NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reports41,914 miles · Jan 31, 2013
EnginePower Train
THIS VEHICLE BELONGS TO MY DAUGHTER AND WHILE DRIVING TO GET LUNCH THE SAID VEHICLE SLOWED AND STARTED JERKING AND SHAKING. THE ENGINE DIDN'T DIE BUT THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT THROTTLE UP. SHE EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO RETURN BACK TO WORK AND LATER IN THE AFTERNOON HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AND SHE LEFT WORK FOR HER APPOINTMENT…
Read full complaint
THIS VEHICLE BELONGS TO MY DAUGHTER AND WHILE DRIVING TO GET LUNCH THE SAID VEHICLE SLOWED AND STARTED JERKING AND SHAKING. THE ENGINE DIDN'T DIE BUT THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT THROTTLE UP. SHE EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO RETURN BACK TO WORK AND LATER IN THE AFTERNOON HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AND SHE LEFT WORK FOR HER APPOINTMENT AND TRAVELED ABOUT A MILE BEFORE EXPERIENCING THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. MY DAUGHTER PHONE ME FOR HELP AND I WENT TO HER LOCATION AND WE TRADED VEHICLES AND I TRIED TO DRIVE IT BUT IT WOULDN'T ACCELERATE AS BEFORE. THE ENGINE WOULD IDLE AND THE SPEEDOMETER INDICATED 3 MPH. I NOTIFIED FORD AND REQUESTED A WRECKER AND THEN WAS ABLE TO GET THE ESCAPE TO DRIVE ABOUT ANOTHER MILE BEFORE IT STALLED AGAIN. I WAITED FOR A WRECKER THAT NEVER CAME AND I FINALLY STARTED THE ENGINE AGAIN AND ENTERED THE INTERSTATE AND TRAVELED ABT SIX MILES AT 65 -70 MPH WHEN IT LOST POWER AGAIN. I IDLED AT 3 MPH FOR ABOUT A MILE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY WERE CLOSED. FINALLY I IDLED ANOTHER 2 MILES TO THE DAUGHTER'S RESIDENCE AND PARKED THE VEHICLE IN HER GARAGE.THE NEXT DAY I WENT TO AUTOZONE AND I ASKED THEM WHAT CODES P2111 AND P2112 WERE AND THEY ADVISE ME IT HAD TO DO WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. I THEN DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AT 3 MPH AND LEFT IT . I PURCHASED A THROTTLE BODY FROM ANOTHER FORD DEALERSHIP AND INSTALLED IT IN ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES. IT SEEMS TO BE RUNNING GOOD NOW AFTER TEST DRIVING IT FOR 15 MILES WITH NO ISSUES. THE VEHICLE'S WARRANTY EXPIRED @ 3YRS OR 36,000 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10496021
60,400 miles · Jan 31, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
THE CAR LOST ENGINE POWER UNEXPECTEDLY WHILE UNDER WAY. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL MADE NO DIFFERENCE, AND THE CAR WOULD NOT COAST - IT LOST SPEED RAPIDLY. UPON TURNING THE CAR OFF AND WAITING A FEW MINUTES, THE CAR WOULD RESTART AND OPERATE NORMALLY. SOMETIMES IT WOULD OPERATE FOR NORMALLY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRIP, OTHER TIMES …
Read full complaint
THE CAR LOST ENGINE POWER UNEXPECTEDLY WHILE UNDER WAY. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL MADE NO DIFFERENCE, AND THE CAR WOULD NOT COAST - IT LOST SPEED RAPIDLY. UPON TURNING THE CAR OFF AND WAITING A FEW MINUTES, THE CAR WOULD RESTART AND OPERATE NORMALLY. SOMETIMES IT WOULD OPERATE FOR NORMALLY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRIP, OTHER TIMES THE CAR WOULD EXHIBIT THE PROBLEM AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10495324
Mileage unknown · Jan 30, 2013
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STARTED THE IGNITION AND AN UNUSUAL NOISE EMITTED FROM THE ENGINE AREA AND THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE ENGINE WAS SHUT DOWN. UPON RESTARTING, THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO RESUME NORMALLY. THE FAILURE OCCURRED WHILE IDLING OR WHEN THE IGNITION WAS STARTED. THE VEHICLE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STARTED THE IGNITION AND AN UNUSUAL NOISE EMITTED FROM THE ENGINE AREA AND THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE ENGINE WAS SHUT DOWN. UPON RESTARTING, THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO RESUME NORMALLY. THE FAILURE OCCURRED WHILE IDLING OR WHEN THE IGNITION WAS STARTED. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE MALFUNCTION. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10495278
50,809 miles · Jan 29, 2013
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE IDLING, THE VEHICLE MADE LOUD NOISES. AS THE CONTACT TRIED TO ACCELERATE, THE VEHICLE HESITATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED BY A DEALER OR AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE FAILURE OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY SIX TIMES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE IDLING, THE VEHICLE MADE LOUD NOISES. AS THE CONTACT TRIED TO ACCELERATE, THE VEHICLE HESITATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED BY A DEALER OR AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE FAILURE OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY SIX TIMES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 50,809. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 50,934. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10495049
37,500 miles · Jan 28, 2013
Engine
DECEMBER 28 ,2012- WHILE TRAVELING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65MPH MY 2010 ESCAPE ENGINE CUT OFF. I FINALLY GOT TO EMERGENCY LANE AND THE SUV WAS IDLING ROUGH. I CUT THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED IT IN A FEW MINUTES.I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP TODAY. THEY RAN A DIAGNOSTIC TEST AND NOTHING WAS WRONG. THEY OFFER TO DRIVE IT TO SEE …
Read full complaint
DECEMBER 28 ,2012- WHILE TRAVELING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65MPH MY 2010 ESCAPE ENGINE CUT OFF. I FINALLY GOT TO EMERGENCY LANE AND THE SUV WAS IDLING ROUGH. I CUT THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED IT IN A FEW MINUTES.I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP TODAY. THEY RAN A DIAGNOSTIC TEST AND NOTHING WAS WRONG. THEY OFFER TO DRIVE IT TO SEE IF IT WOULD CUT OFF AGAIN. I HAVE ALWAYS BOUGHT TOYOTA BUT THOUGHT I WOULD BUY FORD THIS TIME. THEY ARE DEFINITELY A PROBLEM SO FORD STAND BEHIND YOUR PRODUCT AND FIX IT BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT OR KILLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10495006
26,490 miles · Jan 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING THERE WAS A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER. THE WRENCH ICON LIT UP ON THE DASH DISPLAY & THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON TOO. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE GAS PEDAL AT ALL. THE ENGINE STAYED ON & ALL OTHER FEATURES OF THE VEHICLE WORKED. I SHUT THE CAR OFF & RESTARTED THE VEHICLE & CONTINUED DRIVING. THIS OCCURRED 4 TIMES WI…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THERE WAS A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER. THE WRENCH ICON LIT UP ON THE DASH DISPLAY & THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON TOO. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE GAS PEDAL AT ALL. THE ENGINE STAYED ON & ALL OTHER FEATURES OF THE VEHICLE WORKED. I SHUT THE CAR OFF & RESTARTED THE VEHICLE & CONTINUED DRIVING. THIS OCCURRED 4 TIMES WITHIN A HALF HOUR. IT WAS A MIRACLE THAT I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN AN AUTO ACCIDENT. I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE BACK TO A FORD DEALER WHERE THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. VEHICLE HAS BEEN OPERATING FINE EVER SINCE & THE GAS PEDAL IS MORE RESPONSIVE THAN IT WAS BEFORE. THE ORIGINAL BUMPER TO BUMPER WARRANTY EXPIRED LESS THAN 2 MONTHS AGO & I HAD TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR. I AM VERY UNHAPPY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10494882
40,235 miles · Jan 25, 2013
Engine
2010 FORD ESCAPE ENGINE STALLS AT RANDOM TIMES: IT'S HAPPENED TO ME SIX TIMES NOW. FIRST WHILE I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, I WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO GET ENOUGH THROTTLE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I WAS ALMOST REAR-ENDED, I REALLY…
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE ENGINE STALLS AT RANDOM TIMES: IT'S HAPPENED TO ME SIX TIMES NOW. FIRST WHILE I WAS DRIVING 65 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, I WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO GET ENOUGH THROTTLE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I WAS ALMOST REAR-ENDED, I REALLY THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO BE KILLED. IT IS A VERY SCARY SITUATION, GOING FROM 65 MPH TO NOTHING. THE CAR JUST SHUTS OFF AND GOES INTO SOME TYPE OF ROUGH IDLE MODE AND A LITTLE ORANGE WRENCH APPEARS ON THE DASH. AFTER STOPPING AND TURNING OFF THE ENGINE IT WILL START BACK UP. FIRST OCCURRENCE WAS DECEMBER 7TH, 2012, SECOND AND THIRD WERE SEVERAL DAYS LATER. FOURTH AND FIFTH WERE JANUARY 24TH 2013 AND THE SIXTH ON JANUARY 25, 2013. FOUR TIMES WERE ON THE INTERSTATE AT SPEEDS OF 60-65MPH. TWO TIMES WERE ON MAIN STREETS AT 35-40 MPH. CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW AND ALL SERVICE AS REQUIRED HAS BEEN PERFORMED AT DEALERSHIP. TOOK CAR IN AFTER FIRST TWO STALLS THEY STATED THEY COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10494708
Mileage unknown · Jan 24, 2013
Unknown Or Other
WHILE PARKED I SHUT THE BACK HATCH AS NORMAL. UPON SHUTTING THE GLASS EXPLODED SHATTERING THROWING GLASS EVERYWHERE INCLUDING COVERING MYSELF, MY SMALL CHILD SITTING IN THE CAR, AND ACROSS THE ENTIRE STREET.
NHTSA ODI #10495481
26,519 miles · Jan 23, 2013
Service Brakes
I WAS LEAVING THE DEALERSHIP FOR AN UNRELATED SERVICE AND NOTICED THAT MY CAR WAS HAVING TROUBLE GOING- IT FELT LABORED. INITIALLY I THOUGHT IT WAS COLD OR SOMETHING BUT SOON REALIZED THERE WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM. I TURNED AROUND AND DROVE BACK TO THE DEALER (1-2 MILES ROUND TRIP). WHEN I STOPPED THE CAR IT SMOKED. MY SERVICE PE…
Read full complaint
I WAS LEAVING THE DEALERSHIP FOR AN UNRELATED SERVICE AND NOTICED THAT MY CAR WAS HAVING TROUBLE GOING- IT FELT LABORED. INITIALLY I THOUGHT IT WAS COLD OR SOMETHING BUT SOON REALIZED THERE WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM. I TURNED AROUND AND DROVE BACK TO THE DEALER (1-2 MILES ROUND TRIP). WHEN I STOPPED THE CAR IT SMOKED. MY SERVICE PERSON SAYS ITS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKE SYSTEM AND WITH THE HCU. BASICALLY MY FRONT BRAKES LOCKED UP WHILE I WAS DRIVING. NO WARNING LIGHTS WERE ON. MY CAR IS STILL IN THE SHOP BECAUSE THE PARTS NEEDED TO ULTIMATELY FIX AND DIAGNOSE ARE ON BACKORDER UNTIL MID FEB. ALSO, THERE ARE APPARENTLY A COUPLE OTHER FORD ESCAPES IN THE SHOP RIGHT NOW WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. I BELIEVE THE PARTS ON ARE BACKORDER BECAUSE THIS IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE WITH THE ESCAPES. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND I BELIEVE THESE CARS SHOULD BE RECALLED. YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO CONTACT MY SERVICE PERSON [XXX] AT HOLMES TUTTLE FORD AT 520-292-3785. MY REPAIR ORDER # IS[XXX]. FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME AS WELL IF YOU FIND IT NECESSARY. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR LOOKING INTO THIS SAFETY ISSUE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10494494
18,000 miles · Jan 21, 2013
StructureVisibility/wiper
WENT GROCERY SHOPPING. LOADED GROCERIES IN REAR. CLOSED TAILGATE, WINDOW LITERATELY EXPLODED, GLASS EVERYWHERE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10493654
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.