NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter47,659 miles · Jul 5, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 95 IN LUMBERTON, N.C ALL OF A SUDDEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST POWER SLOWING DOWN DRASTICALLY ALMOST CAUSING A CRASH. CARS BEHIND ME HAD TO SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES AND GOING OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I TOOK MY CAR TO LUMBERTON FORD WERE I BOUGHT IT. AFTER CHECKING IT OUT, I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE BO…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 95 IN LUMBERTON, N.C ALL OF A SUDDEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE LOST POWER SLOWING DOWN DRASTICALLY ALMOST CAUSING A CRASH. CARS BEHIND ME HAD TO SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES AND GOING OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I TOOK MY CAR TO LUMBERTON FORD WERE I BOUGHT IT. AFTER CHECKING IT OUT, I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT THEIR WAS A RECALL ON THEM BUT NOT FOR MY MODEL YEAR. I WAS TOLD THAT A RECALL ON 2009 FORD ESCAPES BUT NOT 2010. THIS I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND. SO FORD MOTOR CO SPLIT THE COST WITH ME. BUT IF ITS A FAULTY PART, AND THEY HAVE A RECALL ON THE SAME PART, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING ? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523358
50,000 miles · Jul 5, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE VIN …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523347
57,000 miles · Jul 5, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE HESITATED AND THEN INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED WITH THE ILLUMINATION OF THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE HESITATED AND THEN INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED WITH THE ILLUMINATION OF THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 57,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523263
60,000 miles · Jul 4, 2013
StructureVehicle Speed ControlCrash
2010 FORD ESCAPE BOUGHT NEW AND TAKEN BACK TO DEALERSHIP AS THE VEHICLE JUMPS FORWARD. DEALERSHIP COULD NOT FIND PROBLEM. WITHIN LAST TWO WEEKS VEHICLE IS LOSING GAS PEDAL POWER WHILE DRIVING. THE VEHICLE DOES NOT STALL. IF YOU APPLY THE GAS THE VEHICLE JUMPS FORWARD. THE COMPUTER CODE IS P2112. VEHICLE WAS SURGING FORWARD…
Read full complaint
2010 FORD ESCAPE BOUGHT NEW AND TAKEN BACK TO DEALERSHIP AS THE VEHICLE JUMPS FORWARD. DEALERSHIP COULD NOT FIND PROBLEM. WITHIN LAST TWO WEEKS VEHICLE IS LOSING GAS PEDAL POWER WHILE DRIVING. THE VEHICLE DOES NOT STALL. IF YOU APPLY THE GAS THE VEHICLE JUMPS FORWARD. THE COMPUTER CODE IS P2112. VEHICLE WAS SURGING FORWARD WHEN A DOG RAN ACROSS THE ROAD. COULDN'T CONTROL VEHICLE. VERY BUSY ROAD AND TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE WAY. BUMPER HAD TO BE REPAIRED AND CAR IS STILL LOSING POWER AND SURGING WHEN YOU APPLY GAS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523207
23,000 miles · Jul 4, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I MADE A LEFT TURN FROM A STOP LIGHT AND THE CAR SEEMED TO BE ACCELERATING AND SHIFTING BUT SUDDENLY JUST STARTED "CHUGGING" AND BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO STEER, ALMOST AS IF THE BRAKE WERE ON. I GOT AS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE ROAD AS I COULD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I LOOKED UP THE SYMBOL (WRENCH) IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID "PO…
Read full complaint
I MADE A LEFT TURN FROM A STOP LIGHT AND THE CAR SEEMED TO BE ACCELERATING AND SHIFTING BUT SUDDENLY JUST STARTED "CHUGGING" AND BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO STEER, ALMOST AS IF THE BRAKE WERE ON. I GOT AS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE ROAD AS I COULD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. I LOOKED UP THE SYMBOL (WRENCH) IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID "POWERTRAIN FAULT" CALL YOUR AUTHORIZED DEALER. IT WAS TERRIFYING BEING STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET IN THE DARK! I HAD MY HAZARD FLASHERS ON AND WHEN I CALLED MY SON HE ASKED IF I COULD START THE CAR AND GET OFF THE STREET. IT DID START UP AND I WAS ABLE TO MOVE IT ABOUT A 100 FEET BEFORE IT STARTED "CHOKING UP" AGAIN. I WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND DID THAT AGAIN AND WAS ABLE TO GET IT INTO A PARKING LOT AND OFF THE STREET. MY CAR WAS TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND WHEN I CALLED THEM THE NEXT DAY THEY INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY AND THAT PART IS ON BACK ORDER AND IT MAY BE A COUPLE OF WEEKS. MY WARRANTY EXPIRED IN MAY AT THE THREE YEAR POINT. FORD SAID IT IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY AND WILL BE ABOUT $400 TO REPAIR; THEY WILL NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION AND MY INSURANCE WON'T COVER A RENTAL UNLESS I AM IN A COLLISION. IRONICALLY, HAD I TURNED LEFT WHEN I LEFT THE DRUGSTORE I WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE MAIN STREET IN TOWN AND BETWEEN A STRIP SHOPPING CENTER AND THE MALL AND PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A WRECK! FROM WHAT THE SERVICE MAN TOLD ME THIS IS A PROBLEM THEY ARE AWARE OF, BUT THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN, I HAVE TO FIX THE PROBLEM AND COVER THE COST OF A RENTAL FOR POSSIBLY SEVERAL WEEKS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT KEEP THE PART IN STOCK. INSULT AND INJURY! I AM SINGLE AND DO NOT HAVE ANYONE TO CHAUFFEUR ME. MY SON PICKS ME UP AT WORK, I DROP HIM OFF AND KEEP HIS TRUCK SO I CAN SHOP OR GO TO EAT AND I PICK HIM UP IN THE MORNING. PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS BEFORE SOMEONE IS SERIOUSLY INJURED, AS I COULD HAVE BEEN!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523181
36,400 miles · Jul 4, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WENT FROM AROUND 35 MPH ON A BUSY ROAD TO A ROUGH IDLE. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WOULD NOT RESPOND TO PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL, IT JUST STAYED RUNNING ON A ROUGH IDLE. I CONTINUED ON AT 3 MILES AN HOUR WAVING CARS TO PASS ME UNTIL I FOUND A SAFE PLACE TO PULL O…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WENT FROM AROUND 35 MPH ON A BUSY ROAD TO A ROUGH IDLE. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT WOULD NOT RESPOND TO PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL, IT JUST STAYED RUNNING ON A ROUGH IDLE. I CONTINUED ON AT 3 MILES AN HOUR WAVING CARS TO PASS ME UNTIL I FOUND A SAFE PLACE TO PULL OVER. I WAITED 20 MINUTES BEFORE STARTING THE VEHICLE AND IT THEN RAN NORMALLY. SO I WENT ON AND ABOUT 5 MILES FURTHER IT DID IT AGAIN. I HAD TO PULL OVER AND I RESTATED THE ENGINE IN JUST A FEW MINUTES AGAIN. IT DID IT AGAIN AND AGAIN SOMETIMES I WOULD ONLY NEED TO SHUT IT OFF FOR A SECOND. I TOOK IT INTO THE FORD DEALER AND THEY CHARGED ME $125.00 FOR A DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO TELL ME IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY (FORD WOULD NOT COVER THE TEST). THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PART IN STOCK AND TOLD ME IT WAS ON BACK ORDER AS THE FORD CHICAGO WAREHOUSE WAS OUT OF THEM. THE FORD SERVICE WRITER ALSO TOLD ME THEY HAVE REPLACED A NUMBER OF THEM SINCE HIS HIRING JUST THREE MONTHS PRIOR. HE FIRST TOLD ME A DIRTY AIR FILTER CAUSED THE PART TO FAIL, WHEN I EXPLAINED TO HIM I KNOW WHAT A DIRT AIR FILTER IS AND I DON'T HAVE ONE. THEN HE SAID IT WAS BECAUSE I DIDN'T DRIVE MY CAR ENOUGH AND THERE WAS CARBON BUILDUP CAUSING IT. SO I ASKED HIM IF FORD WAS SAYING THEY DON'T BUILD A GOOD ENOUGH ENGINE. HE ADMITTED HE WAS JUST READING THE PRINT OUT. THEY WOULDN'T HONOR MY POWER-TRAIN WARRANTY OF 5 YEARS OR 50,000 MILES. I WROTE A LETTER AND PERSONALLY DELIVERED IT TO THE FORD DEALER AND NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO CONTACT ME AND IT'S BEEN EIGHT DAYS NOW. THE MECHANIC ACTUALLY TRIED TO SELL ME TIRES AND GAVE ME BOGUS REASONS WHY THE BACK TWO NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND THE BACK TO HAVE 7/32 LEFT ACCORDING TO A REAL TIRE STORE'S SALESMAN AND ARE ALMOST LIKE NEW. I HAVE BEEN A LOYAL FORD MAN ALL MY LIFE. I MAY NEVER BUY ANOTHER FORD AND IT WILL NOT BE FROM THIS DEALERSHIP IF I DO! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523156
56,500 miles · Jul 3, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE BEGAN SPUTTERING AND THEN WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND WOULD BARELY MOVE WHEN PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL. IT WAS DIAGNOSED INITIALLY AS THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK OPEN. IT WAS CLEANED. I DROVE IT AND LESS THAN 24 HOURS LATER IT LOST ACCELERATION ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY AT A TRAVELING SPEED OF 65 MPH. I HAD TO PULL O…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE BEGAN SPUTTERING AND THEN WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND WOULD BARELY MOVE WHEN PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL. IT WAS DIAGNOSED INITIALLY AS THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK OPEN. IT WAS CLEANED. I DROVE IT AND LESS THAN 24 HOURS LATER IT LOST ACCELERATION ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY AT A TRAVELING SPEED OF 65 MPH. I HAD TO PULL OVER 3 TIMES AND RESTART IT TO GET IT TO A CAR REPAIR PLACE. I ENDED UP HAVING TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR MOTOR. THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE WAS P2111. I ASKED FOR THE OLD PART AND IT DID NOT LOOK WORN OR DAMAGED. THE REPEATED LOSS OF ACCELERATION ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY DURING MORNING RUSH HOUR CREATED A GREAT RISK TO MY SAFETY AND THOSE OF THE OTHER MOTORISTS AROUND ME. THE SERVICE MAN AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP ADVISED ME THEY WERE SEEING A NUMBER OF SIMILAR SITUATIONS INVOLVING THIS PART WITH FORD ESCAPES. THE TOTAL COST FOR BOTH SERVICE VISIT WAS $465.00. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523023
40,000 miles · Jul 3, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Vehicle Speed Control
DRIVING SOUTH ON HIGHWAY AT 60 MILES PER HOUR I HEARD ENGINE NOISE AND CAR SLOWED DOWN TO A STOP I STARTED IT AGAIN ABOUT 50 FEET IT DID SAME AGAIN I TOOK IT TO WHERE I BOUGHT IT AND THEY SAID THROTTLE BODY AND IT WAS ON BACKORDER AND WOULD BE 10 DAYS TO GET PART NEVER SAID A WORD TO ME ABOUT THIS BEING A PROBLEM WITH THESE CAR…
Read full complaint
DRIVING SOUTH ON HIGHWAY AT 60 MILES PER HOUR I HEARD ENGINE NOISE AND CAR SLOWED DOWN TO A STOP I STARTED IT AGAIN ABOUT 50 FEET IT DID SAME AGAIN I TOOK IT TO WHERE I BOUGHT IT AND THEY SAID THROTTLE BODY AND IT WAS ON BACKORDER AND WOULD BE 10 DAYS TO GET PART NEVER SAID A WORD TO ME ABOUT THIS BEING A PROBLEM WITH THESE CARS THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE I WAS DRIVING IN HEAVY TRAFFIC AND MY CAR JUST SLOWS TO A STOP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523019
45,300 miles · Jul 3, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
AT 45MPH THE VEHICLE LOST COMPLETE THROTTLE AND WENT INTO LOW IDLE. (NO GAS PEDAL) LUCKILY THE FIRST TIME I WAS ABLE TO PUT IT INTO NEUTRAL AND TURN IT OFF AND START IT BACK UP AND IT RESET ITSELF. ON 7/2/13 IT HAPPEN TWO MORE TIMES BUT AT A SPEED OF ABOUT 20-25MPH. HAD A HARDER TIME STARTING BACK UP. IT TURNED OVER BUT WOULD NO…
Read full complaint
AT 45MPH THE VEHICLE LOST COMPLETE THROTTLE AND WENT INTO LOW IDLE. (NO GAS PEDAL) LUCKILY THE FIRST TIME I WAS ABLE TO PUT IT INTO NEUTRAL AND TURN IT OFF AND START IT BACK UP AND IT RESET ITSELF. ON 7/2/13 IT HAPPEN TWO MORE TIMES BUT AT A SPEED OF ABOUT 20-25MPH. HAD A HARDER TIME STARTING BACK UP. IT TURNED OVER BUT WOULD NOT CRANK. THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR ANY DRIVER TO LOOSE YOUR GAS PEDAL!!!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522995
29,375 miles · Jul 2, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHEN DRIVING TO THE GROCERY STORE ON SUNDAY, JUNE 23, MY BOYFRIEND AND I PULLED UP TO A STOP SIGN AND THEN ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE TO CROSS 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC. THE CAR BUCKED AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THEN THE GAS PEDAL BEGAN TO SHAKE. WE HAD TO ROLL ACROSS THE STREET AND SHUT THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES. THE CAR TURNED OVER T…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING TO THE GROCERY STORE ON SUNDAY, JUNE 23, MY BOYFRIEND AND I PULLED UP TO A STOP SIGN AND THEN ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE TO CROSS 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC. THE CAR BUCKED AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. THEN THE GAS PEDAL BEGAN TO SHAKE. WE HAD TO ROLL ACROSS THE STREET AND SHUT THE CAR OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES. THE CAR TURNED OVER TWICE AND THEN FINALLY STARTED UP. THE SECOND INCIDENT HAPPENED ON THURSDAY, JUNE 27. MY BOYFRIEND AND I WERE ON OUR WAY HOME AND PULLED UP TO A STOP SIGN. AGAIN, PUSHING ON THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT CAUSE THE CAR TO ACCELERATE. WE HAD TO ROLL ACROSS THE INTERSECTION AND TURN THE CAR OFF. THE CAR TURNED OVER ABOUT 3 OR 4 TIMES AND THEN STARTED. WE TOOK THE CAR INTO A LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP ON TUESDAY, JULY 2, AND WERE TOLD AFTER A FEW HOURS OF WAITING, THAT THE CAR HAS A THROTTLE BODY ISSUE. THE DEALER TOLD US THE PART COSTS $399 AND THE LABOR WOULD BE $100. WE HAD TO PAY $244.05 UP FRONT AND WE WERE TOLD THAT THE PART IS ON BACKORDER AND WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 1 MONTH TO COME IN. MY CAR ALSO HAS LOW ENOUGH MILEAGE (29,400) THAT IT STILL HAS A 5 YEAR POWERTRAIN WARRANTY (WHICH COVERED THE ENGINE) BUT WERE TOLD THAT WARRANTY DOESN'T COVER THE THROTTLE BODY. SO NOW, WE ARE OUT $244 (IT WILL BE AT LEAST $500 ONCE THE PART COMES IN) AND DON'T HAVE THE USE OF OUR CAR (WE ARE A ONE CAR FAMILY) WITH NO RELATIVES,ETC. CLOSE BY TO BORROW A CAR FROM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522959
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.