NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reports31,000 miles · Nov 17, 2012
Visibility
MY FAMILY WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE ON A TRIP, MY WIFE CLOSED THE REAR TRUNK OF OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE, AND THE WINDOW ON THE REAR TRUNK SHATTERED COMPLETELY. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO OBSTRUCTION; THE WINDOW EXPLODED ON IMPACT. BROKEN GLASS FELL IN ALL DIRECTIONS: IN THE CAR, IN THE PARKING LOT, ON MY WIFE, AND AROUND THE NEIGHBORING CARS…
Read full complaint
MY FAMILY WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE ON A TRIP, MY WIFE CLOSED THE REAR TRUNK OF OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE, AND THE WINDOW ON THE REAR TRUNK SHATTERED COMPLETELY. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO OBSTRUCTION; THE WINDOW EXPLODED ON IMPACT. BROKEN GLASS FELL IN ALL DIRECTIONS: IN THE CAR, IN THE PARKING LOT, ON MY WIFE, AND AROUND THE NEIGHBORING CARS. WE CLEANED UP THE GLASS ON THE GROUND AND DROVE THE CAR TO OUR DEALERSHIP. WE HAVE A FULL BUMPER-TO-BUMPER WARRANTY, BUT WERE TOLD THIS TYPE OF DAMAGE IS "UNWARRANTABLE." AS IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, ANY INSTANCE IN WHICH A WINDOW SHATTERS COMPLETELY AND GLASS SHARDS FALL INSIDE THE CAR, FORD CONCLUDES THERE MUST HAVE BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION AND DOES NOT COVER THE COST OF REPLACEMENT. FORD'S CORPORATE OFFICE SAID THEY COULD NOT OVERTURN THE SERVICEMAN'S CONCLUSION UNLESS THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE PART IN QUESTION. I BELIEVE THIS IS AN ABUSE. THE WINDOW IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE: I HAVE BEEN DRIVING FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS AND NEVER WITNESSED A WINDOW EXPLODE AS THIS ONE DID, AND THEN I FIND THAT AT LEAST 18 SIMILAR COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE NHTSA FOR THE SAME ISSUE. TO INSIST THAT A PART MUST BE UNDER RECALL BEFORE THEY HONOR A WARRANTY IS AN UNREALISTIC HURDLE THAT FORD PUTS IN PLACE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10485002
35,000 miles · Nov 15, 2012
Steering
POWER STEERING FAILS FOR SEVERAL SECONDS WHEN TURNING STEERING WHEEL TO A HARD LEFT OR RIGHT. MOST COMMONLY OCCURS WHEN PARALLEL PARKING. THE PROBLEM STARTED OUT AS A ONCE IN A WHILE EVENT AND IS NOW BECOMING MORE FREQUENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10484749
42,000 miles · Nov 14, 2012
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN SUDDENLY I LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND HAD TO COAST OFF THE ROAD. A WRENCH WAS LIT UP ON MY DASHBOARD AND ALTHOUGH I HAD NO ACCELERATION, MY ENGINE WAS STILL SPUTTERING/RUNNING. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTING IT, IT RAN FAN AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF. IT RAN FINE FOR …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN SUDDENLY I LOST ALL ACCELERATION AND HAD TO COAST OFF THE ROAD. A WRENCH WAS LIT UP ON MY DASHBOARD AND ALTHOUGH I HAD NO ACCELERATION, MY ENGINE WAS STILL SPUTTERING/RUNNING. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES AND RESTARTING IT, IT RAN FAN AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS OFF. IT RAN FINE FOR THE NEXT WEEK UNTIL IT HAPPEN AGAIN. I WAS PULLIN ONTO THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE HIGHWAY AND THE CAR AGAIN LOST ALL ACCELERATION, BUT CONTINUED TO RUN. THIS CONTINUED ALL THE WAY HOME, WHICH I ARRIVED SAFELY, LUCKILY. I CALLED A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET A SERVICE MANAGER ON THE PHONE. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO CALL ME BACK, WHICH THEY NEVER DID. I ENDED UP TAKING MY CAR TO ANOTHER SHOP NEAR MY HOME AND THEY TOLD ME THAT MY ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY HAD GONE OUT. THEY HAD RECENTLY MADE THIS FIX TO TWO OTHER FORD ESCAPES, WHICH CONCERNED ME. THEY ALSO HAD TO GET THE REPLACEMENT PIECE DIRECTLY FROM FORD, WHICH ALSO CONCERNS ME BECAUSE I AM NOW CONVINCED IT IS A FAULTY PIECE ALTOGETHER. I STILL FEEL AT RISK AS THEY HAVE ONLY REPLACED THE PIECE WHICH I FEEL MAY STILL BY FAULTY. I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT FORD WAS PUT SO MANY PEOPLE AT RISK AND MY HOPE IS THAT THIS IS RESEARCHED AND IS RECALLED FOR PEOPLES SAFETY. I FEEL SO BLESSED THAT MY CHILD WAS NOT IN THE CAR WITH ME DURING THESE INCIDENTS ALTHOUGH I WAS EXTREMELY SCARED FOR MY OWN WELL BEING. I WOULD LIKE FORD TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10484645
23,000 miles · Nov 9, 2012
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE GEARS WOULD SHIFT HARD AND LONG. THE FAILURE OCCURRED INTERMITTENTLY. WHEN THE GEAR WAS SHIFTED INTO REVERSE AND THEN BACK TO DRIVE, THE VEHICLE WOULD SHAKE VIOLENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO REBUILT THE TRANSMISSION. AFTER THE REBUILDING OF THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE GEARS WOULD SHIFT HARD AND LONG. THE FAILURE OCCURRED INTERMITTENTLY. WHEN THE GEAR WAS SHIFTED INTO REVERSE AND THEN BACK TO DRIVE, THE VEHICLE WOULD SHAKE VIOLENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO REBUILT THE TRANSMISSION. AFTER THE REBUILDING OF THE TRANSMISSION, THE GEAR CONTINUED TO SHIFT HARD AND LONG. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AND WHILE PERFORMING A DIAGNOSTIC TEST, THEY ADVISED THAT THERE WERE NO FAILURE CODES GENERATED AND THEY COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO EXHIBIT PROBLEMS WITH THE GEARS SHIFTING CORRECTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED A SECOND TIME. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED WHO OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 23,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 57,000.
NHTSA ODI #10483854
41,000 miles · Nov 7, 2012
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING WRENCH LIGHT AND ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED WITH SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER VERY DANGEROUS. IF IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED .5 MILES LATER MERGING ONTO HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR COULD HAVE BEEN FATAL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10483621
14,499 miles · Nov 6, 2012
EnginePower Train
I HAVE A 2010 FORD ESCAPE THAT SURGES FORWARD WHEN I COME TO A STOP. THE RPM RISES AND I HAVE TO STAND ON THE BRAKE TO KEEP IT GOING FORWARD. NO FAULT LIGHTS COME ON. I HAVE HAD IT CHECKED A WEEK A GO, THEY COULD NOT FIND ANY PROBLEM. NO CODES OR ANYTHING. PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS MATTER.I,M AFRAID TO HAVE MY WIFE DRIVE THIS CAR…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2010 FORD ESCAPE THAT SURGES FORWARD WHEN I COME TO A STOP. THE RPM RISES AND I HAVE TO STAND ON THE BRAKE TO KEEP IT GOING FORWARD. NO FAULT LIGHTS COME ON. I HAVE HAD IT CHECKED A WEEK A GO, THEY COULD NOT FIND ANY PROBLEM. NO CODES OR ANYTHING. PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS MATTER.I,M AFRAID TO HAVE MY WIFE DRIVE THIS CAR. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10483489
31,000 miles · Nov 5, 2012
Visibility/wiperInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE CLOSED HER LIFT GATE AND THE WINDOW EXPLODED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE SUSTAINED MINOR CUTS FROM THE GLASS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A GLASS REPAIR SHOP AND THEY STATED THAT THE WINDOW MAY HAVE BEEN OFF TRACK. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS N…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE CLOSED HER LIFT GATE AND THE WINDOW EXPLODED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE SUSTAINED MINOR CUTS FROM THE GLASS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A GLASS REPAIR SHOP AND THEY STATED THAT THE WINDOW MAY HAVE BEEN OFF TRACK. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND THEY STATED THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 31,000.
NHTSA ODI #10483375
37,925 miles · Nov 2, 2012
EngineFuel/propulsion System
MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON STEADILY OUT OF THE BLUE. TOOK IT TO FORD DEALER AND WAS TOLD I NEEDED TO REPLACE A FAULTY PURGE VALVE. PART NUMBER:9U5Z-9C915-H. I WAS TOLD THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM FOR ESCAPE'S AND FUSION'S. THERE WERE 3 ESCAPES TODAY HAVING THE SAME PART REPLACED. NOT UNDER WARRANTY AND $300. THERE IS A TE…
Read full complaint
MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON STEADILY OUT OF THE BLUE. TOOK IT TO FORD DEALER AND WAS TOLD I NEEDED TO REPLACE A FAULTY PURGE VALVE. PART NUMBER:9U5Z-9C915-H. I WAS TOLD THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM FOR ESCAPE'S AND FUSION'S. THERE WERE 3 ESCAPES TODAY HAVING THE SAME PART REPLACED. NOT UNDER WARRANTY AND $300. THERE IS A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ON THIS ISSUE, BUT NOT A RECALL. SEEMS LIKE A COMMON DEFECT COULD HAVE SAFETY REPERCUSSIONS SINCE IS THE FUEL FUMES NOT EXHAUSTING PROPERLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10483203
37,552 miles · Nov 2, 2012
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH IN RAINY WEATHER, THE VEHICLE STALLED AS THE ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN. THE VEHICLE WAS MERGED TO THE SHOULDER AND A TOW TRUCK WAS NOTIFIED WHO TOWED THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH IN RAINY WEATHER, THE VEHICLE STALLED AS THE ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN. THE VEHICLE WAS MERGED TO THE SHOULDER AND A TOW TRUCK WAS NOTIFIED WHO TOWED THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE THROTTLE BOX FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED WHO STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 37,552.
NHTSA ODI #10483126
22,000 miles · Oct 30, 2012
Engine
FIRST INCIDENT: NOV 2011 - SLOWED TO ENTER ROUND ABOUT AND VEHICLE STALLED/LOST ALL POWER. I DRIFTED ACROSS THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE, PUT IT IN PARK, AND IT RESTARTED. SECOND INCIDENT: OCT 26, 2012 - STOPPED TO MAKE A TURN AND VEHICLE STALLED/LOST POWER. PUT IT IN PARK AND IT RESTARTED, DEALER SAID IT WAS THROTTLE BODY AND R…
Read full complaint
FIRST INCIDENT: NOV 2011 - SLOWED TO ENTER ROUND ABOUT AND VEHICLE STALLED/LOST ALL POWER. I DRIFTED ACROSS THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE, PUT IT IN PARK, AND IT RESTARTED. SECOND INCIDENT: OCT 26, 2012 - STOPPED TO MAKE A TURN AND VEHICLE STALLED/LOST POWER. PUT IT IN PARK AND IT RESTARTED, DEALER SAID IT WAS THROTTLE BODY AND REPLACED IT (AND CHARGED ME) AND SAID THERE WERE NO TECHNICAL BULLETINS ON THIS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10482602
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.