NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter141,246 miles · Nov 15, 2023
SteeringVehicle Speed Control
The contact owns a 2010 Ford Escape. The contact stated while driving at an undisclosed speed, and then stopped at a traffic light, the vehicle independently accelerated. The contact stated that the failure had occurred several times and she was able to avoid having an accident. The contact stated that the power steering also be…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2010 Ford Escape. The contact stated while driving at an undisclosed speed, and then stopped at a traffic light, the vehicle independently accelerated. The contact stated that the failure had occurred several times and she was able to avoid having an accident. The contact stated that the power steering also became inoperable, and the steering column seized. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and advised the contact that an unknown Customer Satisfaction Program had expired. The failure mileage was approximately 141,246.
NHTSA ODI #11555281
150,251 miles · Dec 26, 2020
Electrical SystemSteeringVehicle Speed Control
THIS VECHICAL IS BEING FINANCED THROUGH CENTRAL AUTO SALES OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS. THIS VECHICAL HAS SERIOUS ISSUES, I CONTACTED CENTRAL AUTO ABOUT MY CAR NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. IT KEPT STALLING ON FREEWAY THAT I WAS BARELY MISSED BY A DIESAL TRUCK HITTING ME. I TOLD THEM IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY CONTROL POWER TRAIN THAT'S …
Read full complaint
THIS VECHICAL IS BEING FINANCED THROUGH CENTRAL AUTO SALES OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS. THIS VECHICAL HAS SERIOUS ISSUES, I CONTACTED CENTRAL AUTO ABOUT MY CAR NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. IT KEPT STALLING ON FREEWAY THAT I WAS BARELY MISSED BY A DIESAL TRUCK HITTING ME. I TOLD THEM IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY CONTROL POWER TRAIN THAT'S KEEP STALLING. THEY PICKED THE CAR UP KEPT IT FOR 2DAYS DIDN'T FIX IT BUT WANTED TO CHARGE ME $344 FOR REPAIRS THAT WASN'T DONE. GOT CAR BACK IN SAME POSITION AND IT STALLED AGAIN ON ME IN MIDDLE OF FREEWAY ALMOST CAUSING A CRASH. I HAD TO BUY MY PART AND HAD SOMEONE TO PUT THE THROTTLE BODY ON. NOW IT'S THE STEERING WHEEL IT WON'T TURN PROPERLY IT'S SO HARD TO TURN LIKE IT'S LOCK CAUSE IT MAKE A CLICKING SOUND BEFORE IT COMPLETELY LOCK. I CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP AND TOLD THEM WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AND THEY SENT ME A TEXT TOLD ME TO DO WHATEVER I WANT. THIS VECHICAL IS A HAZARD TO DRIVE. BUT THEY WANT $210 CAR NOTE PAYMENT FOR A NON FUNCTIONING CAR. I ASKED COULD I TRADE IT BACK IN TO THEM GOT NO REPLY ONLY ABOUT A CAR PAYMENT WHICH I NEVER MISSED A PAYMENT. AND IT ALSO RAINS IN THE CAR YOU CAN HERE THE WATER IN THE DOORS AND THE FLOOR BE SOAKED.
NHTSA ODI #11385005
146,000 miles · Aug 29, 2020
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AROUND 70 MPH ON THE FREEWAY MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED TO HESITATE WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING ROUGH, AND LEFT ME WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE... I WAS A SITTING DUCK, LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT OVER TO THE SHOULDER WITHOUT HURTING MYSELF OR HURTING ANYONE ELSE. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS PROBLEM I REALIZE THAT F…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AROUND 70 MPH ON THE FREEWAY MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE STARTED TO HESITATE WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING ROUGH, AND LEFT ME WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE... I WAS A SITTING DUCK, LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT OVER TO THE SHOULDER WITHOUT HURTING MYSELF OR HURTING ANYONE ELSE. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS PROBLEM I REALIZE THAT FORD HAD RECALLED A CERTAIN NUMBER OF 2010 FORD ESCAPES AS WELL AS 2010 FORD FUSION FOR THE THROTTLEBODY TO BE REPLACED. THEY ALSO BACK IN JANUARY 2014 SENT OUT A LETTER TO FORD OWNERS STATING THAT IT IS POSSIBLE YOUR ESCAPE'S THROTTLE BODY COULD GO OUT; AND EXPLAINED EXACTLY WHAT THAT WOULD FEEL LIKE AND WHAT THEY COULD EXPECT IF IT WAS TO GO OUT. WHY WE RECALL SOME AND NOT RECALL ALL; WHY WAIT TILL THERE IS A PROBLEM UNTIL THEY CAN FIX THE PROBLEM. THEY KNEW THIS WAS A PROBLEM AND THEY DID NOTHING ABOUT IT THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
NHTSA ODI #11352047
Mileage unknown · Feb 25, 2020
Electrical SystemSteeringVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING, THE STEERING WILL SHUT OFF SUDDENLY AFTER A SMALL "CLICK" SOUND AND THE POWER STEERING IS SUDDENLY GONE. THE BATTERY SYMBOL WILL LIGHT UP RANDOMLY. ALL OF THE ELECTRIC COMPONENTS WILL FAIL WHEN THE STEERING DOES, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE DASH, HEAT/AC, RADIO, HEATED SEATS. IT HAS HAPPENED WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING, THE STEERING WILL SHUT OFF SUDDENLY AFTER A SMALL "CLICK" SOUND AND THE POWER STEERING IS SUDDENLY GONE. THE BATTERY SYMBOL WILL LIGHT UP RANDOMLY. ALL OF THE ELECTRIC COMPONENTS WILL FAIL WHEN THE STEERING DOES, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE DASH, HEAT/AC, RADIO, HEATED SEATS. IT HAS HAPPENED WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION ON CITY STREETS MULTIPLE TIMES. SOMETIMES THE CAR WORKS PERFECTLY, OTHER TIMES THE POWER STEERING REFUSES TO REENGAGE FOR A WHILE. IT HAS HAPPENED WHILE DRIVING FORWARD AND REVERSING. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MATTER WHAT SPEED I'M GOING, IF IT DECIDED TO SHUT OFF IT'S JUST GONE.
NHTSA ODI #11311468
40,000 miles · Dec 18, 2019
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF POWER, JERKED, AND THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE CONTACT MANAGED TO VEER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED, IT RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF POWER, JERKED, AND THE WRENCH ICON ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE CONTACT MANAGED TO VEER TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED, IT RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND STATED THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL. THE DEALER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 40,000.
NHTSA ODI #11289830
168,000 miles · Aug 6, 2019
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT POSTED SPEEDS ON A STATE HIGHWAY THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION POWER AND THE GAS PEDAL WENT LIMP. AFTER PUTTING THE VEHICLE IN PARK THE ENGINE RAN ROUGH IN IDLE. THE WRENCH ICON ALSO COMES ON. WHEN USING AN OBD2 READER A CODE OF P2112 WAS GIVEN. WHEN THE CAR IS TURNED OFF AND BACK ON IT SEEMS TO TEMPORARILY CORR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT POSTED SPEEDS ON A STATE HIGHWAY THE VEHICLE LOST ACCELERATION POWER AND THE GAS PEDAL WENT LIMP. AFTER PUTTING THE VEHICLE IN PARK THE ENGINE RAN ROUGH IN IDLE. THE WRENCH ICON ALSO COMES ON. WHEN USING AN OBD2 READER A CODE OF P2112 WAS GIVEN. WHEN THE CAR IS TURNED OFF AND BACK ON IT SEEMS TO TEMPORARILY CORRECT. THIS HAS HAPPENED 4 TIMES IN A SPAN OF 2 WEEKS. IT HAPPENS WHILE TURNING AND DRIVING STRAIGHT. I BELIEVE THIS HAS TO DO WITH A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY.
NHTSA ODI #11242040
50,000 miles · Jun 13, 2019
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TO HANDLE RAPID ACCELERATION WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE TRANSMISSION REMAINED IN A HIGHER GEAR DESPITE THE DRIVER DECELERATING AND THE VEHICLE SURGED TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED, WHICH INCREASED THE RISK OF A CRASH. THE CONTAC…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TRANSMISSION FAILED TO HANDLE RAPID ACCELERATION WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE TRANSMISSION REMAINED IN A HIGHER GEAR DESPITE THE DRIVER DECELERATING AND THE VEHICLE SURGED TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED, WHICH INCREASED THE RISK OF A CRASH. THE CONTACT HEARD AN ABNORMAL NOISE, THE TRANSMISSION WAS HESITANT, AND THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT HAD TO DRIVE IN FIRST GEAR (LESS THAN 25 MPH) BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE. DEWEY MOORE FORD (143 TX-49, HUGHES SPRINGS, TX 75656, (903) 639-2516) DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND NO TRANSMISSION RECALLS WERE ISSUED FOR THIS YEAR, MAKE, AND MODEL VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER ISSUED NINE TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETINS REGARDING THE POWER TRAIN. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND STATED THAT THIS YEAR AND MODEL VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL CAMPAIGN. NO FURTHER ASSISTANCE WAS OFFERED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000.
NHTSA ODI #11219738
117,000 miles · May 22, 2019
Fuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control
WHEN THE VEHICLE COMES TO A STOP WHETHER IT BE A STOP SIGN OR RED LIGHT, THE RPM'S OVER REV HIGHER AT THE TIME OF LEAVING FROM A STOP WHEN GAS IS GIVEN TO VEHICLE. AFTER THE VEHICLE GETS BACK UP TO SPEED THE RPM'S DROP BACK TO A NORMAL RANGE.
NHTSA ODI #11209253
30,000 miles · Jan 2, 2018
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
2010 FORD ESCAPE WAS PULLING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT, FOOT OFF THE ACCELERATOR, BUT VEHICLE PROCEEDED TO GAIN SPEED AND GO FORWARD STRIKING ANOTHER VEHICLE. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION
NHTSA ODI #11058084
95,000 miles · Jul 28, 2017
Vehicle Speed Control
IN AT LEAST 5 INCIDENTS I HAVE EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. 3 TIMES IT HAS HAPPENED WHILE ENTERING A HIGHWAY. IT HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST TWICE IN TOWN. IN EVERY INCIDENT I WAS ACCELERATING WHEN IT WOULD OCCUR. THE FOOT PEDDLE DEPRESSED WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE TO THE GAS. MY FOOT WAS NOT ON THE BREAK. I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED …
Read full complaint
IN AT LEAST 5 INCIDENTS I HAVE EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. 3 TIMES IT HAS HAPPENED WHILE ENTERING A HIGHWAY. IT HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST TWICE IN TOWN. IN EVERY INCIDENT I WAS ACCELERATING WHEN IT WOULD OCCUR. THE FOOT PEDDLE DEPRESSED WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE TO THE GAS. MY FOOT WAS NOT ON THE BREAK. I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED BUCKING ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WHEN GOING IN REVERSE. I BELIEVE THE PROBLEM IS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM. I PURCHASED THIS CAR USED FROM A LOCAL DEALER. THEY NEVER DISCLOSED ANY ISSUES WITH MY VEHICLE. I HAVE LOOKED ONLINE AND CALLED A FORD DEALER BUT CANNOT FIND A RECALL ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS A VERY REAL ISSUE. FEEL FREE TO COME TEST DRIVE MY CAR! IT IS NOT A MATTER OF IF IT WILL HAPPEN BUT WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN. JULY 17, 2017 WAS THE MOST RECENT INCIDENT OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION.
NHTSA ODI #11011385
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.