NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
253 reportsClear category filter54,000 miles · Oct 21, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING DOWN I-80 AT 65 MPH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I HAD NO POWER WITH MY GAS PEDAL AND MY ENGINE LIGHT (WRENCH) CAME ON. MY CAR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT DID NOTHING. I PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND CALLED FOR ROAD ASSISTANCE. SITTING THERE MY RPM'S WAS AROUND 1,000 AND MY CAR WOULD S…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN I-80 AT 65 MPH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I HAD NO POWER WITH MY GAS PEDAL AND MY ENGINE LIGHT (WRENCH) CAME ON. MY CAR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT DID NOTHING. I PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND CALLED FOR ROAD ASSISTANCE. SITTING THERE MY RPM'S WAS AROUND 1,000 AND MY CAR WOULD SHAKE. WHILE WAITING FOR A TOW TRUCK, I SHUT MY CAR OFF AND THEN STARTED IT AGAIN. WHEN I PRESSED ON THE GAS IT STARTED TO GO AGAIN. HOWEVER, WHEN I TRIED TO GET BACK ON THE INTERSTATE I HAD NO POWER AGAIN AND MY ENGINE LIGHT CAME BACK ON. I HAD MY CAR TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY CHECKED IT AND THEY SAID THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS THE PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10548758
71,540 miles · Oct 16, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
AT HIGHWAY SPEED, VEHICLE'S 'MAINTENANCE REQUIRED' LIGHT CAME ON AND THE THROTTLE PEDAL BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. ENGINE HELD STEADY AT APPROX. 1000RPM. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF. RESTARTED VEHICLE AND THROTTLE WAS RESPONSIVE AGAIN. THIS INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED AN ADDITIONAL THREE TIMES SINCE THE INI…
Read full complaint
AT HIGHWAY SPEED, VEHICLE'S 'MAINTENANCE REQUIRED' LIGHT CAME ON AND THE THROTTLE PEDAL BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. ENGINE HELD STEADY AT APPROX. 1000RPM. PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF. RESTARTED VEHICLE AND THROTTLE WAS RESPONSIVE AGAIN. THIS INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED AN ADDITIONAL THREE TIMES SINCE THE INITIAL OCCURRENCE. EACH TIME, TURNING THE VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTING HAS TEMPORARILY FIXED THE PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10548075
60,827 miles · Oct 15, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
THROTTLE QUIT WORKING.WOULD ONLY IDLE AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON.PULLED OFF ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD TO CUT ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON TO GET THROTTLE WORKING. HAPPENED AGAIN ONE WEEK LATER.JUST LUCKY WAS NOT ON INTERSTATE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC DOING 70 MPH. BOTH TIMES ENGINE CODE WAS P2111, THROTTLE ACTUATOR …
Read full complaint
THROTTLE QUIT WORKING.WOULD ONLY IDLE AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON.PULLED OFF ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD TO CUT ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON TO GET THROTTLE WORKING. HAPPENED AGAIN ONE WEEK LATER.JUST LUCKY WAS NOT ON INTERSTATE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC DOING 70 MPH. BOTH TIMES ENGINE CODE WAS P2111, THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK OPEN. VEHICLE HAS 60000 MILES ON IT AND DEALER SAID THROTTLE BODY WAS NOT UNDER POWER TRAIN AND WAS ONLY COVERED UNDER THE 3/36 WARRANTY. PURCHASED NEW THROTTLE BODY AT DEALER AND PARTS MANAGER SAID IT WAS THE FOURTH REVISION TO THE PART NUMBER. HOPE THEY GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME, IT COULD PUT YOU IN A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10548032
46,263 miles · Oct 14, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY FORD ESCAPE WAS STOPPING MULTIPLE TIMES. IT WOULD STAY RUNNING IN VERY SLOW MOVEMENT UNTIL I COULD PULL OVER OUT OF TRAFFIC AND THEN IT WOULD SHUT DOWN. THEN WRENCH LIGHT WOULD BE LIT. I HAD THIS HAPPEN WHILE DRIVING SIDE ROADS AND THE INTERSTATE. THIS WAS VERY UNSAFE. I FIRST TOOK IT TO A DEALER NEAR MY HOME AND THEY COULD…
Read full complaint
MY FORD ESCAPE WAS STOPPING MULTIPLE TIMES. IT WOULD STAY RUNNING IN VERY SLOW MOVEMENT UNTIL I COULD PULL OVER OUT OF TRAFFIC AND THEN IT WOULD SHUT DOWN. THEN WRENCH LIGHT WOULD BE LIT. I HAD THIS HAPPEN WHILE DRIVING SIDE ROADS AND THE INTERSTATE. THIS WAS VERY UNSAFE. I FIRST TOOK IT TO A DEALER NEAR MY HOME AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. WHEN THIS HAPPENED ONE MORNING ON THE INTERSTATE, I CALLED THE DEALER I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE FROM AND TOOK IT IN. THEY CALLED ME LATER THAT DAY AND STATED THAT THE ISSUE WAS THE THROTTLE BODY CONTROL, THEY STATED THAT SINCE MY VEHICLE WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND THAT THEY HAD TO ORDER THE PART. IT SEEMS THAT THESE WERE AN ISSUE AND THE COULD NOT RECEIVE FROM MANUFACTURE RIGHT AWAY DUE TO A RELEASE ISSUE. THEY FINALLY WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN ONE AND I HAD TO PAY $371.79 FOR THIS TO BE FIXED. EVEN THOUGH I WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY I FEEL THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO PAY THIS, FROM DOING RESEARCH IT SEEMS TO BE A MANUFACTURES ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547839
47,456 miles · Oct 10, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING THE CAR WOULD RESULT IN THE CAR TO STALL. THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC VEHICLE. I WOULD HAVE TO PUT INTO NEUTRAL TO RESTART CAR. THEN THE RPM WOULD JUMP THEN STALL AGAIN. I TOOK IN THE VEHICLE TO BE REPAIRED AND FOUND CODE THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS STUCK CLOSED SO THE CAR WOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE WITHOUT THE THROTTLE BODY BEING R…
Read full complaint
DRIVING THE CAR WOULD RESULT IN THE CAR TO STALL. THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC VEHICLE. I WOULD HAVE TO PUT INTO NEUTRAL TO RESTART CAR. THEN THE RPM WOULD JUMP THEN STALL AGAIN. I TOOK IN THE VEHICLE TO BE REPAIRED AND FOUND CODE THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS STUCK CLOSED SO THE CAR WOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE WITHOUT THE THROTTLE BODY BEING REPLACED. AFTER FIXED THE PROBLEM WENT AWAY. THE PROBLEM IS $500 LATER AFTER THE REPAIR AND THE CAR HAD NOT EVEN BROKE THE 50K YET. VERY BAD PROBLEM AND SEEMS A IF I AM NO THE ONLY ONE. AFTER LOOKING IT UP TO SEE IF I COULD GET THE PARTS MYSELF I SAW THAT THIS IS HAPPENING TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT FORD VEHICLES AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME RANGE OF YEARS. THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM AND JUST GLAD THE KIDS WEREN'T IN THE CARS AS I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547571
49,703 miles · Oct 8, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE FUEL THROTTLE BODY FAILED & THE ENGINE DIED. PULLED OFF THE ROAD & RESTARTED THE ENGINE, WAS ABLE TO LIMP HOME, (10 MILES). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547170
42,067 miles · Oct 5, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE CAR JUST QUIT ON THE FOUR LANE HIGHWAY IN THE PASSING LANE AND A COUPLE OF TIMES ON THE CITY STREET IN TOWN FOUND THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLE BAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546857
39,000 miles · Oct 3, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING TONIGHT I LOST POWER AND CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. I WAS ON MY WAY HOME FROM WORK AND LUCKILY NOT ON THE FREEWAY. I AM 21 WEEKS PREGNANT AND THIS REALLY SCARED ME. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE FORD DEALER. WHEN THEY CALLED TO TELL US WHAT WAS WRONG THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. IT IS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TONIGHT I LOST POWER AND CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. I WAS ON MY WAY HOME FROM WORK AND LUCKILY NOT ON THE FREEWAY. I AM 21 WEEKS PREGNANT AND THIS REALLY SCARED ME. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE FORD DEALER. WHEN THEY CALLED TO TELL US WHAT WAS WRONG THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. IT IS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. BEFORE WE GAVE THEM THE OK TO FIX IT WE LOOKED ONLINE AND DISCOVERED THAT THIS WAS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THE FORD ESCAPES. WHEN I CALLED BACK I ASKED IF WHAT WE READ WAS TRUE AND IF THIS PART GETS REPLACED A LOT ON THESE CARS. THE SERVICE PERSON CONFIRMED. I THEN ASKED IF IT BECAME A RECALL WOULD WE GET OUR MONEY BACK AND I WAS TOLD WE WOULD. THIS CAR IS ONLY 2.5 YEARS OLD AND WE HAD TO REPLACE SOMETHING ALREADY. $475 OUT OF OUR POCKET! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546694
30,102 miles · Oct 1, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
AFTER COMING TO A NEAR STOP, THE ENGINE BEGAN TO SURGE AND THE VEHICLE LURCHED 6 OR 7 TIMES. AFTER TOUCHING THE THROTTLE, THE ENGINE BECAME RESPONSIVE AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546450
37,401 miles · Oct 1, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
AT HIGHWAY SPEED, ENGINE AND DRIVE TRAIN BECAME TOTALLY UNRESPONSIVE ON CONGESTED DALLAS FREEWAY. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, NO OTHER INDICATIONS. VEHICLE LOST ALL SPEED AND WAS FORCED TO CROSS TRAFFIC LANES WITH NO MOTIVE POWER TO SAFETY LANE VERY NEARLY CAUSING THREE DIFFERENT TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS WITH OTHER VEHICLES. TOTALLY LIMP. ON…
Read full complaint
AT HIGHWAY SPEED, ENGINE AND DRIVE TRAIN BECAME TOTALLY UNRESPONSIVE ON CONGESTED DALLAS FREEWAY. WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, NO OTHER INDICATIONS. VEHICLE LOST ALL SPEED AND WAS FORCED TO CROSS TRAFFIC LANES WITH NO MOTIVE POWER TO SAFETY LANE VERY NEARLY CAUSING THREE DIFFERENT TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS WITH OTHER VEHICLES. TOTALLY LIMP. ONCE PARKED, SHUT OFF MOTOR AND RESTARTED. ENGINE STARTED AND DRIVE TRAIN ENGAGED AGAIN. WRENCH LIGHT NO LONGER APPEARED, NO OTHER INDICATING LAMPS OR ERRORS. RETURNED TO ROADWAY AND WITHIN 5 MINUTES SAME THING RECURRED. PULLED OVER, RESTARTED ENGINE, DRIVE TRAIN REENGAGED, RETURNED TO ROADWAY AND EXITED TO SIDE ROADS TO HOME. ONCE ON THE SIDE ROAD, SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN IN FRONT OF A SEMI COMING UP FROM BEHIND AND NARROWLY ESCAPED GETTING HIT FROM BEHIND BEFORE PULLING OVER AGAIN. SAME ROUTINE OCCURRED 4 MORE TIMES BEFORE I COULD GET IT INTO THE DEALERSHIP. LAST OCCURRENCE IN ADDITION TO THE WRENCH LIGHT COMING ON AND OFF, THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. VEHICLE CONDITION IS KNOWN, REPORTED MULTIPLE TIMES AND HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE NTHSB ALREADY WITHOUT A RECALL. THIS KNOWN CONDITION IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO THE OPERATORS OF AFFECTED VEHICLES AND TO OTHER UNSUSPECTING MOTORIST AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. PRESSURE NEEDS TO BE APPLIED TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER AND NOTIFY AFFECTED OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF AFFECTED VEHICLES. TODAY THE VEHICLE IS AT THE DEALERSHIP AND WITH JUST A THOUSAND OR SO MILES OVER WARRANTY, DEALER SAYS IT IS NOT COVERED AND THE ESTIMATED $600 REPAIR IS MY ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546379
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