NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,316 reports46,592 miles · May 7, 2013
Power Train
I HAVE A 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE CAR QUIT MOVING FORWARD ON ITS ENGINE POWER. I HAD TO PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START MY VEHICLE TO MAKE IT RUN CORRECTLY. I TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND FOUND OUT THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE. THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH SOME FORD VEHICLES …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE CAR QUIT MOVING FORWARD ON ITS ENGINE POWER. I HAD TO PULL OFF THE ROAD AND RE-START MY VEHICLE TO MAKE IT RUN CORRECTLY. I TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND FOUND OUT THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE. THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH SOME FORD VEHICLES ( ACCORDING TO THE SERVICE MGR IT IS MORE OF AN ISSUE WITH THE FUSION BUT THEY ARE SEEING IT WITH THE ESCAPE ALSO). OF COURSE I'M OUT OF WARRANTY BY 10,000 MILES AND THE REPAIR IS 750.00. I FEEL LIKE FORD IS SIDE STEPPING THIS AND I CONSIDER THIS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. IF MINE WAS NOT THE NORM I COULD UNDERSTAND BUT THE FACT THAT EVEN THE PART IS HARD TO GET AND FORD IS THE ONLY MANUFACTURER OF IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING. NEEDLESS TO SAY--I'M GOING BACK TO GM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510984
49,325 miles · Apr 30, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ON 27 APRIL 2013 AT APPROXIMATELY 0930, I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 70MPH ON I-475 ON MY WAY FROM MACON, GA TO ATLANTA, GA WHEN I LOST ALL POWER AND CONTROL OF MY GAS PEDAL/THROTTLE BODY SYSTEM. I FELT A JERKING MOTION OF THE VEHICLE, IT BEGAN TO DECELERATE, AND I NOTICED THE WRENCH ICON LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ON THE DA…
Read full complaint
ON 27 APRIL 2013 AT APPROXIMATELY 0930, I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 70MPH ON I-475 ON MY WAY FROM MACON, GA TO ATLANTA, GA WHEN I LOST ALL POWER AND CONTROL OF MY GAS PEDAL/THROTTLE BODY SYSTEM. I FELT A JERKING MOTION OF THE VEHICLE, IT BEGAN TO DECELERATE, AND I NOTICED THE WRENCH ICON LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ON THE DASH. I DID NOT LOSE POWER TO THE REST OF MY VEHICLE, ONLY THE ABILITY OF THE GAS PEDAL TO ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO COAST ACROSS A LANE OF TRAFFIC AND COME TO A STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE. AFTER TURNING OFF THE CAR, I WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT, THE WARNING LIGHT TURNED OFF, AND I ONCE AGAIN HAD POWER TO THE GAS PEDAL. AFTER DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MORE MILES, THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN. I WAS THEN ABLE TO GET MY VEHICLE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, WHO TOLD ME I HAD A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. THEY SAID THE THROTTLE WAS STICKING IN THE CLOSED POSITION AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. WITH SO MANY VEHICLES HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM, I FEEL THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY CONCERN. I AM EXTREMELY LUCKY THE INTERSTATE WAS NOT BUSY AT THE TIME MY VEHICLE STALLED TWICE AND MY FAMILY WAS NOT SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED FROM A REAR-END COLLISON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510047
48,800 miles · Apr 25, 2013
EnginePower Train
MY ESCAPE HAD BEEN RUNNING ROUGH TODAY AND DECIDED MAYBE I NEEDED TO TAKE IT ON THE INTERSTATE. WHILE DOING ABOUT 65 THE "OPEN WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON AND I LOST COMPLETE POWER. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. I COASTED TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. I PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTED THE ESCAPE AND WAS ABLE …
Read full complaint
MY ESCAPE HAD BEEN RUNNING ROUGH TODAY AND DECIDED MAYBE I NEEDED TO TAKE IT ON THE INTERSTATE. WHILE DOING ABOUT 65 THE "OPEN WRENCH" LIGHT CAME ON AND I LOST COMPLETE POWER. I COULD NOT ACCELERATE OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. I COASTED TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. I PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTED THE ESCAPE AND WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT HOME. I HAD READ ABOUT NUMEROUS OTHER RELATED ISSUES ON THIS PROBLEM WITH THE FORD ESCAPE. I AM GLAD I WAS IN THE RIGHT HAND LAND AND NOT THE LEFT LANE; IT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY DANGEROUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10509614
42,184 miles · Apr 20, 2013
Power Train
IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC, THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON DRIVING 60 MPH CAR SLOWED DOWN, WOULD NOT ACCELERATED, JERKED,, WAS ABLE TO EXIT, TURNED OFF RESTARTED , MADE IT WORK OK, DROVE HOME ABOUT 22 MILES, NO PROBLEM. WENT FOR DINNER STOPPED AT RED LIGHT, WOULD NOT GO WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN, TURN OFF RESTART, TAKEN TO DEALER ON SA…
Read full complaint
IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC, THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON DRIVING 60 MPH CAR SLOWED DOWN, WOULD NOT ACCELERATED, JERKED,, WAS ABLE TO EXIT, TURNED OFF RESTARTED , MADE IT WORK OK, DROVE HOME ABOUT 22 MILES, NO PROBLEM. WENT FOR DINNER STOPPED AT RED LIGHT, WOULD NOT GO WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN, TURN OFF RESTART, TAKEN TO DEALER ON SATURDAY MORNING WAS TOLD NOT PART OF POWERTRAIN. COST $531 FOR REPAIR, VERY DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE TO DRIVE ON A MAJOR ROAD IN DALLAS.. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508900
40,600 miles · Apr 19, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainUnknown Or Other
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A ROAD GOING APPROX. 50MPH, I SUDDENLY, AND WITHOUT WARNING, LOST POWER TO THE VEHICLE. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES, IT WOULD TEND TO LUNGE FORWARD. ONCE STOPPED, I PLACED IN PARK, SHUT OFF ENGINE THE ATTEMPTED TO START UP AGAIN. IT DID START UP, HOWEVER, IT HAPPENED 2 MOR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A ROAD GOING APPROX. 50MPH, I SUDDENLY, AND WITHOUT WARNING, LOST POWER TO THE VEHICLE. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES, IT WOULD TEND TO LUNGE FORWARD. ONCE STOPPED, I PLACED IN PARK, SHUT OFF ENGINE THE ATTEMPTED TO START UP AGAIN. IT DID START UP, HOWEVER, IT HAPPENED 2 MORE TIMES LATER THAT DAY. I WOULD HATE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN WHILE TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN WITH ONCOMING TRAFFIC....COULD BE DEADLY!!! FORD NEEDS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND MAKE THIS RIGHT AS I HAVE NOW READ FAR TOO MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS EXACT SAME THING. THE NEXT OCCURRENCE COULD BE INJURY OR EVEN DEATH. I SHOULD NOTE THAT AS OF 1 WEEK LATER, I HAVE NOT HAD THE PROBLEM FIXED YET AND THE INCIDENT DESCRIBED ABOVE HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST 2 TIMES PER DAY NOW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508861
47,000 miles · Apr 19, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 70 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY JUST BEGAN SLOWING DOWN. THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON BUT DID NOT MAKE A NOISE TO INDICATE A PROBLEM. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY VEER OFF TO THE SHOULDER BECAUSE, LUCKILY, I WAS IN THE SLOW LANE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508827
32,400 miles · Apr 17, 2013
Visibility/wiper
TIME OF INCIDENT: 7:45AM, DRIVING 40MPH, APPROX. OUTSIDE TEMP: 70 DEGREES, CONDITIONS: DRY 40 MINUTES INTO DRIVE TIME ON SMOOTH PAVEMENT, HEARD LOUD EXPLOSION OUTSIDE OF VEHICLE ON PASSENGER SIDE FRONT DOOR. THE PASSENGER SIDE MIRROR GLASS LITERALLY EXPLODED OFF THE MIRROR MOTOR AND IMPACTED THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW WITH SUCH …
Read full complaint
TIME OF INCIDENT: 7:45AM, DRIVING 40MPH, APPROX. OUTSIDE TEMP: 70 DEGREES, CONDITIONS: DRY 40 MINUTES INTO DRIVE TIME ON SMOOTH PAVEMENT, HEARD LOUD EXPLOSION OUTSIDE OF VEHICLE ON PASSENGER SIDE FRONT DOOR. THE PASSENGER SIDE MIRROR GLASS LITERALLY EXPLODED OFF THE MIRROR MOTOR AND IMPACTED THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW WITH SUCH FORCE THAT IT LEFT AN OUTLINE OF THE MIRROR ALONG WITH PUTTING GASHES IN THE WINDOW, A GASH IN THE RUBBER MOLDING AND A WHITE POWDER RESIDUE, AND THEN PROJECTED APPROX 6 FEET AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE. I WENT BACK TO LOCATE AND RETRIEVE THE MIRROR GLASS SO I COULD BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF MY DEALERSHIP. I AM ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE THERE WAS NO OBJECT THAT HIT THE MIRROR GLASS. THE SEPARATION OF MIRROR GLASS FROM THE MOTOR WAS CLEAN. NO REMNANTS OF MIRROR GLASS ON MOTOR ASSEMBLY OR WITHIN THE MIRROR HOUSING ITSELF. THE MIRROR HOUSING HAS NO DAMAGE TO THE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE. MY VEHICLE ALSO HAS NO DAMAGE OTHER THAN AT THE POINT OF IMPACT ON PASSENGER WINDOW - ALL CONFIRMED BY MY DEALERSHIP. DEALERSHIP SUBMITTED PICS W/DESCRIPTION TO FORD COMPANY. FORD COMPANY RESPONDED WITH "UNWARRANTED" STATING AN OBJECT HIT THE MIRROR PER THE GREEN ARROW POINTING TO THE PLACE OF IMPACT ON THE PICTURE. CLEARLY FORD COMPANY IS INCORRECT AND OUTLANDISHLY SO. THE ALLEGED POINT OF IMPACT IS AN AREA NO MORE THAN 3/16 INCH. THE PLACEMENT OF THE IMPACT IS SUCH THAT IT WOULD HAVE PROJECTED THE MIRROR GLASS IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THE SPEED OF THE ALLEGED OBJECT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. THE TRUTH IS, THERE WAS NO PHANTOM OBJECT. FORD COMPANY FURTHER REVIEWING AND WILL CONTACT ME THIS WEEK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508562
43,082 miles · Apr 14, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE PURCHASED JANUARY 2013 WITH ~37K MILES. FIRST MONTH OF OWNERSHIP, I HAD CODE INDICATING A FUEL DELIVERY PROBLEM BUT IT CLEARED ON ITS OWN. I ATTRIBUTED IT TO BAD GAS, THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE WARNING SIGN I MISSED. TODAY ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH, IT FELT LIKE THE VEHICLE SHIFTED OUT OF SEQUENCE, NOTI…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE PURCHASED JANUARY 2013 WITH ~37K MILES. FIRST MONTH OF OWNERSHIP, I HAD CODE INDICATING A FUEL DELIVERY PROBLEM BUT IT CLEARED ON ITS OWN. I ATTRIBUTED IT TO BAD GAS, THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE WARNING SIGN I MISSED. TODAY ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH, IT FELT LIKE THE VEHICLE SHIFTED OUT OF SEQUENCE, NOTICING THE LACK OF POWER/LOW RPMS I TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS TO NO AVAIL. I SAFELY NAVIGATED TO THE SHOULDER AS IT COASTED DOWN TO A STOP. THE ORANGE WRENCH LIT UP. UPON STOPPING THE CAR SPUTTERED HARD AND THREATENED TO STALL. THE GAS PEDAL WAS USELESS. I SHUT THE CAR OFF, SHUT OFF THE RADIO/AC AND GAVE IT A MOMENT. IT RESTARTED WITH MINOR HESITATION. THE ORANGE WRENCH HAD CLEARED BUT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME IN (IT STAYED IN THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST). IT IDLED OK, ALLOWED ME TO ADMINISTER FUEL AND REV THE ENGINE. THINKING THE PROBLEM HAD PASSED, I MERGED BACK ONTO THE HIGHWAY AND CAME UP TO SPEED. ABOUT A HALF A MILE LATER I FELT THE NOTED LOSS OF ENGINE POWER (I BELIEVE THIS IS THE "LIMP-HOME" METHOD THAT IS CITED IN SOME THINGS I HAVE READ TODAY). AGAIN, MY GAS PEDAL IS USELESS AND I RE-ENGAGE THE HAZARDS AND MOVE OFF OF THE ROAD. THIS TIME THE CAR DOES NOT STALL BUT IDLES AROUND 900RPM WITH SOME SPUTTERING. GAS PEDAL IS STILL USELESS. I RINSE AND REPEAT THE ABOVE PROCESS A THIRD TIME, WHEN IT DOES THE SAME THING ANOTHER HALF MILE LATER, I GIVE UP AND CALL A MORE CAR SAVOY FRIEND. HIS FIRST GUESS IS ALSO FUEL PUMP/SOMETHING CLOGGED BUT WE ARE BOTH BAFFLED BECAUSE THE SYMPTOMS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANY CONDITION WE HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED. DECIDING IT COULD BE NURSED HOME, THE FOURTH ATTEMPT AT STARTING IT, I MADE THE LAST 2 MILES STAYING 40MPH OR BELOW. THERE WAS NO SPUTTERING/LOSS OF FUEL DELIVERY CAPABILITIES DURING THIS ATTEMPT. AFTER SOME RESEARCH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMON THROTTLE BODY ISSUES FOUND ME... *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508166
7,000 miles · Apr 3, 2013
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
DRIVING ABOUT 30 MPH, WHEN THE LIGHT CHANGED TO YELLOW. I PUT MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE, BUT INSTEAD OF STOPPING, THE CAR LUNGED FORWARD AND I HIT THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. I CALLED THE POLICE AND A POLICE REPORT IS AVAILABLE. ... UPDATED 04/11/13 *BF
NHTSA ODI #10508003
40,000 miles · Apr 3, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 2 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY LUNGED FORWARD AS THE CONTACT WAS BRAKING TO A COMPLETE STOP. IN ADDITION, THE WRENCH WARNING SYMBOL ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO DETECTED THAT THE THROT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 2 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY LUNGED FORWARD AS THE CONTACT WAS BRAKING TO A COMPLETE STOP. IN ADDITION, THE WRENCH WARNING SYMBOL ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO DETECTED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ACTUATOR WAS FAULTY. THE CONTACT PLANNED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR THE REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE MALFUNCTION. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000.
NHTSA ODI #10505579
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