← 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

Engine And Engine Cooling complaints

35 reports
Clear category filter
48,280 miles · May 30, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingPower TrainVehicle Speed Control

AS VEHICLE WAS PROCEEDING FORWARD FROM A STOP ONTO A FOUR LANE ROAD WITH THE SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH, IT ROLLED FORWARD AND NO POWER WAS PROVIDED. NO WARNING LIGHTS PRIOR TO THIS. THE THROTTLE CONTROL / POWER TRAIN LIGHT CAME ON AND WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO GO APPROXIMATELY 20 -30 YARDS ONTO THE SHOULDER ATTEMPTING TO GO AROUND THE C…

Read full complaint

AS VEHICLE WAS PROCEEDING FORWARD FROM A STOP ONTO A FOUR LANE ROAD WITH THE SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH, IT ROLLED FORWARD AND NO POWER WAS PROVIDED. NO WARNING LIGHTS PRIOR TO THIS. THE THROTTLE CONTROL / POWER TRAIN LIGHT CAME ON AND WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO GO APPROXIMATELY 20 -30 YARDS ONTO THE SHOULDER ATTEMPTING TO GO AROUND THE CORNER AND UP A HILL THE VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO DO THIS WE ROLLED BACK TO THE SHOULDER THEN TURNED THE CAR OFF RESTARTED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED AND WERE ABLE TO GET THE CAR UP THE HILL AND HOME. CAR WAS TOWED TO FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED AS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY WHICH WAS THEN REPLACED.

NHTSA ODI #10515253

49,900 miles · Jan 4, 2013
Engine And Engine Cooling

I WAS COMING TO A STOP AT A LIGHT AND THE VEHICLE STALLED. IT WAS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. I ASSUMED THIS WAS A RANDOM EVENT. CAR STARTED RIGHT UP AND NO CHECK ENGINE CODE LIGHT CAME ON ETC. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10491486

44,200 miles · Nov 27, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System

LOSS OF POWER - VEHICLE STOPS AT RANDOM - OBD CODE P2111. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10486203

48,500 miles · Oct 12, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train

I WAS DRIVING AND THE CAR JUST LOST POWER. I HAD JUST EXITED THE HWY. I PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND TURNED THE KEY BACK OFF AND THE CAR RESTARTED. THEN THIS HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT 5 MINUTES LATER. THEN TWO WEEKS LATER IS HAPPENED AGAIN SAME SITUATION. IT HAPPENED ABOUT 3- 4 TIMES. WE TH…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING AND THE CAR JUST LOST POWER. I HAD JUST EXITED THE HWY. I PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND TURNED THE KEY BACK OFF AND THE CAR RESTARTED. THEN THIS HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT 5 MINUTES LATER. THEN TWO WEEKS LATER IS HAPPENED AGAIN SAME SITUATION. IT HAPPENED ABOUT 3- 4 TIMES. WE THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS BAD GAS -- SO WE REFILLED WITH PREMIUM GAS....TWO WEEKS LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN 3 TIMES IN A ROW. ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY -- IT WAS VERY SCARY..I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER THEY FOUND NOTHING - DID NOT CHARGE ME AND THERE WAS NO REPORT THAT I EVEN TOOK THE CAR IN TO THEM .3 WEEKS AFTER THAT ..IT HAPPENED CONSTANTLY BUT I WAS ON A TRIP AWAY FROM HOME -- IT STARTED BACK UP EVERY TIME ..I IT HAPPENED 9 TIME IN ONE DAY. 3 TIMES ON THE INTERSTATE GOING ABOUT 60 MPH -- IT WAS VERY UPSETTING..WHEN I GOT HOME I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY SAID IT WAS THE ABS AND IT WOULD COST 800$+ -- I TOLD THEM TO KEEP THE CAR AND DRIVE IT UNTIL THE ISSUE I HAD HAPPENED TO THEM -- THEY HAD IT 2- 3 DAYS AND IT FINALLY HAPPENED TO THEM WHEN THEY HAD THE DIAGNOSTICS ON THE CAR...IT WAS THE THROTTLE SENSOR ...THEY CHARGED ME $400+ AND IT IS NOW FIXED--MY SISTER HAD AN ESCAPE AN DID HAVE THE SAME ISSUE -- MY 83 YEAR OLD MOTHER HAS THE SAME CAR AND I WOULD NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO HER! THANKS *TR

NHTSA ODI #10479860

32,900 miles · Sep 10, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER PURCHASING THE FORD ESCAPE, I WAS HEADED EAST FROM SOUTH KINGSTOWN, RI TO MA ON RT 79/24 AT 6:30 A.M. DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES AN HOUR, WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE CAR CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP AND THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON THE CONTROL PANEL. I WAS WITHOUT A CELL PHONE. IN THE DISTANCE I COU…

Read full complaint

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER PURCHASING THE FORD ESCAPE, I WAS HEADED EAST FROM SOUTH KINGSTOWN, RI TO MA ON RT 79/24 AT 6:30 A.M. DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES AN HOUR, WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE CAR CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP AND THE WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON THE CONTROL PANEL. I WAS WITHOUT A CELL PHONE. IN THE DISTANCE I COULD SEE AN OFF RAMP AND WAS ABOUT TO WALK. I SUCCESSFULLY RESTARTED THE CAR, EXITED THE HIGHWAY, TO RETURN TO RI. AFTER DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MILES, THE CAR AGAIN, WITHOUT ANY WARNING, CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP IN SEEKONK AND THE WRENCH LIGHT AGAIN CAME ON THE CONTROL PANEL. AGAIN, I RESTARTED THE CAR AND PROCEEDED CAUTIOUSLY TO SOUTH KINGSTOWN, WHEN THE CAR AGAIN STOPPED IN WAKEFIELD, AND THE WRENCH LIGHT INDICATING A POWER TRAIN FAILURE APPEARED ON THE CONTROL PANEL. I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE DEALER WHERE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED. IT STILL HAD A MONTH LEFT ON THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY. UPON INSPECTION THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT INDICATED THAT THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. THEY TOLD ME THAT UNLESS THE PROBLEM COULD BE RECREATED, THEY WOULD NOT REPLACE ANY PARTS. BECAUSE IT WAS LABOR DAY WEEKEND, I HAD TO WAIT UNTIL TUESDAY AND TOOK THE CAR TO A FORD DEALER IN NARRAGANSETT RI, WHERE THEY KEPT THE CAR FOR THREE DAYS. THEY COULDN'T REPLICATE THE INCIDENT AND SAID THAT UNLESS THEY COULD SIMULATE IT, FORD WOULD NOT PAY TO REPLACE ANY PARTS. *TR THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALER FOUR TIMES, TO TRY AND RECTIFY THE STALLING ISSUE, BUT TO NO AVAIL. UPDATED IVOQ 10/22/12

NHTSA ODI #10474445

41,900 miles · Aug 27, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingVisibility

A/C NOT COOLING, AFTER CHECKED BY DEALER I WAS TOLD THE COMPLETE SYSTEM WAS DAMAGED BY COMING APART FROM THE INSIDE OUT. COMPLETE A/C AND LINES REPLACED. OK FOR ABOUT 8 WEEKS, NOW SAME PROBLEM NO A/C AND DEALER WILL NOT STAND BEHIND THEIR WORK, NOR WILL FORD MOTOR. THEY WANT ME TO PAY AGAIN TO HAVE UNIT CHECKED AND THEY ARE NOT…

Read full complaint

A/C NOT COOLING, AFTER CHECKED BY DEALER I WAS TOLD THE COMPLETE SYSTEM WAS DAMAGED BY COMING APART FROM THE INSIDE OUT. COMPLETE A/C AND LINES REPLACED. OK FOR ABOUT 8 WEEKS, NOW SAME PROBLEM NO A/C AND DEALER WILL NOT STAND BEHIND THEIR WORK, NOR WILL FORD MOTOR. THEY WANT ME TO PAY AGAIN TO HAVE UNIT CHECKED AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN WILLING TO GIVE ME A LOANER FOR THE 3 DAYS THEY CLAIM IT IS GOING TO TAKE THEM TO FIND THE PROBLEM. FORD STATES I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CHECK AND THEY ARE UNSURE IF THEY WILL HELP ME PAY TO THE REPAIRS AGAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10472685

50,000 miles · Apr 14, 2012
Engine And Engine Cooling

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THE ESCAPE JUST SHUT OFF WITHOUT WARNING. I PUT IT IN PARK AND IT STARTED AGAIN. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY COULDN'T FIND A REASON. IT HAPPENED AGAIN ON THE 8TH OF APRIL WHEN DRIVING TO WORK I JUST GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY TO AN EXIT RAMP AND IT SHUT OFF AGAIN. I PUT IT IN PARK AND IT STARTE…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THE ESCAPE JUST SHUT OFF WITHOUT WARNING. I PUT IT IN PARK AND IT STARTED AGAIN. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY COULDN'T FIND A REASON. IT HAPPENED AGAIN ON THE 8TH OF APRIL WHEN DRIVING TO WORK I JUST GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY TO AN EXIT RAMP AND IT SHUT OFF AGAIN. I PUT IT IN PARK AND IT STARTED BACK UP AND SHUT OFF AGAIN JUST OVER A MILE DOWN THE ROAD. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ESCAPE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10455262

21,700 miles · Mar 31, 2012
Engine And Engine Cooling

WHILE MAKE A MOVING LEFT HAND TURN... ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING. AS I CAME OUT OF THE TURN & STARTED TO TRY TO ACCELERATE I QUICKLY REALIZED I HAD NO ENGINE POWER... DRIFTED FOR ABOUT 50 YARDS & PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET. TRIED TURNING ENGINE ON... VEHICLE STARTED RIGHT UP. WENT ON MY WAY. THE NEXT DAY I TOOK THE ES…

Read full complaint

WHILE MAKE A MOVING LEFT HAND TURN... ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING. AS I CAME OUT OF THE TURN & STARTED TO TRY TO ACCELERATE I QUICKLY REALIZED I HAD NO ENGINE POWER... DRIFTED FOR ABOUT 50 YARDS & PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET. TRIED TURNING ENGINE ON... VEHICLE STARTED RIGHT UP. WENT ON MY WAY. THE NEXT DAY I TOOK THE ESCAPE STRAIGHT DOWN TO OUR FORD DEALERSHIP. FORD RAN A BUNCH OF TESTS BUT COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. I AM AFRAID TO LET MY WIFE DRIVE THE VEHICLE NOW (HER VEHICLE) BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION. I HAVE BEEN DRIVING SINCE I WAS 11 YEARS OLD. I AM NOW NEARLY 40. I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED ANYTHING LIKE THIS SITUATION. I LOOKED ALL AROUND THE STEERING WHEEL/ETC. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE WAS SOME WAY I COULD HAVE TURNED OFF THE ENGINE (BESIDES THE KEYS)... I CANNOT SEE ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY... THE VEHICLE WAS STILL IN "DRIVE" & THE FUEL TANK WAS MORE THAN HALF FULL. THE VEHICLE KEY IN THE IGNITION WAS STILL TURNED ON WHEN THIS HAPPENED. I CANNOT SAY FOR SURE THAT THE POWER STEERING WAS ABSENT WHEN THE ENGINE INITIALLY TURNED OFF... DID I STILL HAVE A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF ENGINE POWER?... I DO NOT KNOW... BUT I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. PLEASE CONTACT ME GUYS IF YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THIS... THANK YOU. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10453652

51,302 miles · Nov 8, 2011
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel System, Gasoline

AT STOP OR IDLE, ENGINE SURGES, HESITATES, STALLS, SMELL GAS, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON. TOOK ESCAPE TO DEALER. DEALER SAYS ITS THE PURGE VALVE AND EVAP CANISTER. PURGE VALVE FAILED AND RAW GAS FILLED EVAP CANISTER. DEALER SAYS ITS OUT OF WARRANTY, THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO. THIS HAS BEEN A KNOW PROBLEM SINCE 2006, TSB BULLE…

Read full complaint

AT STOP OR IDLE, ENGINE SURGES, HESITATES, STALLS, SMELL GAS, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON. TOOK ESCAPE TO DEALER. DEALER SAYS ITS THE PURGE VALVE AND EVAP CANISTER. PURGE VALVE FAILED AND RAW GAS FILLED EVAP CANISTER. DEALER SAYS ITS OUT OF WARRANTY, THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO. THIS HAS BEEN A KNOW PROBLEM SINCE 2006, TSB BULLETIN 11-3-22, PART # 9U5Z-9C915H-PURGE VALVE, PART # 9R3Z-9C985-B EVAP CANISTER. FORD HAS DONE NOTHING TO CORRECT THE ISSUE. THEY REPLACED THE DAMAGED PARTS WITH THE SAME PARTS WITH NO FIX FOR THE SPILLAGE OF RAW FUEL, ON THE GROUND, IN THE AIR, ON THE VEHICLE. THIS RAW FUEL SITUATION COULD CAUSE A FIRE OR EXPLOSION AT ANY TIME. YET FORD SAYS ITS NOT AN EMISSION ISSUE AND THE VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY. THE FORD FORUMS ON THE INTERNET ARE FULL OF COMPLAINTS FOR THE SAME RAW FUEL SPILLAGE. DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE FORD ADMITS THEY HAVE A DESIGN PROBLEM AND FIXES IT??? THIS SAME ISSUE IS ALSO RELATED TO THE 2010-12 FUSION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10434933

8,500 miles · Mar 21, 2011
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling

WAS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC - TRAFFIC BEGAN TO MOVE, I PRESSED ON ACCELERATOR AND PROCEEDED. HIT ABOUT 5 MPH AND ENGINE LOST POWER COMPLETELY AND STEERING WHEEL LOCKED UP - RADIO AND A/C REMAINED ON. BATTERY AND OIL WARNING LAMPS ON DASH ILLUMINATED. WAS ABLE TO PUT VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL AND MOVE TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION OFF AND…

Read full complaint

WAS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC - TRAFFIC BEGAN TO MOVE, I PRESSED ON ACCELERATOR AND PROCEEDED. HIT ABOUT 5 MPH AND ENGINE LOST POWER COMPLETELY AND STEERING WHEEL LOCKED UP - RADIO AND A/C REMAINED ON. BATTERY AND OIL WARNING LAMPS ON DASH ILLUMINATED. WAS ABLE TO PUT VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL AND MOVE TO SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED IGNITION OFF AND WAS ABLE TO RE-START VEHICLE AS NORMAL. PROCEEDED TO MY DESTINATION AS NORMAL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10392323

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