TRAVELING AT 40MPH YIELDING ONTO AN ENTRANCE RAMP AND THE CAR JUST DIES WITH NO WARNING. STOP THE CAR AND IT STARTED BACK UP. DROVE IT FOR ANOTHER DAY WITH NO PROBLEMS AND TWO DAYS LATER IT DIED AGAING TRYING TO ACCELERATE. IT HAS SINCE REPEATED THIS 4 TIMES.
2011 Ford Escape
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2011 Ford Escape do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 996.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Escape years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
1,061 reports with mileage · 255 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Steering. Review the 409 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 268 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 253 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
253 reportsPULLING ONTO A EXIT RAMP, LOST THROTTLE RESPONSE, RPMS WERE ERRATIC 1000. WAS ABLE TO OFF TO THE SIDE, TURNED ENGINE OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES, RESTARTED. DROVE ANOTHER 2 OR SO MILES, SAME ISSUE, BUT NOW WITH ENGINE LIGHT ON AND WRENCH LIGHT ON. AFTER ANOTHER WAIT AND RESTART, SAME RESULT. THREE FAILURES IN 7 MILES. UPON ARRIVIN…
Read full complaint
PULLING ONTO A EXIT RAMP, LOST THROTTLE RESPONSE, RPMS WERE ERRATIC 1000. WAS ABLE TO OFF TO THE SIDE, TURNED ENGINE OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES, RESTARTED. DROVE ANOTHER 2 OR SO MILES, SAME ISSUE, BUT NOW WITH ENGINE LIGHT ON AND WRENCH LIGHT ON. AFTER ANOTHER WAIT AND RESTART, SAME RESULT. THREE FAILURES IN 7 MILES. UPON ARRIVING HOME, I USED MY OBD CODE READER TO PULL A "P2112) FAULT CODE. I PURCHASED AND REPLACED THE THROTTLE PLATE CONTROLLER,($350.00) THAT EVENING FROM MY LOCAL FORD DEALER. SO FAR, A WEEK LATER (KNOCK ON WOOD), HAVE NOT HAD ANOTHER OCCURRENCE. BTW THE REPLACEMENT FORD PART IS A DIFFERENT UPDATED PART.
THE CAR WENT INTO LIMP MODE WHILE DRIVING... GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING UNTIL I PULLED OVER AND RESTARTED. WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE COME ON, BUT GO OFF AFTER CAR IS RESTARTED. TOOK TO DEALER TODAY AFTER ABOUT 6 OCCURRENCES IN THE PAST MONTH. IT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING MORE FREQUENTLY.
I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE AT 65-70 MPH, WHEN MY ESCAPE'S RPM'S ALL OF A SUDDEN DROPPED TO 1 AND WOULD NOT REACT TO THE GAS PEDAL, LUCKILY I WAS IN THE SLOW LANE AND MANAGED TO COAST OFF THE INTERSTATE. THERE WAS AN 18-WHEELER BEHIND ME AND I STARTED TO PANIC AT THE SPEED HE WAS GAINING ON ME. I FINALLY MANAGED TO GET MY HAZ…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE AT 65-70 MPH, WHEN MY ESCAPE'S RPM'S ALL OF A SUDDEN DROPPED TO 1 AND WOULD NOT REACT TO THE GAS PEDAL, LUCKILY I WAS IN THE SLOW LANE AND MANAGED TO COAST OFF THE INTERSTATE. THERE WAS AN 18-WHEELER BEHIND ME AND I STARTED TO PANIC AT THE SPEED HE WAS GAINING ON ME. I FINALLY MANAGED TO GET MY HAZARDS ON TO NOTIFY HIM THAT I WAS HAVING ISSUES. IF I HAD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE SLOW LANE I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET OFF THE INTERSTATE BEFORE THE CAR STOPPED COMPLETELY. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS, IF I HAD BEEN IN THE FAR LEFT LANE OR THE MIDDLE LANES THE CAR COULD HAVE STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSTATE. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE FORD STORE AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. I THEN GOOGLED THE PROBLEM AND FOUND OUT THAT THIS IS A REAL ISSUE WITH A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE VEHICLES NOT JUST A LIMITED FAULTY PART. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW FORD CANNOT SEE THAT THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE IF SOMEONE GOES TO MAKE A LEFT TURN AND THIS HAPPENS ANOTHER CAR COULD CRASH INTO THEM. ANYTIME YOUR CAR DOES NOT REACT PROPERLY IT BECOMES A SAFETY ISSUE. WHEN AN 18-WHEELER IS BEHIND A VEHICLE THAT RESPONDS THE WAY MINE DID TODAY IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. AS YOU KNOW A FULLY LOADED TRACTOR TRAILER CANNOT STOP AS EASILY AS A PASSENGER VEHICLE AND IF THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF THEM ALL OF A SUDDEN LOOSES POWER AND CANNOT GET OUT OF THEIR WAY THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ACCIDENT. ONCE I GOT STOPPED MY CAR DID RESTART BUT GETTING TO THAT POINT WAS VERY SCARY.
WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK ON THE HIGHWAY OUT OF NOWHERE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE THROTTLE STOPPED WORKING. I PUT THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL AND STILL NO THROTTLE RESPONSE, HAD TO PULL OVER ON THE HIGHWAY, TURN THE VEHICLE OFF, TURNED IT BACK ON AND RAN FINE O THE WAY HOME. 2 DAYS LATER DROVE THE VEHICLE TO WORK AGAI…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK ON THE HIGHWAY OUT OF NOWHERE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE THROTTLE STOPPED WORKING. I PUT THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL AND STILL NO THROTTLE RESPONSE, HAD TO PULL OVER ON THE HIGHWAY, TURN THE VEHICLE OFF, TURNED IT BACK ON AND RAN FINE O THE WAY HOME. 2 DAYS LATER DROVE THE VEHICLE TO WORK AGAIN AND DROVE FINE BUT ON THE WAY HOME FROM WORK THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED 7 TIMES! AFTER THE 4TH TIME IT HAPPENED ON THE WAY HOME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON EVEN THOUGH THE THROTTLE CAME BACK AFTER TURNING THE VEHICLE BACK ON. STOPPED AT THE LOCAL AUTO PARTS STORE TO GET THE CODE AND FOUND OUT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY STUCK CLOSED. THE FACT THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED THAT MANY TIMES ON THE HIGHWAY IS A REAL DANGER TO MYSELF AND OTHERS ON THE ROAD WAY. *TR
AT FIRST, WHILE DRIVING, THE CAR WOULD SHUT DOWN AND NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE MOVEMENT, A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE IN TRAFFIC. AFTER PULLING OVER AND RESTARTING THE CAR, THE PROBLEM SEEMED TO GO AWAY FOR A WHILE. THE PROBLEM SEEMED TO BE INTERMITTENT THE FIRST FEW TIMES. FINALLY THE CAR SHUT DOWN TO AN IDLE AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO …
Read full complaint
AT FIRST, WHILE DRIVING, THE CAR WOULD SHUT DOWN AND NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE MOVEMENT, A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE IN TRAFFIC. AFTER PULLING OVER AND RESTARTING THE CAR, THE PROBLEM SEEMED TO GO AWAY FOR A WHILE. THE PROBLEM SEEMED TO BE INTERMITTENT THE FIRST FEW TIMES. FINALLY THE CAR SHUT DOWN TO AN IDLE AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THROTTLE MOVEMENT AND THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON. THE CAR WOULD ONLY RUN LIMP MODE. THE ODB CODES READ A P2111 AND P2112 (THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL STUCK OPEN, AND THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK CLOSED) RESPECTIVELY. WE HAD TO TOW THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. WE WERE TOLD THAT THE ENTIRE THROTTLE BODY HAD TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $666. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PART IS UNAVAILABLE FOR 2 WEEKS AND MAYBE UP TO A MONTH. WE HAVE 39000 MILES ON THE VEHICLE, THE WARRANTY RAN OUT AT 36000. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO NOT COVERED UNDER THE POWER TRAIN WARRANTY. THIS SEEMS TO BE A WIDESPREAD ISSUE AND I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT FORD IS UNWILLING TO MAKE THIS RIGHT AND PRODUCE A RECALL. *TR
VEHICLE ABRUPTLY STALLED, WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, NO ACCELERATOR PEDAL. DANGEROUS SITUATION IN TRAFFIC, LEAVING DRIVER STRANDED. FORCED TO CALL FOR TOW TRUCK AND HAVE VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALER FOR REPAIR. VERY LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO STEER VEHICLE TO RELATIVELY SAFE LOCATION. DEALER REPLACED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. E-MAILED FORD, BUT …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE ABRUPTLY STALLED, WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, NO ACCELERATOR PEDAL. DANGEROUS SITUATION IN TRAFFIC, LEAVING DRIVER STRANDED. FORCED TO CALL FOR TOW TRUCK AND HAVE VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALER FOR REPAIR. VERY LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO STEER VEHICLE TO RELATIVELY SAFE LOCATION. DEALER REPLACED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. E-MAILED FORD, BUT NO RESPONSE AT THIS TIME. *TR
ENGINE LOSS OF POWER, WOULD. NOT ACCELERATE,GOT OUT OF TRAFFIC, PUT ON 4WAYS, ENGINE WOULD ONLY IDLE VERY ROUGH, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH WERE ON , SHUT OFF ENGINE RESTARTED AFTER LONG CRANKING, STARTED RESUMED TRIP , ABOUT 5 MILES HAPPENED AGAIN, I DID SAME ,AFTER RESTARTED DROVE 12 MILES HOME. THIS ISSUE IS EXTREMELY DANG…
Read full complaint
ENGINE LOSS OF POWER, WOULD. NOT ACCELERATE,GOT OUT OF TRAFFIC, PUT ON 4WAYS, ENGINE WOULD ONLY IDLE VERY ROUGH, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH WERE ON , SHUT OFF ENGINE RESTARTED AFTER LONG CRANKING, STARTED RESUMED TRIP , ABOUT 5 MILES HAPPENED AGAIN, I DID SAME ,AFTER RESTARTED DROVE 12 MILES HOME. THIS ISSUE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS . I HAVE FOUND OVER 2 HUNDRED REPORTS OF THE SAME PROBLEM UPON FIRST TRY AND I WAS USING 2011 ESCAPE . IHAVE SINCE BECOME AWARE THAT THIS PROBLEM AFFECTS MULTIPLE MODELS AND YEARS. FORD TALKS ABOUT SAFE MODE? HOW SAFE IS A 5 MPH OR LESS VEHICLE IN A 70 MPH BELT WAY????? HOW ABOUT A 1 MINUTE TO STALL MODE??? OR GET OFF THE ROAD NOW?? IT WOULD APPEAR THEY ARE AWARE OF THE ISSUES AND MORE CONCERNED AS TO THE ONES THAT ARE IN WARRANTY!!! IN OTHER WORDS PROTECT THE ENGINE LET THE PASSENGER FEND FOR THEMSELVES. THIS HAS OCCURRED MULTIPLE TIMES AT MULTIPLE SPEEDS. WENT TO FORD THEY SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT, 1 WEEK WAS FIRST AVAILABLE, IF PROBLEM IS THROTTLE BODY PART MAY BE ON BACK ORDER, LOVELY, *TR
ENGINE LOST POWER BUT DID NOT DIE. IT WOULD STILL CREEP ALONG ABOUT 2 MPH. THE GEAR LIGHT WAS SHOWING ON THE DASH. THE OBD CODE WAS READ BY A LOCAL AUTO PARTS SHOP AS P2112 -- THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM - STUCK CLOSED. RECOMMENDED ACTION FROM FORD WAS TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. I PURCHASED THE PART FROM A LOCAL FOR…
Read full complaint
ENGINE LOST POWER BUT DID NOT DIE. IT WOULD STILL CREEP ALONG ABOUT 2 MPH. THE GEAR LIGHT WAS SHOWING ON THE DASH. THE OBD CODE WAS READ BY A LOCAL AUTO PARTS SHOP AS P2112 -- THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM - STUCK CLOSED. RECOMMENDED ACTION FROM FORD WAS TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. I PURCHASED THE PART FROM A LOCAL FORD DEALER FOR $324 PLUS TAX AND INSTALLED MYSELF. PROBLEM WAS RESOLVED. *TR
I WAS DRIVING BACK FROM LUNCH AND AS I ACCELERATED UP A SLIGHT INTERSTATE HILL, I EXPERIENCED NO ACCELERATION. I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO NEUTRAL AND TRIED TO REV THE ENGINE, NOTHING. I COASTED TO THE EMERGENCY LANE WHERE I SAFELY STOPPED AND PLACED THE CAR IN PARK. ONCE IN PARK, IT WAS VIBRATING, SPUTTERING AND SLIGHTLY LUNGING SO…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING BACK FROM LUNCH AND AS I ACCELERATED UP A SLIGHT INTERSTATE HILL, I EXPERIENCED NO ACCELERATION. I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO NEUTRAL AND TRIED TO REV THE ENGINE, NOTHING. I COASTED TO THE EMERGENCY LANE WHERE I SAFELY STOPPED AND PLACED THE CAR IN PARK. ONCE IN PARK, IT WAS VIBRATING, SPUTTERING AND SLIGHTLY LUNGING SO I TURNED THE CAR OFF. I SAT FOR A FEW MINUTES, THEN RESTARTED MY VEHICLE. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MERGING INTO TRAFFIC, SO I TURNED ON MY EMERGENCY FLASHERS AND RODE WITH THEM ON FOR THE REMAINDER OF MY 15 MINUTE DRIVE. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED MY DEALER AND SCHEDULED AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE NEXT MORNING. ON MY WAY HOME, THE SAME SCENARIO OCCURRED 2 MORE TIMES. THANK HEAVENS FOR EMERGENCY LANES! *TR
Official recalls
216V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.
14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
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