NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reports53,000 miles · Sep 29, 2012
StructureVisibility
I SHUT MY TAILGATE AND THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. NO ONE WAS INJURED, BUT IT DEFINITELY MADE A HUGE MESS AND IT WAS A SHOCK TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN. THIS IS THE SECOND ISSUE MY VEHICLE HAS HAD THIS YEAR. A FEW MONTHS AGO THE THROTTLE CONTROL WENT ON THE VEHICLE. BOTH NOT COVERED BY FORD, DUE TO THE WARRANTY OV…
Read full complaint
I SHUT MY TAILGATE AND THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. NO ONE WAS INJURED, BUT IT DEFINITELY MADE A HUGE MESS AND IT WAS A SHOCK TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN. THIS IS THE SECOND ISSUE MY VEHICLE HAS HAD THIS YEAR. A FEW MONTHS AGO THE THROTTLE CONTROL WENT ON THE VEHICLE. BOTH NOT COVERED BY FORD, DUE TO THE WARRANTY OVER. I HAVE MANY CONCERNS THAT A TWO YEAR OLD VEHICLE COULD HAVE THESE TYPE OF THINGS GOING WRONG WITH IT. MY OTHER CONCERN IS FORD WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THESE ISSUES WITH RECALLS AND MANY OF MY FELLOW FORD OWNERS ARE HAVING THE SAME ISSUES. PLEASE CHECK INTO THIS FOR US. CAN SAY I DEFINITELY WON'T BE BUYING FORD AGAIN AFTER THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10477976
36,000 miles · Sep 28, 2012
EnginePower Train
WHILE TRAVELING ABOUT 20 MPH DOWN THE STREET, THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY LOST RESPONSIVENESS TO PRESSURE ON THE GAS PEDAL. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON INDICATED A POWER TRAIN MALFUNCTION. I DRIFTED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I THEN WAITED ABOUT A MINUTE AND TURNED THE CAR BACK ON AGAIN. EVERYTHING WAS FINE …
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING ABOUT 20 MPH DOWN THE STREET, THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY LOST RESPONSIVENESS TO PRESSURE ON THE GAS PEDAL. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON INDICATED A POWER TRAIN MALFUNCTION. I DRIFTED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I THEN WAITED ABOUT A MINUTE AND TURNED THE CAR BACK ON AGAIN. EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT AWAY. THE CAR DROVE FINE FOR ANOTHER 50 MILES OR SO. THEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. THERE IS NO WARNING AND WHEN IT HAPPENS NOTHING YOU DO CAN MAKE THE CAR RESPOND. TURNING THE CAR OFF THEN ON AGAIN SOLVED THIS PROBLEM. THROUGH SEARCHING THROUGH THIS DATABASE, IT IS APPARENT THIS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH FORD ESCAPE THROTTLE BODIES. MOST LIKELY A DEFECT IN THE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10477350
39,130 miles · Sep 18, 2012
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING ON A NORMAL ROAD, THE VEHICLE'S WRENCH LIGHT (ON THE DASH) ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. THAT IS, PRESSING THE ACCELERATOR YIELDED NO RESULTS. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A SHUDDERING STALL-OUT (ENGINE SHUT DOWN) WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED. THE FIRST ATTEMPT TO RESTART THE ENGINE RESULTED IN A CLIC…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON A NORMAL ROAD, THE VEHICLE'S WRENCH LIGHT (ON THE DASH) ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. THAT IS, PRESSING THE ACCELERATOR YIELDED NO RESULTS. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A SHUDDERING STALL-OUT (ENGINE SHUT DOWN) WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED. THE FIRST ATTEMPT TO RESTART THE ENGINE RESULTED IN A CLICKING NOISE. THE ENGINE STARTED WITHOUT FAULT ON THE SECOND ATTEMPT. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN WITHOUT INCIDENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE DAY AND THE FOLLOWING TWO DAYS. ON THE 4TH DAY, THE INCIDENT REPEATED. NORMAL VEHICLE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS ARE SHORT (10 TO 15 MINUTES) ONE-WAY TRIPS. FORD TECHNICIANS FOUND THE THROTTLE BODY WAS STICKING IN CLOSED POSITION. A NEW THROTTLE BODY WAS INSTALLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10475894
71,000 miles · Sep 15, 2012
Power Train
WHILE PULLING OFF FROM A STOP SIGN UNDER MODERATE ACCELERATION THE TRANSMISSION "FLARED" DROPPING OUT OF GEAR CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO STOP ACCELERATING, AND THE ENGINE TO REV. AFTER LETTING OFF THE ACCELERATOR THE VEHICLE REGAINED POWER. THIS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES OVER THE DAY. FINALLY TOOK IT TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10475487
47,428 miles · Sep 11, 2012
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE PROBLEM WAS RANDOMLY DEMONSTRATED SEVERAL TIMES BETWEEN 8/31/12 AND 9/4/12. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD SEEM TO STOP WORKING OR BECOME UNRESPONSIVE, MOST OFTEN AT SPEEDS OF 20-30 MPH. THERE WOULD BE SPUTTERING, STALLING, AND THEN TOTAL STOPPAGE.. THE MOTOR WAS RUNNING BUT THERE SEEMED TO BE NO FUEL FLOW. I WOULD TURN IT OFF, W…
Read full complaint
THE PROBLEM WAS RANDOMLY DEMONSTRATED SEVERAL TIMES BETWEEN 8/31/12 AND 9/4/12. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD SEEM TO STOP WORKING OR BECOME UNRESPONSIVE, MOST OFTEN AT SPEEDS OF 20-30 MPH. THERE WOULD BE SPUTTERING, STALLING, AND THEN TOTAL STOPPAGE.. THE MOTOR WAS RUNNING BUT THERE SEEMED TO BE NO FUEL FLOW. I WOULD TURN IT OFF, WAIT SEVERAL SECONDS, RESTART IT, AND EVERYTHING WOULD WORK SMOOTHLY UNTIL, WITH NO WARNING, THE PATTERN WOULD REPEAT ITSELF. IT OCCURRED FIVE TIMES /3 MILES, TWO TIMES/1 MILE, AND TWO TIMES/0.5 MILE. EARLY ON 9/4, THE PATTERN REPEATED THREE TIMES ON THE WAY TO THE REPAIR SHOP. THESE INCIDENTS PRODUCED ANXIETY FOR ME AND I WAS GOING SLOW. WE DID NOT DRIVE THE VEHICLE OVER THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND AS WE WERE CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS WHEN WE WOULD BE TRAVELING AT HIGH SPEEDS.THE ERROR TROUBLE CODES WERE PO685, P2111, P2112. HE SAID THE CAR WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE UNTIL IT WAS REPAIRED. SINCE THE MECHANIC REPORTED "THROTTLE BODY" BEING THE PROBLEM I RESEARCHED THE THROTTLE BODY AS IT RELATES TO THE FORD ESCAPE. IT CAUSES ME GREAT CONCERN THAT THIS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE A DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING PROBLEM ON THE ESCAPE SINCE 2000 AND I BOUGHT 3 NEW ESCAPES WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD; A 2002, A 2007, AND THE 2010 ESCAPE, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO EFFECTIVE, CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN TO RESOLVE THIS. THE DEALERSHIP HAS SAID THERE WILL BE NO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE $475.00 AND THIS PART IS NOT UNDER ANY WARRANTY. ALTHOUGH THE MONEY IS AN ISSUE, THE GREATER ISSUE IS THE NEED TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS. I HAVE THE OLD PART THAT WAS REPLACED AND I AM WILLING TO DO WHATEVER I CAN TO FORCE THIS PROBLEM TO BE RESOLVED.IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY I URGE YOU TO ISSUE AN IMMEDIATE RECALL UNTIL THIS PROBLEM IS RESOLVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10475123
32,900 miles · Sep 10, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER PURCHASING THE FORD ESCAPE, I WAS HEADED EAST FROM SOUTH KINGSTOWN, RI TO MA ON RT 79/24 AT 6:30 A.M. DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES AN HOUR, WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE CAR CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP AND THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON THE CONTROL PANEL. I WAS WITHOUT A CELL PHONE. IN THE DISTANCE I COU…
Read full complaint
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER PURCHASING THE FORD ESCAPE, I WAS HEADED EAST FROM SOUTH KINGSTOWN, RI TO MA ON RT 79/24 AT 6:30 A.M. DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES AN HOUR, WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE CAR CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP AND THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON THE CONTROL PANEL. I WAS WITHOUT A CELL PHONE. IN THE DISTANCE I COULD SEE AN OFF RAMP AND WAS ABOUT TO WALK. I SUCCESSFULLY RESTARTED THE CAR, EXITED THE HIGHWAY, TO RETURN TO RI. AFTER DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MILES, THE CAR AGAIN, WITHOUT ANY WARNING, CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP IN SEEKONK AND THE WRENCH LIGHT AGAIN CAME ON THE CONTROL PANEL. AGAIN, I RESTARTED THE CAR AND PROCEEDED CAUTIOUSLY TO SOUTH KINGSTOWN, WHEN THE CAR AGAIN STOPPED IN WAKEFIELD, AND THE WRENCH LIGHT INDICATING A POWER TRAIN FAILURE APPEARED ON THE CONTROL PANEL. I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE DEALER WHERE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED. IT STILL HAD A MONTH LEFT ON THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY. UPON INSPECTION THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT INDICATED THAT THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. THEY TOLD ME THAT UNLESS THE PROBLEM COULD BE RECREATED, THEY WOULD NOT REPLACE ANY PARTS. BECAUSE IT WAS LABOR DAY WEEKEND, I HAD TO WAIT UNTIL TUESDAY AND TOOK THE CAR TO A FORD DEALER IN NARRAGANSETT RI, WHERE THEY KEPT THE CAR FOR THREE DAYS. THEY COULDN'T REPLICATE THE INCIDENT AND SAID THAT UNLESS THEY COULD SIMULATE IT, FORD WOULD NOT PAY TO REPLACE ANY PARTS. *TR THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALER FOUR TIMES, TO TRY AND RECTIFY THE STALLING ISSUE, BUT TO NO AVAIL. UPDATED IVOQ 10/22/12
NHTSA ODI #10474445
81,000 miles · Sep 6, 2012
Steering
UPON STARTUP, VEHICLE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO TURN, NO POWER STEERING. TOOK TO LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP. HARD FAULT CODE B1342, EPAS FAILURE. REPAIR: REPLACE ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN. IF THIS HAD HAPPENED ON THE FREEWAY AT HIGHER SPEED, THE ABILITY TO SWERVE WOULD HAVE BEEN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE, POTENTIALLY CAUSING A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. COST…
Read full complaint
UPON STARTUP, VEHICLE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO TURN, NO POWER STEERING. TOOK TO LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP. HARD FAULT CODE B1342, EPAS FAILURE. REPAIR: REPLACE ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN. IF THIS HAD HAPPENED ON THE FREEWAY AT HIGHER SPEED, THE ABILITY TO SWERVE WOULD HAVE BEEN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE, POTENTIALLY CAUSING A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. COST OF REPAIR, $1400. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10474148
42,000 miles · Sep 5, 2012
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE'S ACCELERATOR (GAS) PEDAL RANDOMLY STOPS WORKING RESULTING IN IMMEDIATE LOSS OF SPEED AND POWER TO THE ENGINE. ACCELERATOR IS UNRESPONSIVE AND VEHICLE WILL SPUTTER/CRAWL TO 5 MPH UNTIL IGNITION IS TURNED OFF AND CAR RESTARTED. AFTER RESTART, VEHICLE RUNS NORMAL UNTIL PROBLEM OCCURS AGAIN (SOMETIMES WITHIN MINUTES).…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE'S ACCELERATOR (GAS) PEDAL RANDOMLY STOPS WORKING RESULTING IN IMMEDIATE LOSS OF SPEED AND POWER TO THE ENGINE. ACCELERATOR IS UNRESPONSIVE AND VEHICLE WILL SPUTTER/CRAWL TO 5 MPH UNTIL IGNITION IS TURNED OFF AND CAR RESTARTED. AFTER RESTART, VEHICLE RUNS NORMAL UNTIL PROBLEM OCCURS AGAIN (SOMETIMES WITHIN MINUTES). PROBLEM OCCURS RANDOMLY AS LITTLE AS 1 TIME PER TRIP TO AS MANY AS 8 TIMES IN A 25 MINUTE COMMUTE. PROBLEM OCCURRED 12 TIMES THE OTHER DAY WITH MANY OF THEM ON A MULTILANE INTERSTATE WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH IN THE FAR LEFT LANE WITH NOWHERE TO QUICKLY PULL-OFF THE ROAD. VERY DANGEROUS WHEN IT OCCURS ON THE INTERSTATE AND YOU QUICKLY HAVE TO MANEUVER TO CHANGE LANES AND PULL OFF THE ROAD OR RISK COMING TO A STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY HIGHWAY. THIS PROBLEM ALSO CAUSES THE VEHICLE TO SOMETIMES RUN ROUGH AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE EMISSIONS. THE ERROR CODE FROM THE VEHICLE'S COMPUTER IS P2112 WHICH IS RELATED TO THE THROTTLE BODY. I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS PROBLEM ON THE INTERNET AND DISCOVERED IT'S AN EXTREMELY COMMON AND VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE. A RECALL NEEDS TO BE ISSUED BEFORE SOMEONE GETS KILLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10473925
36,420 miles · Sep 5, 2012
Power Train
DRIVING VEHICLE ON BUSY HIGHWAY WITH CRUISE CONTROL AT 60 MPH. THE DASH WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE ENGINE IDLED DOWN, BACK-FIRED AND WOULD NOT ACCLERATE. WE HAD TO MANEUVER OFF THE ROAD AND STOP THE ENGINE FOR A FEW MINUTES THEN RESTART. IT THEN RAN LIKE IT SHOULD. IRONICALLY, WE WERE HEADED TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP TO HA…
Read full complaint
DRIVING VEHICLE ON BUSY HIGHWAY WITH CRUISE CONTROL AT 60 MPH. THE DASH WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE ENGINE IDLED DOWN, BACK-FIRED AND WOULD NOT ACCLERATE. WE HAD TO MANEUVER OFF THE ROAD AND STOP THE ENGINE FOR A FEW MINUTES THEN RESTART. IT THEN RAN LIKE IT SHOULD. IRONICALLY, WE WERE HEADED TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE THIS CHECKED AS THIS FAILURE HAD HAPPENED THREE (3) TIMES PRIOR. YESTERDAY, THE SERVICE TECH DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY AND WAS REPLACED WITH A NEW ONE. WE WERE NOT GIVEN WARRANTY COVERAGE BECAUSE THE MILEAGE WAS 36,4XX WHEN IT ARRVED AT THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT. AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN FOR SOMEONE ELSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10473885
33,000 miles · Sep 4, 2012
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainService Brakes, Hydraulic
MULTIPLE NOISES STARTED TO OCCUR. THE FIRST WAS A CRACKING NOISE WHEN ACCELERATING, SECOND CAME A CLICKING NOISE WHILE BRAKING AND THEN A HOWLING SOUND. THE CRACKLING NOISE HAS YET TO BE DISCOVERED, THE CLICKING WAS THE DRIVE SHAFT AND ROTORS. THE HOWLING NOISE IS SUPPOSEDLY THE TRANSFER CASE. ADDITIONALLY, THE GEARS DO NOT …
Read full complaint
MULTIPLE NOISES STARTED TO OCCUR. THE FIRST WAS A CRACKING NOISE WHEN ACCELERATING, SECOND CAME A CLICKING NOISE WHILE BRAKING AND THEN A HOWLING SOUND. THE CRACKLING NOISE HAS YET TO BE DISCOVERED, THE CLICKING WAS THE DRIVE SHAFT AND ROTORS. THE HOWLING NOISE IS SUPPOSEDLY THE TRANSFER CASE. ADDITIONALLY, THE GEARS DO NOT SEEM TO CATCH BETWEEN 50-65MPH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10473796
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.