NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
216 reportsClear category filter73,568 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Engine
I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 680 IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC. I PUT MY FOOT ON GAS TO GO, BUT MY CAR JUST WOULDN'T GO. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I QUICKLY PULLED OVER IN THE SHOULDER ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE CAR STARTED SHAKING. I PUT MY CAR IN PARKING MODE AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED IT AGAIN, AND IT WORKED. SO…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 680 IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC. I PUT MY FOOT ON GAS TO GO, BUT MY CAR JUST WOULDN'T GO. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I QUICKLY PULLED OVER IN THE SHOULDER ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE CAR STARTED SHAKING. I PUT MY CAR IN PARKING MODE AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED IT AGAIN, AND IT WORKED. SO, I WENT INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO GET BACK ON THE HIGHWAY. AFTER ABOUT A MILE FURTHER IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC, MY CAR DID THE SAME EXACT THING. IT STOPPED WORKING, AND STARTED SHAKING WHEN I PULLED OVER TO THE SHOULDER. I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AGAIN. I WASN'T FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH DRIVING MY CAR SINCE SAME THING HAPPENED TWICE. SO, I HAD TO CALL THE TOW COMPANY AND HAD IT TOWED TO MY HOME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537353
30,300 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainUnknown Or Other
WAS DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY AT 70-75 MPH. SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND CAR STARTED TO VIBRATE. WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER WITHOUT INCIDENT BUT COULD HAVE BEEN A BAD ACCIDENT AS I WAS IN THE PASSING LANE. ONCE I PULLED OVER I NOTICE THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON WHICH INDICATES A POWERTRAIN PROBLEM. THE DEALER STATES THAT IT'S THE ELECTRONIC T…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY AT 70-75 MPH. SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND CAR STARTED TO VIBRATE. WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER WITHOUT INCIDENT BUT COULD HAVE BEEN A BAD ACCIDENT AS I WAS IN THE PASSING LANE. ONCE I PULLED OVER I NOTICE THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON WHICH INDICATES A POWERTRAIN PROBLEM. THE DEALER STATES THAT IT'S THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THIS VEHICLE HAD A SIMILAR PROBLEM ABOUT A YEAR AGO. THE THROTTLE CONTROL MODULE HAD TO BE REPLACED. FORTUNATELY AT THAT TIME THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. WITH THIS INCIDENT THE CAR IS OVER WARRANTY BY 300 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537230
30,800 miles · Aug 23, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. I CAME TO A STOP. THE CAR SHUTS OFF COMPLETELY ON ITS OWN AND WAS UNABLE TO START IT UP FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN EITHER PARK OR DRIVE. THIS ALSO HAPPENED AT APPROX. 7000 MILES. EACH TIME I TAKE IT TO THE SHOP, THEY ARE UNABLE TO REPLICATE OR FIND ANY ERRORS WITHIN THE SYSTEM, SO THEY…
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. I CAME TO A STOP. THE CAR SHUTS OFF COMPLETELY ON ITS OWN AND WAS UNABLE TO START IT UP FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN EITHER PARK OR DRIVE. THIS ALSO HAPPENED AT APPROX. 7000 MILES. EACH TIME I TAKE IT TO THE SHOP, THEY ARE UNABLE TO REPLICATE OR FIND ANY ERRORS WITHIN THE SYSTEM, SO THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT OR TRY FURTHER DIAGNOSTICS TO REPLICATE THE ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537010
53,415 miles · Aug 23, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion System
DRIVING AT 60MPH MOTOR SHUT OFF NO LIGHTS NO SOUND , NO WARNING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536976
7,700 miles · Aug 22, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE FREEWAY WHEN SUDDENLY, MY ENGINE LOST POWER. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY THROTTLE WAS COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE. FORTUNATELY, I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE, SO I WAS ABLE TO COAST SAFELY OFF THE FREEWAY AND ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SHUT MY CAR OFF, WAITED A MINUTE OR TWO, AND THEN RESTARTED MY CAR. EVE…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE FREEWAY WHEN SUDDENLY, MY ENGINE LOST POWER. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, AND MY THROTTLE WAS COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE. FORTUNATELY, I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE, SO I WAS ABLE TO COAST SAFELY OFF THE FREEWAY AND ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SHUT MY CAR OFF, WAITED A MINUTE OR TWO, AND THEN RESTARTED MY CAR. EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE AFTER THAT. THIS HAPPENED AGAIN, NOW TOTALING 6 TIMES, ALL WHILE I WAS DRIVING. WENT TO THE MECHANIC, HE CALLED THE DEALERSHIP. HE WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM AND THAT HE COULD PUT A RUSH ORDER ON IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 15% OF THE PRICE, AND IT WOULD STILL TAKE 2 WEEKS. THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS, IT WOULD WAKE SEVERAL MONTHS. I NEED MY CAR TO WORK, AND TWO THINGS BOTHER ME THE MOST: A RUSH ORDER WOULD STILL TAKE 2 WEEKS TO BE DELIVERED, AND IF IT'S A COMMON PROBLEM, IT FEELS AS THOUGH FORD IS DOING NOTHING TO ALLEVIATE IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IMPAIRS MY ABILITY TO DRIVE SAFELY ON THE ROAD. I AM CONSTANTLY PARANOID WHILE DRIVING ON THE ROAD, AND I HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE TO DRIVE MY CAR, SINCE IT'S MY ONLY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536613
80,000 miles · Aug 20, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE STALLED UPON ACCELERATION FROM STOP, AND LOST ALL THROTTLE FUNCTION. SURGES AT IDLE, AND INTERMITTENTLY STALLS. THROTTLE FAILED THE NEXT DAY AT HIGHWAY SPEED. SAME SYMPTOMS AS THE FAILED THROTTLE BODY SENSOR ISSUE THAT WAS FIXED BY OCTOBER 2009, BUT MY ESCAPE WAS BUILT IN DECEMBER '09 AFTER THE PROBLEM WAS SUPPOSEDLY …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE STALLED UPON ACCELERATION FROM STOP, AND LOST ALL THROTTLE FUNCTION. SURGES AT IDLE, AND INTERMITTENTLY STALLS. THROTTLE FAILED THE NEXT DAY AT HIGHWAY SPEED. SAME SYMPTOMS AS THE FAILED THROTTLE BODY SENSOR ISSUE THAT WAS FIXED BY OCTOBER 2009, BUT MY ESCAPE WAS BUILT IN DECEMBER '09 AFTER THE PROBLEM WAS SUPPOSEDLY FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536347
98,000 miles · Aug 19, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
THE VEHICLE IS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. DRIVING MY 2010 ESCAPE THE ENGINE STALLED. THE SPEED I WAS GOING WAS ABOUT 20 MPH. WITH NO PRIOR WARNING THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, THE RPM'S FLUCTUATED AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER SAID IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF THINGS BUT AFTER INVESTOR I FOUND IN THE INTERNET VERY SIMILAR …
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE IS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. DRIVING MY 2010 ESCAPE THE ENGINE STALLED. THE SPEED I WAS GOING WAS ABOUT 20 MPH. WITH NO PRIOR WARNING THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, THE RPM'S FLUCTUATED AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER SAID IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF THINGS BUT AFTER INVESTOR I FOUND IN THE INTERNET VERY SIMILAR BEHAVIOR WITH OTHER FORD ESCAPES AND IT SAID THAT AT THE END IT WAS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED I WAITED AFTER 3 DAYS WITH MY CAR AT THE DEALERSHIP AND CALLED THEM AND TOLD THEM TO CHECK THE THROTTLE BODY. THEY CONFIRM THAT IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACE, BUT I TOLD THEM AND YET I HAD TO PAY FOR DIAGNOSTICS AND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE THROTTLE AT MY EXPENSE AS IT WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THIS ENGINE STALL ISSUE OCCURRED 08/17/2013 TO 08/19/2013 ( 5 TIMES). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536173
41,000 miles · Aug 16, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHEN COMING TO A STOP AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM AND IDLE POSITION THE VEHICLE WILL LOOSE POWER. BY THIS I MEAN THE VEHICLE STAYS ON, LIGHTS ON DASH REMAIN ON, MOTOR IS STILL RUNNING, BUT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT ON THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE HAS SHUTTER TO IT. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT NO MATTER HOW …
Read full complaint
WHEN COMING TO A STOP AND THEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE FROM AND IDLE POSITION THE VEHICLE WILL LOOSE POWER. BY THIS I MEAN THE VEHICLE STAYS ON, LIGHTS ON DASH REMAIN ON, MOTOR IS STILL RUNNING, BUT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT ON THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE HAS SHUTTER TO IT. PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY OR HOW MUCH TIME PASSES. YOU HAVE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURN OFF THE VEHICLE, AND RESTART THE VEHICLE TO GET THE GAS PEDAL WORKING AGAIN. THIS IS A VERY VERY DANGEROUS FLAW IN THE VEHICLE AS THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME THREE TIMES IN BUSY LOS ANGELES INTERSECTIONS. I FEAR IT WILL CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. THE FORD DEALER WANTS TO CHARGE ME $800 TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY WHICH HAS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF COMPLAINTS ONLINE ABOUT THIS EXACT ISSUE. THEY REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS RECURRING AND VERY PROMINENT FLAW IN THEIR VEHICLE AND SAY EVEN THE EXTENDED WARRANTY I PURCHASED FOR $2,200 WILL NOT COVER THIS PARTICULAR PART. THIS IS VERY FRUSTRATING. HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS CAN BRING SOME JUSTICE TO THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DEALING WITH THIS EXACT ISSUE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535810
51,230 miles · Aug 15, 2013
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING FAMILY BACK TO OUT CABIN IN PIGEON FODGE TN, ALL OF SUDDEN IN THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC OUR SUV MADE A SUDDEN SURGE AND LOST FORWARD MOTION SPEED DROPPED AND IT WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 1 GRAND ON TACHOMETER. IT WOULD CRAWL BUT BARLEY. TRAFFIC BEHIND ME STARTED BLOWING THEIR HORNS. I HIT THE EMERGENCY LIGHTS. AND STARTED T…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING FAMILY BACK TO OUT CABIN IN PIGEON FODGE TN, ALL OF SUDDEN IN THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC OUR SUV MADE A SUDDEN SURGE AND LOST FORWARD MOTION SPEED DROPPED AND IT WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 1 GRAND ON TACHOMETER. IT WOULD CRAWL BUT BARLEY. TRAFFIC BEHIND ME STARTED BLOWING THEIR HORNS. I HIT THE EMERGENCY LIGHTS. AND STARTED TO GETUS OFF THE PARKWAY. WE MADE IT. THE YELLOW WRENCH APPEARED ON THE DASH AND THE SUV IDLED VERY RUFF. I TURNED IT OFF. WAITED LOOKED UNDER THE DASH. GOT THE FAMILY OUT BECAUSE IT WAS HOT OUTSIDE. THEN DID NOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM HOOD UP. STARTED THE SUV BACK UP AND IT RAN. GOT THE FAMILY BACK IN THE SUV AND WENT BACK TO CABIN. THANKS THAT IS ALL I KNOW. WE HAVE TO GO BACK HOME IN MORNING SO I HOPE I CAN MAKE IT 3 HOUR TRIP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535595
91,000 miles · Aug 14, 2013
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT A SPEED OF 75MPH WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I LOST ALL POWER TO THE DRIVE TRAIN AND THE RPM WENT DOWN TO 900. I WAS TRAVELING IN THE LEFT LANE ON THE INTERSTATE AND HAD TO MAKE MY WAY ACROSS ALL THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC WITH NO POWER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535387
Official recalls
3Oct 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.
May 24, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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.