← 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
76,000 miles · Jan 5, 2015
Power TrainSteering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN AT 15 MPH ON A HILL, THE VEHICLE HESITATED BEFORE SHIFTING INTO DRIVE. TWO MONTHS LATER, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (S…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN AT 15 MPH ON A HILL, THE VEHICLE HESITATED BEFORE SHIFTING INTO DRIVE. TWO MONTHS LATER, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) AND HAD BEEN REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 76,000.

NHTSA ODI #10670091

95,000 miles · Dec 10, 2014
Power TrainService BrakesSteering

I WAS DRIVING ON A SERVICE ROAD AND WAS ENTERING THE FREEWAY WHEN THE TRANSMISSION STARTED SLIPPING. THIS CAUSED MY VEHICLE TO START JERKING. THE VEHICLE BEHIND ME ALMOST RAN OVER ME AS I WAS LOOSING SPEED DUE TO THE TRANSMISSION SLIPPING. I MANAGED TO PULL OVER AND AFTER A COUPLE OF MINUTES THE TRANSMISSION STARTED WORKING A…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON A SERVICE ROAD AND WAS ENTERING THE FREEWAY WHEN THE TRANSMISSION STARTED SLIPPING. THIS CAUSED MY VEHICLE TO START JERKING. THE VEHICLE BEHIND ME ALMOST RAN OVER ME AS I WAS LOOSING SPEED DUE TO THE TRANSMISSION SLIPPING. I MANAGED TO PULL OVER AND AFTER A COUPLE OF MINUTES THE TRANSMISSION STARTED WORKING AGAIN AND I WAS ABLE TO PICK UP SPEED AND CONTINUE DRIVING. THIS INCIDENT ALSO CAUSED MY BRAKING AND STEERING TO BE ERRATIC. THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES ON DEC 9, 2014. THIS IS UNSAFE AS IT NEARLY CAUSED A MAJOR ACCIDENT IN HEAVY TRAFFIC GOING SOUTH ON INTERSTATE 35 OUT OF AUSTIN. BY MY ESTIMATION THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FEWER THAN 5 TO 6 VEHICLES INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT HAD I NOT MANAGED TO PULL OVER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10663327

50,000 miles · Nov 30, 2014
Power Train

TRANSMISSION STARTED JERKING ,THEN IT WOULD NOT MOVE NO GEAR WORKED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10661356

55,000 miles · Nov 14, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

IMMEDIATELY AFTER HAVING TWO ITEMS FIXED THAT WERE RECALLED ON MY VEHICLE, (THROTTLE BODY ETC), THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING DONE WHILE FIXING RECALL ITEMS; HOWEVER, THE FORD DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPT ADVISED ME THAT IT WAS NOT DUE TO THE RECALL ITEMS FIXED. ALSO IT WOULD COST $527.00 TO FIX, AS THE…

Read full complaint

IMMEDIATELY AFTER HAVING TWO ITEMS FIXED THAT WERE RECALLED ON MY VEHICLE, (THROTTLE BODY ETC), THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING DONE WHILE FIXING RECALL ITEMS; HOWEVER, THE FORD DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPT ADVISED ME THAT IT WAS NOT DUE TO THE RECALL ITEMS FIXED. ALSO IT WOULD COST $527.00 TO FIX, AS THE FLAP INSIDE THE NOZZLE/FLEX FUEL PIPE WAS NOT CLOSING PROPERLY. I SHOWED MY ANGER AND DISAPPOINTMENT - WHICH AT THAT POINT, THE SERVICE MANAGER ADVISED THAT MY CAR HAD A WHITE FUNNEL THAT THEY WOULD USE TO TRY TO UNDO THE FLAP. IT WORKED. WHY IN THE WORLD DID THEY TRY TO GET ME TO PAY $527 WITHOUT FIRST TRYING THE FUNNEL. ANOTHER CLIENT IN THE SERVICE DEPT ADVISED ME TO DO THE FUNNEL THING BEFORE THE SERVICE GUY DID. HE HAS HAD THE SAME ISSUES. AS OF THIS MORNING, HOWEVER, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ON AGAIN. I AM GOING TO TRY THE FUNNEL FIRST, BEFORE I TAKE IT TO MY PERSONAL MECHANIC. I FEEL ASSURED THAT I AM NOT THE FIRST FORD ESCAPE 2010 OWNER THAT HAS EXPERIENCED THIS ISSUE. PLEASE CHECK INTO RECALLING THIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10654925

80,500 miles · Oct 21, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

I HAVE HAD THE TWO RECALLS FIXED IN JULY FOR MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. HOWEVER, IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS MY CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP REGARDING THE (WRENCH LIGHT) THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN LIGHT COMING ON. MY CAR LOOSES POWER WHEN I ACCELERATE AND THE LIGHT COMES ON. IT GOES OFF ONCE I TURN OFF THE CAR WHICH IS MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR…

Read full complaint

I HAVE HAD THE TWO RECALLS FIXED IN JULY FOR MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. HOWEVER, IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS MY CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP REGARDING THE (WRENCH LIGHT) THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN LIGHT COMING ON. MY CAR LOOSES POWER WHEN I ACCELERATE AND THE LIGHT COMES ON. IT GOES OFF ONCE I TURN OFF THE CAR WHICH IS MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE DEALERSHIP TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM. THEY CLAIM THEY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING AND UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T GET THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP WHEN THE LIGHT IS ON. THEY HAVE RUN A HISTORY FOR THE CODES THAT HAVE COME UP ON THE CAR, BUT THERE ARE NO RECENT CODES/PROBLEMS. I KEEP TELLING THEM THAT I AM HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS LISTED IN THE FORD RECALL NOTICE BUT I AM TOLD THAT THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO IF THERE IS NO CODE SHOWING A PROBLEM. I AM TERRIFIED TO DRIVE MY SON IN THIS CAR. I ALSO COMMUTE 100 MILES DAILY DOWN A VERY BUSY HIGHWAY AND I AM WORRIED THAT THE CAR WILL DIE AND I WON'T BE ABLE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD SAFELY. FORD NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WITH THE ESCAPE HAS NOT BEEN FIXED! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10649194

114,000 miles · Oct 18, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND THE VEHICLE LURCHED AND LOST POWER. THE MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT WHEN PUSHING THE ACCELERATOR THERE WAS NOTHING. I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND STOPPED. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO "LOPE" AND THERE WAS A LIGHT ON THE DASH SHOWING A LITTLE WRENCH. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND STARTED IT…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND THE VEHICLE LURCHED AND LOST POWER. THE MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT WHEN PUSHING THE ACCELERATOR THERE WAS NOTHING. I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND STOPPED. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO "LOPE" AND THERE WAS A LIGHT ON THE DASH SHOWING A LITTLE WRENCH. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND STARTED IT BACK UP AGAIN, AND IT RAN FINE. THIS SAME THING HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST 4 MORE TIMES. IF THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE WAY TO GET OFF THE HIGHWAY, THIS COULD BE VERY DANGEROUS RESULTING IN A REAR END COLLISION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10648571

27,600 miles · Oct 13, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

MY FAMILY AND I WERE TRAVELING HWY 113 IN VA COMING BACK TO PA FROM NC. MY HUSBAND ACCELERATED TO PASS A VEHICLE. AFTER PASSING, OUR VEHICLE BEGAN LOSING ACCELERATION...MY HUSBAND PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND WAS NOT GETTING ANY ACCELERATION. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND WE HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY STOP ON THE SIDE …

Read full complaint

MY FAMILY AND I WERE TRAVELING HWY 113 IN VA COMING BACK TO PA FROM NC. MY HUSBAND ACCELERATED TO PASS A VEHICLE. AFTER PASSING, OUR VEHICLE BEGAN LOSING ACCELERATION...MY HUSBAND PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND WAS NOT GETTING ANY ACCELERATION. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND WE HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY WHILE CARS WERE PASSING US AND COMING UP ON US QUICKLY. WE CAME TO A STOP AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO STALL. MY HUSBAND SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF, WAITING A MINUTE AND RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO RUN FINE THE REST OF THE WAY TO PA. WE CALLED THE DEALERSHIP THE FOLLOWING DAY (MONDAY) AND WERE TOLD THEY COULD NOT GET THE VEHICLE IN UNTIL 8/4. I BEGAN FINDING INFO ON THE WEB REGARDING FORD'S CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM 13N03 REGARDING THE THROTTLE BODY. I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN AND WAS TOLD THERE WERE NOT ANY CODES SHOWING ON THE COMPUTER. THEY REFUSED TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. I WAS TOLD TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AND IF IT HAPPENED AGAIN TO BRING IT BACK. I REFUSED AND INSISTED THEY REPLACE IT. I AM NOW STILL FIGHTING WITH FORD TO REIMBURSE ME. I HAVE SENT LETTERS TO FORD ONLY TO RECEIVE A "FORM LETTER" BACK FROM THEM SUGGESTING THAT I TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP TO DETERMINE IF THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS REPLACEMENT...I HAD IT REPLACED ALREADY...THEY OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ LETTERS SENT TO THEM. I WILL KEEP FIGHTING BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE NHTSA CONTINUES TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT. IT IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE! SHAME ON FORD AND THE NHTSA! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10644250

63,468 miles · Oct 6, 2014
EnginePower Train

CONCERN 25 & 51 - VEHICLE LEAKING OIL AND GREASE FROM ENGINE/TRANSAXLE AREA. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10641788

82,000 miles · Oct 1, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WHILE DRIVING ON 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT HIGHWAY, THE VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING SUDDENLY APPEARED TO DOWNSHIFT DROPPING MY SPEED APPROX. BY 20 MPH, THEN LURCHED AT 50 MPH UNTIL I PULLED OFF ON THE SHOULDER. THIS WAS ON A UNLIT STRETCH OF HIGHWAY AND WAS VERY DANGEROUS. I TRIED AGAIN TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE WITH THE SAME RESULTS, MEANW…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT HIGHWAY, THE VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING SUDDENLY APPEARED TO DOWNSHIFT DROPPING MY SPEED APPROX. BY 20 MPH, THEN LURCHED AT 50 MPH UNTIL I PULLED OFF ON THE SHOULDER. THIS WAS ON A UNLIT STRETCH OF HIGHWAY AND WAS VERY DANGEROUS. I TRIED AGAIN TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE WITH THE SAME RESULTS, MEANWHILE THE DASHBOARD WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON. I THEN PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES. WHEN IT RESTARTED THE WARNING LIGHTS WERE OFF AND THE CAR DROVE NORMALLY. WITH ABOUT A HOUR LEFT ON THE TRIP, THE CAR STARTED TO DOWNSHIFT AND UPSHIFT RANDOMLY AS I REDUCED MY SPEED TO ABOUT 40 MPH ON A 70 MPH HIGHWAY, WHICH IS VERY UNSAFE, SO THAT I COULD MAKE IT HOME. THE LAST TIME I HAD MY OIL CHANGED, THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN SUGGESTED THAT I CHANGE THE TRANSMISSION FLUID. I FELT LIKE THE OLD FLUID MAY HAVE BEEN THE REASON WHY MY CAR SHIFTED IN AN ERRATIC MANNER. SO, I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MY LOCAL FORD DEALER FOR THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE. THIS WAS ON JULY 21, 2014. IT WAS A ABOUT WEEK LATER, THAT THE VEHICLE BEGAN LURCHING AGAIN. THIS TIME I DECIDED TO TRY A FULL TANK OF GAS WITH CLEANER TO SEE IF THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE. IT DIDN'T. FINALLY, I MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH A REPAIR SHOP TO FIX IT ON AUG 18, 2014. THEY WERE THE ONES THAT TOLD ME THE FUEL THROTTLE BODY WAS BAD AND THAT'S WHEN I GOOGLED AND FOUND THE EXTENDED WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED ON JULY 31, 2014. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR THIS PART, NOT JUST A BANDAID TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE NHTSA WAS CONCERNED. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND ALSO AND EXPENSIVE REPAIR AT $400. NHTSA: DO YOUR JOB AND FORCE A RECALL ON THIS PART. YOU KNOW IT IS UNSAFE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10640668

75,000 miles · Sep 29, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING INTO WORK WITH MY CRUISE CONTROL SET AT 60MPH, MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY SPUTTERED AND THE CRUISE CONTROL DISENGAGED AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOSS OF POWER. I REMEMBER THIS DESCRIPTION FROM THE THROTTLE BOTTLE NOTIFICATION I RECEIVED FROM FORD A FEW MONTHS BACK. I HAD TAKEN MY ESCAPE INTO THE DEALERSHIP ON 9/11/14 TO H…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING INTO WORK WITH MY CRUISE CONTROL SET AT 60MPH, MY VEHICLE SUDDENLY SPUTTERED AND THE CRUISE CONTROL DISENGAGED AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOSS OF POWER. I REMEMBER THIS DESCRIPTION FROM THE THROTTLE BOTTLE NOTIFICATION I RECEIVED FROM FORD A FEW MONTHS BACK. I HAD TAKEN MY ESCAPE INTO THE DEALERSHIP ON 9/11/14 TO HAVE THIS TAKEN CARE OFF AND NOW 2 WEEKS LATER MY VEHICLE NOW HAS THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN WARNING LIGHT ON AND IS SHOWING ALL SIGNS OF THE NOTIFICATION FROM FORD. I KNOW THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT NOW I AM QUESTIONING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT FORD IS ACTUALLY FIXING THE PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10639699

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