NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter32,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS OF ENGINE POWER FOLLOWED BY THE ILLUMINATION OF THE ENGINE AND WRENCH SYMBOL WARNING INDICATORS. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED IT FUNCTIONED NORMALLY. THE FAILURE RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS OF ENGINE POWER FOLLOWED BY THE ILLUMINATION OF THE ENGINE AND WRENCH SYMBOL WARNING INDICATORS. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED IT FUNCTIONED NORMALLY. THE FAILURE RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED; HOWEVER, THE PART WAS ON A MASSIVE BACK ORDER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 32,000.
NHTSA ODI #10521828
103,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING THE CAR IT STARTED TO SHAKE AND THE PEDAL OF THE GAS STOP WORKING COMPLETELY THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND ROLLED UNTIL IT STOPPED. ALL VEHICLES BEHIND US STARTED TO BEEP AS WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED. AFTER STOPPING THE CAR WE CHECKED AROUND THE CAR HAD NO ISSUES IN THE ENGINE . WE STARTED AGAIN AND IT WORK …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE CAR IT STARTED TO SHAKE AND THE PEDAL OF THE GAS STOP WORKING COMPLETELY THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND ROLLED UNTIL IT STOPPED. ALL VEHICLES BEHIND US STARTED TO BEEP AS WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED. AFTER STOPPING THE CAR WE CHECKED AROUND THE CAR HAD NO ISSUES IN THE ENGINE . WE STARTED AGAIN AND IT WORK FINE. SINCE THE 1ST ACCIDENT THE SAME THING HAS BEEN HAPPENING AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK AND ONE TIME AT HIGH SPEED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521824
60,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
THE FIRST TIME THE SUV COMPLETELY LOST ACCELERATION AT 45MPH. IT WAS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I WAS ON A BRIDGE & THE EMERGENCY LANE WAS SO NARROW THAT TRAFFIC WAS WITHIN INCHES OF ME. I SAT FOR A WHILE AND THEN RESTARTED THE VEHICLE. I FEEL FORTUNATE TO HAVE MADE IT OFF THE BRIDGE WITHOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT. I MADE AN APPOINTMEN…
Read full complaint
THE FIRST TIME THE SUV COMPLETELY LOST ACCELERATION AT 45MPH. IT WAS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I WAS ON A BRIDGE & THE EMERGENCY LANE WAS SO NARROW THAT TRAFFIC WAS WITHIN INCHES OF ME. I SAT FOR A WHILE AND THEN RESTARTED THE VEHICLE. I FEEL FORTUNATE TO HAVE MADE IT OFF THE BRIDGE WITHOUT BEING IN AN ACCIDENT. I MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH MY DEALERSHIP, BUT BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT DATE I HAD TO MAKE AN EXTENDED TRIP OUT-OF-STATE. THE SECOND TIME IT OCCURRED WAS EVEN WORSE. IT OCCURRED EXACTLY ONE WEEK LATER. I WAS TAKING MY HUSBAND TO THE ATLANTA AIRPORT. LESS THAN 40 MILES OF THE AIRPORT AND WHILE DRIVING 75 MPH, IT COMPLETELY LOST ACCELERATION AGAIN. I WAS ABLE TO STEER THE VEHICLE OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WE SAT FOR A SHORT WHILE. I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE. WE TOOK THE NEXT EXIT AND BARELY MADE IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. AFTER SITTING IN A HOTEL FOR THREE DAYS, WE FINALLY LEARNED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY PART IS NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE! AND TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN LAGRANGE REFUSES TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION AND EXPECTS US TO FOOT THE BILL FOR A 3 WEEK OR LONGER RENTAL CAR (THE PART WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL JULY 2). THE DEALERSHIP WILL NOT EVEN TELL US WHEN WE CAN EXPECT OUR VEHICLE TO BE FIXED! AND THEY EXPECT US TO PAY FOR LABOR AND THE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY, TOO! THIS DEFECTIVE PART IS GOING TO COST US: AN AIRLINE CANCELLATION FEE - $100; 2 NIGHTS OF NON-REFUNDABLE HOTEL ROOMS (I WAS CONTINUING ON FROM ATLANTA TO VISIT A RELATIVE) - $130; 2 ADDITIONAL NIGHTS OF HOTEL IN LAGRANGE $140; RENTAL CAR - $588 (AND WILL BE HIGHER, I'M AFRAID); 2 ADDITIONAL TANKS OF GAS $90 (I HAVE TO RETURN THE RENTAL CAR TO GA FROM FL); THE REPAIR & PART - $500-$600. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR AN OBVIOUSLY DEFECTIVE PART AND WHY A DEALERSHIP WOULD BE SO UNWILLING TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO US FOR A PROBLEM THAT WE DIDN'T CREATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521804
65,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITH THE ILLUMINATION OF THE THROTTLE SENSOR AND CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITH THE ILLUMINATION OF THE THROTTLE SENSOR AND CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 65,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521768
84,700 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TWICE IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS, THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP HOME" MODE COMPLETE WITH WRENCH INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE ENGINE DROPPED AND WOULD NOT COME ABOVE 1000 RPM, AND WOULD ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO LURCH FORWARD AT NO MORE THAN 15-20 MILES PER HOUR. THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED ON 6/24 AT AN INTERSECTION, UPON …
Read full complaint
TWICE IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS, THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP HOME" MODE COMPLETE WITH WRENCH INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE ENGINE DROPPED AND WOULD NOT COME ABOVE 1000 RPM, AND WOULD ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO LURCH FORWARD AT NO MORE THAN 15-20 MILES PER HOUR. THE FIRST INCIDENT OCCURRED ON 6/24 AT AN INTERSECTION, UPON THE LIGHT TURNING GREEN. AS I ACCELERATED TO GO THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, THE VEHICLE DROPPED INTO "LIMP" MODE AND FORCED A LEFT TURN TO PARK AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. DOING SO AND ALLOWING IT TO SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES GOT IT TO RESET AND NOT HAPPEN AGAIN ON MY WAY HOME. THE SECOND OCCURRENCE WAS THE MORNING OF 6/25, IN THE MIDDLE OF I-95 ON MY WAY TO WORK; APPROXIMATE SPEED WAS 55-60 MILES PER HOUR. THANKFULLY, I WAS IN THE FAR RIGHT LANE AND ABLE TO DRIFT TO THE SHOULDER TO REPEAT LAST NIGHT'S PROCEDURE. CONSIDERING THE NEGATIVE PRESS THE "LIMP HOME" MODE AND THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY GET FROM VARIOUS FORUMS RECOUNTING VERY SIMILAR OCCASIONS TO MY OWN EXPERIENCE, THIS NEEDS TO BE A RECALL BEFORE SOMEBODY GETS KILLED! A TSB OR "SUGGESTED SOLUTION" IS NOT ENOUGH! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521734
51,490 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM LOUISVILLE HEADED BACK TO CINCINNATI MY DAUGHTER EXPERIENCED OUR VEHICLE STALLING OUT AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES. SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK HER WAY OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND RESTART THE VEHICLE EACH TIME. HOWEVER THIS WAS VERY SCARY AS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THE SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND SPEED CAUS…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM LOUISVILLE HEADED BACK TO CINCINNATI MY DAUGHTER EXPERIENCED OUR VEHICLE STALLING OUT AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES. SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK HER WAY OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND RESTART THE VEHICLE EACH TIME. HOWEVER THIS WAS VERY SCARY AS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THE SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND SPEED CAUSED TRAFFIC TO ALMOST REAR END HER VEHICLE ON TWO OF THE THREE OCCASIONS. WHEN I CONTACTED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER UPON SAFELY RETURNING HOME THEY MADE IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY AND THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM IN THESE VEHICLES. I WAS ALSO TOLD BY MY SON THAT I NEEDED TO REPORT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM. HE DID A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH AND WAS ABLE TO SEE THE INVESTIGATION INTO THIS ISSUE. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BEFORE THERE IS INNOCENT LOSS OF LIFE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521711
47,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WHILE AT STOP LIGHTS OR WHEN THE CAR WAS JUST IDLING I NOTICE THE CAR WOULD SHAKE/SPUTTER/HESITATE, LIKE IT WAS NOT GETTING ENOUGH FUEL TO THE ENGINE TO IDLE, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE BUT IT DID NOT STALL OUT COMPLETELY IT WOULD RECOVER. THEN WHILE DRIVING HOME ON JUNE 23, 2013 AT 40MPH I TOOK MY FOOT …
Read full complaint
FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WHILE AT STOP LIGHTS OR WHEN THE CAR WAS JUST IDLING I NOTICE THE CAR WOULD SHAKE/SPUTTER/HESITATE, LIKE IT WAS NOT GETTING ENOUGH FUEL TO THE ENGINE TO IDLE, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE BUT IT DID NOT STALL OUT COMPLETELY IT WOULD RECOVER. THEN WHILE DRIVING HOME ON JUNE 23, 2013 AT 40MPH I TOOK MY FOOT OFF OF THE GAS PEDAL FOR A SECOND TO BEGIN TO SLOW DOWN AS I WAS APPROACHING A RED LIGHT, HOWEVER, THE LIGHT CHANGED BEFORE I GOT TO THE INTERSECTION AND THEN THE CAR MADE A SHUTTER/THUD NOT A LOUD SOUND BUT YOU KNEW SOMETHING HAS JUST HAPPENED, I THOUGHT MAYBE MY TRANSMISSION HAD JUST GONE OUT BECAUSE WHEN I WAS PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL IT DID NOT RESPOND. I PUSHED THE PEDAL ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I COULD NOT TELL IF THE CAR REALLY STALLED OUT IT SEEMED MORE LIKE THE GAS PEDAL WAS JUST NOT RESPONDING. I LOST SPEED RAPIDLY AND COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT. THE FIRST TIME I RESTARTED THE CAR THE GAS PEDAL STILL DID NOT WORK BUT THE CAR DID GO INTO GEAR SO I THOUGHT IT MUST NOT BE THE TRANSMISSION. THE SECOND TIME I RESTARTED THE CAR I GAVE THE GAS PEDAL A COUPLE OF PUMPS BEFORE PUTTING INTO GEAR TO MAKE SURE IT WAS RESPONDING THAT WORKED AND I MADE IT HOME. THE CAR DID HESITATE AND SPUTTER WHEN I WAS SITTING STILL AT THE LIGHTS SO I WOULD PUT IT IN PARK AND REV THE ENGINE UNTIL THE LIGHT CHANGED. I TOOK THE CAR TO A FORD DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AND OF COURSE THAT IS AN OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE AS MY WARRANTY IS EXPIRED. HOW MANY OF THESE COMPLAINT HAVE TO BE FILED BEFORE FORD HAS TO ADMIT THIS IS THERE FAULT FOR PUTTING FAULTY THROTTLE BODIES IN THESE CARS AND ISSUES A RECALL ? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521659
38,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING ABOUT 60MPH ON IN MOUNTAINS OF MARYLAND, 3HRS FROM HOME WHEN VEHICLE STARTED TO HESITATE AND THEN I HAD NO POWER AT ALL EVEN THOUGH I WAS DEPRESSING PEDAL. SEEMED TO BE IDLING AND COASTING. WAS NEARLY REAR ENDED....PULLED OVER TO EMERG LANE QUITE SHAKEN UP VEHICLE WAS IDLING VARY ROUGH. WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON. SHUT OFF …
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING ABOUT 60MPH ON IN MOUNTAINS OF MARYLAND, 3HRS FROM HOME WHEN VEHICLE STARTED TO HESITATE AND THEN I HAD NO POWER AT ALL EVEN THOUGH I WAS DEPRESSING PEDAL. SEEMED TO BE IDLING AND COASTING. WAS NEARLY REAR ENDED....PULLED OVER TO EMERG LANE QUITE SHAKEN UP VEHICLE WAS IDLING VARY ROUGH. WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON. SHUT OFF VEHICLE, WAITED ABOUT 10MIN. THEN RESTARTED LIGHT WAS OFF. BOOK IDICATED POWERTRAIN OR THROTTLE ISSUE. WAS ABLE TO DRIVE FOR ABOUT 20-30 MINUTES THEN SAME THING OCCURED. THIS HAPPENED ABOUT 4 TIMES. MADE IT TO A DEALER AND HAD SOMEONE PICK ME UP. 38000 MILES ON THE VEHICLE - ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THIS PART TO FAIL. HAD REGULAER MAINTANANCE AND EVEN HAD THROTTLE BODY CLEANED AND REPROGRAM DONE AS PART OF A TECHNICAIN BULLETIN. PART HAS BEEN BACK ORDERED FOR 3 WEEKS. STILL NO VEHICLE. THERE IS A DEFINITE VEHICLE SAFETY ISSUE HERE. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE KILLED IN AN ACCIDENT BY LOSING ALL POWER IN THE MIDDLE OF DRIVING. THIS IS A DEFECTIVE PART THAT FORD NEEDS TO RECALL AND ADDRESS IMMEDIATELY!!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521655
37,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING 60MPH ON HIGHWAY WHEN FORD ESCAPE BUCKED, SLOWED, DID NOT ACCELERATE WHEN GAS WAS APPLIED. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD WHERE ENGINE SPUTTERED AND DIED. RESTARTED TRUCK, DROVE ANOTHER 10 MILES WHEN SAME OCCURRED. THIS HAS OCCURRED NUMEROUS TIMES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. I ASSUMED I HAD BOUGHT GAS WITH WATER IN IT "BAD GAS". …
Read full complaint
DRIVING 60MPH ON HIGHWAY WHEN FORD ESCAPE BUCKED, SLOWED, DID NOT ACCELERATE WHEN GAS WAS APPLIED. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD WHERE ENGINE SPUTTERED AND DIED. RESTARTED TRUCK, DROVE ANOTHER 10 MILES WHEN SAME OCCURRED. THIS HAS OCCURRED NUMEROUS TIMES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. I ASSUMED I HAD BOUGHT GAS WITH WATER IN IT "BAD GAS". SEVERAL TIMES I HAVE USED A PRODUCT TO REMOVE WATER FROM THE GAS, THIS ONLY WORKS SOMETIMES. I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT WITH FORD ON JULY 5TH, I BELIEVE ITS ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE ECOBOOST ENGINE IN MY SUV. FORD SHOULD RECALL THIS ENGINE BEFORE A FATALITY OCCURS, I HAVE VISIONS OF SOMEONE PLOWING INTO THE BACK OF MY VEHICLE WHILE MY ENGINE STALLS UNEXPECTEDLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521621
50,000 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
FOR A COUPLE WEEKS PREVIOUS TO THE FINAL INCIDENT, WHILE COMING TO A STOP, THE CAR WOULD STUTTER THEN TURN OFF...ONE TIME WHILE DRIVING 80MPH ON THE HIGHWAY. THE FINAL TIME I WAS PULLING OUT OF A GAS STATION AND THE CAR STARTED STUTTERING, THEN SHUT OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION WITH JUST ENOUGH POWER TO GET TO A TURN-OF…
Read full complaint
FOR A COUPLE WEEKS PREVIOUS TO THE FINAL INCIDENT, WHILE COMING TO A STOP, THE CAR WOULD STUTTER THEN TURN OFF...ONE TIME WHILE DRIVING 80MPH ON THE HIGHWAY. THE FINAL TIME I WAS PULLING OUT OF A GAS STATION AND THE CAR STARTED STUTTERING, THEN SHUT OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION WITH JUST ENOUGH POWER TO GET TO A TURN-OFF. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE YELLOW WRENCH. THE CAR WOULD NOT START FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 MIN. I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND PUSHED IT THE REMAINING WAY. FORD IS SAYING IT IS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE AND THE PART IS ON AN EMERGENCY NATIONWIDE BACKORDER WHICH MAY TAKE 3 WEEKS TO 6 MONTHS TO GET THE PART...AND IT'S NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED 'NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR,' ACCORDING TO FORD. I AM ABOUT TO MAKE MY FOURTH, YES, FOURTH PAYMENT ON THE ESCAPE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521618
Official recalls
3Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
May 24, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
4DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System
On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages
PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that
DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.
PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage
Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.