← 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
42,471 miles · Jul 1, 2012
EnginePower Train

DRIVER WAS ACCELERATING AT 35 MPH AND 2010 FORD ESCAPE ENGINE BECAME NON-RESPONSIVE. ATTEMPTS TO PRESS THE ACCELERATOR WERE UNPRODUCTIVE. POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. VEHICLE COASTED TO SHOULDER OF ROAD AND WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. POWERTRAIN LIGHT WENT OUT UPON RESTARTING. VEHICLE INSPECTION AT FORD DEALER REVEALED NO PROBLEM…

Read full complaint

DRIVER WAS ACCELERATING AT 35 MPH AND 2010 FORD ESCAPE ENGINE BECAME NON-RESPONSIVE. ATTEMPTS TO PRESS THE ACCELERATOR WERE UNPRODUCTIVE. POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. VEHICLE COASTED TO SHOULDER OF ROAD AND WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. POWERTRAIN LIGHT WENT OUT UPON RESTARTING. VEHICLE INSPECTION AT FORD DEALER REVEALED NO PROBLEMS. THREE DAYS ALTER, SAME INCIDENT HAPPENED WITH A DIFFERENT DRIVER. THE EXPERIENCE WAS DESCRIBED AS THE GAS PEDAL BEING DISENGAGED FROM THE ENGINE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10463859

57,000 miles · Jun 28, 2012
Power Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A POPPING SOUND IN THE TRANSMISSION WHENEVER HE WOULD SHIFT GEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND ADVISED THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 57,0…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A POPPING SOUND IN THE TRANSMISSION WHENEVER HE WOULD SHIFT GEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND ADVISED THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 57,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 117,000.

NHTSA ODI #10463435

42,000 miles · Jun 22, 2012
EnginePower TrainUnknown Or Other

I WAS GOING APPROX. 30 - 35 MPH AND MY CAR STARTED JERKING AND SPUTTERING AS IF IT WERE OUT OF GAS THEN JUST DIED IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. MY HUSBAND HAD TO PUSH ME ACROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC TO A STATION WHERE WE BOUGHT GAS. THE CAR STARTED RIGHT UP SO WE WENT CONTINUED ON WITH OUR BUSINESS. WE GOT ON THE INTERSTATE…

Read full complaint

I WAS GOING APPROX. 30 - 35 MPH AND MY CAR STARTED JERKING AND SPUTTERING AS IF IT WERE OUT OF GAS THEN JUST DIED IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. MY HUSBAND HAD TO PUSH ME ACROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC TO A STATION WHERE WE BOUGHT GAS. THE CAR STARTED RIGHT UP SO WE WENT CONTINUED ON WITH OUR BUSINESS. WE GOT ON THE INTERSTATE AND WAS GOING ABOUT 65 MPH AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED. I GOT IT ON THE SHOULDER AND IT DIED AGAIN SO WE CALLED THE EXTENDED WARRANTY CO. (WHICH CHARGED ME AN ADDITIONAL $200 DEDUCTIBLE ON TOP OF THE COST OF THE WARRANTY) AND THEY HAD IT TOWED TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE. MY SISTER HAS THE SAME CAR (ONLY A YEAR NEWER) AND THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED TO HER WHILE SHE WAS ON VACATION IN INDIANA. IN RESEARCHING THE INCIDENT WE DISCOVERED THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM IN THE ESCAPE. THE MECHANIC AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE SHE HAD HER CAR TOWED TO MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR TWO YEARS FOR A RECALL ON THIS PART. IF THIS IS A COMMON ISSUE THEN WHY HASN'T FORD ISSUED A RECALL (RECALL EVEN A FORD MECHANIC IS WAITING FOR)? IN RESEARCHING WE ALSO DISCOVERED ANOTHER ISSUED WITH THE BACK WINDOW EXPLODING. I DO NOT FEE SAFE DRIVNG MY ESCAPE (WHICH I ABSOLUTELY LOVE). I AM READY TO TRADE IT IN <SIGH>. OH, AND THE MECHANIC ALSO SAID THE PART HE REPLACED WAS THE EXACT SAME PART AS THE ONE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE CAR. WHEN ASKED WHAT IS TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN AND HE SAID "NOTHING BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME PART". SO, THEY TOOK A DEFAULTED PART OUT AND REPLACED IT WITH ANOTHER DEFAULTED PART. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHY A RECALL HASN'T BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PART. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10462744

28,000 miles · Jun 19, 2012
Power Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN SHIFTING INTO DRIVE, THE VEHICLE WOULD JERK ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE SENSORS AND TRANSMISSION WOULD NEED REPROGRAMMING. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD SHIFT EXTREMELY HARD AND WOULD …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN SHIFTING INTO DRIVE, THE VEHICLE WOULD JERK ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE SENSORS AND TRANSMISSION WOULD NEED REPROGRAMMING. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD SHIFT EXTREMELY HARD AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AFTER THE REPAIRS. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER WHERE THE DEALER REPROGRAMMED THE SENSORS AND TRANSMISSION AGAIN, BUT TO NO AVAIL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND STATED THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO TO ASSIST. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 28,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 35,151.

NHTSA ODI #10462340

2,800 miles · Jun 6, 2012
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40-50 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE THEN IDLED AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OVER 15 MPH. THE FAILURE WAS EXPERIENCED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER TO HAVE A DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWA…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40-50 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE THEN IDLED AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OVER 15 MPH. THE FAILURE WAS EXPERIENCED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER TO HAVE A DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE WAS APPROXIMATELY 2,800 UPDATED 7/9/12 *CN THE DEALER DETERMINED THE PROBLEM WAS A FAULTY ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. UPDATED 07/10/12

NHTSA ODI #10460744

32,700 miles · May 14, 2012
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

I TOOK MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE 4 CYLINDER AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION 2WD VEHICLE IN DUE TO THE NHTSA RECALL NOTICE FOR THE TRANSMISSION. EVEN BEFORE I GOT THE RECALL NOTICE I NOTICED THAT 1 TIME OUT OF 10 WHEN I ENGAGED MY CAR FROM PARK TO DRIVE THAT THE CAR WOULD SHAKE VIOLENTLY ( LIKE, SOMEONE JUST HIT MY CAR WITH THEIR CAR ). IN ADD…

Read full complaint

I TOOK MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE 4 CYLINDER AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION 2WD VEHICLE IN DUE TO THE NHTSA RECALL NOTICE FOR THE TRANSMISSION. EVEN BEFORE I GOT THE RECALL NOTICE I NOTICED THAT 1 TIME OUT OF 10 WHEN I ENGAGED MY CAR FROM PARK TO DRIVE THAT THE CAR WOULD SHAKE VIOLENTLY ( LIKE, SOMEONE JUST HIT MY CAR WITH THEIR CAR ). IN ADDITION, OFTEN, I WOULD NOTICE THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SWITCH GEARS IN A CLEAN AND PROPER FASHION. SO, WHEN I GOT THE RECALL NOTICE, I THOUGHT THIS WILL BE FIXED. AFTER GETTING THE CAR BACK FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEM SAYING NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE AND THE MY CAR WAS NOT EFFECTED BY THE RECALL, I STILL HAD THESE SAME ISSUES ALL THE WHILE. WELL, ON MAY 8, I WAS DRIVING HOME AND THE "WRENCH" LIGHT (POWERTRAIN FAULT INDICATED/DETECTED ! ) CAME ON THE DISPLAY/INSTRUMENT PANEL. IN ADDITION, I NOTICED THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS ALSO NOT RUNNING THAT WELL. I TOOK IT INTO THE DEALERSHIP AND DROPPED IT OFF RIGHT AWAY THAT NIGHT. IT HAS BEEN 5 DAYS AND THE WORK IS STILL NOT DONE. MY SERVICE ADVISOR TELLS ME THAT IT IS THE VALVE BODY THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. HE SAID PERHAPS ON WEDNESDAY IT WILL BE DONE. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10458462

864 miles · Mar 6, 2012
Power TrainFire

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TO SHIFT INTO SECOND GEAR AND SUDDENLY, THERE WAS HESITATION AND A VIOLENT JERKING MOTION. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND REPAIRED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 10V222000 …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TO SHIFT INTO SECOND GEAR AND SUDDENLY, THERE WAS HESITATION AND A VIOLENT JERKING MOTION. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND REPAIRED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 10V222000 (POWER TRAIN: AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION) YET, THE FAILURE CONTINUED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER TWICE. THE TRANSMISSION VALVE BODY WAS REPLACED ON ONE OCCASION AND THE BURNED CLUTCH AND TRANSMISSION DRUMS WERE REPLACED AT A DIFFERENT TIME. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED FOR THE MOST RECENT TRANSMISSION FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 864.

NHTSA ODI #10450461

1,200 miles · Jan 24, 2012
Power Train

THE VEHICLE JERK AND LUNGES AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS. SHIFTS HARD DURING HIGHWAY DRIVING AND LUNGES AND JERKS VERY VIOLENTLY DURING TAKE-OFF AT RANDOM TIMES. THIS VEHICLES HAS BEEN TAKEN BACK TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS WITH NO SUCCESS FOR REPAIR. EVEN MORE AGGRAVATING IS THAT WHEN TAKEN TO THE DEA…

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE JERK AND LUNGES AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS. SHIFTS HARD DURING HIGHWAY DRIVING AND LUNGES AND JERKS VERY VIOLENTLY DURING TAKE-OFF AT RANDOM TIMES. THIS VEHICLES HAS BEEN TAKEN BACK TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS WITH NO SUCCESS FOR REPAIR. EVEN MORE AGGRAVATING IS THAT WHEN TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR THEY EXPECT YOU TO REPLACE THE GAS IN THE LOANER WHICH IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO AS NICE OF A CAR THAT YOU ARE HAVING REPAIRED YET THEY DO NOT REPLACE YOUR GAS OUT OF YOUR CAR. VERY FRUSTRATING. THE MECHANICS ACT LIKE THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE AND HAVE TRIED VARIOUS THINGS TO FIX IT TO NO AVAIL. SOMETIMES THE VEHICLE JERKS SO HARD IT GIVES YOU WHIPLASH. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10445066

12,000 miles · Nov 2, 2011
Power Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SHIFT INTO GEAR. ONCE THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE INTO GEAR, IT THEN SHIFTED INTO NEUTRAL VIOLENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER SEVERAL TIMES WHO REFLASHED THE CONTROLLER AND REPLACED THE TRANSMISSION VALVE BODY IN ORDER …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SHIFT INTO GEAR. ONCE THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE INTO GEAR, IT THEN SHIFTED INTO NEUTRAL VIOLENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER SEVERAL TIMES WHO REFLASHED THE CONTROLLER AND REPLACED THE TRANSMISSION VALVE BODY IN ORDER TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THE REMEDY FAILED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 12,000.

NHTSA ODI #10434026

28,000 miles · Nov 1, 2011
Power Train

THE LEFT FRONT AXLE SEAL BEGAN LEAKING FLUID. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10433752

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