← 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
Mileage unknown · Mar 20, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO THROTTLE CONTROL MALFUNCTION AND REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIRS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ALL ACCELERATION WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY IN CRUISE CONTROL MODE. THE RPM WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 700 DESPITE, THE CONSUMER APPLYING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. TH…

Read full complaint

2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO THROTTLE CONTROL MALFUNCTION AND REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIRS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ALL ACCELERATION WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY IN CRUISE CONTROL MODE. THE RPM WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 700 DESPITE, THE CONSUMER APPLYING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE LOCAL FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT GAVE THE CONSUMER SOME TROUBLESHOOTING STEPS TO RESET THE VEHICLE. THE SERVICE ADVISOR EXPLAINED, THE COMPUTER HAD STOPPED FUNCTIONING., WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO SHUT DOWN. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED TO ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO SIT IN THE OFF POSITION FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THE RE-START IT AGAIN. IT PROVIDED A TEMPORARY FIX, WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSUMER TO CONTINUE TO HER DESTINATION. THE AFTER THE CONSUMER RETRIEVED HER VEHICLE, THE LOW PRESSURE SENSOR HAD ACTIVATED. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO HER LOCAL MECHANIC, WHO OBSERVED THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING TRANSMISSION FLUID ON THE DRIVER SIDE BETWEEN THE AXLE AND TRANSMISSION. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER. AN INSPECTION REVEALED THE LEAK WAS COMING FROM A SEAL. WHEN THE CONSUMER PICKED THE VEHICLE UP, LATER THAT EVENING, THE LOW TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A TIRE DEALER, WHERE THEY FOUND A SCREW IN THE SIDEWALL OF THE DRIVER FRONT TIRE. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED, SHE WOULD NEED TO PURCHASE TWO NEW TIRES. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10502986

47,000 miles · Mar 18, 2013
Power Train

DRIVING CAR ON HIGHWAY ON DAILY COMMUTE IN 5:00 PM TRAFFIC. MERGING INTO TRAFFIC, GAVE IT GAS AND CAR SLOWED TO NOTHING, WOULD NOT INCREASE IN SPEED, RPMS VERY HIGH , WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON HAD TO TURN CAR OFF AND BACK ON TO GET IT HOME. TOOK TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY STATED IT WAS A BAD THROTTLE BODY, NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. …

Read full complaint

DRIVING CAR ON HIGHWAY ON DAILY COMMUTE IN 5:00 PM TRAFFIC. MERGING INTO TRAFFIC, GAVE IT GAS AND CAR SLOWED TO NOTHING, WOULD NOT INCREASE IN SPEED, RPMS VERY HIGH , WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON HAD TO TURN CAR OFF AND BACK ON TO GET IT HOME. TOOK TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY STATED IT WAS A BAD THROTTLE BODY, NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10503440

57,873 miles · Mar 18, 2013
EngineFuel System, Gasoline

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND ALSO EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CANISTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND ALSO EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CANISTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 57,873 UPDATED 04/30/13*LJ THE CHARCOAL CANISTER WAS REPLACED. UPDATED 05/20/13

NHTSA ODI #10503388

36,259 miles · Mar 15, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WOULD STALL WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. THERE WERE TIMES THAT I WAS GOING 45-55MPH AND MY VEHICLE WOULD STALL. I LOST POWER STEERING AS VEHICLE SHUT OFF. I HAD TO SLOW DOWN AND PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START THE VEHICLE. THIS WAS VERY DANGEROUS AND SCARY. THIS HAPPENED PROBABLY 10-15…

Read full complaint

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WOULD STALL WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. THERE WERE TIMES THAT I WAS GOING 45-55MPH AND MY VEHICLE WOULD STALL. I LOST POWER STEERING AS VEHICLE SHUT OFF. I HAD TO SLOW DOWN AND PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START THE VEHICLE. THIS WAS VERY DANGEROUS AND SCARY. THIS HAPPENED PROBABLY 10-15 TIMES UNTIL I COULD NO LONGER GET THE VEHICLE STARTED. I HAD IT TOWED INTO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND HAD THEIR SERVICE DEPARTMENT ANALYZE THE PROBLEM. I FIRST TOOK IT BY AN ADVANCE AUTO TO CHECK THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT. THE CODE THAT CAME UP I BELIEVE WAS 9000. IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH EMISSION, FUEL SYSTEM CONCERNS. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT PUT A THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY PART ON IT. I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS SINCE. THEY ALSO DID AN EEC TEST P2111 AND FOUND ETB TO BE AT FAULT AND REPLACED. I HAD TO PAY $356.52 INCLUDING LABOR FOR THIS. I FEEL FROM READING OTHER INFORMATION ON 2010 FORD ESCAPES THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES WITH STALLING. I FEEL I SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR MY EXPENSES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10503155

74,100 miles · Mar 13, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED THE 4 TIMES THE ESCAPE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION. EACH TIME IT NEEDED TO BE TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. 1ST FAILURE (1/24/13) WAS AT ABOUT 20MPH (OR LESS) WHILE MAKING A U-TURN. I WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO BUS LANE. 2ND FAILURE (2/4/13) WAS AT 50MPH AFTER TRAVELING 30 MILES IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. …

Read full complaint

THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED THE 4 TIMES THE ESCAPE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION. EACH TIME IT NEEDED TO BE TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. 1ST FAILURE (1/24/13) WAS AT ABOUT 20MPH (OR LESS) WHILE MAKING A U-TURN. I WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO BUS LANE. 2ND FAILURE (2/4/13) WAS AT 50MPH AFTER TRAVELING 30 MILES IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. I DROVE DIRECTLY TO A TRANSMISSION SHOP AND WAS TOLD "WHAT AN EXTREME SAFETY ISSUE THIS COULD BE AND THAT THIS WAS AN EXPENSIVE TRANSMISSION TO REBUILD AND IT WOULD BE $2000 TO $2500." 3RD FAILURE (2/5/13) AND BY NOW I AM QUICK TO START EMERGENCY FLASHERS. I WAS UNABLE TO RESTART IN N. I WAS ABLE TO PULL INTO A TURN LANE AND HAD TO TURN ESCAPE OFF AND RESTART. I STARTED RESEARCHING ON INTERNET AND DETERMINED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. 4TH FAILURE (2/11/13) SAME SENERIO. 2/14/13 I DROVE TO DON REID FORD, MAITLAND, FL. I SPOKE TO THE SERVICE MANAGER WHO AGREED WITH ME THAT THE PROBLEM WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. $300 FIX INCLUDED $99. LABOR WITH A 12 MONTH WARRANTY AT ANY FORD DEALER. THAT POINT SOLD ME SINCE THIS VEHICLE WAS LIKELY TO TRAVEL OUT OF TOWN, AND THAT IT COULD BE DONE WHILE I WAITED. I WAS NOT HAPPY TO CHECK MY PAPERWORK AFTER I GOT HOME AND FIND THAT INSTEAD OF STATING THE ISSUE IT SAID "CUSTOMER STATES REPLACE THROTTLE BODY PER CUSTOMER REQUEST" I CALLED THE SERVICE MANAGER AND EXPRESSED MY CONCERN THAT THIS VERY DANGEROUS SAFETY ISSUE WAS NOT DOCUMENTED ON MY PAPERWORK. I WAS TOLD THAT SINCE THE DEALER DID NOT DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM, WHICH WOULD HAVE COST ANOTHER $99 THAT THIS WAS THE WAY IT HAD TO BE WRITTEN UP. I BELIEVE THAT THIS SUDDEN GAS PEDAL FAILURE COULD CAUSE AN ACCIDENT AND SHOULD BE A RECALL BEFORE A DEATH OCCURS. THIS 2010 WAS BUILT 12/09. WE BOUGHT THIS ESCAPE 10/3/12 WITH 73,600 MILES ON IT. WE HAVE TESTED IT OUT ON A 200 MILE TRIP AND A 1,000 MILE TRIP.NOW TRUST THE 2010 ESCAPE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10502694

Mileage unknown · Mar 12, 2013
SeatsCrash

I WAS RECENTLY REAR ENDED ON THE DRIVER SIDE BY A MINIVAN TRAVELLING AT ATLEAST 40 MPH. THE FORCE OF THE COLLISION RESULTED IN MY SEAT BACK OF 2010 FORD ESCAPE TO AUTOMATICALLY RECLINE SEVERAL NOTCHES BACK. AFTER I STOPPED, I COULD NOT PULL THE SEAT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10502553

30,075 miles · Mar 11, 2013
Engine

THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED THE EXACT CONDITION AS DESCRIBED IN NHTSA INVESTIGATION # PE13003. TRAVELING STEADILY AT 30 MPH, FELT A SUDDEN 'THUMP' FROM THE DRIVETRAIN. THE 'WRENCH' INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON THE INDICATOR PANEL AND VEHICLE WENT INTO "LIMP HOME MODE' AND ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN AT LOW RPM (@ 900). THE THROTTLE DID NO…

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED THE EXACT CONDITION AS DESCRIBED IN NHTSA INVESTIGATION # PE13003. TRAVELING STEADILY AT 30 MPH, FELT A SUDDEN 'THUMP' FROM THE DRIVETRAIN. THE 'WRENCH' INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON THE INDICATOR PANEL AND VEHICLE WENT INTO "LIMP HOME MODE' AND ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN AT LOW RPM (@ 900). THE THROTTLE DID NOT RESPOND AND VEHICLE COULD NOT BE ACCELERATED. ELECTRICAL AND HYDRAULIC POWER WAS MAINTAINED, PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD AND STOPPED NORMALLY. ONCE IN PARK THE ENGINE BEGAN TO REV ERRATICALLY AT LOWER RPMS. TURNED OFF ENGINE, REMOVED KEY. I HAVE AN OBD SCANNER WHICH I USED TO CHECK FOR CODES - DELIVERED CODE "P2111". WE WERE ONLY A FEW BLOCKS FROM OUR HOME, RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND IT RETURNED TO NORMAL OPERATION AND SUCCESSFULLY DROVE HOME AND HAS CONTINUED NORMAL OPERATION TO PRESENT TIME (MARCH 11, 2013). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10502293

49,000 miles · Mar 5, 2013
Power Train

THE CAR WOULD JERK WHEN YOU DROVE IT. IT WAS A HARD JERK SOMETIMES AND HARDLY NOTICEABLE AT TIMES. I NEVER OWNED AN SUV SO I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS NORMAL. ASKED DEALER THEY DROVE AND STATED IT WAS OK. KEPT JERKING AT TIMES WHEN YOU WERE DRIVING. ESPECIALLY WHEN SLOWING DOWN IN VEHICLE, WOULD JERK WHEN SHIFTING FROM GEAR TO G…

Read full complaint

THE CAR WOULD JERK WHEN YOU DROVE IT. IT WAS A HARD JERK SOMETIMES AND HARDLY NOTICEABLE AT TIMES. I NEVER OWNED AN SUV SO I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS NORMAL. ASKED DEALER THEY DROVE AND STATED IT WAS OK. KEPT JERKING AT TIMES WHEN YOU WERE DRIVING. ESPECIALLY WHEN SLOWING DOWN IN VEHICLE, WOULD JERK WHEN SHIFTING FROM GEAR TO GEAR (AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION). ASKED WHITE FORD SERVICE AGAIN ABOUT HARD SHIFTING. IN OCTOBER AT 56,000 MILES ON VEHICLE THEY STATED THAT THEY COULD REPROGRAM COMPUTER AND SET IT. IT COST ME $105 FOR THEM TO DO THAT. DID NOT NOTICE MUCH DIFFERENCE, MAYBE A LITTLE BETTER. IN DECEMBER MY SON TOOK VEHICLE TO WHITE FORD BECAUSE I DID NOT FEEL LIKE THEY WERE LISTENING TO ME, THEY TOLD HIM NO TRANSMISSION TECHNICIAN. TAKE TO DIFFERENT FORD DEALER. TOOK TO NICK NICHOLAS FORD IN CRYSTAL RIVER, FL AND THEY STATED TRANS FLUID BURNT. $5,000 TO FIX. I TOOK VEHICLE TO TRI-COUNTY TRANSMISSION IN CHIEFLAND, FL. MGR. WORKED FOR FORD SERVICE 27 YEARS. THEY STATED TRANS FLUID BURNT, BLACK AND FINE METAL AND FICTION MAT, AND HAD TRANS TORN UP DUE TO DEFECTIVE PART. SOLENOID BORE WORN CAUSED CLUTCHES TO SLIP METAL ALL THRU TRANS AND CONVERTER. THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT SHOULD BE A RECALL. WHAT IF TRANSMISSION HAD FAILED ME??? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10501431

36,584 miles · Mar 4, 2013
EnginePower Train

DRIVING MY 2010 ESCAPE ON THE HIGHWAY THE ENGINE STALLED. THE SPEED I WAS GOING WAS ABOUT 60 MPH. WITH NO PRIOR WARNING THE WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, THE RPM'S FLUCTUATED BETWEEN 0500 AND 2500 AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER SAID THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AT MY EXPE…

Read full complaint

DRIVING MY 2010 ESCAPE ON THE HIGHWAY THE ENGINE STALLED. THE SPEED I WAS GOING WAS ABOUT 60 MPH. WITH NO PRIOR WARNING THE WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, THE RPM'S FLUCTUATED BETWEEN 0500 AND 2500 AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER SAID THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE AS IT WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10501204

43,869 miles · Mar 4, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING AT 35MPH, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND SUV WENT INTO "LIMP HOME MODE", SLOWING TO ONLY 10MPH. AFTER RE-STARTING SUV 2-TIMES SAME ERROR APPEAR. TOOK SUV TO LOCAL FORD DEALER TOM HOLZER, AND THEY SAID IT WAS A FAILING THROTTLE BODY SENSOR. INQUIRED IF THERE WAS A KNOWN WARRANTY ISSUE AND DEALER CONFIRMED NO, BUT A SER…

Read full complaint

DRIVING AT 35MPH, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND SUV WENT INTO "LIMP HOME MODE", SLOWING TO ONLY 10MPH. AFTER RE-STARTING SUV 2-TIMES SAME ERROR APPEAR. TOOK SUV TO LOCAL FORD DEALER TOM HOLZER, AND THEY SAID IT WAS A FAILING THROTTLE BODY SENSOR. INQUIRED IF THERE WAS A KNOWN WARRANTY ISSUE AND DEALER CONFIRMED NO, BUT A SERVICE BULLETIN EXISTED AT CUSTOMER'S EXPENSE - WHICH WAS NOT AGREEABLE. TOM HOLZER SERVICE MANAGER ADVISE TO CONTACT FORD DIRECTLY (WHICH WE DID) AND FORD SAID TO CONTACT SERVICE MANAGER (WHICH WE DID). AFTER NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS AND FORMAL COMPLAINTS WE RECEIVED NO SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION. FORD WAS BLAMING THE LOCAL DEALER, THE LOCAL DEALER BLAMING FORD, AND WE STILL HAD TO PAY $525 TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY SENSOR. (IRONICALLY OUR GOOD FRIENDS HAVE A 2010 CHEVY EQUINOX WITH 80,000 MILES THAT HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AND THEIR LOCAL CHEVY DEALER REPLACED THEIR THROTTLE BODY SENSOR AND PROVIDED LOANER VEHICLE DURING SERVICE PROCEDURE, BOTH AT NO CHARGE). NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE WERE VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE LOCAL DEALER AND FORD'S HANDLING OF THIS KNOWN PROBLEM, AND THIS WILL BE OUR LAST FORD VEHICLE PURCHASE AFTER 30-YEARS OF DEDICATED FORD VEHICLE PURCHASES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10501147

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