← 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 System, Gasoline complaints

71 reports
Clear category filter
17,000 miles · Jun 5, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline

DRIVING ON 3 LANE HIGHWAY IN MIDDLE LANE AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. WE (CHILDREN AND MYSELF) WERE ALMOST REAR ENDED BY A SEMITRUCK COMING UP FROM BEHIND US HAVING NO IDEA THAT MY AUTO LOST POWER. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF TO THE SHOULDER. ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. CAR HAD NO REAL POWER BUT WAS ABLE TO…

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON 3 LANE HIGHWAY IN MIDDLE LANE AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. WE (CHILDREN AND MYSELF) WERE ALMOST REAR ENDED BY A SEMITRUCK COMING UP FROM BEHIND US HAVING NO IDEA THAT MY AUTO LOST POWER. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF TO THE SHOULDER. ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. CAR HAD NO REAL POWER BUT WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE AT ABOUT 5 MPH FOR A FEW HUNDRED FEET UP EXIT RAMP TO A GRAVEL AREA WHERE I STOPPED AND REGAINED MY COMPOSURE AS I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO CRASH!!!!! I NOTICED THE YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON IN THE LOWER LEFT CORNER OF THE DASH. TURNED OFF ENGINE UNSURE OF WHAT TO DO. AT THE TIME I WAS STILL ABOUT 100 MILES FROM HOME SO I TRIED TO START THE ENGINE AGAIN. ENGINE STARTED RIGHT UP. POWER WAS BACK. CONTINUED TO DRIVE ANOTHER 20-30 MILES WITH AGAIN WITH ONE MORE ISSUE. I HAD JUST BROUGHT THIS IN TO BE CHECKED BEFORE TAKING MY FAMILY TRIP AND I WAS TOLD EVERYTHING WAS GOOD...DESCRIPTIONS ON THE INTERNET TALK ABOUT A FUEL THROTTLE BODY ISSUE WHICH HAS SYMPTOMS THAT MATCH WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS VEHICLE. FIRST INCIDENT 11/2012, 2ND 3RD & CONT 2013 NOW... THIS WILL BE MY 3RD TIME BRINGING BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP - AND I ADD THAT THEY ARE NOT CALLING BACK TO SCHEDULE A SVS APPT.. I AM FILING COMPLIANT HERE AND WITH FORD.. I ALWAYS PURCHASED A FORD - MAYBE NOW CHEVY ..ADDTL NOTE:. CAR HAS HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST MONTH WHERE IT SPUTTERS A BIT PULLING OUT FROM A STOP SIGN AND HAS REVED UP TO ABOUT 1500 RPM WHEN OUT OF GEAR RIGHT AFTER STARTING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10515175

69,000 miles · Jun 4, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline

DRIVING ON 3 LANE HIGHWAY IN MIDDLE LANE AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH SLIGHTLY UP HILL AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I PULLED OFF TO THE SHOULDER. ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. CAR HAD NO REAL POWER BUT WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE AT ABOUT 5 MPH FOR A FEW HUNDRED FEET UP EXIT RAMP TO A GRAVEL AREA WHERE I STOPPED. I NOTICED THE YELLOW …

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON 3 LANE HIGHWAY IN MIDDLE LANE AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH SLIGHTLY UP HILL AND ENGINE COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I PULLED OFF TO THE SHOULDER. ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. CAR HAD NO REAL POWER BUT WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE AT ABOUT 5 MPH FOR A FEW HUNDRED FEET UP EXIT RAMP TO A GRAVEL AREA WHERE I STOPPED. I NOTICED THE YELLOW WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON IN THE LOWER LEFT CORNER OF THE DASH. TURNED OFF ENGINE UNSURE OF WHAT TO DO. AT THE TIME I WAS ABOUT 90 MILES FROM HOME SO I TRIED TO START THE ENGINE AGAIN. ENGINE STARTED RIGHT UP. POWER WAS BACK. CONTINUED TO DRIVE ANOTHER 90 MILES WITH NO ISSUE. DESCRIPTIONS ON THE INTERNET TALK ABOUT A FUEL THROTTLE BODY ISSUE WHICH HAS SYMPTOMS THAT MATCH WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS VEHICLE. STOPPED AT FORD DEALER AND ORDERED NEW THROTTLE BODY. SERVICE DEPARTMENT ACTED LIKE THEY NEVER HEARD OF THE ISSUE ALTHOUGH IT IS ALL OVER THE INTERNET. WAITING FOR PART 9E926 TO ARRIVE TO INSTALL. CAR HAS HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST MONTH WHERE IT SPUTTERS A BIT PULLING OUT FROM A STOP SIGN AND HAS REVVED UP TO ABOUT 1500 RPM WHEN OUT OF GEAR RIGHT AFTER STARTING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10515020

54,000 miles · May 30, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline

CAR STALLED ON HIGHWAY AT 70 MILES PER HOUR. SEEMED LIKE CAR SHUTOFF, BUT LATER REALIZED THAT CAR WAS STILL ON BUT NOT MOVING. TOOK TO DEALER IT WAS DIAGNOSED AS THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE. QUITE DANGEROUS DUE TO SUDDEN LOSS OF CONTROL ON HIGHWAY, EASILY COULD OF BEEN HIT BY OTHER CAR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10514200

50,000 miles · May 28, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline

WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY, THE CAR STOPPED RESPONDING TO THE GAS PEDAL BEING PUSH, AND STARTED SLOWING DOWN SUDDENLY. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHERE THE CAR SPUTTERED, AND TURNED IT OFF. POPPED THE HOOD EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD. TURNED THE CAR ON AGAIN, STARTED GOING, AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN. WHEN I PULLED OVER A SE…

Read full complaint

WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY, THE CAR STOPPED RESPONDING TO THE GAS PEDAL BEING PUSH, AND STARTED SLOWING DOWN SUDDENLY. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHERE THE CAR SPUTTERED, AND TURNED IT OFF. POPPED THE HOOD EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD. TURNED THE CAR ON AGAIN, STARTED GOING, AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN. WHEN I PULLED OVER A SECOND TIME, LET THE CAR SIT ROUGHLY 5 MINUTES, TURNED OVER AND WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO AN AUTO ZONE TO RUN THE DIAGNOSTICS. TOOK IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND WAS ADVISED THAT NOT ONLY CAN THEY NOT FIX IT CURRENTLY, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN THE PART WILL BECOME AVAILABLE TO FIX IT, SINCE THE PART IS CURRENTLY BEING REDESIGNED. I'M SCARED TO DRIVE MY SUV, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S WITH MY TWO AND HALF YEAR OLD WITH ME. I'M AFRAID OF BEING LEFT STRANDED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10513756

67,000 miles · May 25, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline

IN FEB. 2013 I BROUGHT MY CAR TO THE DEALER BECAUSE IT WAS RUNNING ROUGH WHEN I WAS GOING UP AN INCLINE AND ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON BUT THEN WENT OFF. AFTER THE DEALER CHECKED IT THEY ASSURED ME NOTHING WAS MECHANICALLY WRONG. OFF AND ON THE PROBLEM PERSISTED, BUT ON A LESSER SCALE, BUT THERE WERE NO…

Read full complaint

IN FEB. 2013 I BROUGHT MY CAR TO THE DEALER BECAUSE IT WAS RUNNING ROUGH WHEN I WAS GOING UP AN INCLINE AND ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON BUT THEN WENT OFF. AFTER THE DEALER CHECKED IT THEY ASSURED ME NOTHING WAS MECHANICALLY WRONG. OFF AND ON THE PROBLEM PERSISTED, BUT ON A LESSER SCALE, BUT THERE WERE NO FAILURES INDICATED IN THE COMPUTER. ON MAY 23, 2013 I WAS TRAVELING IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC FROM BALTIMORE WHEN MY CAR BEGAN RUNNING ROUGH AND WITHIN SECONDS THE ENGINE LIGHT AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON. I HAD NO ACCELERATION AT ALL. I MANAGED TO NURSE IT TO THE SIDE OF A MAJOR HIGHWAY WHERE I TURNED THE CAR OFF. I WAITED SEVERAL MINS AND RESTARTED THE CAR. IT STARTED, THE ENGINE LIGHT REMAINED ON BUT THE WRENCH WENT OUT. I WAS NOT IN A PLACE THAT WAS SAFE FOR ME TO REMAIN SO I NURSED THE CAR TO THE DEALER. AFTER SECURING A RENTAL CAR FOR ABOUT $50 A DAY (AT MY EXPENSE) I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 27 DAYS (3RD WEEK OF JUNE) BEFORE THE PART IS AVAILABLE AND WILL COST ME APPROXIMATELY $750 TO FIX. AT $50 A DAY MY RENTAL WILL BE TWICE THE REPAIR BILL AND MORE THAN MY MORTGAGE! IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE DEALER I CALL FORD'S CUSTOMER CARE CENTER, WHICH I DID, AND WAS TOLD MY COMPLAINT WAS LOGGED AND THAT I WOULD HEAR "MOST LIKELY NEXT FROM THE MANAGER AT THE DEALER". THEY DID NOT OFFER TO ASSIST WITH A LOANER OR WITH THE ISSUE SURROUNDING THE FACT THAT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE 27 DAYS (AT LEAST) FOR A PART TO BE AVAILABLE. NOTHING WAS ULTIMATELY RESOLVED THROUGH FORD CUSTOMER CARE. FORTUNATELY I WAS IN THE "SLOW" LANE WHEN THIS HAPPENED AND COULD GET TO THE SHOULDER. IF I HAD BEEN IN ANY OTHER LANE ON THIS HIGHWAY, THE OUTCOME MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ACCIDENT FREE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10513540

47,567 miles · May 24, 2013
Fuel System, GasolinePower Train

VEHICLE DECELERATED TO 10 MPH, "WRENCH" SERVICE LIGHT APPEARED. I PULLED OVER, PUT VEHICLE INTO PARK, AT WHICH TIME IT BEGAN SHUDDERING. TURNED OFF ENGINE, WAITED A FEW MOMENTS, AND TURNED IGNITION. VEHICLE RESTARTED WITH SOME EFFORT. INCIDENT HAS RE-OCCURRED 7 TIMES SINCE THEN, NOW WITH "ENGINE" SERVICE LIGHT ON. MECHANIC HAS I…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE DECELERATED TO 10 MPH, "WRENCH" SERVICE LIGHT APPEARED. I PULLED OVER, PUT VEHICLE INTO PARK, AT WHICH TIME IT BEGAN SHUDDERING. TURNED OFF ENGINE, WAITED A FEW MOMENTS, AND TURNED IGNITION. VEHICLE RESTARTED WITH SOME EFFORT. INCIDENT HAS RE-OCCURRED 7 TIMES SINCE THEN, NOW WITH "ENGINE" SERVICE LIGHT ON. MECHANIC HAS IDENTIFIED ISSUE AS WORN THROTTLE BODY, ON 2-WEEK BACK ORDER AS OF MAY 10, 2013. TIME FOR A RECALL, FORD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10513378

57,720 miles · May 17, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineFuel/propulsion System

EVEN THOUGH THAT HAD HAPPENED SOME MONTHS BEFORE BUT STOPPED, IT DID IT AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2013. THE VEHICLE STALLED UNABLE TO BE ACCELERATED, THE WRENCH SIGN APPEARED AND ALL I COULD DO WAS COAST IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. SINCE THIS HAPPENED BEFORE, I TOOK IT IMMEDIATELY TO FORD TO HAVE IT FIX. …

Read full complaint

EVEN THOUGH THAT HAD HAPPENED SOME MONTHS BEFORE BUT STOPPED, IT DID IT AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2013. THE VEHICLE STALLED UNABLE TO BE ACCELERATED, THE WRENCH SIGN APPEARED AND ALL I COULD DO WAS COAST IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. SINCE THIS HAPPENED BEFORE, I TOOK IT IMMEDIATELY TO FORD TO HAVE IT FIX. I TOLD THEM WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS AND THEY CONFIRMED IT. THE REPAIRED WAS $304. SINCE FORD KNOWS ABOUT THIS EXISTING PROBLEM WITH THE ESCAPES, THEY SHOULD HAVE RECALLED THIS PART AND PAY YOU FOR THE REPAIR. I LIKE THE ESCAPE BUT I THINK FORD HAS NOT BEEN PROACTIVE IN FIXING THIS PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10512494

57,873 miles · Mar 18, 2013
EngineFuel System, Gasoline

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND ALSO EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CANISTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND ALSO EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CANISTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 57,873 UPDATED 04/30/13*LJ THE CHARCOAL CANISTER WAS REPLACED. UPDATED 05/20/13

NHTSA ODI #10503388

70,480 miles · Feb 5, 2013
EngineFuel System, Gasoline

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER AND A SMOKE TEST WAS PERFORMED. THE DEALER LOCATED A LEAK IN THE SYSTEM WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR FUEL LEAKAGE AS WELL. THE VALVE SOLENOID, VALVE ASSEMBLY…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER AND A SMOKE TEST WAS PERFORMED. THE DEALER LOCATED A LEAK IN THE SYSTEM WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR FUEL LEAKAGE AS WELL. THE VALVE SOLENOID, VALVE ASSEMBLY PIPE AND THE FUEL FILLER PIPE WERE ALL RECOMMENDED FOR REPLACEMENT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND A COMPLAINT WAS FILED BUT NO ASSISTANCE WAS OFFERED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AT A COST OF $ 931.64. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 70,480. UPDATED 03/01/13*LJ THE COMPONENT FAILURES BASED ON WHAT THE DEALER PROVIDED, WHICH WAS A SMOKE TEST, CONFIRMED THE FUEL SYSTEM WAS LEAKING FUEL VAPORS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AND ANY PLACES THAT FUEL VAPORS COULD ESCAPE. UPDATED 03/07/13

NHTSA ODI #10496453

19,215 miles · Jan 29, 2012
Fuel System, Gasoline

WHEN REFUELING THE VEHICLE, A STRONG FUEL ODOR IS PRESENT AND ABOUT A QUART OF FUEL LEAKS FROM UNDER THE VEHICLE. THIS LEAK DOES NOT COME FROM A SPILLAGE AT THE PUMP HANDLE AND FILLER TUBE. THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME I REFUEL. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DANGEROUS FIRE HAZARD! *TT

NHTSA ODI #10445789

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