NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
253 reportsClear category filter57,441 miles · Jul 26, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
MY ESCAPE HAS FORD RECALL #16S41 ON IT. I BEGAN TO SMELL A STRONG GASOLINE SMELL AROUND MY CAR. I TOOK IT INTO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIRS AND IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH THE RECALL ISSUE. EVEN THOUGH THIS RECALL HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE NOV/DEC OF 2016 THERE IS STILL NO PART TO REPAIR IT 8 MONTHS LATER. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THE…
Read full complaint
MY ESCAPE HAS FORD RECALL #16S41 ON IT. I BEGAN TO SMELL A STRONG GASOLINE SMELL AROUND MY CAR. I TOOK IT INTO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIRS AND IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH THE RECALL ISSUE. EVEN THOUGH THIS RECALL HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE NOV/DEC OF 2016 THERE IS STILL NO PART TO REPAIR IT 8 MONTHS LATER. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THEY WERE GOING TO REPLACE IT WITH A PART THAT HAS THE SAME DEFECT/RECALL. I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. THERE IS AN INCREASED RISK OF FIRE DUE TO FUEL LEAK. THIS TIME I COULD SMELL GAS. WILL I NEXT TIME? WHAT IF THE CAR HAD BEEN PARKED IN THE GARAGE WHERE FUMES COULD BUILD UP AND SOMETHING SPARKED AND OUR WHOLE HOUSE EXPLODED. I CANNOT CONTINUE TO PUT MYSELF, MY CHILDREN AND FRIENDS AND FAMILY (INCLUDING OTHER CHILDREN) IN MY CAR WHEN I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS SAFE AND FORD CANNOT CERTIFY THAT IT IS SAFE. THEY DO NOT HAVE A DATE FOR WHEN THE REPLACEMENT PART WILL BE AVAILABLE AND THEY REFUSE TO GIVE ME A RENTAL OR LOANER VEHICLE. THEY ARE REPORTING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO INJURIES OR FATALITIES TO DATE DUE TO THIS RECALL. ARE THEY WAITING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN BEFORE THEY PROTECT CONSUMERS? ARE THERE NOT LIMITS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY HAVE TO REMEDY AND DANGEROUS SAFETY RECALL? I ALSO FIND IT INTERESTING THAT THIS RECALL WENT INTO EFFECT IN DECEMBER OF 2016 WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT TIME THAT ALL OF THOSE VEHICLES 5 YEAR WARRANTIES WOULD BE EXPIRED. COINCIDENCE?
NHTSA ODI #11010735
35,000 miles · Jul 19, 2017
EngineFuel/propulsion System
I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TURNIG OFF OUR STREET AND DRIVING A SHORT DISTANE UP OUR DRIVEWAY TO PARK OUTSIDE OUR GARAGE WHEN MY VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD INTO THE GARAGE DOING CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. I THEN BACKED THE VEHICLE OUT OF THE GARAGE TO AVOID FURTHER DAMAGE.SINCE I HAD THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT …
Read full complaint
I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF TURNIG OFF OUR STREET AND DRIVING A SHORT DISTANE UP OUR DRIVEWAY TO PARK OUTSIDE OUR GARAGE WHEN MY VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD INTO THE GARAGE DOING CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. I THEN BACKED THE VEHICLE OUT OF THE GARAGE TO AVOID FURTHER DAMAGE.SINCE I HAD THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT THE ENGINE WAS OVERPOWERINHG THE BRAKES I DECIDED TO TURN THE IGNITION SWITCH OFF TO STOP THE VEHICLE. IT WAS THEN I DETERMINED THAT TONGUE OF THE BOAT TRAILER HAD SEVERED THE FILTER ON THE VEHICLE ENGINE SPURTING THE CONTENTS OF THE OIL SUMP ON THE DRIVEWAY AND THE TRAILER WAS IMPALED IN THE GRILL OF THE VEHICLE. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TRAILER HAD PROPELLED THE HIGH PRESSURE WASHER STORED ALONGSIDE IT WHEN THE TRAILER WAS PULLED FROM THE GARAGE BY THE VEHICLE.07
NHTSA ODI #11006453
Mileage unknown · Jul 13, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE LUGOFF FORD DEALER WAS CONTACTED AN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE LUGOFF FORD DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #11005101
42,625 miles · Jul 11, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
MANUFACTURER RECALL NUMBER16S41 NHTSA RECALL NUMBER16V777 SUMMARY ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, THE FUEL DELIVERY MODULE (FDM) MAY DEVELOP A CRACK IN THE VERTICAL PORTION OF THE FUEL SUPPLY PORT THAT COULD RESULT IN A FUEL LEAK. SAFETY RISK A FUEL LEAK IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF A FIRE. MANUFACTU…
Read full complaint
MANUFACTURER RECALL NUMBER16S41 NHTSA RECALL NUMBER16V777 SUMMARY ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, THE FUEL DELIVERY MODULE (FDM) MAY DEVELOP A CRACK IN THE VERTICAL PORTION OF THE FUEL SUPPLY PORT THAT COULD RESULT IN A FUEL LEAK. SAFETY RISK A FUEL LEAK IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF A FIRE. MANUFACTURER HAS FAILED OR IS UNABLE TO REMEDY THIS SAFETY RECALL FOR YOUR VEHICLE IN A TIMELY MANNER, RECALL STATUS RECALL INCOMPLETE, REMEDY NOT YET AVAILABLE HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED BY MANUFACTURE. DEALERSHIP HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED. CONSUMER CONCERN: VEHICLE FIRE.
NHTSA ODI #11004388
Mileage unknown · Jul 10, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT NO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); HOWEVER, THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. (VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT).
NHTSA ODI #11004160
Mileage unknown · Jul 5, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE) HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AT: KOONS FORD, S…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE) HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AT: KOONS FORD, SECURITY BLVD, BATIMORE, MARYLAND, AND CONFIRMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM WHEN THE PARTS WERE TO BECOME AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. UPDATED 08/29/17*LJ *CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WAS TRADED IN.*JS
NHTSA ODI #11003036
Mileage unknown · Jul 3, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM); HOWEVER, THE REMEDY PART WAS NOT YET AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE I…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM); HOWEVER, THE REMEDY PART WAS NOT YET AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #11002769
Mileage unknown · Jun 21, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
SINCE I PURCHASED MY VEHICLE (ORIGINAL OWNER) IN FEBRUARY, 2005 I WOULD SMELL GAS FUMES WHEN I FILLED MY TANK WITH FUEL. STARTED NOT FILLING TANK ALL THE WAY TO AVOID FUEL ODOR IN MY VEHICLE. RECEIVED SAFETY RECALL NOTICE 6S41/NHTSA RECALL 16V-777 IN DECEMBER, 2016 FOR FUEL DELIVERY MODULE. CONTACTED AUTONATION FORD DEALERSHIP I…
Read full complaint
SINCE I PURCHASED MY VEHICLE (ORIGINAL OWNER) IN FEBRUARY, 2005 I WOULD SMELL GAS FUMES WHEN I FILLED MY TANK WITH FUEL. STARTED NOT FILLING TANK ALL THE WAY TO AVOID FUEL ODOR IN MY VEHICLE. RECEIVED SAFETY RECALL NOTICE 6S41/NHTSA RECALL 16V-777 IN DECEMBER, 2016 FOR FUEL DELIVERY MODULE. CONTACTED AUTONATION FORD DEALERSHIP IN FRISCO, TX AND WAS TOLD PART WAS NOT AVAILABLE. CONTACTED THEM AGAIN IN APRIL AND THEN JUNE, 2017. WAS TOLD, "PART NOT AVAILABLE". I EXPLAINED I SMELL A FUEL ODOR IN MY VEHICLE & THE RECALL LETTER FROM FORD STATES IF YOUR CAR EXHIBITS SYMPTOMS OF FUEL ODOR THEN IMMEDIATELY CONTACT DEALERSHIP FOR A SERVICE APPOINTMENT FOR DIAGNOSIS AND REPAIR RELATING TO THIS SAFETY RECALL. WAS TOLD, "PART NOT AVAILABLE". NOTHING DEALERSHIP CAN DO. I CONTACTED FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONS (866) 436-7332 ON 6/16/17 AND WAS GIVEN CASE # 12533821 BY RALPH. ONCE AGAIN CONTACTED AUTONATION IN FRISCO & WAS TOLD THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PART, THEREFORE, NOTHING CAN BE DONE. CALLED FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONS AGAIN AND THEN JENNIFER SAID, "NOTHING CAN BE DONE AT THIS TIME". FUEL ODOR IS STILL THERE IF I FILL UP MY FUEL TANK. VERY CONCERNEDI HAVE A LEAK BUT HAVE NOT NOTICED ANYTHING UNDER MY CAR ON GROUND.
NHTSA ODI #11000375
45,000 miles · Jun 13, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EMITTED A FUEL ODOR. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EMITTED A FUEL ODOR. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V777000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE). THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE BELL FORD DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO NHTSA. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 45,000. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10994919
Mileage unknown · Jun 6, 2017
Fuel/propulsion System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTIFICATION FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 17V777000 (FUEL/ PROPULSION SYSTEM). THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER, SOUTHBAY FORD/LINCOLN I…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTIFICATION FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 17V777000 (FUEL/ PROPULSION SYSTEM). THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE DEALER, SOUTHBAY FORD/LINCOLN IN HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REMEDY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM WHEN THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT.
NHTSA ODI #10993495
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