NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Jun 3, 2017
EnginePower Train
THIS 2011 FORD ESCAPE IS MY SON'S CAR. WE BOUGHT THE CAR USED IN 2015. THE CAR CURRENTLY HAS 69,000 MILES. IN APRIL 2017 MY SON COMPLAINED OF THE CAR SURGING WHILE STOPPED AT A LIGHT. WE DROVE THE CAR THAT NIGHT AND COULD NOT GET IT TO DUPLICATE THIS ISSUE. A MONTH LATER HE CALLED ME AND STATED THE CAR SURGED AGAIN WHILE STOPPED…
Read full complaint
THIS 2011 FORD ESCAPE IS MY SON'S CAR. WE BOUGHT THE CAR USED IN 2015. THE CAR CURRENTLY HAS 69,000 MILES. IN APRIL 2017 MY SON COMPLAINED OF THE CAR SURGING WHILE STOPPED AT A LIGHT. WE DROVE THE CAR THAT NIGHT AND COULD NOT GET IT TO DUPLICATE THIS ISSUE. A MONTH LATER HE CALLED ME AND STATED THE CAR SURGED AGAIN WHILE STOPPED IN A TURN LANE. HE MADE IT TO A SIDE STREET BUT WITHIN 50 YARDS THE CAR CAME TO A SCREECHING STOP. THE CAR WOULD NOT MOVE. ENDED UP WITH A SEIZED TRANSMISSION. WE REPLACED THE TRANSMISSION IN MAY 2017. WITHIN A WEEK THE CAR IS NOW BECOMING UNRESPONSIVE AND STILL SURGING WHILE STOPPED. HE HAS TO TURN THE CAR OFF AND BACK ON TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE CAR AGAIN. WHEN STOPPED THE CAR ENGINE IS SHUTTING DOWN. TODAY THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WHILE AT A STOP. TODAY I RESEARCHED THIS PROBLEM ONLINE AND CAME ACROSS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY ISSUE IN FORD ESCAPES INCLUDING THE 2011 MODEL. I FEEL THAT THIS ETB ISSUE WAS THE DIRECT CAUSE OF THE SEIZURE OF THE TRANSMISSION ON THIS CAR. I SPENT $2500 ON A NEW TRANSMISSION AND STILL HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE CAR ACTING THE SAME WAS AS BEFORE. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS MALFUNCTION ON A CAR DRIVEN BY AN 18 YEAR OLD. HE COULD HAVE EASILY SURGED INTO ANOTHER CAR OR PEDESTRIAN. A RECALL WAS THE ONLY SOLUTION THE NHTSA SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED FROM FORD ON THIS ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO BE REIMBURSED THE $2500 FOR THE NEW TRANSMISSION THAT THIS FAULTY PART HAS CAUSED.
NHTSA ODI #10993026
43,434 miles · May 22, 2017
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 30 MPH, MY CAR JUST LOST POWER AND BEGAN COASTING. THE ONLY LIGHTS OR INDICATORS ON THE DASH WAS THE WRENCH SYMBOL. THE CAR WOULD START UP AGAIN AND RUN BUT IT REPEATED THE LOSS OF POWER SEVERAL TIMES...AT ANY SPEED, AT ANY TIME! (25-65MPH) TWICE ON THE HIGHWAY IN FAST TRAFFIC! WENT TO THE FORD DEALER BY M…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 30 MPH, MY CAR JUST LOST POWER AND BEGAN COASTING. THE ONLY LIGHTS OR INDICATORS ON THE DASH WAS THE WRENCH SYMBOL. THE CAR WOULD START UP AGAIN AND RUN BUT IT REPEATED THE LOSS OF POWER SEVERAL TIMES...AT ANY SPEED, AT ANY TIME! (25-65MPH) TWICE ON THE HIGHWAY IN FAST TRAFFIC! WENT TO THE FORD DEALER BY ME AND THEY REPAIRED THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN MODULE AT NO COST TO ME. APPARENTLY A RECALL WAS IN PLACE. THIS WAS A PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITH MANY FORD VEHICLES I FOUND OUT WHILE DOING RESEARCH! THIS WAS IN SEPT/OCT OF 2015 AND TODAY IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME AGAIN...TWICE IN ONE HOUR. (MAY 22, 2017) MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE V6 IS NOW BACK AT THE SAME DEALER. I AM BEING TOLD THAT I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL DIAGNOSTIC CHECKS AND THE LABOR AND PARTS. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DEALING WITH THIS SAME EXACT ISSUE ONLY 19 MONTHS LATER. I WAS TOLD THAT THE DEALERSHIP WAS BOOKED SOLID FOR TWO DAYS AND THEY COULD GET ME IN ON THE THIRD DAY. I AM SINGLE AND ON PARTIAL DISABILITY AND CANNOT AFFORD A HUGE BILL FOR THE CAR OR TO MISS WORK. CERTAINLY NOT WITH SOMETHING THAT I DID NOT CAUSE. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME WITH THE EXACT SAME ISSUE! I HAVE ALL OF THE NECESSARY MAINTENANCE DONE ON MY VEHICLE AND TAKE EXCELLENT CARE OF IT. IF NEED BE, THE DEALER HAS ALL OF MY ORIGINAL INFORMATION ON THE WORK AND REPAIRS AND THEY HAVE MY VEHICLE NOW AND I AM HOPING THAT THEY WILL GET TO LOOK AT IT TODAY. THEY SAID THAT I COULD RENT A CAR TOO! ONLY $30 A DAY! NOT! PLEASE HELP! [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).'*JB
NHTSA ODI #10990883
55,000 miles · May 16, 2017
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING 50 MPH AND THE CAR STALLED WITH NOT WARNING. THE "WRENCH LIGHT" OR THROTTLE BODY/POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. I COASTED TO A PERSON'S DRIVEWAY AS THERE WAS NO SHOULDER TO PULL OFF TO. I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND TURNED IT BACK ON. ALL LIGHTS TURNED OFF AND CAR RAN FINE. MECHANICS CAN'T FIND PROBLEM OR ERROR CODE AND…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING 50 MPH AND THE CAR STALLED WITH NOT WARNING. THE "WRENCH LIGHT" OR THROTTLE BODY/POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. I COASTED TO A PERSON'S DRIVEWAY AS THERE WAS NO SHOULDER TO PULL OFF TO. I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND TURNED IT BACK ON. ALL LIGHTS TURNED OFF AND CAR RAN FINE. MECHANICS CAN'T FIND PROBLEM OR ERROR CODE AND I'M SCARED TO DRIVE MY NEW VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10985927
118,000 miles · May 8, 2017
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A TRAFFIC LIGHT, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE CONTACT HEARD AN ABNORMAL NOISE UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WERE METAL FRAGMENTS IN THE FLUID IN THE TRANSFER CASE. THE CONTACT WAS IN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A TRAFFIC LIGHT, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE CONTACT HEARD AN ABNORMAL NOISE UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WERE METAL FRAGMENTS IN THE FLUID IN THE TRANSFER CASE. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE TRANSFER CASE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND PROVIDED CASE NUMBER: CAS12279241. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 118,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10984326
130,000 miles · Jan 4, 2017
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
BOUGHT 2011 FORD ESCAPE XLT USED 5-27-2016 (PRIVATE SALE, CHICAGO IL). UPON PURCHASE, SERVICED AT MILWAUKEE AREA FORD DEALERSHIP, FOUND FRONT CONTROL ARMS & BUSHINGS TORN/LOOSE. NEXT, FRONT SWAY BARS, OUTER TIE ROD ENDS, BRAKES AND ROTORS NEEDED REPLACEMENT. IN OCT. 2016 ENGINE/TRANSMISSION MAJOR ISSUES: LEAKING OIL AND TRANS FL…
Read full complaint
BOUGHT 2011 FORD ESCAPE XLT USED 5-27-2016 (PRIVATE SALE, CHICAGO IL). UPON PURCHASE, SERVICED AT MILWAUKEE AREA FORD DEALERSHIP, FOUND FRONT CONTROL ARMS & BUSHINGS TORN/LOOSE. NEXT, FRONT SWAY BARS, OUTER TIE ROD ENDS, BRAKES AND ROTORS NEEDED REPLACEMENT. IN OCT. 2016 ENGINE/TRANSMISSION MAJOR ISSUES: LEAKING OIL AND TRANS FLUID -NO OIL LAMP OR CHECK ENGINE LIGHT- CAR WOULD RUN OUT OF OIL, PULLED OVER ADDED MORE. TRANS SLIPPING DURING ACCEL/WEAK ACCEL. HARD SHIFTING W/HIGH RPMS. ROUGH IDLE. TICKING NOISE UNDER HOOD WHEN BRAKES APPLIED. 12-6-2016 FORD DEALERSHIP REPLACED GASKETS & SEALS IN ENGINE & TRANSMISSION- $2,000 REPAIR. UPON DRIVING CAR, ISSUES CONTINUE, NEW ISSUES PRESENT: TRANS SLIPPING WORSE/BUCKING, CAR NOT ACCELERATING WHEN GAS PEDAL DEPRESSED, CAR STALLING IN TRAFFIC, CAR LURCHING FORWARD, CAR LOSING GASOLINE/SMELLING OF GASOLINE. BROKE DOWN 12-8-2016 IN PARKING LOT DUE TO FUEL LEAK. CONTACTED AAA ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE, RETURNED TO DEALERSHIP, TURNED AWAY. FIRE DEPT CLEARED CAR FOR TOWING, FIRE HAZARD. RESEARCHED VIN, FOUND RECALL FOR FUEL DELIVERY MODULATOR FLANGE, AND FIELD SERVICE ACTION FOR ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER SUPPORT, VERIFIED RECALL FOR MY VIN. ADVISED TO NOT OPERATE VEHICLE. AREA FORD DEALERSHIPS REFUSED TO DIAGNOSE W/O CHARGING. A SERVICE MANAGER AT A MAZDA DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED REPAIRS: A/C LINE RUPTURED, FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE SWAY BAR SNAPPED AND CONTROL ARM BUSHING SEPARATED; FORD MECHANIC HAD ALSO LEFT BOLTS & HOSES LOOSE/UNCLAMPED IN ENGINE. STEERING AND REAR SUSPENSION DETERIORATING. RETURNED TO DEALERSHIP ONCE MORE- TURNED AWAY. MISSED 1 MONTH OF WORK (DRIVING IS JOB). NO RENTAL PROVIDED, UNWILLING TO REIMBURSE. FILED DEALER COMPLAINT. FILING CONSUMER PROTECTION & DISCLOSURE LAWSUIT. SEEKING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST FORD MOTOR COMPANY. CAR IS DANGEROUS, I REFUSE TO OPERATE IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10939550
80,000 miles · Oct 20, 2016
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, THE RPMS INCREASED AND THE CONTACT HEARD A CLICKING NOISE. AFTERWARDS, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN. THE ISSUE RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000.
NHTSA ODI #10917520
Mileage unknown · Oct 12, 2016
Power Train
DRIVING AND TRUCK JUST CUTS OFF. TOOK IT TO THE SHOP AND FIRST THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A MASS AIR FLOW SENSOR.. BUT THE PROBLEM STILL HAPPENED. THEN IT WAS SAID IT MIGHT BE THROTTLE BODY. I JUST BOUGHT THIS CAR LESS THAN A MONTH AGO AND ALREADY HAVING MAJOR PROBLEMS.
NHTSA ODI #10915453
89,600 miles · Aug 16, 2016
Power Train
"TAKATA RECALL" A LIGHT POPPED ON WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON A LOCAL CITY STREET A LIGHT THAT LOOKS LIKE A WRENCH AND IT IS CAUSING ME HESITATION WHILE DRIVING WON'T PICK UP SPEED OR GIVE ANY GAS.
NHTSA ODI #10896245
32,000 miles · Jun 7, 2016
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE SHOOK AND DECELERATED. THE SERVICE ENGINE NOW WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT HAD TO COAST THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED IN NOVEMB…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE SHOOK AND DECELERATED. THE SERVICE ENGINE NOW WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT HAD TO COAST THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED IN NOVEMBER OF 2015 PER A MANUFACTURER RECALL FOR THE SAME FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT REPAIR THE VEHICLE A SECOND TIME FOR THE SAME FAILURE. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE VIN WAS INVALID. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 32,000.
NHTSA ODI #10873021
74,000 miles · Jun 2, 2016
Electrical SystemPower Train
I CONTINUE TO HAVE ISSUES WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB), UP TO AND INCLUDING THE COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF THE SYSTEM. I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE AND HAVE ABIDED BY ALL SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS MAKE/MODEL. THE EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE ETB RUNS OUT AT 100K (VEHICLE CURRENTLY AT 75K). THERE ARE TIMES THE …
Read full complaint
I CONTINUE TO HAVE ISSUES WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB), UP TO AND INCLUDING THE COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF THE SYSTEM. I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE AND HAVE ABIDED BY ALL SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS MAKE/MODEL. THE EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE ETB RUNS OUT AT 100K (VEHICLE CURRENTLY AT 75K). THERE ARE TIMES THE VEHICLE SHIFTS SO VIOLENTLY THAT ONE WOULD BELIEVE THEY'VE BEEN REAR-ENDED. WHEN I TAKE MY VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALERSHIP (5 TIMES, 2 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS), I'M TOLD THEY RE-PROGRAM THE SYSTEM AND TO GIVE IT ANOTHER 500 TO 1000 MILES FOR THE SYSTEM TO RELEARN MY DRIVING HABITS. THE "REBOOT" LASTS BETWEEN 800 TO 1500 MILES ON AVERAGE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE ETB CAN'T BE REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY AT THIS POINT.
NHTSA ODI #10872057
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