← 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

Unknown Or Other complaints

93 reports
Clear category filter
30,300 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainUnknown Or Other

WAS DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY AT 70-75 MPH. SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND CAR STARTED TO VIBRATE. WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER WITHOUT INCIDENT BUT COULD HAVE BEEN A BAD ACCIDENT AS I WAS IN THE PASSING LANE. ONCE I PULLED OVER I NOTICE THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON WHICH INDICATES A POWERTRAIN PROBLEM. THE DEALER STATES THAT IT'S THE ELECTRONIC T…

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY AT 70-75 MPH. SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND CAR STARTED TO VIBRATE. WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER WITHOUT INCIDENT BUT COULD HAVE BEEN A BAD ACCIDENT AS I WAS IN THE PASSING LANE. ONCE I PULLED OVER I NOTICE THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON WHICH INDICATES A POWERTRAIN PROBLEM. THE DEALER STATES THAT IT'S THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THIS VEHICLE HAD A SIMILAR PROBLEM ABOUT A YEAR AGO. THE THROTTLE CONTROL MODULE HAD TO BE REPLACED. FORTUNATELY AT THAT TIME THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. WITH THIS INCIDENT THE CAR IS OVER WARRANTY BY 300 MILES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537230

59,500 miles · Jul 31, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other

THE CAR HAS TWICE THIS PAST WEEK STALLED WHILE IN MOTION. ONCE AT 55 MPH ONCE AT 65 MPH. I HAD TO STOP, PULL OVER ON ROAD SIDE. PLACE IN PARK. THEN RESTART. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10532814

49,542 miles · Jul 22, 2013
EngineUnknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control

MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS AN INTERMITTENT ISSUE WHERE THE ACCELERATOR STOPS WORKING, THE ENGINE WRENCH ALERT COMES ON, THE ENGINE IS STILL RUNNING. WHEN THIS OCCURS THE VEHICLE HAS BASICALLY STALLED, IN THAT YOU CAN'T ACCELERATE ONLY SLOW DOWN OR COAST. AFTER THE PROBLEM OCCURS YOU MUST TURN THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAIT A FEW MINUTES,…

Read full complaint

MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS AN INTERMITTENT ISSUE WHERE THE ACCELERATOR STOPS WORKING, THE ENGINE WRENCH ALERT COMES ON, THE ENGINE IS STILL RUNNING. WHEN THIS OCCURS THE VEHICLE HAS BASICALLY STALLED, IN THAT YOU CAN'T ACCELERATE ONLY SLOW DOWN OR COAST. AFTER THE PROBLEM OCCURS YOU MUST TURN THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAIT A FEW MINUTES, THEN IT WILL USUALLY START UP AND THE ACCELERATOR WILL FUNCTION AGAIN. THIS PROBLEM HAS HAPPENED PROBABLY A DOZEN TIMES SINCE IT STARTED, WE USUALLY JUST PULL OVER AND TURN VEHICLE OFF/ON, YESTERDAY THE PROBLEM NEARLY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT THOUGH AS MY SON WAS PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT INTO TRAFFIC AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10526154

200,000 miles · Jun 17, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other

PURCHASED MAY 30, 2012....LESS THAN ONE MONTH LATER, I WAS DRIVING ONTO A RAMP AND COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE CAR JUST STOPPED BUT I COULD STEER SO I WAS ABLE TO PULL IT OVER. A STATE POLICEMAN CAME BY AND I SAID I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH MY MECHANIC. APPARENTLY, THE COMPUTER HAD SHUT DOWN AND THE ISSUE MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THE KEY I…

Read full complaint

PURCHASED MAY 30, 2012....LESS THAN ONE MONTH LATER, I WAS DRIVING ONTO A RAMP AND COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE CAR JUST STOPPED BUT I COULD STEER SO I WAS ABLE TO PULL IT OVER. A STATE POLICEMAN CAME BY AND I SAID I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH MY MECHANIC. APPARENTLY, THE COMPUTER HAD SHUT DOWN AND THE ISSUE MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THE KEY I WAS USING WAS NOT PROGRAMMED?. I FOLLOWED STEPS TO PROGRAM KEYS AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE FOR MONTHS UNTIL THIS PAST APRIL, 2013. DRIVING ALONG ON A MAIN ROAD, THE CAR DID IT AGAIN. COULD STEER IT BUT COULD NOT REPAIR SAME WAY AS BEFORE. I KNOW COMPUTERS AND SAY THAT WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, DISCONNECT IT. SO WE DISCONNECTED BATTERY AND WERE ABLE TO START CAR AND GET HOME BUT THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN WHEN ARRIVING AT MY HOUSE. OF COURSE THE WARRANTY RAN OUT BACK IN FEBRUARY. MY MECHANIC COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM AND THEREFORE DID NOT KNOW WHY IT HAPPENED. I DO REGULAR MAINTENANCE THAT IS REQUIRED AND TAKE CARE OF THE CAR. I ALSO KEEP A LOG. IT HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES SINCE, YESTERDAY AND TODAY, JUNE 17, 2013. I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL COMPLAINTS ONLINE ABOUT A SIMILAR PROBLEM WITH THE SAME MAKE, MODEL AND YEAR. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM. THE CAR WAS PURCHASED USED AND WAS TWO YEARS OLD. THE PREVIOUS DRIVER DID NOT HAVE IT FOR VERY LONG BEFORE TURNING IT IN. I ASKED FOR THE CAR FACTS FROM THE DEALERSHIP AND THE CAR WAS BROUGHT IN SEVERAL TIMES WITH NO REPAIRS DONE. NOT EVEN SURE IF THEY WERE THE ACTUAL CAR FACTS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10520163

51,300 miles · Jun 12, 2013
Unknown Or Other

I STARTED MY CAR FROM A PARKING SPOT AND BEGAN TO CLIMB A SMALL HILL. THE CAR SPUTTERED, SURGED FORWARD AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I PULLED OVER, SWITCHED OFF THE IGNITION AND WAITED A FEW MOMENTS. I RESTARTED THE CAR, BEGAN TO MOVE FORWARD AGAIN AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED, SPUTTERING, SURGING FORWARD, NO ACCELERATION. I PUL…

Read full complaint

I STARTED MY CAR FROM A PARKING SPOT AND BEGAN TO CLIMB A SMALL HILL. THE CAR SPUTTERED, SURGED FORWARD AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I PULLED OVER, SWITCHED OFF THE IGNITION AND WAITED A FEW MOMENTS. I RESTARTED THE CAR, BEGAN TO MOVE FORWARD AGAIN AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED, SPUTTERING, SURGING FORWARD, NO ACCELERATION. I PULLED OVER, TURNED THE CAR OFF, NOTICING THAT THE DASH HAD A WRENCH WARNING LIGHT LIT. I CALLED AAA FOR A TOW. IT WAS TAKEN TO THE CLOSEST FORD DEALERSHIP, JOEL CONFER FORD IN BELLEFONTE, PA. IT WAS AFTER CLOSING TIME SO I WASN'T ABLE TO TALK TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY. I WAS INFORMED THAT THE CAR NEEDED A PART CALLED A THROTTLE BODY, BUT THEY HAD NONE IN STOCK. I HAD SEVERAL PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SERVICE WRITER, OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS, AND WAS TOLD THE PART WAS NOT AVAILABLE NATIONWIDE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE "MANUFACTURED" AND WOULD BE QUALITY CONTROL TESTED, AND THIS MAY TAKE SOME TIME. IT HAS BEEN EIGHT DAYS THAT MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS BEEN AT THE DEALER FOR REPAIR. TODAY, 6/12/12, I WAS TOLD THAT THIS IS A PART THAT IS IN HIGH DEMAND, AND ONCE THEY ARE "MANUFACTURED", WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS (I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS DETERMINED). I SEARCHED THE INTERNET TODAY AND COME TO FIND OUT THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING ISSUE AND THE NHTSA HAS LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION. IN ORDER TO BRING THIS MATTER TO FORD'S ATTENTION SO THAT A RECALL COULD BE ISSUED, I WAS TO FILE THIS COMPLAINT. I BOUGHT MY CAR BRAND NEW WITH 10 MILES ON IT AND IT WAS OVER $30K DOLLARS. I BOUGHT AN EXTENDED WARRANTY AND I SO THANKFUL I DID - THIS WILL BE CHARGED TO MY DEDUCTIBLE $100. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR FORD TO TURN THEIR BACKS ON CONSUMERS AND FAIL TO ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED, BEFORE SOMEONE GETS SERIOUSLY INJURED. FAILED COMPONENT: ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY.

NHTSA ODI #10520302

55,000 miles · Jun 4, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other

ENGINE LOST POWER AND COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. TOWED TO DEALER, KEYSER MILLER FORD, 8 EAST MAIN ST., COLLEGEVILLE, PA 19426. THEY STATED THE PROBLEM WAS THE "THROTTLE BODY", AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THEY SAID IT WAS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE ESCAPES. PARTS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10515104

75,000 miles · Apr 3, 2013
Unknown Or Other

WE UNLOADED THE VEHICLE AND WHEN MY DAUGHTER THEN SHUT THE HATCH (NOT JUST THE GLASS) AND IT EXPLODED EVERYWHERE. NOBODY WAS INJURED BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY BAD WITH ALL THREE OF MY GIRLS STANDING THERE. THE ONLY INFORMATION I RECEIVED FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP AS WELL AS THE FORD CORPORATION IS THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS O…

Read full complaint

WE UNLOADED THE VEHICLE AND WHEN MY DAUGHTER THEN SHUT THE HATCH (NOT JUST THE GLASS) AND IT EXPLODED EVERYWHERE. NOBODY WAS INJURED BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY BAD WITH ALL THREE OF MY GIRLS STANDING THERE. THE ONLY INFORMATION I RECEIVED FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP AS WELL AS THE FORD CORPORATION IS THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS ON MY VEHICLE. I JUST BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE SO THAT I COULD HAVE SOMETHING SAFE TO TRANSPORT MY GIRLS IN AND NOW THAT I'VE HAD IT FIXED I'M AFRAID TO EVEN OPEN IT AGAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10505527

Mileage unknown · Jan 24, 2013
Unknown Or Other

WHILE PARKED I SHUT THE BACK HATCH AS NORMAL. UPON SHUTTING THE GLASS EXPLODED SHATTERING THROWING GLASS EVERYWHERE INCLUDING COVERING MYSELF, MY SMALL CHILD SITTING IN THE CAR, AND ACROSS THE ENTIRE STREET.

NHTSA ODI #10495481

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

2,000 miles · Jul 25, 2011
Unknown Or Other

NEW 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT, 4 CYLINDER, WAS PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER, 2010. DURING LATE OCTOBER, 2010, A NOISE BECAME EVIDENT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. THE NOISE SOUNDS LIKE A BRIEF RUBBING NOISE. WEATHER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A FACTOR. THE VEHICLE WAS EXAMINED AT LEAST TWICE BY THE DEALER WHO DENIED HEARING THE NOIS…

Read full complaint

NEW 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT, 4 CYLINDER, WAS PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER, 2010. DURING LATE OCTOBER, 2010, A NOISE BECAME EVIDENT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. THE NOISE SOUNDS LIKE A BRIEF RUBBING NOISE. WEATHER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A FACTOR. THE VEHICLE WAS EXAMINED AT LEAST TWICE BY THE DEALER WHO DENIED HEARING THE NOISE AND DETERMINED IT WAS NOT A SAFETY CONCERN. ONE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE DEALER IS THAT IT COULD BE THE RESULT OF THE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE THE DRIVER USES ON THE GAS AND BREAK PEDALS. THE NOISE HAS OCCURRED WITH VARIOUS DRIVERS, SO I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DEALERS EXPLANATION. THE NOISE CONTINUES AS OF THIS DATE.

NHTSA ODI #10415910

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