NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
508 reportsClear category filter41,914 miles · Jan 31, 2013
EnginePower Train
THIS VEHICLE BELONGS TO MY DAUGHTER AND WHILE DRIVING TO GET LUNCH THE SAID VEHICLE SLOWED AND STARTED JERKING AND SHAKING. THE ENGINE DIDN'T DIE BUT THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT THROTTLE UP. SHE EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO RETURN BACK TO WORK AND LATER IN THE AFTERNOON HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AND SHE LEFT WORK FOR HER APPOINTMENT…
Read full complaint
THIS VEHICLE BELONGS TO MY DAUGHTER AND WHILE DRIVING TO GET LUNCH THE SAID VEHICLE SLOWED AND STARTED JERKING AND SHAKING. THE ENGINE DIDN'T DIE BUT THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT THROTTLE UP. SHE EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO RETURN BACK TO WORK AND LATER IN THE AFTERNOON HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AND SHE LEFT WORK FOR HER APPOINTMENT AND TRAVELED ABOUT A MILE BEFORE EXPERIENCING THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. MY DAUGHTER PHONE ME FOR HELP AND I WENT TO HER LOCATION AND WE TRADED VEHICLES AND I TRIED TO DRIVE IT BUT IT WOULDN'T ACCELERATE AS BEFORE. THE ENGINE WOULD IDLE AND THE SPEEDOMETER INDICATED 3 MPH. I NOTIFIED FORD AND REQUESTED A WRECKER AND THEN WAS ABLE TO GET THE ESCAPE TO DRIVE ABOUT ANOTHER MILE BEFORE IT STALLED AGAIN. I WAITED FOR A WRECKER THAT NEVER CAME AND I FINALLY STARTED THE ENGINE AGAIN AND ENTERED THE INTERSTATE AND TRAVELED ABT SIX MILES AT 65 -70 MPH WHEN IT LOST POWER AGAIN. I IDLED AT 3 MPH FOR ABOUT A MILE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY WERE CLOSED. FINALLY I IDLED ANOTHER 2 MILES TO THE DAUGHTER'S RESIDENCE AND PARKED THE VEHICLE IN HER GARAGE.THE NEXT DAY I WENT TO AUTOZONE AND I ASKED THEM WHAT CODES P2111 AND P2112 WERE AND THEY ADVISE ME IT HAD TO DO WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. I THEN DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AT 3 MPH AND LEFT IT . I PURCHASED A THROTTLE BODY FROM ANOTHER FORD DEALERSHIP AND INSTALLED IT IN ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES. IT SEEMS TO BE RUNNING GOOD NOW AFTER TEST DRIVING IT FOR 15 MILES WITH NO ISSUES. THE VEHICLE'S WARRANTY EXPIRED @ 3YRS OR 36,000 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10496021
60,400 miles · Jan 31, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
THE CAR LOST ENGINE POWER UNEXPECTEDLY WHILE UNDER WAY. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL MADE NO DIFFERENCE, AND THE CAR WOULD NOT COAST - IT LOST SPEED RAPIDLY. UPON TURNING THE CAR OFF AND WAITING A FEW MINUTES, THE CAR WOULD RESTART AND OPERATE NORMALLY. SOMETIMES IT WOULD OPERATE FOR NORMALLY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRIP, OTHER TIMES …
Read full complaint
THE CAR LOST ENGINE POWER UNEXPECTEDLY WHILE UNDER WAY. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL MADE NO DIFFERENCE, AND THE CAR WOULD NOT COAST - IT LOST SPEED RAPIDLY. UPON TURNING THE CAR OFF AND WAITING A FEW MINUTES, THE CAR WOULD RESTART AND OPERATE NORMALLY. SOMETIMES IT WOULD OPERATE FOR NORMALLY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRIP, OTHER TIMES THE CAR WOULD EXHIBIT THE PROBLEM AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10495324
50,809 miles · Jan 29, 2013
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE IDLING, THE VEHICLE MADE LOUD NOISES. AS THE CONTACT TRIED TO ACCELERATE, THE VEHICLE HESITATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED BY A DEALER OR AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE FAILURE OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY SIX TIMES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE IDLING, THE VEHICLE MADE LOUD NOISES. AS THE CONTACT TRIED TO ACCELERATE, THE VEHICLE HESITATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED BY A DEALER OR AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE FAILURE OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY SIX TIMES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 50,809. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 50,934. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10495049
26,490 miles · Jan 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING THERE WAS A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER. THE WRENCH ICON LIT UP ON THE DASH DISPLAY & THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON TOO. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE GAS PEDAL AT ALL. THE ENGINE STAYED ON & ALL OTHER FEATURES OF THE VEHICLE WORKED. I SHUT THE CAR OFF & RESTARTED THE VEHICLE & CONTINUED DRIVING. THIS OCCURRED 4 TIMES WI…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THERE WAS A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER. THE WRENCH ICON LIT UP ON THE DASH DISPLAY & THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON TOO. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE GAS PEDAL AT ALL. THE ENGINE STAYED ON & ALL OTHER FEATURES OF THE VEHICLE WORKED. I SHUT THE CAR OFF & RESTARTED THE VEHICLE & CONTINUED DRIVING. THIS OCCURRED 4 TIMES WITHIN A HALF HOUR. IT WAS A MIRACLE THAT I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN AN AUTO ACCIDENT. I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE BACK TO A FORD DEALER WHERE THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. VEHICLE HAS BEEN OPERATING FINE EVER SINCE & THE GAS PEDAL IS MORE RESPONSIVE THAN IT WAS BEFORE. THE ORIGINAL BUMPER TO BUMPER WARRANTY EXPIRED LESS THAN 2 MONTHS AGO & I HAD TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR. I AM VERY UNHAPPY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10494882
79,000 miles · Jan 14, 2013
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHUTTER AS THE TRANSMISSION DISENGAGED. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS AND THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS MOVED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SHUT OFF. ONCE THE VEHICLE WAS RESTART…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHUTTER AS THE TRANSMISSION DISENGAGED. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS AND THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS MOVED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SHUT OFF. ONCE THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED, IT REGAINED NORMAL OPERATION. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT WHENEVER THE FAILURE RECURRED, HE SHOULD SHUT OFF AND RESTART THE ENGINE IN ORDER TO RESET THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 79,000.
NHTSA ODI #10492914
42,687 miles · Jan 8, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WITH NO WARNING, I WAS UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER SAFELY. I AM THANKFUL I WASN'T TRAVELING AT A HIGHER RATE OF SPEED OR TRAVELING ON THE FREEWAY; THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. DIAGNOSTIC LIGHTS ON DASH INDICATED SOMETHING WITH THROTTLE. WAS ABLE TO GET CAR HOME - VERY DIFF…
Read full complaint
WITH NO WARNING, I WAS UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER SAFELY. I AM THANKFUL I WASN'T TRAVELING AT A HIGHER RATE OF SPEED OR TRAVELING ON THE FREEWAY; THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. DIAGNOSTIC LIGHTS ON DASH INDICATED SOMETHING WITH THROTTLE. WAS ABLE TO GET CAR HOME - VERY DIFFICULT. HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED. VERY EXPENSIVE CAR REPAIR, 208.00 PART (THROTTLE BODY) AND 190.00 LABOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10491836
40,000 miles · Jan 6, 2013
Power Train
HAD BEEN DRIVING VEHICLE ON BUSY CITY STREET FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES THROUGH TRAFFIC LIGHTS. STOPPED AT RED LIGHT TO ENTER FREEWAY WITH SEVERAL OTHER VEHICLES ON TWO LANE FREEWAY ONRAMP. LIGHT TURNED GREEN, I ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE TO FREEWAY SPEED, VEHICLE ONLY OBTAINED ABOUT 2MPH, VEHICLE WAS RUNNING BUT HAD NO RESPONSE TO …
Read full complaint
HAD BEEN DRIVING VEHICLE ON BUSY CITY STREET FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES THROUGH TRAFFIC LIGHTS. STOPPED AT RED LIGHT TO ENTER FREEWAY WITH SEVERAL OTHER VEHICLES ON TWO LANE FREEWAY ONRAMP. LIGHT TURNED GREEN, I ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE TO FREEWAY SPEED, VEHICLE ONLY OBTAINED ABOUT 2MPH, VEHICLE WAS RUNNING BUT HAD NO RESPONSE TO GAS PEDAL ( RPM'S DIDN'T INCREASE), TWO RED WARNING LIGHTS APPEARED ON DASH. I MANAGED TO COAST ONTO THE MINI SHOULDER OF THE ONRAMP, STICKING HALFWAY INTO TRAFFIC, DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE SHOULDER. I SHIFTED THROUGH PARK, NEUTRAL, DRIVE, NO RESPONSE, TURNED VEHICLE OFF, THEN RESTATED AND VEHICLE OPERATED NORMALLY, WARNING LIGHTS OUT. VERY, VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION AND CAR ONLY HAS 40,000 MILES. IN RESEARCHING THIS ONLINE, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF SIMILAR EXPERIENCES WITH ALL MILEAGES, FORUMS ARE SAYING THE DEALER IS REPLACING DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLIES. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10491562
38,120 miles · Jan 2, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY THE 2010 FORD ESCAPE NOT ONCE BUT MULTIPLE TIMES WOULD GO TO IDLE AND RUN ROUGH WHILE TRAVELING ON DIFFERENT ROADS AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD DO NOTHING TO MAKE THE CAR GO BUT IT WAS IDLING ROUGH AND COASTING CAUSING US TO STOP ON THE SIDE OF VERY DANGEROUS ROADS. WE WOULD TURN IT OFF AND…
Read full complaint
DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY THE 2010 FORD ESCAPE NOT ONCE BUT MULTIPLE TIMES WOULD GO TO IDLE AND RUN ROUGH WHILE TRAVELING ON DIFFERENT ROADS AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD DO NOTHING TO MAKE THE CAR GO BUT IT WAS IDLING ROUGH AND COASTING CAUSING US TO STOP ON THE SIDE OF VERY DANGEROUS ROADS. WE WOULD TURN IT OFF AND LET IT SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THEN IT WOULD START NORMAL. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD WORK AGAIN BUT REPEAT THE SAME PROBLEM 5 TO 10 MINUTES LATER. WE WERE CERTAINLY GLAD THIS DID NOT HAPPEN ON THE INTERSTATE IN FRONT OF AN 18 WHEELER OR WE WOULD BE DEAD. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THE THROTTLE BODY IS BAD. THE CAR IS ONLY 2,000 MILES OUT OF WARRANTY FROM THE STANDARD BUMPER TO BUMPER WARRANTY, THE EXTENDED POWERTRAIN WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER THE PART. SO WE ARE OUT ALMOST $400 FOR A PART THAT SHOULD NEVER FAIL TO BEGIN WITH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490716
43,000 miles · Jan 2, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
AT FREEWAY SPEED THE CAR LOST POWER. WE WERE ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. A SMALL WRENCH WARNING LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD. WE CHECKED THE OWNER'S MANUAL, AND IT REFERRED TO A "THROTTLE/POWER TRAIN" ISSUE AND TOLD US TO SEEK DEALER ATTENTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ENGINE RESTARTED, SO WE CONTINUED OUR…
Read full complaint
AT FREEWAY SPEED THE CAR LOST POWER. WE WERE ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. A SMALL WRENCH WARNING LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD. WE CHECKED THE OWNER'S MANUAL, AND IT REFERRED TO A "THROTTLE/POWER TRAIN" ISSUE AND TOLD US TO SEEK DEALER ATTENTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ENGINE RESTARTED, SO WE CONTINUED OUR TRIP. WE STOPPED IN SULFUR SPRINGS, TX, AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP. THAT MORNING THE VEHICLE BATTERY WAS DEAD (WHICH WAS THE FIRST PROBLEM WE HAVE EVER HAD WITH THE VEHICLE), AND WE BEGAN OUR TRIP AFTER JUMP-STARTING THE CAR. I THOUGHT THE STALLING WAS RELATED TO THE BATTERY PROBLEM. THE EVENTS WERE EXPLAINED TO THE TECH, WE REPLACED THE BATTERY WHICH WE FELT WOULD ALSO SOLVE THE STALLING PROBLEM. THE STALL OCCURRED THE NEXT DAY, AND AGAIN ON OUR RETURN TRIP. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO OUR LOCAL FORD DEALER WHERE THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WAS REPLACED. WE HAVE NOT, AS OF NOW, TESTED THE REPAIR AT FREEWAY SPEED, BUT WERE ASSURED BY THE DEALER THAT THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490704
57,000 miles · Dec 18, 2012
Power Train
MY CAR HAS BEEN HAVING A POWER TRAIN ISSUE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. A WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON, THEN MY CAR SLOWLY POWERS OFF. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I AM OR HOW FAST OR SLOW I'M GOING. THE SCARIEST INCIDENT WAS WHEN I WAS ON THE HIGHWAY GOING 65 MPH. AGAIN, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE CAR SLOWLY POWERED OFF. LUCKILY IT WAS LATE AND…
Read full complaint
MY CAR HAS BEEN HAVING A POWER TRAIN ISSUE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. A WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON, THEN MY CAR SLOWLY POWERS OFF. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I AM OR HOW FAST OR SLOW I'M GOING. THE SCARIEST INCIDENT WAS WHEN I WAS ON THE HIGHWAY GOING 65 MPH. AGAIN, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE CAR SLOWLY POWERED OFF. LUCKILY IT WAS LATE AND THERE WAS LITTLE TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY. I WAS ABLE TO SLOWLY PULL OVER AND RESTART THE CAR, WHICH STARTED UP FINE. THE CAR HAS NOW DONE THIS 4-5 TIMES. AGAIN, THE SCARIEST INCIDENT WAS ON THE FREEWAY. I TOOK MY CAR TO THE DEALER AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE ISSUE IS A STUCK THROTTLE. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH, I'VE FOUND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME ORIGIN OF THE FORD ESCAPES DATING BACK TO YEAR MODEL 2004- WITH ONE FATALITY AND MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, I.E. RECALL ISSUED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10489203
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.