NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter59,294 miles · Jul 17, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHEN WITHOUT WARNING, I SUDDENLY HAD NO POWER AT ALL. MY ACCELERATION WAS GONE, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, HOWEVER EVERYTHING WAS RUNNING, AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS NOT ON. I PUMPED THE GAS PEDAL AND GOT NOTHING, FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE COMING UP ON MY RIGHT…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHEN WITHOUT WARNING, I SUDDENLY HAD NO POWER AT ALL. MY ACCELERATION WAS GONE, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, HOWEVER EVERYTHING WAS RUNNING, AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS NOT ON. I PUMPED THE GAS PEDAL AND GOT NOTHING, FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE COMING UP ON MY RIGHT, WHICH I WAS ABLE TO TURN INTO. AT THAT POINT I NOTICED THE "WRENCH" ICON LIGHTED UP ON THE DASHBOARD, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND SEE IF IT WAS A GLITCH, SINCE I HAD JUST HAD THE OIL CHANGED AT THE DEALERSHIP EARLIER IN THE DAY. AT LEAST I WAS HOPING THAT WAS THE CASE. THE CAR STARTED PERFECTLY, IT TOOK A FEW SECONDS TO SHAKE ITSELF, WHICH STILL WORRIED ME, AND PROCEEDED TO ACT NORMALLY AS I DROVE HOME, WHERE I CURRENTLY AM. I ADVISED MY SON ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND HE CHECKED UP ON AUTO DEFECTS ON THE FORD ESCAPE AND BROUGHT THEM TO MY ATTENTION, THAT IS WHY I AM REPORTING WHAT HAPPENED TO ME TODAY. I WILL BE BRINGING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEALERSHIP FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING DUE TO MY NEEDING THE USE OF MY VEHICLE FOR WORK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525281
460,000 miles · Jul 15, 2013
Electrical SystemPower Train
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AT 40 MPH AND MY VEHICLE JUST QUIT RUNNING (LOST POWER) AND I HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON WHEN THIS HAPPENED, IT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH FIGURE ON THE DASH. AFTER LETTING MY ESCAPE SIT FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS,IT STARTED RIGHT UP. AFTER IT STARTED, I PUT IT IN DRIVE AND…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AT 40 MPH AND MY VEHICLE JUST QUIT RUNNING (LOST POWER) AND I HAD TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON WHEN THIS HAPPENED, IT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH FIGURE ON THE DASH. AFTER LETTING MY ESCAPE SIT FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS,IT STARTED RIGHT UP. AFTER IT STARTED, I PUT IT IN DRIVE AND PROCEEDED TO GO DOWN THE ROAD AND AFTER ABOUT TWO MILES, MY VEHICLE QUIT RUNNING AGAIN. AFTER A FEW SECONDS OF SITTING, I STARTED IT UP AGAIN AND MANAGED TO GET INTO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THE PROBLEM WAS A THROTTLE PROBLEM AND REPLACED THE PART WHICH COST ME $342.00. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THIS HAD BEEN A PROBLEM WITH MANY ESCAPES AND SAID THIS PART MAY BE ON THE VERGE OF A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524958
56,700 miles · Jul 15, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED, THE VEHICLE INSTANTLY LOST POWER. GAS PEDAL WAS NON-RESPONSIVE. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE TO A SAFE SPOT OFF THE MAIN ROADWAY. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO PARK, IT IDLED ROUGHLY AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED A FEW SECONDS. TURNED THE VEHICLE BAC…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED, THE VEHICLE INSTANTLY LOST POWER. GAS PEDAL WAS NON-RESPONSIVE. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE TO A SAFE SPOT OFF THE MAIN ROADWAY. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO PARK, IT IDLED ROUGHLY AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED A FEW SECONDS. TURNED THE VEHICLE BACK ON AND WAS ABLE TO RETURN HOME WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. TOOK VEHICLE TO LOCAL DEALER SERVICE THE NEXT DAY AND WAS INFORMED THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM AND THAT THE REPAIR PART NEEDED IS CURRENTLY ON EXTENSIVE BACKORDER, MAYBE UP TO SEVERAL WEEKS. THE PRIMARY CONCERN OVER THIS TYPE OF ISSUE IS THAT IT COULD OCCUR TO SOMEONE WHO IS AT HIGHWAY SPEED AND WOULD BE UNABLE TO REACH A STOPPING POINT SAFELY. THE FACT THAT THE PART NEEDED TO FIX THE ISSUE IS ON EXTENSIVE BACKORDER INDICATES THAT THIS IS HARDLY AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524911
40,000 miles · Jul 12, 2013
EnginePower Train
WAS DRIVING TO THE AIRPORT AND CAR STALLED, PICTURE OF A WRENCH DISPLAY ON THE DASH. NEXT CASE WAS ABOUT 10 DAYS LATER, WAS DRIVING LOCAL AND CAR STALLED 5 TIMES BEFORE I MADE IT. BOTH PICTURE OF THE WRENCH AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. PARKED CAR UNTIL MORNING, STALLED TWICE ON THE WAY TO WORK THEN GOT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TO…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING TO THE AIRPORT AND CAR STALLED, PICTURE OF A WRENCH DISPLAY ON THE DASH. NEXT CASE WAS ABOUT 10 DAYS LATER, WAS DRIVING LOCAL AND CAR STALLED 5 TIMES BEFORE I MADE IT. BOTH PICTURE OF THE WRENCH AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. PARKED CAR UNTIL MORNING, STALLED TWICE ON THE WAY TO WORK THEN GOT IT TO THE DEALERSHIP TO BE FIXED. WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524559
48,784 miles · Jul 11, 2013
Power Train
I WAS ON MY WAY TO WORK AND WHEN I ACCELERATED TO PULL A SMALL INCLINE AND THERE WAS A LOUD POP, A REAL HARD JERK AND I HAD NO GEARS AT ALL. THE WRENCH INDICATOR CAME ON, I TURNED MY EMERGENCY FLASHER ON, SHUT ME ENGINE OFF. THANKS GOODNESS I WAS IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND THE SPEED WAS REDUCED OR ELSE I COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOU…
Read full complaint
I WAS ON MY WAY TO WORK AND WHEN I ACCELERATED TO PULL A SMALL INCLINE AND THERE WAS A LOUD POP, A REAL HARD JERK AND I HAD NO GEARS AT ALL. THE WRENCH INDICATOR CAME ON, I TURNED MY EMERGENCY FLASHER ON, SHUT ME ENGINE OFF. THANKS GOODNESS I WAS IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND THE SPEED WAS REDUCED OR ELSE I COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED. I RESTARTED MY ENGINE AND FINALLY WAS ABLE TO GET IT IN LOW TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE NEAREST WIDE SPOT TO GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE 4-LANE. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK IT TO A FORD DEALER IN MY AREA AND THEY KEPT IT 5 DAYS AND I WAS NOTIFIED ON TUESDAY, THAT THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG. IT IS STILL DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, SHIFTS HARD, HESITATES TO SHIFT, REVS UP TO 5000 - 5500 RPM'S BUT WON'T DO OVER 20 MPH. IT JERKS AND MAKE SOME TERRIBLE NOISES. ALSO YESTERDAY WHILE TRYING TO PULL A HILL NEAR MY HOME, IT WOULD NOT PULL IT AND I HAD A VEHICLE TRAVELING BEHIND ME AND ALL I COULD DO WAS PRAY THAT HE WOULDN'T HIT ME. I HAD TO PULL OF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, SHUT MY ENGINE OFF IN ORDER TO IT TO TAKE OFF AND PULL AGAIN. I HAVE TWO SMALL CHILDREN AND THIS VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO HAVE THEM IN ON THE HIGHWAY, IT ISN'T SAFE FOR ANYONE TO BE ON THE HIGHWAY IN. I HAVE DID SOME ONLINE RESEARCH AND HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON THE SAME MAKE AND MODEL ON MINE. FORD NEEDS TO RECALL THE VEHICLES AND FIX THEM BEFORE SOMEONE DOES GET SERIOUSLY HURT OR EVEN KILLED. ANY ASSISTANCE THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE IN THIS MATTER WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524327
41,000 miles · Jul 11, 2013
Power Train
VEHICLE LOST POWER WHILE TRAVELING ON HIGHWAY. THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. NAVIGATED CAR TO SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY, TURNED IGNITION OFF AND ON. CAR ACCELERATED NORMALLY TO 60 MPH, ONCE AGAIN LOST POWER AND WARNING LIGHT ONCE AGAIN ILLUMINATED. NAVIGATED CAR OFF HIGHWAY, TURNED IGNITION OFF AND ON. DROVE …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE LOST POWER WHILE TRAVELING ON HIGHWAY. THROTTLE CONTROL/POWER TRAIN WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. NAVIGATED CAR TO SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY, TURNED IGNITION OFF AND ON. CAR ACCELERATED NORMALLY TO 60 MPH, ONCE AGAIN LOST POWER AND WARNING LIGHT ONCE AGAIN ILLUMINATED. NAVIGATED CAR OFF HIGHWAY, TURNED IGNITION OFF AND ON. DROVE SLOWLY HOME, WARNING LIGHT DID NOT COME ON AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524299
55,000 miles · Jul 5, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
ON WED JULY 3, I WAS BACKING IT OUT OF GARAGE TO TAKE A TRIP TO SAN ANTONIO. I PULLED OUT ONTO THE STREET TO LEAVE WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I LOST ALL POWER. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH A TOOL WRENCH. I LOOKED IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID THROTTLE PROBLEM. I TURNED IT OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN AND IT DROVE PERFECT FOR HALF…
Read full complaint
ON WED JULY 3, I WAS BACKING IT OUT OF GARAGE TO TAKE A TRIP TO SAN ANTONIO. I PULLED OUT ONTO THE STREET TO LEAVE WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I LOST ALL POWER. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH A TOOL WRENCH. I LOOKED IN THE MANUAL AND IT SAID THROTTLE PROBLEM. I TURNED IT OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN AND IT DROVE PERFECT FOR HALF A BLOCK AND LOST POWER AGAIN. FINALLY I GOT IT AROUND THE BLOCK AND PUT IT BACK IN THE GARAGE WHERE IT SITS, UNTIL I CAN FIND OUT IF THIS IS A FORD DEFECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523333
52,200 miles · Jul 3, 2013
Power Train
DRIVING AND LOST POWER, WRENCH LIGHT WENT ON. DROVE HOME. NEXT DAY I DROVE TO DEALERSHIP AND ALMOST DIDN'T MAKE IT. KEPT LOSING POWER, SO HAD TO DRIVE ABOUT 20 MPH WITH FLASHERS ON. IT WAS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523008
4,000 miles · Jul 2, 2013
Power Train
VEHICLE HAS STALLED MULTIPLE TIMES AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS WHICH FORD APPARENTLY CALLS "LIMP MODE". ALL POWER TO THE MOTOR WAS GONE. AS THIS ONLY HAS HAPPENED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, I FEARED FOR MY LIFE THAT I WOULD GET REAR ENDED. APPARENTLY FORD KNOWS OF A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY BUT SINCE THE CAR NEVER KEEPS THE CODE IN THE C…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE HAS STALLED MULTIPLE TIMES AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS WHICH FORD APPARENTLY CALLS "LIMP MODE". ALL POWER TO THE MOTOR WAS GONE. AS THIS ONLY HAS HAPPENED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, I FEARED FOR MY LIFE THAT I WOULD GET REAR ENDED. APPARENTLY FORD KNOWS OF A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY BUT SINCE THE CAR NEVER KEEPS THE CODE IN THE COMPUTER, FORD WILL NOT DO ANY REPAIRS TO IT. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE AND AM WORRIED SOMEONE WILL BE KILLED BY THIS PROBLEM AND THE UNWILLINGNESS OF FORD TO REPAIR IT. ONCE I COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURN OFF THE MOTOR.... WAIT A MINUTE... AND RESTART THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED THREE TIMES TO ME ALREADY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522957
61,000 miles · Jul 2, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE CONTINUALLY HAS A DECREASE IN POWER. AFTER STEPPING ON GAS PEDAL STARTS TO "CHUG" ALONG SLOWLY EVENTUALLY SPEEDS BACK UP AND ENGAGES TO NORMAL SPEED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522900
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