NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
248 reportsClear category filter49,000 miles · Jun 20, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE COMPLETELY STALLED AND S SERVICE LIGHT CAME ON. AS I TRIED TO MOVE OUT OF TRAFFIC I WAS NEARLY HIT BY MULTIPLE VEHICLES COMING FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS. I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE COVERED UNDER POWER TRAIN WARRANTY. AFTER EXPLAINING…
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE COMPLETELY STALLED AND S SERVICE LIGHT CAME ON. AS I TRIED TO MOVE OUT OF TRAFFIC I WAS NEARLY HIT BY MULTIPLE VEHICLES COMING FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS. I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE COVERED UNDER POWER TRAIN WARRANTY. AFTER EXPLAINING TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WHAT HAD HAPPENED, BEFORE THEY LOOKED AT MY VEHICLE, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS. APPARENTLY, THE PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY IS SO COMMON THEY CAN'T KEEP THE PARTS IN STOCK. THIS PROBLEM CAUSES THE VEHICLE TO STALL OR SURGE FORWARD, USUALLY AT RATES OF SPEED EXCEEDING 40MPH. I WAS INFORMED THAT FORD DOES NOT CONSIDER THIS PART OF THE POWER TRAIN. $401.04 LATER I HAD MY VEHICLE BACK. AS I WAS PAYING THE SERVICE CASHIER INFORMED ME THAT THIS WAS THE 12TH THAT HAD FIXED THAT WEEK (IT WAS ONLY WEDNESDAY) AND TO HOLD ONTO MY RECEIPT BECAUSE IT REALLY SHOULD BE RECALLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10520879
30,000 miles · Jun 18, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE VEHICLE DECELERATED ON ITS OWN. THE CONTACT STOPPED THE VEHICLE ON THE EMERGENCY LANE AND WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE DRIVING NORMALLY AFTER RESTARTING IT. THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAK…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE VEHICLE DECELERATED ON ITS OWN. THE CONTACT STOPPED THE VEHICLE ON THE EMERGENCY LANE AND WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE DRIVING NORMALLY AFTER RESTARTING IT. THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED A VALVE HAD TO BE REPLACED. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED THE FAILURE CONTINUED TO OCCUR. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 30,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10520376
47,203 miles · Jun 17, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineFuel/propulsion System
WHILE DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY CRG G5 AT 45MPH THE ENGINE STALLED, WITH NO MORE POWER SUPPLIED TO THE CAR AND IT ROLLED TO A FULL STOP. THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE DID NOT OPERATE TO ACCELERATE OR DRIVE THE CAR ANY MORE. THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE TOWED AWAY. THE CHECK-ENGINE LIGHT AND 'WRENCH' LIGHT ARE ON, THE ASSOCIATED DTC CODE IS P…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE EXPRESSWAY CRG G5 AT 45MPH THE ENGINE STALLED, WITH NO MORE POWER SUPPLIED TO THE CAR AND IT ROLLED TO A FULL STOP. THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE DID NOT OPERATE TO ACCELERATE OR DRIVE THE CAR ANY MORE. THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE TOWED AWAY. THE CHECK-ENGINE LIGHT AND 'WRENCH' LIGHT ARE ON, THE ASSOCIATED DTC CODE IS P2112. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10520242
50,600 miles · Jun 17, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion System
I WAS DRIVING TO WORK ON RT. 80 IN NJ AT ABOUT 70 MPH IN THE FAST LANE WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE WAS NO POWER. I WOULD HIT THE GAS AND NOTHING. FORTUNATELY, MY STEERING AND BRAKING WAS NOT AFFECTED AND I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER AND TURN THE TRUCK OFF. BEFORE THAT, I NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS LIT ON THE DASHBOARD…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING TO WORK ON RT. 80 IN NJ AT ABOUT 70 MPH IN THE FAST LANE WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE WAS NO POWER. I WOULD HIT THE GAS AND NOTHING. FORTUNATELY, MY STEERING AND BRAKING WAS NOT AFFECTED AND I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SHOULDER AND TURN THE TRUCK OFF. BEFORE THAT, I NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS LIT ON THE DASHBOARD. I SAT FOR A MINUTE WHILE I LOOKED IN MY OWNER'S MANUAL TO SEE WHAT THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS FOR AND IT SAID THROTTLE. I TURNED IT BACK ON AND AFTER A BRIEF HESITATION, IT TURNED OVER. I PULSED THE GAS TO MAKE SURE IT WAS WORKING, THEN SLOWLY MERGED BACK ONTO THE HIGHWAY. I CALLED MY DEALERSHIP TO TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED AND THEY WERE VERY NICE AND ASKED ME TO BRING IT IN ASAP. SINCE I WAS ALMOST AT WORK, I SAID I'D CALL HIM BACK AND WENT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP NEAR MY OFFICE. THERE I WAS TOLD THIS WAS A "KNOWN ISSUE" AND EVEN IF IT WAS WHAT HE "THOUGHT" IT WAS, HE WAS NASTY AND SAID "THERE AREN'T ANY PARTS AVAILABLE ANYWAY..." I ASKED HIM IF THE TRUCK WAS SAFE TO DRIVE AND HE HESITATED AND SAID "YEAH...IT SHOULD BE AND THAT IT IS A "SPORADIC" ISSUE." I LEFT THAT DEALERSHIP AND DROVE TO MY OFFICE. I CALLED MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP BACK AND TOLD THEM THIS. THEY SAID TO BRING IT IN THE NEXT DAY (SATURDAY) AND THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF ME. THIS DEALERSHIP (MAGARINO IN SUSSEX, NJ) IS AMAZING! THEY ARE HELPFUL, TRULY CARE ABOUT THEIR CUSTOMERS AND MADE SURE THAT MY TRUCK WAS SAFE BEFORE I LEFT. EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T HAVE AN APPOINTMENT, THEY STILL MADE THE TIME TO GET ME IN! THEY DID HAVE THE PART IN STOCK, RAN ALL THE NECESSARY TESTS, REPLACED THE PART AND REPROGRAMMED THE COMPUTER SO THAT EVERYTHING WOULD BE OK. $400 LATER (PART NOT UNDER WARRANTY), I WAS HEADING HOME. I HOPE THIS HELPS THE POSSIBLE RECALL INVESTIGATION SO THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS TO GO THROUGH THE TERRIFYING AND HOPELESS FEELING THAT I HAD THIS PAST FRIDAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10520091
61,200 miles · Jun 10, 2013
EnginePower Train
I WAS DRIVING 70MPH DOWN THE INTERSTATE AND I LOST ALL POWER AND MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD PUT IT IN PARK AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP AND LIGHT WENT OFF. TODAY I COULD FEEL IT LOSING POWER I WENT TO DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT HELP ME IF I DIDN'T PAY THE $85 TO PUT ON COMPUTER. I TOLD …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING 70MPH DOWN THE INTERSTATE AND I LOST ALL POWER AND MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD PUT IT IN PARK AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP AND LIGHT WENT OFF. TODAY I COULD FEEL IT LOSING POWER I WENT TO DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT HELP ME IF I DIDN'T PAY THE $85 TO PUT ON COMPUTER. I TOLD THEM MY CAR HAD DONE THE EXACT SAME THING THAT OTHERS HAD REPORTED AND IT WAS THEIR THROTTLE BODY. ON MY WAY TO WORK I COULD FEEL IS LUGGING BUT SO FAR TODAY IT HASN'T STOPPED. VERY DANGEROUS DUE TO THE FACT THE I HAVE SEVERAL CHILDREN IN MY ESCAPE DAILY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10516032
49,000 miles · Jun 10, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING THE CAR WE START TO EXCEL AND THE CAR SHUTS DOWN DUE TO THE THROTTLE BODY NOT FUNCTIONING RIGHT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515968
66,000 miles · Jun 6, 2013
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE ENGINE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS COASTED RESTARTED AND RESUMED NORMALLY. THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENGINE THROTTLE BODY NEE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE ENGINE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS COASTED RESTARTED AND RESUMED NORMALLY. THE FAILURE RECURRED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENGINE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED BECAUSE THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PART WAS ON BACK ORDER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 66,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515505
40,000 miles · Jun 6, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING UP A HILL WHEN MY ENGINE SHUT OFF AND CAR STARTED LURCHING FORWARD. THE BRAKES SLOWED THE CAR DOWN BUT LURCHING CONTINUED. THE CAR RESTARTED OKAY BUT STALLED SEVERAL MORE TIMES AS I WAS DRIVING IT TO THE DEALER. THERE WERE NO WARNING LIGHTS ON AND I HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN GREAT CARE OF THE CAR. THERE WERE NO ODD NOISES …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING UP A HILL WHEN MY ENGINE SHUT OFF AND CAR STARTED LURCHING FORWARD. THE BRAKES SLOWED THE CAR DOWN BUT LURCHING CONTINUED. THE CAR RESTARTED OKAY BUT STALLED SEVERAL MORE TIMES AS I WAS DRIVING IT TO THE DEALER. THERE WERE NO WARNING LIGHTS ON AND I HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN GREAT CARE OF THE CAR. THERE WERE NO ODD NOISES OR SIGNS THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG UNTIL THE CAR STOPPED. I AM THANKFUL THAT I WAS ON A NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD AND NOT A BUSY STREET OR HIGHWAY. DEALER SAYS THE ISSUE IS THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY WHICH IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER AND MAY TAKE 6-8 WEEKS TO REPAIR. IF SOMETHING IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER, DOES THAT MEAN THIS IS HAPPENING TO OTHERS AS WELL? PLEASE INVESTIGATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515458
37,500 miles · Jun 5, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE WAS ACCELERATED TO CROSS AN INTERSECTION AND ENGINE DECELLED TO AN IDLE CONDITION - THIS HAPPENED AT SPEED ALSO - VERY DANGEROUS LOSS OF POWER WITHOUT NOTICE - ALMOST CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. WAS VERY INTERMITTENT TO BEGIN WITH - DEALER ATTEMPTED TSHOOT AND REPAIR BUT NO CODES FOUND - NEXT DAY AFTER DEALER ATTEMPT PROBLEM HAP…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS ACCELERATED TO CROSS AN INTERSECTION AND ENGINE DECELLED TO AN IDLE CONDITION - THIS HAPPENED AT SPEED ALSO - VERY DANGEROUS LOSS OF POWER WITHOUT NOTICE - ALMOST CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. WAS VERY INTERMITTENT TO BEGIN WITH - DEALER ATTEMPTED TSHOOT AND REPAIR BUT NO CODES FOUND - NEXT DAY AFTER DEALER ATTEMPT PROBLEM HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES AND THE DEALER DETERMINED A BAD THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515357
19,200 miles · Jun 3, 2013
Engine
AS I WAS DRIVING, MY VEHICLE WITH NO WARNING LOST POWER. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT ROUGHLY. I COULD PRESS THE ACCELERATOR, BUT IT NO LONGER CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO ACCELERATE. AFTER WAITING FOR HELP TO ARRIVE, I SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN TRIED TO RESTART. THE VEHICLE STARTED FINE. I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC WHO THOUGHT TH…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING, MY VEHICLE WITH NO WARNING LOST POWER. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT ROUGHLY. I COULD PRESS THE ACCELERATOR, BUT IT NO LONGER CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO ACCELERATE. AFTER WAITING FOR HELP TO ARRIVE, I SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN TRIED TO RESTART. THE VEHICLE STARTED FINE. I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC WHO THOUGHT THE THROTTLE BOX MAY BE BAD. I PAID TO HAVE IT CLEANED OUT AND FOR A GAS ADDITIVE TO DECREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, MY ESCAPE STALLED AGAIN IN THE SAME WAY AND WITH THE SAME RESULTS. IT HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES NOW SINCE MAY 2ND. I REALIZE THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE BODY IN FORD ESCAPES INCLUDING THE 2011 MODEL. WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE THROTTLE BODY FAILURE SITUATIONS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM EXPERIENCING WITH MY VEHICLE. I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO BE IN CURB LANES AND ABLE TO MANEUVER SAFELY OFF THE ROAD EACH OF THE TIMES THIS HAS HAPPENED. IF I HAPPEN TO BE IN A CENTER HIGHWAY LANE WHEN IT HAPPENS, I MAY NOT BE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTART MY VEHICLE SAFELY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514800
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