NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
508 reportsClear category filter48,000 miles · Aug 5, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY, MY CAR SUDDENLY LOST THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE AND I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE DOWN THE ROAD. I PULLED OVER AND MY CAR WAS RUNNING EXTREMELY ROUGH. IT ALMOST FELT LIKE THE CAR WAS BUCKING DUE TO A NOVICE DRIVING A MANUAL TRANSMISSION - NOTE THAT THIS WAS WHEN I WAS PARKED AS WELL AS WHEN I WAS DECELERA…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY, MY CAR SUDDENLY LOST THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE AND I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE DOWN THE ROAD. I PULLED OVER AND MY CAR WAS RUNNING EXTREMELY ROUGH. IT ALMOST FELT LIKE THE CAR WAS BUCKING DUE TO A NOVICE DRIVING A MANUAL TRANSMISSION - NOTE THAT THIS WAS WHEN I WAS PARKED AS WELL AS WHEN I WAS DECELERATING. I NOTICED THE ORANGE WRENCH LIT UP ON MY DASH AND GOT A TOW TO THE NEAREST DEALERSHIP. THE DEALERSHIP CALLED ME AND LET ME KNOW IT WAS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE AND IT HAS BEEN REPLACED. MY CAR ONLY HAD 48K ON IT AND THERE IS NO WAY IN MY OPINION THAT THIS SHOULD HAPPEN. I FEEL LIKE I'M HAVING MONEY STOLEN FROM MY WALLET DUE TO THE FACT FORD IS FULLY AWARE OF THE PROBLEM BUT IS NOT TAKING PROACTIVE STEPS TO FIX IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533647
42,000 miles · Aug 5, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING ON 3 LANE HIGHWAY (IN TRAFFIC) CAR BUCKED AND LOST GAS PEDAL (DID NOTHING WHEN PUSHED) I WAS IN CENTER LANE ENGINE WENT TO IDOL WITH NO ENGINE CONTROL LOOKED IN MIRROR SEEN TRUCK LIGHTS ( VERY SCARY ) WHEN U CAN'T DO NOTHING LUCKILY ABLE TO GET OFF ROAD . TURNED OFF ENGINE AN RE STARTED IT WHEN A SHORT DISTANCE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON 3 LANE HIGHWAY (IN TRAFFIC) CAR BUCKED AND LOST GAS PEDAL (DID NOTHING WHEN PUSHED) I WAS IN CENTER LANE ENGINE WENT TO IDOL WITH NO ENGINE CONTROL LOOKED IN MIRROR SEEN TRUCK LIGHTS ( VERY SCARY ) WHEN U CAN'T DO NOTHING LUCKILY ABLE TO GET OFF ROAD . TURNED OFF ENGINE AN RE STARTED IT WHEN A SHORT DISTANCE THEN SAME THING HAPPENED. DID THIS 7 TIMES IN LESS THAN 7 MILES LUCK I MADE IT TO MY DRIVE WAY (HAD TOWED TO DEALER NEXT DAY) WAITING FOR IT TO BE FIXED. THIS IS A DEATH WAITING TO HAPPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533589
62,000 miles · Aug 5, 2013
Power Train
THIS HAPPENED TWICE WITH IN ONE WEEK: WRENCH LIGHT TURNED ON AND ACCELERATOR FAILED TO WORK WHILE NAVIGATING IN CITY TRAFFIC. WAS FORCED TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WHILE CARS SPED PAST ME. ONCE SAFELY OUT OF TRAFFIC I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND WAITED A FEW MOMENTS. WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON IT OPERATED CORRECTLY. A MECH…
Read full complaint
THIS HAPPENED TWICE WITH IN ONE WEEK: WRENCH LIGHT TURNED ON AND ACCELERATOR FAILED TO WORK WHILE NAVIGATING IN CITY TRAFFIC. WAS FORCED TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WHILE CARS SPED PAST ME. ONCE SAFELY OUT OF TRAFFIC I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND WAITED A FEW MOMENTS. WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON IT OPERATED CORRECTLY. A MECHANIC WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY CODES IN THE CAR'S COMPUTER THAT WOULD INDICATE A PROBLEM, BUT THE CAR WAS CLEARLY UNSAFE TO DRIVE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533585
46,000 miles · Aug 4, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON I-64 WESTBOUND IN THE FAR LEFT HOV LANE IN NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA AROUND 4:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 2 DURING RUSH HOUR WHEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE, WHICH WAS ON CRUISE CONTROL SET AT 60 MPH, SUDDENLY STOPPED ACCELERATING. I PRESSED THE PEDAL AND IT CONTINUED TO DECELERATE AND STARTED TO SHAKE. I PUT ON MY EMERGENCY FLASH…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON I-64 WESTBOUND IN THE FAR LEFT HOV LANE IN NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA AROUND 4:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 2 DURING RUSH HOUR WHEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE, WHICH WAS ON CRUISE CONTROL SET AT 60 MPH, SUDDENLY STOPPED ACCELERATING. I PRESSED THE PEDAL AND IT CONTINUED TO DECELERATE AND STARTED TO SHAKE. I PUT ON MY EMERGENCY FLASHERS. MY HUSBAND AND I ALMOST GOT HIT NUMEROUS TIMES BY CARS TRAVELING AT SPEEDS OF UP TO 65 MILES PER HOUR, AS I WAS FORCED TO CROSS FOUR LANES OF SPEEDING TRAFFIC TO REACH THE RIGHT SHOULDER. I FEARED THAT HAD MY CAR STOPPED BEFORE REACHING THE SHOULDER, ANOTHER CAR WOULD HAVE EASILY SLAMMED INTO THE REAR OF MY VEHICLE, CAUSING MAJOR BODILY HARM OR DEATH. AFTER NUMEROUS NEAR-COLLISIONS, I MADE IT SAFELY TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER. AT THAT POINT, MY HEART WAS RACING AND MY HANDS WERE TREMBLING. MY HUSBAND AND I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED!!! MY CAR IS NOW SITTING AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP WITH NO ESTIMATED TIME OF REPAIR. I DEPEND UPON MY AUTOMOBILE FOR TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM WORK, AS WELL AS OTHER PLACES. PLEASE HELP ME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533527
61,435 miles · Aug 4, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
MY HUSBAND AND I WERE DRIVING FROM DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS BACK TO OUR HOME AND WE WERE IN BETWEEN MULTIPLE CARS ON THE FREEWAY. WHILE GOING 65 MPH THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SLIGHTLY JERK AND LOOSE SPEED. THE VEHICLES AROUND US AND BEHIND US WERE ATTEMPTING TO AVOID CRASHING INTO US. WE ABOUT HALF A MILE FROM THE NEAREST EXIT AND BY THE T…
Read full complaint
MY HUSBAND AND I WERE DRIVING FROM DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS BACK TO OUR HOME AND WE WERE IN BETWEEN MULTIPLE CARS ON THE FREEWAY. WHILE GOING 65 MPH THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SLIGHTLY JERK AND LOOSE SPEED. THE VEHICLES AROUND US AND BEHIND US WERE ATTEMPTING TO AVOID CRASHING INTO US. WE ABOUT HALF A MILE FROM THE NEAREST EXIT AND BY THE TIME WE MADE IT TO THE RAMP WE WERE ONLY GOING 35 MPH. THERE WAS NO WHERE TO SAFELY PULL OVER ON THE FREEWAY DUE TO ONGOING CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND I FELT AS THOUGH WE COULD HAVE BEEN IN A POTENTIALLY DEADLY ACCIDENT. THROUGHOUT THIS ORDEAL THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN LIGHT WAS ON. ONCE WE GOT OFF ON THE NEAREST EXIT WE WERE FORCED TO COME TO A COMPLETE STOP. WE OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT USE THE GAS TO GO FORWARD AND IT WAS SCARY BECAUSE WE HAD TRAFFIC BEHIND US. WE TURNED THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY OFF AND RESTARTED IT RIGHT THERE ON THE EXIT RAMP AND TO OUR SURPRISE THE VEHICLE STARTED UP AND THE LIGHT WAS OFF. AFTER READING HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE HAD THIS SAME INCIDENT OCCUR TO THEM WHILE DRIVING THIS VEHICLE I AM SHOCKED THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RECALL. DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? WHAT IF MY 2 YEAR OLD HAD BEEN IN THE VEHICLE ON THE FREEWAY AND SOMEONE HIT US BECAUSE WE WERE UNABLE TO AVOID A CRASH? NOW I KNOW THAT I SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING THIS VEHICLE BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THIS WILL CONTINUE FROM WHAT I HAVE READ AND I AM SUPPOSED TO GIVE MONEY TO FORD TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT IS NOT MY FAULT... *SHAKING MY HEAD*, SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533483
40,000 miles · Aug 4, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WE HAD JUST TURNED ONTO OUR STREET, STARTED TO PROCEED UP THE HILL AT ABOUT 35-40 MPH. CAR SUDDENLY WENT UNRESPONSIVE. WRENCH LIGHT INDICATOR LIT UP ON DASHBOARD. STARTED TO IDLE VERY HARD, THEN SURGE, THEN LOW IDLE, THEN SURGE RPM. NO GAS PEDAL RESPONSE AT ALL. LUCKILY WE HAD JUST GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY, AND WERE CLOSE TO HOME…
Read full complaint
WE HAD JUST TURNED ONTO OUR STREET, STARTED TO PROCEED UP THE HILL AT ABOUT 35-40 MPH. CAR SUDDENLY WENT UNRESPONSIVE. WRENCH LIGHT INDICATOR LIT UP ON DASHBOARD. STARTED TO IDLE VERY HARD, THEN SURGE, THEN LOW IDLE, THEN SURGE RPM. NO GAS PEDAL RESPONSE AT ALL. LUCKILY WE HAD JUST GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY, AND WERE CLOSE TO HOME. HOWEVER, WE WERE GOING UPHILL. WE HAD JUST ENOUGH MOMENTUM TO GET OVER THE HILL AND COAST DOWN TO OUR DRIVEWAY. UPON PUTTING THE CAR IN PARK IN OUR DRIVEWAY, THE RPM'S WERE FLUCTUATING FROM ALMOST 0, THEN SHOOTING BACK UP TO OVER 2500. FROM WANTING TO STALL, TO WANTING TO RACE AHEAD. IN RESEARCHING, I HAVE SEEN THIS DESCRIBED AS A FAULTY ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY, WHICH APPARENTLY HAS AFFECTED OVER 725,000 OF THESE VEHICLES AND STILL WITHOUT RECALL. THIS IS INSANE AND HIGHLY DANGEROUS IF YOU ARE TRAVELING IN HEAVY TRAFFIC OR ON THE HIGHWAY AS YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE JUST WANTING TO STOP DEAD. WE WERE LUCKY IN THAT WE WERE ALREADY OFF OF THE INTERSTATE AND CLOSE TO HOME. PLEASE, PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE FURTHER! OUR NORMAL WARRANTY HAS JUST EXPIRED OF COURSE, AND THEY SAY THIS IS NOT COVERED BY THE POWERTRAIN WARRANTY. GREAT, WE HAVE TO PAY NOT ONLY FOR THE CAR, BUT FOR IT'S DEFECTS AS WELL. WE DON'T JUST HAVE AN EXTRA $500.00 LAYING AROUND TO REPAIR THIS! THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533479
40,000 miles · Aug 4, 2013
Power Train
FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED I WAS COMING TO A STOP WHEN THE CAR JOLTED FORWARD THEN LOST POWER TO ACCELERATE. THE SECOND TIME IT HAPPENED I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER AND WHEN I SLOWED TO A STOP THE VEHICLE JOLTED FORWARD AGAIN. I TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER THE FIRST TIME AND THEY SAID THAT …
Read full complaint
FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED I WAS COMING TO A STOP WHEN THE CAR JOLTED FORWARD THEN LOST POWER TO ACCELERATE. THE SECOND TIME IT HAPPENED I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER AND WHEN I SLOWED TO A STOP THE VEHICLE JOLTED FORWARD AGAIN. I TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER THE FIRST TIME AND THEY SAID THAT THE PROBLEM SOUNDS LIKE THE THROTTLE BODY AND IS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533457
73,282 miles · Aug 3, 2013
EnginePower Train
WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY HIGHWAY. SUV DECELERATED IN SPEED AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WE HAD A SELF TEST DIAGNOSTIC GOT CODE P2111 TOOK IT TO SHOP THEY GOT SAME CODE AND REPLACED THROTTLE BODY AT MY EXPENSE. USED A FORD AUTHORIZED DEALER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533387
44,800 miles · Aug 3, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WHILE TRAVELING ON A STATE HIGHWAY THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST POWER ALTHOUGH IT WAS STILL RUNNING. THE POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. WE LIMPED OFF THE HIGHWAY. AFTER TURNING THE VEHICLE OFF AND TURNING IT BACK ON, THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO RUN AGAIN. THE LIGHT GOES OFF AND STAYS OFF UNTIL THE NEXT INCIDENT. THE INCIDENTS HAPPEN VERY FR…
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING ON A STATE HIGHWAY THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST POWER ALTHOUGH IT WAS STILL RUNNING. THE POWERTRAIN LIGHT CAME ON. WE LIMPED OFF THE HIGHWAY. AFTER TURNING THE VEHICLE OFF AND TURNING IT BACK ON, THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO RUN AGAIN. THE LIGHT GOES OFF AND STAYS OFF UNTIL THE NEXT INCIDENT. THE INCIDENTS HAPPEN VERY FREQUENTLY NOW, AND BECAUSE OF THIS, WE ARE UNABLE TO USE OUR VEHICLE AT ALL. THIS HAS HAPPENED WITH ME RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. WE HAD A CODE RUN AND HAVE BEEN TOLD IT IS THE THROTTLE BODY, WHICH IS APPARENTLY A COMMON PROBLEM. WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE PART TO REPAIR IT SO FAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533376
32,000 miles · Aug 3, 2013
EnginePower Train
ENGINE & POWERTRAIN BAD HESITATION AT LOW SPEED ALL THE TIME. SEEMS LIKE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION THAT GENERATES ENGINE & POWERTRAIN TO SURGE AND SEEMS LIKE ENGINE WILL STALL. THIS ALSO CREATES HARD IMPACT IN TRANSMISSION & DRIVELINE SYSTEM AS ALL OF THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION HAPPENS AND SUDDEN TORQUE IN TRANSMISSION &…
Read full complaint
ENGINE & POWERTRAIN BAD HESITATION AT LOW SPEED ALL THE TIME. SEEMS LIKE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION THAT GENERATES ENGINE & POWERTRAIN TO SURGE AND SEEMS LIKE ENGINE WILL STALL. THIS ALSO CREATES HARD IMPACT IN TRANSMISSION & DRIVELINE SYSTEM AS ALL OF THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION HAPPENS AND SUDDEN TORQUE IN TRANSMISSION & DRIVE LINE GENERATES HIGH STRESS (IMPACT) ON THESE SYSTEMS THAT AFFECTS & DEGRADES DURABILITY & RELIABILITY OF VEHICLE. BAD ENGINE & POWERTRAIN HESITATION IS A SAFETY CONCERN DUE TO DEGRADED ENGINE PERFORMANCE AT INTERSECTIONS WHERE ENGINE POWER IS REQUIRED TO TAKE OFF FROM 0MPH TO 45MPH AND POOR ACCELERATION & HESITATION IS PRESENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533363
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.