NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
216 reportsClear category filter180,000 miles · Oct 19, 2015
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE PARKED, THE IGNITION WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN AND ONCE IT WAS STARTED THE IGNITION REMAINED STUCK IN THE START POSITION CAUSING THE STARTER TO REMAIN ENGAGED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO HIT THE IGNITION FOR IT TO COME OUT OF THE STARTING POSITION. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT ST…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE PARKED, THE IGNITION WAS DIFFICULT TO TURN AND ONCE IT WAS STARTED THE IGNITION REMAINED STUCK IN THE START POSITION CAUSING THE STARTER TO REMAIN ENGAGED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO HIT THE IGNITION FOR IT TO COME OUT OF THE STARTING POSITION. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. WHILE DRIVING AT 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE STARTED TO EXPERIENCE A LOSS OF POWER AS IF IT WOULD STALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT PROVIDED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000.
NHTSA ODI #10783329
40,000 miles · Sep 25, 2015
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER MORE THAN TWICE WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE TECHNICIAN MENTIONED THAT THE FUEL WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER MORE THAN TWICE WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE TECHNICIAN MENTIONED THAT THE FUEL WAS NOT PROPERLY CIRCULATING WITHIN THE SYSTEM WHICH WAS CAUSING THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000.
NHTSA ODI #10776573
45,150 miles · Aug 19, 2015
Electrical System
MY FAN DID NOT OPERATE ON THE NORMAL #1 SETTING BUT OK ON THE OTHER SETTINGS. WHEN I TOOK IT IN TO REPAIR IT I WAS TOLD A BOARD WENT OUT THAT CAUSED THE FAILURE, THE CAUSE OF THAT WAS FROM CONDENSATION FROM THE AC TUBING DRIPPING ON ANOTHER BOARD AND CAUSED BOTH BOARDS TO GO OUT. THEY HAD TO REPLACE BOTH BOARDS AND REROUTE TH…
Read full complaint
MY FAN DID NOT OPERATE ON THE NORMAL #1 SETTING BUT OK ON THE OTHER SETTINGS. WHEN I TOOK IT IN TO REPAIR IT I WAS TOLD A BOARD WENT OUT THAT CAUSED THE FAILURE, THE CAUSE OF THAT WAS FROM CONDENSATION FROM THE AC TUBING DRIPPING ON ANOTHER BOARD AND CAUSED BOTH BOARDS TO GO OUT. THEY HAD TO REPLACE BOTH BOARDS AND REROUTE THE AC LINE SO IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. I PAID $954.06 FOR POOR DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION.
NHTSA ODI #10749919
99,890 miles · Jul 23, 2015
Electrical System
WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR PREVIOUS ISSUES, MY VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES WHEN MAKING TURNS AND APPROACHING STOP LIGHTS. BATTERY CHECKED OUT (HAD JUST REPLACED TWO WEEKS PRIOR BUT HAD IT TESTED AGAIN ANYWAYS.) AT THE TIME THE BATTERY WAS TESTED, I DID NOT HAVE AN ENGINE LIGHT ON. AN HOUR LATER A "WRENCH" LIGHT AND THE ENGINE L…
Read full complaint
WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR PREVIOUS ISSUES, MY VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES WHEN MAKING TURNS AND APPROACHING STOP LIGHTS. BATTERY CHECKED OUT (HAD JUST REPLACED TWO WEEKS PRIOR BUT HAD IT TESTED AGAIN ANYWAYS.) AT THE TIME THE BATTERY WAS TESTED, I DID NOT HAVE AN ENGINE LIGHT ON. AN HOUR LATER A "WRENCH" LIGHT AND THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I RECEIVED A COMPUTER DIAGNOSIS AND IT CAME BACK THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ACTUATOR WAS BAD. I WAS ALMOST REAR ENDED THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED YESTERDAY MORNING BECAUSE I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN.
NHTSA ODI #10735920
59,000 miles · Jul 10, 2015
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR HATCH DOOR ACTIVATOR LATCH SWITCH MECHANISM SEIZED, WHICH PREVENTED THE DOOR FROM OPENING. IN ADDITION, THE PANEL LIGHTS FAILED. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR HATCH DOOR ACTIVATOR LATCH SWITCH MECHANISM SEIZED, WHICH PREVENTED THE DOOR FROM OPENING. IN ADDITION, THE PANEL LIGHTS FAILED. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 59,000.
NHTSA ODI #10733201
57,902 miles · Jun 16, 2015
Electrical System
I HEARD ALERT CHIME, LOOKED AT INSTRUMENT CLUSTER. TRACTION CONTROL, WRENCH, BATTERY, ABS, AIRBAG, AND BRAKE LIGHTS WERE ALL ON.SPEEDOMETER, TACHOMETER, AND TEMP GAUGE WERE ALL READING ZERO, FUEL GAUGE APPEARED TO BE WORKING. RADIO VOLUME SPEED COMPENSATION STOPPED WORKING, A/C COMPRESSOR SHUT DOWN, FAN STAYED RUNNING. DRIVER IN…
Read full complaint
I HEARD ALERT CHIME, LOOKED AT INSTRUMENT CLUSTER. TRACTION CONTROL, WRENCH, BATTERY, ABS, AIRBAG, AND BRAKE LIGHTS WERE ALL ON.SPEEDOMETER, TACHOMETER, AND TEMP GAUGE WERE ALL READING ZERO, FUEL GAUGE APPEARED TO BE WORKING. RADIO VOLUME SPEED COMPENSATION STOPPED WORKING, A/C COMPRESSOR SHUT DOWN, FAN STAYED RUNNING. DRIVER INFORMATION CENTER WAS READING ____MILES TO E, FUEL LEVEL LOW. AFTER A FEW MORE MINUTES, THE TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT STARTED FLASHING, AND NEW MESSAGE ALTERNATED ON THE DRIVER INFORMATION CENTER TIRE PRESSURE MONITOR FAULT. THEN IT JUST AS SUDDENLY, WENT BACK TO NORMAL. NOW THE SAME THING REPEATS REPEATS ON AND OFF ALMOST EVERY 5 MINUTES OF DRIVING OR SO. WHEN I RESEARCHED THIS ON INTERNET I FIND THIS PROBLEM IS SO COMMON THERE IS A COMPANY ADVERTISING MAIL ORDER REPAIRS FOR $199.00 PROBLEM IS COLD SOLDER JOINTS ON INSTRUMENT CLUSTER.
NHTSA ODI #10725600
49,000 miles · Apr 27, 2015
Electrical SystemService Brakes
TOOK MY CAR TO HARROLD FORD ON HOWE AVENUE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT THE CAR HAS BEEN WORKED ON AND PICKED UP THE CAR AND DIDN'T GET FAR AND THE CAR STALLED. RE-STARTED THE CAR AND BARELY MADE IT BACK HOME AND CALLED HARROLD FORD AND TOLD THEM WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND THEY TOLD ME TO BRING THE CAR BACK AND WE HAD IT TOWED TO THE…
Read full complaint
TOOK MY CAR TO HARROLD FORD ON HOWE AVENUE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT THE CAR HAS BEEN WORKED ON AND PICKED UP THE CAR AND DIDN'T GET FAR AND THE CAR STALLED. RE-STARTED THE CAR AND BARELY MADE IT BACK HOME AND CALLED HARROLD FORD AND TOLD THEM WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND THEY TOLD ME TO BRING THE CAR BACK AND WE HAD IT TOWED TO THEIR FACILITY AGAIN AND RECEIVED A CALL IN THE AFTERNOON AND WAS TOLD THAT THE CAR IS READY TO BE PICKED UP AND WE DRIVE OVER THERE AND THE CAR STALLED AFTER A COUPLE OF BLOCKS AND HAD IT TOWED TO THEIR FACILITY AGAIN AND THE NEXT DAY WE RECEIVED A CALL FROM HARROLD FORD AND TOLD US THAT THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO FOR US AND TO PICK UP MY CAR. " YOUR CAR IS A SALVAGED TITLE" WE TOOK THE CAR HOME VIA TOW TRUCK AND WE HAD A MECHANIC TAKE A LOOK AT THE THROTTLE BODY AND HE SAID THAT IT WAS NEVER REPLACED! I FEEL THAT THE COUPLE OF TIMES THAT WE DROVE THAT CAR PUT ME AND MY GRANDCHILDREN IN A GREAT DANGER AND I THANK GOD THAT WE DIDN'T GET INTO AN ACCIDENT AND THE CAR ONLY DROVE 2 BLOCKS AND I TOLD HARROLD FORD THAT WE BROUGHT MY CAR FOR RECALL PARTS AND NOW MY CAR IS NOT EVEN DRIVABLE. TOTALLY DEAD! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10713250
74,000 miles · Jan 3, 2015
Electrical SystemSteering
MY CAR CUT OFF WHILE I WAS DRIVING & WHEN I WAS AT A STOP LIGHT. THE CAR CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION (COMPLETELY LOSING ALL POWER) A LARGE SUV SWERVED TO PREVENT FROM HITTING ME. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE CAR TO THE VIC BAILEY FORD, THEY KEPT MY CAR ON & OFF FOR 5 DAYS. CHARGING ME $98 FOR A DIAGNOSTIC TE…
Read full complaint
MY CAR CUT OFF WHILE I WAS DRIVING & WHEN I WAS AT A STOP LIGHT. THE CAR CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION (COMPLETELY LOSING ALL POWER) A LARGE SUV SWERVED TO PREVENT FROM HITTING ME. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE CAR TO THE VIC BAILEY FORD, THEY KEPT MY CAR ON & OFF FOR 5 DAYS. CHARGING ME $98 FOR A DIAGNOSTIC TEST (THAT THEY STATED REVEALED NOTHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM) & THEN THEY TURNED AROUND & CHARGED ME #130 FOR A NEW BATTERY, THE CAR CONTINUED TO CUT OFF ON ME. THEY KEPT MY CAR FOR ANOTHER 3 DAYS. FINALLY THEY CALLED ME & TOLD ME TO COME PICK UP THE CAR. THE SERVICE DEPT. STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRONG W/ THE CAR, BUT THEY KNEW SOMETHING WAS WRONG W/ IT. THEY TOLD ME TO WAIT TIL THE PROBLEM GOT WORST. THEY SENT ME HOME W/ A CAR THAT CUTS OFF CONSTANTLY, THEY DON'T CARE THAT I NEED TO DRIVE A DEPENDABLE CAR. I'M AN EDUCATOR/STATE EMPLOYEE THAT DOESN'T HAVE ALL THIS MONEY TO KEEP PUTTING MY CAR INTO THE SHOP & MISSING DAYS FROM WORK. THEY DON'T CARE THAT I HAVE A YOUNG SON WHO RIDES IN THAT CAR W/ ME TO SCHOOL. THEY DON'T CARE THAT BY DRIVING THAT CAR MY LIFE & MY SON LIFE IS (WAS) PUT IN DANGER. ALL THEY SAW WAS A BLACK SINGLE MOTHER THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD TELL ANYTHING TO. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE SERVICE MGR. (NO HELP) FORD REP (NO HELP) THE CUSTOMER SERVICE MGR. (NO HELP). IT IS AWFUL, THAT IN 2015 AN AMERICA WOMAN IS TREATED W/ SUCH DISRESPECT & PUSHED TO THE SIDE. FORD MADE THIS CAR, THEY SALE THIS CAR, SO THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIX THE CAR. FORD SHOULD MAKE RELIABLE CARS FOR THE CONSUMER. WHO IS SUPPOSE TO HELP WHEN THE BIG VIC BAILEY FORD, VIC BAILEY HONDA, VIC BAILEY FORD REPAIR SHOP, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, & FORD SERVICE ALL DO NOTHING TO FIX THIS ISSUE? BY PUTTING THIS INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC I HOPE TO MAKE OTHERS AWARE OF THE TREATMENT THAT I HAVE RECEIVED & MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN TO ANYONE ELSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10669870
Mileage unknown · Dec 16, 2014
Electrical System
2010 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER STATED PERIODICALLY, HE HAD DIFFICULTY INSERTING THE KEY INTO THE IGNITION. *TA
NHTSA ODI #10659561
32,000 miles · Oct 31, 2014
Electrical SystemSteering
THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED I WAS COMING TO A STOP DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC IN FEB 2014. I WAS SLOWING DOWN TO STOP WHEN I NOTICED THE RED BATTERY & WRENCH LIGHT COME ON. WHEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE WOULDN'T MOVE & THE ENGINE WAS OFF. I ATTEMPTED TO RESTART THE VEHICLE SEVERAL TIMES WITH NO LUCK. THE DASH LIGHTS & RA…
Read full complaint
THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED I WAS COMING TO A STOP DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC IN FEB 2014. I WAS SLOWING DOWN TO STOP WHEN I NOTICED THE RED BATTERY & WRENCH LIGHT COME ON. WHEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE THE VEHICLE WOULDN'T MOVE & THE ENGINE WAS OFF. I ATTEMPTED TO RESTART THE VEHICLE SEVERAL TIMES WITH NO LUCK. THE DASH LIGHTS & RADIO WOULD WORK BUT IT WOULDN'T START. I HAD TO BE PUSHED OUT OF TRAFFIC. WHILE WAITING FOR THE TOW TRUCK I TRIED AGAIN & IT STARTED (APPROXIMATELY AFTER 15 MIN). I IMMEDIATELY TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER. THEY "SUPPOSEDLY" FIXED IT UNDER A RECALL. IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN (OCT 2014) TO ME WHILE COMING TO A STOP DURING RUSH HOUR. AGAIN THE LIGHTS TURNED RED AND THE ENGINE DIED. I ATTEMPTED TO RESTART SEVERAL TIMES WITHOUT ANY LUCK. THE DASH LIGHTS & RADIO WORKED BUT IT WOULDN'T START. FINALLY AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS IT STARTED AGAIN. I'M WAITING FOR MY APPOINTMENT WITH THE FORD DEALER. THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED BEFORE SOMEONE GETS SERIOUSLY HURT GIVEN THAT THE ENGINE DIES WITHOUT NOTICE. PLUS THE "REPAIR" DIDN'T WORK! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10651729
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.