NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
116 reportsClear category filter44,000 miles · Jul 31, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
WE HAD OUR 2011 ESCAPE IN THE DEALERSHIP 2 TIMES DUE TO IT COMPLETELY SHUTTING DOWN WHILE DRIVING BEFORE THEY COULD FIGURE OUT THAT IS WAS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY (ELECTRICAL ISSUE). THEY TOLD US IT WAS "BAD GAS" EVERY OTHER TIME. WE HAD OUR INFANT IN THE VEHICLE WHEN IT SHUT DOWN ON THE FREEWAY AND SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF US. …
Read full complaint
WE HAD OUR 2011 ESCAPE IN THE DEALERSHIP 2 TIMES DUE TO IT COMPLETELY SHUTTING DOWN WHILE DRIVING BEFORE THEY COULD FIGURE OUT THAT IS WAS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY (ELECTRICAL ISSUE). THEY TOLD US IT WAS "BAD GAS" EVERY OTHER TIME. WE HAD OUR INFANT IN THE VEHICLE WHEN IT SHUT DOWN ON THE FREEWAY AND SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF US. THANKFULLY WE WERE ABLE TO GET AWAY FROM OTHER VEHICLES AND MAKE AN EMERGENCY EXIT FROM THE FREEWAY ONTO THE SHOULDER UNTIL THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP. ITS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND FORD NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS AND CREATE A RECALL. I HAVE DONE RESEARCH TO FIND SO MANY OTHERS WITH THE SAME EXACT ISSUE. OUR VEHICLE IS IN THE SHOP AS WE SPEAK TO THE TUNE OF A $500 FIX AND I JUST GOT OFF THE LINE WITH FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE TO DEMAND A REIMBURSEMENT. I AM WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM THEM TO SEE IF THEY WILL WORK WITH US ON THE COST. OUR VEHICLE ONLY HAS 44K MILES ON IT AND WE HAD IT SERVICED BEFORE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED AND WERE TOLD EVERYTHING WAS FINE. WE ALSO HAD IT IN FOR SERVICE OTHER TIMES FOR THIS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532820
38,500 miles · Jul 25, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ON MAY 23RD WE WERE TRAVELING ON AN INTERSTATE AT ABOUT 65MPH AND SUDDENLY THE CAR LOST ACCELERATION, WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD AND LUCKILY ABLE TO AVOID OTHER CARS. WE TURNED OFF ENGINE AND IT STARTED AGAIN BUT WAS VERY APPREHENSIVE. THE CAR DID OK UNTIL JULY 20TH WHEN WE STOPPED AT A LIGHT AND WHEN WE STARTED T…
Read full complaint
ON MAY 23RD WE WERE TRAVELING ON AN INTERSTATE AT ABOUT 65MPH AND SUDDENLY THE CAR LOST ACCELERATION, WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD AND LUCKILY ABLE TO AVOID OTHER CARS. WE TURNED OFF ENGINE AND IT STARTED AGAIN BUT WAS VERY APPREHENSIVE. THE CAR DID OK UNTIL JULY 20TH WHEN WE STOPPED AT A LIGHT AND WHEN WE STARTED THE ACCELERATION WAS GONE AGAIN, WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO SIDE OF ROAD BUT IT TOOK 3 TRIES TO GET IT STARTED AGAIN. WE TRIED TO GET HOME BEFORE IT HAPPENED AGAIN BUT ABOUT 2 MILES FROM OUR HOME IT DIED AGAIN. WE WERE ON A 2 LANE ROAD BUT WAS ABLE TO PULL INTO SOMEONE'S DRIVEWAY AND IT TOOK SEVERAL TIMES TO GET IT STARTED AND WE TRIED TO GET BACK ON ROAD BUT IT DIED AGAIN. AFTER A COUPLE MORE TRIES IT STARTED AND WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE IT HOME. WE HAD TO CALL A TOW TRUCK TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALER BECAUSE WE WERE AFRAID IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN AND COULD HAVE HAD AN ACCIDENT. WE HAVE ONLY HAD THE CAR FOR 2 YRS AND IT ONLY HAS AROUND 38000 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531774
59,700 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS TRAVELING 60 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER, I HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURN OFF THE VEHICLE AND TURN IT BACK ON. THE VEHICLE WOULD START BUT THEN RETURN TO IDLE WITH NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. THIS WENT ON REPEATEDLY BEFORE I HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A DEALERSHIP. BECAUSE THIS OCCURRED ON A SAT…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING 60 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER, I HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURN OFF THE VEHICLE AND TURN IT BACK ON. THE VEHICLE WOULD START BUT THEN RETURN TO IDLE WITH NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. THIS WENT ON REPEATEDLY BEFORE I HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A DEALERSHIP. BECAUSE THIS OCCURRED ON A SATURDAY AFTERNOON THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WAS CLOSED AND I WAS UNABLE TO SPEAK TO ANYONE. FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING WHEN I WENT IN THEY FIRST TOLD ME THEY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE THROTTLE CONTROL UNIT. UPON PRESENTING THEM WITH NUMEROUS COPIES OF COMPLAINTS FILED ON LINE THEY FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. HOWEVER WITH NO RECALL I WOULD NEED TO PAY FOR A REPLACEMENT WHICH WITH TOWING RESULTED IN A $550.00 BILL. APPARENTLY I WAS VERY LUCKY THAT THERE WAS ONE REPLACEMENT IN STOCK (HMMM), OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE WEEKS. I HOPE THE REPLACEMENT WORKS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A CHRONIC PROBLEM FOR MONTHS. SKEPTICAL TO SAY THE LEAST. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531522
83,000 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED IT DROVE FINE ALMOST A WEEK LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN MAYBE 3 MILES FROM MY HOME I TURNED ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AND IT DONE IT AGAIN AND PICTURE OF A WRENCH CAME ON INSTRUMENT PANEL I DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AGAIN AND STALLED AGAIN. I STA…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED IT DROVE FINE ALMOST A WEEK LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN MAYBE 3 MILES FROM MY HOME I TURNED ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AND IT DONE IT AGAIN AND PICTURE OF A WRENCH CAME ON INSTRUMENT PANEL I DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AGAIN AND STALLED AGAIN. I STARTED VEHICLE AGAIN AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON AND I MADE IT TO MY DRIVEWAY. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THE CALLED AND SAID IT IS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY AND WOULD BE A FEW DAYS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ORDER THE PART AND IT WILL BE $349.00. I WAS SURFING THE WEB TO SEE WHAT THE PART WAS WHEN I SAY THIS PAGE ABOUT OTHERS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526454
86,000 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING HOME ON THE HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR. A YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT BEGAN FLASHING ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE OF THE DASHBOARD. I FELT THE ENGINE LOSE POWER AND SAW THAT THE CAR WAS DECELERATING. I PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL WITH NO EFFECT. I SIGNALED AND MOVED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET AFTER I REA…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING HOME ON THE HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR. A YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT BEGAN FLASHING ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE OF THE DASHBOARD. I FELT THE ENGINE LOSE POWER AND SAW THAT THE CAR WAS DECELERATING. I PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL WITH NO EFFECT. I SIGNALED AND MOVED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET AFTER I REACHED THE SHOULDER, THE CAR STOPPED MOVING FORWARD AND STALLED. I TURNED IT OFF, LET IT SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND ATTEMPTED TO TURN IT ON AGAIN. THE ENGINE WOULD NOT TURN OVER. I CALLED AND HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP. IN SPEAKING TO THE MECHANIC THE NEXT DAY, HE TOLD ME E PROBLEM WAS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THIS DEALERSHIP WAS BACK ORDERED FOR THE PART AS 5 OTHER FORD VEHICLES WERE AWAITING A NEW THROTTLE BODY. UPON RESEARCHING THIS ISSUE, I REALIZED THAT MY VEHICLE ALSO EXPERIENCED A "LURCHING FORWARD" WHICH WAS LIKELY ALSO RELATED TO THE THROTTLE BODY. THIS LURCHING HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AT INTERMITTENT TIMES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526401
460,000 miles · Jul 15, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AT 40 MPH AND MY VEHICLE JUST QUIT RUNNING (LOST POWER) AND I HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON WHEN THIS HAPPENED, IT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH FIGURE ON THE DASH. AFTER LETTING MY ESCAPE SIT FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS,IT STARTED RIGHT UP. AFTER IT STARTED, I PUT IT IN DRIVE AND…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AT 40 MPH AND MY VEHICLE JUST QUIT RUNNING (LOST POWER) AND I HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON WHEN THIS HAPPENED, IT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH FIGURE ON THE DASH. AFTER LETTING MY ESCAPE SIT FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS,IT STARTED RIGHT UP. AFTER IT STARTED, I PUT IT IN DRIVE AND PROCEEDED TO GO DOWN THE ROAD AND AFTER ABOUT TWO MILES, MY VEHICLE QUIT RUNNING AGAIN. AFTER A FEW SECONDS OF SITTING, I STARTED IT UP AGAIN AND MANAGED TO GET INTO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THE PROBLEM WAS A THROTTLE PROBLEM AND REPLACED THE PART WHICH COST ME $342.00. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THIS HAD BEEN A PROBLEM WITH MANY ESCAPES AND SAID THIS PART MAY BE ON THE VERGE OF A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524958
46,000 miles · Jul 15, 2013
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE HAS GONE INTO LIMP MODE WHILE IN MOTION THREE TIMES THIS MONTH, JULY 2013. MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A MALFUNCTIONING THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524891
63,000 miles · Jun 30, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I AM A SINGLE FEMALE AND KEEP MY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE UP TO DATE. I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE TO CALL ON TO HELP IN TIMES OF CAR TROUBLE. THE ENGINE WOULD LOSE POWER AND START TO 'COAST' TO A STOP AT VARYING SPEEDS, INCLUDING ON AN INTERSTATE. I HAD TO PULL THE CAR OVER, TURN IT OFF, AND RESTART. THE RESTART WAS ALWAYS TROUBLESOME. ONCE…
Read full complaint
I AM A SINGLE FEMALE AND KEEP MY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE UP TO DATE. I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE TO CALL ON TO HELP IN TIMES OF CAR TROUBLE. THE ENGINE WOULD LOSE POWER AND START TO 'COAST' TO A STOP AT VARYING SPEEDS, INCLUDING ON AN INTERSTATE. I HAD TO PULL THE CAR OVER, TURN IT OFF, AND RESTART. THE RESTART WAS ALWAYS TROUBLESOME. ONCE THE DEALERSHIP LOOKED AT THE CAR, I WAS TOLD I WOULD HAVE TO WAIT AT LEAST 2 WEEKS FOR A REPLACEMENT PART. I HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE FOR 2 WEEKS, PUTTING MYSELF AND ANY PASSENGER IN DANGER OF BEING INVOLVED IN AND CAUSING A MAJOR CAR ACCIDENT. I CALLED THE DEALER 2 WEEKS LATER; THE DEALER DID NOT CONTACT ME. I PICKED UP THE PART AND HAD IT INSTALLED. I ALSO PURCHASED A CABIN AIR FILTER IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME. TO MY SURPRISE, THE CAR DID NOT EVEN HAVE A CABIN AIR FILTER INSTALLED WHEN I PURCHASED THE NEW VEHICLE. I HAVE NEVER HAD THAT FILTER REPLACED. I HAVE SEVERE ALLERGIES AND CURRENTLY TAKE 2 SHOTS. I WAS NOT HAPPY TO DISCOVER THE AIR ENTERING MY CAR WAS HELPING TO CONTRIBUTE TO MY PROBLEMS WITH MY ALLERGIES. I WILL NOT PURCHASE ANOTHER FORD. THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE DOES NOT PROMOTE REPEAT CUSTOMERS. FORD DOES NOT STAND BEHIND THEIR VEHICLES AND ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE SAFETY OF THEIR CUSTOMERS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522512
46,300 miles · Jun 30, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AT ABOUT 35 MPH WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER. IT STAYED RUNNING AND I TURNED ON MY FLASHERS AND COASTED TO THE FIRST TURN. I TURNED OFF THE MAIN RD AND PARKED, SHUT OFF THE CAR, THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT WORKED FINE THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. A FEW DAYS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN SO I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AT ABOUT 35 MPH WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER. IT STAYED RUNNING AND I TURNED ON MY FLASHERS AND COASTED TO THE FIRST TURN. I TURNED OFF THE MAIN RD AND PARKED, SHUT OFF THE CAR, THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND IT WORKED FINE THE REST OF THE WAY HOME. A FEW DAYS LATER IT DID IT AGAIN SO I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD GARAGE, ON A SATURDAY MORNING. THE SERVICE MAN ON DUTY TOLD ME " THIS TIME OF YEAR THERE ARE FUZZIES FROM THE TREES FLYING AROUND, THE GET STUCK IN YOUR AIR FILTER AND WHEN YOU TURN THE CAR OFF AND START IT AGAIN THE FUZZIES GET SUCKED IN THE ENGINE AND THE CAR IS FINE. HE SAID HE KNOWS THIS HAS HAPPENED AND WHAT I DESCRIBED HAPPENED TO MY CAR SOUNDS LIKE THIS. HE SAID IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN TO CALL BACK". I SAID "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?". IT HAPPENED AGAIN SO I CALLED BACK, GOT AN ANSWERING MACHINE AND LEFT A MESSAGE. NO ONE CALLED ME BACK, AND THE CAR STOPPED DOING THIS. TWO WEEKS LATER IT LOST POWER TWICE IN ONE DAY, ONCE ON THE INTERSTATE WHICH WAS SCARY, THEN TWICE MORE ON MY 3 MILE DRIVE TO WORK IN THE MORNING. I HAD MY SON LOOK AT THE AIR FILTER, HE SAID IT LOOKED FINE AND NOTHING SHOULD GET THROUGH IT AND TO TAKE IT TO THE GARAGE. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD GARAGE, THEY SAID IT NEEDS AN ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY AND WILL COST $420, THAT IS THE ESTIMATE. THE CAR HAS BEEN AT THE FORD GARAGE FOR 6 DAYS NOW. THEY DON'T HAVE THE PART BECAUSE IT IS ON BACKORDER. THEY DID GIVE ME A LOANER CAR AT NO COST, WHICH I APPRECIATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522480
30,000 miles · Jun 29, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
VEHICLE WENT INTO STALL WHILE TRAVELING OFF OF EXIT RAMP. HAVE READ THAT THIS IS BEING INVESTIGATED AND NEEDS TO BE RECALLED! DANGEROUS AND FELT UNSAFE WITH MY CHILD IN VEHICLE! IF THIS HAPPENED AT A HIGH SPEED ON HWY, IT COULD LEAD TO A CRASH AND INJURY OR EVEN DEATH! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522379
Official recalls
2Oct 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.
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.
Illustration