NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
43 reportsClear category filter37,000 miles · Dec 10, 2013
StructureVisibility/wiper
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE LIFTGATE WINDOW WAS FOUND TO BE SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 37…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE LIFTGATE WINDOW WAS FOUND TO BE SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 37,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10555514
50,000 miles · Dec 5, 2013
StructureVisibility
AT APPROXIMATELY 9:00 AM IN THE MORNING, THE REAR TAILGATE WINDOW WAS CLOSED INSTANTLY SHATTERING EVERYWHERE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10554894
46,000 miles · Sep 20, 2013
Air BagsStructureCrashInjury
I WAS T-BONED WHILE MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN IN THE DRIVER'S DOOR. I WAS DRIVING THE CAR. THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN $15,500 + RESULTING IN A TOTAL LOSS. I WENT TO THE ER SUFFERING FROM HEAD TRAUMA. I SUSTAINED A SIGNIFICANT CONCUSSION, WAS OUT OF WORK FOR 1 WEEK. MY AIR BAGS NEVER WENT OFF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10544626
2,738 miles · May 15, 2013
Air BagsEquipment Adaptive/mobilitySteering
AT 2700 MILES THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT STARTED TO GO ON AND VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER FOR A CHECK ON AIRBAG PROBLEM. SUPPOSEDLY FIXED, HOWEVER ONE WEEK LATER HAD TO RETURN VEHICLE TO DEALER DUE TO AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT AGAIN GOING ON. PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED BY TIGHTENING LOOSE WIRRE CABLES IN CABLE HARNESS BUT ONE MONTH LAT…
Read full complaint
AT 2700 MILES THE AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT STARTED TO GO ON AND VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER FOR A CHECK ON AIRBAG PROBLEM. SUPPOSEDLY FIXED, HOWEVER ONE WEEK LATER HAD TO RETURN VEHICLE TO DEALER DUE TO AIRBAG WARNING LIGHT AGAIN GOING ON. PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED BY TIGHTENING LOOSE WIRRE CABLES IN CABLE HARNESS BUT ONE MONTH LATER RETURNED VEHICLE AGAIN AS AIR BAG WARNING WAS AGAIN COMING ON AND THERE WAS CONCERN AS WE DIDN'T KNOW IF AIRBAG WOULD DEPLOY IF NEEDED OR WORSE MAY DEPLOY AT ANY TIME. ADVISED THAT CAUSE WAS EXCESSIVE ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE IN WIRE CABLE HARNESS AND DEFECTIVE SENSORS.SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER PROBLEM WITH AIRBAG READINESS WARNING. IN FALL OF 2012 A NEW PROBLEM STARTED WHICH AT FIRST I THOUGHT MIGHT BE DUE TO LEAVING PARKING BRAKE PARTIALLY ON. STEERING AT 40 MPH ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAME VERY DIFFICULT AND CENTER CONSOLE WARNING LIGHTS AND TRACTION WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. AFTER PULLING OFF THE ROAD, STOPPING AND RESTARTING THE VEHICLE THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. PROBLEM STARTED AGAIN IN APRIL 2013 WITH VEHICLE STILL UNDER 10,000 MILES. TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER AND PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED. DROVE ABOUT 6 TO 8 MILES AND PROBLEM OCCURRED AGAIN WITH WARNING LIGHTS COMING ON AND DIFFICULT TO STEER AT FREEWAY SPEED. RETURNED VEHICLE TO DEALER AND PICKED UP TWO DAYS LATER WITH PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY CURED. 4 DAYS LATER ALL WARNING LIGHTS WENT ON AGAIN AND STEERING AS BEFORE WAS DIFFICULT. HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALER AS ALL AGREED IT WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE.AFTER A WEEK OF TESTING AND WORK VEHICLE WAS READY . WAS ADVISED THAT PROBLEM WAS LOOSE WIRES IN CABLE HARNESS AND FAULTY SENSORS. I HAVE NOW BEEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE ABOUT 2 WEEKS WITH NO FURTHER PROBLEMS BUT AM GREATLY CONCERNED THAT I MAY HAVE PURCHASED A DEFECTIVE AND POSSIBLY DANGEROUS VEHICLE. WHAT PROTECTION DO WE HAVE? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512044
39,800 miles · Feb 12, 2013
StructureVisibility/wiperInjury
CLOSING REAR LIFT GATE AFTER THE CAR REMAINED STATIONARY OVERNIGHT, THE WINDOW SHATTERED ONTO THE GROUND AND INTO THE TRUNK. LOW TEMPERATURE FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE WAS 19 DEG F. SUBSEQUENT CLEAN-UP EFFORTS REVEALED SCRATCHES TO CAR BODY AND RESULTED IN PERSONAL INJURY (LACERATIONS). FORD WOULD NOT COVER THE REPAIR COST BASED…
Read full complaint
CLOSING REAR LIFT GATE AFTER THE CAR REMAINED STATIONARY OVERNIGHT, THE WINDOW SHATTERED ONTO THE GROUND AND INTO THE TRUNK. LOW TEMPERATURE FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE WAS 19 DEG F. SUBSEQUENT CLEAN-UP EFFORTS REVEALED SCRATCHES TO CAR BODY AND RESULTED IN PERSONAL INJURY (LACERATIONS). FORD WOULD NOT COVER THE REPAIR COST BASED ON VEHICLE MILEAGE, DESPITE EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO PE 11-016 AND TO FORD TECHNICAL SERVICES BULLETIN 10-22-10. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10497896
19,464 miles · Jan 11, 2013
Structure
IT WAS ABOUT 30 DEGREES AND MY 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WENT TO PUT A ITEM IN MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE PARKED IN MY DRIVE WAY. UPON CLOSING THE REAR LIFT GATE THE GLASS SHATTERED INTO TINY PIECES. THIS CAUSED SCRATCHES AND OTHER BODY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE WHEN THE HYDRAULIC ARMS AND WIPER BLADE ASSEMBLY GAVE WAY WHEN THE GLASS SHATTERED.…
Read full complaint
IT WAS ABOUT 30 DEGREES AND MY 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WENT TO PUT A ITEM IN MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE PARKED IN MY DRIVE WAY. UPON CLOSING THE REAR LIFT GATE THE GLASS SHATTERED INTO TINY PIECES. THIS CAUSED SCRATCHES AND OTHER BODY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE WHEN THE HYDRAULIC ARMS AND WIPER BLADE ASSEMBLY GAVE WAY WHEN THE GLASS SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE IS 2 YEARS OLD AND UNDER WARRANTY. I CALLED THE DEALER WHERE I PURCHASED IT AND WAS TOLD TO TURN IT INTO MY INSURANCE. NO OTHER HELP WAS OFFERED!!! MIND YOU ITS 30 DEGREES OUT AND I HAVE 2 YOUNG CHILDREN AND LIVE IN A RURAL AREA. I DID AS I WAS TOLD AND REPORTED TO MY INSURANCE CO. THEY TRIED TO HOOK ME UP WITH SEVERAL GLASS PLACES WITH NO LUCK. THE CLOSEST WAS 35 MILES AWAY AND SAID IT WOULD BE ABOUT 2 WEEKS TO GET THE GLASS BECAUSE ITS NOT SOMETHING THEY HAVE IN STOCK. I HAD TO DRIVE TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WITH NO REAR WINDOW IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER WITH TWO KIDS JUST TO GET IT COVERED WITH PLASTIC SO I COULD HAVE A CAR TO DRIVE. AM I WRONG TO THINK FORD COULD HAVE DONE MORE TO HELP???? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10492221
24,500 miles · Jan 7, 2013
StructureVisibility/wiperInjury
AFTER UNLOADING ITEMS FROM REAR CARGO AREA, TAILGATE WAS CLOSED, AND THE REAR TAILGATE WINDOW EXPLODED IN MY FACE SPONTANEOUSLY. IT SEEMED AS IF THE RECIPROCATING ARMS PERHAPS DID NOT COLLAPSE COMPLETELY AND WENT THROUGH THE WINDOW. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO ASSISTED IN CLEANING UP THE DEBRIS WAS CUT BY THE GLASS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10491692
15,800 miles · Nov 30, 2012
StructureVisibility
I FILLED MY GAS TANK AT A HOLIDAY GAS STATION/STORE IN ESCANABA, MI ABOUT 6 P.M., NOVEMBER 21 WHILE TRAVELING. I FILLED THE TANK, LOCKED THE VEHICLE, AND WENT INTO THE STORE FOR A SNACK. WHEN I RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE, AN EMPLOYEE WAS SWEEPING UP GLASS FROM MY BACK WINDOW WHICH SHE HEARD EXPLODE. THE WINDOW WAS COMPLETELY GONE. …
Read full complaint
I FILLED MY GAS TANK AT A HOLIDAY GAS STATION/STORE IN ESCANABA, MI ABOUT 6 P.M., NOVEMBER 21 WHILE TRAVELING. I FILLED THE TANK, LOCKED THE VEHICLE, AND WENT INTO THE STORE FOR A SNACK. WHEN I RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE, AN EMPLOYEE WAS SWEEPING UP GLASS FROM MY BACK WINDOW WHICH SHE HEARD EXPLODE. THE WINDOW WAS COMPLETELY GONE. THERE WAS NOTHING AGAINST THE BACK WINDOW OR THE HATCH BACK THAT WOULD CAUSE STRESS. FISHING EQUIPMENT WAS LYING FLAT ON THE FLOOR. I DROVE 200 MILES HOME WITH NO WINDOW. BESIDES THE EMPLOYEE WITNESS, I FILED A POLICE REPORT WITH THE ESCANABA POLICE. I CONTACTED A FORD DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD TO TAKE PICTURES. I SENT DOCUMENTATION ALONG WITH THE PICTURES TO THE DEALERSHIP. THAT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR FORD. I WAS TOLD TO TAKE THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE BODY REPAIR MANAGER TOOK PICTURES AND SENT THEM TO FORD WHO CAME BACK DENYING THE WARRANTY COVERAGE ON THE GLASS "BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PROVEN THAT THIS WAS A FORD GLASS DEFECT. I DROVE 200 MILES ROUND TRIP WASTING AN AFTERNOON OF MY TIME. I HAVE CONTACT AND TALKED WITH FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONS A HALF DOZEN TIME. I ASKED THE WITNESS TO CALL FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONS TO VERIFY THAT I WAS NOT EVEN IN THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE GLASS EXPLOSION. GLASS FEW FROM 10 TO 15 FEET IN SMALL, DEADLY PIECES. LUCKILY, I OR SOMEONE ELSE WAS NOT STANDING BEHIND THE CAR. I HAVE NOT OPENED THE BACK WINDOW FOR MONTHS FINDING IT EASIER TO REMOVE ITEM BY LIFTING THE HATCHBACK DOOR. IN CONTACTING FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONS, I WAS TOLD THAT ONCE A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, IT COULD NOT BE REVERSED. I ASKED TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY AND WAS TOLD THAT ONCE A DECISION WAS MADE BY FORD, IT COULD NOT BE REVERSED AND WAS GIVEN AN ADDRESS TO WRITE MY COMPLAINT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10486514
4,267 miles · Oct 9, 2012
StructureVehicle Speed ControlCrash
I PULLED INTO A PARKING SPACE NEXT TO THE BUILDING WHERE I WORK AND THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD AND HIT THE BRICK WALL, BROKE A WINDOW AND DENTED THE BUILDING AC UNIT. DAMAGE TO MY VEHICLE HOOD, BUMPER AND GRILLE. COST TO REPAIR $4282.75. *TR SEPTEMBER 25,2012 I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED BECAUSE IT …
Read full complaint
I PULLED INTO A PARKING SPACE NEXT TO THE BUILDING WHERE I WORK AND THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD AND HIT THE BRICK WALL, BROKE A WINDOW AND DENTED THE BUILDING AC UNIT. DAMAGE TO MY VEHICLE HOOD, BUMPER AND GRILLE. COST TO REPAIR $4282.75. *TR SEPTEMBER 25,2012 I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED BECAUSE IT CONTINUES TO SURG FORWARD ON A DAILY BASIS. THEY WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10479463
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
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