NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter69,500 miles · Jun 12, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
IT WAS TAKEN TO DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR AND I WAS TOLD THEY HAVE ZERO THROTTLE BODIES FOR THIS CAR FOR 4 TO 6 MONTHS MAYBE LONGER. AND IN RESEARCHING THIS THERE ARE ALOT OF PEOPLE WITH THE SAME PROBLEM I'M HAVING AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT RESOLVING THE ISSUE. JUST KEEP MAKING YOUR PAYMENTS ON THE CAR AND RENT YOU ANOTHER S…
Read full complaint
IT WAS TAKEN TO DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR AND I WAS TOLD THEY HAVE ZERO THROTTLE BODIES FOR THIS CAR FOR 4 TO 6 MONTHS MAYBE LONGER. AND IN RESEARCHING THIS THERE ARE ALOT OF PEOPLE WITH THE SAME PROBLEM I'M HAVING AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT RESOLVING THE ISSUE. JUST KEEP MAKING YOUR PAYMENTS ON THE CAR AND RENT YOU ANOTHER SO YOU CAN GET BACK AND FORTH TO WORK TO PAY FOR IT. EVEN THO I HAVE WARRANTY COVERAGE STILL CANNOT GET A LOANER CAR TILL THEY CAN GET THE PARTS TO FIX THIS THING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10519577
21,610 miles · Jun 12, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE MAKING LEFT HAND TURN VEHICLE ABRUPTLY STALLED, YELLOW WARNING LIGHT SHOWED FAULT WITH POWERTRAIN. VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO DEALER ON 6/10/2013 STILL WAITING FOR THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY THREE DAYS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10519542
41,500 miles · Jun 11, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE CUT OFF WHILE TRAVELING IN TRAFFIC AT ABOUT 45 MPH, WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE CRANKED BACK UP, CONTINUE ON MY WAY. 2ND INCIDENT HAPPEN WHILE TRAVELING TO WORK, ENGINE KEPT RUNNING BUT, COULD NOT GIVE ENGINE GAS, COAST TO A STOP. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, ENGINE WAS IDLING ROUGH, TURN VEHICLE OFF, ENGINE CRANKED BACK…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE CUT OFF WHILE TRAVELING IN TRAFFIC AT ABOUT 45 MPH, WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE CRANKED BACK UP, CONTINUE ON MY WAY. 2ND INCIDENT HAPPEN WHILE TRAVELING TO WORK, ENGINE KEPT RUNNING BUT, COULD NOT GIVE ENGINE GAS, COAST TO A STOP. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, ENGINE WAS IDLING ROUGH, TURN VEHICLE OFF, ENGINE CRANKED BACK UP. 3RD INCIDENT ENGINE SURGED AND CUT OFF AFTER TAKING OFF FROM STOP LIGHT. ANOTHER INCIDENT ENGINE CUT OFF WHILE TRAVELING ABOUT 40 MPH, ENGINE SURGED, STUMBLE . WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. ENGINE CUT OFF , WRENCH LIGHT AND SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, AND STAYED ON FOR TWO DAYS AND THEN WENT OFF. VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY. DEALER THINKS THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10519310
57,000 miles · Jun 11, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
IN A 35 MPH ZONE, WHEN ACCELERATING AFTER SLOWING TO ALLOW VEHICLE IN FRONT TO TURN, THROTTLE STUCK OPEN & CAR LOST POWER. WAS ABLE TO GET TO SIDE OF ROAD AND RESTART CAR AND PROCEED. SAME THING HAPPENED 4 ADDITIONAL TIMES THAT DAY AT VARIOUS SPEEDS ACCELERATING TO SPEED FOLLOWING A STOP OR USING AN ON-RAMP TO HIGHWAY SPEED. …
Read full complaint
IN A 35 MPH ZONE, WHEN ACCELERATING AFTER SLOWING TO ALLOW VEHICLE IN FRONT TO TURN, THROTTLE STUCK OPEN & CAR LOST POWER. WAS ABLE TO GET TO SIDE OF ROAD AND RESTART CAR AND PROCEED. SAME THING HAPPENED 4 ADDITIONAL TIMES THAT DAY AT VARIOUS SPEEDS ACCELERATING TO SPEED FOLLOWING A STOP OR USING AN ON-RAMP TO HIGHWAY SPEED. HAVE EXPERIENCED "SURGING" PREVIOUSLY BUT DEALER IGNORED REPORTS AS "INTERMITTENT". CAR WAS TOWED TO DEALER ON 22 MAY AND IS STILL THERE AWAITING A NEW THROTTLE CONTROL BODY. SHIPMENT OF NEW PART IS ESTIMATED AS 17 JUNE. DEALER IS NOT PROVIDING LOANER OR RENTAL CAR AS THE PART IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE POWERTRAIN & IS THEREFORE APPROX. 6 MONTHS OUT OF WARRANTY. SINCE THE CAR CANNOT "GO" WITHOUT THE THROTTLE CONTROL BODY - WHY IS IT CONSIDERED PART OF THE EMISSION SYSTEM VICE THE POWERTRAIN? WITH SO MANY CARS DOWN FOR THIS PART, IT SHOULD BE A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10519294
30,350 miles · Jun 11, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT PREPARING TO TURN RIGHT. WHILE AT A COMPLETE STOP, THE VEHICLE JOLTED FORWARD MOMENTARILY AND AGAIN CAME TO A STOP. I TURNED RIGHT AND IMMEDIATELY MY ACCELERATOR FAILED AND THE CAR WOULD ONLY MOVE FORWARD AT A SPEED LESS THAN 5 MILES PER HOUR. I COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT WHERE I TURNED OFF THE VEHIC…
Read full complaint
I WAS STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT PREPARING TO TURN RIGHT. WHILE AT A COMPLETE STOP, THE VEHICLE JOLTED FORWARD MOMENTARILY AND AGAIN CAME TO A STOP. I TURNED RIGHT AND IMMEDIATELY MY ACCELERATOR FAILED AND THE CAR WOULD ONLY MOVE FORWARD AT A SPEED LESS THAN 5 MILES PER HOUR. I COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT WHERE I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND RESTARTED IT. IT ACCELERATED NORMALLY FOR A MOMENT BEFORE FAILING AGAIN. THE WARNING LIGHT THAT APPEARED WAS CORRELATED WITH THE POWER TRAIN, PER THE VEHICLE'S INSTRUCTION MANUAL. WHEN INSPECTED BY A FORD DEALERSHIP, THE MECHANIC SAID THE THROTTLE SYSTEM HAD FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. ALL INSPECTIONS AND SERVICES RELATED TO THE VEHICLE WERE UP-TO-DATE AND THERE WERE NO OTHER PROBLEMS DETECTED. NO ONE WAS INJURED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10516254
56,000 miles · Jun 11, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
THREE TIME WITHIN 5 MILES THE VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING AND GIVING IT MORE GAS DID NOTHING. I WOULD HAVE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HOPE NO ONE HIT ME IN TRAFFIC. I TOOK THE CAR TO A MECHANIC AND HE SAID THE THROTTLE BODY WAS FAULTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10516188
59,555 miles · Jun 10, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I BOUGHT OUR CAR BRAND NEW ON APRIL OF 2010. ON 06/08/13 (3PM) WE WERE IN TURNPIKE RUNNING 70 MPH WHEN SUDDENLY THE CAR SLOWLY LOST SPEED EVENTUALLY WE STOPPED ON THE SIDE AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ENGINE LIGHTS SYMBOL CAME ON. WE TURN IT BACK ON AND DROVE APPROX 10 MILES AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN. EVERYTIME THE ENGINE TURNED OFF WE …
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT OUR CAR BRAND NEW ON APRIL OF 2010. ON 06/08/13 (3PM) WE WERE IN TURNPIKE RUNNING 70 MPH WHEN SUDDENLY THE CAR SLOWLY LOST SPEED EVENTUALLY WE STOPPED ON THE SIDE AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ENGINE LIGHTS SYMBOL CAME ON. WE TURN IT BACK ON AND DROVE APPROX 10 MILES AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN. EVERYTIME THE ENGINE TURNED OFF WE CAN ALWAYS TURN IT BACK ON AND DRIVE FEW MILES. WE DECIDED, FOR US TO AT LEAST GET HOME (6PM) WE HAVE TO DRIVE ON CITY LIMIT 45 MPH, AND IT NEVER GAME US A PROBLEM. BECAUSE ON THOSE INCIDENTS ON THE SAME DAY WE DECIDED TO SEND OUR CAR THE NEXT DAY TO THE FORD SERVICE CENTER. AFTER 24 HRS 06/10/13 THEY CALLED THAT IT IS THE THROTTLE BODY THAT THEY NEED TO REPLACE. UNTIL NOW WE ARE STILL WAITING ON THE PARTS AND OF COURSE PAY AN ESTIMATE OF $582. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10516144
32,000 miles · Jun 10, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
5/17 WHILE STARTING FROM A RED LIGHT STOPPED, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED BUT SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO MOVE THE VEHICLE TO A PARKING LOT AND CALL FOR A TOW. THE TECHNICIAN SAID THE ISSUE WAS WITH THE FUEL LINE AND I HAD MY VEHICLE BACK. 6/7 SIMILAR DECELERATION HAPPENED AND THIS TIME THE VEH…
Read full complaint
5/17 WHILE STARTING FROM A RED LIGHT STOPPED, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED BUT SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I WAS ABLE TO MOVE THE VEHICLE TO A PARKING LOT AND CALL FOR A TOW. THE TECHNICIAN SAID THE ISSUE WAS WITH THE FUEL LINE AND I HAD MY VEHICLE BACK. 6/7 SIMILAR DECELERATION HAPPENED AND THIS TIME THE VEHICLE STARTING KNOCKING A LOT AT LOW SPEEDS. WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ONE. AFTER TURNING OFF AND STARTING AGAIN, THE VEHICLE DROVE FINE. I BROUGHT IT HOME AND ONE MONDAY (6/10) STARTED IT AGAIN TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE DROVE FINE FOR HALF A MILE BEFORE EXHIBITING THE SAME BEHAVIOR OR DECELERATION AND FREQUENT KNOCKING. I PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER AND CALLED THE TOW. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE MECHANIC THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS REPLACING AND IT IS BACK ORDERED NATIONALLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10516130
51,000 miles · Jun 10, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
THIS IS THE 2ND TIME I HAVE TAKEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE IN FOR LOSING ACCELERATION, STALLING. THE ENGINE STILL RUNS BUT I AM UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. THE CAR BASICALLY WON'T RUN, BUT WILL START UP AGAIN. THIS IS A MAJOR HAZARD IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN ON THE FREEWAY, OR WITH A HIGHER SPEED. IT GENERALLY HAPPENS AROUND 30 MILES PER …
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE 2ND TIME I HAVE TAKEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE IN FOR LOSING ACCELERATION, STALLING. THE ENGINE STILL RUNS BUT I AM UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. THE CAR BASICALLY WON'T RUN, BUT WILL START UP AGAIN. THIS IS A MAJOR HAZARD IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN ON THE FREEWAY, OR WITH A HIGHER SPEED. IT GENERALLY HAPPENS AROUND 30 MILES PER HOUR. BACK IN DECEMBER, 2012 I TOOK IT IN TO BILL BROWN FORD AND THEY COULD NOT FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM, AND RETURNED THE CAR TO ME, SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN TO THEM. AFTER EXPERIENCING THE PROBLEM ON A DAILY BASIS ALL LAST WEEK I TOOK IT IN TODAY TO BIL BROWN FORD ON PLYMOUTH RD IN LIVONIA, MI. THEY TOLD ME BECAUSE I NO LONGER HAVE A WARRANTY ANYTHING THEY DO FIND I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR. IT SEEMS LIKE WITH A SAFETY CONCERN LIKE THIS THEY WOULD FIX IT FREE OF CHARGE. SOMEONE COULD VERY WELL RUN INTO ME FROM BEHIND WHEN I LOSE ACCELERATION AND CANNOT RUN THE CAR. PLEASE I HOPE YOU CAN HELP AND HELP OTHERS EXPERIENCING THIS PROBLEM. I HOPE THEY ARE ABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM TODAY AND WON'T CHARGE ME FOR IT. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO THIS CAR. IT IS NOT NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. IT SHOULD BE FIXED BY FORD BEFORE A CRASH HAPPENS. ALSO OF NOTATION IN CASE THIS HELPS I USED REGULAR GAS ONLY FROM DECEMBER, (AFTER THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME), UNTIL LAST WEEK WHEN GAS PRICES WENT UP I SWITCHED TO E-85. WONDERING IF THIS MIGHT BE THE PROBLEM? I TRIED TO RUN THE GAS TANK DOWN BEFORE FILLING UP WITH REGULAR UNLEADED THIS WEEK AS I HEARD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10516086
44,000 miles · Jun 10, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AS THE BATTERY AND MIL CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED O…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AS THE BATTERY AND MIL CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE PARTS WHERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 44,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10516022
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.