NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter60,400 miles · Sep 30, 2013
Power Train
AS I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 10 @ 70 MPH OVER LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN NEAR NEW ORLEANS, MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE STALLED; I LOST ALL POWER. ACCELERATOR WAS UNRESPONSIVE. I MANAGED TO PULL OVER AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED AND IT STARTED UP, RUNNING NORMALLY AGAIN FOR ABOUT 2 MILES, WHEN THE PROBLEM RECURRED. THE WRENCH SYMBO…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 10 @ 70 MPH OVER LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN NEAR NEW ORLEANS, MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE STALLED; I LOST ALL POWER. ACCELERATOR WAS UNRESPONSIVE. I MANAGED TO PULL OVER AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. I RESTARTED AND IT STARTED UP, RUNNING NORMALLY AGAIN FOR ABOUT 2 MILES, WHEN THE PROBLEM RECURRED. THE WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED WITH THE STALL AND THEN DISAPPEARED ONCE I RESTARTED, THOUGH THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND REMAINED ON WHEN I RESTARTED. I ALSO NOTICED AT TIMES I HAD TO REALLY HOLD DOWN THE BRAKE TO PREVENT THE VEHICLE FROM SURGING FORWARD ON ITS OWN. THE PROBLEM KEPT OCCURRING EVERY FEW MILES, AND I REPEATED THE SAME PROCEDURE. I ELECTED TO KEEP ATTEMPTING TRAVEL; THE PROBLEM WAS INTERMITTENT AND I WAS IN AN UNSAVORY SECTION OF EASTERN NEW ORLEANS. SOMETIMES THE CAR WOULD GO 5 MILES, SOMETIMES 5 BLOCKS, SOMETIMES 5 FEET. I NERVOUSLY MANAGED TO GET HOME, AND AFTER RESEARCHING ONLINE I FOUND NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FROM OTHERS WITH FORD ESCAPES, AS RECENTLY AS 2 DAYS AGO (SEP. 28, 2013), DETAILING THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM. SOME PEOPLE WHO HAD THESE IDENTICAL ISSUES RESOLVED SAID THE FORD SERVICE DEPARTMENTS CLAIMED IT WAS THE "THROTTLE BODY." I HAVE ONLY EVER TAKEN THIS VEHICLE FOR ALL SERVICE, ALWAYS ON TIME, TO THE FORD DEALER WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED IN MANDEVILLE, LA. APPARENTLY THIS "THROTTLE BODY" ISSUE IS COMMON AND CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE NHTSA. THESE VEHICLES SHOULD ALL IMMEDIATELY BE RECALLED. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL A FATAL CRASH OCCURS BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. THE AUTOMATIC SURGE PROBLEM IS ABSOLUTELY LETHAL. I'M GOING TO A FORD SERVICE CENTER IN THE MORNING, BUT AM PREPARED TO BE SERVED WITH THE $600-$1200 "THROTTLE BODY" REPAIR BILL. I FOUND THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.CONSUMERAFFAIRS.COM/AUTOMOTIVE/FORD_ESCAPE.HTM SEARCH "THROTTLE BODY" & YOU'LL FIND NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS VERY SAME ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546337
44,000 miles · Sep 27, 2013
Power Train
WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHILE MY WIFE WAS DRIVING HER 2011 ESCAPE IN TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY AND THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP MODE". IF YOU ARE NOT EXPECTING THE ISSUE (AND WHO WOULD BE) IT IS DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER A FAILING VEHICLE TO THE SHOULDER WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY. AFTER THE CAR WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED THE ISSUE CLEARED. INVEST…
Read full complaint
WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON WHILE MY WIFE WAS DRIVING HER 2011 ESCAPE IN TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY AND THE CAR WENT INTO "LIMP MODE". IF YOU ARE NOT EXPECTING THE ISSUE (AND WHO WOULD BE) IT IS DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER A FAILING VEHICLE TO THE SHOULDER WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY. AFTER THE CAR WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED THE ISSUE CLEARED. INVESTIGATING THIS AM I SEE THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. THE CAR HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE REPAIR SHOP TO CONFIRM THE PROBLEM YET. IF THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE AND FORD IS OBVIOUSLY AWARE, THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY CONCERN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10545619
40,200 miles · Sep 23, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, MY SUV JERKED SLIGHTLY AND THEN JUST DECELERATED, AND I COULD NOT MAINTAIN SPEED. I HAD TO CROSS OVER 3 LANES TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE SUV OFF. THERE WAS NO WARNING, AND I HAD NOT APPLIED THE BREAK. I NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE DASHBOARD. I WAITED A MINUTE AND TURNED THE SUV …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, MY SUV JERKED SLIGHTLY AND THEN JUST DECELERATED, AND I COULD NOT MAINTAIN SPEED. I HAD TO CROSS OVER 3 LANES TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE SUV OFF. THERE WAS NO WARNING, AND I HAD NOT APPLIED THE BREAK. I NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON THE DASHBOARD. I WAITED A MINUTE AND TURNED THE SUV ON AGAIN. I WAS ABLE TO GET TO MY DESTINATION, HOWEVER, DURING THIS TRIP, THE SUV JERKED SLIGHTLY AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME THERE WAS A SLIGHT ACCELERATION. I WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN A SAFE SPEED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TRIP, AS IT ONLY LASTED FOR A COUPLE SECONDS. I CONTACTED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THE CAR AND WHERE I REGULARLY TAKE THE CAR FOR MAINTENANCE. THE SERVICEMAN KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS WHEN I DESCRIBED THE PROBLEMS I WAS HAVING. HE SUGGESTED I BRING THE CAR IN FOR SERVICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, AND THEY REPLACED THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE. I WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, BUT SINCE I HAD AN EXTENDED WARRANTY, THEY WOULD ONLY CHARGE ME $100.00. WHEN I PICKED UP THE CAR, I ACTUALLY PAID $106.00, AND I WAS NEVER INFORMED THAT THIS WAS A RECALLED PART. I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ANYTHING, AS FORD WAS WELL AWARE THAT THIS PART WAS DEFECTIVE AND HAVE BEEN FOR MANY MONTHS NOW.
NHTSA ODI #10544918
25,000 miles · Sep 21, 2013
Power Train
I WAS BACKING OUT OF A PARKING PLACE. THE ENGINE BEGAN TO CUT OUT. PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR HAD NO EFFECT. EVEN THOUGH THE ENGINE WAS STILL ON, THE CAR WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. I WAS ABLE TO GET BACK INTO THE PARKING SPACE AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. IN A FEW MINUTES, I TRIED TO START IT AGAIN AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP. I WAS …
Read full complaint
I WAS BACKING OUT OF A PARKING PLACE. THE ENGINE BEGAN TO CUT OUT. PRESSING ON THE ACCELERATOR HAD NO EFFECT. EVEN THOUGH THE ENGINE WAS STILL ON, THE CAR WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. I WAS ABLE TO GET BACK INTO THE PARKING SPACE AND TURNED THE CAR OFF. IN A FEW MINUTES, I TRIED TO START IT AGAIN AND IT STARTED RIGHT UP. I WAS VERY LOW ON GAS AT THE TIME SO I ASSUMED THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. I FILLED UP WITH GAS AND IT RAN OKAY FOR ANOTHER 5 DAYS. ON 9/18, I WAS DRIVING DOWN A 4-LANE STREET AND IT SUDDENLY BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN AND WOULD NOT RESPOND TO ACCELERATION. I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. CUT IT OFF, RESTARTED IT AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE BACK TO MY OFFICE PARKING LOT. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY WHICH MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE CAR DRIVES. I REALIZED THIS PROBLEM HAD BEEN AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CAR FOR AWHILE BEFORE IT FINALLY GOT BAD ENOUGH TO GET MY ATTENTION.
NHTSA ODI #10544720
2,000 miles · Sep 16, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE JERKED AND THEN ACCELERATED RAPIDLY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER A FEW MONTHS LATER BECAUSE THE TRANSMISSIONS WARNING LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE JERKED AND THEN ACCELERATED RAPIDLY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER A FEW MONTHS LATER BECAUSE THE TRANSMISSIONS WARNING LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 2,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10543802
47,000 miles · Sep 12, 2013
Power Train
FIRST TIME, DRIVING VEHICLE NO FASTER THAN 40MPH WHEN IT SUDDENLY STOPS WORKING, WRENCH LIGHT ON DASH APPEARS. NO POWER TO VEHICLE. COAST TO PULL OVER, RESTART VEHICLE. HAPPENED ON FREEWAY TWO DAYS LATER. DRIVING ABOUT 65MPH, CAR STOPS WORKING, ALL POWER LOST. WRENCH LIGHT APPEARS. COAST TO PULL OVER, RESTART VEHICLE. NO CODE…
Read full complaint
FIRST TIME, DRIVING VEHICLE NO FASTER THAN 40MPH WHEN IT SUDDENLY STOPS WORKING, WRENCH LIGHT ON DASH APPEARS. NO POWER TO VEHICLE. COAST TO PULL OVER, RESTART VEHICLE. HAPPENED ON FREEWAY TWO DAYS LATER. DRIVING ABOUT 65MPH, CAR STOPS WORKING, ALL POWER LOST. WRENCH LIGHT APPEARS. COAST TO PULL OVER, RESTART VEHICLE. NO CODES APPEAR TO BE LISTED IN VEHICLE "BRAIN" THAT FORD WAS ABLE TO RETRIEVE. DEALER UNABLE TO REPLICATE ISSUE. HAVE SEEN MANY OTHERS HAVING VERY SAME ISSUE. FORD UNABLE TO FIX. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10543304
42,525 miles · Sep 11, 2013
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE TO WORK, MY 2011 FORD JUST STOPPED ON ME WITHOUT ANY WARNING. THANK GOD I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE, BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER MY WAY INTO THE EMERGENCY LANE, AND OUT OF DANGER. HAD I BEEN IN A MIDDLE LANE, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE MAKING A COMPLAINT RIGHT NOW. IT WAS REALLY A SCARY FEELING. AFTER…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE TO WORK, MY 2011 FORD JUST STOPPED ON ME WITHOUT ANY WARNING. THANK GOD I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE, BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER MY WAY INTO THE EMERGENCY LANE, AND OUT OF DANGER. HAD I BEEN IN A MIDDLE LANE, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE MAKING A COMPLAINT RIGHT NOW. IT WAS REALLY A SCARY FEELING. AFTER GETTING MY COMPOSURE BACK, I NOTICED THAT THE THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN LIGHT WAS ON, AND WHEN I STARTED THE CAR BACK UP, THE LIGHT WENT OFF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10543191
54,955 miles · Sep 10, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING ALONG AND CAR QUIT RUNNING, NO GAS, NO POWER. HAD TO PULL OVER, WAITED 5 MIN AND STARTED ENGINE AND WAS ABLE TO GET HOME SAFELY. CAR RAN ROUGH FOR A WHILE AFTERWARD. THE THROTTLE BODY WAS DEFECTIVE AND NOT COVERED UNDER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10542806
35,000 miles · Sep 9, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE LOST POWER. WOULD ONLY IDLE. WRENCH LIGHT ILLUMINATED. HAD TO SHUT VEHICLE OFF AND RESTART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10542785
49,500 miles · Sep 6, 2013
Power Train
MY WIFE AND I WERE TRAVELLING ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY APPROXIMATELY 3 HOURS FROM OUR HOME. WITH NO NOTICE, OUR VEHICLE LOST POWER AND A DASHBOARD LIGHT ILLUMINATED WHICH WAS THE POWERTRAIN FAULT DETECTION WARNING LIGHT. I PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE AND TURNED THE ENGINE OFF. THE VEHICLE RE-STARTED …
Read full complaint
MY WIFE AND I WERE TRAVELLING ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY APPROXIMATELY 3 HOURS FROM OUR HOME. WITH NO NOTICE, OUR VEHICLE LOST POWER AND A DASHBOARD LIGHT ILLUMINATED WHICH WAS THE POWERTRAIN FAULT DETECTION WARNING LIGHT. I PULLED THE VEHICLE OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE AND TURNED THE ENGINE OFF. THE VEHICLE RE-STARTED WITH NO WARNING DETECTION LIGHT AND THE VEHICLE RUNNING PROPERLY. AFTER ABOUT 50 MILES OF ADDITIONAL DRIVING, THE VEHICLE REPEATED THE SAME ISSUE. AFTER PULLING THE VEHICLE OVER TO THE EMERGENCY LANE OF THE INTERSTATE AND SHUTTING THE ENGINE OFF, THE ENGINE RE-STARTED AGAIN WITH NO LIGHT ILLUMINATED EXCEPT A SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT. I DROVE IT TO THE NEAREST EXIT AND FORTUNATELY FOUND A FORD DEALER. THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY OF MY VEHICLE AND TOLD ME THE THROTTLE WAS STICKING OPEN AND THIS WAS CAUSING THE VEHICLE'S COMPUTER TO SHUT DOWN THE POWER. WHEN TRAVELLING ON AN INTERSTATE, I FOUND THIS PROBLEM TO BE VERY DANGEROUS. FORTUNATELY, I DID NOT HAVE AN ACCIDENT DUE TO THIS PROBLEM.
NHTSA ODI #10542222
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