← New search

2010 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Escape years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Ford Escape are substantially higher than the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,764 reports with mileage · 305 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 558 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 508 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 493 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

29 crash reports3 fire reports19 injury reports

What owners actually said

2,069 reports
36,250 miles · Aug 2, 2013
Engine And Engine Cooling

WHILE DRIVING ON THE PARKWAY IN TRAFFIC THE VEHICLE LOST PROPULSION. I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD BEFORE BEING HIT BY CARS ABLE TO TRAVEL THE SPEED LIMIT. THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES BOTH ON THE PARKWAY AND OTHER ROADS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533290

Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control

I WAS EXITING OFF THE HIGHWAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY VEHICLE SHIFTED AND THEN STARTED LOSING SPEED AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY PULL OVER TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STREET AND PUT ON MY HAZARD LIGHTS AND BRING THE CAR TO A COMPLETE STOP. I THEN PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND TURNED OFF THE IGNITION AND STARTED IT AGAI…

Read full complaint

I WAS EXITING OFF THE HIGHWAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY VEHICLE SHIFTED AND THEN STARTED LOSING SPEED AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY PULL OVER TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STREET AND PUT ON MY HAZARD LIGHTS AND BRING THE CAR TO A COMPLETE STOP. I THEN PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND TURNED OFF THE IGNITION AND STARTED IT AGAIN AND DROVE ON HOME. IT HAPPENED AGAIN THE NEXT DAY WITH ME BEING AWARE THAT IT MAY DO IT AGAIN. SO I TOOK IT TO A CAR REPAIR SHOP AND LEARNED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS THE CAUSE AND HAS TO BE REPLACED. I HAVE ONLY HAD THE CAR FOR 6 MOS AND IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533253

59,000 miles · Aug 2, 2013
Power Train

I WAS DRIVING WHEN THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE REMAINED RUNNING BUT ALL THE CAR WOULD DO WAS COAST UNTIL A I GOT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON. THE CAR RESET RAN FINE THEN DID IT AGAIN WITH CARS APPROACHING AND I BARELY GOT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BEFORE GE…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING WHEN THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE REMAINED RUNNING BUT ALL THE CAR WOULD DO WAS COAST UNTIL A I GOT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON. THE CAR RESET RAN FINE THEN DID IT AGAIN WITH CARS APPROACHING AND I BARELY GOT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BEFORE GETTING HIT BECAUSE THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT WORK THE ENGINE JUST IDLED. TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WAS THE THROTTLE BODY THAT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. LUCKILY I DID NOT HAVE MY DAUGHTER IN THE CAR OR COULD HAVE BEEN REALLY BAD. MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533232

49,000 miles · Aug 2, 2013
Engine

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 40 MPH THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT STATED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE CONTACT HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THEY WERE ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 40 MPH THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT STATED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE CONTACT HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THEY WERE ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHERE THE CODE INDICATED THE STARTER ACTUATOR WAS STUCK IN THE OPEN POSITION. THE MECHANIC CLEANED OUT THE THROTTLE BODY WHICH HELPED THE CONTACT DRIVE HOME BEFORE THE FAILURE OCCURRED AGAIN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 49,000.

NHTSA ODI #10533185

78,000 miles · Aug 1, 2013
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashFire

I WAS DRIVING AND THE TRUCK JUST STOP. IT WOULD NOT GO UNTIL I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND TURN IT BACK ON AGAIN. THEN, IT TOOK OFF FAST AND SLOWED DOWN AGAIN. WE HAD TO PUSH THE CAR HOME! LUCKILY, WE WAS NOT TOO FAR FROM HOME. WE WAS ON OUR WAY TO CHURCH, INSTEAD PUSHING A HEAVY TRUCK IN OUR GOOD CLOTHES. A HOT MESS. WE HAD THIS TRU…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING AND THE TRUCK JUST STOP. IT WOULD NOT GO UNTIL I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND TURN IT BACK ON AGAIN. THEN, IT TOOK OFF FAST AND SLOWED DOWN AGAIN. WE HAD TO PUSH THE CAR HOME! LUCKILY, WE WAS NOT TOO FAR FROM HOME. WE WAS ON OUR WAY TO CHURCH, INSTEAD PUSHING A HEAVY TRUCK IN OUR GOOD CLOTHES. A HOT MESS. WE HAD THIS TRUCK A OUT 11 MONTHS. I BOUGHT A WARRANTY BUT GUESS WHAT IT DID NOT COVER THE THROTTLE BODY. ITS AT THE FORD DEALER CAUSING $410.00 THAT I DO NOT HAVE; PLUS THE PART IS ON BACK ORDER. IT COULD TAKE UP TO 3 WEEKS TO GET HERE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533139

55,000 miles · Aug 1, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND THE ENGINE WENT "LIMP". THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL BUT DID NOT HAVE ANY POWER. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, OBSERVED THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASHBOARD. AFTER A MINUTE I TURNED OFF AND THEN RESTARTED THE VEHICLE WITHOUT PROBLEM. APPROXIMATELY 8-10 MILES DOWN THE ROAD THE EXACT SAME ISSUE AROSE.…

Read full complaint

DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND THE ENGINE WENT "LIMP". THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL BUT DID NOT HAVE ANY POWER. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, OBSERVED THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASHBOARD. AFTER A MINUTE I TURNED OFF AND THEN RESTARTED THE VEHICLE WITHOUT PROBLEM. APPROXIMATELY 8-10 MILES DOWN THE ROAD THE EXACT SAME ISSUE AROSE. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND RESTARTED ONCE AGAIN. ADDITIONALLY, THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AN STAYED ON. PREVIOUSLY, OVER THE PAST YEAR I HAVE EXPERIENCED MORE SUBTLE ISSUES WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE IN WHICH THE VEHICLE SORT OF HICCUPS AND THEN EVENTUALLY BEGINS TO ACCELERATE. HAD THE ENGINE CODE READ AND DETERMINED THE 2112 CODE IDENTIFIED A STUCK THROTTLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533131

43,000 miles · Aug 1, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System

VEHICLE APPEARS TO BE STALLING OUT AT RANDOM TIMES. WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THERE IS NO POWER FROM THE GAS PEDAL AND NO RPM MOVEMENT. AN ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURS. MUST PULL OVER AND TURN ENGINE COMPLETELY OFF AND RESTART TO CORRECT. THE ENGINE SPUTTERS FOR SEVERAL SECONDS UPON RESTART BEFORE TURNING BACK O…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE APPEARS TO BE STALLING OUT AT RANDOM TIMES. WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THERE IS NO POWER FROM THE GAS PEDAL AND NO RPM MOVEMENT. AN ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURS. MUST PULL OVER AND TURN ENGINE COMPLETELY OFF AND RESTART TO CORRECT. THE ENGINE SPUTTERS FOR SEVERAL SECONDS UPON RESTART BEFORE TURNING BACK ON. THIS PROCESS OFTEN HAS TO REPEATED MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF A SINGLE TRIP. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL AUTO CARE SHOP ON 8/1/13 AND IT WAS DETERMINED THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY IS MALFUNCTIONING. WAS TOLD BY THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE THAT THERE IS A NATIONAL BACK ORDER ON THE PART FROM FORD AND IT COULD TAKE UP TO A MONTH TO GET THE PART IN. THE QUOTE FOR THE REPAIR WAS $420 (INCLUDING THE COST OF LABOR). UPON FURTHER RESEARCH OF THE ISSUE OVER THE INTERNET IT WAS DETERMINED THAT OVER 725,000 COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED OVER THE SAME ISSUE ON THE FORD ESCAPES, YET NO RECALL HAS TAKEN EFFECT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533130

48,000 miles · Aug 1, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS DRIVING DOWN A LOCAL STREET THEN I WAS APPROACHING A TRAIN CROSSING, JUST BEFORE CROSSING THE TRACKS, MY CAR WENT LIMP AND I COULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. I WAS ONLY TRAVELING 5-10MPH SO WHEN MY CAR STOPPED, PART OF MY CAR WAS OVER THE TRAIN TRACKS. I COULD NOT MOVE MY CAR FOR ABOUT A MINUTE WHILE I PARKED MY CAR AND TURNE…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING DOWN A LOCAL STREET THEN I WAS APPROACHING A TRAIN CROSSING, JUST BEFORE CROSSING THE TRACKS, MY CAR WENT LIMP AND I COULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. I WAS ONLY TRAVELING 5-10MPH SO WHEN MY CAR STOPPED, PART OF MY CAR WAS OVER THE TRAIN TRACKS. I COULD NOT MOVE MY CAR FOR ABOUT A MINUTE WHILE I PARKED MY CAR AND TURNED EVERYTHING OFF, INCLUDING OPENING THE CAR DOOR TO SHUT THE COMPUTER OFF. THEN AFTER RESETTING THE CAR, IT STRUGGLED TO START UP BUT STARTED AND DROVE AS USUAL. WITHIN THE LAST TWO DAYS, MY CAR SHUT DOWN DURING DRIVING 5 TIMES AND WHEN RE-STARTING, IT DID NOT INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. FINALLY THE CHECK ENGINE ICON TURNED ON AND I WAS ABLE TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TO CHECK THE CODE. IT TURNED OUT THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED REPLACING. MY CAR IS ONLY 3 YEARS OLD WITH AVERAGE MILEAGE. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AN TERRIBLE ACCIDENT IF THERE WAS A TRAIN AND I WAS IN A STATE OF PANIC. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533121

50,000 miles · Aug 1, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE MIL WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AS THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS LATER TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE EVAC CANISTER HAD FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILUR…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE MIL WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AS THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS LATER TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE EVAC CANISTER HAD FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000. UPDATED 9/4/13 *CN

NHTSA ODI #10533080

65,300 miles · Aug 1, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control

DRIVING UP A HILL AND THE CAR STALLED. NO POWER. WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER, SHUT OFF ENGINE AND RESTART. CAR STALLED TWO MORE TIMES BEFORE I COULD GET IT HOME. ONCE FROM A STOP AT AN INTERSECTION LIGHT WHICH RESULTED IN A STALL IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY INTERSECTION ALMOST CAUSING A WRECK. THE SECOND TIME AS I SLOWED DOWN TO MAK…

Read full complaint

DRIVING UP A HILL AND THE CAR STALLED. NO POWER. WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER, SHUT OFF ENGINE AND RESTART. CAR STALLED TWO MORE TIMES BEFORE I COULD GET IT HOME. ONCE FROM A STOP AT AN INTERSECTION LIGHT WHICH RESULTED IN A STALL IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY INTERSECTION ALMOST CAUSING A WRECK. THE SECOND TIME AS I SLOWED DOWN TO MAKE A TURN. TOOK IT IMMEDIATELY TO A FORD DEALER. DEFECTIVE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY WHICH IS ON BACKORDER. THEY HAVE HAD MY CAR A WEEK NOW. MAY BE ANOTHER WEEK BEFORE PART COMES IN. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PART BREAKDOWN AND FORD NEEDS TO FIX IT FREE. THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECALL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533037

Official recalls

3

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 26, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 29, 2014

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.

10V222000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

May 24, 2010

FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.

Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

4

DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving

Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System

On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages

PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that

DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.

PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage

Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Additional source detail variants (5)

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems