NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
248 reportsClear category filter40,000 miles · Jul 18, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, I WAS TRAVELING AT APROX. 35MPH WHEN IT FIRST HAPPENED. MY RPM GAUGE STARTED TO "BOUNCE" FROM 1 TO 4 REPEATEDLY. MAKE IT VERY HARD TO STOP AND COULD NOT GIVE IT GAS. AT THE SAME TIME, MY POWER-TRAIN WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND CALL FOR ASSISTANCE.…
Read full complaint
DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, I WAS TRAVELING AT APROX. 35MPH WHEN IT FIRST HAPPENED. MY RPM GAUGE STARTED TO "BOUNCE" FROM 1 TO 4 REPEATEDLY. MAKE IT VERY HARD TO STOP AND COULD NOT GIVE IT GAS. AT THE SAME TIME, MY POWER-TRAIN WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND CALL FOR ASSISTANCE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525517
59,294 miles · Jul 17, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHEN WITHOUT WARNING, I SUDDENLY HAD NO POWER AT ALL. MY ACCELERATION WAS GONE, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, HOWEVER EVERYTHING WAS RUNNING, AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS NOT ON. I PUMPED THE GAS PEDAL AND GOT NOTHING, FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE COMING UP ON MY RIGHT…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHEN WITHOUT WARNING, I SUDDENLY HAD NO POWER AT ALL. MY ACCELERATION WAS GONE, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, HOWEVER EVERYTHING WAS RUNNING, AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS NOT ON. I PUMPED THE GAS PEDAL AND GOT NOTHING, FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE COMING UP ON MY RIGHT, WHICH I WAS ABLE TO TURN INTO. AT THAT POINT I NOTICED THE "WRENCH" ICON LIGHTED UP ON THE DASHBOARD, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND SEE IF IT WAS A GLITCH, SINCE I HAD JUST HAD THE OIL CHANGED AT THE DEALERSHIP EARLIER IN THE DAY. AT LEAST I WAS HOPING THAT WAS THE CASE. THE CAR STARTED PERFECTLY, IT TOOK A FEW SECONDS TO SHAKE ITSELF, WHICH STILL WORRIED ME, AND PROCEEDED TO ACT NORMALLY AS I DROVE HOME, WHERE I CURRENTLY AM. I ADVISED MY SON ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND HE CHECKED UP ON AUTO DEFECTS ON THE FORD ESCAPE AND BROUGHT THEM TO MY ATTENTION, THAT IS WHY I AM REPORTING WHAT HAPPENED TO ME TODAY. I WILL BE BRINGING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEALERSHIP FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING DUE TO MY NEEDING THE USE OF MY VEHICLE FOR WORK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525281
49,500 miles · Jul 13, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED THE ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOSES POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING BUT THE VEHICLE BEGINS TO SLOW AND DEPRESSING THE THROTTLE HAS NO EFFECT. THE ONLY INDICATION ON THE DASH IS A SMALL WRENCH SHAPED LIGHT ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE. ONCE THE VEHICLE IS STOPPED, I TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTART. FROM THE POIN…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED THE ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOSES POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING BUT THE VEHICLE BEGINS TO SLOW AND DEPRESSING THE THROTTLE HAS NO EFFECT. THE ONLY INDICATION ON THE DASH IS A SMALL WRENCH SHAPED LIGHT ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE. ONCE THE VEHICLE IS STOPPED, I TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTART. FROM THE POINT THE ESCAPE RUNS FINE. THIS PROBLEM STARTED TWO WEEKS AGO. IT HAS OCCURRED SIX TIMES. 4 OCCURRENCES ON THE HIGHWAY AND SPEED AND 2 OCCURRENCES ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS WHILE TRAVELING IN THE 20 - 25 MPH RANGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524661
40,000 miles · Jul 12, 2013
EnginePower Train
WAS DRIVING TO THE AIRPORT AND CAR STALLED, PICTURE OF A WRENCH DISPLAY ON THE DASH. NEXT CASE WAS ABOUT 10 DAYS LATER, WAS DRIVING LOCAL AND CAR STALLED 5 TIMES BEFORE I MADE IT. BOTH PICTURE OF THE WRENCH AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. PARKED CAR UNTIL MORNING, STALLED TWICE ON THE WAY TO WORK THEN GOT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TO…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING TO THE AIRPORT AND CAR STALLED, PICTURE OF A WRENCH DISPLAY ON THE DASH. NEXT CASE WAS ABOUT 10 DAYS LATER, WAS DRIVING LOCAL AND CAR STALLED 5 TIMES BEFORE I MADE IT. BOTH PICTURE OF THE WRENCH AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. PARKED CAR UNTIL MORNING, STALLED TWICE ON THE WAY TO WORK THEN GOT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TO BE FIXED. WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524559
42,709 miles · Jul 9, 2013
Engine
ENGINE POWER SURGE UNDER NORMAL DRIVING CONDITIONS WITHOUT INCREASE PEDAL TRAVEL. ALSO ENGINE POWER HESITATES AT TIMES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523981
32,596 miles · Jul 9, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I HAVE BEEN HAVING THIS ISSUE FOR MANY MONTHS WHERE THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE RIGHT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. IT WOULD SHIFT VERY HARD & JERK EVEN HARDER FROM 1ST/2ND & 2ND/3RD. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP & THEY EXPLAINED IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION SO I PAID FOR A TRANSMISSION FLUSH EVEN THOUGH IT ONLY HAD 32K…
Read full complaint
I HAVE BEEN HAVING THIS ISSUE FOR MANY MONTHS WHERE THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE RIGHT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. IT WOULD SHIFT VERY HARD & JERK EVEN HARDER FROM 1ST/2ND & 2ND/3RD. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP & THEY EXPLAINED IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION SO I PAID FOR A TRANSMISSION FLUSH EVEN THOUGH IT ONLY HAD 32K MILES. THEY ALSO AT THIS TIME RESENT THE COMPUTER TO MY DRIVING HABITS? THE PROBLEM CONTINUED. TOOK IT BACK TO THE SHOP LAST WEEK TWICE & THEY BELIEVE THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY BUT ALL COMPUTER CHECKS SHOWED THE TRUCK AS FINE. YESTERDAY WHILE DRIVING 45MPH, IT ALL OF SUDDEN SHIFTED HARD LIKE IT WENT INTO NEUTRAL. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE GAS PEDAL & THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. I DID NOT LOSE POWER STEERING & WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I AT THIS TIME NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE DASH. THE SERVICE MANAGER AT FORD TOLD ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN & THAT I NEEDED TO GET THE TRUCK TO THEM WITH THE LIGHT ON SO THAT THEY COULD GET THE CODE THEY NEEDED IN ORDER TO FILE THE CLAIM WITH FORD & REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. I WAS TOO FAR FROM THE DEALERSHIP TO JERK DOWN THE ROAD OVER 5 MILES IN NOTHING MORE THAN A CREEPER PACE ESPECIALLY DURING RUSH HOUR. WHEN I APPLIED MY FOOT TO THE GAS PEDAL IT WAS NON RESPONSIVE. I WAS TOLD BY THE SERVICE MANAGER THAT IF I TURNED OFF THE TRUCK & RESTARTED IT THE WRENCH LIGHT WOULD GO AWAY & THAT IT DOES NOT SEND AN ERROR CODE TO THE COMPUTER FOR THEM TO REFERENCE. I HAD TO TURN IT OFF, BUT NOT BEFORE TAKING PICTURES FOR MY RECORDS. I TRIED TO RESTART THE TRUCK & IT STRUGGLED BUT FINALLY TURNED OVER OF WHICH THEN IT DROVE FINE. ARRIVED AT THE DEALERSHIP & THEY CONFIRMED IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY BUT THAT THE PARTS ARE ON AN INDEFINITE BACK ORDER. NOW WE WAIT. A COMPLETE INCONVENIENCE & RIDICULOUS THAT FORD WILL NOT ISSUE A RECALL ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY KNOW THIS IS A PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523863
43,600 miles · Jul 8, 2013
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 75 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED AFTER A FEW MINUTES AND OPERATED AS DESIGNED. THE VEHICLE WAS SCHEDULED TO BE INSPECTED BY A DEALER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 75 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED AFTER A FEW MINUTES AND OPERATED AS DESIGNED. THE VEHICLE WAS SCHEDULED TO BE INSPECTED BY A DEALER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 43,600.
NHTSA ODI #10523790
33,000 miles · Jul 8, 2013
Engine
PURCHASED A PREOWNED FORD ESCAPE IN MARCH 2013. HAD APPROXIMATELY 28,000 MILES. DROVE FINE UNTIL JULY 8 2013. ABOUT 1/2 MILE FROM HOME, DRIVING ON RESIDENTIAL ROAD AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE ESCAPE STALLED AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. TURNED CAR OFF AND RESTARTED FINE. DROVE FOR APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE AND STALLED AGAIN. TURNED CA…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED A PREOWNED FORD ESCAPE IN MARCH 2013. HAD APPROXIMATELY 28,000 MILES. DROVE FINE UNTIL JULY 8 2013. ABOUT 1/2 MILE FROM HOME, DRIVING ON RESIDENTIAL ROAD AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE ESCAPE STALLED AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. TURNED CAR OFF AND RESTARTED FINE. DROVE FOR APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE AND STALLED AGAIN. TURNED CAR OFF AGAIN AND RESTARTED, THEN DROVE APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE HOME AND PARKED IN GARAGE. CHECKED OIL, AND LEVEL WAS FINE. CALLED LOCAL FORD DEALER AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. THEY SUGGESTED I DRIVE IT IN SO THEY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT. TOLD THEM I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE DRIVING IT THE 5 MILES TO THE DEALER. CALLED FORD ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE TO HAVE IT TOWED TO THE DEALER. WAITING TO HEAR WHAT THE DEALER HAS TO SAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523715
55,000 miles · Jul 5, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
ON WED JULY 3, I WAS BACKING IT OUT OF GARAGE TO TAKE A TRIP TO SAN ANTONIO. I PULLED OUT ONTO THE STREET TO LEAVE WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I LOST ALL POWER. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH A TOOL WRENCH. I LOOKED IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID THROTTLE PROBLEM. I TURNED IT OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN AND IT DROVE PERFECT FOR HALF…
Read full complaint
ON WED JULY 3, I WAS BACKING IT OUT OF GARAGE TO TAKE A TRIP TO SAN ANTONIO. I PULLED OUT ONTO THE STREET TO LEAVE WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I LOST ALL POWER. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH A TOOL WRENCH. I LOOKED IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID THROTTLE PROBLEM. I TURNED IT OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN AND IT DROVE PERFECT FOR HALF A BLOCK AND LOST POWER AGAIN. FINALLY I GOT IT AROUND THE BLOCK AND PUT IT BACK IN THE GARAGE WHERE IT SITS, UNTIL I CAN FIND OUT IF THIS IS A FORD DEFECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523333
61,000 miles · Jul 2, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE CONTINUALLY HAS A DECREASE IN POWER. AFTER STEPPING ON GAS PEDAL STARTS TO "CHUG" ALONG SLOWLY EVENTUALLY SPEEDS BACK UP AND ENGAGES TO NORMAL SPEED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522900
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