← New search

2010 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Escape years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Ford Escape are substantially higher than the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,764 reports with mileage · 305 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 558 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 508 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 493 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

29 crash reports3 fire reports19 injury reports

What owners actually said

2,069 reports
12,000 miles · Aug 27, 2011
Power Train

WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT A…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT AND PULL OFF THE RAMP ROAD BEFORE GETTING ON TO I-4. WE TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND SAT FOR A FEW MINUTES TO COMPOSE OURSELVES. I WAS HOPING THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD RESET ITSELF SO WE COULD CONTINUE. WE STARTED THE ENGINE AND WE CONTINUED TO THE AIRPORT WITHOUT ANYMORE PROBLEM. I DROVE HOME AND FOR TWO WEEKS DROVE WITHOUT INCIDENT UNTIL 8/26/2011. THE SAME THING HAPPENED AS BEFORE. THE ENGINE DOWN SHIFTED ABOUT 65 MPH AND THE ENGINE BEGAN REVVING. WE SLOWED THE VEHICLE AND CAME TO A STOP TO MAKE A LEFT TURN. AFTER EXCELERATING WE FELT THE ENGINE OVER REVVING BEFORE SHIFTING. THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. IT IS UNPREDICTABLE AS TO WHEN A PROBLEM WILL OCCUR. IT?S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMETHING BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN. WE NEED THIS PROBLEM FIXED WITH ASSURANCE THAT IT IS TRULY FIXED OR WE NEED RESTITUTION FROM FORD FOR SELLING US AN UNSAFE VEHICLE. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10422293

1,200 miles · Aug 22, 2011
Power Train

2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. STARTING WITH ABOUT 1200 MILES THE TRANSMISSION BEGAN HARD SHIFTS, HESITATION BETWEEN GEARS, JERKING HARD INTO REVERSE WHEN ENGAGING, HIGH SPEED SHIFTS JERK INTO GEAR SOUNDING LIKE THE REAR END IS FALLING OUT. FORD DEALER FIRST STATED IT WAS NORMAL, AFTER SEVERAL MORE COMPLAINTS THEY DECIDED TO REBUILD THE…

Read full complaint

2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. STARTING WITH ABOUT 1200 MILES THE TRANSMISSION BEGAN HARD SHIFTS, HESITATION BETWEEN GEARS, JERKING HARD INTO REVERSE WHEN ENGAGING, HIGH SPEED SHIFTS JERK INTO GEAR SOUNDING LIKE THE REAR END IS FALLING OUT. FORD DEALER FIRST STATED IT WAS NORMAL, AFTER SEVERAL MORE COMPLAINTS THEY DECIDED TO REBUILD THE TRANSMISSION. IT WORKED SMOOTHLY FOR ABOUT 200 MILES THEN STARTED THE SAME THINGS AGAIN, IT GETS MORE FREQUENT AS THE MILES MOUNT UP. MY WIFE IS AFRAID OF THE VEHICLE AND WILL NOT DRIVE OR RIDE IN IT. WHEN ROADS ARE WET THE SHIFTS ARE HARD ENOUGH TO MAKE THE WHEELS SPIN. LAST TIME THE DEALER ADJUSTED THE TRANSMISSION, IT NOW HESITATES WHEN PUTTING INTO GEAR. I WAS TURNING AROUND ON A ROAD THAT I SHOULD HAVE HAD AMPLE TIME BUT WHEN I PUT THE CAR INTO REVERSE IT DELAYED SO LONG TO ENGAGE THAT TRAFFIC WAS HEADING TOWARD ME. IF THE CAR SITS 2-3 DAYS, IT GIVES A LONG HESITATION TO GO INTO 2ND AND 3RD GEAR. ALSO, HAVE EXPERIENCED SQUEALING COMING FROM ENGINE COMPARTMENT, FORD HAS CHANGE THE BELT SEVERAL TIMES AND THE TENSIONER, IT LASTS FOR A FEW HUNDRED MILES AND STARTS AGAIN. ALL ITEMS I HAVE BEEN TOLD ARE NORMAL. I HAVE OWNED MORE THAN 20 CARS AND DO NOT FIND HARD SHIFTS, HESITATIONS, EXCESSIVE NOISE AND HARD CLUNKS TO BE NORMAL BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. I PAID $25,000 FOR THIS CAR, I HAVE DRIVEN CARS THAT COST HALF THIS PRICE THAT HANDLED BETTER. I HAVE BEEN A LOYAL FORD OWNER OF F150'S, EXPLORERS, EXPEDITIONS AND EVEN A COUPLE OF OLD F100'S. I HAD ALWAYS BEEN VERY HAPPY WITH THEM. THE ESCAPE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DOWNSIZE FOR OUR 2ND VEHICLE AND HAVE SOMETHING MORE ECONOMICAL, WE LIKED THEM WHEN WE RENTED THEM BUT THIS ONE HAS BEEN A VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT AND TIME CONSUMING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10420929

45,000 miles · Aug 7, 2011
Visibility

2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED(HYBRID) REAR WINDSHIELD GLASS EXPLODED SOMETIME DURING THE DAY WHILE I WAS WORKING A 12 HOUR SHIFT IN THE PARKING LOT OF MY CURRENT JOB. LOCATION BEING INDIANAPOLIS, IN, YESTERDAY WAS IN THE 90 DEGREE RANGE OF TEMPERATURE. WALK OUT TO MY CAR ABOUT 1:30 A.M. THIS MORNING AND SAW GLASS ALL OVER THE GROUND,…

Read full complaint

2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED(HYBRID) REAR WINDSHIELD GLASS EXPLODED SOMETIME DURING THE DAY WHILE I WAS WORKING A 12 HOUR SHIFT IN THE PARKING LOT OF MY CURRENT JOB. LOCATION BEING INDIANAPOLIS, IN, YESTERDAY WAS IN THE 90 DEGREE RANGE OF TEMPERATURE. WALK OUT TO MY CAR ABOUT 1:30 A.M. THIS MORNING AND SAW GLASS ALL OVER THE GROUND, LOOKED UP TO MY VEHICLE, AND NOTICED THE BACK WINDOW WAS STILL IN ONE PIECE IN THE MIDDLE AND GLASS CRACKED OUT ALL AROUND THE EDGES. NO SIGN OF AN ACCIDENT OR DAMAGE TO THE EXTERIOR OF MY VEHICLE EXCEPT LITTLE SCRATCHES FROM WHERE THE GLASS HAD BUSTED OUT. COMPONENTS HOLDING THE GLASS WERE HANGING OUT OF THE LATCH INCLUDING THE WINDSHIELD WIPER COMPONENT, HINGES GLASS WAS ATTACHED TO., AND GLASS LATCH YOU WOULD USE TO OPEN THE COMPARTMENT. BEING THAT THIS HAPPENED ON A SATURDAY NIGHT/SUNDAY MORNING, NO REPLACEMENTS WERE DONE AS THE FORD DEALERSHIP WILL NOT BE OPEN UNTIL MONDAY. HAVE A 5 YEAR/100K WARRANTY ON THE VEHICLE AND PLAN ON TAKING IT IN THE FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING. THE TRUNK COMPARTMENT HAD NOT BEEN USED ALL DAY OR EVEN THE VEHICLE SINCE ABOUT 11 AM EARLIER SATURDAY MORNING. HAD BEEN SITTING FOR CLOSE TO 13 HOURS. GLASS EXPLODED OUT ABOUT 4-5 FEET BEHIND THE VEHICLE. VERY DISPLEASED. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10417850

2,000 miles · Jul 25, 2011
Unknown Or Other

NEW 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT, 4 CYLINDER, WAS PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER, 2010. DURING LATE OCTOBER, 2010, A NOISE BECAME EVIDENT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. THE NOISE SOUNDS LIKE A BRIEF RUBBING NOISE. WEATHER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A FACTOR. THE VEHICLE WAS EXAMINED AT LEAST TWICE BY THE DEALER WHO DENIED HEARING THE NOIS…

Read full complaint

NEW 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT, 4 CYLINDER, WAS PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER, 2010. DURING LATE OCTOBER, 2010, A NOISE BECAME EVIDENT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. THE NOISE SOUNDS LIKE A BRIEF RUBBING NOISE. WEATHER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A FACTOR. THE VEHICLE WAS EXAMINED AT LEAST TWICE BY THE DEALER WHO DENIED HEARING THE NOISE AND DETERMINED IT WAS NOT A SAFETY CONCERN. ONE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE DEALER IS THAT IT COULD BE THE RESULT OF THE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE THE DRIVER USES ON THE GAS AND BREAK PEDALS. THE NOISE HAS OCCURRED WITH VARIOUS DRIVERS, SO I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DEALERS EXPLANATION. THE NOISE CONTINUES AS OF THIS DATE.

NHTSA ODI #10415910

32,500 miles · Jul 19, 2011
Steering

2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED AWD, BUILD DATE 10-29-2009. POWER STEERING FAILED DURING LEFT TURN, NEARLY CAUSING A SIDESWIPE CRASH WHEN THE STEERING WHEEL WOULD NOT RETURN TO STRAIGHT AHEAD POSITION. QUICK REFLEXES AND BRAKING PREVENTED THE CRASH. CAR HAD BEEN RUNNING FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES, OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE WAS 106 DEGREES. AF…

Read full complaint

2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED AWD, BUILD DATE 10-29-2009. POWER STEERING FAILED DURING LEFT TURN, NEARLY CAUSING A SIDESWIPE CRASH WHEN THE STEERING WHEEL WOULD NOT RETURN TO STRAIGHT AHEAD POSITION. QUICK REFLEXES AND BRAKING PREVENTED THE CRASH. CAR HAD BEEN RUNNING FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES, OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE WAS 106 DEGREES. AFTER BRAKING THE POWER STEERING RESUMED NORMAL FUNCTIONING. *KB

NHTSA ODI #10413543

24,283 miles · Jul 13, 2011
Unknown Or Other

I DROVE MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE TO THE OLYMPIC PENNINSULA FROM SEATTLE ON A SUNNY 70 DEGREE DAY (TAKING THE BREMERTON FERRY TO SAVE ON MILEAGE) AND DROVE ONE HOUR TO MY PROPERTY IN LILLIWAUP ON A PAVED ROAD. AFTER UNPACKING THE THE ESCAPE I CLOSED THE BACK HATCH AS USUAL AND IT EXPLODED BLOWING A MILLION PIECES OF GLASS 10 FEET IN A…

Read full complaint

I DROVE MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE TO THE OLYMPIC PENNINSULA FROM SEATTLE ON A SUNNY 70 DEGREE DAY (TAKING THE BREMERTON FERRY TO SAVE ON MILEAGE) AND DROVE ONE HOUR TO MY PROPERTY IN LILLIWAUP ON A PAVED ROAD. AFTER UNPACKING THE THE ESCAPE I CLOSED THE BACK HATCH AS USUAL AND IT EXPLODED BLOWING A MILLION PIECES OF GLASS 10 FEET IN ALL DIRECTIONS. I HAD MY DAUGHTER AND 3 YR OLD TWIN GRANDSONS WITH ME WHO WERE STANDING CLOSEBY. MIRACULOUSY NONE OF US WERE HURT BUT WE WERE ALL VERY SCARED AND SHAKEN! IT WAS LIKE A BOMB WENT OFF IN THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE. GLASS WAS STILL HANGING FROM THE WINDOW FRAME AND THE WIPER AND STRUTS WERE DANGLING OUTSIDE. IT TOOK ME 2-3 HRS TO CLEAN UP THE GLASS FROM THE CAR AND THE PROPERTY. I DUCT TAPED THE EDGES OF THE FRAME SO ANY REMAINING GLASS WOULD NOT BLOW BACK IN WHEN I DROVE HOME AND PUT SOCKS ON THE STRUTS SO AS NOT TO SCRATCH THE PAINT. LUCKILY IT WAS NOT RAINING ON THE WAY HOME AS IT OFTEN DOES IN SEATTLE. I GOOGLED THE PROBLEM WHEN I GOT HOME AND FOUND OUT THAT THERE ARE 18 OTHER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SAME PROBLEM ON THIS VEHICLE. I DROVE MY ESCAPE TO BILL PIERRE FORD SERVICE CENTER TODAY AND TOLD MY STORY AND THEY ARE REPLACING FOR FREE AND GIVING ME A FREE RENTAL CAR UNTIL THE NEW BACK WINDOW COMES IN WHICH THEY SAID WOULD BE 2-3 WEEKS! THEY SAID THEY JUST HAD ANOTHER 2010 FORD ESCAPE THERE WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. THIS CAN BE LIFE THREATENING IF IT EXPLODES AGAIN AND HITS SOMEONE IN THE FACE OR BODY AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN TO ANYONE! I WANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS PROBLEM AND FIX IT! I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW WINDOW I AM GETTING IS SAFE. I HAVE MY GRANDSONS WITH ME IN THIS VEHICLE ALL THE TIME.

NHTSA ODI #10412748

Mileage unknown · Jul 7, 2011
Power Train

THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED "FLARING" BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS LAST SEPTEMBER A MONTH AFTER I BOUGHT IT. "FLARING" IS A TERM USED BY FORD TO DESCRIBE WHEN THE TRANSMISSION DELAYS SHIFTING BETWEEN GEARS AND THE ENGINE REVS UNTIL IT FINALLY SHIFTS. THE DEALER HAS WORKED ON IT SEVERAL TIMES AND THE PR…

Read full complaint

THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED "FLARING" BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS LAST SEPTEMBER A MONTH AFTER I BOUGHT IT. "FLARING" IS A TERM USED BY FORD TO DESCRIBE WHEN THE TRANSMISSION DELAYS SHIFTING BETWEEN GEARS AND THE ENGINE REVS UNTIL IT FINALLY SHIFTS. THE DEALER HAS WORKED ON IT SEVERAL TIMES AND THE PROBLEM CONTINUES. THIS HAS NOT REALLY BEEN A SAFETY ISSUE UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO. IT STARTED "FLARING" OCCASIONALLY BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND GEARS ALSO. THIS IS A CONCERN BECAUSE I'M NOT UP TO SPEED WHEN THIS HAPPENS BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND. WITH TRAFFIC BEING HEAVY AT TIMES, I'M CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE COULD REAREND ME WHEN THIS HAPPENS. THE CAR IS AT THE DEALERSHIP NOW TO TRY TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. THE DEARER ALONG WITH THE FORD REPRESENTATIVE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS SO I DOUBT THEY WILL RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM EITHER. I'M FURTHER CONCERNED THAT IT COULD START HAPPENING WITH 1ST GEAR AND I COULD START TO ENTER A HIGHWAY AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE WHEN INTENDED AND THEN SUDDENLY ACCELERATE WHEN IT WASN'T SAFE TO DO SO. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10410891

43,000 miles · Jun 13, 2011
Power Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO TAKE THE VEHICLE OUT OF GEAR. SHE MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE BEFORE AND IT WAS AFTER SHE STARTED TOWING THE VEHICLE BEHIND HER RV. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO B…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO TAKE THE VEHICLE OUT OF GEAR. SHE MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE BEFORE AND IT WAS AFTER SHE STARTED TOWING THE VEHICLE BEHIND HER RV. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. TWO WEEKS LATER, WHILE TOWING THE VEHICLE THE TRANSMISSION STARTED SMOKING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS BURNED BEYOND REPAIR AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 43,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 44,000. UPDATED 07/20/11*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TWICE. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THAT FLAT TOWING CAUSED THE TRANSMISSION FAILURE, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNER'S MANUAL STATED TOWING WAS ALLOWED. UPDATED 02/08/12

NHTSA ODI #10406176

1,200 miles · May 18, 2011
Steering

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO VEER TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THEY WERE UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE CONTINUED TO RECUR. APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS LATER,…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO VEER TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THEY WERE UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE CONTINUED TO RECUR. APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS LATER, WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH THE POWER STEERING FAILED AND THE CONTACT HAD A HARD TIME TURNING THE STEERING WHEEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WHERE AN UNKNOWN STEERING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,200 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 10,500.

NHTSA ODI #10401457

10,295 miles · May 8, 2011
Visibility

MY HUSBAND AND I WERE AT OUR CAMP SITE AND LOADING THE VEHICLE FOR A TRIP IN THE WOODS. IT WAS EARLY MORNING, AROUND 34 DEGREES OUTSIDE. WE HAD THE REAR HATCH DOOR OPEN, PUTTING THE DOGS INSIDE THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE. UPON CLOSING THE HATCH, THE REAR HATCH WINDOW VIOLENTLY EXPLODED. GLASS WENT FLYING EVERYWHERE, LUCKILY THE…

Read full complaint

MY HUSBAND AND I WERE AT OUR CAMP SITE AND LOADING THE VEHICLE FOR A TRIP IN THE WOODS. IT WAS EARLY MORNING, AROUND 34 DEGREES OUTSIDE. WE HAD THE REAR HATCH DOOR OPEN, PUTTING THE DOGS INSIDE THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE. UPON CLOSING THE HATCH, THE REAR HATCH WINDOW VIOLENTLY EXPLODED. GLASS WENT FLYING EVERYWHERE, LUCKILY THE DOGS WEREN'T HURT AND NO PERSONS WERE IN THE CAR AT THE TIME. WE IMMEDIATELY CALLED OUR FORD DEALER TO REPORT THE INCIDENT & ASKED IF THERE WAS A DEFECT KNOWN AND IF THIS WAS A WARRANTY ISSUE. THEY SAID THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF A PROBLEM. THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS!!! I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THERE ARE PROBABLY LOTS MORE OF THESE INCIDENTS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE MOST COMPANIES FLAT OUT TELL YOU GLASS IS NOT COVERED.

NHTSA ODI #10400290

Official recalls

3

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 26, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 29, 2014

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.

10V222000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

May 24, 2010

FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.

Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

4

DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving

Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System

On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages

PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that

DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.

PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage

Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Additional source detail variants (5)

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems