NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
508 reportsClear category filter58,000 miles · Sep 3, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT ABOUT 50 MPH, SOUNDED LIKE ENGINE SHUT DOWN AND THE GAS WOULDN'T WORK AT ALL. THANKFULLY, THE BRAKES WORKED AND I PULLED OVER AND TURNED THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES BEFORE TURNING IT BACK ON AND DRIVING TO MY MECHANIC WHO RECOMMENDED GOING TO MY FORD DEALER. THEY CHARGED ME OVER $500 TO REPLACE THE THRO…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT ABOUT 50 MPH, SOUNDED LIKE ENGINE SHUT DOWN AND THE GAS WOULDN'T WORK AT ALL. THANKFULLY, THE BRAKES WORKED AND I PULLED OVER AND TURNED THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES BEFORE TURNING IT BACK ON AND DRIVING TO MY MECHANIC WHO RECOMMENDED GOING TO MY FORD DEALER. THEY CHARGED ME OVER $500 TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY AND REPROGRAM THE PCM... ANY RECALLS FROM FORD FOR THIS? *JB
NHTSA ODI #10538528
57,550 miles · Sep 3, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE BECAME HESITANT TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH. THE CONTACT SHUT OFF THE ENGINE AND WHEN RESTARTED, THE VEHICLE REGAINED NORMAL FUNCTION. THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED AFTER THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO HAVE A DIAGN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE BECAME HESITANT TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH. THE CONTACT SHUT OFF THE ENGINE AND WHEN RESTARTED, THE VEHICLE REGAINED NORMAL FUNCTION. THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED AFTER THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO HAVE A DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 57,550. .... UPDATED 10-17-13 *BF THE THROTTLE BODY WAS REPLACED.
NHTSA ODI #10538463
54,730 miles · Sep 2, 2013
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND THE FOOT PEDAL DID NOT WORK. THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING BUT COULD NOT GET THE CAR TO GO. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE, WAITED FOR A FEW MINUTES STARTED UP AGAIN, WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS IT DID IT AGAIN, I WAS ABLE TO COAST DOWN THE STREET TO A PARKING LOT. I DID THE SAME THING I DID EARLIE…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND THE FOOT PEDAL DID NOT WORK. THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING BUT COULD NOT GET THE CAR TO GO. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE, WAITED FOR A FEW MINUTES STARTED UP AGAIN, WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS IT DID IT AGAIN, I WAS ABLE TO COAST DOWN THE STREET TO A PARKING LOT. I DID THE SAME THING I DID EARLIER ALL I CAN DO IS COAST NO POWER IN THE GAS PEDAL JUST COAST WITH ENGINE GOING. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10538348
45,000 miles · Aug 31, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Power Train
FORD ESCAPE 2010, DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY , THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON AND THE CAR BEGINS TO SPUTTER AND LOSES POWER. IT REVS UP THEN DOWN. I TURN OFF THE CAR, WAIT A MINUTE, AND WHEN I START IT BACK IT RUNS FINE, THEN REPEATS AFTER 20 MINUTES OF DRIVING. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10538192
55,800 miles · Aug 30, 2013
Power Train
LAST FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, MY CAR STARTED TO SHAKE AND JERK AND THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. IT SLOWED TO LIMP MODE. I TURNED IT OFF, RESTARTED IT AND IT DID AGAIN. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO MY MECHANIC BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNDER WARRANTY ANYMORE. THEY SAID THE THAT I HAD A BLOWN WATER PUMP AND THERMOSTAT, AND REPLACED BOTH. I GOT THE CAR …
Read full complaint
LAST FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, MY CAR STARTED TO SHAKE AND JERK AND THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. IT SLOWED TO LIMP MODE. I TURNED IT OFF, RESTARTED IT AND IT DID AGAIN. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO MY MECHANIC BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNDER WARRANTY ANYMORE. THEY SAID THE THAT I HAD A BLOWN WATER PUMP AND THERMOSTAT, AND REPLACED BOTH. I GOT THE CAR BACK FROM MY MECHANIC AND AFTER ONLY DRIVING A FEW MILES, THE CAR STARTED TO JERK AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. IT'S BEEN BACK TO MY MECHANIC 3 TIMES NOW BUT THE PROBLEM IS NOT COMING UP ON THE COMPUTER BECAUSE THE WRENCH LIGHT DOESN'T STAY ON. THIS LATEST INCIDENT, THE WRENCH AND THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, BUT THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OUT WHILE THE ENGINE LIGHT HAS STAYED ON. I AM NOW TAKING IT TO A MECHANIC TO HAVE REPAIRED BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD THE PRICES AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP. WHEN THE CAR WAS 2 YEARS OLD, I HAD EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM. I HAD TO HAVE THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACED. IT WAS UNDER WARRANTY BUT STILL THIS IS DANGEROUS! NOT TO MENTION FRUSTRATING. THE CAR ONLY HAD 24,000 MILES ON IT. AT THAT TIME, I STALLED IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC WHEN IT HAPPENED. I'M CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE THROTTLE BODY AGAIN, AS THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP HAS SEEN A LOT OF THESE THIS SUMMER IN MY YEAR OF ESCAPE. I UNDERSTAND THAT FORD IS AWARE OF THIS AND HAS AN UPDATED THROTTLE BODY IN PRODUCTION THAT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL OCTOBER 27 THIS YEAR. I WANT FORD TO RECALL THESE VEHICLES. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND EXPENSIVE!!
NHTSA ODI #10538081
57,600 miles · Aug 30, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE ACCELERATING ONTO THE HIGHWAY, THE VEHICLE LOST ALL POWER AND FORWARD MOTION. IT WENT INTO "LIMP" MODE AND I HAD TO PULL OVER. ONCE I SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTED IT, THE VEHICLE WAS FINE. AFTER THE FORD DEALER'S INSPECTION, IT WAS DEEMED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY IS THE CULPRIT, AND NEEDS REPLACED.
NHTSA ODI #10538065
35,000 miles · Aug 28, 2013
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE TRANSMISSION HESITATED WHILE SHIFTING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE TRANSMISSION HAD A LEAK AND THE CB JOINT AND BUSHINGS BOTH NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AND TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE TRANSMISSION HESITATED WHILE SHIFTING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE TRANSMISSION HAD A LEAK AND THE CB JOINT AND BUSHINGS BOTH NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000.
NHTSA ODI #10537695
25,000 miles · Aug 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX 65MPH ON FREEWAY, THE VEHICLE'S THROTTLE DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CAR'S RPM'S TO INCREASE DESPITE PUSHING IT TO THE FLOOR. THE CAR DID NOT STALL, BUT RATHER WAS IN A SUDDEN STATE OF IDLE.THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON, THEN "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" AND MY CAR WENT FROM 65 TO 5…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX 65MPH ON FREEWAY, THE VEHICLE'S THROTTLE DROPPED TO IDLE SPEED. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CAR'S RPM'S TO INCREASE DESPITE PUSHING IT TO THE FLOOR. THE CAR DID NOT STALL, BUT RATHER WAS IN A SUDDEN STATE OF IDLE.THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON, THEN "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" AND MY CAR WENT FROM 65 TO 5MPH IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. AFTER CAR'S IGNITION WAS SHUT OFF, THE CAR RESTARTED WITHOUT PROBLEM. HOWEVER, THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AGAIN AFTER REENTERING FREEWAY NEARLY CAUSING A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. DEALERSHIP WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THE THROTTLE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, BUT NOT UNDER POWERTRAIN WARRANTY. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND NEEDS TO BE RECALLED ASAP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537483
80,000 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING 78MPH ON A MAJOR INTERSTATE SURROUNDED BY TRAFFIC AT THE SAME SPEED. SUDDENLY THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON AND MY CAR WENT FROM 78 TO 5MPH IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. IT WAS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR MYSELF AS WELL AS OTHER DRIVERS. I FLIPPED MY FLASHERS ON AND WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER. I KILLED …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING 78MPH ON A MAJOR INTERSTATE SURROUNDED BY TRAFFIC AT THE SAME SPEED. SUDDENLY THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON AND MY CAR WENT FROM 78 TO 5MPH IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. IT WAS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR MYSELF AS WELL AS OTHER DRIVERS. I FLIPPED MY FLASHERS ON AND WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER. I KILLED THE ENGINE AND RESTARTED, MADE IT TO MY EXIT WHERE IT HAPPENED A SECOND TIME. THE NEXT DAY THE BATTERY WAS DEAD SO WE REPLACED AND TOOK TO A GARAGE TO HAVE EVERYTHING CHECKED. A DIAGNOSTIC WAS RUN AND THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING. I DROVE IT BACK AND FORTH TO WORK FOR 4 DAYS WHEN IT STARTED HAPPENING AGAIN. THIS TIME IN A MAJOR INTERSECTION DURING RUSH HOUR CAUSING TRAFFIC ISSUES AND CONGESTION. WE ONCE AGAIN TOOK IT IN TODAY, 8/26/2013, THEY CHANGED THE AIR FILTER AND AGAIN SAID NOTHING WAS WRONG. I TOOK IT FOR A TEST DRIVE. DROVE IT ABOUT 20 MILES WHEN IT STARTED IN AGAIN! THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS STAYING ON AND THE "WRENCH" LIGHT WHICH WE FOUND OUT IS POWERTRAIN AGAIN CAME ON. THE ENGINE NEVER DIES, IN FACT IT SEEMS TO REV AT TIMES BUT THE GAS PEDDLE HAS NO CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. I AM SCARED TO DRIVE MY VEHICLE NOT ONLY FOR MY OWN SAFETY BUT FOR ALL THOSE AROUND ME. FORD IS NOT CURRENTLY SHOWING A RECALL FOR OUR VIN # BUT FROM MY RESEARCH THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM. IT SEEMS THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT FORD NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537379
80,000 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE VEHICLE DECELERATED WITHOUT MANUAL FORCE. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000.
NHTSA ODI #10537272
Official recalls
3Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
May 24, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
4DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System
On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages
PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that
DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.
PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage
Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.