NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
248 reportsClear category filter25,000 miles · Apr 10, 2015
EngineUnknown Or Other
I WAS ACCELERATING TO MERGE ONTO I-495 IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA, ATTAINING A SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH. WHEN I REMOVED MY FOOT FROM THE GAS PEDAL (BECAUSE I HAD REACHED MY DESIRED SPEED), THE CAR CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE UNCONTROLLABLY. I APPLIED FULL PRESSURE TO THE BREAK WITH BOTH FEET, BUT THE CAR CONTINUED TO SURGE FORWARD.…
Read full complaint
I WAS ACCELERATING TO MERGE ONTO I-495 IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA, ATTAINING A SPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH. WHEN I REMOVED MY FOOT FROM THE GAS PEDAL (BECAUSE I HAD REACHED MY DESIRED SPEED), THE CAR CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE UNCONTROLLABLY. I APPLIED FULL PRESSURE TO THE BREAK WITH BOTH FEET, BUT THE CAR CONTINUED TO SURGE FORWARD. I ATTAINED A SPEED OF ALMOST 100 MPH, EVEN WITH BOTH FEET FULLY DECOMPRESSING THE BREAK. BOTH SHOULDERS OF THE INTERSTATE HAD CONSTRUCTION, SO THERE WAS NO SHOULDER TO UTILIZE ON EITHER SIDE. AFTER WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC, I FINALLY FOUND A SUITABLE OFF RAMP. AFTER PULLING THE EMERGENCY BREAK, PUTTING THE CAR IN NEUTRAL, AND EVENTUALLY PARK, THE CAR CAME TO A VERY ABRUPT STOP (JUST BEFORE I REACHED A BUSY INTERSECTION AT THE END OF THE OFF RAMP). THE BREAKS CONTINUED TO SMOKE FOR ANOTHER 45 MINUTES AFTER COMING TO A STOP AND CUTTING THE ENGINE. I DO NOT KNOW HOW I'M ALIVE, BUT I AM GRATEFUL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10704926
66,000 miles · Mar 19, 2015
EngineFuel System, Gasoline
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND CHECK FUEL INLET ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THE WATER PUMP FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 66,000. THE VIN W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND CHECK FUEL INLET ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. ALSO, THE CONTACT STATED THE WATER PUMP FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 66,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. UPDATED 4/29/15*CN
NHTSA ODI #10695414
54,000 miles · Mar 18, 2015
Engine
SINCE JANUARY, VEHICLE WOULD RANDOMLY STALL WITH NO WARNING. FIRST ALERTED WHEN PRESSING ON THE GAS AND VEHICLE KEPT SLOWING DOWN THEN ENGINE, BATTERY, OIL LIGHTS LIT UP. I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN PARK AND RESTARTED. NOTICED WHEN IT HAPPENS RANDOMLY SINCE, THAT THE RPM DROP QUICKLY BELOW 1. HAS BEEN IN FORD SERVICES DEPARTMENT…
Read full complaint
SINCE JANUARY, VEHICLE WOULD RANDOMLY STALL WITH NO WARNING. FIRST ALERTED WHEN PRESSING ON THE GAS AND VEHICLE KEPT SLOWING DOWN THEN ENGINE, BATTERY, OIL LIGHTS LIT UP. I PLACED THE VEHICLE IN PARK AND RESTARTED. NOTICED WHEN IT HAPPENS RANDOMLY SINCE, THAT THE RPM DROP QUICKLY BELOW 1. HAS BEEN IN FORD SERVICES DEPARTMENT 3 TIMES WITHIN THE PAST 2-3 WEEKS. THEY CHANGED FILTER, CLEANED CARBON BUILD-UP. SECOND TIME AT FORD, THEY CHANGED THE THROTTLE BODY. THE LAST TIME STALL OCCURRED WAS ON DC BELTWAY DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC IN FAST MOVING TRAFFIC - PANIC EXPERIENCE! IT WAS TOWED TO FORD, KEPT 4 DAYS - DROVE AROUND CLAIMED COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING. THEY WANT ME TO TAKE THE VEHICLE BACK. I AM IN FEAR CAUSING AN ACCIDENT, INJURING MYSELF, PASSENGERS INCLUDING MY GRANDCHILDREN, AND OTHER DRIVERS WITH THEIR PASSENGERS. THIS VEHICLE IS WONDER AS FAR AS COMFORT AND GAS MILEAGE BUT IS A RISK TO SAFETY. NOT WORTH KEEPING AND SHOULD BE LABEL A LEMON IF THEY CAN'T FIX. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10695237
66,366 miles · Mar 12, 2015
Electronic Stability Control (esc)EngineUnknown Or Other
I WAS DRIVING AT 11 PM ON A COUNTRY ROAD, WHEN MY VEHICLE JUST STOPPED, I COASTED AROUND A CORNER AND PUT ON MY FLASHERS. I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF NO WHERE AND IT WAS VERY DARK. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED TO THIS VEHICLE. I CONTACTED FORD ROAD SIDE EMERGENCY SERVICE AND THEY INFORMED MY VEHICLE WAS NO LONGER UNDER …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT 11 PM ON A COUNTRY ROAD, WHEN MY VEHICLE JUST STOPPED, I COASTED AROUND A CORNER AND PUT ON MY FLASHERS. I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF NO WHERE AND IT WAS VERY DARK. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED TO THIS VEHICLE. I CONTACTED FORD ROAD SIDE EMERGENCY SERVICE AND THEY INFORMED MY VEHICLE WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY FOR TOWING AND I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE WRECKER. I HAD JUST GOT THE VEHICLE OUT OF THE SHOP FROM THE FORD DEALER FOR THE SAME PROBLEM, WHICH THEY HAD FOR OVER TWO WEEKS BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE WAITING ON A PART BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS THE FUEL PUMP AND NO ONE HAD ONE SO THEY HAD TO ORDER IT. I GOT THE CAR OUT THAT DAY ABOUT 11AM, WHICH I HAD TO PAY $176.00, PLUS OVER $30.. FOR A RENTAL FOR 5 DAYS, THAT'S ALL THEY WOULD COVER. I HAD TO SAT IN THE DARK AND RAIN FOR TWO HOURS WAITING ON A WRECKER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. I AM 67 YEARS OLD AND THANK GOODNESS MY SISTER IN LAW WAS WITH ME, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. THE WRECKER TOWED MY VEHICLE TO FORD AND I AM WAITING ON THEM TO OPEN SO I CAN CALL THEM SO THEY CAN TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10693781
98,500 miles · Feb 9, 2015
Engine
TRUCK JUMPS AND JERKS AT INITIAL ACCELERATION. PROBLEM DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. WHEN IT DOES, WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON AND SOMETIMES CHECK ENGINE COMES ON. IF I STOP, TURN VEHICLE OFF, AND RESTART IT, THE WRENCH LIGHT GOES OFF. PROBLEM DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. ONE TIME I DID HAVE SERIOUS SLOW DOWN MODE HAPPEN. I W…
Read full complaint
TRUCK JUMPS AND JERKS AT INITIAL ACCELERATION. PROBLEM DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. WHEN IT DOES, WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON AND SOMETIMES CHECK ENGINE COMES ON. IF I STOP, TURN VEHICLE OFF, AND RESTART IT, THE WRENCH LIGHT GOES OFF. PROBLEM DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. ONE TIME I DID HAVE SERIOUS SLOW DOWN MODE HAPPEN. I WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 50 MPH, LIGHTS CAME ON AND TRUCK SLOWED WAY DOWN. JERKING AND JUMPING AT START UP IS NOT SAFE I THINK. PROBLEM SOUNDS LIKE FORD CSP 13N03 TO ME. I AM CALLING DEALER TODAY FOR APPT. THANK YOU *TR
NHTSA ODI #10682055
Mileage unknown · Jan 30, 2015
EngineFuel/propulsion System
1ST TIME I WAS COMING TO A STOP AT A LIGHT AND THE VEHICLE WANTED TO SURGE FORWARD SEVERAL TIMES, WHEN LIGHT TURNED GREEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE AND IT HESITATED. THIS WOULD HAPPEN EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, NOT A CONTINUOUS ISSUE. IN DEC 2014 IT HAPPENED AGAIN THIS TIME WITH THE VEHICLE STALLING, PUT IN PARK AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP BU…
Read full complaint
1ST TIME I WAS COMING TO A STOP AT A LIGHT AND THE VEHICLE WANTED TO SURGE FORWARD SEVERAL TIMES, WHEN LIGHT TURNED GREEN I TRIED TO ACCELERATE AND IT HESITATED. THIS WOULD HAPPEN EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, NOT A CONTINUOUS ISSUE. IN DEC 2014 IT HAPPENED AGAIN THIS TIME WITH THE VEHICLE STALLING, PUT IN PARK AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP BUT HESITATED WHEN ACCELERATING, DID THIS SEVERAL TIMES WITHIN A 5 MILE SPAN. PARKED, DID MY 8 HOUR WORK DAY CAME OUT, STARTED RIGHT UP AND NO ISSUES DRIVING HOME. LATER THAT NIGHT MY HUSBAND DROVE IT AND IT STALLED ON HIM 3 TIMES WITH THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMING ON. CODE P144A CAME UP, TOOK IT TO MY MECHANIC AND WAS TOLD THE CODE THROWN SHOULD NOT CAUSE STALLING ISSUES. THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING BATTLE, SOMETIMES THE VEHICLE RUNNING GREAT, SOMETIMES I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL MAKE IT TO MY DESTINATION. THIS HAPPENS AT ALL SPEEDS; IN CITY, INTERSTATE, OR AT A COMPLETE STOP. I ONLY HAVE 72000 IN MILEAGE AND MY VEHICLE IS WELL KEPT, WHAT IS GOING ON?!? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10679999
47,000 miles · Jan 4, 2015
Electrical SystemEngine
THE ENGINE HAS STALLED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. SEVERAL OF THE INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED WHEN MAKING A TURN, EITHER RIGHT OR LEFT, AT A LOW SPEED WITH NO PRESSURE BEING APPLIED TO EITHER THE GAS OR BRAKE PEDAL. THE MOST RECENT EVENTS HAVE BEEN WHEN TURNING ONTO A STREET WITH ONCOMING TRAFFIC. I MAKE THE TURN AND PRESS ON THE GAS …
Read full complaint
THE ENGINE HAS STALLED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. SEVERAL OF THE INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED WHEN MAKING A TURN, EITHER RIGHT OR LEFT, AT A LOW SPEED WITH NO PRESSURE BEING APPLIED TO EITHER THE GAS OR BRAKE PEDAL. THE MOST RECENT EVENTS HAVE BEEN WHEN TURNING ONTO A STREET WITH ONCOMING TRAFFIC. I MAKE THE TURN AND PRESS ON THE GAS ONLY TO FIND THAT THE ENGINE HAS STALLED. I HAVE TO STOP AND RESTART THE VEHICLE. THIS MAKES FOR A DANGEROUS SITUATION AS YOU END UP WITH LITTLE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. IT HAS ALSO STALLED IN PARKING LOTS WHEN COASTING AT A LOW SPEED WAITING ON ANOTHER CAR. I PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE USED IN MAY OF 2014 AND HAD TO TAKE IT TO A LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP THE VERY NEXT MONTH (JUNE 2014). THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY AND ALSO REPROGRAMMED THE PCM PER THE 13N01 RECALL. WITHIN TWO MONTHS, THE ISSUE WAS BACK, THIS IS JANUARY OF 2015, AND THE ISSUE HAS GOTTEN MUCH WORSE. I HAVE READ THAT IT COULD BE A TYPE OF RELAY SWITCH LOCATED IN THE UNDER-THE-HOOD FUSE BOX. IF FORD DOESN'T FIX THIS ISSUE, THERE WILL EVENTUALLY BE WRECKS AND POSSIBLE FATALITIES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10669968
78,000 miles · Dec 5, 2014
EngineFire
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE ENGINE STALLED AND ALL THE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THERE WAS SMOKE COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT OPENED THE HOOD AND NOTICED THAT A FIRE HAD ERUPTED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND THE VEHICLE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE ENGINE STALLED AND ALL THE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THERE WAS SMOKE COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT OPENED THE HOOD AND NOTICED THAT A FIRE HAD ERUPTED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN IMPOUND LOT. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 78,000.
NHTSA ODI #10662378
25,880 miles · Dec 2, 2014
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON A REGULAR STREET IN MY AREA AT THE RATE OF 35. THE SPEED LIMIT IS 40, SO I DECIDED TO INCREASE MY SPEED TO THAT OF THE SPEED LIMIT. WHEN I PROCEEDED TO ACCELERATE, IT APPEARED THAT THE ENGINE WAS JUST SPINNING, BUT NOT ACCELERATING, WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT JUST LUNGED FORWARD, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE. THIS WAS QUIT…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON A REGULAR STREET IN MY AREA AT THE RATE OF 35. THE SPEED LIMIT IS 40, SO I DECIDED TO INCREASE MY SPEED TO THAT OF THE SPEED LIMIT. WHEN I PROCEEDED TO ACCELERATE, IT APPEARED THAT THE ENGINE WAS JUST SPINNING, BUT NOT ACCELERATING, WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT JUST LUNGED FORWARD, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE. THIS WAS QUITE FRIGHTENING AS I HAD NO ADVANCED WARNING THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. AFTER THAT INCIDENT, IT APPEARED TO BE DRIVING NORMAL, UNTIL IT HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT A WEEK LATER. I AM AFRAID WHENEVER I GET BEHIND THE WHEEL NOW, BUT IT IS THE ONLY VEHICLE I OWN AND I USE IT TO GET BACK AND FORTH TO WORK, SO I AM PROCEEDING WITH EXTREME CAUTION. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10661533
25,600 miles · Nov 30, 2014
Engine
LIKE MANY OTHER REPORTS I HAVE READ THE VEHICLE CEASED TO RESPOND ON 11/24/2014. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING (ROUGH), THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON I WAS UNABLE TO GET ANY POWER WHEN PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL. TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED (SLUGGISH) BUT THEN LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED MADE IT TO MY DESTINATION. HAPPENED AGAIN 11/30/2014 TH…
Read full complaint
LIKE MANY OTHER REPORTS I HAVE READ THE VEHICLE CEASED TO RESPOND ON 11/24/2014. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING (ROUGH), THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON I WAS UNABLE TO GET ANY POWER WHEN PUSHING THE GAS PEDAL. TURNED IT OFF AND RESTARTED (SLUGGISH) BUT THEN LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED MADE IT TO MY DESTINATION. HAPPENED AGAIN 11/30/2014 THIS TIME I WAS TRAVELING AT 35MPH. PULLED OVER AND RESTARTED AND THEN IT HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT A MILE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. THIS TIME AFTER SHUTTING IT OFF AND RESTARTING THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON. WHY IS THIS NOT A RECALL ISSUE? ALL OTHER POST HAVE MENTIONED THROTTLE BODY. ITS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE IF I WAS ON THE HIGHWAY OR IN HEAVY TRAFFIC IT COULD OF ENDED IN A SERIOUS OR FATAL SITUATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10661323
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