NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
116 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Jun 11, 2019
Electrical SystemStructureUnknown Or Other
FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THE BACK BACK DOOR WONT OPEN & THERE IS NO KEYHOLE TO UNLOCK IT EITHER. SECOND ISSUE IS THAT WHEN IT RAINS HEAVY WATER IS COMING THROUGH FROM THE OUTSIDE INTO ALL MY DOORS & IT STAYS THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLUG TO LET THE WATER OUT. THE CHEAPEST OPTION WAS TO DRILL HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF EACH DOOR TO LET T…
Read full complaint
FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THE BACK BACK DOOR WONT OPEN & THERE IS NO KEYHOLE TO UNLOCK IT EITHER. SECOND ISSUE IS THAT WHEN IT RAINS HEAVY WATER IS COMING THROUGH FROM THE OUTSIDE INTO ALL MY DOORS & IT STAYS THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLUG TO LET THE WATER OUT. THE CHEAPEST OPTION WAS TO DRILL HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF EACH DOOR TO LET THE WATER OUT.
NHTSA ODI #11219295
130,000 miles · Feb 21, 2019
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Unknown Or Other
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND THE CAR JUST DIED AND DID NOT START AGAIN AND I CANT FIGURE OUT WHATS WRONG WITH THE CAR BUT EVEN IN THE OFF ENGION SWITCH STILL WAS TRYING TO START ITS SELF SO I HAD TO REMOVE THE BATTERY CABLES SO IT WOULD STOP TRYING TO START AND WE CANT FIGURE OUT WHATS WRONG WITH IT STILL AND WE JUST SPENT 35…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND THE CAR JUST DIED AND DID NOT START AGAIN AND I CANT FIGURE OUT WHATS WRONG WITH THE CAR BUT EVEN IN THE OFF ENGION SWITCH STILL WAS TRYING TO START ITS SELF SO I HAD TO REMOVE THE BATTERY CABLES SO IT WOULD STOP TRYING TO START AND WE CANT FIGURE OUT WHATS WRONG WITH IT STILL AND WE JUST SPENT 3500.00 TO GET THE TRANSMISSION REPLACED AND AT THIS TIME WE HAVE NO CLUE HOW TO FIX IT .
NHTSA ODI #11181496
65,000 miles · Feb 14, 2019
Electrical SystemPower TrainVisibility/wiper
THIS WILL BE THE SECOND TIME I AM REPLACING WHEEL BEARING IN THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE WHEEL. THIS CAUSES THE WHEEL TO SHAKE. I CANT AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO PUT MONEY INTO A VEHICLE WITH SUCH LOW MILES AND EVERY 6 MONTHS. ALSO REAR WIPER MOTOR BURNT OUT DUE TO A LEAKY SEAL OR POOR SEAL FROM FORD.
NHTSA ODI #11180058
145,500 miles · Jan 25, 2019
Electrical SystemSteering
TAKATA RECALL.... CHECKED VIN WITH NHTSA AND SAW RECALL INFORMATION. TODAY, I WOULD FEEL SAFER IF THIS ISSUE WAS FIXED.
NHTSA ODI #11172081
93,855 miles · Jan 14, 2019
Electrical SystemSteering
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL INCIDENTS WITH THIS VEHICLE WHERE THE STEERING WHEEL WILL SEIZE AND LOSE OF ACCELERATION WHEN MAKING SHARP TURNS . DURING THESE INCIDENTS WE WOULD RESTART THE IGNITION AND THE STEERING WHEEL WOULD START WORKING AGAIN.
NHTSA ODI #11170032
61,500 miles · Nov 9, 2018
Electrical System
I HAVE OWNED THIS VEHICLE SINCE NEW. WITH NOW 62000 + MILES I STARTED HAVING STARTING PROBLEMS BEGINNING EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE BATTERY AND STARTER HAVE CHECK OUT OKAY. THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE IGNITION SYSTEM. SOMETIMES THE VEHICLE WILL NOT START WHEN THE KEY IS TURNED- NO NOISE, NO CLICKING JUST NOTHING. I HAVE LEARNED TO …
Read full complaint
I HAVE OWNED THIS VEHICLE SINCE NEW. WITH NOW 62000 + MILES I STARTED HAVING STARTING PROBLEMS BEGINNING EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE BATTERY AND STARTER HAVE CHECK OUT OKAY. THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE IGNITION SYSTEM. SOMETIMES THE VEHICLE WILL NOT START WHEN THE KEY IS TURNED- NO NOISE, NO CLICKING JUST NOTHING. I HAVE LEARNED TO PUSH THE KEY IN HARD WHILE TURNING AND THEN THE VEHICLE STARTS NORMALLY. AT TIMES EVEN THIS WILL NOT WORK AND I AM STUCK WHERE EVER I AM UNTIL IT DECIDES TO START AFTER REPEATED ATTEMPTS. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS ISSUE ON THE INTERNET I HAVE READ DOZENS OF COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER PEOPLE WITH THE SAME ISSUE ACROSS A RANGE OF YEARS FOR THE FORD ESCAPE. I COULD NOT FIND ANY RECALL NOTICES FOR THIS PROBLEM BUT THERE SHOULD BE AS I AM GUESSING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES WITH THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE ENORMOUS.
NHTSA ODI #11150423
74,000 miles · Sep 24, 2018
Electrical SystemSteering
WHILE ON HIGHWAY TRAVELING TO CHICAGO, MY VEHICLE POWER STEERING FAILED. I COULD NOT TURN THE WHEEL WITHOUT GREAT DIFFICULTY. THE POWER STEERING IS ELECTRICAL SO CANNOT DRIVE WITHOUT POWER STEERING. HAD TO LEAVE CAR STRANDED IN SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS AT LANDMARK FORD AND PAY $50 PER DAY FOR RENTAL. IT IS A SAFETY RECALL 14S05 AND…
Read full complaint
WHILE ON HIGHWAY TRAVELING TO CHICAGO, MY VEHICLE POWER STEERING FAILED. I COULD NOT TURN THE WHEEL WITHOUT GREAT DIFFICULTY. THE POWER STEERING IS ELECTRICAL SO CANNOT DRIVE WITHOUT POWER STEERING. HAD TO LEAVE CAR STRANDED IN SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS AT LANDMARK FORD AND PAY $50 PER DAY FOR RENTAL. IT IS A SAFETY RECALL 14S05 AND HAS FAILED IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CARS IN THE US AND CANADA. ACCORDING TO THE RECALL INFORMATION ONLINE AND MY CALLS TO DEALERSHIPS; MY CAR'S RECALL UPDATED THE SOFTWARE TO LET ME KNOW THE POWER STEERING WOULD FAIL. THEY DID NOT REPLACE THE TORQUE SENSOR WHICH IS THE ITEM THAT FAILED ON THE HIGHWAY AND MADE MY CAR NOT OPERATIONAL. IF YOUR TORQUE SENSOR FAILED PRIOR IT WAS REPLACED BY FORD UNDER THE RECALL - IF IT HADN'T FAILED BY THE TIME OF THE SOFTWARE UPDATE THE RECALL WAS CLOSED OUT. I HAVE FOUND ALL THIS OUT TODAY BEFORE MY CAR HAS BEEN FIXED. SO FORD WILL NOT FIX MY TORQUE SENSOR AND THE COST IS $617 PLUS THE RENTAL CAR AT $50 PER DAY. (MY CAR FAILED 5 HOURS FROM HOME) - I HAVE TO GO PICK IT UP WHEN IT IS FIXED. SINCE IT WAS A SAFETY RECALL AND THE TORQUE SENSOR HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY REPLACED, AND FORD KNEW THIS WAS A PROBLEM WITH 1.1 MILLION CARS, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR A FAILED FAULTY PART? MY CAR ONLY HAS 74,000 MILES AND IS WELL MAINTAINED. THE CAR WAS NOT INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT BUT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY EASILY. HOWEVER, THE CAR WAS STRANDED 275 MILES FROM HOME AND FORD WILL NOT FIX THE FAULTY PART. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND I AM VERY UNHAPPY. THE TORQUE SENSOR, STEERING COLUMN OR WHATEVER PARTS MAKE THIS CAR UNSAFE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF UNDER THE RECALL. FORD NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT AND LOSS OF LIVES. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
NHTSA ODI #11131031
110,000 miles · Aug 8, 2018
Electrical System
CAR WOULD SIT IN THE DRIVEWAY AND LIGHTS AND OTHER ACCESSORIES WOULD COME ON. WHILE DRIVING THE RADIO AND OTHER ACCESSORIES WOULD GO OFF. TROUBLE WITH LIFT GATE NOT OPENING AND NOT CLOSING. CAR WOULD NOT START SOMETIMES. BY WIGGLING VARIOUS FUSES AND CURCUIT BREAKERS THE PROBLEM WOULD SUBSIDE FOR A WHILE. I ENDED UP SPENDING OVE…
Read full complaint
CAR WOULD SIT IN THE DRIVEWAY AND LIGHTS AND OTHER ACCESSORIES WOULD COME ON. WHILE DRIVING THE RADIO AND OTHER ACCESSORIES WOULD GO OFF. TROUBLE WITH LIFT GATE NOT OPENING AND NOT CLOSING. CAR WOULD NOT START SOMETIMES. BY WIGGLING VARIOUS FUSES AND CURCUIT BREAKERS THE PROBLEM WOULD SUBSIDE FOR A WHILE. I ENDED UP SPENDING OVER $1200.00 TO REPLACE THE FUSE BLOCK AND WIRING HARNESS TO FIX THE PROBLEM. I AM LIVING WITH MY FINGERS CROSSED. I AM A WOMAN LIVING ON AN EXTREAMLY LIMITED INCOME BUT I NEED MY CAR. THESE PROBLEMS WERE EXPERIENCED WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY, OR ANY OTHER TIME MY CAR WAS IN MOTION.
NHTSA ODI #11118606
102,295 miles · Mar 11, 2018
Electrical SystemSteering
BEGINNING FEBRUARY 16, 2018 I BEGAN EXPERIENCING VIBRATION AND BOUNCING OF STEERING WHEEL EVEN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED. I ADDITION TO STEERING CONCERN - ELECTRICAL SYSTEM APPEARS TO BE SHORTING OUT AFFECTING THE DASH ELECTRONICS SUCH AS INDICATOR LIGHTS ON DASH, RADIO OPERATION AND DOOR LOCKS. THE STEERING MALFUNCTION BECA…
Read full complaint
BEGINNING FEBRUARY 16, 2018 I BEGAN EXPERIENCING VIBRATION AND BOUNCING OF STEERING WHEEL EVEN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED. I ADDITION TO STEERING CONCERN - ELECTRICAL SYSTEM APPEARS TO BE SHORTING OUT AFFECTING THE DASH ELECTRONICS SUCH AS INDICATOR LIGHTS ON DASH, RADIO OPERATION AND DOOR LOCKS. THE STEERING MALFUNCTION BECAME STEADILY WORSE TO THE POINT THAT IN EARLY MARCH 2018 I BEGAN INQUIRING ON VEHICLE RECALLS. IN SPEAKING TO FORD WAS ADVISED THAT A STEERING UNIT RECALL WAS ISSUED BUT MY VEHICLE WAS NOT LISTED. FURTHER COMMUNICATION WITH FORD IDENTIFIED THE POSSIBILITY THAT A CLERICAL ERROR OCCURRED WHICH FAILED TO INCLUDE MY VIN TO THE RECALL AS MY VEHICLE STICKER DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE ONLY THE MONTH AND YEAR. MORE TELEPHONE CALLS WITH FORD IDENTIFIED MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE AS BEING MANUFACTURED ON 09/09/2010 AND WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. CONVERSATIONS SINCE 2/16/18 YIELDED THAT MOJAVE AUTO GROUP PERFORMED A SOFTWARE RESET IN DECEMBER 2014 RATHER THAN REPLACEMENT OF THE STEERING UNIT. WHEN I BEGAN SPEAKING WITH FORD AND NHTSA THE VEHICLE WAS STILL OPERATIONAL. ON 3/6/18 MOJAVE AUTO GROUP HAS INSPECTED MY VEHICLE AND WRITTEN UP THE POWER ASSIST FAILURE AND FOUND THE STEERING COLUMN BAD AND NEEDING REPLACEMENT. INFORMATION ON MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED WITHIN THE MOJAVE AUTO GROUP SYSTEM UNDER SO#605329
NHTSA ODI #11078589
72,000 miles · Sep 22, 2017
Electrical System
WHEN DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED, THE OPEN DOOR WARNING LIGHT, THE TPMS LIGHT, AND THE PARKING BRAKE LIGHT WILL COME ON. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS, THE A/C WILL BLOW WARM, THE TURN SIGNAL INDICATORS WON'T WORK, AND THE LIFT GATE WILL LOCK. IF I HIT THE TOP OF THE DASHBOARD, IT ALL RESETS. I TOOK IT TO THE AUTONATION FO…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE LIMITED, THE OPEN DOOR WARNING LIGHT, THE TPMS LIGHT, AND THE PARKING BRAKE LIGHT WILL COME ON. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS, THE A/C WILL BLOW WARM, THE TURN SIGNAL INDICATORS WON'T WORK, AND THE LIFT GATE WILL LOCK. IF I HIT THE TOP OF THE DASHBOARD, IT ALL RESETS. I TOOK IT TO THE AUTONATION FORD ON THE GULF FREEWAY IN HOUSTON. THEY SAID TO REPLACE THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER AT A COST OF $1000. I HAVE VIEWED MULTIPLE VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE AND READ MANY POSTS ON THIS VERY SAME ISSUE. IN EVERY CASE, THE VEHICLE OWNER SAID THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER REPLACEMENT FAILED TO CORRECT THE ISSUE. WHAT WAS FOUND TO BE TRUE IN MANY OF THEM WAS THE DISCOVERY OF COLD SOLDER JOINTS ON THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER CIRCUIT BOARD. ONCE THIS WAS CORRECTED, THE VEHICLE RAN NORMALLY WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONAL INSTRUMENT CLUSTER. THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN HERE IS THAT IT IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BY FORD. AS TO IT BEING A SAFETY ISSUE, SEVERAL OF THE POSTS STATED THAT THE ENTIRE CLUSTER FAILED SHUTTING THE VEHICLE OFF. I HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED THIS YET BUT FEAR, IF LEFT UNCORRECTED, THAT IT COULD LEAD TO THAT. THE KEY POINT IS THAT THIS IS HAPPENING ON HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS, OF FORD VEHICLES INCLUDING NOT ONLY MY ESCAPE, BUT EXPLORERS, EXPEDITIONS, AND F150S. FORD SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS GLARING DEFECT.
NHTSA ODI #11025047
Official recalls
2Oct 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.
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.
Illustration