← 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

Power Train complaints

508 reports
Clear category filter
65,064 miles · Aug 16, 2013
Power Train

WHILE TRAVELING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70 MPH, THE THROTTLE CONTROL STOPPED. THE ENGINE MAINTAINED RUNNING BUT THERE WAS NO THROTTLE CONTROL. I WAS FORCED TO CUT ACROSS TRAFFIC WHILE LOSING SPEED TO REACH THE SHOULDER. AFTER STOPPING, TURNING OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTING ALL CONTROL RETURNED. I TOOK CAR TO FORD DEALER AND UPON A DIA…

Read full complaint

WHILE TRAVELING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70 MPH, THE THROTTLE CONTROL STOPPED. THE ENGINE MAINTAINED RUNNING BUT THERE WAS NO THROTTLE CONTROL. I WAS FORCED TO CUT ACROSS TRAFFIC WHILE LOSING SPEED TO REACH THE SHOULDER. AFTER STOPPING, TURNING OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTING ALL CONTROL RETURNED. I TOOK CAR TO FORD DEALER AND UPON A DIAGNOSTIC WAS DETERMINED THAT CODE P2112 AND THE ETB FAILED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535710

47,570 miles · Aug 15, 2013
EnginePower Train

THIS IS THE SECOND INCIDENT ON VEHICLE, WHICH OCCURRED ON AUG.13,2013 WHILE DRIVING APPROX.35/40 M.P.H. EVERYTHING WAS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST INCIDENT, EXCEPT THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON UNTIL THE NEXT DAY WHEN I RETURNED IT TO MY FORD DEALER FOR REPAIR. THE FORD DEALER REPLACED ( NOT FOR FREE ) THE THROTT…

Read full complaint

THIS IS THE SECOND INCIDENT ON VEHICLE, WHICH OCCURRED ON AUG.13,2013 WHILE DRIVING APPROX.35/40 M.P.H. EVERYTHING WAS ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST INCIDENT, EXCEPT THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON UNTIL THE NEXT DAY WHEN I RETURNED IT TO MY FORD DEALER FOR REPAIR. THE FORD DEALER REPLACED ( NOT FOR FREE ) THE THROTTLE BODY & MOTOR ASY. THEY SAID IT WAS A LOSS OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE TPS SENSOR INSIDE THROTTLE BODY. ANYHOW THE CAR IS BACK ON THE ROAD TONIGHT , AUG 15, 2013 & SEEMS FINE. HOPE IT STAYS LIKE THIS. PS -- AS AN AFTER THOUGHT THE FORD DEALER COULDN'T HAVE BEEN NICER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535660

52,000 miles · Aug 15, 2013
EnginePower Train

MY VEHICLE STARTED SHAKING AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON I PULLED OVER AND TURNED IT OFF, RESTARTED IT AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME THE NEXT DAY IT HAPPENED AGAIN AND I DROVE IT INTO THE DEALER THAT I HAD JUST PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM 6 WEEKS EARLIER AND THEY DETERMINED IT WAS THE THROTTLE MOTOR. THE VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRA…

Read full complaint

MY VEHICLE STARTED SHAKING AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON I PULLED OVER AND TURNED IT OFF, RESTARTED IT AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME THE NEXT DAY IT HAPPENED AGAIN AND I DROVE IT INTO THE DEALER THAT I HAD JUST PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM 6 WEEKS EARLIER AND THEY DETERMINED IT WAS THE THROTTLE MOTOR. THE VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY BUT THEY WANT ME TO PAY FOR HALF OF REPAIR AND I HAVE DISCOVERED THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM IN THIS VEHICLE AND I AM AFRAID IF THEY PUT IN THE SAME PART I WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535448

70,000 miles · Aug 15, 2013
Power Train

WHILE TRAVELING AT HWY SPEED ACCELERATED TO PASS SLOW VEHICLE, VEHICLE WAS DELAYED GOING INTO PASSING GEAR AND CLUNKED INTO PASSING GEAR. HAD TO LET OFF ACCELERATOR TO UPSHIFT INTO 6TH GEAR. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE HAS BEEN AN OPENED CAMPAIGN FOR THIS ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535444

54,000 miles · Aug 14, 2013
EnginePower Train

WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, VEHICLE STALLED, NO POWER, WE HAD TO PULL OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER. THE WRENCH ICON WAS DISPLAYED. AFTER TURNING OFF THE VEHICLE, WE WERE ABLE TO RESTART ENGINE AND TRAVEL HOME. THE SAME THING HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES. LUCKILY, WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OVER WITH NO COLLISION, ALTHOUGH ON TWO OCCASION…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEED, VEHICLE STALLED, NO POWER, WE HAD TO PULL OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER. THE WRENCH ICON WAS DISPLAYED. AFTER TURNING OFF THE VEHICLE, WE WERE ABLE TO RESTART ENGINE AND TRAVEL HOME. THE SAME THING HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES. LUCKILY, WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OVER WITH NO COLLISION, ALTHOUGH ON TWO OCCASIONS, TRAFFIC WAS HEAVY. AFTER THE THIRD INCIDENT, WE MADE AN APPOINTMENT AT OUR FORD DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT. THEY DIAGNOSED THROTTLE BODY FAILURE AND REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY AT THE COST OF $500.00, NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. MILEAGE ON THE ODOMETER IS 55,000. WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO RECALL ON THIS PART? ARE YOU WAITING FOR SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH? THIS IS AN EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS INCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THE NHTSA ARE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND ISSUE A RECALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535385

34,000 miles · Aug 14, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING FROM SAN DIEGO TO ORANGE COUNTY ON INTERSTATE 5, WHICH IS ALWAYS A VERY BUSY HIGHWAY AROUND 50 MPH WHEN THE CAR DID A SLIGHT HESITATION AND THEN A QUICK SURGE AND THEN LOST POWER. IT DID NOT DIE BUT WAS ONLY MOVING AT 4 MPH AND THE GAS PEDAL DID NOT HAVE ANY POWER, NO RESPONSE AT ALL. I WAS IN LANE 4 OF A 5 LANE …

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING FROM SAN DIEGO TO ORANGE COUNTY ON INTERSTATE 5, WHICH IS ALWAYS A VERY BUSY HIGHWAY AROUND 50 MPH WHEN THE CAR DID A SLIGHT HESITATION AND THEN A QUICK SURGE AND THEN LOST POWER. IT DID NOT DIE BUT WAS ONLY MOVING AT 4 MPH AND THE GAS PEDAL DID NOT HAVE ANY POWER, NO RESPONSE AT ALL. I WAS IN LANE 4 OF A 5 LANE HIGHWAY AND FINALLY WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE LEFT AND PULL OFF IN THE CENTER OF THE INTERSTATE. I TURNED OFF THE IGNITION AND SET THERE FOR A FEW MINUTES TRYING TO GAIN MY COMPOSURE. THE CAR STARTED RIGHT UP AND SEEMED TO BE OKAY. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE FORD DEALER THE NEXT MORNING AND THEY SAID IT WAS A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM BUT WOULD TAKE 8 DAYS TO GET THE PART AND IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE WARRANTY. THE THROTTLE BODY UNIT USUALLY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REPLACED UNTIL 100,000 MILES. I HAVE 34,000 MILES AND MAINTAIN MY CAR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY AT MY FORD DEALERSHIP. I BELIEVE THE UNIT MUST BE DEFECTIVE AND SHOULD BE RECALLED BEFORE SOMEONE IS SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED. IT WAS EXTREMELY SCARY NOT KNOWING IF AT ANY MINUTE ANOTHER VEHICLE WOULD RUN INTO THE BACK OF MY CAR GOING 4 MPH ON A BUSY INTERSTATE! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535263

55,900 miles · Aug 13, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

ON JULY 4, 2013 I WAS DRIVING MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE ON I-235 SOUTH IN OKLAHOMA CITY AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH WHEN THE FORWARD MOMENTUM OF THE VEHICLE DROPPED OUT AND IT BEGAN TO DECELERATE. I ATTEMPTED TO CONTINUE FORWARD MOMENTUM BY APPLYING PRESSURE TO THE ACCELERATOR BUT WITH NO RESPONSE FROM THE VEHICLE. I COASTED THE VEHICLE A…

Read full complaint

ON JULY 4, 2013 I WAS DRIVING MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE ON I-235 SOUTH IN OKLAHOMA CITY AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH WHEN THE FORWARD MOMENTUM OF THE VEHICLE DROPPED OUT AND IT BEGAN TO DECELERATE. I ATTEMPTED TO CONTINUE FORWARD MOMENTUM BY APPLYING PRESSURE TO THE ACCELERATOR BUT WITH NO RESPONSE FROM THE VEHICLE. I COASTED THE VEHICLE ACROSS LANES OF TRAFFIC TO THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. ONCE STOPPED I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN PARK AND THE ENGINE WAS SPUTTERING AND LOSING RPMS. I IDENTIFIED THE POWER TRAIN (WRENCH LIGHT) ON CONTROL CONSOLE WAS LITE AT WHICH I OBSERVED THE VEHICLE. I APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE ACCELERATOR TO INCREASE RPMS AT WHICH NO SUCCESS WAS NOTED AT THAT POINT I CUT THE POWER TO THE VEHICLE. I ALLOWED THE VEHICLE TO SIT FOR 5 MINUTES AND THEN RESTARTED THE ENGINE WITH SOME SPUTTERING. AT THAT POINT I APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE ACCELERATOR AND IMMEDIATELY THE RPMS INCREASED AND THE VEHICLE RETURNED TO OPERATING NORMALLY. SIMILAR ACTION REPEATED ON AUG. 13, 2013 X 4 TIMES ON THE SAME HIGHWAY: ONCE DURING MORNING TRAFFIC TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH AND THEN THREE TIMES DURING EVENING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC TRAVELING 20-40 MPH. PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED AS MALFUNCTIONING THROTTLE BODY BY FORD DEALERSHIP MECHANIC. FAILURE ACTED DURING HIGH TRAFFIC SITUATIONS WHICH COULD LEAD TO A POTENTIAL ACCIDENT OR INJURY TO OPERATOR AND SURROUNDING MOTORISTS. UPON FURTHER RESEARCH IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE FAILURES OF THROTTLE BODIES IN 2010 FORD ESCAPES WHICH HAD TO BE REPLACED AT THE OWNER'S COST AND FORD HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL FOR THIS DEFECTIVE COMPONENT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535251

34,700 miles · Aug 13, 2013
Power Train

VEHICLE LOST POWER IN THRUWAY TRAFFIC. ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN, BUT NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN SPEED. YELLOW SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT AND RED WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON DASHBOARD. HAD TO TURN OFF VEHICLE AND WAIT TO START. THEN POWER WAS FINE FOR ANOTHER 10 OR SO MINUTES, THEN THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN.VERY DANGEROUS IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. …

Read full complaint

VEHICLE LOST POWER IN THRUWAY TRAFFIC. ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN, BUT NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN SPEED. YELLOW SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT AND RED WRENCH LIGHT APPEARED ON DASHBOARD. HAD TO TURN OFF VEHICLE AND WAIT TO START. THEN POWER WAS FINE FOR ANOTHER 10 OR SO MINUTES, THEN THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN.VERY DANGEROUS IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10535119

44,005 miles · Aug 12, 2013
EnginePower Train

CAR STALLED WITH A WRENCH ON DASHBOARD. HAD TO TURN THE CAR OFF AND ON AGAIN. TOOK LONGER TO START. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10534821

55,500 miles · Aug 11, 2013
Power Train

WHILE SITTING AT A STOP LIGHT MY VEHICLE SEEMED TO LOSE POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I LIMPED MY CAR TO A PARKING LOT AND ONCE SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED IT SEEMED FINE. IT WORKED FINE FOR 3-4 DAYS AND IT OCCURRED TWICE ON MY WAY TO WORK WHILE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH. ONCE AGAIN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND ONCE SH…

Read full complaint

WHILE SITTING AT A STOP LIGHT MY VEHICLE SEEMED TO LOSE POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I LIMPED MY CAR TO A PARKING LOT AND ONCE SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED IT SEEMED FINE. IT WORKED FINE FOR 3-4 DAYS AND IT OCCURRED TWICE ON MY WAY TO WORK WHILE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH. ONCE AGAIN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND ONCE SHUT DOWN AND STARTED FINE. THE SECOND TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ALSO CAME ON. I BROUGHT MY VEHICLE TO A MECHANIC I KNOW AND TRUST AND SAID THE CODE THAT CAME UP WAS P2111 AND I WOULD NEED TO BRING IT TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10534795

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