AFTER ONLY OWNING THE VEHICLE FOR 2 WEEKS (PURCHASED USED) VEHICLE BEGAN TO STALL/LOOSE POWER, AND IMMEDIATELY SLOWS. IT DOES START BACK UP, BUT THEN REPEATS THE BEHAVIOR. *TR
2011 Ford Escape
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2011 Ford Escape do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 996.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Escape years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
1,061 reports with mileage · 255 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Steering. Review the 409 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 268 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 253 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsI WAS ACCELERATING AND THE CAR THEN JUST STOPPED ACCELERATING. IT FELT LIKE THE TRANSMISSION HAD JUST LET GO, BECAUSE THE CAR WOULD NOT SPEED UP WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. WHEN I TRIED TO STOP, THE IDLE WAS VERY ROUGH AND THE CAR WANTED TO JERK FORWARD. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR STOPPED IN A SAFE PLACE. WHEN I RE-…
Read full complaint
I WAS ACCELERATING AND THE CAR THEN JUST STOPPED ACCELERATING. IT FELT LIKE THE TRANSMISSION HAD JUST LET GO, BECAUSE THE CAR WOULD NOT SPEED UP WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. WHEN I TRIED TO STOP, THE IDLE WAS VERY ROUGH AND THE CAR WANTED TO JERK FORWARD. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR STOPPED IN A SAFE PLACE. WHEN I RE-STARTED THE CAR, THE IGNITION WAS TURNING OVER, BUT IT TOOK SEVERAL SECONDS BEFORE IT FIRED. I HAVE SINCE BROUGHT MY CAR TO THE SERVICE SHOP, THEY TOLD ME IT WAS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVE HAD TO REPAIR THIS ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. THE GENTLEMAN SITTING NEXT TO ME SAYS THAT HE HAD THE SAME ISSUE WITH A SIMILAR VEHICLE - SAME FAMILY OF CAR. *TR
WHILE DRIVING ON AN EXPRESSWAY AROUND 35-40MPH, VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND WENT INTO LIMP MODE (LESS THAN 1000RPM) WITH A WRENCH INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE DASHBOARD. PULLED OVER, SHUT DOWN VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED ENGINE. VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN HOME AND TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY. FORD DIAGNOSED AN…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON AN EXPRESSWAY AROUND 35-40MPH, VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER AND WENT INTO LIMP MODE (LESS THAN 1000RPM) WITH A WRENCH INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE DASHBOARD. PULLED OVER, SHUT DOWN VEHICLE AND THEN RESTARTED ENGINE. VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN HOME AND TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY. FORD DIAGNOSED AND IS REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY UNDER POWERTRAIN WARRANTY. *TR
THROTTLE BODY STOPS TO ONLY IDLE UPON ACCELERATING OR USE OF THROTTLE FROM STOP. SOMETIMES IT WILL ALLOW TO ACCELERATE UP TO 30 TO 40 MPH BEFORE IT QUITS WORKING UPON THROTTLE INPUT FROM DRIVER. SO, IT WILL ONLY IDLE AFTER ACCELERATING HALF OR PART WAY THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND YOU ARE AT THE MERCY OF INCLINE OR DECLINE OF ROA…
Read full complaint
THROTTLE BODY STOPS TO ONLY IDLE UPON ACCELERATING OR USE OF THROTTLE FROM STOP. SOMETIMES IT WILL ALLOW TO ACCELERATE UP TO 30 TO 40 MPH BEFORE IT QUITS WORKING UPON THROTTLE INPUT FROM DRIVER. SO, IT WILL ONLY IDLE AFTER ACCELERATING HALF OR PART WAY THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND YOU ARE AT THE MERCY OF INCLINE OR DECLINE OF ROAD TO HOPEFULLY COAST TO SAFETY. IT HAS DONE THIS WHILE TURNING LEFT WHILE HAVING TO YIELD TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. IT CAUSED ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO HAVE TO STOP WHILE I GOT STRANDED IN MIDDLE OF TURN. SAFETY ISSUE FOR SURE. *TR
I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE ON A CROWDED I-4 AROUND ORLANDO FLORIDA 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 D…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE ON A CROWDED I-4 AROUND ORLANDO FLORIDA 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 THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AS WELL. 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
WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON DASHBOARD AND THE CAR STARTED DECELERATING. WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, HAD TO PULL OVER, TURN CAR OFF, THEN BACK ON, IN ORDER FOR CAR TO ACCELERATE AGAIN. SECOND INCIDENT SEEMED LIKE CAR'S POWER COMPLETELY SHUT OFF AND WOULD NOT COME BACK ON AGAIN AFTER A ROUGH IDLING STOP. …
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON DASHBOARD AND THE CAR STARTED DECELERATING. WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, HAD TO PULL OVER, TURN CAR OFF, THEN BACK ON, IN ORDER FOR CAR TO ACCELERATE AGAIN. SECOND INCIDENT SEEMED LIKE CAR'S POWER COMPLETELY SHUT OFF AND WOULD NOT COME BACK ON AGAIN AFTER A ROUGH IDLING STOP. *TR
WHILE DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE TO WORK WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN IT LOST POWER. MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, BUT WHEN I LOOKED DOWN I SAW THAT IT WAS STILL BOUNCING BETWEEN 500 AND 1000 RPM. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE RED WRENCH LIGHT HAD COME ON. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR PULLED OVER INTO A PARKING LOT. I WAS…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE TO WORK WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN IT LOST POWER. MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, BUT WHEN I LOOKED DOWN I SAW THAT IT WAS STILL BOUNCING BETWEEN 500 AND 1000 RPM. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE RED WRENCH LIGHT HAD COME ON. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR PULLED OVER INTO A PARKING LOT. I WAS NOT SURE WHAT WAS GOING ON SO I SHUT THE CAR OFF. A MINUTE OR TWO LATER I STARTED THE CAR AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP. I THEN CONTINUED ON TO WORK BUT AFTER EXCITING THE FREEWAY I STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT WHEN I WENT TO ACCELERATE FROM THE LIGHT THE CAR DID THE SAME THING. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND DID THE SAME AS BEFORE. I MADE IT TO WORK WITH NO FURTHER ISSUES THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. THAT AFTERNOON I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT AND THEY ASKED ME TO BRING IT BY THE NEXT MORNING. I DROVE THE CAR HOME FROM THERE WITH NO INCIDENT. THE NEXT MORNING I TOOK THE ESCAPE BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER WAITING FOR ABOUT THREE HOURS THE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE THE CAR HOME AND I ENDED UP HAVING THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE CARE GOING INTO WHAT I GUESS THE CALL SAFE MODE. I WAS AS BEFORE ABLE TO SHUT THE CAR DOWN AND START IT BACK UP AGAIN. THIS HAPPEN GOING ACROSS A TWO LANE BRIDGE IN TRAFFIC LUCKILY THE CAR BEHIND ME WAS FAR ENOUGH BEHIND ME THAT THE DID NOT RUN INTO ME BUT CAME REAL CLOSE. *TR
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
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY GOING ABOUT 55 MPH. THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO LUNGE FORWARD AND THEN STOPPED RUNNING. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF OF THE HIGHWAY, BUT IT WAS DARK. I LET THE CAR SIT FOR A MOMENT. IT THEN STARTED UP AND I WENT BACK ON THE ROAD. IT THEN BEGAN TO LUNGE AND STOPPED AGAIN. THE WRENCH LIGHT SHOWED ON THE INSTRU…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY GOING ABOUT 55 MPH. THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO LUNGE FORWARD AND THEN STOPPED RUNNING. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF OF THE HIGHWAY, BUT IT WAS DARK. I LET THE CAR SIT FOR A MOMENT. IT THEN STARTED UP AND I WENT BACK ON THE ROAD. IT THEN BEGAN TO LUNGE AND STOPPED AGAIN. THE WRENCH LIGHT SHOWED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL BOTH TIMES. BY THE MANUAL, IT SHOWED A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP. THEY SAID THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS FAULTY, BUT THAT DUE TO THE MILEAGE, IT WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. I PAID $426.00 TO GET IT FIXED. WHEN I PICKED THE VEHICLE UP I ASKED THEM IF THIS WAS A RECALL AS I SAW COMPLAINTS ON THE INTERNET. THE TECHNICIAN SAID NOT YET, BUT TO KEEP MY PAPERWORK AS IT PROBABLY WOULD BE A RECALL AT SOME POINT. *TR
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
Official recalls
216V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.
14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
4DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System
On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages
PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that
DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine
In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.
PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage
Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Additional source detail variants (5)
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Visibility:glass, Side/rear
In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Illustration