NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
248 reportsClear category filter41,000 miles · Aug 3, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH WHEN GAS PEDAL ON 2011 FORD ESCAPE V6 BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. GOT VEHICLE TO SHOULDER AFTER ALMOST CRASHING IN TRAFFIC. RED WRENCH LIGHT ON DASHBOARD WAS ON. TURNED VEHICLE OFF THEN RESTARTED AND APPEARED TO BE OK. DROVE HOME APPROX. 10 MILES. TOOK TO DEALER WHO CHECKED CODES AND FOUND …
Read full complaint
MY WIFE WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH WHEN GAS PEDAL ON 2011 FORD ESCAPE V6 BECAME UNRESPONSIVE. GOT VEHICLE TO SHOULDER AFTER ALMOST CRASHING IN TRAFFIC. RED WRENCH LIGHT ON DASHBOARD WAS ON. TURNED VEHICLE OFF THEN RESTARTED AND APPEARED TO BE OK. DROVE HOME APPROX. 10 MILES. TOOK TO DEALER WHO CHECKED CODES AND FOUND NOTHING WRONG. TOLD US THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE CODE WAS TO HAVE IT TOWED IN WITHOUT A RESTART BECAUSE COMPUTER DOES NOT STORE WRENCH LIGHT INDICATOR CODES. RESTARTING CLEARS THE CODE. LOCAL FORD DEALER WAS NOT HELPFUL. INVESTIGATED THIS PROBLEM AND FOUND THAT WAS MOST LIKELY A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM. THERE ARE MANY OWNERS WITH THE SAME ISSUE. IT IS ON THE SHORT LIST FOR A RECALL. PURCHASED AN OBD II SENSOR AND PLUGGED IN WHILE DRIVING TO GET THE CODE. PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN WITH A FAULT CODE OF P2111 - THROTTLE ACTUATOR CONTROL SYSTEM - STUCK OPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533436
421,005 miles · Aug 3, 2013
EnginePower Train
WHILE DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE TO WORK WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN IT LOST POWER. MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, BUT WHEN I LOOKED DOWN I SAW THAT IT WAS STILL BOUNCING BETWEEN 500 AND 1000 RPM. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE RED WRENCH LIGHT HAD COME ON. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR PULLED OVER INTO A PARKING LOT. I WAS…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE TO WORK WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN IT LOST POWER. MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, BUT WHEN I LOOKED DOWN I SAW THAT IT WAS STILL BOUNCING BETWEEN 500 AND 1000 RPM. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE RED WRENCH LIGHT HAD COME ON. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR PULLED OVER INTO A PARKING LOT. I WAS NOT SURE WHAT WAS GOING ON SO I SHUT THE CAR OFF. A MINUTE OR TWO LATER I STARTED THE CAR AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP. I THEN CONTINUED ON TO WORK BUT AFTER EXCITING THE FREEWAY I STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT WHEN I WENT TO ACCELERATE FROM THE LIGHT THE CAR DID THE SAME THING. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND DID THE SAME AS BEFORE. I MADE IT TO WORK WITH NO FURTHER ISSUES THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. THAT AFTERNOON I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT AND THEY ASKED ME TO BRING IT BY THE NEXT MORNING. I DROVE THE CAR HOME FROM THERE WITH NO INCIDENT. THE NEXT MORNING I TOOK THE ESCAPE BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER WAITING FOR ABOUT THREE HOURS THE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE THE CAR HOME AND I ENDED UP HAVING THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE CARE GOING INTO WHAT I GUESS THE CALL SAFE MODE. I WAS AS BEFORE ABLE TO SHUT THE CAR DOWN AND START IT BACK UP AGAIN. THIS HAPPEN GOING ACROSS A TWO LANE BRIDGE IN TRAFFIC LUCKILY THE CAR BEHIND ME WAS FAR ENOUGH BEHIND ME THAT THE DID NOT RUN INTO ME BUT CAME REAL CLOSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533372
44,000 miles · Jul 31, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine
WE HAD OUR 2011 ESCAPE IN THE DEALERSHIP 2 TIMES DUE TO IT COMPLETELY SHUTTING DOWN WHILE DRIVING BEFORE THEY COULD FIGURE OUT THAT IS WAS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY (ELECTRICAL ISSUE). THEY TOLD US IT WAS "BAD GAS" EVERY OTHER TIME. WE HAD OUR INFANT IN THE VEHICLE WHEN IT SHUT DOWN ON THE FREEWAY AND SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF US. …
Read full complaint
WE HAD OUR 2011 ESCAPE IN THE DEALERSHIP 2 TIMES DUE TO IT COMPLETELY SHUTTING DOWN WHILE DRIVING BEFORE THEY COULD FIGURE OUT THAT IS WAS A FAILED THROTTLE BODY (ELECTRICAL ISSUE). THEY TOLD US IT WAS "BAD GAS" EVERY OTHER TIME. WE HAD OUR INFANT IN THE VEHICLE WHEN IT SHUT DOWN ON THE FREEWAY AND SCARED THE CRAP OUT OF US. THANKFULLY WE WERE ABLE TO GET AWAY FROM OTHER VEHICLES AND MAKE AN EMERGENCY EXIT FROM THE FREEWAY ONTO THE SHOULDER UNTIL THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP. ITS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND FORD NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS AND CREATE A RECALL. I HAVE DONE RESEARCH TO FIND SO MANY OTHERS WITH THE SAME EXACT ISSUE. OUR VEHICLE IS IN THE SHOP AS WE SPEAK TO THE TUNE OF A $500 FIX AND I JUST GOT OFF THE LINE WITH FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE TO DEMAND A REIMBURSEMENT. I AM WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM THEM TO SEE IF THEY WILL WORK WITH US ON THE COST. OUR VEHICLE ONLY HAS 44K MILES ON IT AND WE HAD IT SERVICED BEFORE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED AND WERE TOLD EVERYTHING WAS FINE. WE ALSO HAD IT IN FOR SERVICE OTHER TIMES FOR THIS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532820
54,000 miles · Jul 31, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ENGINE CUT OUT WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 55MPH AND 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT LIT UP ON THE DASHBOARD. I PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD AND WAITED ABOUT TEN MINUTES BEFORE RE-STARTING VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE STARTED OK BUT 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT STAYED ON. I TOOK IT TO SERVICE STATION AND THEY RAN DIAGNOSTIC AND GOT CODE P2111 - THROTTLE ACTUATO…
Read full complaint
ENGINE CUT OUT WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 55MPH AND 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT LIT UP ON THE DASHBOARD. I PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD AND WAITED ABOUT TEN MINUTES BEFORE RE-STARTING VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE STARTED OK BUT 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT STAYED ON. I TOOK IT TO SERVICE STATION AND THEY RAN DIAGNOSTIC AND GOT CODE P2111 - THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK OPEN. I MADE REPAIR APPOINTMENT AT FORD DEALER FOR NEXT DAY. WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK THE ENGINE STALLED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT BUT RE-STARTED OK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532795
36,500 miles · Jul 30, 2013
EnginePower Train
RECEIVING A P2111 CODE ON DIAGNOSTICS. NEEDS NEW THROTTLE BODY. ON NATIONAL BACKORDER. I AM OUT A VEHICLE UNTIL THIS IS REPAIRED, AND CANNOT AFFORD A RENTAL, OR A NEW ONE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM ON THESE VEHICLES, THAT FORD HAS KNOWN ABOUT. THEY NEED TO ISSUE A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532644
35,000 miles · Jul 29, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
GOING DOWN ROAD, FIRST NO GAS PEDAL CONTROL , THEN STARTS TO MAKE ENGINE AND WHOLE VEHICLE PULSATE. STARTING TO GET WORSE AND DANGEROUS, ABOUT 3 TO4 TIMES A TRIP. DEALER HAS TOLD US THE PART IS ON BACKORDER ,MEANWHILE TRYING TO DEAL WITH IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532437
13,000 miles · Jul 29, 2013
EnginePower Train
I WAS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM HOME, DRIVING THE SUV AND SLOWED DOWN TO TURN THE CORNER, WHEN I TRIED TO HIT THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, THE CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE PAST 5MPH. THE WRENCH ICON CAME ON, AND THE RPM WOULDN'T GO PAST 1. WHEN I RESTARTED IT, IT WORKED FINE. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT…
Read full complaint
I WAS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM HOME, DRIVING THE SUV AND SLOWED DOWN TO TURN THE CORNER, WHEN I TRIED TO HIT THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, THE CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE PAST 5MPH. THE WRENCH ICON CAME ON, AND THE RPM WOULDN'T GO PAST 1. WHEN I RESTARTED IT, IT WORKED FINE. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED. MY CAR IS ONLY 2 YEARS OLD. THE FIRST INCIDENT WAS WHEN IT WAS 6 MONTHS OLD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532339
3,500 miles · Jul 29, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM HOME, DRIVING THE SUV AND SLOWED DOWN TO TURN THE CORNER, WHEN I TRIED TO HIT THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, THE CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE PAST 5MPH. A FEW LIGHTS CAME ON THE DASHBOARD AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT HOME. WHEN I RESTARTED IT, IT WORKED FINE. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, WHICH SAID THEY CO…
Read full complaint
I WAS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM HOME, DRIVING THE SUV AND SLOWED DOWN TO TURN THE CORNER, WHEN I TRIED TO HIT THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, THE CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE PAST 5MPH. A FEW LIGHTS CAME ON THE DASHBOARD AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT HOME. WHEN I RESTARTED IT, IT WORKED FINE. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, WHICH SAID THEY COULDN'T DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I HAD ONLY OWNED THE CAR FOR 6 MONTHS AT THE TIME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532336
42,000 miles · Jul 28, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING AT FREEWAY SPEED WHEN ENGINE LOST ALL POWER. UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. RESTARTED VEHICLE AND PROCEEDED BACK ON TO FREEWAY. INCIDENT REPEATED 5 TIMES IN 10 MILES OF DRIVING. FINALLY LOCATED A FORD DEALERSHIP. COMPUTER CODE INDICATED FAULTY THROTT…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AT FREEWAY SPEED WHEN ENGINE LOST ALL POWER. UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. RESTARTED VEHICLE AND PROCEEDED BACK ON TO FREEWAY. INCIDENT REPEATED 5 TIMES IN 10 MILES OF DRIVING. FINALLY LOCATED A FORD DEALERSHIP. COMPUTER CODE INDICATED FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. UNABLE TO REPAIR SAME DAY BECAUSE DEALERSHIP DID NOT HAVE THE PART. CALLED 7 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS WITHIN A 200 MIL RADIUS AND ADVISED NO ONE HAD THE PART IN STOCK. APPEARS THIS IS A POPULAR PROBLEM. FINALLY FOUND THE PART THE FOLLOWING DAY AND DEALER INSTALLED. NO PROBLEMS SINCE. WAS FORCED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE UNTIL THE PART ARRIVED AS I WAS OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS WHEN THIS OCCURRED. THE LOSS OF ACCELERATION RESULTED IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. I EXPERIENCED THIS NOT ONLY AT HIGHWAY SPEED BUT ALSO WHEN TRYING TO ENTER THE FREEWAY. I WAS ALMOST HIT TWICE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532215
46,670 miles · Jul 25, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY WIFE WAS TAKING HER MOTHER HOME ON THE 18TH OF JULY WHEN THE ESCAPE STARTED TO HESITATE AND SURGE GOING UP A HILL. WHEN SHE PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ENGINE.THE POWERTRAIN AND ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON SO SHE CALLED ME IMMEDIATELY. SHE WAS AFRAID TO LEAVE IT RUNNING SO SHE SHUT IT DOWN. WHAT MADE THI…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE WAS TAKING HER MOTHER HOME ON THE 18TH OF JULY WHEN THE ESCAPE STARTED TO HESITATE AND SURGE GOING UP A HILL. WHEN SHE PRESSED ON THE GAS PEDAL THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ENGINE.THE POWERTRAIN AND ENGINE LIGHTS CAME ON SO SHE CALLED ME IMMEDIATELY. SHE WAS AFRAID TO LEAVE IT RUNNING SO SHE SHUT IT DOWN. WHAT MADE THINGS WORSE WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS 97 DEGREES OUT THAT DAY AND SHE HAD HER MOTHER WITH HER WHO IS HANDICAPPED. AFTER THE ENGINE COOLED A BIT, I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT THE REST OF THE WAY TO HER MOTHER'S HOUSE. AFTER DROPPING HER OFF, THE VEHICLE BROKE DOWN TWICE ON THE WAY TO THE REPAIR FACILITY. IT TURNED OUT TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. AS A FORMER MECHANIC AND NOW A PARTS PERSON I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531896
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