NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
2,069 reportsMileage unknown · Mar 4, 2010
Interior Lighting
VEHICLE: 2010, FORD ESCAPE, WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION. SAFETY COMPLAINT: THERE IS NO ILLUMINATION ON THE GEAR SELECTOR FOR MODELS THAT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION WITH FLOOR SHIFTER AND CONSOLE. WHEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT NIGHT THERE IS NOT AN ILLUMINATED INDICATION TO SIGNIFY WHAT GEAR THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN PLACED INTO…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE: 2010, FORD ESCAPE, WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION. SAFETY COMPLAINT: THERE IS NO ILLUMINATION ON THE GEAR SELECTOR FOR MODELS THAT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION WITH FLOOR SHIFTER AND CONSOLE. WHEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT NIGHT THERE IS NOT AN ILLUMINATED INDICATION TO SIGNIFY WHAT GEAR THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN PLACED INTO. THERE IS A VERY GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT IN A DARK VEHICLE YOU COULD EASILY MISTAKE PLACING THE VEHICLE IN EITHER REVERSE OR DRIVE AND CAUSE AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE EXPECTING TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THIS SEEMS LIKE A BASIC FEATURE THAT FORD MOTOR COMPANY SHOULD RECALL VEHICLES TO INSTALL AN ILLUMINATED INDICATOR THAT OPERATES WITH ALL OTHER INSTRUMENTATION LIGHTS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10316859
242 miles · Mar 4, 2010
Power Train
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE 1/2/10. A COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTER THE PURCHASE I WENT TO BACK UP AND THEN GO FORWARD. IN DOING SO, WHEN I PUT THE CAR INTO GEAR TO GO FORWARD THERE WAS A JERKING MOTION AS WELL AS A LOUD CLUNKING NOISE UNDER THE CAR. SINCE THAT TIME, I HAVE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS EXPERIENCE THE SAME THING. AS THE …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE 1/2/10. A COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTER THE PURCHASE I WENT TO BACK UP AND THEN GO FORWARD. IN DOING SO, WHEN I PUT THE CAR INTO GEAR TO GO FORWARD THERE WAS A JERKING MOTION AS WELL AS A LOUD CLUNKING NOISE UNDER THE CAR. SINCE THAT TIME, I HAVE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS EXPERIENCE THE SAME THING. AS THE CAR SWITCHES GEARS IT WILL JERK WITH THE SAME NOISE. IT FEELS AS IF THE WHOLE BOTTOM OF THE CAR IS COMING APART AND ABOUT TO FALL OFF. I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS AND IT DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, BUT WHEN IT DOES YOU DEFINITELY KNOW IT. IN THE LAST THREE DAYS IT HAS HAPPENED TWICE. I TRY TO NOTICE THE RPM'S TO SEE IF IT IS IN THE MIDST OF CHANGING GEARS OR NOT AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS WHEN IT IS DUE TO CHANGE GEARS. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AND THEY TOOK IT FOR A DRIVE AND FOUND NOTHING WRONG. THEY THEN DID A DIAGNOSTIC AND SAID THEY FOUND THE FACTORY FAILED TO ENTER ALL THE CORRECT CODING FOR THE TRANSMISSION SO THEY KEPT THE CAR AND UPDATED IT. ONCE I RECEIVED THE CAR BACK IT HAS CONTINUED TO DO THE SAME THING. I WENT ONLINE AND FOUND THE 2005-2009 ESCAPE OWNERS HAD THE EXACT PROBLEM I AM CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING AND FOUND THE TRANSMISSIONS BURNED OUT AT APPROX 20,000 MILES. FORD IS TELLING ME THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MINE AS THE PROBLEM HAD BEEN FIXED. I TOOK IT BACK IN FRIDAY EVENING AND WAS TOLD THEY JUST RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT SOME DEALERS FOUND THEY HAVE HAD TO TAKE THE 2010 MODELS IN, TEAR OUT THE TRANSMISSIONS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER STARTING FROM SCRATCH TO STOP THE PROBLEM. I WAS TOLD THEY WOULD LOOK INTO IT AND GET BACK TO ME. I DON'T WANT TO WAIT AND HAVE MY TRANSMISSION GO OUT BEFORE THEY WILL FINALLY SEE THERE IS A PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10316436
15,000 miles · Feb 16, 2010
Power Train
I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS ISSUES WITH MY 2009 FORD ESCAPE 6 SPEED TRANSMISSION. THE TRANSMISSION WAS REPLACED AFTER 17000 K WITH TOTAL INTERNAL FAILURE. WITH BOTH THE NEW AND OLD TRANSMISSIONS I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCED THE FOLLOWING SAFETY ISSUE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. FAILURE TO DOWNSHIFT COMING TO A STOP, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE CA…
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS ISSUES WITH MY 2009 FORD ESCAPE 6 SPEED TRANSMISSION. THE TRANSMISSION WAS REPLACED AFTER 17000 K WITH TOTAL INTERNAL FAILURE. WITH BOTH THE NEW AND OLD TRANSMISSIONS I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCED THE FOLLOWING SAFETY ISSUE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. FAILURE TO DOWNSHIFT COMING TO A STOP, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE CAR LINGERING IN THE MIDDLE OF INTERSECTIONS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. THIS HAS EITHER RESULTED IN A 3 SECOND PAUSE WHILE THE TRANSMISSION DECIDES TO DOWNSHIFT, OR ON ABOUT 5 OCCASIONS THE CAR HAS RIGHT OUT STALLED. IT IS A VERY SCARY SITUATION SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION WITH CARS BEARING DOWN ON YOU WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE TO SAFETY. THE CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP NUMEROUS TIMES AND THE TRANSMISSION TECHNICIAN HAS UPDATED THE TRANSMISSION CONTROL SOFTWARE (VIA TECHNICAL BULLETIN) 3 TIMES, WHICH HAS NOT HELPED AT ALL. THE TECHNICIAN HAS MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE A STEADY STREAM OF 2009 FORD ESCAPE OWNERS IN THE SHOP WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS, BUT THERE CLEARLY IS NO REAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. THIS IS A BRAND NEW TRANSMISSION THAT HAS BEEN RUSHED INTO THE ESCAPE TO IMPROVE FUEL ECONOMY WITHOUT PROPER TESTING. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE FORD ENGINEERS HAVE NOT FIGURED OUT HOW TO ELECTRONICALLY CONTROL THIS TRANSMISSION. I AM AN ENGINEER MYSELF AND UNDERSTAND THAT COMPONENTS SOMETIMES FAIL OR HAVE WEAKNESSES, BUT TO HAVE FAILURE LIKE THIS IN NORMAL DRIVING CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE IN MY OPINION. I JUST HOPE NO ONE GETS SERIOUSLY HURT BEFORE FORD FIXES THIS PROPERLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10310756
850 miles · Feb 12, 2010
Visibility
THE REAR WINDOW ON OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE SHATTERED WHEN THE DOOR WAS CLOSED. WE PURCHASED THE CAR ON NOVEMBER 5, 2009. THE CAR WAS LESS THAN 90 DAYS OLD AND HAD LESS THAN 900 MILES ON IT. IT IS USED WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF OUR HOME WITH VERY LITTLE EXPRESSWAY USE. THE FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT SAID THAT OUR WARRANTY AND EXTENDE…
Read full complaint
THE REAR WINDOW ON OUR 2010 FORD ESCAPE SHATTERED WHEN THE DOOR WAS CLOSED. WE PURCHASED THE CAR ON NOVEMBER 5, 2009. THE CAR WAS LESS THAN 90 DAYS OLD AND HAD LESS THAN 900 MILES ON IT. IT IS USED WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF OUR HOME WITH VERY LITTLE EXPRESSWAY USE. THE FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT SAID THAT OUR WARRANTY AND EXTENDED CARE POLICY DID NOT COVER GLASS. THE WINDOW WAS REPAIRED THROUGH OUR INSURANCE COMPANY. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE WINDOW HAD BEEN HIT BY FLYING DEBRIS OR MISUSED IN ANY WAY. WE FEEL THAT THE WINDOW/GLASS WAS DEFECTIVE AND A SAFETY CONCERN. IT COULD HAVE CAUSED MORE DAMAGE IF IT HAD SHATTERED WHEN WE WERE DRIVING OR IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN IN THE BACK SEAT WHEN IT SHATTERED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10308912
3,950 miles · Feb 1, 2010
Electrical System
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH AND ENTERING A RAMP THE VEHICLE SHUT OFF. THE BATTERY AND OIL LIGHT FLASHED ON THE DASHBOARD. THE CONTACT CHANGED GEARS TO NEUTRAL, TURNED ON THE HAZARD LIGHTS, AND PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE CONTACT SHUT THE ENGINE OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES A…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH AND ENTERING A RAMP THE VEHICLE SHUT OFF. THE BATTERY AND OIL LIGHT FLASHED ON THE DASHBOARD. THE CONTACT CHANGED GEARS TO NEUTRAL, TURNED ON THE HAZARD LIGHTS, AND PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE CONTACT SHUT THE ENGINE OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND DRIVE TO HER DESTINATION. SHE DID NOT USE THE HEAT OR RADIO IN CASE THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY THE BATTERY. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACT IS CONCERNED THAT THE FAILURE COULD CAUSE A MAJOR CRASH TO OCCUR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 3,950.
NHTSA ODI #10303653
4,100 miles · Jan 23, 2010
EquipmentTires
I GOT A FLAT TIRE ON THE REAR RIGHT SIDE OF A RENTED 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE ENCLOSED JACK IS UNABLE TO RAISE THE VEHICLE HIGH ENOUGH TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF THE FLAT TIRE AND INSTALLATION OF THE SPARE TIRE. THIS WAS THE CASE EVEN AFTER I PLACED THE JACK ON A 2 INCH BOARD TO PROP IT UP. I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE WITHIN PHONE CONTACT OF A …
Read full complaint
I GOT A FLAT TIRE ON THE REAR RIGHT SIDE OF A RENTED 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE ENCLOSED JACK IS UNABLE TO RAISE THE VEHICLE HIGH ENOUGH TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF THE FLAT TIRE AND INSTALLATION OF THE SPARE TIRE. THIS WAS THE CASE EVEN AFTER I PLACED THE JACK ON A 2 INCH BOARD TO PROP IT UP. I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE WITHIN PHONE CONTACT OF A AAA SERVICE STATION SO THAT THE TIRES COULD BE EXCHANGED USING A LARGE PROFESSIONAL JACK. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS ISSUE ON A COUNTRY ROAD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WINTER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10302043
1,128 miles · Jan 13, 2010
Air BagsElectronic Stability Control (esc)
WE WERE STAYING AT A HOTEL AT THE INNER HARBOR IN BALTIMORE MARYLAND. WE PULLED INTO THE ENTRY WAY OF THE HOTEL. WE GOT OUT OF VEHICLE AND WERE GOING TO HAVE IT VALET PARKED FOR THE EVENING. BEFORE THE DRIVER COULD GET MORE THAN 7 FEET FROM WHERE WE WERE STANDING THE SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. THE DRIVER DID NOT HIT ANYT…
Read full complaint
WE WERE STAYING AT A HOTEL AT THE INNER HARBOR IN BALTIMORE MARYLAND. WE PULLED INTO THE ENTRY WAY OF THE HOTEL. WE GOT OUT OF VEHICLE AND WERE GOING TO HAVE IT VALET PARKED FOR THE EVENING. BEFORE THE DRIVER COULD GET MORE THAN 7 FEET FROM WHERE WE WERE STANDING THE SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. THE DRIVER DID NOT HIT ANYTHING, DID NOT JUMP A CURB, OR DO ANYTHING THAT SHOULD HAVE CAUSED THE AIRBAGS TO DEPLOY. WE HAD TO HAVE THE ESCAPE TOWED TO A DEALER IN BALTIMORE MARYLAND. THE DEALER STATED THAT ALTHOUGH NO DAMAGE WAS NOTED ANYWHERE ON THE SUV, FORD WOULD NOT WARRANTY THE REPAIRS AS THERE WAS SOME SORT OF IMPACT DATA IN THE COMPUTER. WE THEN WENT THROUGH OUR INSURANCE CARRIER, THEY SENT OUT AN ADJUSTER. THE ADJUSTER FOR STATE FARM ALONG WITH 2 FORD MECHANICS SEARCHED THE SUV TOP TO BOTTOM, FRONT TO BACK AND COULD NOT FIND ANY REASON OR VISIBLE DAMAGE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE AIRBAGS TO DEPLOY. SO STATE FARM IS NOT GOING TO COVER THE REPAIRS, AND UPON FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH FORD MOTORS, THEY STATE THAT THEY WOULD NOT COVER THE REPAIRS AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO APPEAL THEIR DECISION. I AM FILING A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH YOU TODAY AS I FEEL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A CATASTROPHIC ACCIDENT IF IT WERE TO OCCUR JUST 10 MINS EARLIER WHILE DRIVE 60 MPH ON INTERSTATE I 95. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE VEHICLE ONLY HAS 1128 MILES ON IT AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I HAVE WRITTEN STATEMENTS FROM THE VALET DRIVE AT THE HOTEL, A STATEMENT FROM THE STATE FARM ADJUSTER STATING NO DAMAGE, PICTURES SHOWING SO DAMAGE, THE HOTLINE REQUEST DATA THE MASTER MECHANICS SENT TO FORD WITH THE DTC CODES. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR TIME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10299662
500 miles · Jan 6, 2010
Electrical SystemSteering
PURCHASED 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT ON 12-12-09. ON MONDAY, 12-14-09 POWER STEERING WENT OUT AND LIGHT FOR STABILIZER CAME ON AND WOULD NOT SHUT OFF. CAR WAS HARDLY DRIVABLE AND EXTREMELY HARD TO STEER. DEALERSHIP STATED THE POWER STEERING WAS NEWLY COMPUTERIZED THIS YEAR AND DID NOT RUN ON BELT AND PISTONS ANYMORE. DEALERSHIP REPLAC…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED 2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT ON 12-12-09. ON MONDAY, 12-14-09 POWER STEERING WENT OUT AND LIGHT FOR STABILIZER CAME ON AND WOULD NOT SHUT OFF. CAR WAS HARDLY DRIVABLE AND EXTREMELY HARD TO STEER. DEALERSHIP STATED THE POWER STEERING WAS NEWLY COMPUTERIZED THIS YEAR AND DID NOT RUN ON BELT AND PISTONS ANYMORE. DEALERSHIP REPLACED STEERING COLUMN AND RETURNED CAR ON FRIDAY 12-18-09. TODAY IS 1-6-10 AND MY POWER STEERING WENT OUT AGAIN TONIGHT. WILL BE TAKING VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP TOMORROW. WILL POST SECOND COMPLAINT FOR THE 2ND INCIDENT ONCE RESOLVED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10298531
1,500 miles · Dec 18, 2009
Air BagsInjury
AIR BAG SYSTEM SPONTANEOUSLY DEPLOYED WHILE CAR WAS IN MOTION- VEHICLE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COLLISION- JUST DRIVING DOWN ROAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10296396
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.