DESPITE HAVING THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACED, THE VEHICLE STILL SUFFERS FROM MINOR POWER SURGES AND HAS STALLED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS SEVERAL TIMES. THESE HAPPEN SO RANDOMLY THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO PREDICT WHEN THIS MIGHT HAPPEN. *TR
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Escape years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
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.
Power Train complaints
508 reportsTHE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED "FLARING" BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS "FLARING" IS A TERM USED BY FORD TO DESCRIBE WHEN THE TRANSMISSION DELAYS SHIFTING BETWEEN GEARS AND THE ENGINE REVS UNTIL IT FINALLY SHIFTS. . THIS HAS NOT REALLY BEEN A SAFETY ISSUE UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO. IT STARTED "FLARING" OCCASIONAL…
Read full complaint
THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED "FLARING" BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS "FLARING" IS A TERM USED BY FORD TO DESCRIBE WHEN THE TRANSMISSION DELAYS SHIFTING BETWEEN GEARS AND THE ENGINE REVS UNTIL IT FINALLY SHIFTS. . THIS HAS NOT REALLY BEEN A SAFETY ISSUE UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO. IT STARTED "FLARING" OCCASIONALLY BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND GEARS ALSO. THIS IS A CONCERN BECAUSE I'M NOT UP TO SPEED WHEN THIS HAPPENS BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND. WITH TRAFFIC BEING HEAVY AT TIMES, I'M CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE COULD REAREND ME WHEN THIS HAPPENS. THE DEARER ALONG WITH THE FORD REPRESENTATIVE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS SO I DOUBT THEY WILL RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM EITHER. I'M FURTHER CONCERNED THAT IT COULD START HAPPENING WITH 1ST GEAR AND I COULD START TO ENTER A HIGHWAY AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE WHEN INTENDED AND THEN SUDDENLY ACCELERATE WHEN IT WASN'T SAFE TO DO SO.
LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER FORD ESCAPE OWNERS, I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED V6. FIRST I COMPLETELY LOST ALL PROPULSION/ACCELERATION WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX. 35MPH. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED ENGINE OFF. TURNED ENGINE ON AND VOILA! RUNS JUST FINE. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, AT 75MPH FU…
Read full complaint
LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER FORD ESCAPE OWNERS, I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY ON MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED V6. FIRST I COMPLETELY LOST ALL PROPULSION/ACCELERATION WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX. 35MPH. COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED ENGINE OFF. TURNED ENGINE ON AND VOILA! RUNS JUST FINE. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, AT 75MPH FULL LOSS OF PROPULSION ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY, COASTED TO SIDE OF ROAD, TURNED ENGINE OFF. TURNED ENGINE ON AND VOILA! RUNS JUST FINE, UNTIL ABOUT 5MILES DOWN THE ROAD WHEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. THEN ABOUT ANOTHER 3WKS LATER, IT HAPPENED AGAIN ON A BACKROAD IN NC AT ABOUT 60MPH. THIS TRIP IT HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES AND FINALLY ONCE I GOT PARKED AND TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON (JUST TO CHECK), THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. WHEN I LEFT MY LOCATION, PRAYING I'D MAKE IT HOME, NO ENGINE LIGHT, BUT NOW THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. STOPPED FOR GAS (I HAD TOO, I WAS TRAVELING THROUGH THE COUNTRY) AND WHEN I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE, NO ENGINE LIGHT OR WRENCH LIGHT INDICATOR. THIS PROBLEM HAS HAPPENED AGAIN ON TWO MORE OCCASIONS YET NEITHER PROBLEM INDICATOR LIGHT HAS ILLUMINATED. I'VE HAD THE TRUCK "COMPUTER SCANNED" WITH NO ERROR/PROBLEM CODES SHOWING UP. I'VE CALLED 2 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS, WHO TOLD ME "FLAT OUT" ...NO PROBLEM LIGHTS/CODE...NO FIX UNDER THE "CUSTOMER SERVICE EXTENDED WARRANTY. YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET. MILLIONS OF THESE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE SO CALLED "CUSTOMER SERVICE EXTENDED WARRANTY" YET THE STIPULATIONS IT MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY REPAIRS OF A KNOWN DEFECTIVE PART/SYSTEM MALFUNCTION. IF BY CHANCE THE INDICATOR LIGHTS DO SHOW UP, THEY WON'T EVEN ACCEPT A PICTURE, SHOWING MILEAGE OR SOMETHING TO VERIFY IT'S THAT VEHICLE OR TAKE A DOCUMENT FROM ANOTHER RELIABLE SOURCE (I.E., ADVANCE AUTO, ETC.) WE NEED A RECALL! PLEASE HELP! *TR
TRANSMISSION - CENTER SUPPORT SNAP RING FAILURE AT 47,774 MILES ON VEHICLE. WHILE PARKED ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT FROM "PARK" TO "DRIVE" VERY LOUD CLUNKING SOUND UNDER VEHICLE AT SHIFTER/CENTER CONSOLE. VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED 8/2016 ALL FLUIDS TOPPED OFF AT DEALER. A FEW DAYS AGO HEARD LOUD CLUNKING SOUND - CHECKED TRANSMISSION FLUI…
Read full complaint
TRANSMISSION - CENTER SUPPORT SNAP RING FAILURE AT 47,774 MILES ON VEHICLE. WHILE PARKED ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT FROM "PARK" TO "DRIVE" VERY LOUD CLUNKING SOUND UNDER VEHICLE AT SHIFTER/CENTER CONSOLE. VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED 8/2016 ALL FLUIDS TOPPED OFF AT DEALER. A FEW DAYS AGO HEARD LOUD CLUNKING SOUND - CHECKED TRANSMISSION FLUID "NONE" COMPLETELY EMPTY (NO LEAKING ON GROUND) FILLED TRANSMISSION FLUID - SAME SOUND - IMMEDIATELY TOOK TO DEALER. DEALER ADVISED CENTER SUPPORT SNAP RING FAILED - INSTRUCTED ME TO CALL FORD DIRECTLY REFERENCE "FORD SPECIAL SERVICE MESSAGE #22547" AS THIS IS A "KNOWN DEFECT WITH THIS VEHICLE". CALLED FORD DIRECTLY - CASE NUMBER WAS OPENED BUT NO OFFER TO ASSIST WITH TRANSMISSION REPLACEMENT. DEALER QUOTED $4,500 TO REPLACE TRANSMISSION $2,600 FOR REPAIR (REPAIR IS ONLY GUARANTEED FOR 2 YEARS) REPLACEMENT IS GUARANTEED FOR 3 YEARS. THANKS FOR NOTHING FORD!
I WAS WITH MY DAUGHTER ON OUR WAY TO TAKE HER BACK TO COLLEGE. WHILE IN MOTION DRIVING WESTBOUND ON 595 (A MAJOR HWY) MY VEHICLE FELT TO HAVE SURGED AND LULLED, SURGED AND LULLED A FEW TIMES AS I ACCELERATED PULLING ON TO 595 (AN ENTRANCE WITH A SLIGHT INCLINE) I CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE TO SAFELY MERGE WITH TRAFFIC ON 595 W WITH…
Read full complaint
I WAS WITH MY DAUGHTER ON OUR WAY TO TAKE HER BACK TO COLLEGE. WHILE IN MOTION DRIVING WESTBOUND ON 595 (A MAJOR HWY) MY VEHICLE FELT TO HAVE SURGED AND LULLED, SURGED AND LULLED A FEW TIMES AS I ACCELERATED PULLING ON TO 595 (AN ENTRANCE WITH A SLIGHT INCLINE) I CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE TO SAFELY MERGE WITH TRAFFIC ON 595 W WITHIN MOMENTS THE LITTLE YELLOW/ORANGE "WRENCH" LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON MY DASH AND SUDDENLY I HAD NO CONTROL OVER MY ACCELERATION. MY VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND TO MY APPLYING GAS AND I WATCHED THE SPEEDOMETER RAPIDLY DROP BEFORE MY EYES FROM 68 MPH TO 16 MPH AS I DID MY BEST TO CROSS OVER SEVERAL LANES IN FAST TRAFFIC TO AN EXIT FOR 95 N WHICH WAS FORTUNATELY THERE. MY VEHICLE "LIMPED" (IDENTICALLY AS OTHERS HAVE SHARED) AND I SAFELY PULLED OVER ONTO THE GRASS WHERE I WAITED THE NEXT 1.5 HOURS FOR THE TOW TRUCK TO TOW ME HOME AT 9:00 P.M. WHILE WAITING I BEGAN TROUBLE SHOOTING MY VEHICLES ISSUE BASED ON WHAT THE MANUAL HAD STATED AND WAS TERRIBLY DISAPPOINTED TO FIND ALL THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE ETC AND TO LEARN THAT MY VEHICLE WAS INDEED ONE OF THOSE WHICH WAS EXTENDED AND WITH THIS DEFECTIVE PART. I HAD NOT RECEIVED THE LETTER AND SO I WAS UNAWARE OF THE "RECALL THAT WASN'T..." IT WAS AN UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE AND NEEDLESS TO SAY I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED IN FORD'S LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY. FROM WHAT I'VE READ THIS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE. NOW I AM LEFT WITH HAVING TO GO TO THE DEALERSHIP AND HOPING THEY ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE AT HAND AND BE ACCOUNTABLE NOW AND STAND BEHIND THEIR VEHICLES. MY FORD HAS NEVER LEFT ME STRANDED UNTIL NOW AND SADLY SO THIS MALFUNCTION/DEFECT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED HAD FORD FOCUSED ON CUSTOMER SAFETY AND SERVICE SATISFACTION. I'VE OWNED 2 FORDS AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO THINGS THE AMERICAN WAY. FORD WILL NEED TO STEP IT UP AND DO THEIR PART!
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED AND DEPRESSING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER. THE WRENCH ICON INDICATOR REMAINED ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE IGNITION WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN HOME AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE D…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED AND DEPRESSING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER. THE WRENCH ICON INDICATOR REMAINED ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE IGNITION WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN HOME AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THE FAILURE WAS NOT DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED NOR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 63,000.
THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. WHENEVER IT DOES CAR ALMOST GOES INTO A STALL OF SORTS AND AM UNABLE TO GO ABOVE 55 MPH ON HIGHWAY. I KNOW THERE WAS A SAFETY ISSUE WITH THIS BUT NO REAL RECALL THAT ENDED JULY 2015. THE WARRANTY EXTENDED FROM WHAT I HAVE READ. CAN I STILL GET THIS FIXED UNDER WARRANTY?
RECALL HAS EXPIRED ON MY SUV DUE TO IT BEING OVER 150,000 MILES. I DIDNT NOT RECIEVE A LETTER INDICATING THAT I NEEDED THIS UPDATE DONE TO MY CAR UNTIL AUG 19 2016 WHEN MY CAR STARTED TO LOOSE POWER WITH THE WRENCH SYMBOL BEING DISPLAYED ON THE DASH. I CALLED CUSTOMER SERVICE ON AUG 20 2016 AND SPOKE TO REPRESENTIVE THAT TOLD ME…
Read full complaint
RECALL HAS EXPIRED ON MY SUV DUE TO IT BEING OVER 150,000 MILES. I DIDNT NOT RECIEVE A LETTER INDICATING THAT I NEEDED THIS UPDATE DONE TO MY CAR UNTIL AUG 19 2016 WHEN MY CAR STARTED TO LOOSE POWER WITH THE WRENCH SYMBOL BEING DISPLAYED ON THE DASH. I CALLED CUSTOMER SERVICE ON AUG 20 2016 AND SPOKE TO REPRESENTIVE THAT TOLD ME THAT MY CAR HAD A RECALL ON IT THAT I NEEDED TO HAVE DONE AND SAID THAT I HAD 10 YEARS FROM THE TIME THE CAR WAS MADE OR 150,000 MILES TO HAVE THE SERVICE COMPLETED. I DID TELL HIM THAT MY CAR WAS OVER THE 150,000 BUT HE TOLD ME THAT THE SERVICE COULD STILL BE DONE DUE TO IT BEING WITHIN THE 10 YEAR MARK AND THAT I SHOULD TAKE TO A FORD DEALERSHIP. SO ON AUG 21 2016 I HAD MY CAR TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP IN GREENVILLE SC WHERE NOW I AM BEING TOLD THAT THE SERIVE CAN NOT BE DONE BECAUSE I HAVE OVER 150,000 MILES. IT WILL COST ME $101.00 TO HAVE THEM CHECK IT PLUS THE AMOUNT TO REPAIR IT NOT TO MENTION I AM OUT OF THE MONEY IT COSTED ME TO HAVE IT TOWED TO THAT LOCATION. IF I HAD BEEN TOLD THE SERVICE COULD NOT BE DONE I WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I FEEL I SHOULD GET SOME KIND OF COMPENSATION SINCE I AM OUT OF MONEY AND NEVER EVEN RECIEVED THE RECALL LETTER. OH NOR HAVE I BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK TO A MANAGER FROM CUSTOMER SERVICE.
TURNED RIGHT ONTO FREEWAY ONRAMP WITH SLIGHT INCLINE, AFTER DRIVING A COUPLE OF MILES. MADE IT ABOUT 20 FEET WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL STOPPED WORKING. UNABLE TO COAST OUT OF LANE OF TRAFFIC DUE TO INCLINE AND WAS ALMOST HIT BY MULTIPLE VEHICLES DURING RUSH HOUR. TWO RED WARNING LIGHTS ON DASH (I THINK ENGINE OIL AND BATTERY). …
Read full complaint
TURNED RIGHT ONTO FREEWAY ONRAMP WITH SLIGHT INCLINE, AFTER DRIVING A COUPLE OF MILES. MADE IT ABOUT 20 FEET WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL STOPPED WORKING. UNABLE TO COAST OUT OF LANE OF TRAFFIC DUE TO INCLINE AND WAS ALMOST HIT BY MULTIPLE VEHICLES DURING RUSH HOUR. TWO RED WARNING LIGHTS ON DASH (I THINK ENGINE OIL AND BATTERY). NOTHING STOPPED BESIDES THE GAS PEDAL (RADIO, A/C WERE STILL RUNNING). PUT VEHICLE IN PARK AND TURNED OFF. WAS ABLE TO IMMEDIATELY RESTART AND ACCELERATOR PEDAL WORKED AGAIN. VEHICLE HAD NEW THROTTLE BODY RELATED TO CSP 13N03 AT 41,000 MILES. CURRENT MILEAGE 90,000.
SUV STALLS, NO ACCELERATION. LIGHT LOOKING LIKE A WRENCH COMES ON WHEN CAR STALLS.
Official recalls
316V777000 · 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
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.
Illustration