← 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
25,000 miles · Apr 16, 2013
EnginePower Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND ALSO EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE AND THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND ALSO EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE AND THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 25,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 42,500. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10508461

17,571 miles · Apr 15, 2013
Power Train

WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY,I NOTICED THE RPM'S INCREASING BUT THE CAR WOULDN'T SHIFT INTO OVERDRIVE, INSTEAD IT DOWNSHIFTED WHILE TRAVELING AT FREEWAY SPEED. ON OTHER OCCASIONS, THE RPM REMAINED HIGH AND THE CAR WOULDN'T SHIFT AT ALL EVEN AFTER PUTTING IT IN NEUTRAL, WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. AT OTHER TIMES, THE CAR …

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY,I NOTICED THE RPM'S INCREASING BUT THE CAR WOULDN'T SHIFT INTO OVERDRIVE, INSTEAD IT DOWNSHIFTED WHILE TRAVELING AT FREEWAY SPEED. ON OTHER OCCASIONS, THE RPM REMAINED HIGH AND THE CAR WOULDN'T SHIFT AT ALL EVEN AFTER PUTTING IT IN NEUTRAL, WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. AT OTHER TIMES, THE CAR WOULD JUMP INTO GEAR WHEN PUTTING IT INTO REVERSE OR DRIVE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10508303

42,000 miles · Apr 15, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND GAS PEDAL WENT SOFT , HAD NO POWER. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE , TURNED THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES. RESTARTED AND CONTINUED ON WITH NO PROBLEM. SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN THE NEXT DAY. CAR IS AT OUR FORD DEALERSHIP NOW. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10508251

47,000 miles · Apr 14, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS TURNING A CORNER, THE CAR LOST POWER, WHEN I PRESSED ON THE ACCELERATOR THERE WAS NO POWER. THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS APPEARED. THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT ALSO NEEDED A BATTERY. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE PROBLEMS WAS WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. SINCE PURCHASING THE VEHICLE I WOULD EVERY NOW…

Read full complaint

I WAS TURNING A CORNER, THE CAR LOST POWER, WHEN I PRESSED ON THE ACCELERATOR THERE WAS NO POWER. THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS APPEARED. THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT ALSO NEEDED A BATTERY. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE PROBLEMS WAS WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. SINCE PURCHASING THE VEHICLE I WOULD EVERY NOW AND THEN FEEL IT LOSING POWER. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE THE TRANSMISSION BUT WHEN I TOOK IT IN FOR THEM TO LOOK AT THEY SAID "NO WE DROVE IT AND NOTHING SEEM WRONG WITH IT." AT THAT POINT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED BY WARRANTY. I FEEL THAT THE SERVICE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE GUEST IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY SINCE SO MANY OF THESE VEHICLES ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. I AM NOW FEELING THAT THERE WAS SOME DECEPTION. THE VEHICLE IS A 2010, THIS VEHICLE IS TOO NEW FOR IT TO NEED SUCH A MAJOR REPAIR. THE WARRANTY ON THESE VEHICLES IS SUBSTANDARD. THE COST OF REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY WAS $465.32 AND THE BATTERY THAT I PURCHASED AT AUTO ZONE WAS $132. I AM VERY UNHAPPY WITH THIS FORD PRODUCT AND WILL NOT PURCHASE ANOTHER FORD. WHILE THE SERVICE PEOPLE WERE PROFESSIONAL DID NOT OFFER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS HAPPENING FREQUENTLY. I BELIEVE THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE REIMBURSED! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10508167

49,320 miles · Mar 23, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

DRIVING IN THE HIGHWAY THE VEHICLE STOP THROTTLE AND SHOW THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT. FIRST EXPERIENCE WAS MY WIFE THAT IS NOW PREGNANT. WE STOP USING THE CAR UNTIL I COULD BRING IT TO THE DEALER, AND IT ALSO BROKE DOWN WHILE COMING HERE. FORD SAYS IT IS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE DEVICE AND THAT I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT $470+TAX. THIS…

Read full complaint

DRIVING IN THE HIGHWAY THE VEHICLE STOP THROTTLE AND SHOW THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT. FIRST EXPERIENCE WAS MY WIFE THAT IS NOW PREGNANT. WE STOP USING THE CAR UNTIL I COULD BRING IT TO THE DEALER, AND IT ALSO BROKE DOWN WHILE COMING HERE. FORD SAYS IT IS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE DEVICE AND THAT I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT $470+TAX. THIS WAS PURCHASED HERE AS A CERTIFIED FORD AND FORD DOES NOT COVER IT EVEN IF IT IS A LIFE THREATENING ISSUE. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS DEFECT, ESPECIALLY IN THE HIGHWAY OR IF PASSING ANOTHER CAR IN A TWO LANE ROAD. FORD SHOULD RECALL ALL CARS WITH THIS ELECTRONIC DEVICE ASAP AND PAY ME FOR THIS EXPENSE. I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT NOW BECAUSE THE CAR EVEN THOUGH IT STARTS IT WILL BREAK DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD FOR NO REASON. AGAIN THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS DEFECT AND SEVERAL COMPLAINTS SEEMS TO INDICATE THE SAME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10504272

36,693 miles · Mar 22, 2013
EnginePower Train

ON MARCH 16, 2013 I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE WHEN I LOST POWER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. I PUSHED THE GAS PETAL BUT VEHICLE WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON MY DASHBOARD. THE VEHICLE WAS JERKING. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD. EXAMINED UNDER HOOD AND EVERYTHING APPEARED OK. VEHICLE STARTED OK AND SOUNDE…

Read full complaint

ON MARCH 16, 2013 I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE WHEN I LOST POWER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. I PUSHED THE GAS PETAL BUT VEHICLE WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON MY DASHBOARD. THE VEHICLE WAS JERKING. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD. EXAMINED UNDER HOOD AND EVERYTHING APPEARED OK. VEHICLE STARTED OK AND SOUNDED OK SO I CONTINUED TO DRIVE. APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES LATER, THE SAME THING HAPPENED. VEHICLE WAS JERKING WORSE AND LOST POWER. I PULLED OFF ROAD AND SHUT THE TRUCK OFF. RESTARTED OKAY AND DECIDED TO DRIVE BACK HOME. I WAS FORTUNATE THAT THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND IT WAS EARLY IN THE MORNING. OTHERWISE I COULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. SOMEONE COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED WHEN MY TRUCK STALLED. I HAD MY 83 AND 81 YEAR OLD PARENTS WITH ME. I TOOK MY VEHICLE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN MY HOME TOWN AND PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS THROTTLE BODY FAULTY. REPAIRS WERE MADE, I PAID FOR THEM, AND LEFT DEALERSHIP. LOSING POWER AND VEHICLE DYING ON THE ROAD CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE A SAFETY HAZARD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10504197

60,000 miles · Mar 21, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

ON THE MORNING OF FEBRUARY 25TH, I WAS PULLING OUT OF MY GARAGE WHEN MY CAR JUST STOPPED ACCELERATING AND THE "WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON. IT WAS BARELY IDLING, SO I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTED IT. IT STARTED NORMALLY, SO I WENT ON TO WORK. THAT EVENING, I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE PASSING LANE GOING APPROXIMATELY 75 …

Read full complaint

ON THE MORNING OF FEBRUARY 25TH, I WAS PULLING OUT OF MY GARAGE WHEN MY CAR JUST STOPPED ACCELERATING AND THE "WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON. IT WAS BARELY IDLING, SO I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTED IT. IT STARTED NORMALLY, SO I WENT ON TO WORK. THAT EVENING, I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE PASSING LANE GOING APPROXIMATELY 75 MPH WHEN THE CAR SORT OF LURCHED AND THEN THE "WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR INSTANTLY STARTED TO SLOW DOWN. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE AT ALL. I HAD TO WAIT FOR TRAFFIC TO MOVE IN THE RIGHT LANE, WHICH WAS HORRIBLY DANGEROUS, AND THEN PULL OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND THEN RESTARTED IT. IT TOOK A SECOND, BUT THE CAR RESTARTED AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF, SO I GOT BACK ON THE INTERSTATE AGAIN. THAT EVENING I STARTED LOOKING ON THE INTERNET TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE HAD EXPERIENCED THIS SAME PROBLEM, AND THAT WAS WHEN I SAW THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION STARTED BY THE NHTSA IN REGARDS TO THAT VERY SAME PROBLEM OCCURRING IN SEVERAL FORD VEHICLES. THIS WAS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS BECAUSE WHEN IT HAPPENS, I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE SPEED ANYMORE AND I AM AT THE MERCY OF THE CARS ALL AROUND ME. I COULD HAVE EASILY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT THAT DAY. THEN, ABOUT A WEEK LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN WHILE I WAS ON A BUSY CITY STREET GOING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH. FINALLY, YESTERDAY MORNING, MARCH 20TH, IT HAPPENED ON THE INTERSTATE AGAIN. THE DEALER SAYS THERE ARE NO ERROR CODES, BUT THEY SAID THEY THINK ITS THE THROTTLE BODY AND THAT IT WILL COST ABOUT $300 DOLLARS TO FIX. THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL. THIS INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE CONCLUDED AND A RECALL NEEDS TO BE ISSUED BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SINCE IT HAPPENS AT FASTER SPEEDS, WHILE ON THE INTERSTATE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10504000

Mileage unknown · Mar 20, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO THROTTLE CONTROL MALFUNCTION AND REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIRS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ALL ACCELERATION WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY IN CRUISE CONTROL MODE. THE RPM WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 700 DESPITE, THE CONSUMER APPLYING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. TH…

Read full complaint

2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO THROTTLE CONTROL MALFUNCTION AND REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIRS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ALL ACCELERATION WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY IN CRUISE CONTROL MODE. THE RPM WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 700 DESPITE, THE CONSUMER APPLYING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE LOCAL FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT GAVE THE CONSUMER SOME TROUBLESHOOTING STEPS TO RESET THE VEHICLE. THE SERVICE ADVISOR EXPLAINED, THE COMPUTER HAD STOPPED FUNCTIONING., WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO SHUT DOWN. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED TO ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO SIT IN THE OFF POSITION FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THE RE-START IT AGAIN. IT PROVIDED A TEMPORARY FIX, WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSUMER TO CONTINUE TO HER DESTINATION. THE AFTER THE CONSUMER RETRIEVED HER VEHICLE, THE LOW PRESSURE SENSOR HAD ACTIVATED. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO HER LOCAL MECHANIC, WHO OBSERVED THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING TRANSMISSION FLUID ON THE DRIVER SIDE BETWEEN THE AXLE AND TRANSMISSION. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER. AN INSPECTION REVEALED THE LEAK WAS COMING FROM A SEAL. WHEN THE CONSUMER PICKED THE VEHICLE UP, LATER THAT EVENING, THE LOW TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A TIRE DEALER, WHERE THEY FOUND A SCREW IN THE SIDEWALL OF THE DRIVER FRONT TIRE. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED, SHE WOULD NEED TO PURCHASE TWO NEW TIRES. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10502986

47,000 miles · Mar 18, 2013
Power Train

DRIVING CAR ON HIGHWAY ON DAILY COMMUTE IN 5:00 PM TRAFFIC. MERGING INTO TRAFFIC, GAVE IT GAS AND CAR SLOWED TO NOTHING, WOULD NOT INCREASE IN SPEED, RPMS VERY HIGH , WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON HAD TO TURN CAR OFF AND BACK ON TO GET IT HOME. TOOK TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY STATED IT WAS A BAD THROTTLE BODY, NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. …

Read full complaint

DRIVING CAR ON HIGHWAY ON DAILY COMMUTE IN 5:00 PM TRAFFIC. MERGING INTO TRAFFIC, GAVE IT GAS AND CAR SLOWED TO NOTHING, WOULD NOT INCREASE IN SPEED, RPMS VERY HIGH , WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON HAD TO TURN CAR OFF AND BACK ON TO GET IT HOME. TOOK TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY STATED IT WAS A BAD THROTTLE BODY, NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10503440

36,259 miles · Mar 15, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WOULD STALL WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. THERE WERE TIMES THAT I WAS GOING 45-55MPH AND MY VEHICLE WOULD STALL. I LOST POWER STEERING AS VEHICLE SHUT OFF. I HAD TO SLOW DOWN AND PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START THE VEHICLE. THIS WAS VERY DANGEROUS AND SCARY. THIS HAPPENED PROBABLY 10-15…

Read full complaint

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WOULD STALL WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. THERE WERE TIMES THAT I WAS GOING 45-55MPH AND MY VEHICLE WOULD STALL. I LOST POWER STEERING AS VEHICLE SHUT OFF. I HAD TO SLOW DOWN AND PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START THE VEHICLE. THIS WAS VERY DANGEROUS AND SCARY. THIS HAPPENED PROBABLY 10-15 TIMES UNTIL I COULD NO LONGER GET THE VEHICLE STARTED. I HAD IT TOWED INTO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND HAD THEIR SERVICE DEPARTMENT ANALYZE THE PROBLEM. I FIRST TOOK IT BY AN ADVANCE AUTO TO CHECK THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT. THE CODE THAT CAME UP I BELIEVE WAS 9000. IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH EMISSION, FUEL SYSTEM CONCERNS. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT PUT A THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY PART ON IT. I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS SINCE. THEY ALSO DID AN EEC TEST P2111 AND FOUND ETB TO BE AT FAULT AND REPLACED. I HAD TO PAY $356.52 INCLUDING LABOR FOR THIS. I FEEL FROM READING OTHER INFORMATION ON 2010 FORD ESCAPES THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES WITH STALLING. I FEEL I SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR MY EXPENSES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10503155

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