NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter60,827 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
83,000 miles · Oct 15, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
HAD JUST STOPPED AT AN EXIT AND WAS PULLING BACK OUT ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN SUDDENLY MY CAR QUIT ACCELERATING. THANKFULLY, I WASN'T GOING FULL SPEED YET AND COULD PULL OVER ON THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE OUT OF TRAFFIC. HAD I BEEN GOING FULL SPEED, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN REALLY BAD, EVEN FATAL. MY WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON…
Read full complaint
HAD JUST STOPPED AT AN EXIT AND WAS PULLING BACK OUT ON THE INTERSTATE WHEN SUDDENLY MY CAR QUIT ACCELERATING. THANKFULLY, I WASN'T GOING FULL SPEED YET AND COULD PULL OVER ON THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE OUT OF TRAFFIC. HAD I BEEN GOING FULL SPEED, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN REALLY BAD, EVEN FATAL. MY WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON. AFTER SOME TIME OF SITTING, THE CAR DROVE FINE AND I WAS ABLE TO GET TO A REPAIR SHOP THAT PERFORMED A DIAGNOSTIC TEST AND THE ERROR CAME UP "THROTTLE BODY STUCK CLOSED". AFTER RESEARCHING, I'VE FOUND THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM AND IS VERY DANGEROUS. I'VE ALSO HAD TIMES WHERE AFTER STOPPING AND THEN PRESSING THE GAS TO GO, THE CAR WOULD ACCELERATE FORWARD SUDDENLY. BECAUSE OF THIS DEFECTIVE PART, MY SON AND I WERE STRANDED FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND WERE TRAVELING HOME SO WE WERE ABOUT 4 HOURS FROM HOME. WE HAD TO DEPEND ON STRANGERS TO HELP US. FORD NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS AND FIX THIS. WE DO NOT HAVE SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS TO FIX THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547927
43,741 miles · Oct 10, 2013
EnginePower Train
AT 65 MPH IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC MY VEHICLE TRANSMISSION DISENGAGED AND MY VEHICLE STARTED COASTING. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE, THE ENGINE VIBRATED ROUGHLY WHEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, AND I HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE THROTTLE BODY STOPPED WORKING AND CAUSED THIS TO OCCUR. THE SAME THING HAPPE…
Read full complaint
AT 65 MPH IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC MY VEHICLE TRANSMISSION DISENGAGED AND MY VEHICLE STARTED COASTING. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE, THE ENGINE VIBRATED ROUGHLY WHEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, AND I HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE THROTTLE BODY STOPPED WORKING AND CAUSED THIS TO OCCUR. THE SAME THING HAPPENED 3 MORE TIMES ON THIS SAME DAY. ONCE AT 10 MPH, ONCE AT 45 MPH, AND ONCE AT 55 MPH. EACH TIME I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER, SHUT OFF THE VEHICLE AND RESTART IT. THE TRANSMISSION WOULD RE-ENGAGE AND I COULD CONTINUE ON MY WAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547575
45,559 miles · Oct 9, 2013
Power Train
I WAS TAKING MY FATHER TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM WHEN MY VEHICLE STARED TO SLOW DOWN. WHEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE IT WOULDN'T MOVE. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I TURNED THE IGNITION OFF, RESTARTED THE ENGINE, THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS GONE, AND STARTED DRIVING AGAIN. SAME THING HAPPENED AND I HAD TO COAST TO A NEARBY PARKING LOT TO AVOI…
Read full complaint
I WAS TAKING MY FATHER TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM WHEN MY VEHICLE STARED TO SLOW DOWN. WHEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE IT WOULDN'T MOVE. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I TURNED THE IGNITION OFF, RESTARTED THE ENGINE, THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS GONE, AND STARTED DRIVING AGAIN. SAME THING HAPPENED AND I HAD TO COAST TO A NEARBY PARKING LOT TO AVOID GETTING INTO A WRECK. IT HAD TO BE TOWED TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE I WAS TOLD, AFTER HAVING IT FOR SEVERAL DAYS, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND OF COURSE WAS NOT COVERED AS THE WARRANTY HAD RUN OUT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PART AND HAD TO ORDER IT. IT WAS IN THE SHOP FOR EIGHT DAYS WAITING FOR THE PART SO IT COULD BE FIXED. I HAD TO RENT A VEHICLE BECAUSE I COULDN'T DRIVE THE ESCAPE AND THAT COST A FORTUNE NOT TO MENTION THE $406 I PAID TO HAVE THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY REPLACED. EVER SINCE THE REPLACEMENT MY ESCAPE HAS NOT BEEN THE SAME. I WAS TOLD THERE WOULD BE A RECALL AND I WOULD BE REIMBURSED, BUT OF COURSE THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547435
46,000 miles · Oct 9, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HWY AND MY TRUCK JUST ABRUPTLY SLOWED TO 10 OR LESS MILE PER HOUR. I HAD TO COST OVER TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC TO THE SHOULDER. THIS WAS VERY DANGEROUS AS THE CARS AROUND ME HAD NO IDEA THAT I WAS HAVING CAR TROUBLES AND JUST WHIZZED BY AT HWY SPEEDS. ONCE I MADE IT TO THE SHOULDER I WAS ABLE TO TURN THE TRUCK…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HWY AND MY TRUCK JUST ABRUPTLY SLOWED TO 10 OR LESS MILE PER HOUR. I HAD TO COST OVER TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC TO THE SHOULDER. THIS WAS VERY DANGEROUS AS THE CARS AROUND ME HAD NO IDEA THAT I WAS HAVING CAR TROUBLES AND JUST WHIZZED BY AT HWY SPEEDS. ONCE I MADE IT TO THE SHOULDER I WAS ABLE TO TURN THE TRUCK OFF AND RESTART IT AND GET IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WITHOUT A TOW. ONCE AT THE DEALERSHIP , THEY SAID THERE WAS NO CODES ON THE COMPUTER SO THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO UNTIL THEY HAD A CODE. THIS HAS HAPPENED FOUR TIMES AND I STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET IT FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547358
45,000 miles · Oct 8, 2013
Power Train
THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TOTALLY WHILE MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS IN THE MIDDLE LANE!! AS OUR TRUCK BEGAN TO SLOW, SEMI TRUCKS BEGAN FLYING PAST US BOTH ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT AND ALL WE COULD DO WAS WAIT FOR AND PRAY FOR AN OPENING TO OUR RIGHT AND HOPE WE MADE IT OVER TO THE SHOULDER BEFORE TRAFFIC S…
Read full complaint
THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TOTALLY WHILE MY DAUGHTER AND I WERE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS IN THE MIDDLE LANE!! AS OUR TRUCK BEGAN TO SLOW, SEMI TRUCKS BEGAN FLYING PAST US BOTH ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT AND ALL WE COULD DO WAS WAIT FOR AND PRAY FOR AN OPENING TO OUR RIGHT AND HOPE WE MADE IT OVER TO THE SHOULDER BEFORE TRAFFIC SLAMMED INTO US. REMEMBER - OUR GAS PEDAL DIDN'T WORK AT ALL SO WE HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE SHOULDER WITH NO CONTROL OVER HOW QUICKLY WE'D GET THERE. I CHOSE THE HAZARDS OVER THE LEFT TURN SIGNAL TO ATTEMPT THIS. THE WAY TO GET MOVING AGAIN WAS TO STOP, PUT IN PARK, TURN OFF THE ENGINE, TAKE OUT THE KEY, PUT THE KEY BACK IN, RESTART IT, THEN THE GAS PEDAL WOULD SOMETIMES WORK. WE MADE OUR WAY HOME ON THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY WITH OUR HAZARDS ON AND HAD TO RESTART 3 MORE TIME IN THE NEXT 5 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10547322
36,966 miles · Oct 5, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
AS I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, ALL THE SUDDEN WITHOUT NOTICE, THE VEHICLE WENT TO 1 RPM AND 5 MILES PER HOUR. TRIED TO ACCELERATE AND IT WOULD NOT, THEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I PUT ON MY FLASHERS IMMEDIATELY SO I WOULD NOT GET REAR ENDED BY CARS COMING FAST BEHIND ME. THEN, THE VEHICLE STALLED OUT. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, ALL THE SUDDEN WITHOUT NOTICE, THE VEHICLE WENT TO 1 RPM AND 5 MILES PER HOUR. TRIED TO ACCELERATE AND IT WOULD NOT, THEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I PUT ON MY FLASHERS IMMEDIATELY SO I WOULD NOT GET REAR ENDED BY CARS COMING FAST BEHIND ME. THEN, THE VEHICLE STALLED OUT. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT NEVER CAME ON. SAT THERE IN THE RAIN FOR A FEW MINUTES. THEN, STARTED THE VEHICLE BACK UP AGAIN, TO GET IT HOME. THEN, I WAS AFRAID TO DRIVE IT, CALLED THE FORD DEALER TO GET MY VEHICLE IN, THEY COULD NOT LOOK AT IT UNTIL MONDAY OF THE NEXT WEEK, SO HAD VEHICLE TOWED ON SATURDAY TO DEALER---EXTRA COST INVOLVED ON A 2 YEAR OLD VEHICLE. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT LOOKED AT IT, THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I PICK UP THE VEHICLE ON 9/25/2013. DROVE THE VEHICLE FOR 4 DAYS, THEN HAPPENED AGAIN ON 9/29/13 AND IT HAD BEEN RAINING. THEN, DROVE THE NEXT DAY 9/30/13, AGAIN THREW THE WRENCH SYMBOL AFTER GOING TO 1 RPM AND 2 TO 5 MILES PER HOUR AND BUCKING, COULD NOT ACCELERATE AT ALL. IT WAS DRY ON THIS DAY. AGAIN, PUT MY FLASHERS ON THIS TIME WAS GOING 30 MPH ON A NARROW TWO LANE ROAD. REMEMBER THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT NEVER CAME ON, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND A CODE THIS TIME. THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY, SO I BEGAN ASKING MORE QUESTIONS AS TO WHY FORD HAS NOT RECALLED THIS SINCE SO MANY ACROSS THE USA ARE HAVING ISSUES. NO ONE KNOWS, SO AS A CONSUMER ON A TIGHT BUDGET --LIKE MANY OF US THESE DAYS....GETS TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE MONEY PIECES. I GUESS I WILL NEED A THIRD JOB JUST FOR VEHICLE REPAIRS ON A TWO YEAR OLD VEHICLE. THIS WAS A VERY SCARY EXPERIENCE AND FORD NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE IS SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED. THIS PROBLEM SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING WITH A TWO YEAR OLD MAINTAINED VEHICLE. NOW BECAUSE IT IS OVER THE 36,000 MILES MORE MONEY OUT OF POCKET....GEEZ. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546888
53,000 miles · Oct 5, 2013
Power Train
THROTTLE BODY NEEDS REPLACED. FORD WILL NOT COVER IT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A COMMON COMPLAINT. I WAS ALMOST REAR ENDED TWICE WHEN I LOST POWER AND IT CUT OUT. I HAVE READ THIS IS A COMMON ISSUE AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY FORD BEFORE SOMEONE GETS KILLED. RECALL IS NEEDED ON THIS! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546833
27,106 miles · Oct 2, 2013
Power Train
TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 57 IN ILLINOIS THAT FEEDS DIRECTLY INTO INTERSTATE 94 AT 60MPH, 6AM AND STILL DARK OUTSIDE. JUST FEET AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF 57 GOING INTO 94, THE CAR BEGAN TO DECELERATE AND WITHIN LITERALLY SECONDS 50-40-30-20...0, THE CAR STOPPED. THE "WRENCH" SIGN WAS SHOWING ON THE DASHBOARD. LUCKILY, I WAS…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 57 IN ILLINOIS THAT FEEDS DIRECTLY INTO INTERSTATE 94 AT 60MPH, 6AM AND STILL DARK OUTSIDE. JUST FEET AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF 57 GOING INTO 94, THE CAR BEGAN TO DECELERATE AND WITHIN LITERALLY SECONDS 50-40-30-20...0, THE CAR STOPPED. THE "WRENCH" SIGN WAS SHOWING ON THE DASHBOARD. LUCKILY, I WAS NEXT TO THE SHOULDER, AND WITH ON RESPONSE TO THE GAS PEDAL, PULLED OVER. I ENDED UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION OF BOTH INTERSTATES - 57 AND 94 ON THE SHOULDER THEY SHARED. THE PERSON BEHIND ME PULLED SHARPLY OVER INTO THE NEXT LANE TO AVOID ME. SITTING THERE NERVOUSLY, CARS WERE WHIZZING BY ME. I CALLED THE NON-EMERGENCY NUMBER AND CONNECTED TO THE STATE POLICE WHO ASKED MY LOCATION AND ASSURED ME A TOW TRUCK WOULD COME. AS I SAT THERE NERVOUSLY PRAYING THAT ONCOMING TRAFFIC SAW MY HAZARD LIGHTS, I WONDERED HOW SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD HAPPEN SO RAPIDLY AND WITHOUT WARNING. LUCKILY, THE TOW TRUCK CAME WITHIN 10 MINUTES AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A STATE POLICE CAR NAVIGATED THROUGH 3 LANES OF ONCOMING, FAST GOING TRAFFIC TO GET ME TO A SAFE AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 94. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FROM NEUTRAL AND RESTARTING THE CAR RESPONDED NORMALLY. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE TO THE DEALERSHIP WITHOUT INCIDENT WHERE THE THROTTLE WAS REPLACED AFTER 45 MINUTES OF WORK. I ASK THE FORD REPRESENTATIVE WOULD THIS BE REPORTED TO FORD, HE STATED IT WOULD. I ASK COULD THIS HAPPEN AGAIN, HE SAID MOST LIKELY NOT. HE STATE THEY GET "LOTS OF ESCAPES WITH THIS PROBLEM AND THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A RECALL." THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST SCARIOUS SITUATIONS I HAVE BEEN IN!!! THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A MAJOR ACCIDENT IF THE CAR HAD STOPPED MINUTES LATER. DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DIE FOR FORD TO ISSUE A RECALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546563
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