NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
253 reportsClear category filter38,700 miles · May 31, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING DOWN I-55 IN ST. LOUIS, MY CAR LOST POWER. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT THE THROTTLE WAS INOPERATIVE. TURNED THE KEY OFF, WAITED A FEW SECONDS, AND STARTED THE CAR. IT RAN FINE, LIKE REBOOTING A COMPUTER. THIS HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE ON SIDE STREETS AND IT HAPPENED…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN I-55 IN ST. LOUIS, MY CAR LOST POWER. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT THE THROTTLE WAS INOPERATIVE. TURNED THE KEY OFF, WAITED A FEW SECONDS, AND STARTED THE CAR. IT RAN FINE, LIKE REBOOTING A COMPUTER. THIS HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE ON SIDE STREETS AND IT HAPPENED ONE MORE TIME BEFORE I GOT HOME ON I-55. WENT TO THE DEALER WITH CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON. $98 FOR DIAGNOSIS, THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM. BACK ORDER FOR OVER 30 DAYS, SO THIS MUST BE A BIGGER PROBLEM. THEY CLEANED THE THROTTLE BODY AND FUEL SYSTEM, ANOTHER $140, WHICH THEY SAID WOULD HELP UNTIL THE PART CAME IN. CAR JUST OUT OF WARRANTY 2700 MILES. KINDA SCARY TO LOSE POWER WHEN YOUR IN TRAFFIC. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514580
64,117 miles · May 31, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING ON INTERSTATE AT 65MPH AND VEHICLE JUST NO LONGER HAD ANY. ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I PRESSED REPEATEDLY AS VEHICLES WERE BEHIND AND TO THE LEFT OF ME. NO RESPONSE I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY CUT HARD RIGHT OFF INTERSTATE TO SIDE OF ROAD, VEHICLE WAS RUNNING ROUGH AND ENGINE REPAIR INDICATOR CAME ON STILL NO ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I …
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON INTERSTATE AT 65MPH AND VEHICLE JUST NO LONGER HAD ANY. ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I PRESSED REPEATEDLY AS VEHICLES WERE BEHIND AND TO THE LEFT OF ME. NO RESPONSE I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY CUT HARD RIGHT OFF INTERSTATE TO SIDE OF ROAD, VEHICLE WAS RUNNING ROUGH AND ENGINE REPAIR INDICATOR CAME ON STILL NO ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I PUT VEHICLE IN PARK TURNED OFF IGNITION AND RESTARTED. VEHICLE RESTARTED WILL ENGINE INDICATOR STILL ON BUT NOW HAD ACCELERATOR RESPONSE. BROUGHT TO DEALER DIAGNOSED AS DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY, IS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER BECAUSE OF FAILURES AND WAS TOLD IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR THAT PART TO GO, ESPECIALLY WILL SO FEW MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514425
37,000 miles · May 29, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED SLOWING DOWN AND MY GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT ACCELERATE MY CAR. WHEN I PULLED OVER, MY CAR WAS JUMPING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. ONCE I TOOK IT TO 2 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS, GOT STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD 4 TIMES, PAID $80 FOR THEM TO RUN SOME TESTS AND TELL ME THERE W…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED SLOWING DOWN AND MY GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT ACCELERATE MY CAR. WHEN I PULLED OVER, MY CAR WAS JUMPING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. ONCE I TOOK IT TO 2 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS, GOT STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD 4 TIMES, PAID $80 FOR THEM TO RUN SOME TESTS AND TELL ME THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY CAR AT THE FIRST DEALERSHIP, THE SECOND DEALERSHIP THEN SPECULATED THAT IT WAS MY THROTTLE BODY. WHEN I ASKED THEM TO FIX IT, I WAS TOLD THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER AND THERE WAS NO TELLING HOW LONG IT WOULD BE BEFORE THEY GOT THE PART IN. SO THEY SENT ME AWAY IN MY BROKEN CAR AND TOLD ME THE PROBLEM WOULD PROBABLY START OCCURRING MORE FREQUENTLY UNTIL IT WAS FIXED. IF THAT IS NOT A CLUE TO THE FORD COMPANY THAT THEY NEED TO DO A RECALL, THEN I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS. EVERYONE IS OBVIOUSLY EXPERIENCING THESE PROBLEMS AND IT HAPPENED TO ME 1,000 MILES OUTSIDE OF MY WARRANTY. I AM IRATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *TR ## VIN FAILED ##
NHTSA ODI #10514159
34,000 miles · May 26, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Fuel/propulsion System
I WAS DRIVING TO WORK ON A SATURDAY WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STOPPED WORKING. COMPLETELY TURNED OFF AND I HAD TO FIND A WAY TO QUICKLY PULL THE VEHICLE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I WAITED SEVERAL MINUTES, TRIED TO START THE CAR AGAIN WITH NO SUCCESS.THEN I CALLED MY INSURANCE COMPANY AND TOWED THE CAR TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALER…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING TO WORK ON A SATURDAY WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STOPPED WORKING. COMPLETELY TURNED OFF AND I HAD TO FIND A WAY TO QUICKLY PULL THE VEHICLE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I WAITED SEVERAL MINUTES, TRIED TO START THE CAR AGAIN WITH NO SUCCESS.THEN I CALLED MY INSURANCE COMPANY AND TOWED THE CAR TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP. I WAS TOLD THERE WAS NOTING WRONG WITH THE CAR, JUST THE FUEL INJECTION NEEDED TO BE CLEANED. SEVERAL MONTHS LATER , I EXPERIENCED THE SAME EPISODE. MY HUSBAND BOTH SOME FUEL INJECTION CLEANER AGAIN, BUT THE CAR STILL STOLES. I DO DRIVE A LOT WITH TWO CHILDREN, AND I AM CONSTANTLY CONCERN SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN ON THE ROAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513567
15,500 miles · May 19, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN BETWEEN 25 AND 40 MPH AND COMPLETE LOSS OF DRIVE POWER/SPEED OCCURRED (VEHICLE ABRUPTLY SLOWS TO ~4 MPH). IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO GET VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD TO AVOID A COLLISION. THIS HAS OCCURRED 4 TIMES IN THE PAST 3 WEEKS (TWO INCIDENTS ON 5/19/13). VEHICLE WILL BE TAKEN TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION/REP…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN BETWEEN 25 AND 40 MPH AND COMPLETE LOSS OF DRIVE POWER/SPEED OCCURRED (VEHICLE ABRUPTLY SLOWS TO ~4 MPH). IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO GET VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD TO AVOID A COLLISION. THIS HAS OCCURRED 4 TIMES IN THE PAST 3 WEEKS (TWO INCIDENTS ON 5/19/13). VEHICLE WILL BE TAKEN TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION/REPAIR WEEK OF 5/19/13. ENGINE STAYS RUNNING AT IDLE, BUT VERY ROUGH WHEN IN DRIVE. IF PLACED IN NEUTRAL, ENGINE RUNS, BUT WILL NOT REV UP WITH GAS PEDAL. NO THROTTLE RESPONSE WHEN ISSUE OCCURS. AFTER KEY OFF AND 30 SECOND WAIT AND RESTART, VEHICLE PERFORMS AS INTENDED. NO MIL LIGHTS ON DASHBOARD. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512711
46,000 miles · May 16, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
AS I WAS DRIVING, MY VEHICLE WITH NO WARNING LOST POWER. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT ROUGHLY. I COULD PRESS THE ACCELERATOR, BUT IT NO LONGER CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO ACCELERATE. AFTER WAITING FOR HELP TO ARRIVE, I CUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN TRIED TO RESTART. THE VEHICLE STARTED FINE. I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC WHO THOUGHT THE…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING, MY VEHICLE WITH NO WARNING LOST POWER. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT ROUGHLY. I COULD PRESS THE ACCELERATOR, BUT IT NO LONGER CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO ACCELERATE. AFTER WAITING FOR HELP TO ARRIVE, I CUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN TRIED TO RESTART. THE VEHICLE STARTED FINE. I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC WHO THOUGHT THE THROTTLE BOX MAY BE GUNKED UP. I PAID TO HAVE IT CLEANED OUT AND FOR A GAS ADDITIVE TO DECREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, MY ESCAPE STALLED AGAIN IN THE SAME WAY AND WITH THE SAME RESULTS. IT HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES NOW SINCE MAY 2ND. I REALIZE THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE BODY IN FORD ESCAPES INCLUDING THE 2011 MODEL. WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE THROTTLE BODY FAILURE SITUATIONS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM EXPERIENCING WITH MY VEHICLE. I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO BE IN CURB LANES AND ABLE TO MANEUVER SAFELY OFF THE ROAD EACH OF THE TIMES THIS HAS HAPPENED. IF I HAPPEN TO BE IN A CENTER HIGHWAY LANE WHEN IT HAPPENS, I MAY NOT BE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTART MY VEHICLE SAFELY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512350
44,000 miles · May 9, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING THE CAR IN FLORIDA GOING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH. THE RED LIGHT WITH A WRENCH CAME ON AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. SHE FINALLY GOT PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND CALLED THE DEALERSHIP IN ORLANDO. THEY TOLD HER IT COULD BE A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM OR IT COULD JUST BE TRYING TO RESET. THEY …
Read full complaint
MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING THE CAR IN FLORIDA GOING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH. THE RED LIGHT WITH A WRENCH CAME ON AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. SHE FINALLY GOT PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND CALLED THE DEALERSHIP IN ORLANDO. THEY TOLD HER IT COULD BE A THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM OR IT COULD JUST BE TRYING TO RESET. THEY SUGGESTED SHE TURN EVERYTHING OFF (WHICH SHE ALREADY HAD) AND RESTART IN A FEW MINUTES. SHE RESTARTED AND EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE. ABOUT A WEEK LATER, THE SAME THING HAPPENED, ONLY WORSE, AND SHE TOOK THE CAR IN TO THE DEALERSHIP. IT SEEMED TO HAPPEN AS SHE WAS TURNING A CORNER. SHE HAD TO RESTART THE CAR 3 OR 4 TIMES ON THE WAY TO THE DEALERSHIP. THEY RAN A DIAGNOSTIC TEST AND SAID THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. SO FAR, IT'S BEEN A WEEK AND IT IS STILL NOT FIXED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FIND THE PART. SHE HAS HAD TO RENT A CAR UNTIL THE ESCAPE IS FIXED. ANOTHER EXPENSE! EVIDENTLY, 45,000 OF THESE THROTTLE BODIES HAVE BEEN REPLACED AND THEY ARE USING THE PARTS UP AS FAST AS THEY CAN MAKE THEM. HOW SAFE CAN THIS BE???!!! WE PLAN TO HAVE IT REPAIRED, BUT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS FORD PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10511298
49,325 miles · Apr 30, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ON 27 APRIL 2013 AT APPROXIMATELY 0930, I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 70MPH ON I-475 ON MY WAY FROM MACON, GA TO ATLANTA, GA WHEN I LOST ALL POWER AND CONTROL OF MY GAS PEDAL/THROTTLE BODY SYSTEM. I FELT A JERKING MOTION OF THE VEHICLE, IT BEGAN TO DECELERATE, AND I NOTICED THE WRENCH ICON LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ON THE DA…
Read full complaint
ON 27 APRIL 2013 AT APPROXIMATELY 0930, I WAS DRIVING MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE AT 70MPH ON I-475 ON MY WAY FROM MACON, GA TO ATLANTA, GA WHEN I LOST ALL POWER AND CONTROL OF MY GAS PEDAL/THROTTLE BODY SYSTEM. I FELT A JERKING MOTION OF THE VEHICLE, IT BEGAN TO DECELERATE, AND I NOTICED THE WRENCH ICON LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ON THE DASH. I DID NOT LOSE POWER TO THE REST OF MY VEHICLE, ONLY THE ABILITY OF THE GAS PEDAL TO ACCELERATE. I WAS ABLE TO COAST ACROSS A LANE OF TRAFFIC AND COME TO A STOP ON THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE. AFTER TURNING OFF THE CAR, I WAS ABLE TO RESTART IT, THE WARNING LIGHT TURNED OFF, AND I ONCE AGAIN HAD POWER TO THE GAS PEDAL. AFTER DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MORE MILES, THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN. I WAS THEN ABLE TO GET MY VEHICLE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP, WHO TOLD ME I HAD A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. THEY SAID THE THROTTLE WAS STICKING IN THE CLOSED POSITION AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. WITH SO MANY VEHICLES HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM, I FEEL THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY CONCERN. I AM EXTREMELY LUCKY THE INTERSTATE WAS NOT BUSY AT THE TIME MY VEHICLE STALLED TWICE AND MY FAMILY WAS NOT SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED FROM A REAR-END COLLISON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10510047
40,600 miles · Apr 19, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainUnknown Or Other
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A ROAD GOING APPROX. 50MPH, I SUDDENLY, AND WITHOUT WARNING, LOST POWER TO THE VEHICLE. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES, IT WOULD TEND TO LUNGE FORWARD. ONCE STOPPED, I PLACED IN PARK, SHUT OFF ENGINE THE ATTEMPTED TO START UP AGAIN. IT DID START UP, HOWEVER, IT HAPPENED 2 MOR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A ROAD GOING APPROX. 50MPH, I SUDDENLY, AND WITHOUT WARNING, LOST POWER TO THE VEHICLE. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES, IT WOULD TEND TO LUNGE FORWARD. ONCE STOPPED, I PLACED IN PARK, SHUT OFF ENGINE THE ATTEMPTED TO START UP AGAIN. IT DID START UP, HOWEVER, IT HAPPENED 2 MORE TIMES LATER THAT DAY. I WOULD HATE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN WHILE TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN WITH ONCOMING TRAFFIC....COULD BE DEADLY!!! FORD NEEDS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND MAKE THIS RIGHT AS I HAVE NOW READ FAR TOO MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS EXACT SAME THING. THE NEXT OCCURRENCE COULD BE INJURY OR EVEN DEATH. I SHOULD NOTE THAT AS OF 1 WEEK LATER, I HAVE NOT HAD THE PROBLEM FIXED YET AND THE INCIDENT DESCRIBED ABOVE HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST 2 TIMES PER DAY NOW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508861
47,000 miles · Apr 19, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I WAS TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 70 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY JUST BEGAN SLOWING DOWN. THE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON BUT DID NOT MAKE A NOISE TO INDICATE A PROBLEM. THE GAS PEDAL WOULD NOT WORK. I WAS ABLE TO SAFELY VEER OFF TO THE SHOULDER BECAUSE, LUCKILY, I WAS IN THE SLOW LANE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508827
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