NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter37,000 miles · Aug 29, 2012
Power Train
8/18/12 WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 60 MPH MY TRUCK SUDDENLY LOST POWER. THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH CAME ON AND THE TRUCK BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN IN THE MIST OF TRAFFIC. I WAS IN THE MIDDLE LANE AND NEEDED TO PULL OVER TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. AFTER MUCH EFFORT I WAS ABLE TO DO SO. IT WAS A VERY SCARY SITUATION. I WAITED A F…
Read full complaint
8/18/12 WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 60 MPH MY TRUCK SUDDENLY LOST POWER. THE WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH CAME ON AND THE TRUCK BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN IN THE MIST OF TRAFFIC. I WAS IN THE MIDDLE LANE AND NEEDED TO PULL OVER TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. AFTER MUCH EFFORT I WAS ABLE TO DO SO. IT WAS A VERY SCARY SITUATION. I WAITED A FEW MINUTES BEFORE RESTARTING THE ENGINE. IT STARTED UP OKAY AND I PULLED OUT AND STAYED IN THE RIGHT LANE. A FOURTH OF A MILE LATER IT DID IT AGAIN. THIS TIME THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. CARS WERE BLOWING THERE HORNS AND I ALMOST GOT HIT A COUPLE OF TIMES. MY DAUGHTER WAS IN THE CAR WITH ME IT SCARED HER SO BAD SHE BEGAN TO CRY. WE WERE A GOOD DISTANCE FROM HOME. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO OR WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE TRUCK. I'D ONLY HAD IT FOUR MONTHS. IF THERE WERE OTHER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS HAPPENING, WHY HASN'T SOMETHING BEEN DONE? A RECALL MAYBE? DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DIE ?????? *TR *JS
NHTSA ODI #10472876
9,330 miles · Aug 13, 2012
Power Train
-HARSH JERKING WHILE FOOT ON BRAKE AND SHIFTING FROM ANY GEAR TO DRIVE, IT'S AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION -AT THE SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, BRAKING FOR THE STOP SIGN, IT JERKED FORWARD FIRST BEFORE SPEED WAS REDUCED FORTUNATELY, IT WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. THE DEALER DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS TRANSMISSION CENTER SUPPORT D…
Read full complaint
-HARSH JERKING WHILE FOOT ON BRAKE AND SHIFTING FROM ANY GEAR TO DRIVE, IT'S AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION -AT THE SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, BRAKING FOR THE STOP SIGN, IT JERKED FORWARD FIRST BEFORE SPEED WAS REDUCED FORTUNATELY, IT WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. THE DEALER DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS TRANSMISSION CENTER SUPPORT DAMAGE. THE VEHICLE WAS NEVER IN AN ACCIDENT AND IT WAS PURCHASED NEW. THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED 14.5 MONTHS AFTER I TOOK OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE AND HAD ABOUT 9,330 MILES ON IT. IT WAS A SAFETY HAZARD WHEN IT JERKED FORWARD BEFORE SPEED WAS REDUCED AND FOR A NEW VEHICLE TO HAVE "TRANSMISSION CENTER SUPPORT DAMAGE" - CERTAINLY NOT CONFIDENT THAT IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN BEFORE 20,000 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10470391
27,000 miles · Jul 23, 2012
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE TRAVELING 80MPH ON THE INTERSTATE, MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WITH 27000 MILES SUDDENLY LOST POWER AS A WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON THE DASHBOARD. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT ACCELERATE TO PULL ONTO SHOULDER OR TO MOVE AROUND TRAFFIC. ALL FUEL ACCELERATION WAS LOST. AS I FINALLY COASTED TO THE SHOULDER, NARROWLY AVOIDING BEING THE…
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING 80MPH ON THE INTERSTATE, MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WITH 27000 MILES SUDDENLY LOST POWER AS A WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT CAME ON THE DASHBOARD. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT ACCELERATE TO PULL ONTO SHOULDER OR TO MOVE AROUND TRAFFIC. ALL FUEL ACCELERATION WAS LOST. AS I FINALLY COASTED TO THE SHOULDER, NARROWLY AVOIDING BEING THE CAUSE OF MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS, THE VEHICLE STARTING SHAKING. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, WAITED A FEW MINUTES, AND TURNED THE CAR BACK ON. THE WRENCH INDICATOR LIGHT (POWERTRAIN INDICATION) REMAINED OFF AND THE VEHICLE ACTED NORMAL. THERE WAS NOT AN INDICATION BEFORE OR AFTER THE INCIDENT OF ANY FAULTY SYSTEMS OR PARTS. THE VEHICLE DID THIS WITHOUT ANY REASON, LEAVING ME IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND RUNNING WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS SINCE I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE UNTIL THIS INCIDENT. I FEAR IT MAY HAPPEN AGAIN WITHOUT REASON AND PLACE MY LIFE AND THOSE OF MY PASSENGERS IN HARMS' WAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10467167
28,848 miles · Jun 20, 2012
EnginePower Train
WHILE I WAS DRIVING 55 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, WE WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO GET ENOUGH THROTTLE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. WE HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WE WERE ALMOST REAR-ENDED, I REALLY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE KILLED. IT IS A VERY SCARY SITUATION, GOING FROM 55…
Read full complaint
WHILE I WAS DRIVING 55 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, WE WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO GET ENOUGH THROTTLE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. WE HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WE WERE ALMOST REAR-ENDED, I REALLY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE KILLED. IT IS A VERY SCARY SITUATION, GOING FROM 55 MPH TO NOTHING. THE THROTTLE BODY FAILED COMPLETELY AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. AFTER DOING RESEARCH ON THIS I HAVE FOUND THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD THIS SAME EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING MY SISTERS 2010 FORD ESCAPE WITH ONLY 45000 MILES ON IT. I HAD JUST HAD MY 30,000 MILE SERVICE DONE ON MY VEHICLE TWO WEEKS PRIOR AND ASKED THEM TO PLEASE CHECK THE THROTTLE BODY SINCE IT HAD HAPPENED TO MY SISTER, AND IT WAS FINE AT THAT TIME. I BELIEVE SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. WHEN I ASKED WHAT WAS TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN I WAS TOLD, "NOTHING, IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN AT ANY TIME". WHEN I ASKED IF THERE WAS A RECALL ON IT, I WAS TOLD,"I HAVE BEEN WAITING ON A RECALL ON THIS FOR TWO YEARS." I WAS TOLD THIS FROM A FORD SERVICE PERSON AT THE FORD PLACE THAT REPAIRED MY VEHICLE IN INDIANA. I HAVE REPORTED THIS TO FORD AT THE 800-392-FORD NUMBER THAT THE SAME FORD SERVICE WORKER GAVE ME WHEN I ASKED IF THERE WAS SOME PLACE I COULD CALL ABOUT THIS SITUATION TO HELP GET A RECALL. I NO LONGER FEEL SAFE IN MY VEHICLE. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10462444
Mileage unknown · May 1, 2012
Fuel System, GasolinePower TrainService Brakes, Hydraulic
LAST YEAR I PURCHASED A 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DISSATISFIED WITH MY PURCHASE. THE SELLING DEALER, TOWER FORD IN GREAT NECK, NEW YORK HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP ME RECTIFY MY SERIOUS COMPLAINT AND CONCERNS WITH MY VEHICLE. ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THAT THE TRANSMISSION SLIPS, THE ACCELERATOR PED…
Read full complaint
LAST YEAR I PURCHASED A 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DISSATISFIED WITH MY PURCHASE. THE SELLING DEALER, TOWER FORD IN GREAT NECK, NEW YORK HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP ME RECTIFY MY SERIOUS COMPLAINT AND CONCERNS WITH MY VEHICLE. ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THAT THE TRANSMISSION SLIPS, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL STICKS, THE BRAKES ARE VERY LOW, AND A SWISHING LIQUID NOISE IS HEARD IN THE FUEL TANK WHEN STOPPING, THE RIGHT SIDE REAR PASSENGER DOOR SQUEAKS, AND THE CENTER CONSOLE IS LOOSE. I'VE BROUGHT MY TRUCK BACK TO THIS DEALER MANY TIMES AND ALL I RECEIVE IS THAT THEY CAN NOT VERIFY MY COMPLAINT AND CONCERNS. I AM CONCERNED FOR MY FAMILY AND MY SAFETY. ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10456976
2,000 miles · Jan 22, 2012
Power Train
WHEN VEHICLE PARKED AND THEN STARTED AND FOOT ON BRAKE WENT TO PUT SELECTOR IN REVERSE AND AND NOTHING HAPPENED AND WHEN IT ENGAGED INTO REVERSE IT ENGAGE LOUD AND HARD INTO GEAR AND HAS DONE THIS ABOUT 3 TIMES NOW IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10444773
7,600 miles · Jul 26, 2011
Power Train
WHILE TOWING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED BEHIND MY RV BUS, THE TRANSMISSION BURNED UP. I DID EVERYTHING THAT WAS TAUGHT TO ME BY FORD DEALERSHIP IN GURNEE, IL, CAMPING WORLD IN FOX LAKE, IL AND THE FORD MANUAL. THE MADISON, TENNESSEE FORD DEALERSHIP TRIED TO BLAME ROADMASTER FOR THE PROBLEM. ROADMASTER IS THE MAKER OF THE TOWING…
Read full complaint
WHILE TOWING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED BEHIND MY RV BUS, THE TRANSMISSION BURNED UP. I DID EVERYTHING THAT WAS TAUGHT TO ME BY FORD DEALERSHIP IN GURNEE, IL, CAMPING WORLD IN FOX LAKE, IL AND THE FORD MANUAL. THE MADISON, TENNESSEE FORD DEALERSHIP TRIED TO BLAME ROADMASTER FOR THE PROBLEM. ROADMASTER IS THE MAKER OF THE TOWING SYSTEM (BARS, ELECTRICAL WIRING FOR LIGHTS AND THE EVEN BRAKE SYSTEM). THAT MADE NO SENSE AT ALL. I CHALLENGED THEM ON THAT AND THEN THEY ASKED ME TO GO OVER WHAT I DO TO TOW THE VEHICLE AND AFTER I EXPLAINED ALL THE STEPS, THEY SAID THAT I DID EVERYTHING CORRECTLY. I DROVE NO FASTER THAN 60 MPH IN MY WHOLE TRIP (CHICAGO TO NASHVILLE) AND EVEN STOPPED EVERY 3-4 HOURS TO START THE VEHICLE AND GO THROUGH THE GEARS, AS TAUGHT. THIS VEHICLE HAS 7600 MILES ON IT AND JUST 1200 MILES TOWING ON IT. SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS DEALERSHIP AND FORD DOES NOT WANT TO ADMIT THAT ITS OWN TRANSMISSION DID NOT WANT TO LUBE ITSELF TO KEEP IT FROM BURNING UP. FORD HAS NOT ANSWERED ANY OF MY 2 EMAILS SENT TO THEM ABOUT THIS AND THE DEALERSHIP JUST KEEPS BRUSHING ME OFF. THEY ALSO TOLD ME THEY NEEDED PERMISSION FROM ME TO TAKE APART THE TRANSMISSION TO SEE WHAT THEY NEED TO REPLACE. WHY, I DO NOT KNOW THAT THEY NEEDED PERMISSION. I HAD IT TOWED THERE TO GET REPAIRED. IT IS CLEARLY SOME DEFECT WITHIN THE TRANSMISSION, THEY JUST DO NOT WANT TO OWN UP TO IT. THE CONSUMER SENT IN AN UPDATE VIA PORTABLE: JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THIS. FORD CALLED ME YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AND SAID THAT THEY WILL PAY FOR EVERYTHING NOW. I TOLD THEM I WAS DOING THESE COMPLAINTS AND FINALLY SOMEONE CALLED ME. SO, UNKNOWN IF YOU STILL WANT TO POST IT OR NOT. I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW OF THIS. IT MAY TAKE A WEEK OR SO BEFORE I CAN GET MY CAR, THE DEALERSHIP IS CLAIMING IT MAY TAKE THAT LONG TO GET THE PARTS.
NHTSA ODI #10415991
3,750 miles · Jul 5, 2011
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE REVERSING AT A LOW SPEED IN THE DRIVEWAY, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND A LOUD GRINDING NOISE WAS HEARD. THE VEHICLE THEN LUNGED FORWARD WHEN SHIFTING FROM FIRST TO SECOND GEAR, CAUSING A CLANKING NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE REVERSING AT A LOW SPEED IN THE DRIVEWAY, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND A LOUD GRINDING NOISE WAS HEARD. THE VEHICLE THEN LUNGED FORWARD WHEN SHIFTING FROM FIRST TO SECOND GEAR, CAUSING A CLANKING NOISE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE TSB CHIP WAS REPLACED, AND THE PCM WAS REPROGRAMMED. THE CONTACT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THIS WAS A COMMON FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE, AS THE CONTACT ALSO FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 3,750.
NHTSA ODI #10410559
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