NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
253 reportsClear category filter40,000 miles · Aug 7, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE INTO TRAFFIC, THE ENGINE DROPPED TO IDLE AND THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO AFFECT. TEMPORARY SOLUTION WAS TO PULL OVER, TURN ENGINE OFF, RESTART (WHICH REQUIRED EXCESSIVE CRANKING) WHICH SEEMED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. THROTTLE WORKS AGAIN. THIS ISSUE HAS NOW HAPPENED 3 ADDITIONAL TIMES AND WE HAVE PARKED THE CA…
Read full complaint
WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE INTO TRAFFIC, THE ENGINE DROPPED TO IDLE AND THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO AFFECT. TEMPORARY SOLUTION WAS TO PULL OVER, TURN ENGINE OFF, RESTART (WHICH REQUIRED EXCESSIVE CRANKING) WHICH SEEMED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. THROTTLE WORKS AGAIN. THIS ISSUE HAS NOW HAPPENED 3 ADDITIONAL TIMES AND WE HAVE PARKED THE CAR AS IT IS UNSAFE AND UNRELIABLE. FORD DEALER HAS NO CLUE ABOUT THE ISSUE AND CAN'T SCHEDULE GETTING IT INTO THE SHOP FOR AT LEAST 2 WEEKS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10534029
44,800 miles · Aug 6, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE LATE AT NIGHT, WHEN I COMPLETELY LOST POWER ON MY VEHICLE. I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AS I BROUGHT THE CAR TO A STOP (BRAKING), THE CAR JERKED FORWARD BEFORE STOPPING. I SHUT OFF THE CAR, AND SAT FOR A FEW MOMENTS, WONDERING WHAT TO DO. THE DASH SHOWED A WRENCH SYMBOL…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE LATE AT NIGHT, WHEN I COMPLETELY LOST POWER ON MY VEHICLE. I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AS I BROUGHT THE CAR TO A STOP (BRAKING), THE CAR JERKED FORWARD BEFORE STOPPING. I SHUT OFF THE CAR, AND SAT FOR A FEW MOMENTS, WONDERING WHAT TO DO. THE DASH SHOWED A WRENCH SYMBOL, SO I CHECKED THE MANUAL TO SEE WHAT IT MEANT. IT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A FAULT AND THE POWERTRAIN. I CHECKED TO SEE IF THE CAR WOULD RESTART AND IT DID. I CONTINUED TO DRIVE, AND APPROXIMATELY 10-15 MINUTES LATER IT DID IT AGAIN. THIS TIME AT A SPEED OF OVER 60MPH. I MADE IT TO MY DESTINATION AND CALLED MY HUSBAND. HE CHECKED THE INTERNET TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE HAD THIS PROBLEM AND WAS SHOCKED TO SEE ALL THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS. THANKFULLY, HE READ THAT IF I STAYED UNDER 60 MPH AND DIDN'T DRIVE TOO LONG IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. I TOOK THE BACK WAY HOME AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS MUCH LONGER I MADE IT WITHOUT A FURTHER PROBLEM. WHY IS THIS PROBLEM PART(THROTTLE VALVE) NOT RECALLED. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, AND FOR SAFETY REASONS WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE 2011 ESCAPE'S MADE IMMEDIATELY AWARE OF THIS HAZARD. THIS WAS THE CLOSEST I CAME TO A FATAL ACCIDENT AND NOT NECESSARILY MY OWN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533902
78,000 miles · Aug 6, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
WHILE DRIVING MY FAMILY IN OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 65MPH ON AN INTERSTATE - I SUDDENLY EXPERIENCED A TOTAL LOSS OF POWER. THE ENGINE DID NOT QUIT - BUT RATHER DECELERATED RAPIDLY TO IDLE SPEED. I IMMEDIATELY PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND ATTEMPTED TO REV THE ENGINE AND SHIFT THE TRANSMISSION INTO PARK, AND THEN BACK…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY FAMILY IN OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 65MPH ON AN INTERSTATE - I SUDDENLY EXPERIENCED A TOTAL LOSS OF POWER. THE ENGINE DID NOT QUIT - BUT RATHER DECELERATED RAPIDLY TO IDLE SPEED. I IMMEDIATELY PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND ATTEMPTED TO REV THE ENGINE AND SHIFT THE TRANSMISSION INTO PARK, AND THEN BACK INTO DRIVE - WITH NO RESULT. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED 1 MINUTE, TO SEE IF IT COULD POSSIBLY BE A COMPUTER PROBLEM. I STARTED THE CAR, REVVED THE ENGINE, SHIFTED INTO DRIVE AND PROCEEDED AT NORMAL SPEED. THE FOLLOWING DAY THIS SAME THING HAPPENED TO MY WIFE ON ANOTHER HIGHWAY. I CALLED A FORD DEALER AND A TRUSTWORTHY REPAIR SHOP - AND THEY BOTH POINTED TO THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY IN THE FUEL SYSTEM - WHICH SEEMS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM. I HAD A NEW THROTTLE BODY INSTALLED AFTER A FORD DEALER HOOKED UP DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT AND VERIFIED THE ISSUE. REPAIR COST WAS $513.68 PARTS AND LABOR. I FEEL THAT THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION - AND A RECALL OF THE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THIS PART, SHOULD BE HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. I HAVE READ MANY OTHER ACCOUNTS ON THE INTERNET OF THIS EXACT CONDITION. IT IS JUST A MATER OF TIME BEFORE A FAILURE LIKE THIS WILL OCCUR - AND A FOLLOWING VEHICLE - PERHAPS A SEMI-TRUCK WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP IN TIME CAUSING A VERY SERIOUS INJURY OR FATALITY. LUCKILY MY WIFE AND I WERE IN LIGHT TRAFFIC ON THE FREEWAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533807
33,275 miles · Aug 5, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE CAR IS RUNNING THEN THE ACCELERATOR STOPS WORKING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533769
46,055 miles · Aug 5, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS FROM 50 - 65 MPH, MY ESCAPE WILL SUDDENLY LOSE POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING, BUT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT. THE VEHICLE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE VERY SLOWLY AFTER MOVING TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT IS INDICATED ON THE DASH. AFTER COMING TO A STOP, TURNING THE ENGI…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS FROM 50 - 65 MPH, MY ESCAPE WILL SUDDENLY LOSE POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING, BUT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT. THE VEHICLE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE VERY SLOWLY AFTER MOVING TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT IS INDICATED ON THE DASH. AFTER COMING TO A STOP, TURNING THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTING, THE PROBLEM IS TEMPORARILY RESOLVED. AFTER SOME RESEARCH ON THE NHTSA SITE, THIS SAME PROBLEM OCCURS IN THE ESCAPE AND FORD FUSION. FORD IS COMPLETELY AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, BUT HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL. THE PROBLEM IS THE THROTTLE CONTROL BODY. A LOCAL FORD DEALER OFFERED TO REPLACE THE PART FOR APPROXIMATELY $600. I PURCHASED THE PART FOR $350 AND WILL REPLACE MYSELF AS IT IS A SIMPLE 10 MINUTE JOB. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS DEFECT AND I WISH THAT FORD WOULD TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533690
53,530 miles · Aug 4, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOPPED POSITION THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AND THE CAR CAME TO AN IDLE SPEED IN TRAFFIC. I EXITED HIGHWAY AND IDLED ONTO THE RAMP TO THE NEAREST PARKING LOT. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A WHILE AND TRIED TO RESTART WITH HESITATION AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME AND TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP THE N…
Read full complaint
WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOPPED POSITION THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AND THE CAR CAME TO AN IDLE SPEED IN TRAFFIC. I EXITED HIGHWAY AND IDLED ONTO THE RAMP TO THE NEAREST PARKING LOT. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A WHILE AND TRIED TO RESTART WITH HESITATION AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME AND TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY.(CROSSROADS FORD- INDIAN TRAIL, NC) THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT CLEANED THE INJECTORS AND FUEL THROTTLE BODY ALONG WITH A OIL CHANGE AND TRANSMISSION FLUSH.($300) THE CAR STILL HAD A IDLING ISSUE BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST LEFT OVER RESIDUE CLEANING ITSELF OUT.( I HAVE COMPLAINED OF SHIFTING PROBLEMS/ACCELERATION PROBLEMS WITH CAR SINCE PURCHASE IN 2011. I HAVE TAKEN IT INTO KEITH HAWTHORNE FORD OF BELMONT (WHERE PURCHASED) SEVERAL TIMES WITH THIS COMPLAINT. NOTHING COULD EVER BE FOUND.) THE SECOND INCIDENT DATE IS 8-2-13. I WAS ON HWY 74 IN INDIAN TRAIL AND HAD PULLED OUT AHEAD OF TRAFFIC LEAVING A STOP LIGHT WITH PLENTY OF TIME TO ACCELERATE TO SPEED AND THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AGAIN. I PUT MY FLASHERS ON AND IDLED TO THE NEXT PARKING LOT ON THE RIGHT WHICH WAS A FOOD LION SHOPPING CENTER. I WAS ALMOST REAR-ENDED BY A RED & WHITE TRACTOR TRAILER BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SLOW DOWN IN TIME, IT JUST WAS ABLE TO GET IN THE LEFT LANE BEFORE HITTING ME. SEVERAL CARS WERE BACKED UP AND SLAMMING ON BRAKES TO KEEP FROM HITTING ME. THERE WAS NO SAFE PLACE TO PULL OVER SO I HAD TO IDLE TO THE PARKING LOT. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AS IN THE EARLIER INCIDENT AND GOT IT RESTARTED AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT THE MILE OR 2 BACK TO CROSSROADS FORD. I RECEIVED A CALL TODAY FROM THE SERVICE STAFF THAT THE FUEL THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND IT WOULD COST AN ADDITIONAL $500 TO WHICH THEY WOULD DEDUCT $100 FOR THE SERVICE PERFORMED 2 DAYS EARLIER. THE CAR REMAINS AT THE CROSSROADS FORD WHILE I AWAIT A CALL FROM A CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENT FOR THIS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533462
41,000 miles · Aug 3, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH WHEN GAS PEDAL ON 2011 FORD ESCAPE V6 BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. GOT VEHICLE TO SHOULDER AFTER ALMOST CRASHING IN TRAFFIC. RED WRENCH LIGHT ON DASHBOARD WAS ON. TURNED VEHICLE OFF THEN RESTARTED AND APPEARED TO BE OK. DROVE HOME APPROX. 10 MILES. TOOK TO DEALER WHO CHECKED CODES AND FOUND …
Read full complaint
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH WHEN GAS PEDAL ON 2011 FORD ESCAPE V6 BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. GOT VEHICLE TO SHOULDER AFTER ALMOST CRASHING IN TRAFFIC. RED WRENCH LIGHT ON DASHBOARD WAS ON. TURNED VEHICLE OFF THEN RESTARTED AND APPEARED TO BE OK. DROVE HOME APPROX. 10 MILES. TOOK TO DEALER WHO CHECKED CODES AND FOUND NOTHING WRONG. TOLD US THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE CODE WAS TO HAVE IT TOWED IN WITHOUT A RESTART BECAUSE COMPUTER DOES NOT STORE WRENCH LIGHT INDICATOR CODES. RESTARTING CLEARS THE CODE. LOCAL FORD DEALER WAS NOT HELPFUL. INVESTIGATED THIS PROBLEM AND FOUND THAT WAS MOST LIKELY A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM. THERE ARE MANY OWNERS WITH THE SAME ISSUE. IT IS ON THE SHORT LIST FOR A RECALL. PURCHASED AN OBD II SENSOR AND PLUGGED IN WHILE DRIVING TO GET THE CODE. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN WITH A FAULT CODE OF P2111 - THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM - STUCK OPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533436
38,000 miles · Aug 2, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40-45 MPH WHEN ENGINE JERKED AND SHUT DOWN. LOST SPEED AND NOTICED THE NOW NO SPEED / IDLING ENGINE RUNNING VERY ROUGH. THE WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED ON INSTRUMENT CLUSTER INDICATING THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN ISSUE. RESTARTED CAR AND DROVE APPROXIMATELY 2 BLOCKS WHEN THE ENGINE SHUT DOWN AGAIN, THIS TIME THE CHEC…
Read full complaint
DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40-45 MPH WHEN ENGINE JERKED AND SHUT DOWN. LOST SPEED AND NOTICED THE NOW NO SPEED / IDLING ENGINE RUNNING VERY ROUGH. THE WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED ON INSTRUMENT CLUSTER INDICATING THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN ISSUE. RESTARTED CAR AND DROVE APPROXIMATELY 2 BLOCKS WHEN THE ENGINE SHUT DOWN AGAIN, THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED AS WELL AS THE WRENCH SYMBOL. LUCKILY WE WERE ABLE TO LIMP HOME SEVERAL BLOCKS. IMMEDIATELY BEGAN A SEARCH THE INTERNET FOR SIMILAR ISSUES AND DISCOVERED THAT MANY PEOPLE HAD EXPERIENCED THE SAME ISSUE WITH THEIR ESCAPE MODELS. TOOK IT TO THE MECHANIC WHO DID A COMPUTER CHECK AND INDICATED P-2011 AND P-2012 CODES. ALSO NOTED IN MY SEARCH WHERE MANY FOLKS THINK A RECALL IS IN ORDER........I COMPLETELY AGREE. THE PART IS FAULTY AND WILL CAUSE AN ACCIDENT IN THE FUTURE IF IT IS IGNORED. WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIRS. THE MECHANIC AT THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THEY HAD AT LEAST TWO OCCURRENCES A WEEK WITH THE ESCAPES, FUSION, AND SIMILAR CARS THAT USED THE THROTTLE PART. THE INTERNET SEARCH REVEALED THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM INDICATING A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE PART. RECALL? YOU BET BEFORE SOMEONE GET HURT.. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533194
57,500 miles · Aug 2, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE WAS ON THE HIGHWAY AND LOST POWER, THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED IN TWO WEEKS. THE DEALER WAS NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM THE FIRST GO AROUND. VEHICLE WOULD START BUT HAD NO POWER, ENGINE LIGHT AND SERVICE WRENCH, HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. THEY DETERMINED IT TO BE A BAD THROTTLE BODY, …
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE WAS ON THE HIGHWAY AND LOST POWER, THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED IN TWO WEEKS. THE DEALER WAS NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM THE FIRST GO AROUND. VEHICLE WOULD START BUT HAD NO POWER, ENGINE LIGHT AND SERVICE WRENCH, HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. THEY DETERMINED IT TO BE A BAD THROTTLE BODY, WHICH WAS NOT COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533186
45,200 miles · Aug 1, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE ON AFTERNOON 31JUL13, TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH WITH FOOT ON THE ACCELERATOR WHEN THE CAR BEGAN TO COMPLETELY DECELERATE. RPM WENT TO ZERO AND WITH FOOT ON THE GAS PEDAL NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE. WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH EMERGENCY BLINKER LIGHTS ON. TURNED CAR OFF. …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE ON AFTERNOON 31JUL13, TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH WITH FOOT ON THE ACCELERATOR WHEN THE CAR BEGAN TO COMPLETELY DECELERATE. RPM WENT TO ZERO AND WITH FOOT ON THE GAS PEDAL NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE. WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH EMERGENCY BLINKER LIGHTS ON. TURNED CAR OFF. WHEN RESTARTING CAR, CAR HAD ISSUES RESTARTING. DROVE FOR ANOTHER 7 MILES WITH NO WARNING LIGHT OR ISSUE. THE NEXT MORNING, 1AUG13, WHILE TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE AT ABOUT 60MPH AGAIN, AFTER ABOUT 20 MIN OF INTERSTATE DRIVING THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN. WAS ABLE TO THEN DRIVE SLOWLY TO THE DEALERSHIP. DEALERSHIP INDICATED IT WAS A FAULTY THROTTLE VALVE THAT HAS BEEN VERY COMMON WITH THESE MODELS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533056
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