NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reports108,000 miles · Sep 24, 2013
Power Train
ON SEPT 12, 2013 I WAS DRIVING ON I-95 GOING APPROXIMATELY 75MPH WHEN OUT OF NOWHERE THE VEHICLE FELT LIKE IT SPUTTERED AND THEN JUST QUIT RUNNING OR STALLED OUT. TO MY SURPRISE (AND THANK GOD) THE STEERING DID NOT LOCK UP WHEN THE ENGINE STALLED UP. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITHOUT GETTING KILLED. I…
Read full complaint
ON SEPT 12, 2013 I WAS DRIVING ON I-95 GOING APPROXIMATELY 75MPH WHEN OUT OF NOWHERE THE VEHICLE FELT LIKE IT SPUTTERED AND THEN JUST QUIT RUNNING OR STALLED OUT. TO MY SURPRISE (AND THANK GOD) THE STEERING DID NOT LOCK UP WHEN THE ENGINE STALLED UP. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITHOUT GETTING KILLED. I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND WAITED 5 MINUTES AND THEN WAS ABLE TO START DRIVING AGAIN. THEN IT STALLED OUT AGAIN. I DROVE IT LIKE THIS FOR THE NEXT 10 MILES TO GET HOME. I STOPPED AT A DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS STORE AND THEY PUT A COMPUTER ON IT. HE SAID IT WAS READING THE THROTTLE BODY WAS STUCK OPEN. AFTER THE STORE CLERK AND I GOOGLED THIS CODE THE MOST WE COULD FIND FOR A SOLUTION WAS TO CLEAN THE THROTTLE BODY. SO HE BROUGHT ME THE RIGHT TB CLEANER TO BUY. I WENT HOME AND TOOK THE TB APART (IT WAS GUNKED UP PRETTY GOOD), CLEANED IT TO A SHINY, BRAND NEW LOOKING THROTTLE BODY AND REPLACED IT AT WHICH TIME I ALSO TOOK THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PERFORM AN OIL CHANGE, TOP OFF MY FLUIDS, REPLACE THE AIR FILTER WITH A NEW ONE AND PUT COOLANT IN MY RADIATOR. I RECONNECTED THE BATTERY CABLES, STARTED THE CAR AND WENT FOR A RIDE. I WAS AMAZED. IT PURRED LIKE A KITTEN. NO DASH "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" ON! I THOUGHT I HAD FIXED MY PROBLEM. NOT SO. HERE I AM NOW, THE 24TH OF SEPT AND GUESS WHAT!! YEP HAD TO CALL IN TO WORK BECAUSE MY CAR ONLY MAKES IT 10 FT DOWN THE ROAD AND STALLS OUT. NO WARNING. I LOOKED IN AT THE THROTTLE BODY AND ITS STILL SPARKING CLEAN, NO GUNK. WHAT'S GOING ON. THIS AM WHEN IT HAPPENED I HAD MY 3 YEAR OLD AND 4 YEAR OLD IN THE CAR WITH ME AND WE [XXXX] NEAR GOT KILLED FROM THE SEMI TRUCK BEHIND US. I DROVE MY CHILDREN TO SCHOOL WITH THE CAR LIKE THIS AND NOW AM TRYING TO FIND A NEW THROTTLE BODY TO PUT IN. I WILL KEEP THE OLD ONE IN MY POSSESSION IN CASE THIS PETITION ACTUALLY GETS THE GOVERNMENT MOVING AND ITS NEEDED FOR INSPECTION. *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #10545165
81,235 miles · Sep 24, 2013
Power Train
MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE COMING TO THE OFF RAMP ON HER WAY TO WORK, WHEN THE VEHICLE ACTED LIKE IT HAD RUN OUT OF GAS, BUT WHEN SHE TRIED TO GIVE THE CAR GAS AND ACCELERATE, THE GAS PEDAL DID NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATION. IT STARTED JERKING AND SHAKING AND THEN THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED. SHE MANEUVERED IT TO …
Read full complaint
MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE COMING TO THE OFF RAMP ON HER WAY TO WORK, WHEN THE VEHICLE ACTED LIKE IT HAD RUN OUT OF GAS, BUT WHEN SHE TRIED TO GIVE THE CAR GAS AND ACCELERATE, THE GAS PEDAL DID NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATION. IT STARTED JERKING AND SHAKING AND THEN THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED. SHE MANEUVERED IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PUT IT IN PARK AND RESTARTED IT. SHE DROVE SLOWLY (25-35 MPH) TO HER DESTINATION LESS THAN 2 MILES AWAY, AND PARKED THE VEHICLE. WE SEE THIS AS A VERY SERIOUS AND LIFE THREATENING PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE. WE HAVE CALLED OUR LOCAL DEALERSHIP, AND HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE, AND THAT MANY COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AGAINST THIS MALFUNCTION WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. WE WERE ALSO TOLD THAT THIS WILL COST US AN OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE OF APPROX. $400.00- $450.00, SINCE OUR WARRANTY RAN OUT AT 36,000 MILES. WE HOPE THAT THE FORD CORP. WILL ISSUE A RECALL ON THIS VEHICLE ASAP, SINCE FORD IS KNOWN FOR A QUALITY VEHICLE, AND WE HAVE ONLY OWNED FORDS FOR OVER 40 YRS. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10545152
69,990 miles · Sep 24, 2013
Power Train
I RECENTLY PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. ABOUT 5 DAYS AFTER THE PURCHASE, MY WIFE AND I CAME TO A STOP SIGN. WE STARTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN AND THE CAR STALLED, SPUTTERED, AND SURGED AROUND 600 RPM. A CAR WAS COMING TOWARDS US AND ALMOST T-BONED OUR VEHICLE BECAUSE WE COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE WRENCH LIGHT INDICATING THA…
Read full complaint
I RECENTLY PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. ABOUT 5 DAYS AFTER THE PURCHASE, MY WIFE AND I CAME TO A STOP SIGN. WE STARTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN AND THE CAR STALLED, SPUTTERED, AND SURGED AROUND 600 RPM. A CAR WAS COMING TOWARDS US AND ALMOST T-BONED OUR VEHICLE BECAUSE WE COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE WRENCH LIGHT INDICATING THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY CAME ON. WE HAD TO GET THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROAD AND SHUT IT OFF. AFTER CRANKING THE ESCAPE AGAIN THE CODE CLEARED AND THE VEHICLE DROVE FINE FOR A LITTLE WHILE UNTIL THIS OCCURRED AGAIN. I HAVE SINCE CLEANED THE THROTTLE BODY BUT THIS HAS NOT FIXED THE PROBLEM. THE ESCAPE HAS STALLED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THEN INCLUDING WHILE MERGING ONTO THE INTERSTATE AT AROUND 50 MPH. IT JUST SHUTS DOWN TO ABOUT 15 MPH OUT OF NO WHERE, THE THROTTLE BODY LIGHT COMES ON AND IT WILL NOT ACCELERATE. I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE FOR MY WIFE, BUT CANNOT LET HER DRIVE IT FOR FEAR OF HER GETTING IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND FORD SHOULD HAVE A RECALL ON THE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10545102
74,217 miles · Sep 23, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 70 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS DIAGNOSED BY THE CONTACT, WHO FOUND THAT THE THROTTLE BODY HAD FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 74,2…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 70 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS DIAGNOSED BY THE CONTACT, WHO FOUND THAT THE THROTTLE BODY HAD FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 74,217.
NHTSA ODI #10545043
88,000 miles · Sep 23, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other
THIS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING BACK FROM WORK, I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE USED AND IT PASSED INSPECTION FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP. I HAVE OWNED VEHICLE FOR ALMOST 5 MONTHS WHEN THIS FAILURE OCCURRED. THE SYMPTOMS THAT I EXPERIENCED WERE LOSS OF POWER WHILE ACCELERATING AND ENGINE AUTOMATICALLY GOES INTO "LIMP MODE" (ENGINE ECU PROTECTION …
Read full complaint
THIS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING BACK FROM WORK, I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE USED AND IT PASSED INSPECTION FROM THE FORD DEALERSHIP. I HAVE OWNED VEHICLE FOR ALMOST 5 MONTHS WHEN THIS FAILURE OCCURRED. THE SYMPTOMS THAT I EXPERIENCED WERE LOSS OF POWER WHILE ACCELERATING AND ENGINE AUTOMATICALLY GOES INTO "LIMP MODE" (ENGINE ECU PROTECTION PROTOCOL SO NO MORE DAMAGE WOULD BE DONE TO THE ENGINE) I NOTICED THAT THE ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON IN THE DASHBOARD, SO I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A ANOTHER FORD DEALERSHIP AND I EXPLAINED WHAT HAPPENED, RIGHT OF THE BAT THE WOMAN BEHIND THE COUNTER SAID IT WAS A TRANSMISSION FAILURE (WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE VEHICLE) SO I BECAME SUSPICIOUS. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER FORD DEALERSHIP AND I GOT A HOLD OF THE ACTUAL MECHANIC AND RIGHT AWAY HE SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY, OUT OF GOOD FAITH HE ADVISE THAT I CAN CHANGE THAT PART MYSELF WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY FORD FOR THEM TO FIX. THE ESTIMATE FOR GETTING IT FIXED THROUGH THE DEALERSHIP WAS CLOSE TO $600 +TAX, WHEN THE PART ITSELF COST ONLY AROUND $200 +TAX. I BOUGHT THE PART FROM THE DEALERSHIP AND CHANGED IT, EVER SINCE THAT FIX MY VEHICLE IS RUNNING EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE. THE MAN BEHIND THE COUNTER THAT GAVE ME THE PART MENTIONED THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVING THIS ISSUE AND THAT USUALLY CHANGING THE THROTTLE BODY FIXES THE ISSUE, HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT IF A RECALL IS TO BE MADE TO JUST BRING BACK THE DEFECTIVE PART AND THE PROOF OF PURCHASE IN ORDER TO GET MY MONEY BACK. FORD SHOULD JUST STOP DENYING THIS ISSUE AND JUST ADMIT THAT THE ISSUE WAS NEVER FULLY FIXED.
NHTSA ODI #10544982
70,000 miles · Sep 23, 2013
EnginePower Train
WE WERE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AS A FAMILY WITH 4 TOTAL PEOPLE IN THE CAR. THE ENGINE AND MOTOR LOST TOTAL POWER. YOU COULD PUT YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR ON THE GAS PEDAL AND THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE NO POWER AND NOT REV UP WITH NO RPM. WE ALMOST GOT REAR ENDED AND BLASTED FROM BEHIND BY A SEMI-TRUCK. THE SEMI-TRUCK HAD TO TAKE EVAS…
Read full complaint
WE WERE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AS A FAMILY WITH 4 TOTAL PEOPLE IN THE CAR. THE ENGINE AND MOTOR LOST TOTAL POWER. YOU COULD PUT YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR ON THE GAS PEDAL AND THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE NO POWER AND NOT REV UP WITH NO RPM. WE ALMOST GOT REAR ENDED AND BLASTED FROM BEHIND BY A SEMI-TRUCK. THE SEMI-TRUCK HAD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AND IF THE OUTSIDE LANE HAD BE BLOCKED AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO CHANGE LANES THEN HE WOULD OF HIT US AS HE SHOWED HIS DISPLEASURE BY BLASTING HIS HORN AT ME AND MY FAMILY AS HE SKATED BY. WE HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. ONCE ON THE SHOULDER WITH CARS ZIPPING BY AND CHILDREN SCARED IN THE CAR WE WAS ABLE TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF. THEN RESET IT AND RE-START THE CAR AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE FINE AGAIN FOR A WHILE. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON BUT AFTER YOU RESET AND RESTART THE CAR THE LIGHT GOES OFF TILL THE NEXT TIME. THIS STARTED AS A RANDOM THING BUT HAS DEVELOPED INTO A DAILY DEAL AND BECOME VERY DANGEROUS IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC. THIS HAPPENS DAILY NOW WHILE DRIVING AT A SPEED OF 25 MPH PLUS AND HAS NO WARNING SIGN. BEING TOLD IT IS A FAULTY CIRCUIT BOARD IN THE THROTTLE BODY BY THE DEALERSHIP AND A $500 PLUS DEAL TO FIX. THIS OCCURRENCE IS RISKING THE HEALTH, LIVELIHOOD AND SAFETY OF MY FAMILY AND KIDS. WEAR AND TEAR MAINTENANCE ON A VEHICLE I AM OK WITH FIXING BUT A FACTORY FAULTY CIRCUIT BOARD IS NOT ONE OF THOSE PARTS AND IS ON THE LIABILITY OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY AS A MANUFACTURE DEFECT.
NHTSA ODI #10544914
50,000 miles · Sep 22, 2013
Power Train
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON MY DASHBOARD AND NOTICED I WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCELERATE BUT WAS STALLING BARELY ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE SHOULDER ALMOST STALLING IN AN INTERSECTION.I AM FEMALE WAS ALONE AND IT WAS EVENING IN A RURAL AREA.I QUICKLY SHUT OFF VEHICLE LIGHTS ETC FOR MAYBE 1 MINUTE.RESTARTED THE VEHICLE…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON MY DASHBOARD AND NOTICED I WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCELERATE BUT WAS STALLING BARELY ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE SHOULDER ALMOST STALLING IN AN INTERSECTION.I AM FEMALE WAS ALONE AND IT WAS EVENING IN A RURAL AREA.I QUICKLY SHUT OFF VEHICLE LIGHTS ETC FOR MAYBE 1 MINUTE.RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND WAS ABLE TO LEAVE AGAIN ONLY TO STALL AGAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD 2 MILES FURTHER.,SHUT OFF VEHICLE AGAIN AND WAITED APPROX 1 MIN STARTED UP AGAIN AND DROVE ANOTHER 500 FEET TO STALL AGAIN.AT THIS POINT I WAS AFRAID AND DECIDED TO KNOCK AT SOMEONES HOME AS IT WAS DARK AND THERE WERE VERY FEW HOMES ON THIS STREET.THIS PERSON HAPPENED TO HAVE A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL AND THE CODE 4READ OUT P2111 AND SAID THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR SENSOR CONTROL STAYING STUCK OPEN AND THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER CODE BUT I CANNOT REMEMBER, HE SAID THERE COULD BE ANOTHER PROBLEM CAUSING THIS PROBLEM.WHATEVER THE PROBLEM I HAVE FACTORY COVERAGE UNTIL OCT 14/2014 AND AM TOLD THIS IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE POWERTRAIN WARRANTY,WHICH IS TOTALLY CRAZY.THIS IS A DANGEROUS ISSUE WHICH NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY.I HAVE AN APPT WITH FORD TUESDAY SEPT 24 WHICH I HAVE TO PAY FOR,AM HOPING THIS WILL BE A RECALL AS THERE ARE SEVERAL REPORTS ONLINE WITH PEOPLE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS. NOT ONLY DO I HAVE THIS PROBLEM BUT THE VEHICLE IS FULL OF RUST SPOTS WHICH SHOULD BE COVERED .I HAVE HAD SEVERAL FORDS IN MY LIFETIME AND THIS ONE IS A PIECE OF CRAP.
NHTSA ODI #10544883
47,000 miles · Sep 22, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WITH CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED AT 55 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY DISENGAGED CRUISE CONTROL AND WENT TO AN EXTREMELY ROUGH IDLE WITH THE VEHICLE SHAKING LIKE A LEAF IN THE WIND. HAD TO EXIT HIGHWAY THROUGH TRAFFIC AS THE THROTTLE WOULD NOT RESPOND IN ANY POSITION. IT WAS EARLY MORNING WITH LIGHT TRAFFIC THANKFULLY. THIS COULD HAVE BEE…
Read full complaint
WITH CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED AT 55 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY DISENGAGED CRUISE CONTROL AND WENT TO AN EXTREMELY ROUGH IDLE WITH THE VEHICLE SHAKING LIKE A LEAF IN THE WIND. HAD TO EXIT HIGHWAY THROUGH TRAFFIC AS THE THROTTLE WOULD NOT RESPOND IN ANY POSITION. IT WAS EARLY MORNING WITH LIGHT TRAFFIC THANKFULLY. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE PROBLEM HAD OCCURRED LATER IN THE DAY DURING HEAVY TRAFFIC.
NHTSA ODI #10544869
50,083 miles · Sep 22, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
DRIVING DOWN INTERSTATE AT SPEED LIMIT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN VEHICLE LOSES ALL THROTTLE WITH PEDAL AND WILL ONLY IDLE. ABLE TO PULL TO SIDE OF ROAD AND SHUT OFF VEHICLE AND RESTART AND GET TO DESTINATION. THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO GET TO DEALERSHIP TO FIND OUT THE PROBLEM. NO CODES BUT THE WRENCH DID LIG…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN INTERSTATE AT SPEED LIMIT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN VEHICLE LOSES ALL THROTTLE WITH PEDAL AND WILL ONLY IDLE. ABLE TO PULL TO SIDE OF ROAD AND SHUT OFF VEHICLE AND RESTART AND GET TO DESTINATION. THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO GET TO DEALERSHIP TO FIND OUT THE PROBLEM. NO CODES BUT THE WRENCH DID LIGHT UP ON THE DASH AND GO AWAY. DEALERSHIP REPLACED THROTTLE BODY AND SAID THIS IS USUALLY THE PROBLEM. MY COST $510.62......... THEY SAID TO LOOK FOR A RECALL ON THROTTLE BODY AND I COULD GET A REFUND BUT LOOKING AT ALL THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS SAME PROBLEM LOOKS LIKE FORD IS SLOW TO POST THE RECALL THAT MANY CONSUMERS HAD TO PAY FOR OUT OF POCKET DUE TO FAULTY PARTS.
NHTSA ODI #10544855
41,200 miles · Sep 21, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
GOING AROUND A TURN, THE CAR STARTED SPUTTERING AND WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. I PULLED OVER, TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED IT. I TOOK MY VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED AND WAS TOLD IT WAS A BAD THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY AND THE PART WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. I HAVE CONTINUED DRIVING WITHOUT HAVING THE P…
Read full complaint
GOING AROUND A TURN, THE CAR STARTED SPUTTERING AND WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. I PULLED OVER, TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED IT. I TOOK MY VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT CHECKED AND WAS TOLD IT WAS A BAD THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY AND THE PART WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. I HAVE CONTINUED DRIVING WITHOUT HAVING THE PART REPAIRED, AND IT HAS HAPPENED THREE MORE TIMES IN THE PAST WEEK. I WILL BE PAYING FOR THE REPAIR, BUT DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS IS A WIDE SPREAD ISSUE WITH FORD AND IT HAS NOT BEEN RECALLED.
NHTSA ODI #10544775
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.
Illustration