NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
508 reportsClear category filter12,300 miles · Aug 31, 2011
Electrical SystemPower Train
WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT AND PULL OFF THE RAMP ROAD BEFORE GETTING ON TO I-4. WE TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND SAT FOR A FEW MINUTES TO COMPOSE OURSELVES. I WAS HOPING THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD RESET ITSELF SO WE COULD CONTINUE. WE STARTED THE ENGINE AND WE CONTINUED TO THE AIRPORT WITHOUT ANYMORE PROBLEMS. I DROVE HOME, CALLED JOHN AT BRANDON FORD AND DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM. HE SAID IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE NONE OF THE DASH LIGHTS CAME ON DURING THE INCIDENT. HE SAID TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AND HOPEFULLY IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. I DROVE FOR TWO WEEKS DROVE WITHOUT INCIDENT UNTIL 8/26/2011. THE SAME THING HAPPENED AS BEFORE. THE ENGINE DOWN SHIFTED ABOUT 65 MPH AND THE ENGINE BEGAN REVVING. WE SLOWED THE VEHICLE AND CAME TO A STOP TO MAKE A LEFT TURN. AFTER ACCELERATING WE FELT THE ENGINE OVER REVVING BEFORE SHIFTING. THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. IT IS UNPREDICTABLE AS TO WHEN A PROBLEM WILL OCCUR. IT'S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMETHING BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN. WE NEED THIS PROBLEM FIXED WITH ASSURANCE THAT IT IS TRULY FIXED OR WE NEED RESTITUTION FROM FORD FOR SELLING US AN UNSAFE VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10423609
12,000 miles · Aug 27, 2011
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT A…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO THE TPA ON I-75 APPROACHING THE EXIT FOR I-4 WE SLOWED FOR A TRUCK THAT CUT US OFF. OUR VEHICLE SHIFTED DOWN AT LEAST TWO GEARS WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO OVER REV. WE TRIED TO SPEED UP, BUT THE ENGINE JUST REVED HIGHER. SO WE SLOWED WHILE EXITING ON TO THE RAMP FOR I-4. WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT AND PULL OFF THE RAMP ROAD BEFORE GETTING ON TO I-4. WE TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AND SAT FOR A FEW MINUTES TO COMPOSE OURSELVES. I WAS HOPING THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD RESET ITSELF SO WE COULD CONTINUE. WE STARTED THE ENGINE AND WE CONTINUED TO THE AIRPORT WITHOUT ANYMORE PROBLEM. I DROVE HOME AND FOR TWO WEEKS DROVE WITHOUT INCIDENT UNTIL 8/26/2011. THE SAME THING HAPPENED AS BEFORE. THE ENGINE DOWN SHIFTED ABOUT 65 MPH AND THE ENGINE BEGAN REVVING. WE SLOWED THE VEHICLE AND CAME TO A STOP TO MAKE A LEFT TURN. AFTER EXCELERATING WE FELT THE ENGINE OVER REVVING BEFORE SHIFTING. THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. IT IS UNPREDICTABLE AS TO WHEN A PROBLEM WILL OCCUR. IT?S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMETHING BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN. WE NEED THIS PROBLEM FIXED WITH ASSURANCE THAT IT IS TRULY FIXED OR WE NEED RESTITUTION FROM FORD FOR SELLING US AN UNSAFE VEHICLE. *TT
NHTSA ODI #10422293
1,200 miles · Aug 22, 2011
Power Train
2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. STARTING WITH ABOUT 1200 MILES THE TRANSMISSION BEGAN HARD SHIFTS, HESITATION BETWEEN GEARS, JERKING HARD INTO REVERSE WHEN ENGAGING, HIGH SPEED SHIFTS JERK INTO GEAR SOUNDING LIKE THE REAR END IS FALLING OUT. FORD DEALER FIRST STATED IT WAS NORMAL, AFTER SEVERAL MORE COMPLAINTS THEY DECIDED TO REBUILD THE…
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE XLT. STARTING WITH ABOUT 1200 MILES THE TRANSMISSION BEGAN HARD SHIFTS, HESITATION BETWEEN GEARS, JERKING HARD INTO REVERSE WHEN ENGAGING, HIGH SPEED SHIFTS JERK INTO GEAR SOUNDING LIKE THE REAR END IS FALLING OUT. FORD DEALER FIRST STATED IT WAS NORMAL, AFTER SEVERAL MORE COMPLAINTS THEY DECIDED TO REBUILD THE TRANSMISSION. IT WORKED SMOOTHLY FOR ABOUT 200 MILES THEN STARTED THE SAME THINGS AGAIN, IT GETS MORE FREQUENT AS THE MILES MOUNT UP. MY WIFE IS AFRAID OF THE VEHICLE AND WILL NOT DRIVE OR RIDE IN IT. WHEN ROADS ARE WET THE SHIFTS ARE HARD ENOUGH TO MAKE THE WHEELS SPIN. LAST TIME THE DEALER ADJUSTED THE TRANSMISSION, IT NOW HESITATES WHEN PUTTING INTO GEAR. I WAS TURNING AROUND ON A ROAD THAT I SHOULD HAVE HAD AMPLE TIME BUT WHEN I PUT THE CAR INTO REVERSE IT DELAYED SO LONG TO ENGAGE THAT TRAFFIC WAS HEADING TOWARD ME. IF THE CAR SITS 2-3 DAYS, IT GIVES A LONG HESITATION TO GO INTO 2ND AND 3RD GEAR. ALSO, HAVE EXPERIENCED SQUEALING COMING FROM ENGINE COMPARTMENT, FORD HAS CHANGE THE BELT SEVERAL TIMES AND THE TENSIONER, IT LASTS FOR A FEW HUNDRED MILES AND STARTS AGAIN. ALL ITEMS I HAVE BEEN TOLD ARE NORMAL. I HAVE OWNED MORE THAN 20 CARS AND DO NOT FIND HARD SHIFTS, HESITATIONS, EXCESSIVE NOISE AND HARD CLUNKS TO BE NORMAL BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. I PAID $25,000 FOR THIS CAR, I HAVE DRIVEN CARS THAT COST HALF THIS PRICE THAT HANDLED BETTER. I HAVE BEEN A LOYAL FORD OWNER OF F150'S, EXPLORERS, EXPEDITIONS AND EVEN A COUPLE OF OLD F100'S. I HAD ALWAYS BEEN VERY HAPPY WITH THEM. THE ESCAPE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DOWNSIZE FOR OUR 2ND VEHICLE AND HAVE SOMETHING MORE ECONOMICAL, WE LIKED THEM WHEN WE RENTED THEM BUT THIS ONE HAS BEEN A VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT AND TIME CONSUMING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10420929
Mileage unknown · Jul 7, 2011
Power Train
THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED "FLARING" BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS LAST SEPTEMBER A MONTH AFTER I BOUGHT IT. "FLARING" IS A TERM USED BY FORD TO DESCRIBE WHEN THE TRANSMISSION DELAYS SHIFTING BETWEEN GEARS AND THE ENGINE REVS UNTIL IT FINALLY SHIFTS. THE DEALER HAS WORKED ON IT SEVERAL TIMES AND THE PR…
Read full complaint
THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION IN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED "FLARING" BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD GEARS LAST SEPTEMBER A MONTH AFTER I BOUGHT IT. "FLARING" IS A TERM USED BY FORD TO DESCRIBE WHEN THE TRANSMISSION DELAYS SHIFTING BETWEEN GEARS AND THE ENGINE REVS UNTIL IT FINALLY SHIFTS. THE DEALER HAS WORKED ON IT SEVERAL TIMES AND THE PROBLEM CONTINUES. 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 CAR IS AT THE DEALERSHIP NOW TO TRY TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. 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. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10410891
43,000 miles · Jun 13, 2011
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO TAKE THE VEHICLE OUT OF GEAR. SHE MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE BEFORE AND IT WAS AFTER SHE STARTED TOWING THE VEHICLE BEHIND HER RV. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO B…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO TAKE THE VEHICLE OUT OF GEAR. SHE MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE BEFORE AND IT WAS AFTER SHE STARTED TOWING THE VEHICLE BEHIND HER RV. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. TWO WEEKS LATER, WHILE TOWING THE VEHICLE THE TRANSMISSION STARTED SMOKING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION WAS BURNED BEYOND REPAIR AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 43,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 44,000. UPDATED 07/20/11*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TWICE. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THAT FLAT TOWING CAUSED THE TRANSMISSION FAILURE, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNER'S MANUAL STATED TOWING WAS ALLOWED. UPDATED 02/08/12
NHTSA ODI #10406176
16,415 miles · Jan 31, 2011
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
DRIVING OFF ROAD UP A STEEP INCLINE (40-45 DEGREES), THE VEHICLE CAME TO A HALT. THERE WASN'T ANY POWER GOING TO THE TIRES EVEN THOUGH I HAD THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO THE FLOOR. THE ENGINE RPM WOULD ONLY REV UP TO ABOUT 1200 RPM. IT FELT AS IF THERE WAS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE TRANSMISSION AND THE ENGINE AS THERE WAS NO POWER BE…
Read full complaint
DRIVING OFF ROAD UP A STEEP INCLINE (40-45 DEGREES), THE VEHICLE CAME TO A HALT. THERE WASN'T ANY POWER GOING TO THE TIRES EVEN THOUGH I HAD THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO THE FLOOR. THE ENGINE RPM WOULD ONLY REV UP TO ABOUT 1200 RPM. IT FELT AS IF THERE WAS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE TRANSMISSION AND THE ENGINE AS THERE WAS NO POWER BEING DELIVERED TO THE TIRES. THE TIRES DID NOT LOOSE TRACTION OR SPIN EITHER. WHAT WAS ESPECIALLY UNSAFE ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS BACKING DOWN THE STEEP HILL I HAD TRIED TO ASCEND. I WAS TRYING TO BACK DOWN SLOWLY BY USING THE BRAKE, BUT MANY TIMES THE BRAKES WOULD LOCK UP CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO SHIFT AND SLIDE SOMETIMES SIDEWAYS WHICH COULD HAVE CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO ROLL. I TRIED TO GO UP THE HILL AGAIN TO NO AVAIL. THIS VEHICLE IS USED BY THE US FOREST SERVICE IN WHICH MANY TIMES THE VEHICLE IS REQUIRED TO GO OF ROAD ON FOREST SERVICE ROADS. THERE IS A SECTION IN THE OWNER'S MANUAL ABOUT OFF ROAD DRIVING, BUT IT MAKES NO MENTION THAT THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN UP STEEP INCLINES.
NHTSA ODI #10380532
3,000 miles · Nov 14, 2010
Power Train
PURCHASED A 4-CYL, AT, 2010 ESCAPE XLT IN DECEMBER 2009, FROM HEALEY FORD IN ANSONIA CT, WHICH IS NOW CLOSED. TRANSMISSION SLIPPAGE, JERKING, GROWLING NOISE IN REVERSE, SUDDEN ACCELERATION ON HIGHWAY, ALL STARTED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WITH THIS VEHICLE. RECALL REPAIR ON SOLONOID DONE, PROBLEM PERSISTS AND IS EVEN WORSE. SEVERAL NEA…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED A 4-CYL, AT, 2010 ESCAPE XLT IN DECEMBER 2009, FROM HEALEY FORD IN ANSONIA CT, WHICH IS NOW CLOSED. TRANSMISSION SLIPPAGE, JERKING, GROWLING NOISE IN REVERSE, SUDDEN ACCELERATION ON HIGHWAY, ALL STARTED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WITH THIS VEHICLE. RECALL REPAIR ON SOLONOID DONE, PROBLEM PERSISTS AND IS EVEN WORSE. SEVERAL NEAR ACCIDENTS WITH MY $25,000 SUICIDE RIDE I CALL AN ESCAPE...FORD HAS HAD IT TWICE FOR REPAIR WITHOUT SUCCESS. IN CT, I HAVE ONE MORE TRY AND I WILL PROCEED WITH CONNECTICUTS LEMON LAW ARBITRATION, AND FORD GETS TO BUY IT BACK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10365633
18,000 miles · Oct 18, 2010
Power Train
TRANSMISSION WILL TOTALLY DISENGAGE WHEN NEEDED THE MOST, SUCH AS ENTERING THE INTERSTATE. VERY SCARY SITUATION. DEALER SAYS NEEDS A COMPLETE OVERHAUL. ONLY 18,000 MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10361088
11,000 miles · Sep 22, 2010
Power Train
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS SLAMMED VIOLENTLY INTO GEAR WHILE BEING DRIVEN A TOTAL OF 5 TIMES. THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED, MY WIFE WAS DRIVING AND SHE THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD HIT HER FROM BEHIND AND SHE ACTUALLY HURT HER NECK BECAUSE THE JERKING WAS SO VIOLENT. THREE OF THE 4 OTHER TIMES THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED HAVE NOT BEEN AS VIOLE…
Read full complaint
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS SLAMMED VIOLENTLY INTO GEAR WHILE BEING DRIVEN A TOTAL OF 5 TIMES. THE FIRST TIME THIS HAPPENED, MY WIFE WAS DRIVING AND SHE THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD HIT HER FROM BEHIND AND SHE ACTUALLY HURT HER NECK BECAUSE THE JERKING WAS SO VIOLENT. THREE OF THE 4 OTHER TIMES THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED HAVE NOT BEEN AS VIOLENT BUT IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT 2 WEEKS AGO (AT ABOUT 11,000) MILES AND IT WAS VERY VIOLENT (AND MY WIFE GOT 'JERKED' AGAIN). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10357011
5,000 miles · Sep 22, 2010
Power Train
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED ON 29 JULY 2010. ON 20 SEP 2010 I NOTICED AS I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE IT JERKED VIOLENTLY AND SOUNDED LIKE THE BOTTOM FELL OUT OF THE CAR. WHEN I CAME TO A RED LIGHT IT SHIFTED HARD DOWN TO FIRST GEAR. I HAD MY DAD CHECK IT OUT AND IT DID THE SAME THING WITH HIM. HE TOOK IT TO THE …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED ON 29 JULY 2010. ON 20 SEP 2010 I NOTICED AS I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE IT JERKED VIOLENTLY AND SOUNDED LIKE THE BOTTOM FELL OUT OF THE CAR. WHEN I CAME TO A RED LIGHT IT SHIFTED HARD DOWN TO FIRST GEAR. I HAD MY DAD CHECK IT OUT AND IT DID THE SAME THING WITH HIM. HE TOOK IT TO THE DEALER ON 21 SEP 2010 AND THEY SAID THERE WAS A PROBLEM, IT WAS NOT SUPPOSE TO DO THAT. THEY CHECKED WITH FORD AND THERE WAS SOME ADJUSTMENTS THEY HAD TO DO TO THE COMPUTER. THIS DID NOT FIX PROBLEM AND THEY KEPT THE VEHICLE. THEY NOW HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE TRANSMISSION AND CHECK SOLENOIDS BEFORE FORD WILL SEND A NEW TRANSMISSION. THIS COULD BECOME A SAFETY ISSUE, IF THE OPERATOR HAS TO ACCELERATE AND THE VEHICLE WILL NOT RESPOND. THE VEHICLE HAS 5000 MILES ON IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10356941
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.