NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
558 reportsClear category filter120,000 miles · Jul 13, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED, WE WERE ON OUR WAY TO A FUNERAL, AN HOUR AWAY, DRIVING OUR 2010 ESCAPE ABOUT 55 MPH. EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND THEN THE CAR JERKED, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON - HAD NO ACCELERATION, NO POWER STEERING, NO CONTROL. IT WAS SCARY! LUCKILY, MY HUSBAND WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITHOUT INCIDENT…
Read full complaint
THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED, WE WERE ON OUR WAY TO A FUNERAL, AN HOUR AWAY, DRIVING OUR 2010 ESCAPE ABOUT 55 MPH. EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND THEN THE CAR JERKED, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON - HAD NO ACCELERATION, NO POWER STEERING, NO CONTROL. IT WAS SCARY! LUCKILY, MY HUSBAND WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITHOUT INCIDENT. TURNED THE CAR OFF AND SAID A PRAYER OF THANKS! CAR STARTED BACK UP AFTER A COUPLE OF MINUTES, ALTHOUGH NOT EASILY. DID THE SAME THING ON OUR WAY BACK HOME. SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THIS PROBLEM CONTINUED TO HAPPEN. FOUND OUT THE CAR IS GOING INTO "SAFE MODE". MY HUSBAND DRIVES AN HOUR TO WORK (EACH WAY), ALL HIGHWAY, APPROX. 70-75 MPH AND ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH HIS COMMUTE, THE PROBLEM WILL HAPPEN. HE HAS TO GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE OTHER DRIVERS AND FIND A SAFE SPOT TO PARK. NOT ALWAYS AN EASY TASK ON THE HIGHWAY. TOOK THE CAR TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP FOR THIS PROBLEM AND OTHER RECALL WORK (14S05 AND 13B17). THEY TOLD US THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUES. THE NEXT DAY, THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ON AND SAME PROBLEM STILL HAPPENS, ALTHOUGH NOW THE CAR DRIVES IN A LOWER GEAR AND EVENTUALLY YOU CAN ACCELERATE, BUT NOT QUICKLY. STILL NOT SAFE ON THE HIGHWAY. FOUND OUT TODAY, DEALERSHIP WILL LOOK AT THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE FOR $70 TO SEE IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. RIDICULOUS!! THEY AREN'T THE ONES IN AN UNSAFE CAR!
NHTSA ODI #10733574
50,000 miles · Jul 9, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, AN UNKNOWN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE SPEED INDEPENDENTLY DECREASED TO 10 MPH. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL WAS DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER AND REQUIRED EXCESSIVE FORCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC BUT THE FAILURE WAS UNABL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, AN UNKNOWN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE SPEED INDEPENDENTLY DECREASED TO 10 MPH. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING WHEEL WAS DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER AND REQUIRED EXCESSIVE FORCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC BUT THE FAILURE WAS UNABLE TO BE DUPLICATED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000. UPDATED 10/06/15*LJ UPDATED 11/08/2017*CN
NHTSA ODI #10732918
108,000 miles · Jul 1, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT A REGULAR SPEED OF APRX 60MPH, MY CAR WOULD MAKE IMPULSES AND ACCELERATE BY ITSELF.ON A COUPLE OF TIMES, I ALMOST REAR ENDED THE CARS AHEAD OF ME. AND WHEN I WOULD COME TO A STOP SIGN OR RED LIGHT, MY CAR WOULD STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. TOOK IT FOR AN INSPECTION, THE TOLD ME IT WAS THE TROTTLE WHAT WA…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT A REGULAR SPEED OF APRX 60MPH, MY CAR WOULD MAKE IMPULSES AND ACCELERATE BY ITSELF.ON A COUPLE OF TIMES, I ALMOST REAR ENDED THE CARS AHEAD OF ME. AND WHEN I WOULD COME TO A STOP SIGN OR RED LIGHT, MY CAR WOULD STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. TOOK IT FOR AN INSPECTION, THE TOLD ME IT WAS THE TROTTLE WHAT WAS GIVING ME A PROBLEM. I LOOKED UP ONLINE AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM FOR FORD ESCAPES 2010. PLEASE TAKE CARE OF THIS. ITS AN AWFUL FEELING WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING ON A CURB AT 60 MPH AND SUDDENLY YOUR CAR ACCELERATES. DON'T WAIT UNTIL SOMEONE GETS HURT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. ITS ALWAYS BETTER AND CHEAPER TO PREVENT PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF FIXING THEM.
NHTSA ODI #10731502
105,575 miles · May 16, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON THE ROAD AND MY GAS PEDAL WENT SOFT. I COULD NOT GET ANY SPEED AND I HAD TO PULL OVER IN ORDER TO AVOID FROM BEING HIT IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC.NOW MY CAR IS IN THE SHOP WHICH COST MONEY.
NHTSA ODI #10716849
73,165 miles · Apr 18, 2015
EngineService BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrash
TURN INTO A PARKING SPACE AND HIT THE BRAKE TO STOP , CAR SURGED FORWARD AND JUMPED THE CURB. HIT A BUS SHELTER, SIDE SWIPED A TREE , THEN JUMP CURB BACK TO PARKING LOT BEFORE ESCAPE CAME TO A FULL STOP. FIRST TIME SLED ON A SMALL PATCH OF ICE CAR SURGED BRAKES NEVER TOOK HOLD SLID AND AVOIDED AND STREET LIGHT AND A TREE BEFORE …
Read full complaint
TURN INTO A PARKING SPACE AND HIT THE BRAKE TO STOP , CAR SURGED FORWARD AND JUMPED THE CURB. HIT A BUS SHELTER, SIDE SWIPED A TREE , THEN JUMP CURB BACK TO PARKING LOT BEFORE ESCAPE CAME TO A FULL STOP. FIRST TIME SLED ON A SMALL PATCH OF ICE CAR SURGED BRAKES NEVER TOOK HOLD SLID AND AVOIDED AND STREET LIGHT AND A TREE BEFORE COMING TO A FULL STOP. TOOK CAR TO SHOP FOR OIL CHANGE HAD BRAKES CHECKED SAID NO PROBLEM. BUT SOMETIMES THIS SUV HAS A POWER SURGE WHEN APPLING BRAKES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10706440
62,000 miles · Apr 5, 2015
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING NORMALLY, THROTTLE CONTROL POWERTRAIN WARNING LIGHT COMES ON, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON, CAR GAS PEDAL DOES NOT WORK, ENGINE IDLES AND DOES NOT ACCELERATE. WHEN YOU SHUT THE CAR ALL THE WAY OFF AND WAIT THEN RESTART THE ENGINE THE CAR WORKS AS NORMAL AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10703772
59,000 miles · Jan 21, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
WHEN DRIVING PRIMARILY AT LOW OR DECLINING SPEEDS AS IN ANTICIPATION OF A STOP LIGHT OR TURN INTO MY DRIVEWAY, WHEN I SLOW DOWN AND THEN SLIGHTLY ACCELERATE (EITHER INTO THE DRIVEWAY OR IF THE LIGHT CHANGES BEFORE I HAVE FULLY STOPPED), I NOTICE A STALL OR PAUSE IN ACCELERATION. THIS HAS HAPPENED A NUMBER OF TIMES BUT I ONLY REC…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING PRIMARILY AT LOW OR DECLINING SPEEDS AS IN ANTICIPATION OF A STOP LIGHT OR TURN INTO MY DRIVEWAY, WHEN I SLOW DOWN AND THEN SLIGHTLY ACCELERATE (EITHER INTO THE DRIVEWAY OR IF THE LIGHT CHANGES BEFORE I HAVE FULLY STOPPED), I NOTICE A STALL OR PAUSE IN ACCELERATION. THIS HAS HAPPENED A NUMBER OF TIMES BUT I ONLY RECENTLY REALIZED THE CONSISTENT SCENARIO. I HAD POSSIBLY THE SAME SYMPTOM AT HIGHER SPEED WHEN DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY, NOTICING THE SPEED WOULD SEEM TO FLUCTUATE ODDLY WHILE IN RAPID AND QUICK SUCCESSION LIKE IT WAS TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ACCELERATE OR DECELERATE. I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS IS A SIGN OF A FAILING THROTTLE BODY PER A FORD RECALL. AFTER READING ABOUT THIS FAILURE, I AM CONVINCED IT IS SO. MY DEALERSHIP TELLS ME THEY CAN ONLY DIAGNOSE A TOTAL FAILURE OF THIS PART--WHICH SEEMS TO ME LIKE MY LIFE IS AT RISK TO BEING HIT FROM BEHIND OR FROM THE SIDE IF THE CAR STALLS IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. I AM BECOMING AFRAID TO DRIVE THIS CAR. IF THE PART IS BAD ARE WE JUST GOING TO SACRIFICE A FEW PEOPLE'S LIVES BEFORE HOLDING A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION?? HOW MANY IS ENOUGH? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10678158
80,500 miles · Oct 21, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
I HAVE HAD THE TWO RECALLS FIXED IN JULY FOR MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. HOWEVER, IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS MY CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP REGARDING THE (WRENCH LIGHT) THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN LIGHT COMING ON. MY CAR LOOSES POWER WHEN I ACCELERATE AND THE LIGHT COMES ON. IT GOES OFF ONCE I TURN OFF THE CAR WHICH IS MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR…
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD THE TWO RECALLS FIXED IN JULY FOR MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE. HOWEVER, IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS MY CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP REGARDING THE (WRENCH LIGHT) THROTTLE/POWERTRAIN LIGHT COMING ON. MY CAR LOOSES POWER WHEN I ACCELERATE AND THE LIGHT COMES ON. IT GOES OFF ONCE I TURN OFF THE CAR WHICH IS MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE DEALERSHIP TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM. THEY CLAIM THEY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING AND UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T GET THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP WHEN THE LIGHT IS ON. THEY HAVE RUN A HISTORY FOR THE CODES THAT HAVE COME UP ON THE CAR, BUT THERE ARE NO RECENT CODES/PROBLEMS. I KEEP TELLING THEM THAT I AM HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS LISTED IN THE FORD RECALL NOTICE BUT I AM TOLD THAT THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO IF THERE IS NO CODE SHOWING A PROBLEM. I AM TERRIFIED TO DRIVE MY SON IN THIS CAR. I ALSO COMMUTE 100 MILES DAILY DOWN A VERY BUSY HIGHWAY AND I AM WORRIED THAT THE CAR WILL DIE AND I WON'T BE ABLE TO PULL OFF THE ROAD SAFELY. FORD NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WITH THE ESCAPE HAS NOT BEEN FIXED! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10649194
66,000 miles · Oct 21, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING HOME AFTER PICKING MY CHILDREN UP FROM SCHOOL. I WAS GOING ABOUT 45 MPH WHEN SUDDENLY I LOST ACCELERATION TO THE CAR. THE CAR DECREASED SPEED VERY FAST AND THE VEHICLE BEHIND ME HAD TO SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES AND CAME VERY CLOSE TO HITTING ME. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. COME TO FIND OUT FORD IS AWARE OF A THROTTLE IS…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING HOME AFTER PICKING MY CHILDREN UP FROM SCHOOL. I WAS GOING ABOUT 45 MPH WHEN SUDDENLY I LOST ACCELERATION TO THE CAR. THE CAR DECREASED SPEED VERY FAST AND THE VEHICLE BEHIND ME HAD TO SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES AND CAME VERY CLOSE TO HITTING ME. A WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. COME TO FIND OUT FORD IS AWARE OF A THROTTLE ISSUE AND HAVE A EXTENDED WARRANTY. I AM CONFUSED TO WHY THIS HASN'T BEEN CALLED FOR RECALL. THIS IS SO DANGEROUS TO ALL OF US. THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY HAS BEEN PUT IN DANGER DUE TO THIS ISSUE THAT FORD IS AWARE. INCLUDING THE NHTSA IS AWARE OF THIS ISSUE. ARE WE WAITING FOR LIVES TO BE TAKEN TO MAKE THIS A RECALL? NOT ONCE FORD SENT ME A LETTER, EMAIL, OR EVEN CALLED ME TO INFORM THERE WAS A EXTENDED WARRANTY TO GET THIS ISSUE FIXED. AS I SPOKE WITH FORD, ONE OF THE AGENTS SAID "WE ARE BEING PROACTIVE AND GETTING THIS ISSUE FIXED FOR FREE." WHAT A JOKE. I CAN'T IMAGINE IF I WAS ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY GOING 65MPH. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED RIGHT AWAY. IS THERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT MUST DIE BEFORE NHTSA MAKE THIS A RECALL? IF NHTSA AND FORD KNOW THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THIS EQUIPMENT WHY NOT GET THIS FIXED? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10649191
27,600 miles · Oct 13, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
MY FAMILY AND I WERE TRAVELING HWY 113 IN VA COMING BACK TO PA FROM NC. MY HUSBAND ACCELERATED TO PASS A VEHICLE. AFTER PASSING, OUR VEHICLE BEGAN LOSING ACCELERATION...MY HUSBAND PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND WAS NOT GETTING ANY ACCELERATION. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND WE HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY STOP ON THE SIDE …
Read full complaint
MY FAMILY AND I WERE TRAVELING HWY 113 IN VA COMING BACK TO PA FROM NC. MY HUSBAND ACCELERATED TO PASS A VEHICLE. AFTER PASSING, OUR VEHICLE BEGAN LOSING ACCELERATION...MY HUSBAND PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR AND WAS NOT GETTING ANY ACCELERATION. THE WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND WE HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY WHILE CARS WERE PASSING US AND COMING UP ON US QUICKLY. WE CAME TO A STOP AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO STALL. MY HUSBAND SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF, WAITING A MINUTE AND RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO RUN FINE THE REST OF THE WAY TO PA. WE CALLED THE DEALERSHIP THE FOLLOWING DAY (MONDAY) AND WERE TOLD THEY COULD NOT GET THE VEHICLE IN UNTIL 8/4. I BEGAN FINDING INFO ON THE WEB REGARDING FORD'S CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM 13N03 REGARDING THE THROTTLE BODY. I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN AND WAS TOLD THERE WERE NOT ANY CODES SHOWING ON THE COMPUTER. THEY REFUSED TO REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. I WAS TOLD TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AND IF IT HAPPENED AGAIN TO BRING IT BACK. I REFUSED AND INSISTED THEY REPLACE IT. I AM NOW STILL FIGHTING WITH FORD TO REIMBURSE ME. I HAVE SENT LETTERS TO FORD ONLY TO RECEIVE A "FORM LETTER" BACK FROM THEM SUGGESTING THAT I TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP TO DETERMINE IF THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS REPLACEMENT...I HAD IT REPLACED ALREADY...THEY OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ LETTERS SENT TO THEM. I WILL KEEP FIGHTING BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE NHTSA CONTINUES TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT. IT IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE! SHAME ON FORD AND THE NHTSA! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10644250
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.