← New search

2010 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Escape years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Ford Escape are substantially higher than the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,764 reports with mileage · 305 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 558 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 508 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 493 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

29 crash reports3 fire reports19 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

216 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Oct 5, 2021
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion System

1.2010 Ford Escape Electronic Throttle Body issue investigated by the NHTSA. 2. Hesitations, surges, stalls. Ford has issued a CSP 13N03 with time and mileage limits. This is a safety issue effecting many Ford vehicles and the symptoms may not surface until beyond the CSP 13N03 time limits imposed by Ford, as in my case. These e…

Read full complaint

1.2010 Ford Escape Electronic Throttle Body issue investigated by the NHTSA. 2. Hesitations, surges, stalls. Ford has issued a CSP 13N03 with time and mileage limits. This is a safety issue effecting many Ford vehicles and the symptoms may not surface until beyond the CSP 13N03 time limits imposed by Ford, as in my case. These electronic throttle body hesitations, surges and stalls are very dangerous and result in compromised safety for the driver, their passengers and others on the road. I have come very close to a collision on two separate occasions because of this issue. The NHTSA should force Ford to reclassify this issue as a recall with no time nor mileage limits or lift the current program time and mileage limits for people like me who are beyond the time limit who have just recently developed this problem. This is a mechanical defect as well as a safety issue. 3. Problem confirmed by Ford dealership. 4. Dash warnings - check engine light and wrench lights illuminated. In my case, these have gone on and off, vehicle demonstrates hesitations, surges, stalls, then resets itself and the vehicle functions normally. This has happened twice over the last few months. Just recently, the warning lights have stayed illuminated and the symptoms are now constant.

NHTSA ODI #11435482

Mileage unknown · Sep 25, 2021
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion System

Unknown

NHTSA ODI #11434343

37,000 miles · Apr 10, 2021
Electrical SystemPower TrainUnknown Or Other

FIRST I NOTICE THE CAR JUST DROP GEARS AND NEARLY STOP ON THE OFF RAMP OF THE HIGHWAY. SECOND TIME I TRIED TO REVERSE AND IT WOULD NOT MOVE AND I HAD TO CALL A TOW TRUCK TO TAKE IT TO THE GARAGE. FORD TOLD ME IT NEEDED A NEW TRANSMISSION. FORD DEALERSHIP WANTED TO CHARGE ME OVER $ 5000 FOR THE JOB. I WINDED UP GOING TO A LEE MYL…

Read full complaint

FIRST I NOTICE THE CAR JUST DROP GEARS AND NEARLY STOP ON THE OFF RAMP OF THE HIGHWAY. SECOND TIME I TRIED TO REVERSE AND IT WOULD NOT MOVE AND I HAD TO CALL A TOW TRUCK TO TAKE IT TO THE GARAGE. FORD TOLD ME IT NEEDED A NEW TRANSMISSION. FORD DEALERSHIP WANTED TO CHARGE ME OVER $ 5000 FOR THE JOB. I WINDED UP GOING TO A LEE MYLES THAT CHARGE COST TO $ 4000 FOR THE REPAIRS IT HAD DONE. NOW FEW MONTHS LATER AND THE VEHICLE IS SHAKING UPON START UP AND IDILING. WHENEVER I DRIVE THE CAR IT FEELS LIKE ITS JERKS SLIGHTLY WHEN GOING AT HIGHER SPEEDS. CHANGED OUT THE AIR FILTER, REBUILT TRANSMISSION AND STILL HAVING PROBLEM AFTER PROBLEMS WITH THIS 2010 FORD ESCAPE.

NHTSA ODI #11407340

Mileage unknown · Feb 16, 2021
Electrical System

BATTERY CONSTANTLY DIES IF LEFT UNUSED FOR MORE THAN 2-3 DAYS. NOTHING IS EVER LEFT ON, NO RADIO, NO LIGHTS, NOTHING BUT SOMETHING KEEPS DRAINING THE BATTERY

NHTSA ODI #11396429

76,152 miles · Feb 11, 2021
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System

@12:56PM ON 2/11/2021, MY CAR SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING LOST ALL ELECTRICAL POWER, ACCELERATION, LIGHTS, PEDAL/GAS COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE. THE TIME REMAINED ON. IT WAS 19* F WITH NO PRECIPITATION ON DRY/PARTLY SNOWY PAVEMENT ON HIGHWAY US31 JUST S OF THE NORTH MUSKEGON/BUSINESS 31 BYPASS. I WAS GOING ABOUT 75 MPH AND ADJUSTE…

Read full complaint

@12:56PM ON 2/11/2021, MY CAR SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING LOST ALL ELECTRICAL POWER, ACCELERATION, LIGHTS, PEDAL/GAS COMPLETELY UNRESPONSIVE. THE TIME REMAINED ON. IT WAS 19* F WITH NO PRECIPITATION ON DRY/PARTLY SNOWY PAVEMENT ON HIGHWAY US31 JUST S OF THE NORTH MUSKEGON/BUSINESS 31 BYPASS. I WAS GOING ABOUT 75 MPH AND ADJUSTED THE CRUISE CONTROL TO SLOW FOR ANOTHER VEHICLE SHORTLY BEFORE THE SHUTOFF. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THAT IS RELATED, BECAUSE THE TIMING WAS NOT IMMEDIATE. I HAD NOT CHANGED LANES IN MORE THAN A MILE, ALTHOUGH THE ROAD DOES TWIST SLIGHTLY IN THAT LOCATION. I HAD ON AUTOMATIC LIGHTS, DEFROST AND REAR DEFROST, BLUETOOTH AUDIO, AND CRUISE CONTROL. MY TANK WAS JUST BELOW 1/2 FULL OF GAS AND THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BUT IS NOT STORED IN A GARAGE OVERNIGHT. I COASTED TO AN EMERGENCY LANE ON THE PASSING LANE, TURNED THE KEY OFF (OTHER THAN THE TIME, AUDIO, AND BRAKES, NOTHING ELSE WOULD RESPOND.) I STARTED THE CAR AGAIN AFTER ABOUT 60 SECONDS, IT STARTED WITHOUT PROBLEM, AND I COULD CONTINUE TO MY VACCINE APPOINTMENT WITH NO DISCERNIBLE SIGNS OF ANY OTHER ISSUE OR ERROR. IT WAS TERRIFYING.

NHTSA ODI #11395764

157,000 miles · Jan 15, 2021
Electrical SystemSteering

POWER STEERING STOPPED ON CAR. TURNED CAR ON IN THE MORNING AND GOT A MESSAGE "POWER STEERING ASSIST FAULT" ON DASH. WENT TO DRIVE CAR AND POWER STEERING WAS NOT WORKING.

NHTSA ODI #11388345

150,251 miles · Dec 26, 2020
Electrical SystemSteeringVehicle Speed Control

THIS VECHICAL IS BEING FINANCED THROUGH CENTRAL AUTO SALES OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS. THIS VECHICAL HAS SERIOUS ISSUES, I CONTACTED CENTRAL AUTO ABOUT MY CAR NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. IT KEPT STALLING ON FREEWAY THAT I WAS BARELY MISSED BY A DIESAL TRUCK HITTING ME. I TOLD THEM IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY CONTROL POWER TRAIN THAT'S …

Read full complaint

THIS VECHICAL IS BEING FINANCED THROUGH CENTRAL AUTO SALES OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS. THIS VECHICAL HAS SERIOUS ISSUES, I CONTACTED CENTRAL AUTO ABOUT MY CAR NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. IT KEPT STALLING ON FREEWAY THAT I WAS BARELY MISSED BY A DIESAL TRUCK HITTING ME. I TOLD THEM IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY CONTROL POWER TRAIN THAT'S KEEP STALLING. THEY PICKED THE CAR UP KEPT IT FOR 2DAYS DIDN'T FIX IT BUT WANTED TO CHARGE ME $344 FOR REPAIRS THAT WASN'T DONE. GOT CAR BACK IN SAME POSITION AND IT STALLED AGAIN ON ME IN MIDDLE OF FREEWAY ALMOST CAUSING A CRASH. I HAD TO BUY MY PART AND HAD SOMEONE TO PUT THE THROTTLE BODY ON. NOW IT'S THE STEERING WHEEL IT WON'T TURN PROPERLY IT'S SO HARD TO TURN LIKE IT'S LOCK CAUSE IT MAKE A CLICKING SOUND BEFORE IT COMPLETELY LOCK. I CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP AND TOLD THEM WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AND THEY SENT ME A TEXT TOLD ME TO DO WHATEVER I WANT. THIS VECHICAL IS A HAZARD TO DRIVE. BUT THEY WANT $210 CAR NOTE PAYMENT FOR A NON FUNCTIONING CAR. I ASKED COULD I TRADE IT BACK IN TO THEM GOT NO REPLY ONLY ABOUT A CAR PAYMENT WHICH I NEVER MISSED A PAYMENT. AND IT ALSO RAINS IN THE CAR YOU CAN HERE THE WATER IN THE DOORS AND THE FLOOR BE SOAKED.

NHTSA ODI #11385005

191,480 miles · Nov 16, 2020
Electrical SystemSteering

WHILE MAKING A TURN, THE ELECTRICAL STEERING ASSIST DISENGAGED FOR A FEW SECONDS AND A BEEPING ALARM SOUNDED THREE TIMES. THIS HAPPENED TO ME ON ANOTHER OCCASION. AFTER THE SECOND TIME I GOT THE CAR BACK HOME AND PARKED IT UNTIL I COULD DETERMINE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. FOUND THE SAME HAPPENINGS ON THE NHTSA WEBSITE. THERE WAS A RE…

Read full complaint

WHILE MAKING A TURN, THE ELECTRICAL STEERING ASSIST DISENGAGED FOR A FEW SECONDS AND A BEEPING ALARM SOUNDED THREE TIMES. THIS HAPPENED TO ME ON ANOTHER OCCASION. AFTER THE SECOND TIME I GOT THE CAR BACK HOME AND PARKED IT UNTIL I COULD DETERMINE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. FOUND THE SAME HAPPENINGS ON THE NHTSA WEBSITE. THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM AND MY ESCAPE WAS ONE OF THE RECALL VINS. IN 2014, I TOOK IT TO FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY DID WHATEVER WAS REQUIRED AT THAT TIME. I NEVER HAD AN ISSUE BEFORE THE RECALL, AND THEY APPARENTLY DID THE REPLACEMENT TO KEEP THE ELECTRICAL ASSIST FROM DISENGAGING. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY EXTENDED THE WARRANTY 10 YEARS OR 150,000 MILES. MY ESCAPE IS AT 191,000 MILES CURRENTLY. FORD SERVICE SAYS THEY CANNOT FIX IT WITHOUT ME COVERING THE COST, AND IF ANOTHER RECALL IS ISSUED, FORD MAY REIMBURSE ME. I BELIEVE ANOTHER RECALL SHOULD BE REQUIRED AS VEHICLES TODAY ARE DRIVEN MORE MILES THAT 150K. IT IS DANGEROUS WHEN THE STEERING ASSIST DISENGAGES AS NO POWER STEERING IS AVAILABLE. THE STEERING WHEEL IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN WHEN THE ASSIST GOES OUT. FORTUNATELY, I DID NOT HIT ANYTHING AS THE STEERING ASSIST REENGAGED WHILE STILL IN MY TURN. IF IT HAD NOT REENGAGED AT THAT EXACT TIME, NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT I WOULD HAVE HIT THE VEHICLE IN THE OTHER LANE. I WAS ON A HIGHWAY AT THE TIME IT FIRST HAPPENED AND THE SECOND TIME IT OCCURRED I WAS TURNING INTO SOMEONE'S DRIVEWAY.

NHTSA ODI #11374830

175,000 miles · Nov 2, 2020
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Steering

ON OCTOBER 19, 2020 MY GRANDCHILDREN AND I WHERE TRAVELING BACK HOME FROM SAN DIEGO, CA TO GEORGIA AND AS WE WHERE DRIVING ON HWY 20 IN TEXAS, I HIT A BUMP THE CAR BECAME VERY DIFFICULT TO STEER. I SLOWLY DROVE THE CAR TO KILGORE, TEXAS TOOK THE CARE TO AUTOMOTIVE SUPER CENTER 1505 US HWY 259 NORTH BUSINESS KILGORE, TX 75663. C…

Read full complaint

ON OCTOBER 19, 2020 MY GRANDCHILDREN AND I WHERE TRAVELING BACK HOME FROM SAN DIEGO, CA TO GEORGIA AND AS WE WHERE DRIVING ON HWY 20 IN TEXAS, I HIT A BUMP THE CAR BECAME VERY DIFFICULT TO STEER. I SLOWLY DROVE THE CAR TO KILGORE, TEXAS TOOK THE CARE TO AUTOMOTIVE SUPER CENTER 1505 US HWY 259 NORTH BUSINESS KILGORE, TX 75663. CHANDLER GORDY SAID HE WOULD CHECK IT OUT AND CALL ME. CHANDLER CALLED ME AND GAVE ME THE REPORT (SEE ATTACHED REPORT). CHANDLER STATED THAT TO FIX THAT UNIT IT COST OVER $2,000.00 IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE I COULDN'T AFFORD TO HAVE IT DONE. I ASKED HIM WHAT HE COULD DO SO THAT WE COULD GET BACK HOME HE SAID HE WOULD TRY AND RESET THE SENSOR. CHANDLER RESET IT & WE HAD TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IT MIGHT GO OUT AGAIN AND TO BE VERY CAREFUL. 10/23/2020 SLOWLY DROVE HOMETHE NEXT DAY 10/26/2020 I TOOK THE CAR TO MY MECHANIC AT CARTECH AUTOMOTIVE HE CHECKED IT OUT CALLED ME AND SAID THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE CAR AND TO COME GET THE CAR AND TAKE IT TO FORD SO THAT THEY CAN FIX IT. I TOOK THE CAR TO LOGANVILLE FORD 3460 HIGHWAY 78 LOGANVILLE GA 30052 770-554-9994. I SPOKE WITH BRIAN AND UPON HIS EXAMINATION OF THE VIN# THERE WAS NO RECALL ON MY CAR AND THAT IF I WANTED THE CAR CHECKED OUT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY $235.00 TO HAVE THEM CHECK IT.I THEN WENT AND CALLED FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER 866-436-7332 AND SPOKE WITH DANA WHO STATED THAT ON AUGUST 4, 2014 THE CAR WAS BROUGHT IN AND THEY REPROGRAMMED THE POWER-STEERING SENSOR/MODULE IT WAS RESET NOT REPLACED. I TOLD DANA THAT THIS IS A RECALL AND THE UNIT WAS TO BE REPLACED NOT RESET & DANA SAID THAT THEY HAVE THE BEST HIGH TECH PROGRAMMING SYSTEMS. IT WAS RESET NOT REPLACED, DANA SAID YES & THAT THERE IS NOTHING ELSE THEY COULD DO FOR ME. I THEN CALLED 888-327-4236 AND SPOKE WITH LAVENIA DID MY REPORT. FORD IS UNWILLING TO REPLACE THE RECALL UNIT 14S05/NHTSA RECALL 14V-284.

NHTSA ODI #11372628

100,000 miles · Aug 25, 2020
Electrical System

CANNOT START VEHICLE! PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE IN THE IGNITION SWITCH. KEY WILL NOT TURN FORWARD ENOUGH TO ENGAGE STARTER. PROBLEM STARTED YEARS AGO AND NOW HAS PROGRESSED TO THIS POINT WHERE IT WILL NOT START AT ALL USING THE IGNITION. THANKS!

NHTSA ODI #11351169

Official recalls

3

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 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.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

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.

10V222000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

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

4

DP15001 · 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.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems