NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter67,126 miles · Jul 18, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO IDLE. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND TOOK IT TO A LOCAL DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE THROTTL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO IDLE. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AND TOOK IT TO A LOCAL DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS REPLACED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 67,126.
NHTSA ODI #10525586
70,000 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE DECELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE DEPRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE R…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE DECELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE DEPRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70,000. UPDATED 09/05/13*LJ
NHTSA ODI #10525383
63,500 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH A THROTTLE BAR ISSUE BY A FORD DEALER. WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR 30+ DAYS FOR A NEW THROTTLE BODY PART. FROM THE TIME OF THE FIRST INCIDENT IN APRIL, THE VEHICLE HAS STOPPED RUNNING WHILE DRIVING AND HAS BEEN HAVING ELECTRICAL ISSUES UPON START UP ABOUT A HALF DOZEN TIMES INCLUDING TODAY. RATHE…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH A THROTTLE BAR ISSUE BY A FORD DEALER. WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR 30+ DAYS FOR A NEW THROTTLE BODY PART. FROM THE TIME OF THE FIRST INCIDENT IN APRIL, THE VEHICLE HAS STOPPED RUNNING WHILE DRIVING AND HAS BEEN HAVING ELECTRICAL ISSUES UPON START UP ABOUT A HALF DOZEN TIMES INCLUDING TODAY. RATHER THAN ENTER A COMPLAINT FOR EACH INCIDENT BECAUSE WE CAN NOT RECALL THE EXACT DATES, WE ARE SUBMITTING THIS COMPLAINT TO COVER ALL INCIDENTS. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THE PART IS BACK ORDERED AND THERE IS NO ESTIMATED DATE OF DELIVERY. WE HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A SURGE IN SPEED AS OF YET. IS THIS VEHICLE SAFE FOR US TO BE DRIVING? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525375
57,000 miles · Jul 17, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED HAS COMPLETELY LOST POWER WHEN DRIVING ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WILL BE RUNNING FIND AND THEN YOU SUDDENLY LOSE ALL POWER. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MY LOCAL DEALER AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THEY ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE…
Read full complaint
MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED HAS COMPLETELY LOST POWER WHEN DRIVING ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WILL BE RUNNING FIND AND THEN YOU SUDDENLY LOSE ALL POWER. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MY LOCAL DEALER AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. THEY ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE REPLACEMENT PART AND WERE UNSURE OF WHEN THEY COULD GET IT. I FIND IT VERY DANGEROUS DRIVING A VEHICLE THAT COULD SUDDENLY LOSE POWER AT ANYTIME. ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE FORD SHOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THESE DEFECTIVE PARTS, FORD COULD AT LEAST BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE THESE PARTS SO THAT I COULD AT LEAST PAY TO HAVE MY VEHICLE FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525338
37,190 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING AT 50MPH AND NEXT THING I KNOW IS MY WHOLE CAR WAS SHAKING IT WAS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE AND I CHECKED THE DASH AND THE ORANGE WRENCH LIGHT IS ON. I TRIED TO STEP ON THE GAS PEDAL SO I CAN FIND A PLACE TO PULL OVER BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY POWER ON MY GAS PEDAL IT JUST WONT ACCELERATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525205
33,000 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR SLOWED AND BECAME SLUGGISH. TOOK THE CAR RIGHT TO THE FORD DEALER. I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. I HAD JUST HAD A 30,000 MILE CHECKUP 2 MONTHS BEFORE AND THE THROTTLE BODY WAS SERVICED AND NOW 3,000 MILES LATER I NEED TO HAVE IT REPLACED... IF I HAD BEEN ON THE THRUWA…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR SLOWED AND BECAME SLUGGISH. TOOK THE CAR RIGHT TO THE FORD DEALER. I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. I HAD JUST HAD A 30,000 MILE CHECKUP 2 MONTHS BEFORE AND THE THROTTLE BODY WAS SERVICED AND NOW 3,000 MILES LATER I NEED TO HAVE IT REPLACED... IF I HAD BEEN ON THE THRUWAY WHEN THIS HAPPENED. IT COULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT BEING AT HIGH SPEED THEN LOSING POWER. I WAS LUCKY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525189
55,000 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 20 MPH, THE ENGINE RPMS INCREASED EXCESSIVELY AS THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE B…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 20 MPH, THE ENGINE RPMS INCREASED EXCESSIVELY AS THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE PART WAS ON BACK ORDER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 55,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525179
24,060 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
AS I WAS TURNING ONTO A BUSY STREET (TURNING RIGHT ON RED) MY CAR WITHOUT ANY INDICATION SUDDENLY LOST POWER. I MANAGED TO COAST INTO A PARKING LOT AND PUT THE CAR INTO PARK AND TURN IT OFF. I NOTICED A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEAR IN THE LEFT PANEL, AND THE CAR IMMEDIATELY STARTED AGAIN. I HAD JUST HAD MY CAR SERVICED THE DAY BEFORE…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS TURNING ONTO A BUSY STREET (TURNING RIGHT ON RED) MY CAR WITHOUT ANY INDICATION SUDDENLY LOST POWER. I MANAGED TO COAST INTO A PARKING LOT AND PUT THE CAR INTO PARK AND TURN IT OFF. I NOTICED A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEAR IN THE LEFT PANEL, AND THE CAR IMMEDIATELY STARTED AGAIN. I HAD JUST HAD MY CAR SERVICED THE DAY BEFORE (JAN 19, 2013). THIS OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 3-4 TIMES MORE OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS. I CALLED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM, AND TOOK IT IN. THEY SAID THEY COULD FIN NO PROBLEM WITH MY CAR THAT WOULD CAUSE THIS TO HAPPEN. A WEEK OR SO LATER IT HAPPENED AGAIN. I CALLED BY TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND DESCRIBED THAT THE SAME THING WAS STILL HAPPENING. THEY EXPLAINED THAT THEY COULD SEE NOTHING ON THE MACHINE THAT INDICATED A PROBLEM. I CALLED FORD AND ASK ABOUT ANY RECALLS AND WAS TOLD THERE WERE NONE FOR MY VEHICLE. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED THAT I WAIT UNTIL THE PROBLEM MANIFESTED AND CALL BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. MONTHS( LATE JUNE) THEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN. I TOOK IT IN AGAIN AND WAS TOLD THAT EVERYTHING WAS FINE. ON A TRIP TO CHARLOTTE NC GOING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH IN THE LEFT LANE, MY CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER (SCARY!!!) I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER WITHOUT INCIDENT. MY CAR DID THIS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT TIMES BETWEEN CONCORD NC AND GOLDSBORO NC (WITH TWO YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE CAR). UPON RETURN, I CALLED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND TOOK IT IN AGAIN. THIS TIME THEY IDENTIFIED THE THROTTLE BODY--A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT--MY CAR'S WARRANTY EXPIRED APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS EARLIER. MY CAR IS AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP AS I WRITE THIS WAITING TO BE REPAIRED. I AM TOLD THE THROTTLE BODY IS ON A NATIONAL BACKLOG. I FEEL THAT I HAVE BEEN MISTREATED AS A CONSUMER ON SO MANY LEVELS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525139
42,000 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
ON FIVE SEPARATE OCCASIONS WITHIN THE SPAN OF A DAY, THE CAR, WHILE MOVING, STUTTERED AND STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO START THE CAR AGAIN, BUT IT WOULD STALL SOON THEREAFTER. IT ALMOST FELT LIKE THE CAR WAS "CHOKING" AND THE ENGINE WOULD NOT FULLY TURN OFF. I TOOK THE CAR INTO THE DEALER AND WAS INFORMED IT WAS A DEFECTIVE "THROTT…
Read full complaint
ON FIVE SEPARATE OCCASIONS WITHIN THE SPAN OF A DAY, THE CAR, WHILE MOVING, STUTTERED AND STALLED. I WAS ABLE TO START THE CAR AGAIN, BUT IT WOULD STALL SOON THEREAFTER. IT ALMOST FELT LIKE THE CAR WAS "CHOKING" AND THE ENGINE WOULD NOT FULLY TURN OFF. I TOOK THE CAR INTO THE DEALER AND WAS INFORMED IT WAS A DEFECTIVE "THROTTLE BODY" AND THAT FORD HAD BEEN HAVING ISSUES WITH THIS PART. IT WAS NOT IN RECALL YET. I CALLED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE TO FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT. THEY PAID FOR THE THROTTLE BODY PART, HOWEVER, I WAS CHARGED OVER $300.00 TO REPLACE THE PART. I AM ONLY 5,000- 6,000 MILES OUT OF WARRANTY ON THE CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525072
77,000 miles · Jul 15, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 55 MPH WHEN THE WRENCH DASHBOARD INDICATOR LIGHT COMES ON. AT THE SAME TIME MY GAS PEDAL CEASES TO WORK AND CAR SPEED DECREASES. I HAVE TO COAST ONTO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THANKFULLY BRAKES WORK. CAR IS STILL RUNNING. I TURN CAR OFF AND WAIT A MINUTE. TURN BACK ON. IT STARTS. LIGHT IS GONE AND CAR FEELS S…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 55 MPH WHEN THE WRENCH DASHBOARD INDICATOR LIGHT COMES ON. AT THE SAME TIME MY GAS PEDAL CEASES TO WORK AND CAR SPEED DECREASES. I HAVE TO COAST ONTO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD. THANKFULLY BRAKES WORK. CAR IS STILL RUNNING. I TURN CAR OFF AND WAIT A MINUTE. TURN BACK ON. IT STARTS. LIGHT IS GONE AND CAR FEELS SHUDDERY BUT CONTINUES RUNNING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525051
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.