← New search

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 →

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.

29 crash reports3 fire reports19 injury reports

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

558 reports
Clear category filter
35,000 miles · Aug 28, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

THE CAR STARTED FEELING VIBRATIONS IN THE PEDALS, LOST SPEED, EVENTUALLY STALLED ON A HIGHWAY. I HAD IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP AND THEY SAID THE FLY-BY THROTTLE BODY UNIT HAD FAILED. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10537663

50,211 miles · Aug 27, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING 70 MPH ON HWY TRUCK JUST STARTS TO STALL NO CONTROL OF GAS PEDAL CARS ALMOST CRASHED IN TO ME I WAS LUCKY I WAS ABLE TO COAST OUT OF THE WAY. TROUBLE CODE IS P2111 NEEDS A NEW THROTTLE BODY THAT IS ON BACK ORDER FOR A FORD NATIONAL RECALL AND I HAVE TO WAIT DAYS TO GET, PRICE FOR PART IS $380 . AFTER A CALL TO FORD CUST…

Read full complaint

DRIVING 70 MPH ON HWY TRUCK JUST STARTS TO STALL NO CONTROL OF GAS PEDAL CARS ALMOST CRASHED IN TO ME I WAS LUCKY I WAS ABLE TO COAST OUT OF THE WAY. TROUBLE CODE IS P2111 NEEDS A NEW THROTTLE BODY THAT IS ON BACK ORDER FOR A FORD NATIONAL RECALL AND I HAVE TO WAIT DAYS TO GET, PRICE FOR PART IS $380 . AFTER A CALL TO FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE THEY SAID MY CAR IS NOT RECALLED BUT FUNNY HOW THE PART NUMBER CHANGED AND IT IS THE SAME ONE THEY HAVE A RECALL ON AND THEY WILL NOT REPLACE THE PART SINCE MY CAR IS OUT OF THE 3 YEARS 36,000 MILE WARRANTY MY TRUCK HAS 50,000 MILE. FORD HAS LOST A LONG TIME CUSTOMER !!! BUY AMERICAN MADE !!!! THANKS FORD EX OWNER OF EXPEDITION, EXPLORER, THUNDERBIRD, COUGARS, TOWN CAR, 2 CONTINENTALS NO MORE FORDS AT MY HOUSE.....!!!!!!! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537474

80,000 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING 78MPH ON A MAJOR INTERSTATE SURROUNDED BY TRAFFIC AT THE SAME SPEED. SUDDENLY THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON AND MY CAR WENT FROM 78 TO 5MPH IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. IT WAS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR MYSELF AS WELL AS OTHER DRIVERS. I FLIPPED MY FLASHERS ON AND WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER. I KILLED …

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING 78MPH ON A MAJOR INTERSTATE SURROUNDED BY TRAFFIC AT THE SAME SPEED. SUDDENLY THE "WRENCH" ICON FLASHED ON AND MY CAR WENT FROM 78 TO 5MPH IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. IT WAS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR MYSELF AS WELL AS OTHER DRIVERS. I FLIPPED MY FLASHERS ON AND WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SHOULDER. I KILLED THE ENGINE AND RESTARTED, MADE IT TO MY EXIT WHERE IT HAPPENED A SECOND TIME. THE NEXT DAY THE BATTERY WAS DEAD SO WE REPLACED AND TOOK TO A GARAGE TO HAVE EVERYTHING CHECKED. A DIAGNOSTIC WAS RUN AND THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING. I DROVE IT BACK AND FORTH TO WORK FOR 4 DAYS WHEN IT STARTED HAPPENING AGAIN. THIS TIME IN A MAJOR INTERSECTION DURING RUSH HOUR CAUSING TRAFFIC ISSUES AND CONGESTION. WE ONCE AGAIN TOOK IT IN TODAY, 8/26/2013, THEY CHANGED THE AIR FILTER AND AGAIN SAID NOTHING WAS WRONG. I TOOK IT FOR A TEST DRIVE. DROVE IT ABOUT 20 MILES WHEN IT STARTED IN AGAIN! THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS STAYING ON AND THE "WRENCH" LIGHT WHICH WE FOUND OUT IS POWERTRAIN AGAIN CAME ON. THE ENGINE NEVER DIES, IN FACT IT SEEMS TO REV AT TIMES BUT THE GAS PEDDLE HAS NO CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. I AM SCARED TO DRIVE MY VEHICLE NOT ONLY FOR MY OWN SAFETY BUT FOR ALL THOSE AROUND ME. FORD IS NOT CURRENTLY SHOWING A RECALL FOR OUR VIN # BUT FROM MY RESEARCH THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM. IT SEEMS THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT FORD NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537379

43,000 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

JULY 5, 2013 I WAS DRIVING HFROM ST SIMONS ISLAND, GA TO FLORENCE, SC. I WAS ON A CONNECTOR BRIDGE WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER BUT THE ENGINE KEPT RUNNING. I STEERED THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PARKED IT, AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE SINCE I COULD NOT GET THE VEHICLE TO MOVE. WHEN I STARTED THE ENGINE AGAIN, IT STARTED UP,…

Read full complaint

JULY 5, 2013 I WAS DRIVING HFROM ST SIMONS ISLAND, GA TO FLORENCE, SC. I WAS ON A CONNECTOR BRIDGE WHEN THE VEHICLE LOST POWER BUT THE ENGINE KEPT RUNNING. I STEERED THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PARKED IT, AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE SINCE I COULD NOT GET THE VEHICLE TO MOVE. WHEN I STARTED THE ENGINE AGAIN, IT STARTED UP, AND I HAD POWER SO I DROVE FOR ABOUT A MILE, AND A REPEAT OCCURRENCE HAPPENED. AGAIN, I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE, AND ON RESTART WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE MOVING. I FOUND A MEINEKE REPAIR SHOP IN BRUNSWICK, GA AND PULLED IN THERE. THEY CHECKED THE VEHICLE OUT BUT COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG (NO DASH LIGHTS APPEARED). SO I DROVE THE VEHICLE TO FLORENCE WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. A SHORT TIME LATER, ON JULY 27, 2013, I WAS ONCE AGAIN IN ST SIMONS ISLAND AND THE VEHICLE LOST POWER WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING. I HAD TO STEER THE CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURNED OFF THE ENGINE, THEN STARTED IT UP AGAIN. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO THE ISLAND AUTO REPAIR SHOP (THIS TIME THE "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT WAS ON. THEY CLEANED THE PART, SAID IT SHOULD WORK FINE, USE FUEL INJECTOR CLEANER, AND SENT ME ON MY WAY. ON AUGUST 19, IN FLORENCE, SC, THE SAME THING OCCURRED AGAIN, ONLY THIS TIME THE VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO MOVE AT ALL, EVEN THOUGH THE ENGINE KEPT RUNNING. I HAD TO CALL AAA, WHO HAD IT TOWED TO MILLERS FOREIGN AUTO REPAIR SHOP, WHERE IT STILL SITS WAITING ON A NEW PART. THEY HAVE TOLD ME IT'S THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY W/ WIRING HARNESS AND SENSOR THAT FAILED, AND I AM WAITING ON THE PART FOR SO LONG BECAUSE SO MANY OF THESE HAVE FAILED. I AM ONE OF THOUSANDS WHOSE VEHICLE IS AFFECTED BY THIS FLAWED TECHNOLOGY. THIS IS A DANGEROUS CONDITION FOR CONSUMERS TO HAVE TO PUT UP WITH, AS FORD IS NOT GOING TO VOLUNTARILY CORRECT THIS ISSUE. PLEASE ISSUE A RECALL BEFORE THIS FLAWED TECHNOLOGY KILLS SOMEONE. THANK YOU. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537365

73,568 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Engine

I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 680 IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC. I PUT MY FOOT ON GAS TO GO, BUT MY CAR JUST WOULDN'T GO. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I QUICKLY PULLED OVER IN THE SHOULDER ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE CAR STARTED SHAKING. I PUT MY CAR IN PARKING MODE AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED IT AGAIN, AND IT WORKED. SO…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON HIGHWAY 680 IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC. I PUT MY FOOT ON GAS TO GO, BUT MY CAR JUST WOULDN'T GO. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I QUICKLY PULLED OVER IN THE SHOULDER ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE CAR STARTED SHAKING. I PUT MY CAR IN PARKING MODE AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED IT AGAIN, AND IT WORKED. SO, I WENT INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO GET BACK ON THE HIGHWAY. AFTER ABOUT A MILE FURTHER IN STOP N GO TRAFFIC, MY CAR DID THE SAME EXACT THING. IT STOPPED WORKING, AND STARTED SHAKING WHEN I PULLED OVER TO THE SHOULDER. I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE AGAIN. I WASN'T FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH DRIVING MY CAR SINCE SAME THING HAPPENED TWICE. SO, I HAD TO CALL THE TOW COMPANY AND HAD IT TOWED TO MY HOME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537353

84,000 miles · Aug 26, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH THE ENGINE SUDDENLY CUT OUT, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE GAS PEDAL. A BLINKING YELLOW WRENCH SYMBOL CAME ON THE DASH BOARD. WE COASTED TO A STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHERE I SWITCHED THE CAR OFF AND AFTER A COUPLE OF MINUTES STARTED IT AGAIN SEEMINGLY TO BE FINE. THE NEXT DAY IT HAPPEN…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH THE ENGINE SUDDENLY CUT OUT, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE GAS PEDAL. A BLINKING YELLOW WRENCH SYMBOL CAME ON THE DASH BOARD. WE COASTED TO A STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHERE I SWITCHED THE CAR OFF AND AFTER A COUPLE OF MINUTES STARTED IT AGAIN SEEMINGLY TO BE FINE. THE NEXT DAY IT HAPPENED AGAIN, 70 MPH ON A TOLL ROAD, AGAIN IT RESTARTED AFTER A SHUTDOWN. THIS TIME WE WENT ABOUT 3 MORE MILES DOWN THE ROAD AND IT CUT OUT AGAIN. 2 MORE TIMES AFTER THAT, BEFORE GETTING IT BACK HOME. IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY UNIT ACCORDING TO THE FAILURE CODES, I HAVE REPLACED IT AT A COST OF $295. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537247

50,000 miles · Aug 25, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)EngineVehicle Speed Control

THROTTLE, CAR STALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY AND STREETS, NO WARNING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537166

41,000 miles · Aug 24, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control

WAS DRIVING AND SUV SUDDENLY WOULD NOT CONTINUE AT CURRENT SPEED, HAD GAS MASHED BUT SUV WOULD ONLY GO 3 MILES AN HOUR. WAS TURNING ACROSS 2 LANES OF TRAFFIC WHEN IT HAPPENED. HAD TO CALL AND GET HELP TO GET MYSELF TO WORK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537087

64,556 miles · Aug 24, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control

DRIVING IN TOWN LET OFF THROTTLE ENGINE WENT TO LIMP MODE , PULLED OVER SHUT OFF MOTOR THEN RESTARTED RAN GREAT BUT HAD P2111 CODE , DID SAME THING AGAIN ON WAY HOME AGAIN PULL OVER RESTART RUNS GREAT. I CHECKED CODE, LED ME TO THROTTLE BODY INSPECTED AND CLEANED FOUND NO PROBLEM , REINSTALLED THROTTLE BODY RAN GOOD FOR ABOUT 3…

Read full complaint

DRIVING IN TOWN LET OFF THROTTLE ENGINE WENT TO LIMP MODE , PULLED OVER SHUT OFF MOTOR THEN RESTARTED RAN GREAT BUT HAD P2111 CODE , DID SAME THING AGAIN ON WAY HOME AGAIN PULL OVER RESTART RUNS GREAT. I CHECKED CODE, LED ME TO THROTTLE BODY INSPECTED AND CLEANED FOUND NO PROBLEM , REINSTALLED THROTTLE BODY RAN GOOD FOR ABOUT 30 DAYS AND DID IT AGAIN , HAS DONE IT 2 MORE TIMES SINCE BUT GIVES ME NO CODES . THE LAST TIME WAS STARTING OUT IN A BUSY INTERSECTION CAR JUMPS AND GOES TO LIMP MODE IN MIDDLE OF INTERSECTION HAD TO LIMP OUT OF TRAFFIC TO TURN OFF AND RESTART . *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537079

48,000 miles · Aug 23, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

WE WERE TRAVELING AT 55 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY STALLED AND WOULD NO LONGER RESPOND WHEN I PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR. MY SUV SLOWED TO A STOP WHERE I CUT IT OFF. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPEED TO PULL OFF TO A SAFE LOCATION AND WAS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VERY BUSY HIGHWAY WHERE I WAS ALMOST …

Read full complaint

WE WERE TRAVELING AT 55 MPH ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY STALLED AND WOULD NO LONGER RESPOND WHEN I PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR. MY SUV SLOWED TO A STOP WHERE I CUT IT OFF. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPEED TO PULL OFF TO A SAFE LOCATION AND WAS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VERY BUSY HIGHWAY WHERE I WAS ALMOST SIDESWIPED BY A TRACTOR TRAILER TRUCK. IT WAS A VERY SCARY SITUATION TO SAY THE LEAST. THIS HAS SINCE HAPPENED 3 MORE TIMES, THE MOST RECENT BEING YESTERDAY AUGUST 23 ON AN INTERSTATE OVERPASS IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. AGAIN I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPEED TO PULL OFF TO A SAFE LOCATION AND WAS STUCK IN THE CENTER LANE OF THE OVERPASS. I WAS ABLE TO RESTART MY CAR SOON AFTER STALLING OUT AND WAS ABLE TO AN AUTO STORE THAT PULLED THE CODE OF P2112, WHICH IS THE THROTTLE BODY CODE. OF COURSE MY WARRANTY RAN OUT IN JUNE 2013 AND FORD ESTIMATES THE REPAIR TO COST $500 MINIMUM. AND SADLY, I AM NOW AFRAID TO DRIVE MY ESCAPE AS I FEAR IT WILL GET ME INTO AN ACCIDENT. I ASK THAT FORD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OBVIOUS FLAW IN THROTTLE BODY AND MAKE THE RECALL! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10536871

Official recalls

3

16V777000 · 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

4

DP15001 · 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.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems