← 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
117,000 miles · Feb 13, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE FUEL LEAK. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A PUDDLE OF FUEL COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. EARLIER THAT DAY, THE CONTACT FILLED THE VEHICLE WITH FUEL. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE RECALL WAS RELATED TO FUEL LEAKING FROM A DIFFERENT PART …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE FUEL LEAK. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A PUDDLE OF FUEL COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. EARLIER THAT DAY, THE CONTACT FILLED THE VEHICLE WITH FUEL. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE RECALL WAS RELATED TO FUEL LEAKING FROM A DIFFERENT PART OF THE VEHICLE AND THE CONTACT WOULD HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET FOR THE FUEL PUMP ASSEMBLY TO REMEDY THE FUEL LEAK. THE RECALL INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 117,000.

NHTSA ODI #10954150

107,000 miles · Feb 10, 2017
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED, THE STEERING WHEEL SHOOK AND THERE WAS NO STEERING ABILITY. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE STEERING SENSOR FAILED AND NEEDED REPLACEMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED FOR THE SAME FAILURE TWO YEARS AGO WITH A SO…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED, THE STEERING WHEEL SHOOK AND THERE WAS NO STEERING ABILITY. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORQUE STEERING SENSOR FAILED AND NEEDED REPLACEMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED FOR THE SAME FAILURE TWO YEARS AGO WITH A SOFTWARE UPDATE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AGAIN. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 107,000.

NHTSA ODI #10953820

116,000 miles · Feb 4, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System

TAKATA RECALL AFTER FUELING THE VEHICLE, THE "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE THEN STALLED AND JERKED AFTER CRANKING THE ENGINE AND STALLED OUT WHILE STILL. AFTER DIAGNOSING THE ISSUE, IT WAS CITED THE CAR HAS A "GROSS VACUUM LEAK" INDICATING THAT THE "EASY FUEL" GAS FLAP IS NOT SHUTTING PROPERLY. THIS SEEMS TO …

Read full complaint

TAKATA RECALL AFTER FUELING THE VEHICLE, THE "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE THEN STALLED AND JERKED AFTER CRANKING THE ENGINE AND STALLED OUT WHILE STILL. AFTER DIAGNOSING THE ISSUE, IT WAS CITED THE CAR HAS A "GROSS VACUUM LEAK" INDICATING THAT THE "EASY FUEL" GAS FLAP IS NOT SHUTTING PROPERLY. THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE FOR MOST FORD ESCAPE OWNERS AND EVEN OTHER FORD OWNERS THAT HAVE THE "EASY FUEL" SYSTEM. THE SUGGESTED SOLUTION BY MOST DEALERS AND TECHNICIANS IS TO EVENTUALLY REPLACE THE FUEL FILL PUMP, HOWEVER THE REPAIR SEEMS TO BE PRETTY COSTLY FOR AN ISSUE IMPACTING OWNERS BASED ON A FAULTY "EASY FUEL" SYSTEM.

NHTSA ODI #10949572

146,000 miles · Jan 31, 2017
Steering

I WAS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AND MY STEERING WHEEL FROZE, I WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE IT. IT WAS THE SCARIEST THING. THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE DING IN MY CAR AND IT SAID POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT, OR SIMILAR. I WAS ABLE TO GET TO WORK (THANK GOODNESS) AND CALLED THE FORD DEALERSHIP, I CALLED MY INSURANCE COMPANY AND HAD IT TOWED TO TH…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AND MY STEERING WHEEL FROZE, I WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE IT. IT WAS THE SCARIEST THING. THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE DING IN MY CAR AND IT SAID POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT, OR SIMILAR. I WAS ABLE TO GET TO WORK (THANK GOODNESS) AND CALLED THE FORD DEALERSHIP, I CALLED MY INSURANCE COMPANY AND HAD IT TOWED TO THEM BECAUSE THE STEERING WHEEL WAS SO HARD TO TURN, I WAS AFRAID I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TURN LEFT OR RIGHT. I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY WILL HONOR RECALLS FROM READING NUMEROUS ISSUES WITH RESPONSES I HAVE READ, THEY ARE NO LONGER HONORING THEM. I AM A 2ND OWNER OF THE CAR AND DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. THIS SHOULD BE AN ONGOING RECALL, THIS WAS VERY SCARY AND IF MY KIDS WERE IN THE CAR... THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE... WITHOUT WARNING IT GOES OUT? THIS COULD HAVE ENDED A LOT WORSE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10948688

90,000 miles · Jan 27, 2017
Steering

A FEW WEEKS AGO I BEGAN NOTICING THAT MY STEERING WHEEL WOULD VIBRATE (REALLY MORE OF A JERKING BACK AND FORTH MOTION) WHILE THE CAR WAS IDLING. SOON IT WAS DOING IT EVERY TIME THE CAR SLOWED OR STOPPED. NOW I CAN FEEL THE JERKING OF THE WHEEL EVEN WHILE DRIVING. I TOOK THE CAR IN TO A FIRESTONE FOR SERVICE WHO TOLD ME THAT THIS…

Read full complaint

A FEW WEEKS AGO I BEGAN NOTICING THAT MY STEERING WHEEL WOULD VIBRATE (REALLY MORE OF A JERKING BACK AND FORTH MOTION) WHILE THE CAR WAS IDLING. SOON IT WAS DOING IT EVERY TIME THE CAR SLOWED OR STOPPED. NOW I CAN FEEL THE JERKING OF THE WHEEL EVEN WHILE DRIVING. I TOOK THE CAR IN TO A FIRESTONE FOR SERVICE WHO TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS PART OF A FORD RECALL (14-S05) AND THAT I NEEDED TO TAKE IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. THE FORD DEALERSHIP IS TELLING ME THAT THE RECALL IS CLOSED AND THAT I NEED TO PAY $1000 FOR A NEW STEERING COLUMN. I CALLED FORD WHO SAID THAT THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE AS THE POWER STEERING CAN COMPLETELY GO OUT (WHICH THEY KNOW). MANY OTHERS HAVE HAD ISSUES GETTING FORD TO HONOR THE RECALL AND FIX THEIR STEERING COLUMN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10948008

86,456 miles · Jan 23, 2017
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL STARTED TO INDEPENDENTLY VEER TO THE RIGHT. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL STARTED TO SHAKE WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOS…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL STARTED TO INDEPENDENTLY VEER TO THE RIGHT. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL STARTED TO SHAKE WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TORCH SENSOR FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 86,456. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10947004

60,000 miles · Jan 19, 2017
Structure

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK COMING FROM THE ROOF RACK, WHICH CAUSED RUST. THE DEALER DIAGNOSED THAT THE ROOF RACK NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 60,000.

NHTSA ODI #10946372

Mileage unknown · Jan 17, 2017
Vehicle Speed Control

HAD TO HAVE THROTTLE BODY REPLACE FOR SECOND TIME FIRST TIME IN DECEMBER 1 2015 SAME ISSUE OCCURRED JANUARY 13 2017 FIRST TIME PAID NOTHING BUT THAT WAS AFTER ME HAVING TO INFORM THEM OF THE 13N03 CUSTOMERS SATISFACTION FROM FORD. THIS TIME HAD TO PAY 100 DOLLARS AS THEY CALL IT DEDUCTIBLE THIS CAR IS A 2010 HAS LESS THAN 60,000…

Read full complaint

HAD TO HAVE THROTTLE BODY REPLACE FOR SECOND TIME FIRST TIME IN DECEMBER 1 2015 SAME ISSUE OCCURRED JANUARY 13 2017 FIRST TIME PAID NOTHING BUT THAT WAS AFTER ME HAVING TO INFORM THEM OF THE 13N03 CUSTOMERS SATISFACTION FROM FORD. THIS TIME HAD TO PAY 100 DOLLARS AS THEY CALL IT DEDUCTIBLE THIS CAR IS A 2010 HAS LESS THAN 60,000 MILE ON ITS THIRD THROTTLE BODY . WELL MY COMPLAINT IS IF ITS THE SAME ISSUE TWICE WHY AM I HAVING TO PAY FOR IT AT ALL . BOTH TIMES THIS HAPPENED WAS LIGHT CITY TRAFFIC AND BOTH TIMES WHEN MY WIFE WAS ON THE WAY TO PICK UP OUR CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL AND WHILE TRAVELING UNDER 40 MPH I WANT MY FAMILY SAFE GOD FORBID IT HAPPEN ON FREEWAY FAR FROM HOME PLEASE PLEASE RESOLVE BOTH ISSUES THANK YOU *TR

NHTSA ODI #10945867

140,000 miles · Jan 17, 2017
Steering

IN JULY 2014, FORD ISSUED A RECALL (14S05/NHTSA RECALL 14V-284) FOR DEFECTIVE TORQUE SENSORS (FOR POWER STEERING). MY VEHICLE WAS RECALLED. FORD HAD AN OPTION OF RE-PROGRAMMING OR REPLACING THE PART. ALTHOUGH I WASN'T EXPERIENCING A PROBLEM AT THE TIME, FORD REPROGRAMMED MY VEHICLE IN JULY 2014. BUT IN JAN. 2017, THE DEFECTIVE …

Read full complaint

IN JULY 2014, FORD ISSUED A RECALL (14S05/NHTSA RECALL 14V-284) FOR DEFECTIVE TORQUE SENSORS (FOR POWER STEERING). MY VEHICLE WAS RECALLED. FORD HAD AN OPTION OF RE-PROGRAMMING OR REPLACING THE PART. ALTHOUGH I WASN'T EXPERIENCING A PROBLEM AT THE TIME, FORD REPROGRAMMED MY VEHICLE IN JULY 2014. BUT IN JAN. 2017, THE DEFECTIVE PART FAILED AND THE POWER STEERING WAS LOST WHILE DRIVING ON A LOCAL STREET.. I HAD TO REPLACE THE TORQUE SENSOR AT THE FORD SERVICE DEALER IN PUTNAM, CT AT A COST OF OVER $500. I ENDED UP PAYING TO REPLACE AN ADMITTEDLY DEFECTIVE PART WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FORD. I BELIEVE THE RE-PROGRAMMING DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND THAT THE DEFECTIVE PART SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10945682

Mileage unknown · Jan 12, 2017
Fuel System, Gasoline

2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO NHTSA RECALL 16V-777 FUEL DELIVERY MODULE. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER DID NOT HAVE THE PARTS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE RECALL. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10943609

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