← 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
68,391 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

DRIVING AROUND 65MPH AND THE CAR SUDDENLY SHUTS OFF AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, LOSS OF ALL POWER ALL I COULD DO WAS TRY TO MAKE MY WAY FROM THE FAST LANE OVER TO THE SHOULDER, DRIFTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF AND IT RESTARTED AFTER A FEW MINUTES AND DROVE FINE ALL THE WAY HOME, A FEW DAYS LATER IT …

Read full complaint

DRIVING AROUND 65MPH AND THE CAR SUDDENLY SHUTS OFF AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, LOSS OF ALL POWER ALL I COULD DO WAS TRY TO MAKE MY WAY FROM THE FAST LANE OVER TO THE SHOULDER, DRIFTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF AND IT RESTARTED AFTER A FEW MINUTES AND DROVE FINE ALL THE WAY HOME, A FEW DAYS LATER IT DID THE SAME THING, CUT OFF WHILE DOING AROUND 60MPH AGAIN IN THE FAST LANE I HAD TO TRY AND GET OVER THROUGH 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH CARS BLOWING BY ME AT OVER 80MPH TO GET TO THE SHOULDER, THIS IS GOING TO GET SOMEONE KILLED. I CALLED FORD AND THEY KNOW OF THE ISSUE, SEEMS THE ISSUE IS SO BAD THE PART THATS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM (THE THROTTLE BODY) IS ON BACK ORDER, YOU HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING SINCE FEB. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN RECALLED YET? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522199

51,000 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WE WHERE TRAVELING NORTHBOUND ON I675 TRAVELING AT 70 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE STARTED TO LOSE SPEED WENT INTO LIMP MOLD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522197

30,000 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522194

73,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHILE DRIVING CAR AND BARELY HAD ENOUGH RPMS TO GET OFF ROAD. HAD TO PULL BATTERY CABLE OFF TO GET CAR TO MOVE. THIS HAPPENED THREE TIMES TO GET THE CAR 20 MILES TO HOME THEN TRAILERED TO FORD DEALER. SAID IT WAS A BAD TB. THE CAR HAS ALSO STALLED AT 0MPH AND SOMETIMES SURGES. ONE TIME THIS WINTER THE CAR SU…

Read full complaint

WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHILE DRIVING CAR AND BARELY HAD ENOUGH RPMS TO GET OFF ROAD. HAD TO PULL BATTERY CABLE OFF TO GET CAR TO MOVE. THIS HAPPENED THREE TIMES TO GET THE CAR 20 MILES TO HOME THEN TRAILERED TO FORD DEALER. SAID IT WAS A BAD TB. THE CAR HAS ALSO STALLED AT 0MPH AND SOMETIMES SURGES. ONE TIME THIS WINTER THE CAR SURGED CAUSING IT TO HIT MY TRACTOR AND BUSTED BUMPER COVER AND FOG LAMP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522163

47,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Power Train

WE WERE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN WE SUDDENLY HAD NO MORE ACCELERATION. THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT DIDN'T GIVE US ANY GO AND WE STARTED DECELERATING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY. THANKFULLY, WE WERE ABLE TO QUICKLY PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO AVOID BEING REAR-ENDE…

Read full complaint

WE WERE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN WE SUDDENLY HAD NO MORE ACCELERATION. THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT DIDN'T GIVE US ANY GO AND WE STARTED DECELERATING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY. THANKFULLY, WE WERE ABLE TO QUICKLY PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO AVOID BEING REAR-ENDED. WE TURNED THE TRUCK OFF, WAITING A MINUTE OR TWO AND STARTED IT BACK UP AND HAD ACCELERATION AGAIN FOR A FEW MILES. THIS HAPPENED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THE REMAINING 8 OR SO MILES TO OUR HOUSE WHERE WE WERE FINALLY ABLE TO PULL UP IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE AND CALLED OUR LOCAL FORD DEALER TO HAVE THE TRUCK TOWED TO THEIR SHOP. WE'RE STILL WAITING TO HEAR WHAT THEY FOUND OUT BUT FROM MY RESEARCH I JUST DID ON THE INTERNET IT APPEARS THIS IS A VERY COMMON AND SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR MANY FORD ESCAPE OWNERS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522147

60,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Power Train

MY FORD ESCAPE WITHOUT ANY WARNING SUDDENLY STALLED ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY. I LUCKILY WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN FAILURE WARNING LIGHT ON THE INSTRUMENTATION PANEL CAME. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE ESCAPE, BUT IT CONTINUES TO STALL REPEATEDLY. THUS I AM NOT ABLE TO DRIVE MY ESCA…

Read full complaint

MY FORD ESCAPE WITHOUT ANY WARNING SUDDENLY STALLED ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY. I LUCKILY WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN FAILURE WARNING LIGHT ON THE INSTRUMENTATION PANEL CAME. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE ESCAPE, BUT IT CONTINUES TO STALL REPEATEDLY. THUS I AM NOT ABLE TO DRIVE MY ESCAPE. MY AUTO MECHANIC INDICATED THIS IS A KNOWN FORD ISSUE AND THE REPLACEMENT PART IS ON BACK ORDER DUE TO THE NUMBER OF FORD ESCAPE OWNERS AS EXPERIENCING THIS ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522099

43,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND COULD NOT BE RESTATED. THE CHECK ENGINE AND THE POWER TRAIN WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE FAILURE WAS REPORTED TO THE MANUF…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND COULD NOT BE RESTATED. THE CHECK ENGINE AND THE POWER TRAIN WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE FAILURE WAS REPORTED TO THE MANUFACTURER AND THEY STATED THAT THE PART WAS ON BACK ORDER. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 43,000. THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE DRIVING, SHE SUDDENLY FELT THE VEHICLE LOOSE POWER EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR. THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE DASH.

NHTSA ODI #10522092

71,194 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System

6/26/13 - DRIVING IN THE RIGHT LANE ON INTERSTATE 81 IN PENNSYLVANIA AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MILES PER HOUR AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. A LARGE TRUCK WAS BEHIND ME AND I IMMEDIATELY PUT MY FOUR WAY FLASHERS ON. LUCKILY THERE WERE NO VEHICLES IN THE LEFT LANE AND THE TRUCK CHANGED LANES. ADDITIONAL VEHICLES WERE COMING UPON …

Read full complaint

6/26/13 - DRIVING IN THE RIGHT LANE ON INTERSTATE 81 IN PENNSYLVANIA AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MILES PER HOUR AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. A LARGE TRUCK WAS BEHIND ME AND I IMMEDIATELY PUT MY FOUR WAY FLASHERS ON. LUCKILY THERE WERE NO VEHICLES IN THE LEFT LANE AND THE TRUCK CHANGED LANES. ADDITIONAL VEHICLES WERE COMING UPON MY VEHICLE QUICKLY SO I PULLED OVER ON THE BERM AT ABOUT 40 MPH AND APPLIED THE BRAKES AND STOPPED. TURNED OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTED AND PROBLEM WENT AWAY AND CONTINUED ON TRIP. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN THE NEXT DAY 6/27/13 DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 81 AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH. SAME PROBLEM WHERE ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I PUT ON MY FOUR WAY FLASHERS AND APPROACHING TRAFFIC STARTED MOVING TO THE LEFT LANE. PULLED OVER TO THE BERM AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. RESTARTED AND TRIED TO PULL OUT. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN. SHUTOFF AND RESTARTED AND WAS THEN ABLE TO PULL OUT AND FINISH TRIP. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME IN LESS THAN A MONTH THAT THIS HAS OCCURRED. AFTER THE FIRST TIME I CONTACTED FORD AND ORDERED A NEW THROTTLE BODY. PART IS ON BACK ORDER AND KEEP BEING TOLD NEXT WEEK. FORD MADE ME GIVE THEM A CREDIT CARD TO ORDER THE PART AND HAS CHARGED MY ACCOUNT BUT HAS NOT GIVEN ME THE PART. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522032

43,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING ON INTERSTATE I-95 CAR STOPPED ACCELERATING AND ENGINE WENT TO IDLE SPEED - BARELY MANAGED TO AVOID GETTING HIT BY OTHER CARS ON HIGHWAY AND LIMPED HOME AT APPROX 5 MPH - VEHICLE WAS CHECKED BY BONELL FORD IN WINCHESTER MA. FORD HAS INDICATED THAT THE PARTS FOR REPAIR ARE ON NATIONAL BACKORDER NOTE THAT THE FORD DEALER …

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON INTERSTATE I-95 CAR STOPPED ACCELERATING AND ENGINE WENT TO IDLE SPEED - BARELY MANAGED TO AVOID GETTING HIT BY OTHER CARS ON HIGHWAY AND LIMPED HOME AT APPROX 5 MPH - VEHICLE WAS CHECKED BY BONELL FORD IN WINCHESTER MA. FORD HAS INDICATED THAT THE PARTS FOR REPAIR ARE ON NATIONAL BACKORDER NOTE THAT THE FORD DEALER I PURCHASED THIS CAR FROM BONELL FORD IN WINCHESTER MA. HAS 3 OTHER FORD ESCAPE'S WAITING FOR THE SAME PARTS - THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE AND THIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE RECALLED BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521996

58,500 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

CAR STALLED AT 35 MPH AND I BECAME STUCK ON THE ROAD IN TRAFFIC. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE WAS IDLING LOW AND THE THROTTLE PEDAL WOULD NOT MOVE THE CAR. I GOT TOWED TO A FORD DEALER WHO SAID THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE ASSEMBLY FAILED. THE PART IS OUT OF STOCK NATION WIDE AND ONE CUSTOMER THEY HAVE HAS BEEN WAITING …

Read full complaint

CAR STALLED AT 35 MPH AND I BECAME STUCK ON THE ROAD IN TRAFFIC. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE WAS IDLING LOW AND THE THROTTLE PEDAL WOULD NOT MOVE THE CAR. I GOT TOWED TO A FORD DEALER WHO SAID THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE ASSEMBLY FAILED. THE PART IS OUT OF STOCK NATION WIDE AND ONE CUSTOMER THEY HAVE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR 2 MONTHS FOR A THROTTLE BODY. I CALLED 5 DEALERS FOR PART AVAILABILITY AND THEY ARE OUT TOO AND HAVE CUSTOMERS WAITING FOR A PART. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521952

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