NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter38,000 miles · May 1, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL FAILED TO RESPOND. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL FAILED TO RESPOND. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 38,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 40,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510245
61,000 miles · Apr 30, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
AS I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE GOING APPROXIMATELY 70 MILES AN HOUR, I NOTICED MY VEHICLE SLOWING DOWN, AS I TRIED TO ACCELERATE THE GAS I WAS STILL SLOWING DOWN AND IT WAS NOT GOING ANY FASTER. I QUICKLY PUT MY FLASHERS ON AND PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, AND NOTICED THE CAR SHAKING AND THE WRENCH LIGHT TURNED ON. I…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE GOING APPROXIMATELY 70 MILES AN HOUR, I NOTICED MY VEHICLE SLOWING DOWN, AS I TRIED TO ACCELERATE THE GAS I WAS STILL SLOWING DOWN AND IT WAS NOT GOING ANY FASTER. I QUICKLY PUT MY FLASHERS ON AND PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, AND NOTICED THE CAR SHAKING AND THE WRENCH LIGHT TURNED ON. I THEN TURNED OFF THE CAR AND CALLED FOR HELP. A FEW MINUTES LATER HELP ARRIVED AND THEY WERE ABLE TO TURN ON THE ESCAPE AND DRIVE IT INTO TOWN TO A CAR CENTER TO HAVE A DIAGNOSTIC TEST RAN. IT DID NOT PULL UP ANYTHING ON THE TEST. I AM TERRIFIED TO DRIVE IT NOW IN THE EVENT IT HAPPENS AGAIN. I AM LUCKY THERE WASN'T TOO MUCH TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY THAT I COULD GET OVER QUICKLY AND OUT OF THE WAY. I HOPE WE ARE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT AND GET THIS FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510050
20,000 miles · Apr 30, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
DURING MY LUNCH HOUR, THE CAR JUST STOPPED RUNNING. I WAS NOT IN A PLACE WHERE IT WAS EASY TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE. I TRIED PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL BUT IT WOULD JUST BARELY CREEP. I FINALLY TURNED IT OFF & RESTARTED AND IT WAS OK. NO WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON. THE SECOND OCCURRENCE WAS ON 4/26/13. I STARTED TO BACK OUT OF A P…
Read full complaint
DURING MY LUNCH HOUR, THE CAR JUST STOPPED RUNNING. I WAS NOT IN A PLACE WHERE IT WAS EASY TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE. I TRIED PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL BUT IT WOULD JUST BARELY CREEP. I FINALLY TURNED IT OFF & RESTARTED AND IT WAS OK. NO WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON. THE SECOND OCCURRENCE WAS ON 4/26/13. I STARTED TO BACK OUT OF A PARKING PLACE AND THE THROTTLE/POWER TRAIN LIGHT CAME ON AND IT WOULD BARELY MOVE. I PULLED BACK INTO THE PARKING SPACE AND RESTARTED IT AND IT HAS BEEN OK SINCE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510035
Mileage unknown · Apr 29, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
FAX LETTER FROM CONSTITUENT REGARDING A POTENTIAL COMPELLING SAFETY ISSUE WITH HER FORD ESCAPE PURCHASED FROM HERB CHAMBERS FORD OF BRAINTREE, MA; SHE BELIEVES FOR " NO REASON" IT LOSES ACCELERATION AND CAUSES THE OPERATOR TO "GLIDE" TO FIND SAFETY. *SMD UPDATED 06/30/14
NHTSA ODI #10510074
42,000 miles · Apr 15, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND GAS PEDAL WENT SOFT , HAD NO POWER. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE , TURNED THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES. RESTARTED AND CONTINUED ON WITH NO PROBLEM. SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN THE NEXT DAY. CAR IS AT OUR FORD DEALERSHIP NOW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508251
36,555 miles · Apr 14, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 60 MPH ON A 4-LANE FREEWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTED SLOWING DOWN FOR NO APPARENT REASON. EFFORTS TO APPLY MORE ACCELERATION FROM THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO EFFECT. I HAD TO CROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC TO GET TO THE BERM AND ACTIVATED MY HAZARD LIGHTS IN THE PROCESS AND MY SON WHO WAS FOLLOWING ME IN ANO…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 60 MPH ON A 4-LANE FREEWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTED SLOWING DOWN FOR NO APPARENT REASON. EFFORTS TO APPLY MORE ACCELERATION FROM THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO EFFECT. I HAD TO CROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC TO GET TO THE BERM AND ACTIVATED MY HAZARD LIGHTS IN THE PROCESS AND MY SON WHO WAS FOLLOWING ME IN ANOTHER VEHICLE HAD TO BRAKE TO AVOID HITTING ME. THE SUV NEVER COMPLETELY STOPPED BUT WAS TRAVELING AT ABOUT 2 MPH ON THE BERM. I STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND RESTARTED IT AND IT APPEARED TO START OKAY BUT AN OPEN-END WRENCH APPEARED AS A WARNING LIGHT (THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN). AFTER GETTING BACK UP TO SPEED AND MERGING WITH TRAFFIC THE SUV DIED AGAIN IN ABOUT 1/4 MILE. I PULLED OVER TO THE BERM AND RESTARTED A SECOND TIME. THIS TIME A SERVICE ENGINE SOON LIGHT APPEARED BUT THE SUV APPEARED TO RUN NORMALLY. I CONTINUED HOME AND CALLED THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT HELP ME UNTIL THE SERVICE GROUP CAME IN ON MONDAY. I ASKED TO TALK TO A MANAGER BUT THEY SAID THEY WERE ALL BUSY AND THAT I'D HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL MONDAY. I LEFT VEHICLE IN MY GARAGE UNTIL MONDAY AND THEN WILL TRY TO TAKE TO HAVE IT SERVICED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508154
47,310 miles · Apr 11, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THE ESCAPE FELT LIKE IT STALLED ON THE ROAD WITH THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT. PULLED OFF AND TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS BUT THE CAR WOULDN'T GO AND THE RPM'S WERE JUMPING. SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND CALLED MY HUSBAND AND HE SAID TO SHUT IT DOWN AND RESTART THE CAR AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS (HUSBAND HAD A FRIEND WITH ANOT…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THE ESCAPE FELT LIKE IT STALLED ON THE ROAD WITH THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT. PULLED OFF AND TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS BUT THE CAR WOULDN'T GO AND THE RPM'S WERE JUMPING. SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND CALLED MY HUSBAND AND HE SAID TO SHUT IT DOWN AND RESTART THE CAR AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS (HUSBAND HAD A FRIEND WITH ANOTHER ESCAPE DO THE SAME THING). I DID THAT AND IT WAS FINE. HAD A SHOP CHECK FOR CODES BUT THERE WERE NO CODES PRESENT. CALLED FORD AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY/SENSOR AND THAT ITS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY (YET THEY NEW WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS JUST BY ME EXPLAINING IT WHICH TELLS ME THAT ITS A KNOWN PROBLEM THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO FIX). THEN TODAY IT DID THE SAME THING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10505998
44,110 miles · Apr 8, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
SPOUSE DROVE AWAY FROM HOUSE AND VEHICLE STALLED ON THE CITY STREET ABOUT 400 FEET FROM HOME. THIS WAS ON A SATURDAY, I ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, CONTINUED TO STALL. I WAS ABLE TO GET IT INTO MY GARAGE AND THE VEHICLE WAS BROUGHT TO THE DEALERSHIP ON A FLAT BED TRUCK TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY AT MY …
Read full complaint
SPOUSE DROVE AWAY FROM HOUSE AND VEHICLE STALLED ON THE CITY STREET ABOUT 400 FEET FROM HOME. THIS WAS ON A SATURDAY, I ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE, CONTINUED TO STALL. I WAS ABLE TO GET IT INTO MY GARAGE AND THE VEHICLE WAS BROUGHT TO THE DEALERSHIP ON A FLAT BED TRUCK TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY AT MY EXPENSE. (NO CHARGE FOR TOWING). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10507502
Mileage unknown · Apr 6, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
THIS WAS EMAILED TO FORD CUSTOMER CARE IN APRIL 2012. I PURCHASED A USED 2010 FORD ESCAPE V6 FWD IN DECEMBER 2010. THE VEHICLE OPERATED WELL UNTIL NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER OF 2011 WHEN I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND SUDDENLY THE BRAKE SYSTEM LIGHT CAME ON AND IMMEDIATELY THE VEHICLE?S ACCELERATION GAVE OUT. THE RPMS WENT DOWN TO …
Read full complaint
THIS WAS EMAILED TO FORD CUSTOMER CARE IN APRIL 2012. I PURCHASED A USED 2010 FORD ESCAPE V6 FWD IN DECEMBER 2010. THE VEHICLE OPERATED WELL UNTIL NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER OF 2011 WHEN I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND SUDDENLY THE BRAKE SYSTEM LIGHT CAME ON AND IMMEDIATELY THE VEHICLE?S ACCELERATION GAVE OUT. THE RPMS WENT DOWN TO AN IDLING LEVEL (900 RPMS) AND THE ACCELERATOR DID NOT RESPOND. I PULLED ON TO THE SHOULDER AND AS I WAS COMING TO A STOP THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHAKE UNTIL THE VEHICLE STOPPED. THE VEHICLE DID TURN BACK ON AND WAS OK TO DRIVE HOME. THE FOLLOWING DAY IT WAS STILL RUNNING OK AND NO SENSOR LIGHTS WERE ON UNTIL THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE FOLLOWING DAY I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE INTO A FORD SERVICE CENTRE. I WAS TOLD THAT THE PURGE VALVE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THIS WAS COMPLETED AND I WAS ASSURED THAT THE PROBLEM HAD BEEN FIXED. ROUGHLY, TWO MONTHS LATER THE SAME ISSUE HAPPENED WITH THE VEHICLE?S ACCELERATION STOPPING AND ENGINE GOING TO AN IDLE, BUT THIS TIME THE POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. THIS HAPPENED TWICE BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO BRING IN THE VEHICLE INTO THE FORD SERVICE CENTRE. THIS TIME I WAS TOLD THAT THE AXEL ROD FLUID WAS LOW AND A SEAL NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. AGAIN I WAS TOLD THIS FIXED THE PROBLEM AND WOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. AFTER DRIVING AROUND 7500 KMS THE VEHICLE HAD THE SAME ISSUE (WITH POWERTRAIN LIGHT ON). AFTER MAKING AN APPOINTMENT, THE VEHICLE?S ACCELERATION GAVE OUT 3 TIMES WHEN DRIVING ON ONE TRIP AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. IT DROVE POORLY THE FOLLOWING DAY AND THE ACCELERATION GAVE OUT AGAIN. I HAD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED TO FORD FOR THE SERVICE APPOINTMENT. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS REPLACED BUT DUE TO THE CONTINUOUS ASSURANCE THAT THE PROBLEM HAD BEEN FIXED EACH TIME, I DID NOT HAVE FAITH THAT IT HAD AND BOUGHT A NEW VEHICLE AND TRADED IN THE ESCAPE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10507338
36,000 miles · Mar 22, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I HAD APPROXIMATELY FOUR OCCURRENCES OF LOSING ALL THROTTLE RESPONSE, BASICALLY A COMPLETE LOSS OF POWER WHILE DRIVING ON THE LOS ANGELES FREEWAY SYSTEM. ENGINE RPM DROPS TO 1,000 AND PROVIDES IDLE POWER ONLY. A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION WHILE ON A 4 LANE CONGESTED HIGHWAY TRAVELING AT SPEEDS UPTO 65 MPH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10504211
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.