← New search

2011 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2011 Ford Escape do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,061 reports with mileage · 255 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.

  • Steering. Review the 409 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 268 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 253 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

38 crash reports7 fire reports29 injury reports

Engine complaints

248 reports
Clear category filter
48,000 miles · Nov 21, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING IN THE MIDDLE LANE OF I 85 THE ENGINE TURNED OFF. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE RIGHT LANE BECAME CLEAR AND I COASTED THE CAR ONTO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THIS WAS A TERRIFYING EXPERIENCE ESPECIALLY AT THIS SPEED WITH CARS BEHIND ME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10553163

47,506 miles · Nov 19, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME. BOTH TIME I WAS ON MY WAY TO WORK. THE FIRST TIME I WAS GOING ABOUT 45MPH TURNING ON THE STREET TO MY OFFICE AND THE ENGINE DIES. I HAVE NO POWER. I AM PRESSING ON THE GAS AND NOTHING. I STOP THE CAR AND PIT IT IN PARK. I RESTART THE CAR AND IT STARTS RIGHT UP. I THINK OH NO BIG D…

Read full complaint

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME. BOTH TIME I WAS ON MY WAY TO WORK. THE FIRST TIME I WAS GOING ABOUT 45MPH TURNING ON THE STREET TO MY OFFICE AND THE ENGINE DIES. I HAVE NO POWER. I AM PRESSING ON THE GAS AND NOTHING. I STOP THE CAR AND PIT IT IN PARK. I RESTART THE CAR AND IT STARTS RIGHT UP. I THINK OH NO BIG DEAL MAYBE I HAVE A BAD TANK OF GAS. MAYBE THE ENGINE WAS NOT GETTING ANY FUEL. DID NOT THINK TOO MUCH INTO THE PROBLEM THIS MORNING IT HAPPENS AGAIN! EXCEPT I WAS GOING A LOT FASTER AND I WAS ON THE HIGHWAY. I AM GOING ABOUT 65MPH AND 10 MINUTE AWAY FROM WORK. I AM IN THE FAR LEFT LANE AND THE ENGINE DIES. I INSTANTLY PANIC AND NEED TO GET OVER FIVE LANES OF TRAFFIC. I PUT MY FLASHERS ON LUCKILY I STILL HAVE POWER FOR THOSE. I WAS ABLE TO GET OVER ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BEFORE I CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. I PUT IT IN PARK AND TAKE THE KEY OUT. SIT THERE FOR A MINUTE WHILE I CATCH MY BREATH BECAUSE I JUST CROSSED 5 LANES OF RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC WITH A ENGINE THAT IS NOT ON. I PUT THE KEY IN AND IT STARTS RIGHT UP. I PRESS ON THE GAS AND I HAVE POWER AGAIN. WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? I HAVE BEEN READING ONLINE ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS HAPPENING TO A LOT OF US. FORD IS WRONG FOR NOT COMING OUT WITH A RECALL BY NOW. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10552868

65,000 miles · Nov 17, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System

VEHICLE CUT OFF WHILE DRIVING 65MPH ON HIGHWAY WITH NO WARNING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10552613

48,001 miles · Nov 17, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS DRIVING ON I-75 SOUTH, ATLANTA AREA, 55 MPH, WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE 2011 LOST ALL POWER AND I COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD DURING RUSH HOUR --- VERY SCARY, AND VERY DANGEROUS. TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD SERVICE AND WAS CHARGED $474.15 TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY (NOT COVERED UNDER TRANSMISSION, ENGINE, POWERTRAIN WARRANTY). READ …

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON I-75 SOUTH, ATLANTA AREA, 55 MPH, WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE 2011 LOST ALL POWER AND I COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD DURING RUSH HOUR --- VERY SCARY, AND VERY DANGEROUS. TOOK VEHICLE TO FORD SERVICE AND WAS CHARGED $474.15 TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY (NOT COVERED UNDER TRANSMISSION, ENGINE, POWERTRAIN WARRANTY). READ ON-LINE THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER FORD OWNERS EXPERIENCING THIS SAME DANGEROUS PROBLEM. SURE HOPE YOU WILL WARN OTHER FORD OWNERS AND ORGANIZE A RECALL. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE I CAN CONTACT TO MOVE A RECALL FORWARD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10552607

68,648 miles · Nov 11, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHILE I WAS DRIVING THE ENGINE STALLED DOWN SO PULLED OFF THE ROAD ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT RUNNING ROUGH AND NO THROTTLE RESPONSE I SHUT THE ENGINE OFF THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE SO DROVE OFF. LATER THAT SAME DAY IT DID IT AGAIN. NEXT DAY BROUGHT TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY HAD IT FOR A WEEK TRYING TO G…

Read full complaint

WHILE I WAS DRIVING THE ENGINE STALLED DOWN SO PULLED OFF THE ROAD ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT RUNNING ROUGH AND NO THROTTLE RESPONSE I SHUT THE ENGINE OFF THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE SO DROVE OFF. LATER THAT SAME DAY IT DID IT AGAIN. NEXT DAY BROUGHT TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY HAD IT FOR A WEEK TRYING TO GET IT TO DO THE SAME THING FOR THEM BUT NEVER DID SO I PICKED IT BACK UP AND WAS A COUPLE MILES AWAY AND IT STALLED ON ME AGAIN BROUGHT IT BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP THEY KEPT IT OVER NIGHT AGAIN AND NEXT DAY TOLD ME IT STALLED ON THEM AND SAID I NEED A NEW THROTTLE BODY BUT WAS ON BACK ORDER. SO HERE I AM ALMOST THREE MONTHS LATER AND STILL NO PART AND TODAY NOV. 11 2013 I HAD THE ENGINE STALL ON ME 8 TIMES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10551808

42,000 miles · Nov 6, 2013
Engine

WHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH ENGINE LOST POWER MAINTENANCE AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. AFTER STOPPING AND SHUTTING DOWN THE ENGINE. ENGINE WAS HARD TO RESTART. ENGINE STARTED AND I RESUMED DRIVING. NOW THIS IS A REGULAR OCCURRENCE HAPPENING WITH NO WARNING. THE CODE IN THE COMPUTER IS P2112, THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM S…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH ENGINE LOST POWER MAINTENANCE AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. AFTER STOPPING AND SHUTTING DOWN THE ENGINE. ENGINE WAS HARD TO RESTART. ENGINE STARTED AND I RESUMED DRIVING. NOW THIS IS A REGULAR OCCURRENCE HAPPENING WITH NO WARNING. THE CODE IN THE COMPUTER IS P2112, THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM STUCK CLOSED. IT HAPPENS AT VARIOUS SPEED INCLUDING INTERSTATE SPEEDS. WHILE LOOKING FOR A REPLACEMENT PART I FOUND THIS IS HAPPENING TO A LOT OF ESCAPE OWNERS AND A RECALL WAS ISSUED FOR EARLIER MODELS. IT APPEARS TO ME FORD HAS YET TO FIX THE PROBLEM. I AM RELUCTANT TO INVEST THE $500-$600 FOR THE REPAIR IF IT IS JUST GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10551102

41,275 miles · Nov 2, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train

DRIVING NORMAL SPEED, WITHOUT WARNING, "WRENCH ICON" APPEARS AND GAS PEDAL FAILS TO RESPOND. COAST TO STOP IN A PARKING LOT. SHUT OFF ENGINE, RESTART VEHICLE AND IT DRIVES NORMAL FOR REMAINDER OF 2 MILE TRIP. START NEXT ERRAND AND SAME THING HAPPENS. SOUNDS LIKE THE THROTTLE BODY FAILURE AND LIMP MODE THAT I HAVE BEEN RESEA…

Read full complaint

DRIVING NORMAL SPEED, WITHOUT WARNING, "WRENCH ICON" APPEARS AND GAS PEDAL FAILS TO RESPOND. COAST TO STOP IN A PARKING LOT. SHUT OFF ENGINE, RESTART VEHICLE AND IT DRIVES NORMAL FOR REMAINDER OF 2 MILE TRIP. START NEXT ERRAND AND SAME THING HAPPENS. SOUNDS LIKE THE THROTTLE BODY FAILURE AND LIMP MODE THAT I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING ONLINE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550627

34,000 miles · Oct 31, 2013
EnginePower Train

THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT ABOUT 65MPH, THE CAR GAVE A SMALL JERK AND THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED, THE CAR APPEARED TO STILL HAVE POWER BUT THERE WAS NO ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO MOVE OVER TWO LANES OF BUSY, SPEEDY TRAFFIC (AS THERE WAS NO LEFT SIDE SHOULDER) AND PULL OFF …

Read full complaint

THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT ABOUT 65MPH, THE CAR GAVE A SMALL JERK AND THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED, THE CAR APPEARED TO STILL HAVE POWER BUT THERE WAS NO ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO MOVE OVER TWO LANES OF BUSY, SPEEDY TRAFFIC (AS THERE WAS NO LEFT SIDE SHOULDER) AND PULL OFF WITHOUT CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF THEN RESTARTED IT, IT APPEARED TO RUN OKAY AFTER THAT UNTIL ABOUT 3 MILES LATER THE EXACT THING OCCURRED AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED THREE TIMES ON THE HIGHWAY AND ONCE I WAS ABLE TO EXIT IT HAPPENED ONCE AGAIN ON A RURAL ROAD AT ABOUT 35-40MPH. I CALLED FOR SERVICE AND TOOK THE CAR IN THE NEXT DAY, WHILE ON THE WAY TO THE DEALER, THE CAR DID THE SAME THING ONCE MORE - AT ABOUT 45 MPH. THIS WAS AN EXTREMELY NERVE-WRACKING EXPERIENCE, ESPECIALLY WHILE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC ON THE FREEWAY - IT COULD HAVE EASILY CAUSE AN ACCIDENT AND TURNED OUT MUCH WORSE. ONCE THE DEALER CALLED ME TO TELL ME WHAT THE ISSUE WAS I LOOKED ONLINE TO SEE IF I COULD FIND ANY INFORMATION AND CAME ACROSS HUNDREDS OF OTHER COMPLAINTS, ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME EXPERIENCE I HAD. I FEEL, BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I HAVE READ AND THE NEED FOR SO MANY PEOPLE TO HAVE THIS PART REPLACED IT SHOULD BE A FORMAL RECALL BY FORD AND NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CONSUMER HAS TO PAY FOR, AS I AM NOW. IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THIS SITUATION OCCURS AND CAUSES SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH, IF THAT HASN'T ALREADY HAPPENED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550384

65,354 miles · Oct 31, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A FUEL SURGE CAUSING A REACTION THAT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE DRIVER. THE CAR JOLTEDAS IF ONE MASHED THE ACCELERATOR THEN RELEASED REPEATEDLY. ONCE THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP THE CAR SPIT AND SPUTTERED LIKE BAD ENGINE TIMING. WE TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF WHERE IT SAT OVERNIGHT. IT WAS HARD TO START THIS MORNI…

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A FUEL SURGE CAUSING A REACTION THAT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE DRIVER. THE CAR JOLTEDAS IF ONE MASHED THE ACCELERATOR THEN RELEASED REPEATEDLY. ONCE THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP THE CAR SPIT AND SPUTTERED LIKE BAD ENGINE TIMING. WE TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF WHERE IT SAT OVERNIGHT. IT WAS HARD TO START THIS MORNING AND EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM TWICE THIS MORNING WHILE TAKING THE KIDS TO SCHOOL. I STOPPED BY AN ADVANCED AUTO PARTS STORE WHERE THE ATTENDANT PULLED THE SERVICE CODE P2112 THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK CLOSED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550325

41,802 miles · Oct 30, 2013
EnginePower Train

MY WIFE WAS DRIVING HER CAR HOME WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE DRAMATICALLY REDUCING THE CARS SPEED TO 15 MPH. GOOD THING SHE HAD GOTTEN OFF THE INTERSTATE BEFORE THIS HAPPENED. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON I READ THE CODE IT WAS P2111 THROTTLE STUCK OPEN. TURNING THE CAR OFF RESET THE THROTTLE …

Read full complaint

MY WIFE WAS DRIVING HER CAR HOME WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE DRAMATICALLY REDUCING THE CARS SPEED TO 15 MPH. GOOD THING SHE HAD GOTTEN OFF THE INTERSTATE BEFORE THIS HAPPENED. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON I READ THE CODE IT WAS P2111 THROTTLE STUCK OPEN. TURNING THE CAR OFF RESET THE THROTTLE BODY FOR ABOUT 5 MILES THEN THE CAR WENT BACK INTO LIMP MODE AND IT EVEN QUIT. THIS HAPPENED ON 9/27/13 ON MONDAY 9/30/13 I CALLED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER THEY SAID THE CAR WAS OUT OF WARRANTY BY MILEAGE AND THE THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT COVERED. THE FORD DEALER HAD 2 THROTTLE BODIES ON HAND MY WIFE TOOK MY CAR THE FORD DEALER AND BOUGHT A THROTTLE BODY FOR HER CAR AT A COST OF $181. AFTER I INSTALLED THE NEW THROTTLE BODY THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND THE WRENCH LIGHT HAVE WENT OUT AND THE CAR RUNS LIKE NEW. MY BIGGEST CONCERN IF THIS HAD HAPPENED WILE SHE WAS ON THE INTERSTATE AND THE CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE THIS COULD HAVE CAUSE A MAJOR ACCIDENT MAYBE EVEN KILLING HER AND MY NIECE WHO WAS WITH HER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550264

Official recalls

2

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.

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