← New search

2010 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Escape years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Ford Escape are substantially higher than the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,764 reports with mileage · 305 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 558 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 508 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 493 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

29 crash reports3 fire reports19 injury reports

Visibility complaints

69 reports
Clear category filter
68,000 miles · Apr 25, 2014
StructureVisibilityInjury

WHEN I CLOSED MY HATCHBACK THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED AND GLASS FLEW EVERYWHERE. I HAD A COUPLE CUTS ON MY HANDS FROM THE GLASS FALLING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10584954

76,069 miles · Apr 15, 2014
Visibility

ON 3/22/14 I PURCHASED A USED 2010 FORD ESCAPE AT ROUNTREE FORD IN SWANZEY NH. ON 3/23/14 I PARKED THE VEHICLE, LET MY DOGS OUT OF THE BACK CARGO AREA, WHEN I CLOSED THE TAILGATE THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED INTO A MILLION PIECES FOR NO APPARENT REASON. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10582978

52,000 miles · Feb 18, 2014
Visibility

MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WAS PARKED. I OPEN HATCH, CLOSED IT AND THE ENTIRE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED AND FELL OUT! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10564743

36,100 miles · Feb 5, 2014
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train

RIGHT AFTER THE WARRANTY WENT OUT THE VEHICLE STARTING SLAMMING FROM 1ST INTO 2ND UPON ACCELERATION. THE IDLE IS VERY ROUGH AND QUITE LOUD, THE ENGINE MAKES A FUNNY NOISE AND I TAKE EXTREMELY GOOD CARE OF MY VEHICLE, GETTING ALL OF THE SCHEDULED OIL CHANGES ON TIME, REPLACING THE AIR FILTER, ETC. I ALSO EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT TH…

Read full complaint

RIGHT AFTER THE WARRANTY WENT OUT THE VEHICLE STARTING SLAMMING FROM 1ST INTO 2ND UPON ACCELERATION. THE IDLE IS VERY ROUGH AND QUITE LOUD, THE ENGINE MAKES A FUNNY NOISE AND I TAKE EXTREMELY GOOD CARE OF MY VEHICLE, GETTING ALL OF THE SCHEDULED OIL CHANGES ON TIME, REPLACING THE AIR FILTER, ETC. I ALSO EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THE VEHICLE WASN'T IDLING PROPERLY AND THAT THE ENGINE USED TO BE QUIET. THE WINDSHIELD IS EXTREMELY THIN AS WELL, A SMALL PEBBLE HIT MY WINDSHIELD CAUSING A 8 INCH CRACK IN A MATTER OF MINUTES TO WHERE IT WAS BEYOND GETTING IT FIXED. THEN LIFTGATE STARTED GIVING ME PROBLEMS. WHEN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON, IT WOULD MAKE THE SOUND, BUT SOMETIMES OPEN, THEN ON MAY 17, 2013 IT JUST QUIT WORKING ALL TOGETHER. ON MAY 18, 2013, I TOOK IT TO REYNOLDS FORD FOR A SCHEDULED OIL CHANGE RIGHT BEFORE A TRIP TO MEXICO AND UPON TELLING THEM ABOUT IT, THEY WANTED $250 JUST TO LOOK AT IT BEFORE PARTS AND LABOR. NOW, THE REAR BLINKER DOESN'T WORK AND YOU CAN'T REPLACE IT DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T GET THE LIFTGATE TO OPEN IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE REAR TAILLIGHT ASSEMBLY. SO, WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN, VEHICLES BEHIND YOU DON'T KNOW YOU ARE TURNING AND ALMOST HIT YOU (SAFETY HAZARD). YOU ALSO CAN'T CHANGE A FLAT TIRE SINCE YOU CAN GET TO THE JACK, WHICH IS IN THE REAR COMPARTMENT ACCESSED THROUGH THE LIFTGATE. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM AS THERE IS NO MANUAL RELEASE FOR THE HATCH TO GET IT OPEN PERIOD, ONCE THE LATCH DOESN'T WORK, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10563094

34,180 miles · Jan 13, 2014
StructureVisibilityInjury

VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY. THIS HAPPENED AT ABOUT 10:30 A.M. I HAD REMOVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND THEN SHUT THE REAR TAILGATE. THE REAR TAILGATE GLASS HAD NOT BE OPENED AND WAS CLOSED AS USUAL ON THE LIFTGATE. THE LIFTGATE WAS CLOSED IN THE NORMAL FASHION. I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF WALKING AWAY …

Read full complaint

VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY. THIS HAPPENED AT ABOUT 10:30 A.M. I HAD REMOVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND THEN SHUT THE REAR TAILGATE. THE REAR TAILGATE GLASS HAD NOT BE OPENED AND WAS CLOSED AS USUAL ON THE LIFTGATE. THE LIFTGATE WAS CLOSED IN THE NORMAL FASHION. I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF WALKING AWAY FROM THE CAR AFTER CLOSING THE TAILGATE WHEN THE REAR TAILGATE GLASS EXPLODED. NOTHING HAD STRUCK THE GLASS FROM EITHER THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE TO CAUSE THIS TO HAPPEN. I RECEIVED SOME MINOR SCRATCHES ON MY HAND. THE GLASS EXPLODED AS FAR AS 6-8' BEHIND AND TO THE SIDES OF THE VEHICLE AS WELL AS ALL OVER THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10559694

39,400 miles · Nov 3, 2013
Visibility

ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2013, AT APPROXIMATELY 8:40AM, I RETURNED TO MY CAR WITH SEVERAL BAGS OF GROCERIES. I OPENED THE REAR DOOR AND PLACED THE BAGS INSIDE. WHEN I SHUT THE DOOR, THE REAR HATCH WINDOW EXPLODED INTO A THOUSAND PIECES. THERE WAS GLASS EVERYWHERE INSIDE THE CAR AND IN THE LOT. IT WAS A COOL MORNING (MAYBE 45 D…

Read full complaint

ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2013, AT APPROXIMATELY 8:40AM, I RETURNED TO MY CAR WITH SEVERAL BAGS OF GROCERIES. I OPENED THE REAR DOOR AND PLACED THE BAGS INSIDE. WHEN I SHUT THE DOOR, THE REAR HATCH WINDOW EXPLODED INTO A THOUSAND PIECES. THERE WAS GLASS EVERYWHERE INSIDE THE CAR AND IN THE LOT. IT WAS A COOL MORNING (MAYBE 45 DEGREES F), BUT NOT PARTICULARLY COLD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550693

42,500 miles · Oct 3, 2013
StructureVisibility

THIS IS NOW THE THIRD ISSUE WITH MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WHERE THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERS WHILE CLOSING THE GATE. THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH FORD AND THEY WILL NOT FIX. GLASS SHATTERS INTO THOUSANDS OF PIECES AND PROJECTS 10-15 FEET IN ANY GIVEN DIRECTION. YET, FORD WILL DO NOTHING TO FIX. THIS IS VERY UNSAFE WHERE I HAVE HAD GLASS SH…

Read full complaint

THIS IS NOW THE THIRD ISSUE WITH MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE WHERE THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERS WHILE CLOSING THE GATE. THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH FORD AND THEY WILL NOT FIX. GLASS SHATTERS INTO THOUSANDS OF PIECES AND PROJECTS 10-15 FEET IN ANY GIVEN DIRECTION. YET, FORD WILL DO NOTHING TO FIX. THIS IS VERY UNSAFE WHERE I HAVE HAD GLASS SHOT AT MY FACE AND I ALSO HAVE A DOG THAT IS OFTEN PUT IN THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE. THE ONLY WAY FORD WILL DO SOMETHING IS IF I PAY. I ALSO WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE NOT FILED COMPLAINTS THINKING THIS IS A FLUKE ACCIDENT AND MAY HAVE GONE THROUGH INSURANCE. I KNOW IT IS NO FLUKE SINCE THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED AND TALKING WITH FORD THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE ISSUE. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL ON THIS VEHICLE. I HAVE FILED TWO OTHER COMPLAINTS WITH THE NHTSA. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10546626

5,000 miles · May 3, 2013
VisibilityVisibility/wiper

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED AS THE CONTACT CLOSED THE HATCHBACK WITHOUT EXCESSIVE FORCE. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER BOTH TIMES AND THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ASSI…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED AS THE CONTACT CLOSED THE HATCHBACK WITHOUT EXCESSIVE FORCE. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER BOTH TIMES AND THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR WINDOW REPAIRS. VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC BOTH TIMES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 5,000. ...UPDATED 08/22/13 *BF

NHTSA ODI #10510509

Mileage unknown · Apr 11, 2013
StructureVisibilityInjury

ON FEB 22, 2013 I EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM WITH MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE, WHILE CLOSING THE REAR LIFTGATE MY BACK WINDOW COMPLETELY SHATTERED - RESULTING IN MY HAVING TO REPLACE THE WINDOW WHICH COST ME $466.83. AFTER SOME RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET, I FOUND THE FORD KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM AND IT HAS HAPPENED ON OTHER VEHICLES - MY PROBLEM…

Read full complaint

ON FEB 22, 2013 I EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM WITH MY 2010 FORD ESCAPE, WHILE CLOSING THE REAR LIFTGATE MY BACK WINDOW COMPLETELY SHATTERED - RESULTING IN MY HAVING TO REPLACE THE WINDOW WHICH COST ME $466.83. AFTER SOME RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET, I FOUND THE FORD KNOWS OF THIS PROBLEM AND IT HAS HAPPENED ON OTHER VEHICLES - MY PROBLEM OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS STATIONARY AND ALSO IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS. I ALSO INCURRED MINOR CUTS AND LACERATIONS DUE TO CLEANING UP THE BROKEN GLASS. I BELIEVE SINCE FORD MOTOR CO. KNEW OF THIS PROBLEM AND FAILED TO NOTIFY OWNERS OF THIS, I SHOULD BE ENTITLED FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST FOR REPAIRING THE WINDOW, SINCE IT WAS A DEFECTED PRODUCT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10506024

26,829 miles · Feb 5, 2013
Visibility

VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN A LOT OF A GROCERY STORE, OPENED HATCH AND PUT GROCERY IN BACK OF HATCH. WHEN I CLOSED HATCH DOOR THE WINDOW EXPLODED SENDING GLASS INSIDE THE BACK AND ON THE GROUND. TEMPERATURE WAS BELOW FREEZING AND THERE NOTHING THAT HIT THE GLASS TO CAUSE IT TO SHATTER. DID NOT CLOSE HATCH DOOR WITH ANY EXCESSIVE FORC…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN A LOT OF A GROCERY STORE, OPENED HATCH AND PUT GROCERY IN BACK OF HATCH. WHEN I CLOSED HATCH DOOR THE WINDOW EXPLODED SENDING GLASS INSIDE THE BACK AND ON THE GROUND. TEMPERATURE WAS BELOW FREEZING AND THERE NOTHING THAT HIT THE GLASS TO CAUSE IT TO SHATTER. DID NOT CLOSE HATCH DOOR WITH ANY EXCESSIVE FORCE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10496535

Official recalls

3

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 26, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 29, 2014

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.

10V222000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

May 24, 2010

FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 FUSION, MILAN, AND ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 27, THROUGH MARCH 26, 2010. THE PARK ROD GUIDE RETENTION PIN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED WHICH FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 114, "THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION".

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A VEHICLE PARKED WITHOUT AN ENGAGED PARK PAWL AND WITHOUT AN APPLIED PARKING BRAKE MAY HAVE UNINTENDED MOVEMENT WHICH MAY CAUSE A CRASH.

Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 28, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332 AND FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED CALL 1-800-232-5952 (TDD). REPRESENTATIVES ARE AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

4

DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving

Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System

On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages

PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that

DP12006 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Oct 2, 2012 · Closed Feb 21, 2013

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

In a letter dated August 30, 2012, The North Carolina Consumers Council (NCCC) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a defect investigation of alleged electronic throttle body failures resulting in engine stall or surge while driving in model year (MY) 2005 through 2012 Ford Escape vehicles. On October 2, 2012 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Defect Petition DP12-006 to evaluate whether to grant or deny the petition. The petition is hereby granted on certain model years. The NCCC letter cites two complaints of stall while driving in MY 2009 Ford Escape vehicles that were diagnosed as failed throttle bodies with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed. The petitioner indicates that the owners of both vehicles reported experiencing repeated incidents of stalling and engine surging. According to Ford, Escape non-hybrid vehicles are equipped with Electronic Throttle Body (ETB) assemblies beginning with MY 2009. Vehicles manufactured between June 22, 2009 and October 15, 2009 may contain contaminated printed circuit boards (PCB) with plating variations. Plating variations could lead to a lack of continuity in the throttle position sensor circuit where P2111 and/or other DTCs would be generated and stored. Ford and its electronic throttle body supplier, Delphi, modified the PCB manufacturing process and issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-23-5. Vehicles produced after October 15, 2009 incorporated ETBs manufactured with a PCB process that resolved this condition. ODI's analysis identified a total of 123 unique reports indicating allegations of reduced motive power or vehicle stall. Depending on the condition of throttle control system malfunction, a driver may experience varying levels of reduced engine performance associated with three limp home modes. In two limp modes, reduced engine performance may maintain vehicle speeds above 20mph while the third is a limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Allegations of stall appear to be related to the limited limp home mode. Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability. Allegations of vehicle surge appear to be related to limp home mode operation. Complaints alleging surge are most likely related to engine RPM fluctuations at low vehicle speeds or idle as the control system engages to prevent engine stall. In limited limp mode, rough-idle conditions may exist while the control system attempts to modulate engine RPMs once the vehicle reaches a reduced speed to maintain approximately 900 RPM. Separately, ODI received 59 complaints alleging incidents of engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2010-2011 Ford Fusion vehicles. Approximately 60 percent (36) of the incidents occurred at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more. Eighty percent of complaints (47) were received beginning March 2012 and 14 complaints reported that the throttle body was replaced or DTCs associated with limp home modes. Additionally, Ford issued TSB 10-21-6 addressing DTCs associated with idle speed drops and limited limp home mode. The petition is granted on certain model years.Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect.See full copy of the closing resume for this defect petition for list of the VOQs associated with the defect petition analysis.

PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage

Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Additional source detail variants (5)

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems