← 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

Fuel/propulsion System complaints

440 reports
Clear category filter
33,700 miles · Oct 4, 2014
Fuel/propulsion System

THE EASY FUEL CAPLESS FUEL FILLER CAP BROKE OFF INSIDE THE FUEL FILLER NECK. NOW GAS WILL ONLY GO IN VERY SLOWLY AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ON DUE TO VAPOR LEAK. WILL COST $400 PLUS TO REPLACE ENTIRE FUEL FILLER NECK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10641437

82,000 miles · Oct 1, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WHILE DRIVING ON 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT HIGHWAY, THE VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING SUDDENLY APPEARED TO DOWNSHIFT DROPPING MY SPEED APPROX. BY 20 MPH, THEN LURCHED AT 50 MPH UNTIL I PULLED OFF ON THE SHOULDER. THIS WAS ON A UNLIT STRETCH OF HIGHWAY AND WAS VERY DANGEROUS. I TRIED AGAIN TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE WITH THE SAME RESULTS, MEANW…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT HIGHWAY, THE VEHICLE WITHOUT WARNING SUDDENLY APPEARED TO DOWNSHIFT DROPPING MY SPEED APPROX. BY 20 MPH, THEN LURCHED AT 50 MPH UNTIL I PULLED OFF ON THE SHOULDER. THIS WAS ON A UNLIT STRETCH OF HIGHWAY AND WAS VERY DANGEROUS. I TRIED AGAIN TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE WITH THE SAME RESULTS, MEANWHILE THE DASHBOARD WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON. I THEN PULLED OFF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES. WHEN IT RESTARTED THE WARNING LIGHTS WERE OFF AND THE CAR DROVE NORMALLY. WITH ABOUT A HOUR LEFT ON THE TRIP, THE CAR STARTED TO DOWNSHIFT AND UPSHIFT RANDOMLY AS I REDUCED MY SPEED TO ABOUT 40 MPH ON A 70 MPH HIGHWAY, WHICH IS VERY UNSAFE, SO THAT I COULD MAKE IT HOME. THE LAST TIME I HAD MY OIL CHANGED, THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN SUGGESTED THAT I CHANGE THE TRANSMISSION FLUID. I FELT LIKE THE OLD FLUID MAY HAVE BEEN THE REASON WHY MY CAR SHIFTED IN AN ERRATIC MANNER. SO, I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MY LOCAL FORD DEALER FOR THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE. THIS WAS ON JULY 21, 2014. IT WAS A ABOUT WEEK LATER, THAT THE VEHICLE BEGAN LURCHING AGAIN. THIS TIME I DECIDED TO TRY A FULL TANK OF GAS WITH CLEANER TO SEE IF THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE. IT DIDN'T. FINALLY, I MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH A REPAIR SHOP TO FIX IT ON AUG 18, 2014. THEY WERE THE ONES THAT TOLD ME THE FUEL THROTTLE BODY WAS BAD AND THAT'S WHEN I GOOGLED AND FOUND THE EXTENDED WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED ON JULY 31, 2014. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR THIS PART, NOT JUST A BANDAID TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE NHTSA WAS CONCERNED. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND ALSO AND EXPENSIVE REPAIR AT $400. NHTSA: DO YOUR JOB AND FORCE A RECALL ON THIS PART. YOU KNOW IT IS UNSAFE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10640668

26,000 miles · Sep 23, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING TO GO TO LUNCH WHEN MY THROTTLE BODY JUST STOPPED WORKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. I WAS UNABLE TO DRIVE MY VEHICLE TO A SAFE LOCATION OUT OF THE WAY OF TRAFFIC. I HAD TO SHUT IT OFF SEVERAL TIMES TO JUST GET IT A SIDE ROAD. I HAVE CONTACTED FORD IN REGARDS TO BEING REIMBURSED FOR HAVING THIS PART REPLACED WHICH …

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING TO GO TO LUNCH WHEN MY THROTTLE BODY JUST STOPPED WORKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. I WAS UNABLE TO DRIVE MY VEHICLE TO A SAFE LOCATION OUT OF THE WAY OF TRAFFIC. I HAD TO SHUT IT OFF SEVERAL TIMES TO JUST GET IT A SIDE ROAD. I HAVE CONTACTED FORD IN REGARDS TO BEING REIMBURSED FOR HAVING THIS PART REPLACED WHICH I PAID FOR OUT OF MY OWN POCKET AND THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO REIMBURSE ME STATING THAT THE DATE FOR REIMBURSEMENT WAS OVER JULY 31ST 2014. I HAVE FOUND ON THE NHTSA THAT THE WARRANTY IS GOOD FOR 10 YEARS OR 150,000 MILES FROM THE DATA OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE, WHICH I PURCHASED THE CAR IN NOVEMBER 2012 AND THERE IS ONLY 55,000 MILES ON IT WHICH IS CLEARLY UNDER THE WARRANTY. I HAD THE PART REPLACED AT BARTOW FORD IN BARTOW, FL AND THE ARE REFUSING TO REIMBURSE ME AS WELL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10638320

67,000 miles · Sep 4, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WHILE ON A BUSY 6 LANE HWY., I WAS AT A CENTER TURN LANE AND COMPLETED MY TURN WHEN LIGHT CHANGED, THEN WENT TO MAKE MY RIGHT TURN ON TO THE NEXT ROAD.... WHEN MY CARS STARTED TO SHAKE VERY BADLY AND LOST ALL POWER DOWN TO A CRAWL, AND THEN STALL, WITH CARS BEHIND ME ALMOST REAR ENDING MYSELF!! WITH HORNS BLARING I WAS ABLE TO …

Read full complaint

WHILE ON A BUSY 6 LANE HWY., I WAS AT A CENTER TURN LANE AND COMPLETED MY TURN WHEN LIGHT CHANGED, THEN WENT TO MAKE MY RIGHT TURN ON TO THE NEXT ROAD.... WHEN MY CARS STARTED TO SHAKE VERY BADLY AND LOST ALL POWER DOWN TO A CRAWL, AND THEN STALL, WITH CARS BEHIND ME ALMOST REAR ENDING MYSELF!! WITH HORNS BLARING I WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT TO ONLY HAVE IT DO IT AGAIN, ONLY THIS TIME I WAS ABLE TO PULL INTO THE OIL CHANGE SHOP THERE ON THAT CORNER, WHERE THEY CHECKED FOR CODES & FOUND THE "TAC SYSTEM STUCK OPEN"... THEY CHECKED ALL FLUIDS AND I DROVE TO THE LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND WENT ON TO WORK TO START RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM!! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10630583

88,000 miles · Aug 4, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WHILE TRAVELING ABOUT 65 MPH DOWN THE HIGHWAY MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE'S ENGINE STOPPED COMPLETELY. A WARNING LIGHT (THE WRENCH ON THE FORD MODELS) CAME ON AS A I COASTED TO A SAFE SPOT ON THE HIGHWAY. STEERING GAVE OUT A BIT TOO. CAR STARTED RIGHT BACK UP AFTER I FOUND A SAFE LOCATION TO STOP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10618661

51,000 miles · Jun 19, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS DRIVING TO WORK ON I75 AT 75 MPH WHEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST POWER DROPPING TO LESS THAN 20 MPH. I WAS ABLE TO GET FROM THE LEFT LANE TO THE BERM THREE LANES TO MY RIGHT. I WAITED ABOUT 5 MINUTES AND RESTARTED THE CAR DRIVING ABOUT 100 YDS. WHEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND WAITED ABOUT 20 MINUTES THEN RE…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING TO WORK ON I75 AT 75 MPH WHEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST POWER DROPPING TO LESS THAN 20 MPH. I WAS ABLE TO GET FROM THE LEFT LANE TO THE BERM THREE LANES TO MY RIGHT. I WAITED ABOUT 5 MINUTES AND RESTARTED THE CAR DRIVING ABOUT 100 YDS. WHEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND WAITED ABOUT 20 MINUTES THEN RESTARTED AND WAS ABLE TO GET TO WORK ON SIDE ROADS WITH THE CAR SURGING AND JERKING ALONG THE WAY. I TOOK THE CAR TO HUNTINGTON FORD THE NEXT DAY AND THEY COULD NOT FIND A CAUSE. THE FOLLOWING DAY I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM FORD REGARDING WHAT HUNTINGTON REFERRED TO AS A "LIMP HOME" MODE WHICH LET TAKE TO A DEALER AND HAVE THE THROTTLE BODY REPROGRAMMED, WHICH I DID. THE CAR WAS OK FOR A FEW DAYS AFTER THAT AND THEN STARTED STALLING AND SURGING AGAIN. I CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY SAID I SHOULD REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY BUT THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS UNDER AN EXTENDED WARRANTY I WOULD STILL NEED TO PAY FOR THE REPLACEMENT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10604457

75,000 miles · Jun 14, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion System

WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND VEHICLE BEGAN SPUTTERING AND IDLING LOW, UNABLE TO EXCEED 5 MPH. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10598321

61,000 miles · Jun 3, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

TRAVELING ABOUT 6 PM (RUSH HOUR HEAVY TRAFFIC) 3 LANE EXPRESSWAY WHEN CAR WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE LEFT SHOULDER SINCE WE WERE IN THE LEFT PASSING LANE. THE LEFT SHOULDER WAS NOT AS WIDE AS THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND WE FELT THE SITUATION WAS VERY DANGEROUS WE STAYED IN THE CAR WITH OUR SEATBELTS ON AN…

Read full complaint

TRAVELING ABOUT 6 PM (RUSH HOUR HEAVY TRAFFIC) 3 LANE EXPRESSWAY WHEN CAR WOULD NO LONGER ACCELERATE. HAD TO COAST OVER TO THE LEFT SHOULDER SINCE WE WERE IN THE LEFT PASSING LANE. THE LEFT SHOULDER WAS NOT AS WIDE AS THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND WE FELT THE SITUATION WAS VERY DANGEROUS WE STAYED IN THE CAR WITH OUR SEATBELTS ON AND CALLED FOR ROAD SERVICE (AAA). WE DID NOT RECEIVE HELP FOR TWO HOURS. JUST PURCHASED THIS CAR TWO MONTHS BEFORE THIS INCIDENT - PRE OWNED CERTIFIED BY DEALERSHIP. CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY FORD WAITS UNTIL THE PART FAILS BEFORE REPLACING IT. I FEEL STRONGLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS PART OF THE "CERTIFICATION" PROCESS. THERE WERE NO WARNING LIGHTS OR INDICATIONS THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE IT HAPPENED. AFTER THE CAR "DIED", A WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED, BUT NOT UNTIL AFTER WE HAD COASTED TO A STOP. IF WE HAD BEEN IN THE MIDDLE LANE INSTEAD OF THE LANE NEXT TO THE SHOULDER, I FEEL CERTAIN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A HIGH SPEED POSSIBLE MULTIPLE CAR ACCIDENT AS TRAFFIC WAS HEAVY AND FAST. THIS IS SO VERY WRONG! THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS COMPLAINT POSSIBLE. I HOPE IT HELPS RESULT IN A RECALL BY FORD RIGHT AWAY SO NO ONE HAS TO GET HURT OR EVEN DIE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10595738

32,800 miles · May 21, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

SLOWLY APPROACHING A STOP SIGN, VEHICLE STALLED. BATTERY LIGHT, WRENCH LIGHT, AND OIL LIGHT CAME ON. PUT THE CAR IN PARK TO RESTART IT, STARTED AND WENT ON. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10593279

13,300 miles · May 13, 2014
Fuel/propulsion System

I WAS DRIVING ON I-45 JUST SOUTH OF DALLAS WHEN THE ENGINE LURCHED SLIGHTLY AND I LOST POWER. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, DODGING TRAFFIC. THERE WERE NO WARNING OR INDICATOR LIGHTS; GAS TANK WAS HALF FULL. ONCE I CAME TO A STOP I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF, WAITED SEVERAL MINUTES, STARTED THE ENGINE AND DROVE NORMALLY…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON I-45 JUST SOUTH OF DALLAS WHEN THE ENGINE LURCHED SLIGHTLY AND I LOST POWER. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, DODGING TRAFFIC. THERE WERE NO WARNING OR INDICATOR LIGHTS; GAS TANK WAS HALF FULL. ONCE I CAME TO A STOP I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF, WAITED SEVERAL MINUTES, STARTED THE ENGINE AND DROVE NORMALLY FOR ABOUT 30 MILES WHEN THE VEHICLE STALLED AGAIN. I COULD HEAR THE ENGINE "REV" WHEN I PUSHED ON THE GAS PEDAL BUT THE VEHICLE DID NOT MOVE FORWARD. AGAIN, I COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ABOUT 15 MILES TO WHERE I FOUND A FORD DEALER. THE DEALERSHIP WAS GREAT AND FIXED THE VEHICLE AT NO CHARGE, INSTALLING A NEW THROTTLE BODY, THEY SAID UNDER WARRANTY. BUT THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS WHEN THE STALL OCCURS ON A VERY BUSY INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. I CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE VERY LUCKY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10588054

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