NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,316 reports4,327 miles · Sep 17, 2014
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING ENGINE OIL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR MAIN ENGINE SEAL FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS LEAKING ENGINE OIL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR MAIN ENGINE SEAL FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 4,327.
NHTSA ODI #10637034
699 miles · Sep 17, 2014
Visibility/wiper
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE TAILGATE AND THE ENTIRE BACK WINDSHIELD SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE TEMPERATURES WERE LOWER THAN NORMAL CAUSING THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE TAILGATE AND THE ENTIRE BACK WINDSHIELD SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE TEMPERATURES WERE LOWER THAN NORMAL CAUSING THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 699.
NHTSA ODI #10637025
2,000 miles · Sep 15, 2014
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT GEARS, THE VEHICLE JERKED WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE OCCURRED TEN TIMES. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE TRANSMISSION FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 2,0…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT GEARS, THE VEHICLE JERKED WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE OCCURRED TEN TIMES. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE TRANSMISSION FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 2,000.
NHTSA ODI #10633309
34,729 miles · Sep 12, 2014
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING WE WERE ALERTED TO A PROBLEM BY A PASSING CAR. AFTER STOPPING THE MOTORHOME I WALKED BACK TO THE ESCAPE AND SAW SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE CAR. AFTER ALLOWING THE CAR TO COOL WE PROCEEDED ON TO OUR DESTINATION AND CONTACTED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER. WE WERE PROVIDED WITH AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE NEXT MORNING. AT THAT …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING WE WERE ALERTED TO A PROBLEM BY A PASSING CAR. AFTER STOPPING THE MOTORHOME I WALKED BACK TO THE ESCAPE AND SAW SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE CAR. AFTER ALLOWING THE CAR TO COOL WE PROCEEDED ON TO OUR DESTINATION AND CONTACTED THE LOCAL FORD DEALER. WE WERE PROVIDED WITH AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE NEXT MORNING. AT THAT APPOINTMENT WE WERE TOLD THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS TOTALLY DESTROYED. WHILE NO FIRE WAS PRESENT THE POTENTIAL FOR A CATASTROPHIC FIRE INVOLVING BOTH THE CAR AND THE MOTORHOME ALONG SIDE A BUSY FREEWAY WAS A POSSIBILITY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10632908
68,000 miles · Sep 12, 2014
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE SERVICE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED AND THE SERVICE AND CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE SERVICE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED AND THE SERVICE AND CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 68,000.
NHTSA ODI #10632645
57,000 miles · Sep 4, 2014
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING DOWN FREEWAY AT 85 MILES PER HOUR. VEHICLE STALLS AND RPMS OR MPH WON'T MOVE. PULL OVER PUT IN PARK, VEHICLE SHAKES REAL BAD AND WRENCH COMES ON. TURN OFF AND RESTART, WRENCH DROPS OFF. 50 MILES DOWN THE ROAD SAME INSTANCE, EXCEPT AFTER RESTARTING WRENCH DROPS AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON. BRING TO DEALERSHIP. TH…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN FREEWAY AT 85 MILES PER HOUR. VEHICLE STALLS AND RPMS OR MPH WON'T MOVE. PULL OVER PUT IN PARK, VEHICLE SHAKES REAL BAD AND WRENCH COMES ON. TURN OFF AND RESTART, WRENCH DROPS OFF. 50 MILES DOWN THE ROAD SAME INSTANCE, EXCEPT AFTER RESTARTING WRENCH DROPS AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON. BRING TO DEALERSHIP. THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM STUCK OPEN AND THEY SAY POSSIBLE RECALL. WEEK LATER GOING 65 DOWN HIGHWAY AND SAME INSTANCE HAPPENS. TAKE IT TO DIFFERENT DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAY WE HAVE THROTTLE BODY RECALL, THEY RECALIBRATE THE RECALL. NOW VEHICLE DOESN'T ALWAYS SWITCH RPMS WHEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO. IT'LL JERK BEFORE SHIFTING AND THEN WRENCH AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES BACK ON. BACK TO DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAY THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL AND POSSIBLE NEW THROTTLE BODY DOWN THE ROAD. SPENT ALMOST 1000 DOLLARS ON RECALL IN LAST COUPLE MONTHS AND NOW THEY TELLING US THE RECALL WAS JUST A RECALIBRATION AND BUT MIGHT NEED A NEW THROTTLE BODY?? WHAT WAS THE RECALL FOR. FRUSTRATED WITH FORD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10630882
Mileage unknown · Sep 2, 2014
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS REQUIRED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS REQUIRED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING).THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10630169
30,000 miles · Sep 2, 2014
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO START THE VEHICLE, THE POWER STEERING FAILED WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING, BUT THE RESULTS WERE UNKNOWN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILU…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO START THE VEHICLE, THE POWER STEERING FAILED WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING, BUT THE RESULTS WERE UNKNOWN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 30,000.
NHTSA ODI #10630146
35,328 miles · Aug 31, 2014
Power Train
AT 11 PM I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AT 55 MPH AND I THOUGHT MY CAR HAD SHUT OFF BECAUSE I NOTICED I DIDN'T HAVE ANY POWER. I TURNED DOWN THE RADIO TO HEAR FOR THE ENGINE BUT HEARD NOTHING. I HAD ENOUGH SPEED TO COAST TO A SAFE LIGHTED AREA TO INVESTIGATE WHAT WAS HAPPENING, COME TO FIND OUT THAT MY CAR WAS RUNNING BUT NO THR…
Read full complaint
AT 11 PM I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AT 55 MPH AND I THOUGHT MY CAR HAD SHUT OFF BECAUSE I NOTICED I DIDN'T HAVE ANY POWER. I TURNED DOWN THE RADIO TO HEAR FOR THE ENGINE BUT HEARD NOTHING. I HAD ENOUGH SPEED TO COAST TO A SAFE LIGHTED AREA TO INVESTIGATE WHAT WAS HAPPENING, COME TO FIND OUT THAT MY CAR WAS RUNNING BUT NO THROTTLE TO MAKE IT MOVE. A WARNING SYMBOL SHOWED UP AND IT WAS A LIGHTED WRENCH BUT I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THAT WAS UNTIL I DUG OUT MY OWNERS MANUAL THE NEXT DAY. I TURNED THE KEY OFF, RESTARTED THE ESCAPE AND MOVED ON MY WAY. I TRAVELED APPROX. 2 MORE MILES AT A SLOWER SPEED AND I LOST SPEED WITH THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARING AS WELL AS THE SERVICE ENGINE SOON LIGHT TURNING ON. I WAS APPROACHING A STOP SIGN WHEN THIS OCCURRED. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND BACK ON AGAIN AND WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT THE ADDITIONAL 1/2 MILES TO MY HOME. DOING RESEARCH I SEE THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON THAT IS HAVING THIS SAME ISSUE. I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE USED IN JUNE WITH 32,365 MILES, THIS IS THE LAST THING I EXPECTED TO HAPPEN WITH A NEWER VEHICLE. PLEASE ADVISE IF THIS IS CONSIDERED A RECALL. THANK YOU! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10629729
76,247 miles · Aug 28, 2014
Power Train
HAD NO PROBLEMS UNTIL NOW! PARKED CAR AT MY OFFICE AND 2 HOURS LATER WANTING TO LEAVE AND DID NOT MAKE IT OUT OF THE PARKING LOT. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT GET POWER; BUT ALL OTHER COMPONENTS APPEARED WORKING FINE. TURNED THE CAR OFF AND RE-STARTED; WITHIN SECONDS SAME THING HAPPEN. I WAS READY TO GO ON A 3 HOUR TRIP IN MORNING ON…
Read full complaint
HAD NO PROBLEMS UNTIL NOW! PARKED CAR AT MY OFFICE AND 2 HOURS LATER WANTING TO LEAVE AND DID NOT MAKE IT OUT OF THE PARKING LOT. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT GET POWER; BUT ALL OTHER COMPONENTS APPEARED WORKING FINE. TURNED THE CAR OFF AND RE-STARTED; WITHIN SECONDS SAME THING HAPPEN. I WAS READY TO GO ON A 3 HOUR TRIP IN MORNING ON A BUSY INTERSTATE AND NOW I AM AFRAID TO GO SINCE I DO NOT WANT TO GET RUN OVER (HAVE TO GO THROUGH MUCH INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION. THIS POWERTRAIN FAILURE IS NOT SAFE AND CREATES HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ON THE ROAD FOR EVERYONE. EVEN WITH 50 MILES PER HOUR IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE; IT IS VERY DANGEROUS LOOSING THE POWERTRAIN IN A ONE LAND-BUMPER TO BUMPER TRAFFIC WITH HEAVY TRUCKS BEHIND YOU. PICTURE YOURSELF IN THIS SITUATION. I AM CERTAINLY AFRAID TO GO ON MY BUSINESS TRIP IN THE MORNING. LIKE GUESS PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE FIRST BEFORE FORD IS TAKING SOME RECALL ACTION! MY CAR IS REGULAR MAINTAINED; THIS WAS NOT EXPECTED AT ALL! I WILL NOT BUY A FORD AGAIN! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10628996
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