NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reports30,100 miles · May 30, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
DRIVING ON FREEWAY AT SPEED AND VEHICLE FUEL SYSTEM SEEMED TO SHUT OFF CAUSING VEHICLE TO STALL AND SHUTTER. I WAS BARELY ABLE TO EXIT FREEWAY WITHOUT INCIDENT. SHUT ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED AND VEHICLE FINALLY RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION, AT WHICH TIME I DROVE DIRECTLY TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION, BUT THEY WERE IN PROCESS OF CLOSIN…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON FREEWAY AT SPEED AND VEHICLE FUEL SYSTEM SEEMED TO SHUT OFF CAUSING VEHICLE TO STALL AND SHUTTER. I WAS BARELY ABLE TO EXIT FREEWAY WITHOUT INCIDENT. SHUT ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED AND VEHICLE FINALLY RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION, AT WHICH TIME I DROVE DIRECTLY TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION, BUT THEY WERE IN PROCESS OF CLOSING FOR THE DAY AND VEHICLE HAD RESUMED PROPER OPERATION BY THEN AND DEALER FELT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT BE DAMAGED TO CONTINUE ON TRIP IF WE WISHED. THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED 2 MORE TIMES BEFORE RETURNING HOME. WHEN HOME, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION AND IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY WHICH AS OF 5/30/13 ARE UNAVAILABLE DUE TO NATIONAL BACK ORDER. EVIDENTLY LOTS OF ESCAPES SEEM TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM. I AM CURRENTLY ON LIST FOR THE PART IN QUESTION. VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY BY 1 MONTH BUT NOT BY MILEAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514377
54,428 miles · May 30, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion System
AT THE INITIAL FAILURE, WHILE TRAVELING ON MANCHESTER ROAD THE VEHICLE STALLED AND I HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. A WEEK LATER AT THE SECOND FAILURE WHILE STANDING AT A STOP LIGHT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND I HAD TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514369
28,000 miles · May 30, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System
I WAS DRIVING IN TRAFFIC AT 60 MPH AND THE POWER WENT OUT. THE CAR JUST COASTED. STEERING CONTINUED TO WORK. I PULLED OVER TO THE MEDIAN, PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTED THE CAR. THE CAR STARTED BACK UP AND WORKED FINE AFTER THAT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514367
36,000 miles · May 30, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 36,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514352
67,100 miles · May 30, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE I WAS DRIVING, THE CAR STARTED STALLING : THE SPEED INDICATOR STARTED COMING DOWN AND EVEN PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR, THERE WAS NO PICK UP AND THE WRENCH SIGN LIT UP INDICATING THE POWER TRAIN DEFECT.I MOVED THE CAR TO THE SHOULDER AND WAITED FOR SOME ASSISTANCE. I MECHANIC FRIEND OF MINE CAME AFTER ABOUT 45 MIN. HE STAR…
Read full complaint
WHILE I WAS DRIVING, THE CAR STARTED STALLING : THE SPEED INDICATOR STARTED COMING DOWN AND EVEN PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR, THERE WAS NO PICK UP AND THE WRENCH SIGN LIT UP INDICATING THE POWER TRAIN DEFECT.I MOVED THE CAR TO THE SHOULDER AND WAITED FOR SOME ASSISTANCE. I MECHANIC FRIEND OF MINE CAME AFTER ABOUT 45 MIN. HE STARTED THE CAR AND THE WRENCH SIGN WAS NO LONGER THERE. RODE THE CAR FOR ABOUT 10 MILES TO GET TO MY HOUSE. RAN SOME ERRANDS (ABOUT 20 ROUND TRIP MILES) LATER AND THE CAR RODE FINE. ON 5/30/2013 MORNING (TODAY) ON MY WAY TO WORK, THE TRUCK STALLED AGAIN WITH THE LIT UP WRENCH SIGN. PULLED ON TO THE SHOULDER, TURNED OFF ENGINE AND GOT THE TRUCK TOWED TO THE CLOSEST FORD DEALER - BOB DAVIDSON FORD,, PARKVILLE, MARYLAND 21234 (410-661-6400). THEY PERFORMED DIAGNOSTICS FOR A FEE OF $123.00 AND SAID THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE SERVICE DEPT INDICATED THAT THEY WERE OUT OF THESE PARTS AND IS BACKORDERED. THEY WERE NOT SURE WHEN THEY WILL GET THE PART. I DROVE THE SUV HOME WITH NO FURTHER PROBLEMS. I CALLED FORD MOTOR CO. CUSTOMER RELATIONS AND COMPLAINED. THEY ISSUED A CLAIM NUMBER CAS[XXX]. I AM UNABLE TO RENT A CAR AS I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WOULD BE UNTIL THEY GET THE PART TO FIX. I SEARCHED AND FOUND THAT THIS HAD BEEN A RECURRING PROBLEM FOR THE ESCAPE 2010. FORD SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR THIS PROBLEM, I ASKED THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE "IS FORD WAITING UNTIL PEOPLE GET KILLED TO FIX THIS DANGEROUS DEFECT?". IT IS QUITE DANGEROUS IF IT HAPPENS WHILE DRIVING IN THE EXPRESS WAY AT 55-60 MPH IN AN INSIDE LANE. GOD HELP THE ESCAPE OWNERS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514340
38,777 miles · May 30, 2013
Engine
TOOK OFF FROM STOP LIGHT, MADE A LEFT TURN AND WHILE IN MIDDLE OF TURN, FELT LOSS OF POWER, CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I LOOKED AT DASH AND NOTICED WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BATTERY SYMBOL IN RED AND THE OIL SYMBOL IN RED. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION TO OFF POSITION, WAITED A SECOND OR TWO AND TURNED BACK ON. VEHICLE ST…
Read full complaint
TOOK OFF FROM STOP LIGHT, MADE A LEFT TURN AND WHILE IN MIDDLE OF TURN, FELT LOSS OF POWER, CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. I LOOKED AT DASH AND NOTICED WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BATTERY SYMBOL IN RED AND THE OIL SYMBOL IN RED. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION TO OFF POSITION, WAITED A SECOND OR TWO AND TURNED BACK ON. VEHICLE STARTED RIGHT BACK UP AND I CONTINUED ON MY WAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514265
54,000 miles · May 30, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline
CAR STALLED ON HIGHWAY AT 70 MILES PER HOUR. SEEMED LIKE CAR SHUTOFF, BUT LATER REALIZED THAT CAR WAS STILL ON BUT NOT MOVING. TOOK TO DEALER IT WAS DIAGNOSED AS THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE. QUITE DANGEROUS DUE TO SUDDEN LOSS OF CONTROL ON HIGHWAY, EASILY COULD OF BEEN HIT BY OTHER CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514200
75,125 miles · May 30, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING ALONG AROUND AT 45 OR 50 MPH AND WENT TO TURN ON THE AIR CONDITIONER AND THE CAR STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND THE CAR RESTARTED.. PREVIOUS TO THIS WHEN TURNING ON THE AC THE CAR GOT VERY SLUGGISH, I WAS STEPPING ON THE GAS BUT THE CAR WOULD NOT GO. AFTER A VERY SHORT TIME THE CAR RECOVERED AND NORMAL SPEED WAS A…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ALONG AROUND AT 45 OR 50 MPH AND WENT TO TURN ON THE AIR CONDITIONER AND THE CAR STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND THE CAR RESTARTED.. PREVIOUS TO THIS WHEN TURNING ON THE AC THE CAR GOT VERY SLUGGISH, I WAS STEPPING ON THE GAS BUT THE CAR WOULD NOT GO. AFTER A VERY SHORT TIME THE CAR RECOVERED AND NORMAL SPEED WAS ATTAINED. I FEAR THIS MAY HAPPEN PULLING INTO TRAFFIC OR MERGING AND THIS HAPPENING WOULD BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. I WAS TOLD BY THE DEALERSHIP I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE FROM THAT FORD IS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THIS PART. WHEN I SEARCHED THE INTERNET I SAW THAT MANY OTHERS HAVE HAD THE SAME OR SIMILAR ISSUES WITH THE 2005 -2011 ESCAPES. I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT FORD IS DOING A REDESIGN OF THIS PART BUT NO DATE AS TO WHEN IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE. MY DEALERSHIP STATED THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND THE SAME PART BUT NO PROMISES IF IT WOULD LAST. THEY ALSO STATED THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM WHILE IN THE SHOP, THUS IT'S AN INTERMITTENT OCCURENCE. THEY RECOMMENDED JUST DRIVING THE VEHICLE AND KEEPING IN TOUCH TO SEE WHEN THE REDESIGN IS AVAILABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514197
39,000 miles · May 30, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING IN THE LEFT LANE OF A 3 LANE INTERSTATE, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND I HAD TO CAREFULLY MANEUVER TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER. AS I WAS LOSING ACCELERATION, I NEARLY CAUSED SEVERAL ACCIDENTS AS I COULDN'T SPEED UP AS NEEDED. WHEN I FINALLY MADE IT TO A COMPLETE STOP, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO RUN WITH THE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING IN THE LEFT LANE OF A 3 LANE INTERSTATE, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND I HAD TO CAREFULLY MANEUVER TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER. AS I WAS LOSING ACCELERATION, I NEARLY CAUSED SEVERAL ACCIDENTS AS I COULDN'T SPEED UP AS NEEDED. WHEN I FINALLY MADE IT TO A COMPLETE STOP, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO RUN WITH THE WRENCH LIGHT ON BUT I COULD NOT MOVE. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE, WAITED ABOUT A MINUTE AND WAS THEN ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE TO RETURN HOME. SINCE I THOUGHT IT WAS A ONE-TIME INCIDENT, I ONLY MENTIONED IT DURING AN OIL CHANGE AND NOTHING WAS DONE. THEN IT BECAME A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE, LIMITING MY COMFORT IN DRIVING ANYWHERE BEYOND 10 MILES. WHEN I CALLED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE LOCAL FORD DEALER, THEY WERE ABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM OVER THE PHONE, WITHOUT NEEDING ME TO BRING IT IN. UPON ARRIVAL AT DEALERSHIP, THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED WAS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514190
59,683 miles · May 29, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE STARTED STALLING WHILE APPROACHING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND CONTINUED TO STALL TO WHERE EVENTUALLY THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON-OPERATIONAL. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND A MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT OPERATING PROPERLY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. FORD STAFF INDICATED THE PART IS NOT COVERED UND…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE STARTED STALLING WHILE APPROACHING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND CONTINUED TO STALL TO WHERE EVENTUALLY THE GAS PEDAL WAS NON-OPERATIONAL. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND A MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT OPERATING PROPERLY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. FORD STAFF INDICATED THE PART IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE POWER TRAIN WARRANTY AND THE REPLACEMENT PART WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID OUT OF POCKET AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514142
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