK IN A VERY MOUNTAINOUS, RURAL AREA WHERE I DO NOT EVEN HAVE CELLPHONE SERVICE. I WAS ON A VERY NARROW, CURVY ROAD, WHEN THE CAR JUST QUIT ACCELERATING, THE SMALL WRENCH APPEARED ON THE DASH, I WAS ABLE TO COAST FAR ENOUGH TO GET TO A WIDE SPOT WHERE I COULD GET THE VEHICLE SAFELY OUT OF THE ROAD, BARELY MISSING AN 18 WHEEL COAL TRUCK FROM HITTING ME. THERE WAS NO WARNING, THE VEHICLE DROVE FINE ALL DAY AND THEN IT JUST QUIT. I WAS ABLE TO TURN THE CAR OFF AND RESTART AND ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE IT AND AGAIN THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES BEFORE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT FINALLY CAME ON. THE NICEST PERSON IN THE WORLD HELP ME AND HE WAS ABLE TO DETECT THE PROBLEM WITH HIS COMPUTER AND HE WAS ABLE TO ADJUST THE THROTTLE INTO THE CLOSED POSITION AND THEN I WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE HOME WITHOUT ANYMORE PROBLEMS. I THEN TOOK IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND HAD THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACED BEFORE I DID GET KILLED IF THIS WAS TO HAPPEN AGAIN. I DO WISH FORD WOULD JUST GET THIS PART RECALLED BEFORE SOMEONE DOES GET KILLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550533

43,000 miles · Nov 1, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING FREEWAY SPEEDS, I LOST POWER. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, ENGINE REMAINED RUNNING AND I LIMPED TO THE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY. WHEN RE-STARTING CAR, PROBLEM DISAPPEARED. TOOK CAR TO PRIVATE MECHANIC ([XXX]) AND HE COULD NOT FIND A PROBLEM IN THE COMPUTER HISTORY. HE SUSPECTED THROTTLE LINKAGE. CAR DROVE FINE UNTIL OCT…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING FREEWAY SPEEDS, I LOST POWER. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, ENGINE REMAINED RUNNING AND I LIMPED TO THE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY. WHEN RE-STARTING CAR, PROBLEM DISAPPEARED. TOOK CAR TO PRIVATE MECHANIC ([XXX]) AND HE COULD NOT FIND A PROBLEM IN THE COMPUTER HISTORY. HE SUSPECTED THROTTLE LINKAGE. CAR DROVE FINE UNTIL OCT 25, 2013 WHEN IT RECURRED ON THE FREEWAY. WHILE COASTING IN THE HOV LANE, WE PUT VEHICLE IN "NEUTRAL" AND TRIED TO RESTART, PROBLEM DID NOT RESOLVE. ONLY AFTER COASTING TO A STOP AND PUTTING THE VEHICLE IN "PARK" AND RESTARTING WOULD THE PROBLEM RE-SET. VERY HAZARDOUS LOSING POWER AT FREEWAY SPEEDS AND TRYING TO LIMP TO THE SIDE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550522

50,000 miles · Oct 31, 2013
EnginePower Train

I WAS DRIVING IN CONGESTED MORNING TRAFFIC AND THE ENGINE STALLED. THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT POPPED ON AS I LOST ACCELERATION. I WAS ABLE TO COAST ON TO THE MEDIAN. HOWEVER, I WAS ALMOST STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY ANOTHER CAR. AFTER ABOUT 30 SECONDS, THE CAR STARTED BACK UP AND I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO WORK AND MADE IT HOME WITHOU…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING IN CONGESTED MORNING TRAFFIC AND THE ENGINE STALLED. THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT POPPED ON AS I LOST ACCELERATION. I WAS ABLE TO COAST ON TO THE MEDIAN. HOWEVER, I WAS ALMOST STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY ANOTHER CAR. AFTER ABOUT 30 SECONDS, THE CAR STARTED BACK UP AND I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO WORK AND MADE IT HOME WITHOUT PROBLEMS THIS EVENING. AFTER RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET, IT APPEARS THIS IS A RECURRING PROBLEM AND JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMEONE GETS SERIOUSLY INJURED OR HURT. I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE NOW AS OTHER COMPLAINTS INDICATE THIS HAS NOT ONLY BEEN OCCURRING FOR QUITE SOME TIME, BUT IT MAY ALSO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN MORE FREQUENTLY AND EVENTUALLY STOP RUNNING ALTOGETHER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550434

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