NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
508 reportsClear category filter73,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHILE DRIVING CAR AND BARELY HAD ENOUGH RPMS TO GET OFF ROAD. HAD TO PULL BATTERY CABLE OFF TO GET CAR TO MOVE. THIS HAPPENED THREE TIMES TO GET THE CAR 20 MILES TO HOME THEN TRAILERED TO FORD DEALER. SAID IT WAS A BAD TB. THE CAR HAS ALSO STALLED AT 0MPH AND SOMETIMES SURGES. ONE TIME THIS WINTER THE CAR SU…
Read full complaint
WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHILE DRIVING CAR AND BARELY HAD ENOUGH RPMS TO GET OFF ROAD. HAD TO PULL BATTERY CABLE OFF TO GET CAR TO MOVE. THIS HAPPENED THREE TIMES TO GET THE CAR 20 MILES TO HOME THEN TRAILERED TO FORD DEALER. SAID IT WAS A BAD TB. THE CAR HAS ALSO STALLED AT 0MPH AND SOMETIMES SURGES. ONE TIME THIS WINTER THE CAR SURGED CAUSING IT TO HIT MY TRACTOR AND BUSTED BUMPER COVER AND FOG LAMP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522163
47,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Power Train
WE WERE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN WE SUDDENLY HAD NO MORE ACCELERATION. THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT DIDN'T GIVE US ANY GO AND WE STARTED DECELERATING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY. THANKFULLY, WE WERE ABLE TO QUICKLY PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO AVOID BEING REAR-ENDE…
Read full complaint
WE WERE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN WE SUDDENLY HAD NO MORE ACCELERATION. THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT DIDN'T GIVE US ANY GO AND WE STARTED DECELERATING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY. THANKFULLY, WE WERE ABLE TO QUICKLY PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO AVOID BEING REAR-ENDED. WE TURNED THE TRUCK OFF, WAITING A MINUTE OR TWO AND STARTED IT BACK UP AND HAD ACCELERATION AGAIN FOR A FEW MILES. THIS HAPPENED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THE REMAINING 8 OR SO MILES TO OUR HOUSE WHERE WE WERE FINALLY ABLE TO PULL UP IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE AND CALLED OUR LOCAL FORD DEALER TO HAVE THE TRUCK TOWED TO THEIR SHOP. WE'RE STILL WAITING TO HEAR WHAT THEY FOUND OUT BUT FROM MY RESEARCH I JUST DID ON THE INTERNET IT APPEARS THIS IS A VERY COMMON AND SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR MANY FORD ESCAPE OWNERS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522147
60,000 miles · Jun 27, 2013
Power Train
MY FORD ESCAPE WITHOUT ANY WARNING SUDDENLY STALLED ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY. I LUCKILY WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN FAILURE WARNING LIGHT ON THE INSTRUMENTATION PANEL CAME. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE ESCAPE, BUT IT CONTINUES TO STALL REPEATEDLY. THUS I AM NOT ABLE TO DRIVE MY ESCA…
Read full complaint
MY FORD ESCAPE WITHOUT ANY WARNING SUDDENLY STALLED ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY. I LUCKILY WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN FAILURE WARNING LIGHT ON THE INSTRUMENTATION PANEL CAME. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE ESCAPE, BUT IT CONTINUES TO STALL REPEATEDLY. THUS I AM NOT ABLE TO DRIVE MY ESCAPE. MY AUTO MECHANIC INDICATED THIS IS A KNOWN FORD ISSUE AND THE REPLACEMENT PART IS ON BACK ORDER DUE TO THE NUMBER OF FORD ESCAPE OWNERS AS EXPERIENCING THIS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522099
59,200 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Power Train
TURNED TO GO UP SLIGHT HILL IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE EVEN WITH GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR. CAR SHOOK AND BUCKED. WAS ABLE TO LIMP UP HILL IN SEVERAL MINUTES AND COAST DOWN OTHER SIDE TO REST. DEALER SAYS IT IS A BAD THROTTLE BODY. PART IS ON NATIONAL RECALL. DEALER ALSO SAYS PART IS NOT COVERED BY…
Read full complaint
TURNED TO GO UP SLIGHT HILL IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE EVEN WITH GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR. CAR SHOOK AND BUCKED. WAS ABLE TO LIMP UP HILL IN SEVERAL MINUTES AND COAST DOWN OTHER SIDE TO REST. DEALER SAYS IT IS A BAD THROTTLE BODY. PART IS ON NATIONAL RECALL. DEALER ALSO SAYS PART IS NOT COVERED BY POWERTRAIN WARRANTY EVEN THOUGH POWERTRAIN/THROTTLE IS THE WARNING LIGHT THAT APPEARS ON DASH AND THROTTLE BODY CONTROLS THE POWER TRAIN. DEALER IN TALLAHASSEE, FL ALSO REPORTED AT LEAST 2 OTHER ESCAPES IN SHOP WITH SAME PROBLEM AND AWAITING PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521877
43,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
AT A STOP LIGHT, LIGHT TURNED GREEN GOT UP TO ABOUT 10MPH AND THE VEHICLE JUST LOST POWER...STILL AT AN IDLE IN MORNING TRAFFIC ALMOST HIT BY TWO CARS. THIS IS RIDICULOUS IF ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE HAVING THE SAME ISSUE THEN WHY WONT A RECALL BE ISSUED? I AM A SINGLE WORKING PARENT OF THREE AND $600 TO SHELL OUT TO FIX A PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
AT A STOP LIGHT, LIGHT TURNED GREEN GOT UP TO ABOUT 10MPH AND THE VEHICLE JUST LOST POWER...STILL AT AN IDLE IN MORNING TRAFFIC ALMOST HIT BY TWO CARS. THIS IS RIDICULOUS IF ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE HAVING THE SAME ISSUE THEN WHY WONT A RECALL BE ISSUED? I AM A SINGLE WORKING PARENT OF THREE AND $600 TO SHELL OUT TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT FORD KNOWS IS AN ISSUE? HOW WILL I BE COMPENSATED AFTER THE FACT BECAUSE I KNOW SOONER OR LATER FORD WILL HAVE TO STOP PUSHING ALL OF US OFF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521868
65,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Power Train
I LOST ALL ACCELERATION IN MY ESCAPE WHEN I DROVE FORWARD FROM A COMPLETE STOP. I THOUGHT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, BUT IT ACTUALLY WAS SURGING. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ABOUT 1 1/2 MILES HOME AT A SPEED OF NO MORE THAN 10 MPH. THE VEHICLE IS AT THE FORD DEALER, WHO ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. THE BACK ORDER …
Read full complaint
I LOST ALL ACCELERATION IN MY ESCAPE WHEN I DROVE FORWARD FROM A COMPLETE STOP. I THOUGHT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, BUT IT ACTUALLY WAS SURGING. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ABOUT 1 1/2 MILES HOME AT A SPEED OF NO MORE THAN 10 MPH. THE VEHICLE IS AT THE FORD DEALER, WHO ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. THE BACK ORDER TIME FOR THIS PART IS UP TO A WEEK, SO I AM FORCED TO RENT A CAR IN THE MEANTIME. I HOPE THIS NOW MASSIVE PROBLEM (I HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING) LEADS TO AN IMMEDIATE RECALL. MY SITUATION COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A SERIOUS OR FATAL ACCIDENT, AS I WAS CROSSING A MAJOR HIGHWAY AS THE FAILURE OCCURRED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521844
72,869 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING THIS MORNING AT 30 MILES PER HOUR AND I FEEL MY 2010 ESCAPE LOSE POWER NO RESPONSE WHEN PUSHING THE ACCELERATOR. WRENCH ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON AND I PUT MY CAR IN NEUTRAL AND PRESS THE ACCELERATOR BUT NOTHING HAPPENS. ENGINE NEVER APPEARED TO DIE IT FELT LIKE IT WAS STILL RUNNING JUST WAS NOT RESPONDING. I TURNED OFF T…
Read full complaint
DRIVING THIS MORNING AT 30 MILES PER HOUR AND I FEEL MY 2010 ESCAPE LOSE POWER NO RESPONSE WHEN PUSHING THE ACCELERATOR. WRENCH ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON AND I PUT MY CAR IN NEUTRAL AND PRESS THE ACCELERATOR BUT NOTHING HAPPENS. ENGINE NEVER APPEARED TO DIE IT FELT LIKE IT WAS STILL RUNNING JUST WAS NOT RESPONDING. I TURNED OFF THE ESCAPE AND TURNED IT BACK ON WITH NO PROBLEMS. THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST BUT RECENTLY GOT A NEW BATTERY WHICH IT HAD FELT LIKE IT FIXED THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE ESCAPE NO LONGER WAS SLUGGISH WHEN DRIVING OR CHANGING GEARS WITH A JERK LIKE IT HAD IN THE PAST. BATTERY IS ONLY A MONTH OLD AND OIL CHANGE WAS DONE AT THE SAME TIME. I HAVE RESEARCHED AND THERE ARE CURRENTLY 231 COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED ON POWER TRAIN FAILURE AND EVERY STORY SOUNDS JUST LIKE MINE. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY RISK SINCE THE CAR NO LONGER RESPONDS WHILE DRIVING. PLEASE CONSIDER RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521833
65,700 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR AND A WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH CAME ON. I HAD NO GAS POWER I COULD NOT GIVE THE CAR ANY GAS AND I HAD TO COAST THROUGH TRAFFIC TO A STOP. THE CAR SHUT OFF AND WOULD NOT RESTART, I WAITED FOR A FEW MINUTES AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART. THE LIGHT WAS NO LONGER ILLUMINATED ON THE DASH AND I WAS AB…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY DURING RUSH HOUR AND A WRENCH LIGHT ON THE DASH CAME ON. I HAD NO GAS POWER I COULD NOT GIVE THE CAR ANY GAS AND I HAD TO COAST THROUGH TRAFFIC TO A STOP. THE CAR SHUT OFF AND WOULD NOT RESTART, I WAITED FOR A FEW MINUTES AND WAS ABLE TO RESTART. THE LIGHT WAS NO LONGER ILLUMINATED ON THE DASH AND I WAS ABLE TO GIVE THE CAR GAS AGAIN SO I TRIED TO CONTINUE MY COMMUTE BUT IT HAPPENED AGAIN WITHIN A FEW MILES. THIS CONTINUED 3 MORE TIMES BEFORE I HAD TO CALL A TOW TRUCK TO HAVE THE CAR TOWED TO THE SHOP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521695
51,000 miles · Jun 24, 2013
EnginePower Train
WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 30MPH WHEN THE ENGINE CUT DOWN TO WHAT I WOULD LATER FIND OUT WAS "LIMP HOME MODE". THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS WENT ON AND THE VEHICLE BECAME UNRESPONSIVE TO THE ACCELERATOR. I HAD TRAFFIC BEHIND ME AND WAS GOING UP A HILL WHICH I WAS BARELY ABLE TO SPUTTER TO THE TOP OFF BEFORE TURNING OFF THE VEHIC…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING ALONG AT ABOUT 30MPH WHEN THE ENGINE CUT DOWN TO WHAT I WOULD LATER FIND OUT WAS "LIMP HOME MODE". THE WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHTS WENT ON AND THE VEHICLE BECAME UNRESPONSIVE TO THE ACCELERATOR. I HAD TRAFFIC BEHIND ME AND WAS GOING UP A HILL WHICH I WAS BARELY ABLE TO SPUTTER TO THE TOP OFF BEFORE TURNING OFF THE VEHICLE. I TRIED STARTING IT AGAIN AND IT HARD STARTED BUT IDLED FINE AND RAN FINE FOR ABOUT 50 YARDS BEFORE THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO ROLL ONTO A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND PULL OVER. I EVENTUALLY CHANCED A DRIVE TO THE DEALER AND MADE IT THERE WITHOUT THE VEHICLE FAILING. I WAS LATER TOLD THAT IT WAS A FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE BODY AND THE PART WAS ON BACKORDER FOR 1-2 WEEKS. I SAW THAT THE 2005-2012 ESCAPES ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE NHTSA FOR THIS ISSUE SO I ASSUME BACKORDER WAIT IS BECAUSE THE PART HAS BEEN FAILING WITH FREQUENCY. ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT CAUSE AN ACCIDENT, THE SUDDEN CHANGE IN RESPONSIVENESS OF THE VEHICLE AND THE FAILURE TO ACCELERATE COULD HAVE EASILY LEAD TO AN ACCIDENT AND/OR BODILY INJURY. AS IT IS, I AM WITHOUT MY VEHICLE FOR 1-2 WEEKS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521480
56,895 miles · Jun 24, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THE ENGINE REVS UP AND LOSSES POWER TO THE TRANSMISSION AS IF IT WAS OUT OF GEAR. IT ALSO HAS HAPPENED AND STANDING, I NEED TO SHUT OFF THE MOTOR AND RESET IT AS TO SPEAK. THE FORD DEALER HAS SAID THAT IT IS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE, BUT I AM SCARED TO DRIVE IT DOWN THE HIGHWAY FOR FEAR THAT I MAY BE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THE ENGINE REVS UP AND LOSSES POWER TO THE TRANSMISSION AS IF IT WAS OUT OF GEAR. IT ALSO HAS HAPPENED AND STANDING, I NEED TO SHUT OFF THE MOTOR AND RESET IT AS TO SPEAK. THE FORD DEALER HAS SAID THAT IT IS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE, BUT I AM SCARED TO DRIVE IT DOWN THE HIGHWAY FOR FEAR THAT I MAY BE REAR ENDED. I HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS A CURRENT INVESTIGATION UNDER WAY FOR THROTTLE BODY FAILURES AND THERE IS A CURRENT NATIONAL BACK ORDER ON THEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521424
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.