NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter53,227 miles · Sep 23, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE HESITATED TO ACCELERATE. IN ADDITION, THE VEHICLE SPORADICALLY FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: DP12006 (ENGINE) AND STATED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE HESITATED TO ACCELERATE. IN ADDITION, THE VEHICLE SPORADICALLY FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: DP12006 (ENGINE) AND STATED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO COMPLETE THE REPAIR UNDER THE TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 53,227. THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO ACCELERATE AT 5 MPH.
NHTSA ODI #10544922
40,200 miles · Sep 23, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, MY SUV JERKED SLIGHTLY AND THEN JUST DECELERATED, AND I COULD NOT MAINTAIN SPEED. I HAD TO CROSS OVER 3 LANES TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE SUV OFF. THERE WAS NO WARNING, AND I HAD NOT APPLIED THE BREAK. I NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE DASHBOARD. I WAITED A MINUTE AND TURNED THE SUV …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, MY SUV JERKED SLIGHTLY AND THEN JUST DECELERATED, AND I COULD NOT MAINTAIN SPEED. I HAD TO CROSS OVER 3 LANES TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE SUV OFF. THERE WAS NO WARNING, AND I HAD NOT APPLIED THE BREAK. I NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE DASHBOARD. I WAITED A MINUTE AND TURNED THE SUV ON AGAIN. I WAS ABLE TO GET TO MY DESTINATION, HOWEVER, DURING THIS TRIP, THE SUV JERKED SLIGHTLY AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME THERE WAS A SLIGHT ACCELERATION. I WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN A SAFE SPEED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TRIP, AS IT ONLY LASTED FOR A COUPLE SECONDS. I CONTACTED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THE CAR AND WHERE I REGULARLY TAKE THE CAR FOR MAINTENANCE. THE SERVICEMAN KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS WHEN I DESCRIBED THE PROBLEMS I WAS HAVING. HE SUGGESTED I BRING THE CAR IN FOR SERVICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, AND THEY REPLACED THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE. I WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, BUT SINCE I HAD AN EXTENDED WARRANTY, THEY WOULD ONLY CHARGE ME $100.00. WHEN I PICKED UP THE CAR, I ACTUALLY PAID $106.00, AND I WAS NEVER INFORMED THAT THIS WAS A RECALLED PART. I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ANYTHING, AS FORD WAS WELL AWARE THAT THIS PART WAS DEFECTIVE AND HAVE BEEN FOR MANY MONTHS NOW.
NHTSA ODI #10544918
50,100 miles · Sep 21, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY MY VEHICLE WENT STRAIGHT TO LIMP MODE WITH NO WARNING AT ALL. I HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY WHILE TRAFFIC WAS STOPPING BEHIND ME AND TRYING TO PASS ME. A WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND I COULD NOT THROTTLE MY VEHICLE AT ALL. I CUT THE IGNITION OFF, LET IT SIT A MINUTE AN…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY MY VEHICLE WENT STRAIGHT TO LIMP MODE WITH NO WARNING AT ALL. I HAD TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY WHILE TRAFFIC WAS STOPPING BEHIND ME AND TRYING TO PASS ME. A WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND I COULD NOT THROTTLE MY VEHICLE AT ALL. I CUT THE IGNITION OFF, LET IT SIT A MINUTE AND CRANKED IT AGAIN. THE PROBLEM WENT AWAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES THE LAST 2 DAYS. IT HAS HAPPENED WHILE TRYING TO GO THROUGH INTERSECTIONS AND WHILE TURNING ACROSS TRAFFIC. THE DIAGNOSTICS AT ADVANCED AUTO SHOWS THROTTLE BODY STUCK OPEN. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION THAT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING TO A LOT OF THESE VEHICLES.
NHTSA ODI #10544793
44,400 miles · Sep 20, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY DAUGHTER WAS ENTERING AN INTERSECTION PREPARING TO TURN LEFT. WHEN SHE GOT ENOUGH OF A CLEARING BETWEEN VEHICLES TO TURN SHE WENT TO ACCELERATE TO GO THRU WITH THE LEFT TURN AND SHE HAD NO GAS TO GO. THE PEDDLE HIT THE FLOOR AND THE CAR DIED. SHE WAS ABLE TO COAST THRU THE LIGHT WITH OUT BEING HIT. BUT AFTER THAT THE CAR HA…
Read full complaint
MY DAUGHTER WAS ENTERING AN INTERSECTION PREPARING TO TURN LEFT. WHEN SHE GOT ENOUGH OF A CLEARING BETWEEN VEHICLES TO TURN SHE WENT TO ACCELERATE TO GO THRU WITH THE LEFT TURN AND SHE HAD NO GAS TO GO. THE PEDDLE HIT THE FLOOR AND THE CAR DIED. SHE WAS ABLE TO COAST THRU THE LIGHT WITH OUT BEING HIT. BUT AFTER THAT THE CAR HAD TO BE TOWED HOME. WE HAD TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY ON THE VEHICLE. SHE WAS VERY LUCKY NOT TO BE IN A SERIOUS CRASH BECAUSE OF THIS PART GOING BAD! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10544537
2,000 miles · Sep 16, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE JERKED AND THEN ACCELERATED RAPIDLY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER A FEW MONTHS LATER BECAUSE THE TRANSMISSIONS WARNING LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE JERKED AND THEN ACCELERATED RAPIDLY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER A FEW MONTHS LATER BECAUSE THE TRANSMISSIONS WARNING LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 2,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10543802
18,000 miles · Sep 13, 2013
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES WITHOUT WARNING. THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY WHICH CORRECTED THE FAILURE. THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM RECENTLY FAILED AND WOULD BLOW HOT AIR. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES WITHOUT WARNING. THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY WHICH CORRECTED THE FAILURE. THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM RECENTLY FAILED AND WOULD BLOW HOT AIR. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 18,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 30,000.
NHTSA ODI #10543438
46,000 miles · Sep 12, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING IN THE LEFT HAND LANE ON A BUSY, BUSY DALLAS HIGHWAY AT 60+ MPH, THE ENGINE FAILED. I MANAGED TO PULL OVER -- ACROSS 3 LANES OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC -- WITHOUT GETTING HIT FROM BEHIND, WHILE BEING HONKED AT ALONG THE WAY, AND MANAGED TO PULL OVER ON A SMALL SHOULDER. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND RESTARTED IT. THE NEXT T…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING IN THE LEFT HAND LANE ON A BUSY, BUSY DALLAS HIGHWAY AT 60+ MPH, THE ENGINE FAILED. I MANAGED TO PULL OVER -- ACROSS 3 LANES OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC -- WITHOUT GETTING HIT FROM BEHIND, WHILE BEING HONKED AT ALONG THE WAY, AND MANAGED TO PULL OVER ON A SMALL SHOULDER. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND RESTARTED IT. THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, IT DID THE SAME THING A FEW MORE TIMES, BUT I WAS DRIVING IN THE FAR RIGHT LANE SO IT WAS LESS PRECARIOUS. I TOOK IT INTO THE DEALERSHIP, WHERE THEY DIAGNOSED A THROTTLE BODY FAILURE. MY VEHICLE HAS 46,000 MILES ONLY ON IT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH FORDS BUT THEY WILL NOT RECALL AND FIX THE PROBLEM. SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE KILLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10543371
35,000 miles · Sep 9, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE LOST POWER. WOULD ONLY IDLE. WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED. HAD TO SHUT VEHICLE OFF AND RESTART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10542785
25,944 miles · Sep 9, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)EngineFuel System, Gasoline
WHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH, ENGINE CUT OUT BUT REMAINED IDLING WITH NO POWER. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD, SHUT CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED WHILE IN "PARK" GEAR POSITION. TRAVELED 1500 MILES WITHOUT INCIDENT, THEN ENGINE LOST POWER ON 08/12/2013 WHILE TRAVELING 70 MPH ON FREEWAY. PULLED TO SIDE OF FREEWAY AND RESTARTED CAR WHILE IN "PARK."…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH, ENGINE CUT OUT BUT REMAINED IDLING WITH NO POWER. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD, SHUT CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED WHILE IN "PARK" GEAR POSITION. TRAVELED 1500 MILES WITHOUT INCIDENT, THEN ENGINE LOST POWER ON 08/12/2013 WHILE TRAVELING 70 MPH ON FREEWAY. PULLED TO SIDE OF FREEWAY AND RESTARTED CAR WHILE IN "PARK." CAR RAN FINE FOR ANOTHER 1500 MILES, THEN ON 09/06/2013 BEGAN LOSING POWER SEVERAL TIMES WHILE GOING 30 MPH (ODOMETER WAS AT 28,944). LIMPED HOME AND CALLED LINCOLN/FORD DEALERSHIP AND ARRANGED FOR TOW. CAR IS PRESENTLY AT DEALERSHIP WAITING FOR WARRANTY REPAIR; "THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY" ON ORDER. THERE WAS NO RECALL NOTICE SENT TO ME REGARDING THIS FORD ESCAPE ENGINE FAULT. THE FREEWAY LOSS OF POWER INCIDENT PUT FAMILY IN EXTREME DANGER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO GET TO SIDE OF ROAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10542712
46,000 miles · Sep 7, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING TO WORK IN THE MORNING AND MY ESCAPE STALLED WHILE GOING THROUGH A FOUR WAY INTERSECTION. I THOUGHT THAT THIS MAY HAVE BEEN AN ISOLATED INCIDENT SO I CONTINUED DRIVING. I THEN NOTICED WHILE I WAS IN TRAFFIC THAT THE ENGINE WOULD SHUTTER AND NOT IDLE NORMALLY. IT STALLED AGAIN THE NEXT DAY. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEA…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING TO WORK IN THE MORNING AND MY ESCAPE STALLED WHILE GOING THROUGH A FOUR WAY INTERSECTION. I THOUGHT THAT THIS MAY HAVE BEEN AN ISOLATED INCIDENT SO I CONTINUED DRIVING. I THEN NOTICED WHILE I WAS IN TRAFFIC THAT THE ENGINE WOULD SHUTTER AND NOT IDLE NORMALLY. IT STALLED AGAIN THE NEXT DAY. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN THE CITY WHERE I LIVE WITH THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON, THEY TESTED IT AND THEN THE LIGHT RESET ITSELF?? THEY TOOK IT ON A TEST DRIVE AND NOTHING HAPPENED WITH THEM WHILE THEY WERE DRIVING SO THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THEY COULD DO. MY CAR IS SHUTTING OFF WHILE I AM IN TRAFIC AND DRIVING, THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. I HAVE BEEN BLESSED THAT THE BRAKES WORK ON THE CARS THAT DRIVE AROUND ME OR ELSE I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION THIS WEEK!!! PLEASE RECALL THESE CARS AND GET THEM FIXED BEFORE SOMEONE DIES!!!!
NHTSA ODI #10542431
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