← New search

2011 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2011 Ford Escape do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,061 reports with mileage · 255 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Steering. Review the 409 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 268 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 253 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

38 crash reports7 fire reports29 injury reports

Power Train complaints

268 reports
Clear category filter
20,800 miles · Dec 30, 2013
Power Train

DRIVING ON 5 LANRE PAVED ROAD AT 50 MPH WHEN ENGINE LOST POWER DID NOT STALL. NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. WAS ABLE TO SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL AND COAST INTO PARKING LOT SHUT OFF ENGINE AND RESTARTED PROBLEM WENT AWAY. TOOK TO DEALER 3 DAYS LATER WHERE THROTTLE BODY WAS REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10557867

48,784 miles · Dec 28, 2013
Power Train

I HAVE ALREADY FILED ONE COMPLAINT REGARDING THE THROTTLE BODY ON MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE. I HAD TO PAY OUT OF POCKET TO HAVE IT FIXED IN JULY AND 3 WEEKS AFTER I PAID TO HAVE IT FIXED IT STARTED MESSING UP AGAIN. THE THROTTLE BODY HASN'T GONE OUT AGAIN BUT IT BOGS DOWN LIKE IT IS GOING TO SHUT OFF AT ANY GIVEN SECOND. AND ALSO W…

Read full complaint

I HAVE ALREADY FILED ONE COMPLAINT REGARDING THE THROTTLE BODY ON MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE. I HAD TO PAY OUT OF POCKET TO HAVE IT FIXED IN JULY AND 3 WEEKS AFTER I PAID TO HAVE IT FIXED IT STARTED MESSING UP AGAIN. THE THROTTLE BODY HASN'T GONE OUT AGAIN BUT IT BOGS DOWN LIKE IT IS GOING TO SHUT OFF AT ANY GIVEN SECOND. AND ALSO WITH THE PART MALFUNCTIONING IT WREAKS HAVOC ON MY GAS MILEAGE. BEFORE THE PART MESSED UP AND WAS REPLACED I WAS AVERAGE ABOUT 370 MILES ON A TANK OF GAS AND NOW I AM ONLY GETTING ABOUT 266. THE PART IN UNDER WARRANTY BUT THEY WON'T REPLACE IT UNTIL IT GOES COMPLETELY OUT. IT ONLY HAS A 12 MONTH OR 12000 MILE WARRANTY ON IT AND I AM AFRAID THAT IT IS GOING TO GO OUT AFTER THE WARRANTY HAS EXPIRED AND I WILL BE LEFT FOOTING THE BILL AGAIN. ALSO WHEN IT BOGS DOWN THE SCENT OF RAW GAS IS OVERWHELMING AS IT FILLS THE CAB OF THE VEHICLE. I AM A MOTHER OF 2 AND THIS IS MY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND IT IS DANGEROUS TO HAVE MY CHILDREN IN THE VEHICLE. I AM AFRAID THAT IT WILL GO OUT AND I WILL BE HIT AND THE GAS FUMES ISN'T GOOD FOR THEM TO BE INHALING. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY FORD MOTOR COMPANY WON'T REPLACE THEM SINCE THEY ARE VERY AWARE THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10557582

80,000 miles · Dec 26, 2013
Power Train

CAR STALLED. WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. WE WERE GOING DOWN A ROAD THAT HAD NO PLACE TO PULL OVER. WE WERE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF CAR AND RESTARTED BUT WAS VERY SLOW TO START. WE TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK HOME AND IT DID IT SEVERAL MORE TIMES. CALLED LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND IS GOING TO COST OVER $4…

Read full complaint

CAR STALLED. WRENCH AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. WE WERE GOING DOWN A ROAD THAT HAD NO PLACE TO PULL OVER. WE WERE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. TURNED OFF CAR AND RESTARTED BUT WAS VERY SLOW TO START. WE TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK HOME AND IT DID IT SEVERAL MORE TIMES. CALLED LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND IS GOING TO COST OVER $400 TO FIX. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROBLEM AND THE PART SHOULD BE RECALLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10557256

72,000 miles · Dec 13, 2013
Power Train

WAS DRIVING 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND CAR STARTED TO JERK AND DECELERATED WITH GAS PEDAL NOT DOING ANYTHING. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE POWERTRAIN WRENCH LIGHT HAD COME ON THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. RESTARTED THE CAR A MINUTE LATER AND IT DROVE A FEW HUNDRED FEET BEFORE SAME THING HAPPENED AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON.…

Read full complaint

WAS DRIVING 2011 FORD ESCAPE AND CAR STARTED TO JERK AND DECELERATED WITH GAS PEDAL NOT DOING ANYTHING. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE POWERTRAIN WRENCH LIGHT HAD COME ON THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. RESTARTED THE CAR A MINUTE LATER AND IT DROVE A FEW HUNDRED FEET BEFORE SAME THING HAPPENED AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WILL GET CAR TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. I AM A LONG-TIME FORD OWNER. FORD NEEDS TO STEP TO THE PLATE AND ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10556020

46,700 miles · Dec 13, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

WHILE DAUGHTER DRIVING VEHICLE IN HOUSTON, DRIVING ON FREEWAY, APPROX. 65 MPH, VEHICLE LOST ENGINE ACCELERATION POWER, NO RESPONSE FROM GAS PEDAL, WARNING LIGHTS (WRENCH SYMBOL) ILLUMINATED. HAD TO COAST/IDLE ACROSS TRAFFIC LANES TO GET TO SHOULDER OUT OF TRAFFIC- VERY DANGEROUS AND SCARY - TURNED OFF ENGINE, RESTARTED, VEHICLE …

Read full complaint

WHILE DAUGHTER DRIVING VEHICLE IN HOUSTON, DRIVING ON FREEWAY, APPROX. 65 MPH, VEHICLE LOST ENGINE ACCELERATION POWER, NO RESPONSE FROM GAS PEDAL, WARNING LIGHTS (WRENCH SYMBOL) ILLUMINATED. HAD TO COAST/IDLE ACROSS TRAFFIC LANES TO GET TO SHOULDER OUT OF TRAFFIC- VERY DANGEROUS AND SCARY - TURNED OFF ENGINE, RESTARTED, VEHICLE THEN OPERATED AS NORMAL AT THE TIME, BUT EVENT HAS SINCE BEEN RECURRING. NOW HAS HAPPENED 6 OTHER TIMES... VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR ANY DRIVER, ESPECIALLY A YOUNG DRIVER. MIGHT ADD THAT THIS PARTICULAR MODEL IS VERY POPULAR WITH YOUNG ADULTS - YOU WILL SEE MANY IN COLLEGE TOWNS. VERY DANGEROUS. INTERNET RESEARCH REVEALS MANY COMPLAINTS AND PROBABLE CAUSE SUSPECTED TO BE THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION. MANUFACTURER MUST BE AWARE BY NOW. HAVING CAR REPAIRED - EXPECTING COST OF APPROXIMATELY $600 - $800. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10555940

55,000 miles · Dec 12, 2013
Power Train

WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE IT WILL RANDOMLY LOSE ALL POWER AND NO LONGER MOVE. I HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IN ORDER TO KEEP FROM GETTING HIT BECAUSE I CANNOT ACCELERATE. THIS IS EXTREMELY UNSAFE AND I WILL NOT ALLOW MY WIFE TO DRIVE THIS VEHICLE BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE. THE DEALERSHIP SAID IT IS A FAULTY TH…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE IT WILL RANDOMLY LOSE ALL POWER AND NO LONGER MOVE. I HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IN ORDER TO KEEP FROM GETTING HIT BECAUSE I CANNOT ACCELERATE. THIS IS EXTREMELY UNSAFE AND I WILL NOT ALLOW MY WIFE TO DRIVE THIS VEHICLE BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE. THE DEALERSHIP SAID IT IS A FAULTY THROTTLE BODY AND THEY HAVE SEEN THIS ISSUE 6 TIMES IN THE PAST 2 WEEKS!! FORD TELLS ME THAT I HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS OUT OF POCKET BECAUSE IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER POWER TRAIN WARRANTY. THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECALL! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10555850

32,740 miles · Dec 5, 2013
EnginePower Train

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY ON THE WAY HOME FROM WORK IN BUSY TRAFFIC, SUDDENLY THE ENGINE CAME TO AN IDLE AND A SMALL ICON OF A ?WRENCH? LIT UP ON THE DASHBOARD. AFTER TRYING TO MANEUVER THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THE BUSY HIGHWAY AT 5 MPH (ALMOST CAUSING AN ACCIDENT) I WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SHUT THE CAR OFF AND…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY ON THE WAY HOME FROM WORK IN BUSY TRAFFIC, SUDDENLY THE ENGINE CAME TO AN IDLE AND A SMALL ICON OF A ?WRENCH? LIT UP ON THE DASHBOARD. AFTER TRYING TO MANEUVER THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THE BUSY HIGHWAY AT 5 MPH (ALMOST CAUSING AN ACCIDENT) I WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I SHUT THE CAR OFF AND RESTARTED IT, THE ICON OF THE WRENCH WAS GONE AND THE CAR PROCEEDED TO RUN FINE. I'M REPORTING THIS BECAUSE I HAVE HEARD THIS HAPPEN TO OTHER PEOPLE AND IT WAS CAUSED BY A THROTTLE BODY MALFUNCTION. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION ON A BUSY HIGHWAY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10554902

29,129 miles · Nov 29, 2013
Power Train

LAST NIGHT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX. 55 MPH MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR SOUNDS SLOWED IMMEDIATELY TO LESS THAN 5 MPH. I MANAGED TO LET THE CAR CREEP INTO A LOCAL CAR TRANSMISSION REPAIR SHOP. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN FORWARD OR REVERSE. THIS MORNING I CALLED MY FORD DEALER WHO ASKED THAT I LEAVE THE KEYS …

Read full complaint

LAST NIGHT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROX. 55 MPH MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR SOUNDS SLOWED IMMEDIATELY TO LESS THAN 5 MPH. I MANAGED TO LET THE CAR CREEP INTO A LOCAL CAR TRANSMISSION REPAIR SHOP. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN FORWARD OR REVERSE. THIS MORNING I CALLED MY FORD DEALER WHO ASKED THAT I LEAVE THE KEYS WITH THE VEHICLE AND ARRANGE TO HAVE IT TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. UPON ARRIVING TO THE TRANSMISSION SHOP A SERVICEMAN SUGGESTED I TRY ENGAGING DRIVE AND REVERSE, I DID SO AND THE VEHICLE DID ENGAGE. I REPORTED THIS TO THE FORD DEALER PRIOR TO CALLING ROADSIDE TOWING AND STATED THAT I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE DRIVING THE VEHICLE UNTIL IT IS FIXED. THE DEALER SAID HE WOULD ADVISE ME AS SOON AS THEY INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10554111

26,384 miles · Nov 28, 2013
Power Train

I WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD AT 55 MPH, WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER AND BEGAN TO SLOW. I NOTICE THAT THE WRENCH ICON WAS LIT ON THE DISPLAY. THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT ONLY AT ABOUT 1000RPM AND STILL SLOWING DOWN. INCREASING THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO AFFECT ON THE CAR. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF THE ROAD ON TO A SIDE STREET. THE CAR WAS …

Read full complaint

I WAS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD AT 55 MPH, WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER AND BEGAN TO SLOW. I NOTICE THAT THE WRENCH ICON WAS LIT ON THE DISPLAY. THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT ONLY AT ABOUT 1000RPM AND STILL SLOWING DOWN. INCREASING THE GAS PEDAL HAD NO AFFECT ON THE CAR. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF THE ROAD ON TO A SIDE STREET. THE CAR WAS ABLE TO PULL ITSELF ALONG, BUT ONLY AT A SNAILS PACE. I STOPPED THE CAR AND SHUT ENGINE OFF FOR A MINUTE OR 2, RETRIED STARTING IT AND IT CRANKED SO I MADE IT HOME. THE CAR DONE THE VERY SAME THING THE NEXT NIGHT, THIS TIME DRIVING AT 65MPH ON A 4 LANE HIGHWAY.. THIS SOUNDS LIKE THE SAME PROBLEM OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED CONCERNING THE THROTTLE BODY. THIS VEHICLE IS TOO NEW FOR THESE PROBLEMS TO BE HAPPENING. A DANGEROUS SITUATION IN HEAVY TRAFFIC. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10554059

34,824 miles · Nov 25, 2013
Power Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE TRANSMISSION WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AS THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHAKE. THE SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND ONCE RESTARTED, IT FUNCTIONED PROPERLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOS…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, THE TRANSMISSION WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AS THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SHAKE. THE SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND ONCE RESTARTED, IT FUNCTIONED PROPERLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 34,824.

NHTSA ODI #10553773

Official recalls

2

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 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.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

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

4

DP15001 · 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.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems