NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
17 reportsClear category filter14,000 miles · May 10, 2024
EngineEngine And Engine CoolingSteering
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that while his daughter was driving at an undisclosed speed, the power steering failed to work as needed. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer. The vehicle was diagnosed with EGR valve failure. The contact was informed that the steering co…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that while his daughter was driving at an undisclosed speed, the power steering failed to work as needed. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer. The vehicle was diagnosed with EGR valve failure. The contact was informed that the steering column needed to be replaced. The contacted stated that the check engine warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact related the failure to NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V284000 (Steering). The dealer confirmed that the vehicle was not included the recall. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and confirmed that the vehicle was not included in the recall, and a case was opened. The failure mileage was approximately 140,000.
NHTSA ODI #11588106
85,000 miles · Nov 23, 2022
Engine And Engine Cooling
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that while depressing the accelerator pedal, the vehicle would not properly accelerate. Additionally, while the vehicle was idling, the vehicle was shaking abnormally, with an abnormal burning metallic odor outside the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the local mechanic wh…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford Escape. The contact stated that while depressing the accelerator pedal, the vehicle would not properly accelerate. Additionally, while the vehicle was idling, the vehicle was shaking abnormally, with an abnormal burning metallic odor outside the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the local mechanic who diagnosed that the ignition coil for cylinder #2 had melted and a computer failure also occurred. No further information was available. The vehicle was not yet repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The local dealer was not contacted. The failure mileage was 85,000.
NHTSA ODI #11494731
28,000 miles · Jul 26, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WITH MY 3 YEAR OLD SON IN THE BACK SEAT. AS I WAS IN TRAFFIC ALL OF A SUDDEN I FELT A LOSS OF POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT ON. I WAS ALMOST HIT MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT LUCKILY WAS ABLE TO FORCE IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SAT THERE FOR A COUPLE MINUTES AND THEN STARTED THE CAR NORMALLY AND DROVE …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WITH MY 3 YEAR OLD SON IN THE BACK SEAT. AS I WAS IN TRAFFIC ALL OF A SUDDEN I FELT A LOSS OF POWER AND THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT ON. I WAS ALMOST HIT MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT LUCKILY WAS ABLE TO FORCE IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SAT THERE FOR A COUPLE MINUTES AND THEN STARTED THE CAR NORMALLY AND DROVE HOME. IT WAS A SCARY EXPERIENCE AND ONE THAT I HOPE FORD TAKES CARE OF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10616459
41,400 miles · Jun 23, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingEquipment Adaptive/mobility
FORD - COMPLETE AC FAILURE/ AC DRYER FAILURE WHEN I TURNED ON THE AC FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR IT MADE A LOUD GRINDING NOISE THEN NEVER COOLED.TOOK IT IN TO THE DEALERSHIP TO CHECK FOR PROBLEM. CAR HAS 41400 MILES ON IT (LITTLE MORE THAN 5000 OVER THE 36000) BUT STILL HAS 6 MONTHS ON WARRANTY. THE DEALER SAID THERE WAS N…
Read full complaint
FORD - COMPLETE AC FAILURE/ AC DRYER FAILURE WHEN I TURNED ON THE AC FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR IT MADE A LOUD GRINDING NOISE THEN NEVER COOLED.TOOK IT IN TO THE DEALERSHIP TO CHECK FOR PROBLEM. CAR HAS 41400 MILES ON IT (LITTLE MORE THAN 5000 OVER THE 36000) BUT STILL HAS 6 MONTHS ON WARRANTY. THE DEALER SAID THERE WAS NO PROBLEM.(ROSELLE FORD)WHERE PURCHASED. EVEN THOUGH A LOUD GRINDING SOUND WAS PRESENT AND NO COLD AIR.. HE TOLD HER TO BRING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.. SHE DID, THEY VACUUMED &CHARGED. IT WORKED FOR 2 WEEKS THEN STOPPED. SHE BROUGHT TO ANOTHER FORD DEALER AND HE SAID IT WOULD COST $2000 AND HAD TO REPLACE THE WHOLE SYSTEM.. SHE WENT TO PICK IT UP AND HE TOLD HER HE REPLACED A RESISTER ON THE BLOWER SWITCH... I KNOW ITS NOT FIXED.. WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.. BUT IF FORD REALLY WANTS TO BE OUR CAR COMPANY, THEN THEY SHOULD STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT. THAT'S A BIG REPAIR BILL FOR ONLY 41000 MILES. HERE IS WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR AND NO SERVICE BULLETIN ON THIS FROM FORD. DEALER CALLED AND GAVE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM ..."IN THE AC DRYER THERE IS A FILTER BAG WITH "LITTLE BLUE BALLS" OF DESICCANT. IT SEEMS THAT IT IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM THAT THESE FILTER BAGS BURST AND FLOOD THE ENTIRE AC SYSTEM WITH THE BALLS (AKA "DEBRIS") WHICH CAUSES ALL THE PARTS TO FAIL AND OR CLOG. MANY OF THE PARTS CAN'T BE EFFECTIVELY FLUSHED SO THEY HAVE TO BE REPLACED." THE COST TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE AC SYSTEM (ALL VALVES, TUBES, HOSES, EVAPORATOR, COMPRESSOR, CONDENSER, ACCUMULATOR, DRYER, ETC.) CAME TO $2,022.65. THIS DRYER UNIT THAT IS CAUSING ALL THE PROBLEMS IS A NON-SERVICEABLE UNIT AND IS IN NO WAY AFFECTED BY REGULAR MAINTENANCE, AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO PREVENT A FAILURE. TO MAKE MATTERS EVEN WORSE IS THAT WHEN THEY DO REPLACE THE SYSTEM... THEY USE THE SAME DRYER AS THE ONE THAT FAILED. UNBELIEVABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10605338
49,366 miles · Mar 11, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System
CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND VEHICLE LOST POWER AND DIED. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE FOR A FEW MINUTES, THEN TURNED IT ON AND WAS ABLE TO PROCEED FOR ANOTHER 5-6 MILES, THEN THE ISSUE REPEATED. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT REMAINED ON, HOWEVER. FINALLY WAS ABLE TO COMPLETE MY TRIP WITHOUT FURTHER INCI…
Read full complaint
CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND VEHICLE LOST POWER AND DIED. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE FOR A FEW MINUTES, THEN TURNED IT ON AND WAS ABLE TO PROCEED FOR ANOTHER 5-6 MILES, THEN THE ISSUE REPEATED. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT REMAINED ON, HOWEVER. FINALLY WAS ABLE TO COMPLETE MY TRIP WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. THIS SAME ISSUE HAPPENED AGAIN ABOUT A WEEK LATER, WITH THE SAME OUTCOME AS THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED. SCHEDULED A REPAIR FOR 11/14/12 AT WHICH TIME I WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A DEFAULT CODE P1450. CANNISTER WAS FULL OF FUEL. EVAPORATOR CANISTER, PIPE AND VALVE WERE REPLACED. TOTAL FOR THE REPAIR $557.16 PLUS SALES TAX BECAUSE VEHICLE MILEAGE EXCEEDED 36,000 WARRANTY CEILING. THEN ON MAY 16, 2013, WHILE ON VACATION, VEHICLE HAD SIMILAR PROBLEMS - ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, VEHICLE LOST POWER AND DIED... PULLED OVER, TURNED OFF VEHICLE, TURNED IT BACK ON AND WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE NEXT TOWN WITH A FORD DEALERSHIP WHERE WE HAD A DIAGNOSTIC RUN ON THE VEHICLE. THIS TIME THE CODES WERE P0685 AND P2112, WHICH REQUIRED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASSEMBLY WHICH COST ANOTHER $314.18 PLUS SALES TAX. I HAVE SINCE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM FORD STATING THAT THE THROTTLE BODY IS NOW BEING COVERED UNDER THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM 13N03, BUT WONDER WHY THERE IS NOT SIMILAR COVERAGE FOR THE EVAPORATOR CANNISTER ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10568554
44,500 miles · Feb 13, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
EVER SINCE WE BOUGHT OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE (USED IN FL--HAD TO DRIVE IT TO WA STATE DUE TO MILITARY PCS ARMY ORDERS) THE CAR HAS NEVER GOTTEN MORE THAN 20 MPG. IT WAS HESITATING CONSISTENTLY AFTER WE PUT 5,000 MILES ON THE CAR. IT STARTED HESITATING/ REVVING RPMS AT STOP/JUMPING/ACCELERATING THEN ENGINE WOULD JUST SHUT OFF AND P…
Read full complaint
EVER SINCE WE BOUGHT OUR 2011 FORD ESCAPE (USED IN FL--HAD TO DRIVE IT TO WA STATE DUE TO MILITARY PCS ARMY ORDERS) THE CAR HAS NEVER GOTTEN MORE THAN 20 MPG. IT WAS HESITATING CONSISTENTLY AFTER WE PUT 5,000 MILES ON THE CAR. IT STARTED HESITATING/ REVVING RPMS AT STOP/JUMPING/ACCELERATING THEN ENGINE WOULD JUST SHUT OFF AND POWER AS WELL. FINALLY STALLED ON JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD, WA (WHERE WE ARE STATIONED AND LIVE) AND MY HUSBAND COULD NOT GET IT TO START. THE "CHECK ENGINE LIGHT" WAS ALSO THEN SHOWING. WE HAD IT TOWED TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP (LAKEWOOD FORD). WE HAD A PLATINUM WARRANTY WE PAID EXTRA FOR WITH OUR MONTHLY PAYMENTS. EVEN WITH THAT WE STILL HAD TO GET AN AER (ARMY EMERGENCY RELIEF) LOAN FOR THE DIFFERENCE (APPX. $187.00) THAT WAS NOT COVERED. WE WERE ENTITLED TO RENTAL CAR COVERAGE BUT THE FORD DEALERSHIP DID NOT CONTACT OUR WARRANTY COMPANY IN TIME SO WE WERE WITHOUT A VEHICLE FOR 4 DAYS. THAT WAS BARELY 3 MONTHS AGO. THEY ENDED UP REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY REGULATOR. AGAIN...HERE IT IS LESS THAN 3 MONTHS SINCE THAT WAS REPLACED AND WE ARE ONLY GETTING 18.2 MILES TO THE GALLON. IT IS WORSE WHEN WE USE THE FLEX FUEL. IT BARELY HAS 47,000 MILES AND IT IS UNPREDICTABLE AND I FEEL UNSAFE IN THIS CAR. MY HUSBAND IS BEING MEDICALLY BOARDED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ARMY BECAUSE HE IS 100% DISABLED AND A "WOUNDED WARRIOR." THE ONLY COMFORT I HAVE IS SEEING THAT WE AREN'T THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THIS PROBLEM. THAT IS TERRIBLE TO SAY BUT IT IS EVEN WORSE WHEN YOU CANNOT RELY ON A VEHICLE YOU BOUGHT ONLY 1 YEAR USED. WE ARE FACING HAVING TO DRIVE THIS BACK TO ORLANDO, FL AND NOW WE WILL PROBABLY VOLUNTARILY TURN IT IN TO THE LOAN COMPANY SIMPLY BECAUSE NEITHER ONE OF US FEEL SAFE ENOUGH TO ATTEMPT TO DRIVE IT 3500 MILES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, ALONG WITH THE MEDICAL CONCERNS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10564278
47,000 miles · Nov 25, 2013
Electrical SystemEngineEngine And Engine Cooling
NHTSA ACTION NUMBER - DP12006 VEHICLE STALLS GOING 65 MPH. ISSUE IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE 100,000 MILE WARRANTY WHY???? WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN A RECALL ON THIS ISSUE?????? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10553745
79,000 miles · Oct 5, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingEquipmentVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE LOSES POWER DURING OPERATION AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE ENGINE REVERTS TO IDLE, REVVING BELOW 1000RPM. DEPRESSING THE GAS PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT ON ENGINE RPM OR SPEED. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT COMES ON, BUT WITHOUT ANY CODE STORED. IF THE CAR IS TURNED OFF AND THEN BACK ON, THE ENGINE RELUCTANTLY STARTS, AND THE PROBLEM IS NOT PRESE…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE LOSES POWER DURING OPERATION AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE ENGINE REVERTS TO IDLE, REVVING BELOW 1000RPM. DEPRESSING THE GAS PEDAL HAS NO EFFECT ON ENGINE RPM OR SPEED. THE "WRENCH" LIGHT COMES ON, BUT WITHOUT ANY CODE STORED. IF THE CAR IS TURNED OFF AND THEN BACK ON, THE ENGINE RELUCTANTLY STARTS, AND THE PROBLEM IS NOT PRESENT, BUT THE PROBLEM SOON APPEARS (WITHIN SECONDS). AFTER SEVERAL INCIDENTS TODAY ON MY WAY TO THE AUTO SHOP, THE "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT CAME ON AND I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CODE: P2111, "BINDING THROTTLE BODY - STUCK OPEN" AND "TACM OPEN OR SHORTED". TAKING THE VEHICLE TO THE AUTO SHOP, THEY TOLD ME THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WAS NOT FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY AND NEEDED REPLACEMENT. THIS IS CURRENTLY BEING DONE AS THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION. THIS PROBLEM HAPPENED ONCE BEFORE, ABOUT A MONTH AGO, AND I IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP. THEY COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG, BUT SAID IT SOUNDED LIKE A THROTTLE OR ELECTRICAL PROBLEM, AS THEY HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS PROBLEMS SIMILAR TO THIS. THEY SAID THERE WAS NO STORED CODE FOR THE "WRENCH" LIGHT. THEY TOLD ME THE CAR WAS SAFE TO DRIVE BUT TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN. AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD BEGIN REPLACING PARTS UNTIL THE PROBLEM WENT AWAY AS THEY WERE UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD SEEN THIS PROBLEM BEFORE. THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION, PARTICULARLY WHEN DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY OR CROSSING AN INTERSECTION, AS THE VEHICLE NO LONGER HAS POWER TO THE DRIVE TRAIN AND CAN ONLY COAST TO A STOP. THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL ON THIS DEFECTIVE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546842
67,000 miles · Aug 19, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System
ENGINE LOSS OF POWER, WOULD. NOT ACCELERATE,GOT OUT OF TRAFFIC, PUT ON 4WAYS, ENGINE WOULD ONLY IDLE VERY ROUGH, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH WERE ON , SHUT OFF ENGINE RESTARTED AFTER LONG CRANKING STARTED RESUMED TRIP , ABOUT 5 MILES HAPPENED AGAIN DID SAME ,AFTER RESTARTED DROVE 12 MILES HOME. THIS ISSUE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROU…
Read full complaint
ENGINE LOSS OF POWER, WOULD. NOT ACCELERATE,GOT OUT OF TRAFFIC, PUT ON 4WAYS, ENGINE WOULD ONLY IDLE VERY ROUGH, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH WERE ON , SHUT OFF ENGINE RESTARTED AFTER LONG CRANKING STARTED RESUMED TRIP , ABOUT 5 MILES HAPPENED AGAIN DID SAME ,AFTER RESTARTED DROVE 12 MILES HOME. THIS ISSUE IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS . I HAVE FOUND OVER 2 HUNDRED REPORTS OF THE SAME PROBLEM UPON FIRST TRY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536210
41,500 miles · Aug 14, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel/propulsion System
FROM A DEAD STOP AT A LIGHT, PRESSED ON GAS PEDDLE AND ENGINE DIDN'T DIE, BUT WOULD ONLY CRAWL ALONG AT 1 OR 2 MPH. MADE IT TO A GAS STATION, THEN TURNED OFF ENGINE, RESTARTED, AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE. THIS HOWEVER HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE. TOOK IT TO FORD DEALERSHIP THE SERVICE REP SAID IT WAS PROBABLY THE THROTTLE B…
Read full complaint
FROM A DEAD STOP AT A LIGHT, PRESSED ON GAS PEDDLE AND ENGINE DIDN'T DIE, BUT WOULD ONLY CRAWL ALONG AT 1 OR 2 MPH. MADE IT TO A GAS STATION, THEN TURNED OFF ENGINE, RESTARTED, AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE. THIS HOWEVER HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE. TOOK IT TO FORD DEALERSHIP THE SERVICE REP SAID IT WAS PROBABLY THE THROTTLE BODY. (UPON RESEARCHING, IT APPEARS FORD HAS PUT DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY PARTS IN SEVERAL MODEL YEAR'S OF THE ESCAPE.) *TR
NHTSA ODI #10535371
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