NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
508 reportsClear category filter53,500 miles · Jul 21, 2013
EnginePower Train
THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED AROUND JUNE 3, 2013, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE. AFTER BACKING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY AND SHIFTING INTO DRIVE, AS I ACCELERATED THROUGH 2ND GEAR, IT DROPPED OUT OF GEAR INTO IDLE AND I HAD NO ENGINE ACCELERATION RESPONSE FROM THE GAS PEDAL, NO MATTER WHICH GEAR I PUT IT IN. THE WRENCH LIGHT ALSO …
Read full complaint
THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED AROUND JUNE 3, 2013, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE. AFTER BACKING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY AND SHIFTING INTO DRIVE, AS I ACCELERATED THROUGH 2ND GEAR, IT DROPPED OUT OF GEAR INTO IDLE AND I HAD NO ENGINE ACCELERATION RESPONSE FROM THE GAS PEDAL, NO MATTER WHICH GEAR I PUT IT IN. THE WRENCH LIGHT ALSO CAME ON. AFTER TURNING THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTING, THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OUT AND THE CAR WORKED NORMALLY. THIS HAPPENED APPROXIMATELY 5-7 TIMES BEGINNING AROUND JUNE 3, 2013 UNTIL I DECIDED TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP ON JUNE 18, 2013. I PAID FORD $120 TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. THEY WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG, BUT DID RESET THE SHIFT POINTS. IT DID NOT HAPPEN AGAIN UNTIL JULY 12, 2013. WHILE DRIVING TO WORK AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH, THE ENGINE DROPPED OUT OF GEAR AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD NO ENGINE RESPONSE WITH THE GAS PEDAL AND HAD TO CAREFULLY COAST OVER TO THE SERVICE/EMERGENCY LANE. WHILE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, I CALLED FORD AND THEY TOLD ME AFTER I BROUGHT MY ESCAPE IN, MULTIPLE ESCAPES AND FUSIONS HAD COME IN WITH THE SAME PROBLEM WHICH WAS TROUBLESHOOT DOWN TO THE THROTTLE BODY. THEY ORDERED THE THROTTLE BODY AND SAID THEY WOULD CALL ME WHEN IT CAME IN. I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION, RESTARTED, AND CONTINUED DRIVING. APPROXIMATELY 2 MINUTES AFTER GETTING BACK ON THE ROAD IT HAPPENED AGAIN, ONLY THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH THE WRENCH LIGHT. THIS TIME AFTER RESTARTING THE ENGINE, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON. I DROVE TO FORD AND LEFT IT RUNNING SO THEY COULD ACQUIRE ANY CODES THAT WERE ACTIVE. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS ORDERED ON JULY 12, 2013 AND FORD HAS NO ESTIMATE OF A SHIPMENT DATE. THE CAR IS CURRENTLY WITH FORD AWAITING THE PART WHILE THEY PAY FOR MY RENTAL. THERE ARE ALSO TWO VEHICLES AHEAD OF MINE AT THE DEALERSHIP WAITING FOR THE SAME PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525989
60,200 miles · Jul 20, 2013
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING HOME GOING AROUND 50 MPH UPHILL WHEN SUDDENLY MY CAR DONE A BIG LURCH AND BEGAN TO LOSE POWER. THANKFULLY I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER. VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY SO I TOOK IT TO MY REPAIR GUY WHO OWNS HIS OWN SHOP. THE DEALERSHIP CHARGES TOO MUCH. ON 6-18-13 HE INFORMED ME THAT THE PART WAS ON BACKORDER, POSSIBLY 3…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING HOME GOING AROUND 50 MPH UPHILL WHEN SUDDENLY MY CAR DONE A BIG LURCH AND BEGAN TO LOSE POWER. THANKFULLY I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER. VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY SO I TOOK IT TO MY REPAIR GUY WHO OWNS HIS OWN SHOP. THE DEALERSHIP CHARGES TOO MUCH. ON 6-18-13 HE INFORMED ME THAT THE PART WAS ON BACKORDER, POSSIBLY 3-4 WEEKS. WELL GUESS WHAT ITS NOW 7-20-13 AND IT STILL HAS NOT COME IN. NOT ONLY AM I PISSED BUT WHEN I EMAILED FORD MOTOR COMPANY ABOUT MY CONCERN AND PROBLEM, THEY BASICALLY TOLD ME NOTHING USEFUL, ONLY THAT THERE WERE NO OPEN RECALLS OR WARRANTIES OPEN FOR MY VEHICLE. I TOLD A RECALL NEEDS TO BE ISSUED BEFORE SOMEONE GETS KILLED. SO MANY OF THESE COMPLAINTS I HAVE READ WERE OF PEOPLE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE. AND FORTUNATELY I AM ABLE TO BORROW MY GRANDMA'S VEHICLE AND NOT HAVING TO RENT ONE. I HAD TO RENT, THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY IN ITSELF. FIX THE PROBLEM FORD. TAKE CARE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS!!! I JUST HOPE WHEN THE PART DOES FINALLY COME, THE PROBLEM WILL BE FIXED AND WON'T REOCCUR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525924
59,834 miles · Jul 19, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING TO WORK AND MY CAR STARTED TO JERK. THEN MY POWER TRAIN LIGHT CAME ON AND MY CAR TOTALLY STOPPED ON ME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. I TOOK IT TO THE SHOP THAT DAY AND THE TOLD ME IT WAS MY THROTTLE BODY. MY WARRANTY DIDN'T COVER IT, SO I HAD TO PAY OVER 300 DOLLARS FOR A NEW PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525849
40,000 miles · Jul 18, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN RUNNING GREAT UNTIL THE LAST WEEK. THREE TIMES IN THE SPAN OF AN HOUR DRIVE FROM ONE LOCATION TO MY HOUSE MY VEHICLE HAS BEGUN TO SHAKE AND THEN QUIT RUNNING. TWO OF THE THREE TIMES WE WERE DRIVING 65MPH ON A BUSY FREEWAY AND WERE UNABLE TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE, HAVING TO ALLOW THE CAR TO IDLE TO A STOP ON T…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN RUNNING GREAT UNTIL THE LAST WEEK. THREE TIMES IN THE SPAN OF AN HOUR DRIVE FROM ONE LOCATION TO MY HOUSE MY VEHICLE HAS BEGUN TO SHAKE AND THEN QUIT RUNNING. TWO OF THE THREE TIMES WE WERE DRIVING 65MPH ON A BUSY FREEWAY AND WERE UNABLE TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE, HAVING TO ALLOW THE CAR TO IDLE TO A STOP ON THE SHOULDER. THANKFULLY WE WERE ABLE TO DO SO SAFELY. WE DROVE THE VEHICLE TO OUR DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION TODAY AND THE CAR SHOOK, AS IF READY TO SHUT DOWN AGAIN, THE ENTIRE TRIP. I RECEIVED A CALL SAYING THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. I HAVE SINCE SEEN SEVERAL SIMILAR SAFETY COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE SAME ENGINE PART AND HAVE REQUESTED THE ORIGINAL PART BE RETURNED TO ME. MY VEHICLE IS ONLY THREE YEARS OLD AND IN GOOD CONDITION, AND IT IS ENTIRELY UNSAFE FOR A CAR TO UNEXPECTEDLY QUIT RUNNING, PERIOD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525620
60,916 miles · Jul 18, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING VEHICLE AT APPX. 40 MPH WHEN ENGINE STARTED TO SPUTTER, LOST ALL POWER AND GOT NO RESPONSE FROM ACCELERATOR PEDAL. WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON DASHBOARD, INDICATING A "THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN" PROBLEM. HAD TO COAST TO SIDE OF ROAD, VERY DANGEROUSLY IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. TURNED CAR OFF, WAITED 15 MINUTES, RESTARTED AND THE…
Read full complaint
DRIVING VEHICLE AT APPX. 40 MPH WHEN ENGINE STARTED TO SPUTTER, LOST ALL POWER AND GOT NO RESPONSE FROM ACCELERATOR PEDAL. WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON DASHBOARD, INDICATING A "THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN" PROBLEM. HAD TO COAST TO SIDE OF ROAD, VERY DANGEROUSLY IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. TURNED CAR OFF, WAITED 15 MINUTES, RESTARTED AND THE CAR WORKED NORMALLY FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 YARDS, THEN THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED-- NO RESPONSE FROM ACCELERATOR, CAR WOULD NOT GO FASTER THAN 2-5 MPH, HAD TO COAST TO SIDE OF ROAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525531
57,500 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Power Train
WAS SITTING AT LIGHT ON A FRIDAY NIGHT TAKING A TURN WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN IT STARTED TO DIE THEN GOT IT OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION TURNED IT OFF AND TURNED IT BACK ON AND IT WAS FINE. TOOK IT IN TO FORD SHEEHY THAT SATURDAY AFTER IT HAPPENED WROTE THE COMPLAINT AND THEY SAID THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS AND CLEANED THE…
Read full complaint
WAS SITTING AT LIGHT ON A FRIDAY NIGHT TAKING A TURN WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN IT STARTED TO DIE THEN GOT IT OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION TURNED IT OFF AND TURNED IT BACK ON AND IT WAS FINE. TOOK IT IN TO FORD SHEEHY THAT SATURDAY AFTER IT HAPPENED WROTE THE COMPLAINT AND THEY SAID THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS AND CLEANED THE THROTTLEBODY BUT THERE WASN'T MUCH MORE THAT THEY COULD DO THAN THAT AND IT WAS DRIVABLE NOW. WELL, THIS MONTH OF JULY 2013 JULY 10 I HAD MY SON IN THE CAR WITH ME GOING 45 IT WENT TO 3 MPH IN 2 SECONDS IN THE MIDDLE TRAFFIC AND THE LITTLE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ONE WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND RESTARTED THE CAR, IT SEEMED FINE THEN WENT EXACTLY 4 FEET AND IT DID IT AGAIN AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON PULLED TO THE SIDE THIS TIME WHEN I RESTARTED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON DID THIS 5 MILES THE WHOLE TIME TRYING TO GET HOME. THE NEXT MORNING CHECK ENGINE WAS OFF SO THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD TO GO DROVE IT ON THE HIGHWAY AT 65 MILES PER HOUR AND GOT OFF AND THE ENGINE WENT FROM 40 DOWN TO 3 MPH WITH IN 2 SECONDS AND GOT THE WRENCH AGAIN, GOT IT STARTED AND INTO WORK GARAGE AND PARKED IT FOR THE DAY. THOUGHT OKAY IT SHOULD BE FINE TO DRIVE IT BACK 26 MILES HOME WAS GOING 65 AND THE CAR WENT DOWN TO 3 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WAS ABLE TO PULL COAST OFF AS I WAS COASTING IT DIED WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. TODAY COMING INTO WORK I GOT 3 MILES FROM HOME AND IT REPEATED THE PROCESS OF 40 DOWN TO 3 WRENCH LIGHT ON, GOT IT GOING GOT TO WORK AND 2 BLOCKS FROM WORK IT REPEATED THE PROCESS OF 40 DOWN TO 3 BEEN SITTING ALL DAY. EACH TIME I GET P2112. THIS HAS GOTTEN TO BE TOO DANGEROUS FOR ME TO DRIVE THIS CAR WITH ANYONE IN IT AND INCLUDING MYSELF DURING RUSH HOUR. THIS HAS BECOME A DAILY OCCURRENCE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525479
61,000 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING APPROX 55MPH THE VEHICLE SHUT DOWN. HAD TO PULL OVER AND RESTART VEHICLE TWICE BEFORE IT WOULD MOVE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525372
57,000 miles · Jul 17, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED HAS COMPLETELY LOST POWER WHEN DRIVING ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WILL BE RUNNING FIND AND THEN YOU SUDDENLY LOSE ALL POWER. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MY LOCAL DEALER AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THEY ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE…
Read full complaint
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED HAS COMPLETELY LOST POWER WHEN DRIVING ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WILL BE RUNNING FIND AND THEN YOU SUDDENLY LOSE ALL POWER. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MY LOCAL DEALER AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THEY ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE REPLACEMENT PART AND WERE UNSURE OF WHEN THEY COULD GET IT. I FIND IT VERY DANGEROUS DRIVING A VEHICLE THAT COULD SUDDENLY LOSE POWER AT ANYTIME. ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE FORD SHOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THESE DEFECTIVE PARTS, FORD COULD AT LEAST BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE THESE PARTS SO THAT I COULD AT LEAST PAY TO HAVE MY VEHICLE FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525338
99,000 miles · Jul 16, 2013
EnginePower Train
PROBLEM OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES AND APPEARS TO BE MORE FREQUENT. THE FIRST TIME IT OCCURRED I WAS DRIVING 55 MILES PER HOUR AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE GAS PEDAL DID NOTHING, THE CAR DID NOT ACCELERATE. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. WHEN I STARTED THE CAR BECK UP IT HESITATED, THE CHEC…
Read full complaint
PROBLEM OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES AND APPEARS TO BE MORE FREQUENT. THE FIRST TIME IT OCCURRED I WAS DRIVING 55 MILES PER HOUR AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE GAS PEDAL DID NOTHING, THE CAR DID NOT ACCELERATE. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. WHEN I STARTED THE CAR BECK UP IT HESITATED, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT TURNED OFF, AND WORKED FINE. THE SAME THING HAPPENED APPROXIMATELY 2 WEEKS LATER. NOW I NOTICED THAT THE RPM GAUGE FLUCTUATES QUITE A BIT WHEN I START THE CAR AND THEN AGAIN WHEN I AM STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT. TODAY, I WAS DRIVING WITH NO PROBLEM AND STOPPED BECAUSE THE CAR IN FRONT ME WAS STOPPED TO MAKE A TURN. WHEN I TRIED TO CONTINUE DRIVING, MY CAR STALLED AND I HAD TO TURN IT OFF AND THEN BACK ON. THERE WERE A LINE OF CARS BEHIND ME AND I WAS ALMOST REAR-ENDED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525226
37,190 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING AT 50MPH AND NEXT THING I KNOW IS MY WHOLE CAR WAS SHAKING IT WAS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE AND I CHECKED THE DASH AND THE ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT IS ON. I TRIED TO STEP ON THE GAS PEDAL SO I CAN FIND A PLACE TO PULL OVER BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY POWER ON MY GAS PEDAL IT JUST WONT ACCELERATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525205
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.