NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
440 reportsClear category filter69,500 miles · May 13, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
ESCAPE SITTING AT STOP LIGHT WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON DASH AND ESCAPE HAD NO POWER TURNED CAR OFF AND THEN RESTARTED THE ESCAPE AND DROVE HOME NOT ANOTHER ISSUE FOR THE NEXT 16 MILES.. USED OBDII CODE READER TO SCAN ESCAPES ON BOARD COMPUTER AND IT HAD FREEZE FRAME DATA FROM A P2111 CODE WHICH INDICATES THROTTLE BODY ISSUE…
Read full complaint
ESCAPE SITTING AT STOP LIGHT WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON DASH AND ESCAPE HAD NO POWER TURNED CAR OFF AND THEN RESTARTED THE ESCAPE AND DROVE HOME NOT ANOTHER ISSUE FOR THE NEXT 16 MILES.. USED OBDII CODE READER TO SCAN ESCAPES ON BOARD COMPUTER AND IT HAD FREEZE FRAME DATA FROM A P2111 CODE WHICH INDICATES THROTTLE BODY ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10588001
440,000 miles · May 7, 2014
Fuel/propulsion System
CAR WOULD REDUCE SPEED ON ITS OWN NO WARNING,ALMOST GOT REARENDED AT A SPEED OF 55 DUE TO MY CAR LOSING SPEED EVEN HAS I WAS GIVING IT GAS. THEN TWO WEEKS LATER DID IT AGAIN TOOK TO A SHOP ON MAY 6 2014 AND THEY REPLACED A TBI UNIT SAID THIS WAS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM FORD WAS HAVING I WOULD LIKE TO BE REIMBURSED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10586927
39,870 miles · Apr 30, 2014
Fuel/propulsion System
DRIVING DOWN 40 WEST AT 65MPH WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON, THE CAR DECREASED ALMOST TO A STOP, A LIGHT CAME ON THAT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH , I HAD TO PULL OFF THE HIGHWAY, CAR WENT DEAD. I STARTED THE CAR UP, WE A FEW FEET IT DID IT AGAIN. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, TOOK THE KEY OUT WAITED 5 MINUTES, IT DID IT AGAIN. THEN A FOURTH TIME, S…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN 40 WEST AT 65MPH WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON, THE CAR DECREASED ALMOST TO A STOP, A LIGHT CAME ON THAT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH , I HAD TO PULL OFF THE HIGHWAY, CAR WENT DEAD. I STARTED THE CAR UP, WE A FEW FEET IT DID IT AGAIN. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, TOOK THE KEY OUT WAITED 5 MINUTES, IT DID IT AGAIN. THEN A FOURTH TIME, STOPPED, WAITED 30 MINUTES AND IT DID IT AGAIN. THIS TIME I WAS ON A FOUR LANE HIGHWAY AND CARS WERE HAVING TO SWERVE TO MISS ME AND I ENDED UP AGAINST THE WALL OF THE HIGHWAY. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10585639
68,000 miles · Apr 25, 2014
Fuel/propulsion System
FIRST EVENT, 1/24/14: LOST ALL BUT 2% POWER (SURGED ALONG AT ~3MPH) WITH SEVERAL FLASHING LIGHTS IN DASH, VEHICLE LIMPED ONTO DRIVEWAY. RESTORED POWER BY RESTARTING VEHICLE A FEW TIMES, WARNING LITES OUT. SECOND EVENT, LATER SAME DAY: LOST ALL BUT 2% POWER IN OKC AT 70MPH AND LUCKILY WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE AT THE TIME, LIMPED TO…
Read full complaint
FIRST EVENT, 1/24/14: LOST ALL BUT 2% POWER (SURGED ALONG AT ~3MPH) WITH SEVERAL FLASHING LIGHTS IN DASH, VEHICLE LIMPED ONTO DRIVEWAY. RESTORED POWER BY RESTARTING VEHICLE A FEW TIMES, WARNING LITES OUT. SECOND EVENT, LATER SAME DAY: LOST ALL BUT 2% POWER IN OKC AT 70MPH AND LUCKILY WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE AT THE TIME, LIMPED TO SHOULDER. I MIGHT NOT BE SO LUCKY NEXT TIME, THIS FORD PROBLEM IS A LIFE THREATENING HAZARD. CALLED FORD AFTER RECEIVING 13N03 LETTER IN LATE JANUARY. 2/3/14 WAS INFORMED IF I CALLED CUSTOMER RELATIONS NUMBER THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A COMMENT AGAINST MY VIN SO A DEALER WOULD BE ABLE TO FIX AT FORD COST. NO ECM CODES, MY COST. CONVERSATION WAS HELD WITH SERVICE MANAGER [XXX] AT AUTONATION OF SOUTH FORT WORTH. THIRD EVENT: 4/23/14: LOST ALL BUT 2% POWER WITH ONLY THE WRENCH LIGHT FLASHING, RESTARTED VEHICLE AND LIGHT WENT OUT, POWER RESTORED - CHECKED ECM CODES AND THE CODE DID NOT STORE ON THE COMPUTER. WHY? CALLED 4/23 CUSTOMER RELATIONS NUMBER 800-392-3673 1-5-4 ATTEMPTING RESOLUTION. TALKED TO [XXX] WHO IN TURN TALKED TO [XXX], SERVICE PERSON AT AUTONATION OF SOUTH FORT WORTH. BUT SINCE THE CODE IS NOT RECORDED FORD WILL NOT FIND AN ISSUE - ALL COSTS WOULD BE MY RESPONSIBILITY. SO I AM LEFT WITH A DAILY DRIVER VEHICLE WITH A POTENTIAL LOSS OF LIFE - SAFETY HAZARD. I DRIVE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC, THIS IS A DANGER TO MYSELF, OCCUPANTS AND OTHERS ON THE ROAD. BOTH [XXX] AND [XXX] DENIED ANYONE AT FORD CAN ADD COMMENTS TO VIN FOR PARTS REPLACED AND I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COST OF DIAGNOSIS OF THE ISSUE AND FOLLOW ON REPAIR WITH NO CODES. I TOLD [XXX] THAT MY DRIVING IS SOMETIMES IN HEAVY TRAFFIC AND THIS IS A LIFE THREATENING HAZARD, I ALSO REMINDED HER THIS CONVERSATION IS BEING RECORDED IN FORDS DATABASE. [XXX] DID NOT SEEM TO CARE. FIX OR REPAIR DAILY > FORD IS AN ACCURATE TERM FOR FORD PRODUCTS BUT THIS IS A SERIOUS - DANGER. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10584796
45,129 miles · Mar 30, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING APPROX 45-60 MPH WRENCH ICON AND ENGINE ICON LIGHTS CAME ON VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING EVERYTHING ELSE WORKED AND ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING, GAS PEDAL DID NOT ACCELERATE OR RAISE RPM'S. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD PUT IN PARK AND TURNED ENGINE OFF, VEHICLE STARTED WITH HESITATION WRENCH LIGHT DID NOT APPEAR, ENGINE LIG…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING APPROX 45-60 MPH WRENCH ICON AND ENGINE ICON LIGHTS CAME ON VEHICLE STOPPED ACCELERATING EVERYTHING ELSE WORKED AND ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING, GAS PEDAL DID NOT ACCELERATE OR RAISE RPM'S. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD PUT IN PARK AND TURNED ENGINE OFF, VEHICLE STARTED WITH HESITATION WRENCH LIGHT DID NOT APPEAR, ENGINE LIGHT REMAINED ON THOUGH VEHICLE WAS DRIVABLE AGAIN. PROBLEM HAPPENED REPETITIVELY THE REST OF THE 45 MIN DRIVE HOME WITH WRENCH LIGHT APPEARING AND ACCELERATION CEASING HAD TO PULL OVER AND RESTART NUMEROUS TIMES. ENGINE ICON REMAINS LIT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10575744
52,000 miles · Feb 27, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WENT TO ACCELERATE AND VEHICLE STALLED. REPLACED AT 50,000 MILES. ON THE NEW REPLACEMENT, AT 70,000, REPLACED AT MY COST AT DEALERSHIP, THROTTLE BODY STUTTERS AND CHUGS BETWEEN 40 AND 50 MPH. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10566406
36,000 miles · Jan 25, 2014
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING LOST ALL POWER AT FIRST THEN WAS ABLE TO MOVE AT 2 MPH WHEN GAS PEDAL WAS FULLY DEPRESSED, CAR STARTED TO SHAKE. HEARD LOUD POP THEN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON DASH. I WAS ABLE TO CREEP ALONG TO GET OUT OF MOVING TRAFFIC. DROVE AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD UNTIL I TRIED TO GET INTO A PARKING AREA WHICH REQUIRED ME TO MAKE A LEF…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING LOST ALL POWER AT FIRST THEN WAS ABLE TO MOVE AT 2 MPH WHEN GAS PEDAL WAS FULLY DEPRESSED, CAR STARTED TO SHAKE. HEARD LOUD POP THEN ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON DASH. I WAS ABLE TO CREEP ALONG TO GET OUT OF MOVING TRAFFIC. DROVE AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD UNTIL I TRIED TO GET INTO A PARKING AREA WHICH REQUIRED ME TO MAKE A LEFT TURN WITH TRAFFIC COMING WAITED AND WAITED THEN FROM A COMPLETE STOP I MAKE THE TURN INTO THE LOT WHICH HAS A SLIGHT INCLINE I WAS FLOORING THE GAS PEDAL STILL WITH OUT ANY POWER OF MORE THAN 2 MPH WORRIED I WOULD SLIP BACK INTO MOVING TRAFFIC. PARKED CALLED A TOW TRUCK. TURNED OFF ENGINE WENT INTO WORK. CAME BACK OUT OF WORK RESTARTED CAR NO CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND EVERYTHING SEEM TO WORK FINE AFTER THAT. FRIGHTENED I COULD HAVE CAUSED A SERIOUS ACCIDENT FOR OTHER AND MYSELF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10561456
74,156 miles · Jan 22, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THROTTLE BODY PLACE STICKING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10561031
38,000 miles · Jan 21, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN ALMOST ALL OF THE POWER FROM THE ENGINE WAS LOST. ENGINE WAS RUNNING AT AN IDLE. WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THE THROTTLE/GAS PEDAL. I MANAGED TO GET IT TO LIMP CLOSE TO THE DEALERSHIP AND GET IT TOWED THE REST OF THE WAY. HAPPENED JUST TODAY AND THE DEALERSHIP CALLED AND SAID THAT IT IS INDEED THE THROTT…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN ALMOST ALL OF THE POWER FROM THE ENGINE WAS LOST. ENGINE WAS RUNNING AT AN IDLE. WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THE THROTTLE/GAS PEDAL. I MANAGED TO GET IT TO LIMP CLOSE TO THE DEALERSHIP AND GET IT TOWED THE REST OF THE WAY. HAPPENED JUST TODAY AND THE DEALERSHIP CALLED AND SAID THAT IT IS INDEED THE THROTTLE BODY. THEY SAID IT WASN'T COVERED UNDER MY POWER TRAIN WARRANTY AND THEY ARE REPLACING IT FOR A COST OF ROUGHLY $450. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10560833
105,000 miles · Jan 19, 2014
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING TO KANSAS FROM IOWA ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65 MPH WE SUDDENLY STALLED AND LOST OUR POWER STEERING. WE WERE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC WHICH WAS QUITE SCARY. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD STOPPED, PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND STARTED THE CAR BACK UP. CONTINUED DOWN THE ROAD ONLY TO HAVE IT HAPPEN AGAIN WITHIN 2 MINUTES. THIS HAPPENE…
Read full complaint
DRIVING TO KANSAS FROM IOWA ON THE INTERSTATE AT 65 MPH WE SUDDENLY STALLED AND LOST OUR POWER STEERING. WE WERE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC WHICH WAS QUITE SCARY. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD STOPPED, PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND STARTED THE CAR BACK UP. CONTINUED DOWN THE ROAD ONLY TO HAVE IT HAPPEN AGAIN WITHIN 2 MINUTES. THIS HAPPENED MULTIPLE, AT LEAST 20 TIMES UNTIL FINALLY THE CAR WOULD NOT RESPOND TO THE GAS PEDAL. WE WOULD STEP ON THE GAS BUT THE ENGINE WOULD NOT RESPOND. THEN WE TURNED THE CAR OFF, WAITED A MINUTE AND TRIED IT AGAIN UNTIL WE COULD GET BACK ON THE ROAD. THE LAST 13 MILES OF OUR TRIP TOOK OVER A HOUR. TOOK OUR CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY AND THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY WHICH COST US 462.57. THE MECHANIC TOLD US THIS IS A RECURRING PROBLEM AND THERE WILL MOST LIKELY BE A RECALL. THE ERROR CODES WERE P2111 AND P2112 THROTTLE BODY STUCK OPEN AND CLOSED. THE NEXT DAY WE HAD A TIRE BLOWOUT ON THE INTERSTATE, WHICH WAS ALSO SCARY AND IN HEAVY TRAFFIC, BECAUSE WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD WHICH COST US ANOTHER 180 DOLLARS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS RECALLED AS A SAFETY DEFECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10560542
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.