NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reports3,000 miles · Nov 14, 2010
Power Train
PURCHASED A 4-CYL, AT, 2010 ESCAPE XLT IN DECEMBER 2009, FROM HEALEY FORD IN ANSONIA CT, WHICH IS NOW CLOSED. TRANSMISSION SLIPPAGE, JERKING, GROWLING NOISE IN REVERSE, SUDDEN ACCELERATION ON HIGHWAY, ALL STARTED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WITH THIS VEHICLE. RECALL REPAIR ON SOLONOID DONE, PROBLEM PERSISTS AND IS EVEN WORSE. SEVERAL NEA…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED A 4-CYL, AT, 2010 ESCAPE XLT IN DECEMBER 2009, FROM HEALEY FORD IN ANSONIA CT, WHICH IS NOW CLOSED. TRANSMISSION SLIPPAGE, JERKING, GROWLING NOISE IN REVERSE, SUDDEN ACCELERATION ON HIGHWAY, ALL STARTED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WITH THIS VEHICLE. RECALL REPAIR ON SOLONOID DONE, PROBLEM PERSISTS AND IS EVEN WORSE. SEVERAL NEAR ACCIDENTS WITH MY $25,000 SUICIDE RIDE I CALL AN ESCAPE...FORD HAS HAD IT TWICE FOR REPAIR WITHOUT SUCCESS. IN CT, I HAVE ONE MORE TRY AND I WILL PROCEED WITH CONNECTICUTS LEMON LAW ARBITRATION, AND FORD GETS TO BUY IT BACK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10365633
18,000 miles · Oct 18, 2010
Power Train
TRANSMISSION WILL TOTALLY DISENGAGE WHEN NEEDED THE MOST, SUCH AS ENTERING THE INTERSTATE. VERY SCARY SITUATION. DEALER SAYS NEEDS A COMPLETE OVERHAUL. ONLY 18,000 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10361088
11,000 miles · Sep 22, 2010
Power Train
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS SLAMMED VIOLENTLY INTO GEAR WHILE BEING DRIVEN A TOTAL OF 5 TIMES. THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED, MY WIFE WAS DRIVING AND SHE THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD HIT HER FROM BEHIND AND SHE ACTUALLY HURT HER NECK BECAUSE THE JERKING WAS SO VIOLENT. THREE OF THE 4 OTHER TIMES THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED HAVE NOT BEEN AS VIOLE…
Read full complaint
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS SLAMMED VIOLENTLY INTO GEAR WHILE BEING DRIVEN A TOTAL OF 5 TIMES. THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED, MY WIFE WAS DRIVING AND SHE THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD HIT HER FROM BEHIND AND SHE ACTUALLY HURT HER NECK BECAUSE THE JERKING WAS SO VIOLENT. THREE OF THE 4 OTHER TIMES THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED HAVE NOT BEEN AS VIOLENT BUT IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT 2 WEEKS AGO (AT ABOUT 11,000) MILES AND IT WAS VERY VIOLENT (AND MY WIFE GOT 'JERKED' AGAIN). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10357011
5,000 miles · Sep 22, 2010
Power Train
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED ON 29 JULY 2010. ON 20 SEP 2010 I NOTICED AS I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE IT JERKED VIOLENTLY AND SOUNDED LIKE THE BOTTOM FELL OUT OF THE CAR. WHEN I CAME TO A RED LIGHT IT SHIFTED HARD DOWN TO FIRST GEAR. I HAD MY DAD CHECK IT OUT AND IT DID THE SAME THING WITH HIM. HE TOOK IT TO THE …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED ON 29 JULY 2010. ON 20 SEP 2010 I NOTICED AS I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE IT JERKED VIOLENTLY AND SOUNDED LIKE THE BOTTOM FELL OUT OF THE CAR. WHEN I CAME TO A RED LIGHT IT SHIFTED HARD DOWN TO FIRST GEAR. I HAD MY DAD CHECK IT OUT AND IT DID THE SAME THING WITH HIM. HE TOOK IT TO THE DEALER ON 21 SEP 2010 AND THEY SAID THERE WAS A PROBLEM, IT WAS NOT SUPPOSE TO DO THAT. THEY CHECKED WITH FORD AND THERE WAS SOME ADJUSTMENTS THEY HAD TO DO TO THE COMPUTER. THIS DID NOT FIX PROBLEM AND THEY KEPT THE VEHICLE. THEY NOW HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE TRANSMISSION AND CHECK SOLENOIDS BEFORE FORD WILL SEND A NEW TRANSMISSION. THIS COULD BECOME A SAFETY ISSUE, IF THE OPERATOR HAS TO ACCELERATE AND THE VEHICLE WILL NOT RESPOND. THE VEHICLE HAS 5000 MILES ON IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10356941
800 miles · Sep 13, 2010
Steering
PURCHASED NEW FORD ESCAPE 06/01/10, AT APPROX 800 MILES IT DEVELOPED A METAL TO METAL CLICKING SOUND WITHIN STEERING COLUMN WHEN MANUVERING IN AND OUT OF PARKING LOTS AND SLOW SPEED TURNS. BROUGHT ESCAPE TO DEALER ON 06/21/10, DEALER SAID THEY HAVE TO REALIGN MOTOR TO FRAME. NOISE RETURNED AND ESCAPE WAS RETURNED TO DEALER ON 07…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED NEW FORD ESCAPE 06/01/10, AT APPROX 800 MILES IT DEVELOPED A METAL TO METAL CLICKING SOUND WITHIN STEERING COLUMN WHEN MANUVERING IN AND OUT OF PARKING LOTS AND SLOW SPEED TURNS. BROUGHT ESCAPE TO DEALER ON 06/21/10, DEALER SAID THEY HAVE TO REALIGN MOTOR TO FRAME. NOISE RETURNED AND ESCAPE WAS RETURNED TO DEALER ON 07/27/10. DEALER REPLACED STEERING SHAFT AND COUPLING. NOISE RETURNED AGAIN, ESCAPE RETURNED TO DEALER ON 08/30/10, THIS TIME THEY ARE REPLACING WHOLE STEERING COLUMN. AS OF 09/13/10 DEALER STILL HAS ESCAPE. FORD ISSUED SSM # 21321 BUT THIS WAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF NOISE AND SERVICE MANAGER AGREED. TO ME NOISE SOUNDED LIKE THE STEERING WHEEL LOCK WAS TRYING TO ENGAGE AND THAT MAY BE WHY THEY ARE REPLACING STEERING COLUMN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10355398
12,999 miles · Sep 12, 2010
Visibility
I RENTED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE SUV FROM DOLLAR RENTAL CAR IN SAN JOSE. ON 9/11/10 AT ABOUT 6:00 AM AT MY HOTEL I WENT TO LOAD MY BAGS TO RETURN TO THE AIRPORT. BY ACCIDENT I UNLOCKED THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS WITH THE REMOTE. (I DID NOT THINK TO RE-LOCK IT BEFORE OPENING THE LIFTGATE.) AFTER MY BAGS WERE LOADED, I CLOSED THE LIFTGATE…
Read full complaint
I RENTED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE SUV FROM DOLLAR RENTAL CAR IN SAN JOSE. ON 9/11/10 AT ABOUT 6:00 AM AT MY HOTEL I WENT TO LOAD MY BAGS TO RETURN TO THE AIRPORT. BY ACCIDENT I UNLOCKED THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS WITH THE REMOTE. (I DID NOT THINK TO RE-LOCK IT BEFORE OPENING THE LIFTGATE.) AFTER MY BAGS WERE LOADED, I CLOSED THE LIFTGATE FIRMLY (NOT SOFTLY, BUT NOT LIKE KING KONG); UPON IMPACT OF CLOSING, THE REAR LIFTGATE GLASS EXPLODED, SHOWERING GLASS ALL OVER THE PAVEMENT AND IN THE BACK / ON MY LUGGAGE. THERE HAD BEEN NO CONTACT WITH LUGGAGE IN THE BACK / MY BAGS WERE LOW-PROFILE (I HAVE PHOTOS TO PROVE; ALSO, I HAVE A 3RD-PARTY WITNESS WHO WAS LOADING HIS CAR SEVERAL SPACES AWAY.) THE AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE WAS AROUND 60 DEGREES; THE WEATHER WAS FAIR / CLEAR. THE CAR HAD NOT BEEN ENTERED SINCE THE DAY BEFORE; I DID NOT EVER USE THE REAR DEFROST OR WIPER DURING THE COURSE OF MY THREE-DAY RENTAL. WHEN REVIEWING THE DAMAGE, I NOTED HOW HEAVY THE REAR WIPER MOTOR IS THAT IS ATTACHED DIRECTLY TO THE GLASS. THE SUSPENSION RODS FOR HOLDING THE LIFTGATE GLASS IN THE RAISED POSITION MUST BE VERY STRONG TO SUPPORT THAT MOTOR, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SHALLOW ANGLES INVOLVED. (OTHERS REPORTING EXPLODING REAR WINDOWS EXPLAIN THAT THE COMPRESSED GAS INSIDE THESE DEVICES CAUSES THE EXPLOSIVE NATURE OF THE FAILURE.) PRESUMABLY THIS FAILURE OCCURRED BECAUSE THE GLASS WAS NOT LOCKED, AS IT HAD NOT EXPLODED DURING PREVIOUS CLOSINGS OF THE LIFTGATE. THERE IS NO WARNING IN THE OWNERS MANUAL TO BE SURE THAT THE GLASS IS LOCKED BEFORE CLOSING THE LIFTGATE. POSSIBLY THERE WAS AN INVISIBLE DEFECT IN THE GLASS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE FAILURE. I WAS "BOOBY-TRAPPED" BY THIS CAR. IN MY 53 YEARS I HAVE NEVER DAMAGED A VEHICLE SIMPLY BY OPENING AND CLOSING ITS DOORS. THERE WERE NO OTHER FACTORS THAN THOSE DESCRIBED ABOVE; I HAVE PHOTOS, A 3RD PARTY WITNESS, AND WILL BE HAPPY TO TESTIFY THESE EVENTS IN COURT. UPDATED 01/06/11 *BF UPDATED IVOQ 01/07/11*TR UPDATED 05/12/11 *BF UPDATED 12/29/11 *CN
NHTSA ODI #10355050
Mileage unknown · Aug 19, 2010
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, Hydraulic
2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER STATES VEHICLE HAS A FAST IDLE SPEED, IGNITION KEY LOCK PROBLEM AND A SOFT BRAKE PROBLEM. *TGW THE CONSUMER REQUESTED TO HAVE THE IDLE SPEED LOWERED TO 500 RPM. THE DEALER STATED THAT COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE IDLE WAS SET AT THE FACTORY. THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WOULD ROLL FORWARD AND BAC…
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER STATES VEHICLE HAS A FAST IDLE SPEED, IGNITION KEY LOCK PROBLEM AND A SOFT BRAKE PROBLEM. *TGW THE CONSUMER REQUESTED TO HAVE THE IDLE SPEED LOWERED TO 500 RPM. THE DEALER STATED THAT COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE IDLE WAS SET AT THE FACTORY. THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WOULD ROLL FORWARD AND BACKWARDS DUE TO THE FAST IDLE SPEED. HE ALMOST HIT THE BACK OF A BUILDING BECAUSE THE VEHICLE ROLLED BACK WHEN HE STARTED THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE. THE KEY WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN IN THE IGNITION WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT TO START THE VEHICLE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10350929
600 miles · Aug 12, 2010
Visibility
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH THE SUN ROOF "EXPLODED" INSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED BY THE GLASS DUE THE COVER ON THE SUN ROOF. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER WHO TOOK PICTURES OF THE SHATTERED GLASS AND SENT THE IMAGES TO THE MANUFACTURER. THE M…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH THE SUN ROOF "EXPLODED" INSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED BY THE GLASS DUE THE COVER ON THE SUN ROOF. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER WHO TOOK PICTURES OF THE SHATTERED GLASS AND SENT THE IMAGES TO THE MANUFACTURER. THE MANUFACTURER DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFECT ON THE GLASS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS NO DEBRIS ON THE ROAD OR ANYTHING THAT HIT THE SUNROOF TO CAUSE IT TO EXPLODE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIRS AND DOES NOT FEEL SAFE DRIVING THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 600.
NHTSA ODI #10349108
5,000 miles · Aug 9, 2010
Engine And Engine CoolingStructure
PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE NEW, 4 MONTHS AFTER THE AIR CONDITIONING STOPPED WORKING. TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT FIXED AND THEY CLAIMED IT COULD NOT BE FIXED BECAUSE IT WAS DAMAGED BY AN OBJECT MOST LIKELY FROM THE ROAD. DAMAGES ARE NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. THE SERVICE TECH WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE GRILL DOES NOT P…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE NEW, 4 MONTHS AFTER THE AIR CONDITIONING STOPPED WORKING. TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT FIXED AND THEY CLAIMED IT COULD NOT BE FIXED BECAUSE IT WAS DAMAGED BY AN OBJECT MOST LIKELY FROM THE ROAD. DAMAGES ARE NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. THE SERVICE TECH WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE GRILL DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR THE AC CONDENSER THEREFORE EVEN IF I PAID TO HAVE IT FIXED AND DIDN'T REPLACE THE GRILL, IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN. IT HAS BEEN OVER 3 MONTHS AND FORD STILL REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE REPAIR. IT IS NOW ON AVERAGE 102 DEGREES OUTSIDE AND I CANNOT DRIVE MY VEHICLE DUE TO THE HEAT AND INABILITY TO USE THE AC. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10348307
5,000 miles · Aug 5, 2010
Engine And Engine Cooling
ENGINE RACING AND JUMPING WHILE DRIVING. REVERSE MAKING LOUD NOISE. REPORTED TO DEALER AND WAS TOLD COULDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN. JOLTED AT A STOP AFTER REMOVING FOOT FROM BRAKE FORCING DRIVER TO TURN INTO CURB. HAD TO FILE CLAIM WITH INSURANCE COMPANY TO GET CAR FIXED. DEALER CLAIMS NO ISSUES WITH TRANSMISSION…
Read full complaint
ENGINE RACING AND JUMPING WHILE DRIVING. REVERSE MAKING LOUD NOISE. REPORTED TO DEALER AND WAS TOLD COULDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN. JOLTED AT A STOP AFTER REMOVING FOOT FROM BRAKE FORCING DRIVER TO TURN INTO CURB. HAD TO FILE CLAIM WITH INSURANCE COMPANY TO GET CAR FIXED. DEALER CLAIMS NO ISSUES WITH TRANSMISSION. DID TESTING W/O INSURANCE ENGINEER PRESENT AS AGREED TO. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10347563
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.