NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
253 reportsClear category filter92,000 miles · Jan 9, 2017
EngineFuel/propulsion System
AS I WAS DRIVING HOME IN TOWN, THE ENGINE SERVICE SOON LIGHT COMES ON. CODE HAS TO DO WITH THE EMISSIONS/FUEL VALVE. THE VEHICLE DRIVES JUST FINE, BUT CONCERNED ABOUT INSPECTION AND IF THIS IS UNDER A RECALL THAT IS NOT FOR MY VEHICLE. ALSO, WHEN DRIVING, STARTING AND STOPPING THE CAR SEEMS TO 'JUMP' AT TIMES AND NO KNOWN CAU…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING HOME IN TOWN, THE ENGINE SERVICE SOON LIGHT COMES ON. CODE HAS TO DO WITH THE EMISSIONS/FUEL VALVE. THE VEHICLE DRIVES JUST FINE, BUT CONCERNED ABOUT INSPECTION AND IF THIS IS UNDER A RECALL THAT IS NOT FOR MY VEHICLE. ALSO, WHEN DRIVING, STARTING AND STOPPING THE CAR SEEMS TO 'JUMP' AT TIMES AND NO KNOWN CAUSE AND HESITATES IN SHIFTING. PLEASE ADVISE ON WHAT TO DO. THANK YOU. A VERY CONCERNED DRIVER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10943765
130,000 miles · Jan 4, 2017
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
BOUGHT 2011 FORD ESCAPE XLT USED 5-27-2016 (PRIVATE SALE, CHICAGO IL). UPON PURCHASE, SERVICED AT MILWAUKEE AREA FORD DEALERSHIP, FOUND FRONT CONTROL ARMS & BUSHINGS TORN/LOOSE. NEXT, FRONT SWAY BARS, OUTER TIE ROD ENDS, BRAKES AND ROTORS NEEDED REPLACEMENT. IN OCT. 2016 ENGINE/TRANSMISSION MAJOR ISSUES: LEAKING OIL AND TRANS FL…
Read full complaint
BOUGHT 2011 FORD ESCAPE XLT USED 5-27-2016 (PRIVATE SALE, CHICAGO IL). UPON PURCHASE, SERVICED AT MILWAUKEE AREA FORD DEALERSHIP, FOUND FRONT CONTROL ARMS & BUSHINGS TORN/LOOSE. NEXT, FRONT SWAY BARS, OUTER TIE ROD ENDS, BRAKES AND ROTORS NEEDED REPLACEMENT. IN OCT. 2016 ENGINE/TRANSMISSION MAJOR ISSUES: LEAKING OIL AND TRANS FLUID -NO OIL LAMP OR CHECK ENGINE LIGHT- CAR WOULD RUN OUT OF OIL, PULLED OVER ADDED MORE. TRANS SLIPPING DURING ACCEL/WEAK ACCEL. HARD SHIFTING W/HIGH RPMS. ROUGH IDLE. TICKING NOISE UNDER HOOD WHEN BRAKES APPLIED. 12-6-2016 FORD DEALERSHIP REPLACED GASKETS & SEALS IN ENGINE & TRANSMISSION- $2,000 REPAIR. UPON DRIVING CAR, ISSUES CONTINUE, NEW ISSUES PRESENT: TRANS SLIPPING WORSE/BUCKING, CAR NOT ACCELERATING WHEN GAS PEDAL DEPRESSED, CAR STALLING IN TRAFFIC, CAR LURCHING FORWARD, CAR LOSING GASOLINE/SMELLING OF GASOLINE. BROKE DOWN 12-8-2016 IN PARKING LOT DUE TO FUEL LEAK. CONTACTED AAA ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE, RETURNED TO DEALERSHIP, TURNED AWAY. FIRE DEPT CLEARED CAR FOR TOWING, FIRE HAZARD. RESEARCHED VIN, FOUND RECALL FOR FUEL DELIVERY MODULATOR FLANGE, AND FIELD SERVICE ACTION FOR ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER SUPPORT, VERIFIED RECALL FOR MY VIN. ADVISED TO NOT OPERATE VEHICLE. AREA FORD DEALERSHIPS REFUSED TO DIAGNOSE W/O CHARGING. A SERVICE MANAGER AT A MAZDA DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED REPAIRS: A/C LINE RUPTURED, FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE SWAY BAR SNAPPED AND CONTROL ARM BUSHING SEPARATED; FORD MECHANIC HAD ALSO LEFT BOLTS & HOSES LOOSE/UNCLAMPED IN ENGINE. STEERING AND REAR SUSPENSION DETERIORATING. RETURNED TO DEALERSHIP ONCE MORE- TURNED AWAY. MISSED 1 MONTH OF WORK (DRIVING IS JOB). NO RENTAL PROVIDED, UNWILLING TO REIMBURSE. FILED DEALER COMPLAINT. FILING CONSUMER PROTECTION & DISCLOSURE LAWSUIT. SEEKING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST FORD MOTOR COMPANY. CAR IS DANGEROUS, I REFUSE TO OPERATE IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10939550
106,000 miles · Dec 15, 2016
Fuel/propulsion SystemSteering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WITHOUT WARNING, THE EPS FAILED AND THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME EXTREMELY TIGHT. THE CONTACT HAD TO CAUTIOUSLY PARK THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE FAILURE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS EXCLUDED FROM NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE CONTACT W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WITHOUT WARNING, THE EPS FAILED AND THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME EXTREMELY TIGHT. THE CONTACT HAD TO CAUTIOUSLY PARK THE VEHICLE DUE TO THE FAILURE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS EXCLUDED FROM NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE CONTACT WAS UNCERTAIN OF WHEN THE VEHICLE WOULD BE DIAGNOSED AND REPAIRED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE INTERIM NOTICE INDICATED THAT PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 106,000. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10935423
92,000 miles · Nov 14, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE IN PARK AND ALSO WHILE DRIVING, STRONG FUEL FUMES EMITTING FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FUEL DELIVERY MODULE FLANGE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED PER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE IN PARK AND ALSO WHILE DRIVING, STRONG FUEL FUMES EMITTING FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FUEL DELIVERY MODULE FLANGE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED PER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PART NEEDED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 92,000.
NHTSA ODI #10925995
84,500 miles · Oct 23, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
GAS SMELL INSIDE CAR. ON THIRD OR FOURTH DAY OF RECURRING SMELL, TOOK TO SERVICE. SERVICE TECH HAD DIFFICULTY FINDING LEAK, AS THEIR WAS NO VISIBLE DRIPS TO THE GROUND. RETURNED TO DRIVING WHILE THE GAS SMELL BECAME STRONGER. RETURNED TO SERVICE, THIS TIME HE FOUND THE SOURCE TO BE THE FUEL PUMP. THE PROBLEM WAS ACTUALLY THE…
Read full complaint
GAS SMELL INSIDE CAR. ON THIRD OR FOURTH DAY OF RECURRING SMELL, TOOK TO SERVICE. SERVICE TECH HAD DIFFICULTY FINDING LEAK, AS THEIR WAS NO VISIBLE DRIPS TO THE GROUND. RETURNED TO DRIVING WHILE THE GAS SMELL BECAME STRONGER. RETURNED TO SERVICE, THIS TIME HE FOUND THE SOURCE TO BE THE FUEL PUMP. THE PROBLEM WAS ACTUALLY THE ELBOW PLASTIC NECK LEADING INTO THE FUEL PUMP WAS SPEWING GAS FROM AN INVISIBLE HAIRLINE CRACK. THE LEAK STOPS WHEN THE CAR IS TURNED OFF. THE LOCATION OF THE FUEL PUMP IS UNDER THE REAR SEAT - CAUSING A THICK SMELL OF GAS AND EXTREME DANGER OF EXPLOSION. I HAVE NEVER HAD REPAIR WORK ON THAT PART. THIS APPARENTLY IS DUE TO MANUFACTURE FLAW IN MATERIALS. I AM A NEW WIDOW AND LOOKING AT A $650 REPLACEMENT FUEL PUMP. I CONSIDERED DEALING WITH EPOXY BUT AM AFRAID THIS WILL CAUSE FURTHER DAMAGE AND RISK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10918143
80,000 miles · Aug 11, 2016
Fuel/propulsion System
THE THROTTLE BODY WENT OUT ON THE FREEWAY W/ O WARNING. I FOUND OUT FORD HAS KNOWN ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS AND HAS NOT DONE ANYYTHING ABOUT IT , IN MOTION
NHTSA ODI #10894995
51,000 miles · Jul 28, 2016
EngineFuel/propulsion System
MY WIFE'S CAR LOST ALL POWER AND SHE WAS ABLE TO COAST IT TO A SAFE IN DOWNTOWN PITTSBURGH, GOT IT TOWED TO OUR MECHANIC AND THERE'S AN ACTIVE CODE FOR THE ELECTRIC THROTTLE BODY MOTOR STUCK CLOSED
NHTSA ODI #10889321
Mileage unknown · Jul 22, 2016
Fuel/propulsion SystemSteering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING AND MAKING A TURN, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER. IN ADDITION, THE FUEL FILL INLET WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING FAI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING AND MAKING A TURN, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER. IN ADDITION, THE FUEL FILL INLET WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN. UPDATED 09/22/16*LJ *CN
NHTSA ODI #10887804
120,000 miles · Jul 5, 2016
Fuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other
SEVERAL TIMES WHEN DRIVING THE CAR AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (55+) THE SMELL OF GAS FUMES ARE VERY STRONG INSIDE THE CAR. THIS IS ESPICALLY TRUE WHEN THE A/C/ IS ON HIGH.
NHTSA ODI #10882809
Mileage unknown · Jul 5, 2016
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemCrash
HELLO, A FEW MONTHS AGO I PURCHASED A USED 2011 FORD ESCAPE FLEX FUEL FROM INFINITY/VOLKSWAGEN OF FAIRFIELD, CA 94533. DURING THE TIME MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN DRIVING IT, I HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME MAJOR TROUBLES WITH THE VEHICLE. WHEN DRIVING IN THE CITY OR ON THE HIGHWAY AT ANY SPEED, THE VEHICLES GAS PEDAL ALL OF A SUDDEN LOSES …
Read full complaint
HELLO, A FEW MONTHS AGO I PURCHASED A USED 2011 FORD ESCAPE FLEX FUEL FROM INFINITY/VOLKSWAGEN OF FAIRFIELD, CA 94533. DURING THE TIME MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN DRIVING IT, I HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME MAJOR TROUBLES WITH THE VEHICLE. WHEN DRIVING IN THE CITY OR ON THE HIGHWAY AT ANY SPEED, THE VEHICLES GAS PEDAL ALL OF A SUDDEN LOSES PRESSURE AND I HAVE NO MORE GAS. PROMPTLY AFTER THAT , THE CAR BEGINS TO SHAKE AND EVENTUALLY I HAVE TO PULL OVER FOR SAFETY REASONS. THIS HAS HAPPENED MORE THAN 10 TIMES NOW. I HAVE BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP 3 TIMES ALREADY AND EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT'S GOING ON. THEY JUST BRUSHED IT OFF AND SAID " COME BACK WHEN THE ENGINE LIGHTS COME ON." I WAS VERY MAD AND FRUSTRATED BUT I LET IT BE. OVER THE FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND I WAS DRIVING THE VEHICLE THE PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN THIS TIME I WAS ON THE FREEWAY AND HAD TO IMMEDIATELY PULL OVER BECAUSE I WAS IN THE FAST LANE. IT WAS SO FAST THAT I COLLIDED WITH THE SIDE OF THE SHOULDER TO RIGHT OF THE FAST LANE AND HIT A DIRT PATCH. THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE. THANK GOD NOBODY WAS HURT. IM SAYING THAT MY WIFE IS THE DAILY DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AND TO THINK THAT SHE IS PREGNANT AND HAS MY 2 YEAR OLD SON IF SHE WAS DRIVING IT THINGS WOULD BE A LOT WORSE FOR THE DEALERSHIP. I'M SICK AND TIRED OF BEING TREATED LIKE THIS. I'M A MARINE CORPS VETERAN AND TO BE TREATED LIKE [XXX] IN THE DEALERSHIP TELL ME TO "LEAVE AND HAVE GOOD DAY" IS TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE THIRD VEHICLE THAT I HAVE PURCHASED FROM THEM AND BY NO MEANS WILL THERE BE ANY MORE BUSINESS WITH THEM AFTER THIS. NOT CARING ABOUT THE SAFETY OF CUSTOMERS IS WRONG. I DO NOT WANT THIS VEHICLE ANYMORE. I REPEAT I DO NOT WANT THIS VEHICLE ANYMORE. I NEED SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THIS PLEASE. IF NOT I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO WRITE MY CONGRESSMAN ABOUT THIS SITUATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND A LAWYER. I HOPE THAT WE CAN HANDLE THIS IN A CIVIL MANNER. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10882808
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