NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter34,983 miles · Sep 5, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
UPON ENTERING A BUSY HIGHWAY OFF OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION POWER AND WENT INTO A COMPLETE SLOW CRAWL AS IF COASTING, ALMOST CAUSING ME TO GET REAR ENDED BY 60 MPH APPROACHING TRAFFIC. FORTUNATELY, I WAS ABLE TO BARLEY COAST TO THE SHOULDER BEFORE ANYONE COULD HIT ME. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE UNTIL MY HUSBA…
Read full complaint
UPON ENTERING A BUSY HIGHWAY OFF OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION POWER AND WENT INTO A COMPLETE SLOW CRAWL AS IF COASTING, ALMOST CAUSING ME TO GET REAR ENDED BY 60 MPH APPROACHING TRAFFIC. FORTUNATELY, I WAS ABLE TO BARLEY COAST TO THE SHOULDER BEFORE ANYONE COULD HIT ME. I TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE UNTIL MY HUSBAND ARRIVED TO BAIL ME OUT. HE THEN WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND MANAGED TO DRIVE IT TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP AND LEFT IT THERE OVERNIGHT. UPON DIAGNOSING THE VEHICLE WITH A DTC OF P2111, THEY INFORMED US THAT THEY ORDERED A REPLACEMENT THROTTLE BODY WHICH WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY 3-4 WEEKS TO OBTAIN SINCE THEY'RE ON BACK ORDER, LEAVING US WITHOUT A RELIABLE VEHICLE TILL THE REPAIR CAN BE COMPLETED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10542192
29,000 miles · Sep 4, 2013
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65 MPH WHEN MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE BEGAN TO DECELERATE RAPIDLY. I TRIED GIVING IT GAS BUT EVEN WITH THE GAS PETAL PUSHED DOWN ALL THE WAY IT STILL WOULDN'T ACCELERATE AT ALL. I HAD TO PULL OVER IN THE EMERGENCY LANE SO I WASN'T HIT BY THE CAR BEHIND ME. WHEN I CAME TO A STOP THE VEHICLE WAS SHAK…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65 MPH WHEN MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE BEGAN TO DECELERATE RAPIDLY. I TRIED GIVING IT GAS BUT EVEN WITH THE GAS PETAL PUSHED DOWN ALL THE WAY IT STILL WOULDN'T ACCELERATE AT ALL. I HAD TO PULL OVER IN THE EMERGENCY LANE SO I WASN'T HIT BY THE CAR BEHIND ME. WHEN I CAME TO A STOP THE VEHICLE WAS SHAKING AND I NOTICED THAT A FLASHING WRENCH LIGHT WAS DISPLAYED. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF FOR A MINUTE AND THEN RESTARTED IT WITH NO PROBLEMS. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP BECAUSE IT'S STILL UNDER WARRANTY AND THEY TOLD ME TO BRING IT IN AND THEY WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10541791
54,000 miles · Sep 3, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
AT 55 MPH OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE LOST ALL POWER WITH NO WARNING AT ALL. HAD TO PUSH IT OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY. THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. TURNED IGNITION COMPLETELY OFF AND RESTARTED THE ENGINE, LIGHT WENT OUT AND RAN FINE. GOING IN FOR SERVICE ASAP. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10541703
38,600 miles · Sep 3, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
ON 08/30/2013, MY WIFE AND I DROVE OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE WHICH HAS THE MILEAGE OF 38000 BACK HOME FROM A STATE PARK. WHEN WE WERE ATTEMPTING ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE AFTER A RIGHT TURN FROM A STOP LIGHT, THE GAS PEDAL SUDDENLY STOP WORKING PROPERLY AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON. WE STOPPED THE CAR AND RESTARTED,…
Read full complaint
ON 08/30/2013, MY WIFE AND I DROVE OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE WHICH HAS THE MILEAGE OF 38000 BACK HOME FROM A STATE PARK. WHEN WE WERE ATTEMPTING ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE AFTER A RIGHT TURN FROM A STOP LIGHT, THE GAS PEDAL SUDDENLY STOP WORKING PROPERLY AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON. WE STOPPED THE CAR AND RESTARTED, IT WORKED FINE. WITHOUT THINKING MUCH ABOUT IT, WE DROVE ON I-10 HIGHWAY AND LUCKILY WE GET HOME SAFE. BUT IT HAPPENED AGAIN ON 09/01/2013 AND 09/02/2013, RESPECTIVELY. THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUES WHICH FORD COMPANY SHOULD RESOLVE AND I CAN'T BELIEVED I DROVE IT ON HIGHWAY WITH SUCH HIDDEN DANGER!!!
NHTSA ODI #10538527
42,000 miles · Sep 3, 2013
EnginePower Train
WHILE DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH 8/16/2013, MY ENGINE SHUT OFF. I PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT ON DASH WAS ON. I CALLED FORD BLOOMINGTON, THEY GAVE ME ROADSIDE ASSIST # AND HAD ME CALL THEM TO SEND A TOW TRUCK TO BRING ME AND MY VEHICLE TO FORD FOR CHECK UP. IT WAS READY LATER THAT DAY, WAS TOLD THAT THEY REPROGR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH 8/16/2013, MY ENGINE SHUT OFF. I PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT ON DASH WAS ON. I CALLED FORD BLOOMINGTON, THEY GAVE ME ROADSIDE ASSIST # AND HAD ME CALL THEM TO SEND A TOW TRUCK TO BRING ME AND MY VEHICLE TO FORD FOR CHECK UP. IT WAS READY LATER THAT DAY, WAS TOLD THAT THEY REPROGRAMMED PCM AND UPDATED CALIBRATION, THEY CHANGED AIR FILTER AND TOLD ME I WAS "GOOD TO GO" I PAID $35.00 FOR THAT. THE VERY NEXT FRIDAY, I WAS DRIVING HOME (AT 60 MPH) AND THE ENGINE DIED AGAIN AND I PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD. LUCKILY THE ENGINE DID RESTART AND I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT HOME. SATURDAY, I TOOK MY SUV TO FORD BLOOMINGTON, ENGINE SPUTTERED ON THE WAY THERE. FORD CALLED RENTAL CAR FOR ME( WITHOUT ME ASKING) AND AGAIN LOOKED AT THE ENGINE, WAS TOLD ON MONDAY THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS BAD, NEEDED REPLACED. THEY HAD THE PART, BUT IT WAS THEIR LAST ONE AND THAT THE PART WAS ON BACKORDER UNTIL OCTOBER. I HAD PART REPLACED AS IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, FOR $500.00. ALSO I HAVE A $110.00 BILL FROM ENTERPRISE RENTALS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10538454
Mileage unknown · Sep 3, 2013
EnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING 35-40 MPH WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED TO SLOW DOWN. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME AND I KEPT PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL BUT THE CAR CONTINUED TO SLOW. BEFORE THE CAR STOPPED, I PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PLACED THE CAR IN PARK, TURNED IT OFF, AND OPENED MY CAR DOOR. THEN I TURNED MY …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING 35-40 MPH WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED TO SLOW DOWN. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME AND I KEPT PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL BUT THE CAR CONTINUED TO SLOW. BEFORE THE CAR STOPPED, I PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PLACED THE CAR IN PARK, TURNED IT OFF, AND OPENED MY CAR DOOR. THEN I TURNED MY CAR ON AGAIN AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE TO THE PLACE I WAS GOING IN ABOUT 7 MIN. I STAYED AT THAT PLACE FOR AROUND 30 MIN AND THEN GOT IN MY CAR AGAIN WHERE 2 MIN AFTER I STARTED DRIVING, THE CAR STALLED AGAIN. I PULLED OVER, TURNED THE CAR OFF, AND OPENED THE DRIVER'S DOOR. THEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON AND PRECEDED TO DRIVE HOME (ABOUT A TEN MINUTE CAR RIDE).
NHTSA ODI #10538453
48,000 miles · Sep 2, 2013
Power Train
I WAS MAKING A LEFT OFF OF A BRIDGE AND IT JUST STOPPED GOING FORWARD AND THE THROTTLE WOULDN'T GO. I COULD PUSH GAS PEDAL ALL THE WAY DOWN AND NOTHING CHANGED I SHUT IT OFF AND IT WAS FINE FOR A COUPLE DAYS THEN SAME THING. SOMETIMES IT GOES A WEEK OR MORE WITH OUT ANY PROBLEM. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10538377
40,277 miles · Aug 31, 2013
Power Train
OPERATOR WAS TRAVELING ON 4 LANE HIGHWAY USING THE FAR LEFT LANE. VEHICLE SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING LOST ALL POWER AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATOR PEDAL. OPERATOR HAD TO PULL OVER TO FAR LEFT WITH TRAFFIC BEHIND NEARLY CRASHING INTO VEHICLE. "WRENCH" SYMBOL APPEARED BRIEFLY ON DASH DISPLAY. OPERATOR TURNED VEHICLE IG…
Read full complaint
OPERATOR WAS TRAVELING ON 4 LANE HIGHWAY USING THE FAR LEFT LANE. VEHICLE SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING LOST ALL POWER AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATOR PEDAL. OPERATOR HAD TO PULL OVER TO FAR LEFT WITH TRAFFIC BEHIND NEARLY CRASHING INTO VEHICLE. "WRENCH" SYMBOL APPEARED BRIEFLY ON DASH DISPLAY. OPERATOR TURNED VEHICLE IGNITION OFF AND THEN ON. VEHICLE RAN NORMALLY FOR 10 OR SO MILES, THEN WENT INTO FAULT CONDITION AGAIN WHILE TRAVELING OVER 40 MPH. VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO DEALERSHIP FOR SERVICE AND DIAGNOSED WITH FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. REPAIRED AT OWNERS EXPENSE FOR $514.00. FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE WOULD NOT REPAIR VEHICLE OR OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE UNDER POWERTRAIN WARRANTY CLAIMING THAT THIS CONDITION WAS NOT COVERED. THIS IS CLEARLY A SAFETY ISSUE THAT HAS RESULTED IN NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS BY OWNERS OF FORD ESCAPE VEHICLES, AS WELL AS SEVERAL REPORTED ACCIDENTS TO INCLUDE PERSONAL INJURY. FORD IS AND HAS BEEN AWARE OF THIS FAULTY PART AND HAS DONE NOTHING TO CORRECT IT OR RESPOND TO IT'S CUSTOMERS COMPLAINTS. NHTSA SHOULD FORCE AN IMMEDIATE RECALL BEFORE SOMEONE IS SERIOUSLY HURT OR KILLED DUE TO THIS DEFECTIVE PART. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10538241
57,900 miles · Aug 30, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
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.
NHTSA ODI #10538023
34,132 miles · Aug 29, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
ON AUGUST 29, 2013 DRIVER OF A 2011 FORD ESCAPE WAS ATTEMPTING TO TURN LEFT AND ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE FROM A STOPLIGHT WHEN THE CAR JERKED FORWARD AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OR GO WITH FLOW OF TRAFFIC, AND WITH TRAFFIC MOVING BEHIND THE VEHICLE CREATING DANGEROUS SITUATION. THE DASHBOARD SHOWED A WRENCH LIGHT, AND DRIVER FOUND IT…
Read full complaint
ON AUGUST 29, 2013 DRIVER OF A 2011 FORD ESCAPE WAS ATTEMPTING TO TURN LEFT AND ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE FROM A STOPLIGHT WHEN THE CAR JERKED FORWARD AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OR GO WITH FLOW OF TRAFFIC, AND WITH TRAFFIC MOVING BEHIND THE VEHICLE CREATING DANGEROUS SITUATION. THE DASHBOARD SHOWED A WRENCH LIGHT, AND DRIVER FOUND IT HARD TO MOVE CAR FORWARD AS IT WENT INTO "LIMP HOME" MODE, SPUTTERING ALL THE WAY. THE CAR WAS FINALLY MOVED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, SHUT OFF, AND RESTARTED, AND DRIVEN THE 3 MILES HOME. OWNER WILL TAKE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP (CARMAX). DRIVER ASSUMES WILL FIND THROTTLE BODY CODE. THE PART AND SERVICE SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER EXTENDED WARRANTY. HOWEVER, DRIVER/OWNER WILL BE OUT OF POCKET FOR DEDUCTIBLE $250. FAMILY WAS IN CAR AND THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY CONCERN ON THIS VEHICLE. WHEN IT GOES INTO LIMP MODE THERE IS NO WARNING AND MAY CAUSE AN ACCIDENT WHEN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY DECELERATES TO SNAIL SPEED. I BELIEVE FORD MUST RECALL THE FAULTY THROTTLE BODY IN THE 2009-2011 MODELS AS THEY ARE SAFETY ISSUES FOR DRIVERS IN THE CAR AND OTHER DRIVERS ON THE ROAD. *TT
NHTSA ODI #10538011
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