NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter54,000 miles · Jul 29, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE BECAME RESISTANT TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS OVER 10 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 54,000. UPDATED 08/27/13*LJ THE DEALER …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE BECAME RESISTANT TO ACCELERATION ATTEMPTS OVER 10 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 54,000. UPDATED 08/27/13*LJ THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. UPDATED 08/29/13
NHTSA ODI #10532385
67,000 miles · Jul 26, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE INTERSTATE HEADING TO WORK WHEN I LOST ALL POWER. THE VEHICLE DID NOT DIE OR STALL, IT LOST POWER AND THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT WORK. AS MY SPEED STARTED DECLINING, I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY TURN ON MY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND MOVE OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WHICH WAS HARD AT THE TIME WITH OTHER TRAFFIC IN THAT LANE. …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE INTERSTATE HEADING TO WORK WHEN I LOST ALL POWER. THE VEHICLE DID NOT DIE OR STALL, IT LOST POWER AND THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT WORK. AS MY SPEED STARTED DECLINING, I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY TURN ON MY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND MOVE OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. WHICH WAS HARD AT THE TIME WITH OTHER TRAFFIC IN THAT LANE. AND THE DECREASING SPEED WHILE I WAS IN MY LANE HAD ME NERVOUS AS OTHER VEHICLES CAME UP FLYING BEHIND ME. AS SOON AS I PULLED OVER ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, MY CAR IMMEDIATELY DIED. I TRIED TO TURN IT ON AFTER ABOUT TEN MINUTES AND THE ENGINE JUST ROLLED BUT WOULD NOT COME ON. AFTER ABOUT 25 MINUTES, MY CAR STARTED UP AGAIN. I WAS ABLE TO GET IT TO A DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID RIGHT AWAY THAT IT WAS PROBABLY THE THROTTLE BODY, BUT THAT THE PART WAS ON BACK ORDER AND WOULD TAKE UP TO A WEEK TO GET IN. AFTER THEY CHECKED IT OUT, IT WAS IN FACT THE THROTTLE BODY. I ENDED UP LUCKING OUT BECAUSE THEY DID HAVE A PART FOR ME. UPON PAYING FOR MY REPAIR, I WAS TOLD BY THE FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENT, THAT THEY HAD SEEN A MAJOR SPIKE IN THIS REPAIR. THEY EVEN SAID THEY ONCE HAD 15 CARS IN ONE DAY THAT ALL NEEDED THE THROTTLE BODY REPAIRED. AND THAT IS WHY THE PART HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN ON BACK ORDER. THEY ALSO STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT THE ONLY DEALERSHIP NOTICING THIS SPIKE. I WAS INFORMED TO KEEP ALL MY PAPERWORK BECAUSE WITH THIS KIND OF SPIKE, IT COULD LEAD TO A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532069
30,000 miles · Jul 25, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHIC…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 30,000. UPDATED 9/4/13 *CN
NHTSA ODI #10531800
37,314 miles · Jul 25, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE SUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY LOST ALL POWER WHILE DRIVING ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, ALMOST RESULTING IN A REAR END COLLISION. VEHICLE HAS NOW DONE THAT THREE TIMES AND IS NOT BEING DRIVEN AS IT IS UNSAFE TO OPERATE UNTIL REPAIRED. FORD STATES THAT IT IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY BUT CANNOT OBTAIN THE REPLACEMENT…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE SUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY LOST ALL POWER WHILE DRIVING ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, ALMOST RESULTING IN A REAR END COLLISION. VEHICLE HAS NOW DONE THAT THREE TIMES AND IS NOT BEING DRIVEN AS IT IS UNSAFE TO OPERATE UNTIL REPAIRED. FORD STATES THAT IT IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY BUT CANNOT OBTAIN THE REPLACEMENT PART FOR ONE TO TWO MONTHS, RENDERING VEHICLE UNUSABLE AND UNSAFE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531745
71,000 miles · Jul 24, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TRAVELING ON A HIGHWAY, GOING 60 MPH, MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP" MODE. THIS HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES UNTIL I WAS ABLE TO GET SOMEWHERE SAFE TO CALL A TOW TRUCK. IT TURNS OUT I HAVE A BAD THROTTLE BODY WHICH I HAVE SINCE LEARNED IS QUITE COMMON IN 2010 FORD ESCAPES. THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECALL ON THIS ITE…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING ON A HIGHWAY, GOING 60 MPH, MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP" MODE. THIS HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES UNTIL I WAS ABLE TO GET SOMEWHERE SAFE TO CALL A TOW TRUCK. IT TURNS OUT I HAVE A BAD THROTTLE BODY WHICH I HAVE SINCE LEARNED IS QUITE COMMON IN 2010 FORD ESCAPES. THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECALL ON THIS ITEM. YES, THE ENGINE DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, BUT LOSING POWER AT 60 MPH DURING RUSH HOUR IS QUITE DANGEROUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531652
60,000 miles · Jul 24, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AT 65 IN THE SLOW LANE WHEN SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO LOOSE POWER. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. NO GAS SEEMED TO BE GOING TO THE ENGINE BUT IT WAS STILL RUNNING. THE GOOD THING WAS I WAS IN THE SLOW LANE OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. I SHUT T…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AT 65 IN THE SLOW LANE WHEN SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO LOOSE POWER. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK. NO GAS SEEMED TO BE GOING TO THE ENGINE BUT IT WAS STILL RUNNING. THE GOOD THING WAS I WAS IN THE SLOW LANE OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. I SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND WAITED A FEW MOMENTS BEFORE RESTARTING. IT STARTED UP AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME. RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM ON THE INTERNET LED ME TO THIS SITE BUT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WHICH FORD NEEDS TO TAKE OF BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531572
46,000 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE. INITIALLY IT WAS INFREQUENT, BUT IT STARTED TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, CAUSING UNSAFE DRIVING CONDITIONS. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS THE REPORTED ERROR, WAS REPLACED AND NOW THE NEW THROTTLE BODY IS ACTING UP AGAIN WITH THE SAME ERRORS. THE CAR IS CURRENTLY AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP BECAUSE THE …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WENT INTO LIMP MODE. INITIALLY IT WAS INFREQUENT, BUT IT STARTED TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, CAUSING UNSAFE DRIVING CONDITIONS. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS THE REPORTED ERROR, WAS REPLACED AND NOW THE NEW THROTTLE BODY IS ACTING UP AGAIN WITH THE SAME ERRORS. THE CAR IS CURRENTLY AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP BECAUSE THE PART IS ON BACK ORDER AND NO ONE ELSE HAS IT AVAILABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526467
89,600 miles · Jul 23, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
AT LEAST 10 TIMES OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS LOST POWER WHILE DRIVING. THE RPM'S DROP AND THE ENGINE DOES NOT RESPOND WHEN PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL. ALSO THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. CHANGING THE TRANSMISSION TO NEUTRAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE STALL. TYPICALLY AFTER TURNING OFF THE ENGINE AND STARTING IT AGAIN, …
Read full complaint
AT LEAST 10 TIMES OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE HAS LOST POWER WHILE DRIVING. THE RPM'S DROP AND THE ENGINE DOES NOT RESPOND WHEN PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL. ALSO THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. CHANGING THE TRANSMISSION TO NEUTRAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE STALL. TYPICALLY AFTER TURNING OFF THE ENGINE AND STARTING IT AGAIN, THE ENGINE RESETS TO NORMAL. TODAY, THIS HAPPEN ON A CROWDED INTERSTATE SURROUNDED BY SEMI TRUCKS AT 65 MPH. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO COAST THROUGH LANES OF TRAFFIC AND GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THIS DEFECT IS CONSIDERABLY DANGEROUS AND NEEDS ATTENTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FROM FORD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526348
70,850 miles · Jul 22, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN DOWN A COUNTY HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH WHEN IT JERKED FORWARD AND SUDDENLY LOST POWER. THE VEHICLE COASTED TO ALMOST A CRAWL BEFORE THERE WAS ANY SIGN OF LIFE TO IT. MY WIFE CALLED ME AND I ASKED HER TO PULL OVER TO A SAFE PLACE. I TOLD HER TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN RESTART IT. WHEN SHE DID THIS, SHE …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN DOWN A COUNTY HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH WHEN IT JERKED FORWARD AND SUDDENLY LOST POWER. THE VEHICLE COASTED TO ALMOST A CRAWL BEFORE THERE WAS ANY SIGN OF LIFE TO IT. MY WIFE CALLED ME AND I ASKED HER TO PULL OVER TO A SAFE PLACE. I TOLD HER TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN RESTART IT. WHEN SHE DID THIS, SHE WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE NORMALLY. THE VEHICLE THEN JERKED AGAIN AND SWITCHED INTO THE LIMP MODE. AT THIS POINT MY WIFE PULLED OVER AND CALL A TOW TRUCK. THE FIRST MECHANIC I TOOK IT TO SAID THAT I NEEDED TO TAKE IT TO FORD AND THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. ONCE I GOT IT TO FORD, THEY LOOKED AT IT AND SAID THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACE. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE PART WAS ON BACK ORDER. THERE MUST BE A DEMAND FOR THE PART! I AM THANKFUL THAT MY WIFE IS FINE, BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT THE JERK THAT SHE FELT COULD HAVE LED TO AN ACCIDENT. I WOULD HATE TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN TO ANY ONE ELSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526272
86,000 miles · Jul 22, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WITHOUT WARNING OR HESITATION. I COASTED TO A STOP IN A NEARBY PARKING LOT (LUCKILY!), TURNED IGNITION OFF AND VEHICLE RESTARTED AND RAN WITH NO PROBLEMS FOR ALMOST TWO WEEKS. ON SATURDAY, JULY 13TH WHILE DRIVING IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, THE VEH…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, VEHICLE SUDDENLY STALLED WITHOUT WARNING OR HESITATION. I COASTED TO A STOP IN A NEARBY PARKING LOT (LUCKILY!), TURNED IGNITION OFF AND VEHICLE RESTARTED AND RAN WITH NO PROBLEMS FOR ALMOST TWO WEEKS. ON SATURDAY, JULY 13TH WHILE DRIVING IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, THE VEHICLE AGAIN STALLED AND WOULD NOT RESTART UNTIL I COASTED TO A STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE IGNITION OFF. SINCE THEN THE VEHICLE HAS DONE THIS ABOUT A HALF DOZEN TIMES BUT NOT ALWAYS BY JUST STALLING. THE VEHICLE HAS ALSO WENT INTO 'LIMP HOME' MODE ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION WHEN MY SON WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE CLOSE TO A FRIEND'S HOUSE WHERE IT SAT OVERNIGHT. WHEN WE STARTED IT THE NEXT TIME IT RAN LIKE IT WAS MISFIRING VERY BADLY, SO WE TURNED THE IGNITION OFF AND TAPPED ON THE THROTTLE BODY WITH THE HANDLE OF A SCREWDRIVER. IT THEN STARTED AND IDLED NORMALLY AND WE WERE ABLE TO DRIVE IT ABOUT THREE MILES HOME. IT ALSO HAS SPUTTERED ERRATICALLY SIMILAR TO A VERY BAD REPEATED MISFIRING UNTIL STOPPING AND TURNING THE IGNITION OFF. IT DID THIS TWICE WITHIN A QUARTER MILE AND THEN RAN FINE FOR OVER 15 MILES THAT I DROVE IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP WHO WANTED $107 DOLLARS TO DIAGNOSE A PROBLEM THAT I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN I ALREADY HAD FIGURED OUT. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THEIR 'SPECIALLY TRAINED' TECHNICIANS MAY FIND A DIFFERENT CAUSE THAN THE P2111 CODE I HAD READ WITH A SCANNER FROM A LOCAL AUTO PARTS STORE SUGGESTED. I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THIS PROBLEM WAS SUPPOSED ADDRESSED BY FORD THINKING THAT THERE WAS A PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD PROBLEM IN THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. HOWEVER, THIS VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED IN MARCH OF 2010, AFTER THE OCTOBER 15TH, 2009 DATE THEY HAD STARTED USING THE NEW PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10526226
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.