← 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
56,000 miles · Aug 13, 2013
EnginePower Train

WHILE DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOST ALL POWER (ALMOST FELT LIKE A STALL) AND THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH WAS ILLUMINATED. I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURNED IT OFF, AND AFTER TURNING THE VEHICLE BACK ON IT OPERATED AS NORMAL. THIS HAS HAPPENED THREE TIMES OVER THE PAST WEEK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535047

66,500 miles · Aug 12, 2013
EnginePower Train

WAS DRIVING ALONG TO MY FIREFIGHTER JOB WHEN I FELT MY CAR LOOSE POWER AND NOTICED A WRENCH LIGHT COME UP ON MY DASH. I ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE HOWEVER COULDN'T. I SAFELY WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF TO SIDE OF THE ROAD WHERE ONCE I CAME TO A STOP THE CAR JERKED. I SHUT DOWN MY ENGINE, WAITED A FEW MINS THEN RESTARTED THE CAR TO WHICH C…

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING ALONG TO MY FIREFIGHTER JOB WHEN I FELT MY CAR LOOSE POWER AND NOTICED A WRENCH LIGHT COME UP ON MY DASH. I ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE HOWEVER COULDN'T. I SAFELY WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF TO SIDE OF THE ROAD WHERE ONCE I CAME TO A STOP THE CAR JERKED. I SHUT DOWN MY ENGINE, WAITED A FEW MINS THEN RESTARTED THE CAR TO WHICH CAR WAS RUNNING FINE. I CONTINUED TO WORK AND STARTED TO RESEARCH WHAT PROBLEM CAN BE AND NOTICED MANY PEOPLE HAVE HAD SAME ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10534810

41,857 miles · Aug 9, 2013
EnginePower Train

I WAS ACCELERATING AND THE CAR THEN JUST STOPPED ACCELERATING. IT FELT LIKE THE TRANSMISSION HAD JUST LET GO, BECAUSE THE CAR WOULD NOT SPEED UP WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. WHEN I TRIED TO STOP, THE IDLE WAS VERY ROUGH AND THE CAR WANTED TO JERK FORWARD. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR STOPPED IN A SAFE PLACE. WHEN I RE-…

Read full complaint

I WAS ACCELERATING AND THE CAR THEN JUST STOPPED ACCELERATING. IT FELT LIKE THE TRANSMISSION HAD JUST LET GO, BECAUSE THE CAR WOULD NOT SPEED UP WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. WHEN I TRIED TO STOP, THE IDLE WAS VERY ROUGH AND THE CAR WANTED TO JERK FORWARD. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR STOPPED IN A SAFE PLACE. WHEN I RE-STARTED THE CAR, THE IGNITION WAS TURNING OVER, BUT IT TOOK SEVERAL SECONDS BEFORE IT FIRED. I HAVE SINCE BROUGHT MY CAR TO THE SERVICE SHOP, THEY TOLD ME IT WAS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVE HAD TO REPAIR THIS ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. THE GENTLEMAN SITTING NEXT TO ME SAYS THAT HE HAD THE SAME ISSUE WITH A SIMILAR VEHICLE - SAME FAMILY OF CAR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10534423

31,000 miles · Aug 8, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

AT A STOP LIGHT. STEP ON GAS PEDAL WHEN LIGHT TURNS GREEN, NOTHING HAPPENS. ABLE TO GET CAR TO SIDE OF RODE. WRENCH LIGHT ON. TURN CAR OFF AND ON. WRENCH LIGHT GONE AND CAR DRIVES FINE. TOOK CAR TO MY MECHANIC THAT SAME DAY AND NOTHING "REGISTERED" ON THE CAR'S COMPUTER SO NO PROBLEM IDENTIFIED, ALTHOUGH I WAS TOLD IT "MIG…

Read full complaint

AT A STOP LIGHT. STEP ON GAS PEDAL WHEN LIGHT TURNS GREEN, NOTHING HAPPENS. ABLE TO GET CAR TO SIDE OF RODE. WRENCH LIGHT ON. TURN CAR OFF AND ON. WRENCH LIGHT GONE AND CAR DRIVES FINE. TOOK CAR TO MY MECHANIC THAT SAME DAY AND NOTHING "REGISTERED" ON THE CAR'S COMPUTER SO NO PROBLEM IDENTIFIED, ALTHOUGH I WAS TOLD IT "MIGHT" BE THE "THROTTLE BODY," AS HE'D JUST REPLACED ONE ON ANOTHER FORD. AS A "SAFETY PRECAUTION" I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD PUT THE CAR IN NEUTRAL AND TURN IT ON/OFF TO GET IT GOING IF IT SHOULD HAPPEN ON THE HIGHWAY. CALLED THE FORD SERVICE PEOPLE AND TOLD THEM EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED - THEY ALSO TOLD ME THAT THEY CAN NOT FIX ANYTHING IF NOTHING REGISTERED ON THE CAR'S COMPUTER., I WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN. TWO-THREE WEEKS GO BY - CAR DRIVING OK (WHEN GOING TO WORK I MAKE SURE TO DRIVE IN RIGHT LANE "JUST IN CASE" AND I NO LONGER CAN DRIVE ON HIGHWAY WITH MY CHILD IN CAR). THEN, IT HAPPENS: WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE CAR LOSES POWER AGAIN. I GET OFF THE ROAD. ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT ARE ON. CAR TOWED TO DEALER. THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. I AM DRIVING A RENTAL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10534387

40,000 miles · Aug 7, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE INTO TRAFFIC, THE ENGINE DROPPED TO IDLE AND THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO AFFECT. TEMPORARY SOLUTION WAS TO PULL OVER, TURN ENGINE OFF, RESTART (WHICH REQUIRED EXCESSIVE CRANKING) WHICH SEEMED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. THROTTLE WORKS AGAIN. THIS ISSUE HAS NOW HAPPENED 3 ADDITIONAL TIMES AND WE HAVE PARKED THE CA…

Read full complaint

WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE INTO TRAFFIC, THE ENGINE DROPPED TO IDLE AND THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO AFFECT. TEMPORARY SOLUTION WAS TO PULL OVER, TURN ENGINE OFF, RESTART (WHICH REQUIRED EXCESSIVE CRANKING) WHICH SEEMED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. THROTTLE WORKS AGAIN. THIS ISSUE HAS NOW HAPPENED 3 ADDITIONAL TIMES AND WE HAVE PARKED THE CAR AS IT IS UNSAFE AND UNRELIABLE. FORD DEALER HAS NO CLUE ABOUT THE ISSUE AND CAN'T SCHEDULE GETTING IT INTO THE SHOP FOR AT LEAST 2 WEEKS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10534029

78,000 miles · Aug 6, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System

WHILE DRIVING MY FAMILY IN OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 65MPH ON AN INTERSTATE - I SUDDENLY EXPERIENCED A TOTAL LOSS OF POWER. THE ENGINE DID NOT QUIT - BUT RATHER DECELERATED RAPIDLY TO IDLE SPEED. I IMMEDIATELY PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND ATTEMPTED TO REV THE ENGINE AND SHIFT THE TRANSMISSION INTO PARK, AND THEN BACK…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING MY FAMILY IN OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 65MPH ON AN INTERSTATE - I SUDDENLY EXPERIENCED A TOTAL LOSS OF POWER. THE ENGINE DID NOT QUIT - BUT RATHER DECELERATED RAPIDLY TO IDLE SPEED. I IMMEDIATELY PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND ATTEMPTED TO REV THE ENGINE AND SHIFT THE TRANSMISSION INTO PARK, AND THEN BACK INTO DRIVE - WITH NO RESULT. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED 1 MINUTE, TO SEE IF IT COULD POSSIBLY BE A COMPUTER PROBLEM. I STARTED THE CAR, REVVED THE ENGINE, SHIFTED INTO DRIVE AND PROCEEDED AT NORMAL SPEED. THE FOLLOWING DAY THIS SAME THING HAPPENED TO MY WIFE ON ANOTHER HIGHWAY. I CALLED A FORD DEALER AND A TRUSTWORTHY REPAIR SHOP - AND THEY BOTH POINTED TO THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY IN THE FUEL SYSTEM - WHICH SEEMS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM. I HAD A NEW THROTTLE BODY INSTALLED AFTER A FORD DEALER HOOKED UP DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT AND VERIFIED THE ISSUE. REPAIR COST WAS $513.68 PARTS AND LABOR. I FEEL THAT THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION - AND A RECALL OF THE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THIS PART, SHOULD BE HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. I HAVE READ MANY OTHER ACCOUNTS ON THE INTERNET OF THIS EXACT CONDITION. IT IS JUST A MATER OF TIME BEFORE A FAILURE LIKE THIS WILL OCCUR - AND A FOLLOWING VEHICLE - PERHAPS A SEMI-TRUCK WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP IN TIME CAUSING A VERY SERIOUS INJURY OR FATALITY. LUCKILY MY WIFE AND I WERE IN LIGHT TRAFFIC ON THE FREEWAY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533807

57,700 miles · Aug 5, 2013
EnginePower Train

THROTTLE BODY STOPS TO ONLY IDLE UPON ACCELERATING OR USE OF THROTTLE FROM STOP. SOMETIMES IT WILL ALLOW TO ACCELERATE UP TO 30 TO 40 MPH BEFORE IT QUITS WORKING UPON THROTTLE INPUT FROM DRIVER. SO, IT WILL ONLY IDLE AFTER ACCELERATING HALF OR PART WAY THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND YOU ARE AT THE MERCY OF INCLINE OR DECLINE OF ROA…

Read full complaint

THROTTLE BODY STOPS TO ONLY IDLE UPON ACCELERATING OR USE OF THROTTLE FROM STOP. SOMETIMES IT WILL ALLOW TO ACCELERATE UP TO 30 TO 40 MPH BEFORE IT QUITS WORKING UPON THROTTLE INPUT FROM DRIVER. SO, IT WILL ONLY IDLE AFTER ACCELERATING HALF OR PART WAY THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND YOU ARE AT THE MERCY OF INCLINE OR DECLINE OF ROAD TO HOPEFULLY COAST TO SAFETY. IT HAS DONE THIS WHILE TURNING LEFT WHILE HAVING TO YIELD TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. IT CAUSED ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO HAVE TO STOP WHILE I GOT STRANDED IN MIDDLE OF TURN. SAFETY ISSUE FOR SURE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533766

46,055 miles · Aug 5, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS FROM 50 - 65 MPH, MY ESCAPE WILL SUDDENLY LOSE POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING, BUT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT. THE VEHICLE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE VERY SLOWLY AFTER MOVING TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT IS INDICATED ON THE DASH. AFTER COMING TO A STOP, TURNING THE ENGI…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS FROM 50 - 65 MPH, MY ESCAPE WILL SUDDENLY LOSE POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING, BUT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT. THE VEHICLE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE VERY SLOWLY AFTER MOVING TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT IS INDICATED ON THE DASH. AFTER COMING TO A STOP, TURNING THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTING, THE PROBLEM IS TEMPORARILY RESOLVED. AFTER SOME RESEARCH ON THE NHTSA SITE, THIS SAME PROBLEM OCCURS IN THE ESCAPE AND FORD FUSION. FORD IS COMPLETELY AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, BUT HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL. THE PROBLEM IS THE THROTTLE CONTROL BODY. A LOCAL FORD DEALER OFFERED TO REPLACE THE PART FOR APPROXIMATELY $600. I PURCHASED THE PART FOR $350 AND WILL REPLACE MYSELF AS IT IS A SIMPLE 10 MINUTE JOB. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS DEFECT AND I WISH THAT FORD WOULD TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533690

39,000 miles · Aug 3, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHETHER I DRIVING IN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC OR HIGHWAY MY FORD ESCAPE WOULD START HESITATION. COULD NOT GET A CHARGE FROM TO DRIVE SUV. OR MY ESCAPE WOULD POWER AND THE ENGINE WOULD DIE WHILE DRIVING OR WHEN I WAS PULLING OUT FROM INTERSECTION. I TOOK FORD ESCAPE TO A FORD DEALERSHIP THEY DID WHATEVER TEST AND TOLD ME THEY WOULD HAV…

Read full complaint

WHETHER I DRIVING IN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC OR HIGHWAY MY FORD ESCAPE WOULD START HESITATION. COULD NOT GET A CHARGE FROM TO DRIVE SUV. OR MY ESCAPE WOULD POWER AND THE ENGINE WOULD DIE WHILE DRIVING OR WHEN I WAS PULLING OUT FROM INTERSECTION. I TOOK FORD ESCAPE TO A FORD DEALERSHIP THEY DID WHATEVER TEST AND TOLD ME THEY WOULD HAVE TO ORDER PART. TWO WEEKS OF WAITING FOR PART TO ARRIVE AND STILL NO PART DEALERSHIP TOLD ME PART WAS ON A STATE ORDER BECAUSE I WAS IN FLORIDA WHEN THIS HAPPENED AND I WAS FROM ILLINOIS WITH MY TRIP ENDING AND NEEDED TO GET HOME. I FELT DEALERSHIP WAS GIVING ME RUN AROUND SO I CALLED MAIN HEADQUARTERS IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN AND WAS TOLD THE THROTTLE BODY WAS ON BACK ORDER BECAUSE FORD WAS HAVING PROBLEMS FIGURING OUT PROBLEM AND THEREFORE COULD NOT SEND PART BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CORRECTED THROTTLE BODY PART TO SEND. I ASKED IF FORD WAS DOING A RECALL ON ESCAPE AND WAS TOLD NOT AT THIS TIME. I RECEIVED A CALLED FROM FORD MOTOR CO. ABOUT 2 DAYS LATER TELLING ME THE PART WOULD BE SENT TO DEALERSHIP BY WEDNESDAY OF FOLLOWING WEEK AND THAT A CALL WAS ALSO PLACED TO DEALERSHIP TO INFORM THEM THE PART WAS FOR MY ESCAPE NOT THE TWO FORD ESCAPES WITH SAME PROBLEM THAT WERE AHEAD OF MINE. BY THE FOLLOWING WEEK ON WEDNESDAY MY FORD ESCAPE WAS REPAIRED AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME BACK TO ILLINOIS. TO THIS DAY I AM NOT SURE IF I HAVE A REPLACEMENT PART THAT HAS FIXED THE PROBLEM OR IF FORD MOTOR CO. SENT ME THE SAME PART THAT WILL AGAIN BREAK DOWN ON ME. I HAVE KEPT TRACK OF ALL PHONE CALLS I MADE DATE TIME AND WHO I SPOKE WITH AND ALSO THE CALLS FROM FORD MOTOR CO. TO ME. NEEDLESS TO SAY I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE WHOLE MATTER AND I AM FILING THIS COMPLAINT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533442

48,500 miles · Aug 3, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train

WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON DASHBOARD AND THE CAR STARTED DECELERATING. WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, HAD TO PULL OVER, TURN CAR OFF, THEN BACK ON, IN ORDER FOR CAR TO ACCELERATE AGAIN. SECOND INCIDENT SEEMED LIKE CAR'S POWER COMPLETELY SHUT OFF AND WOULD NOT COME BACK ON AGAIN AFTER A ROUGH IDLING STOP. …

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON DASHBOARD AND THE CAR STARTED DECELERATING. WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, HAD TO PULL OVER, TURN CAR OFF, THEN BACK ON, IN ORDER FOR CAR TO ACCELERATE AGAIN. SECOND INCIDENT SEEMED LIKE CAR'S POWER COMPLETELY SHUT OFF AND WOULD NOT COME BACK ON AGAIN AFTER A ROUGH IDLING STOP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10533437

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