NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter83,000 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED IT DROVE FINE ALMOST A WEEK LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN MAYBE 3 MILES FROM MY HOME I TURNED ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AND IT DONE IT AGAIN AND PICTURE OF A WRENCH CAME ON INSTRUMENT PANEL I DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AGAIN AND STALLED AGAIN. I STA…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED IT DROVE FINE ALMOST A WEEK LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN MAYBE 3 MILES FROM MY HOME I TURNED ENGINE OFF AND RESTARTED DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AND IT DONE IT AGAIN AND PICTURE OF A WRENCH CAME ON INSTRUMENT PANEL I DROVE ABOUT 1 MILE AGAIN AND STALLED AGAIN. I STARTED VEHICLE AGAIN AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON AND I MADE IT TO MY DRIVEWAY. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THE CALLED AND SAID IT IS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY AND WOULD BE A FEW DAYS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ORDER THE PART AND IT WILL BE $349.00. I WAS SURFING THE WEB TO SEE WHAT THE PART WAS WHEN I SAY THIS PAGE ABOUT OTHERS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526454
86,000 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING HOME ON THE HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR. A YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT BEGAN FLASHING ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE OF THE DASHBOARD. I FELT THE ENGINE LOSE POWER AND SAW THAT THE CAR WAS DECELERATING. I PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL WITH NO EFFECT. I SIGNALED AND MOVED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET AFTER I REA…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING HOME ON THE HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR. A YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT BEGAN FLASHING ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE OF THE DASHBOARD. I FELT THE ENGINE LOSE POWER AND SAW THAT THE CAR WAS DECELERATING. I PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL WITH NO EFFECT. I SIGNALED AND MOVED OVER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET AFTER I REACHED THE SHOULDER, THE CAR STOPPED MOVING FORWARD AND STALLED. I TURNED IT OFF, LET IT SIT FOR A FEW MINUTES AND ATTEMPTED TO TURN IT ON AGAIN. THE ENGINE WOULD NOT TURN OVER. I CALLED AND HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP. IN SPEAKING TO THE MECHANIC THE NEXT DAY, HE TOLD ME E PROBLEM WAS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THIS DEALERSHIP WAS BACK ORDERED FOR THE PART AS 5 OTHER FORD VEHICLES WERE AWAITING A NEW THROTTLE BODY. UPON RESEARCHING THIS ISSUE, I REALIZED THAT MY VEHICLE ALSO EXPERIENCED A "LURCHING FORWARD" WHICH WAS LIKELY ALSO RELATED TO THE THROTTLE BODY. THIS LURCHING HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AT INTERMITTENT TIMES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526401
53,000 miles · Jul 22, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, CAR STALLED OR SEEMED LIKE IT STALLED WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS NOTHING HAPPENED SO I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC, ONCE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD THE CAR STARTED SPUTTERING AT IDLE. HAD TO TURN OFF AND RESTART CAR IT WOULD WORK FINE FOR A LITTLE WHILE THEN HAPPENED AGAIN. TH…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, CAR STALLED OR SEEMED LIKE IT STALLED WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS NOTHING HAPPENED SO I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC, ONCE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD THE CAR STARTED SPUTTERING AT IDLE. HAD TO TURN OFF AND RESTART CAR IT WOULD WORK FINE FOR A LITTLE WHILE THEN HAPPENED AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED 4 TIMES WITHIN THE HALF HOUR IT TOOK FOR ME TO GET HOME. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER INCIDENCES WHERE I'D BE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND THE CAR JUST "KICKS" AHEAD, USUALLY AFTER LEAVING A RED LIGHT OR STOPPED POSITION. CAR IS IN THE GARAGE AS WE SPEAK (7-22-13)BECAUSE THE PART IS ON BACK ORDER AND ISN'T EXPECTED TO BE READY UNTIL FRIDAY, 7-26-13. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526248
53,000 miles · Jul 22, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
AFTER TRAVELING FOR A APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES, MY CAR STOPPED ACCELERATING DOWN THE ROAD. AT THIS POINT MY GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN RPM OR SPEED, THEN MY ENGINE BEGAN SHAKING VIOLENTLY. I BARELY WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE SHOULDER OF THE INTERSTATE. THEN, A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE DASH OF MY VEHICLE. I THEN…
Read full complaint
AFTER TRAVELING FOR A APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES, MY CAR STOPPED ACCELERATING DOWN THE ROAD. AT THIS POINT MY GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN RPM OR SPEED, THEN MY ENGINE BEGAN SHAKING VIOLENTLY. I BARELY WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE SHOULDER OF THE INTERSTATE. THEN, A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE DASH OF MY VEHICLE. I THEN TURNED THE IGNITION OFF. UPON RESTARTING THE VEHICLE, THE LIGHT WAS GONE AND THE GAS PEDAL WORKED ONCE MORE. I MERGED INTO TRAFFIC AND CONTINUED ON MY TRIP WITH SLIGHT HESITATION ON THE REMAINDER OF MY TRIP. THIS WHOLE SCENARIO HAPPENED AGAIN ON THE 19TH OF JULY 2013 ONLY 20 MINUTES INTO MY TRIP HOME. VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY AT FORD DEALERSHIP BEING CHECKED OUT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526103
59,810 miles · Jul 21, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
MY CAR HAS "MISSED" OR "SKIPPED" A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS. YESTERDAY, IT QUIT PULLING. THE MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WHEN I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER, WHILE COASTING, I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION - RESTARTED THE CAR, AND DROVE ANOTHER 2 MILES, AND…
Read full complaint
MY CAR HAS "MISSED" OR "SKIPPED" A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS. YESTERDAY, IT QUIT PULLING. THE MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WHEN I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER, WHILE COASTING, I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION - RESTARTED THE CAR, AND DROVE ANOTHER 2 MILES, AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN. I RESTARTED THE CAR, DROVE ANOTHER COUPLE OF MILES, AND IT DID IT AGAIN. I WAS ABLE TO GET MY CAR HOME, WHICH WAS ONLY 2 MILES FROM WHERE I STOPPED THE LAST TIME. I UNDERSTAND IT'S A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY - AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH FORD ESCAPE. MY ESCAPE WILL GO TO THE DEALERSHIP TOMORROW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525963
43,000 miles · Jul 20, 2013
EnginePower Train
MY VEHICLE STALLED WHILE I WAS TURNING - THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I HAVE HAD IT SERVICED FOR STALLING - THE OTHER THREE TIMES THEY HAVE ACCUSED ME OF FILLING IT TOO MUCH, WHICH I DO NOT - AND THEY HAVE CHANGED THE FUEL VAPOR STORE - EVAP CANISTER. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM. I ALSO HAVE TRANSMISSION ISSUES WHERE IT JERK…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE STALLED WHILE I WAS TURNING - THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I HAVE HAD IT SERVICED FOR STALLING - THE OTHER THREE TIMES THEY HAVE ACCUSED ME OF FILLING IT TOO MUCH, WHICH I DO NOT - AND THEY HAVE CHANGED THE FUEL VAPOR STORE - EVAP CANISTER. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM. I ALSO HAVE TRANSMISSION ISSUES WHERE IT JERKS AND MAKES A LOUD NOISE INTO REVERSE. I LOVE MY CAR, BUT CAN'T DEAL WITH THE ISSUES IT CONTINUALLY GIVES ME - MY NEXT CAR WILL BE A GM PRODUCT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525916
18,800 miles · Jul 20, 2013
Power Train
AS I WAS APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT OF AN INTERSECTION, THE CAR LOST ALL POWER AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE WHEN STEPPING ON THE GAS PEDAL. WHEN THE CAR DID LOSE POWER, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON IMMEDIATELY BUT NO OTHER LIGHTS WERE ILLUMINATED EXCEPT FOR THE WRENCH LIGHT. I WAS BASICALLY STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION TRYING…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT OF AN INTERSECTION, THE CAR LOST ALL POWER AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE WHEN STEPPING ON THE GAS PEDAL. WHEN THE CAR DID LOSE POWER, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON IMMEDIATELY BUT NO OTHER LIGHTS WERE ILLUMINATED EXCEPT FOR THE WRENCH LIGHT. I WAS BASICALLY STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION TRYING TO COAST ALONE TO THE OTHER SIDE. THE CAR WAS FINALLY ABLE TO COAST TO THE OTHER SIDE AT NO MORE THAN 1 MPH AND I WAS ABLE TO PULL INTO A SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND LET IT SIT THERE MOMENTARILY. I THEN TRIED TO RESTART THE CAR AND IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE ENGINE TO TURN OVER AND START. HOWEVER, IT FINALLY DID. THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS NOT ILLUMINATED WHEN THE CAR DID START. I WAS FORTUNATELY ABLE TO DRIVE THE CAR BACK HOME. THE CAR WILL BE TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION AND TESTING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525893
37,128 miles · Jul 18, 2013
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH ON ROAD WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER. THE VEHICLE BEGAN DECELERATING AND PUSHING THE ACCELERATOR WAS USELESS. IT BEGAN JERKING, LIKE IT WAS TRYING TO SHIFT BACK INTO GEAR OR DOWN SINCE THERE WAS A SUDDEN DECREASE IN SPEED. I WAS ABLE TO COAST INTO A PARKING LOT AND PUT IN INTO PARK. I TURNED TH…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH ON ROAD WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER. THE VEHICLE BEGAN DECELERATING AND PUSHING THE ACCELERATOR WAS USELESS. IT BEGAN JERKING, LIKE IT WAS TRYING TO SHIFT BACK INTO GEAR OR DOWN SINCE THERE WAS A SUDDEN DECREASE IN SPEED. I WAS ABLE TO COAST INTO A PARKING LOT AND PUT IN INTO PARK. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND ALLOWED IT TO SIT FOR A MOMENT. I ATTEMPTED TO TURN THE CAR BACK ON. IT TOOK A MOMENT FOR IT TO KICK OVER, BUT EVENTUALLY IT DID. I GOT BACK OUT ONTO THE ROAD. THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN NOT MORE THAN 100 FEET DOWN THE ROAD. AGAIN I PULLED IT TO A PARKING LOT AND SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT HOME AFTER THAT WITH NO ISSUES. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND WAS INFORMED THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525634
69,000 miles · Jul 18, 2013
EnginePower Train
CAR DRIFTED TO A STOP WHILE IN GEAR. TURNED OFF IGNITION. RESTATED CAR. IT ACCELERATED IN PARK WITHOUT HAVING FOOT ON GAS PEDDLE. TRIED DRIVING AGAIN ,THE CAR REPEATED THIS PATTERN 3 MORE TIMES. FINALLY GOT IT TO OPERATE AFTER LETTING IT REST FOR SEVERAL MINUTES. I WAS A WRECK DRIVING IT HOME, 5 MILES. THE CAR WAS BOUGHT USED ON…
Read full complaint
CAR DRIFTED TO A STOP WHILE IN GEAR. TURNED OFF IGNITION. RESTATED CAR. IT ACCELERATED IN PARK WITHOUT HAVING FOOT ON GAS PEDDLE. TRIED DRIVING AGAIN ,THE CAR REPEATED THIS PATTERN 3 MORE TIMES. FINALLY GOT IT TO OPERATE AFTER LETTING IT REST FOR SEVERAL MINUTES. I WAS A WRECK DRIVING IT HOME, 5 MILES. THE CAR WAS BOUGHT USED ONLY 4 DAYS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. IT HAS RUINED MY CONFIDENCE IN THIS VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525523
40,000 miles · Jul 18, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, I WAS TRAVELING AT APROX. 35MPH WHEN IT FIRST HAPPENED. MY RPM GAUGE STARTED TO "BOUNCE" FROM 1 TO 4 REPEATEDLY. MAKE IT VERY HARD TO STOP AND COULD NOT GIVE IT GAS. AT THE SAME TIME, MY POWER-TRAIN WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND CALL FOR ASSISTANCE.…
Read full complaint
DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, I WAS TRAVELING AT APROX. 35MPH WHEN IT FIRST HAPPENED. MY RPM GAUGE STARTED TO "BOUNCE" FROM 1 TO 4 REPEATEDLY. MAKE IT VERY HARD TO STOP AND COULD NOT GIVE IT GAS. AT THE SAME TIME, MY POWER-TRAIN WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND CALL FOR ASSISTANCE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525517
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