NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
248 reportsClear category filter42,360 miles · Jan 7, 2013
EnginePower Train
TURNED ONTO MY STREET ON MY WAY HOME FROM WORK AND ALL OF A SUDDEN COULDN'T GIVE THE CAR ANY GAS. NOTICE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. COASTED INTO DRIVEWAY TURNED CAR OFF-WAITED A FEW AND TURNED BACK ON. NO LIGHT AND CAR SEEMED FINE. NEXT DAY TOOK CAR OUT AND JUST AFTER GETTING ON HIGHWAY CAR DID THE SAME THING THIS TIME THE CHECK EN…
Read full complaint
TURNED ONTO MY STREET ON MY WAY HOME FROM WORK AND ALL OF A SUDDEN COULDN'T GIVE THE CAR ANY GAS. NOTICE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. COASTED INTO DRIVEWAY TURNED CAR OFF-WAITED A FEW AND TURNED BACK ON. NO LIGHT AND CAR SEEMED FINE. NEXT DAY TOOK CAR OUT AND JUST AFTER GETTING ON HIGHWAY CAR DID THE SAME THING THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS WELL. TURNED OFF AND ON AND WRENCH LIGHT WENT OFF BUT ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON. DROVE DIRECTLY TO DEALERSHIP. WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY GOT STUCK AND WAS BEING REPLACED. VERY DANGEROUS WHEN DRIVING ON BUSY ROADS! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10491669
2,000 miles · Jan 3, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
AFTER STOPPING AND UPON ACCELERATION THE ENGINE COMPLETELY SHUTS DOWN AND THE CAR STALLS. AFTER PUTTING THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTING THE CAR, IT RUNS OKAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME 4 TIMES OVER A 23 MONTH PERIOD. EACH TIME I HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE FIRST TWO TIMES I WAS TOLD THE CAR WAS STILL BREAKING …
Read full complaint
AFTER STOPPING AND UPON ACCELERATION THE ENGINE COMPLETELY SHUTS DOWN AND THE CAR STALLS. AFTER PUTTING THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTING THE CAR, IT RUNS OKAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME 4 TIMES OVER A 23 MONTH PERIOD. EACH TIME I HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE FIRST TWO TIMES I WAS TOLD THE CAR WAS STILL BREAKING IN AND IT MUST BE DUE TO THE GAS I WAS USING. THE THIRD TIME, THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE "WRENCH" LIGHT ONLY CAME ON ONCE. THEY SAID THEY HAD A NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED WITH AND REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY HELPED. THREE WEEKS AFTER THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY, IT HAPPENED AGAIN! THIS TIME ONLY THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. FORD SAYS THEY NEED A CODE TO TRY TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS ONE OTHER PERSON, WHO HAS THE SAME MAKE AND MODEL AS MINE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING TOO. THIS PERSON ALSO HAD THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACED. THE FACT THAT NO CODE IS TRIPPED IS A PROBLEM IN ITSELF! PLEASE HELP! I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO BE KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490869
50,000 miles · Dec 17, 2012
Engine
I WAS DRIVING AT 55MPH GOING EAST ON 301. I STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN TO TURN LEFT ONTO 305, CROSSING OVER 301 WEST. AFTER STOPPING, I ACCELERATED TO CROSS OVER 301 WEST TO TURN ONTO 305 AND THE ENGINE DIED. LUCKILY I HAD ENOUGH MOMENTUM TO DRIFT ACROSS THE ROAD AND MADE IT SAFELY ONTO THE SHOULDER OF 301. IF I DIDN'T I WOULD HAVE …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT 55MPH GOING EAST ON 301. I STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN TO TURN LEFT ONTO 305, CROSSING OVER 301 WEST. AFTER STOPPING, I ACCELERATED TO CROSS OVER 301 WEST TO TURN ONTO 305 AND THE ENGINE DIED. LUCKILY I HAD ENOUGH MOMENTUM TO DRIFT ACROSS THE ROAD AND MADE IT SAFELY ONTO THE SHOULDER OF 301. IF I DIDN'T I WOULD HAVE BEEN T-BONED BY CARS TRAVELING <55+MPH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10489056
40,000 miles · Dec 17, 2012
Engine
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT APPROX 55 TO 60 MILES PER HOUR I SUDDENLY, WITHOUT ANY KIND OF WARNING, LIGHT ETC, BEGAN TO QUICKLY SLOW DOWN. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT I DID NOT HAVE ANY FORWARD POWER. I PULLED OVER, TURNED IT OFF AND BACK ON, THE ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OUT BUT …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT APPROX 55 TO 60 MILES PER HOUR I SUDDENLY, WITHOUT ANY KIND OF WARNING, LIGHT ETC, BEGAN TO QUICKLY SLOW DOWN. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT I DID NOT HAVE ANY FORWARD POWER. I PULLED OVER, TURNED IT OFF AND BACK ON, THE ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OUT BUT THE ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON. I STARTED IT BACK UP, DROVE DOWN THE BERM AT ABOUT 15-20 AND IT DID IT AGAIN; I STOPPED TURNED IT OFF AND BACK ON AND MANAGED TO GET OFF THE INTERESTATE. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY; THIS WAS THE THROTTLE BODY THAT CAME ON THE VEHICLE. ABOUT $382.00 LATER MY CAR SEEMS TO BE DOING OKAY. MY POINT.....THIS IS DANGEROUS, EXTREMELY DANGEROUS - LUCKILY I DIDN'T HAVE A TRACTOR TRAILER BEARING DOWN ON ME....HOWEVER, THERE WERE SEVERAL HORNS AND ABRUPT STOPS. FORD NEEDS TO RECALL THESE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10488987
33,000 miles · Dec 4, 2012
EngineCrash
2011 FORD ESCAPE ENGINE STALLS AT RANDOM TIMES: I BOUGHT THE CAR AS A FORD CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED VEHICLE IN AUGUST 2012. IN NOVEMBER THE STALLING ISSUE STARTED. IT'S HAPPENED TO ME THREE TIMES NOW. THE CAR JUST SHUTS OFF AND GOES INTO SOME TYPE OF IDLE MODE AND A LITTLE ORANGE WRENCH APPEARS ON THE DASH. TWO TIMES ON THE INTERSTAT…
Read full complaint
2011 FORD ESCAPE ENGINE STALLS AT RANDOM TIMES: I BOUGHT THE CAR AS A FORD CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED VEHICLE IN AUGUST 2012. IN NOVEMBER THE STALLING ISSUE STARTED. IT'S HAPPENED TO ME THREE TIMES NOW. THE CAR JUST SHUTS OFF AND GOES INTO SOME TYPE OF IDLE MODE AND A LITTLE ORANGE WRENCH APPEARS ON THE DASH. TWO TIMES ON THE INTERSTATE AND AGAIN ONE MORNING COMING INTO WORK. WHEN IT STALLED ON THE FREEWAY I WAS TRAVELING AT 70 MPH AND HAD TO PULL OFF INTO THE GRASS -- HIT SOMETHING AND BLEW A FRONT TIRE. THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUE. AFTER CHANGING THE FRONT TIRE IT STARTED RIGHT BACK UP BUT ONLY MADE IT 45 MINUTES BEFORE STALLING AGAIN (THIS TIME AT 45 MPH AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD). HAD SAME STALLING ISSUE ON THE WAY TO WORK BUT AT A LOWER SPEED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10487353
33,000 miles · Oct 24, 2012
Engine
WHILE SITTING AT A BUSY INTERSECTION, THE ENGINE SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY...NO WARNING OR NO INDICATION THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. I HAD TO PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTART. A FEW MILES DOWN THE ROAD, IT HAPPENED AGAIN. THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL OTHER TIMES. LAST NIGHT, I WAS TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH WHEN IT SHUT DOWN AGAIN.…
Read full complaint
WHILE SITTING AT A BUSY INTERSECTION, THE ENGINE SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY...NO WARNING OR NO INDICATION THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. I HAD TO PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTART. A FEW MILES DOWN THE ROAD, IT HAPPENED AGAIN. THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL OTHER TIMES. LAST NIGHT, I WAS TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH WHEN IT SHUT DOWN AGAIN. I WAS ALMOST REAR-ENDED BY THE CAR BEHIND ME. I TRAVEL 35 MILES EACH WAY TO WORK...INCLUDING SOME HIGHWAYS WHERE THE SPEED LIMIT IS 55MPH. I'M AFRAID IT WILL HAPPEN THERE AND I'LL BE REAR-ENDED BY SOME TAIL-GATER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10482031
47,651 miles · Oct 13, 2012
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR JUST DIED, HAD TO PULL OVER, THE 2ND TIME I WAS GOING ON A BUSY INTERSTATE AND GOING ABOUT 70 MPH I WAS LUCKY THERE WAS A PLACE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD, BUT THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, AND STAYED ON FOR THE ENTIRE TRIP. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME AND SHUT THE CAR OFF AND STARTED …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR JUST DIED, HAD TO PULL OVER, THE 2ND TIME I WAS GOING ON A BUSY INTERSTATE AND GOING ABOUT 70 MPH I WAS LUCKY THERE WAS A PLACE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD, BUT THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, AND STAYED ON FOR THE ENTIRE TRIP. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME AND SHUT THE CAR OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN THE LIGHT WAS OFF. I LOOKED INTO THIS SINCE I HAVE ELDERLY PEOPLE I TAKE TO AND FROM DR. VISITS AND THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING PROBLEM SINCE 2005 , I HAVE READ THE COMPLAINTS ON LINE, MY QUESTION IS DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO BE IN A BAD ACCIDENT OR EVEN DIE BEFORE FORD WILL RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10479995
28,848 miles · Jun 20, 2012
EnginePower Train
WHILE I WAS DRIVING 55 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, WE WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO GET ENOUGH THROTTLE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. WE HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WE WERE ALMOST REAR-ENDED, I REALLY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE KILLED. IT IS A VERY SCARY SITUATION, GOING FROM 55…
Read full complaint
WHILE I WAS DRIVING 55 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, WE WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO GET ENOUGH THROTTLE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. WE HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WE WERE ALMOST REAR-ENDED, I REALLY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE KILLED. IT IS A VERY SCARY SITUATION, GOING FROM 55 MPH TO NOTHING. THE THROTTLE BODY FAILED COMPLETELY AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. AFTER DOING RESEARCH ON THIS I HAVE FOUND THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD THIS SAME EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING MY SISTERS 2010 FORD ESCAPE WITH ONLY 45000 MILES ON IT. I HAD JUST HAD MY 30,000 MILE SERVICE DONE ON MY VEHICLE TWO WEEKS PRIOR AND ASKED THEM TO PLEASE CHECK THE THROTTLE BODY SINCE IT HAD HAPPENED TO MY SISTER, AND IT WAS FINE AT THAT TIME. I BELIEVE SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. WHEN I ASKED WHAT WAS TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN I WAS TOLD, "NOTHING, IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN AT ANY TIME". WHEN I ASKED IF THERE WAS A RECALL ON IT, I WAS TOLD,"I HAVE BEEN WAITING ON A RECALL ON THIS FOR TWO YEARS." I WAS TOLD THIS FROM A FORD SERVICE PERSON AT THE FORD PLACE THAT REPAIRED MY VEHICLE IN INDIANA. I HAVE REPORTED THIS TO FORD AT THE 800-392-FORD NUMBER THAT THE SAME FORD SERVICE WORKER GAVE ME WHEN I ASKED IF THERE WAS SOME PLACE I COULD CALL ABOUT THIS SITUATION TO HELP GET A RECALL. I NO LONGER FEEL SAFE IN MY VEHICLE. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10462444
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