← 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
52,000 miles · Jun 28, 2013
EnginePower Train

VEHICLE WOULD LOOSE ALL POWER WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. WOULD HAVE TO PULL OVER TURN ENGINE OFF AND BACK ON TO RESET. WRENCH LIGHT WOULD COME ON BUT WOULD RESET AFTER VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF. TOOK TO SHOP AND NEEDED A NEW THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522336

29,401 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Power Train

VEHICLE LOST PROPULSION AT ABOUT 30-35 MPH AND DRIVER WAS BARELY ABLE TO GET IT OFF MAIN ROAD. A VEHICLE BEHIND IT HAD TO BRAKE TO AVOID REAR-END COLLISION. WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND HAD TO BE TOWED. SUBSEQUENTLY VEHICLE FUNCTIONED AGAIN, BUT ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER THE SAME THING HAPPENED -- CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND F…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE LOST PROPULSION AT ABOUT 30-35 MPH AND DRIVER WAS BARELY ABLE TO GET IT OFF MAIN ROAD. A VEHICLE BEHIND IT HAD TO BRAKE TO AVOID REAR-END COLLISION. WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND HAD TO BE TOWED. SUBSEQUENTLY VEHICLE FUNCTIONED AGAIN, BUT ABOUT 2 WEEKS LATER THE SAME THING HAPPENED -- CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND FELT LIKE IT WAS SLIPPING BETWEEN GEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY A FORD DEALER REPAIR DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY HAD FAILED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522319

38,000 miles · Jun 28, 2013
Power Train

AS I BEGAN ACCELERATING FROM A STOP I REACHED ABOUT 15MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND BEGAN TO VIBRATE VIOLENTLY.THE WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE LIGHT REMAINS ON. I WAS ABLE TO GUIDE THE CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD IT TOWED TO THE SHOP.THE MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE…

Read full complaint

AS I BEGAN ACCELERATING FROM A STOP I REACHED ABOUT 15MPH WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY LOST POWER AND BEGAN TO VIBRATE VIOLENTLY.THE WRENCH LIGHT AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE ENGINE LIGHT REMAINS ON. I WAS ABLE TO GUIDE THE CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD IT TOWED TO THE SHOP.THE MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY AND THE PARTS ARE ON BACKORDER FROM FORD AND HE WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO ETA. THE MECHANIC WAS ALSO TOLD THAT IT COULD TAKE UP TO A YEAR!!! HOW TO I PAY A CAR NOTE FOR A USELESS CAR AND HOW DO I GET TO WORK?! THE CAR IS NOT DRIVABLE AND THE FORD ESCAPES THAT ARE STILL ON THE ROAD ARE A DANGER TO ALL WITHOUT THIS PROBLEM BEING FIXED! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10522275

19,800 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingPower Train

AT APPROX. 19,800 MILES WAS DRIVING ALONG THE INTERSTATE AND THE ESCAPE STARTED LOSING POWER. I WENT FROM RUNNING 75 MPH TO 40 MPH. THE ESCAPE NOW HAS APPROX. 33,000 MILES AND IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. AS OF APRIL 28, 2013 IT HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR A TOTAL OF 46 DAYS AND HAS HAD 8 REPAIR ATTEMPTS. NO WARNING LIGHTS NOR THE CHE…

Read full complaint

AT APPROX. 19,800 MILES WAS DRIVING ALONG THE INTERSTATE AND THE ESCAPE STARTED LOSING POWER. I WENT FROM RUNNING 75 MPH TO 40 MPH. THE ESCAPE NOW HAS APPROX. 33,000 MILES AND IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. AS OF APRIL 28, 2013 IT HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR A TOTAL OF 46 DAYS AND HAS HAD 8 REPAIR ATTEMPTS. NO WARNING LIGHTS NOR THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT HAS EVER COME ON. THIS ESCAPE CLUNKS, SURGES, LOSES POWER, CUT'S OFF AND AT TIMES WILL NOT EVEN CRANK. THE TRANSMISSIONS HAS BEEN REPROGRAMMED, THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASY - THROTTLE BODY AIR INTAKE HAS BEEN REPLACED, THE VAPOR MANAGEMENT VALVE HAS BEEN REPLACED, THE TORQUE CONVERTOR HAS BEEN REPLACED. LOST IN ARBITRATION WITH THE BBB BECAUSE FORD SAID IN THEIR LAST REPAIR ATTEMPT THAT THE VEHICLE HAS OPERATING AS NORMAL. JUNE 5, 2013 CAR WAS BACK IN SHOP BECAUSE AT 7:45 AM STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT, WHILE MY FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE THE RPM'S SURGED UP TO 4000, COULD HARDLY KEEP IT FROM RUNNING THE LIGHT, ONCE THE LIGHT CHANGED TOOK OFF AND WITHIN 4 TENTHS OF A MILE LOST POWER AND SHUT OFF. IT TOOK ME 8 MINUTES TO GET IT TO CRANK, DROVE ABOUT 15 MILES, SURGING ALL THE WAY, AND THE CAR DIED AGAIN, TAKING ME 10 MINUTES TO GET IT TO CRANK. TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE SHOP, THEY KEPT IT FOR 7 DAYS, RETURNED IT AND SAID THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE PROBLEM. JUNE 20, 2013 TRIED TO CRANK THE CAR AT 10:00 AM, IT WOULD CRANK, BUT GO DEAD, FINALLY AT 11:10 AM IT STAYED CRANKED, DROVE AT 3 TENTHS OF A MILE, CAR GOES DEAD. TAKES ME 5 MINUTES TO RE-CRANK WENT STRAIGHT TO THE SHOP. THIS CAR IS DANGEROUS AND FORD NEEDS TO RE-CALL.

NHTSA ODI #10522370

71,806 miles · Jun 25, 2013
Power Train

PURCHASED USED IN JAN 2013, IMMEDIATELY HAD TROUBLE SHIFTING AND WOULDN'T GO IN REVERSE. RPMS REVVED UP LIKE IT COULDN'T SHIFT TO THE NEXT GEAR. BROUGHT IT BACK TO THE DEALER, NO CODES BUT A TSB 12-6-12 AND 11-9-9 COVERED BOTH AND THE PCM WAS REPROGRAMMED. IT STILL SHIFTED HARD BUT I GOT USED TO IT. IT STARTED GETTING REALLY B…

Read full complaint

PURCHASED USED IN JAN 2013, IMMEDIATELY HAD TROUBLE SHIFTING AND WOULDN'T GO IN REVERSE. RPMS REVVED UP LIKE IT COULDN'T SHIFT TO THE NEXT GEAR. BROUGHT IT BACK TO THE DEALER, NO CODES BUT A TSB 12-6-12 AND 11-9-9 COVERED BOTH AND THE PCM WAS REPROGRAMMED. IT STILL SHIFTED HARD BUT I GOT USED TO IT. IT STARTED GETTING REALLY BAD AGAIN IN MAY 2013. NO CODES, NO CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND I CHECKED THE SYSTEM INFORMATION AND NOTHING WAS FLAGGED. IT WOULD CHUG AND THEN DIE WHILE IDLING. AT A STOPLIGHT ON A 55 MPH HIGHWAY, IT STALLED. ENGINE STARTED UP BUT AS SOON AS IT WAS PUT INTO DRIVE IT WOULD MAKE A LOUD GRINDING NOISE AND STALL. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY WARNING. I WAS AT A STOPLIGHT AT A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION AND THERE WAS NO WHERE SAFE TO PUSH THE TRUCK TO THE SIDE. I WAITED 30 TERRIFIED MINUTES FOR THE TOW TRUCK HOPING NO ONE WOULD SLAM INTO ME. TOWED IT TO THE CLOSEST DEALER WHERE THEY HAD TO WRITE TO THE HOTLINE TO CHECK SINCE IT WAS ONLY 2 YEARS OLD. FIRST TOLD IT WAS A VALVE BODY OR TORQUE CONVERTER FAILURE. METAL WAS FOUND IN THE VALVE BODY AND SOLENOID SCREENS AND THE WHOLE TRANSMISSION NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. AND BECAUSE IT HAD 71,000 MILES IT WASN'T COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521780

37,000 miles · Jun 24, 2013
Power Train

I WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 30 MILES PER HOUR WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER. IT ALSO STARTED BUCKING AND I WAS BARELY ABLE TO DRIVE IT INTO A GAS STATION. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED (BETHLEHEM FORD). I WAS TOLD THAT A IT IS A POWER TRAIN , THROTTLE QUADRANT PROBLEM AND THE PART IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER... …

Read full complaint

I WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 30 MILES PER HOUR WHEN THE CAR LOST POWER. IT ALSO STARTED BUCKING AND I WAS BARELY ABLE TO DRIVE IT INTO A GAS STATION. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED (BETHLEHEM FORD). I WAS TOLD THAT A IT IS A POWER TRAIN , THROTTLE QUADRANT PROBLEM AND THE PART IS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER... NOT EXPECTED TO BE IN UNTIL JULY 15TH. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521575

51,100 miles · Jun 24, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

THE FIRST OF 4 INCIDENTS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING ON THE BELT PARKWAY IN BROOKLYN NY. I WAS DRIVING AT A SPEED OF 65 MPH IN THE LEFT LANE ON A STRETCH OF HIGHWAY WITH NO SHOULDER ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD WHEN I LOST ALL PEDAL POWER. I WASN'T ABLE TO ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING AND ALL THE ELECTRONICS WERE WORKING PROPER…

Read full complaint

THE FIRST OF 4 INCIDENTS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING ON THE BELT PARKWAY IN BROOKLYN NY. I WAS DRIVING AT A SPEED OF 65 MPH IN THE LEFT LANE ON A STRETCH OF HIGHWAY WITH NO SHOULDER ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD WHEN I LOST ALL PEDAL POWER. I WASN'T ABLE TO ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING AND ALL THE ELECTRONICS WERE WORKING PROPERLY EXCEPT FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCELERATE. THE SMALL ICON OF A WRENCH APPEARED ON THE DASH. I MANAGED TO CROSS THREE LANES OF HEAVY TRAFFIC TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER. I PUT THE VEHICLE IN PARK AND STEPPED ON THE ACCELERATOR TO REV THE ENGINE, NOTHING HAPPENED. IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS NO GAS GETTING TO THE ENGINE. I THEN SHUT DOWN THE ENGINE AND CHECKED THE OWNERS MANUAL FOR THE ICON OF THE WRENCH. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WRENCH ICON STATES THAT A THROTTLE CONTROL/POWERTRAIN FAULT HAS BEEN DETECTED AND I SHOULD CONTACT AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UPON CONTACTING THE DEALER HE INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY ON MY MAKE AND MODEL AND ALSO STATED THAT MY WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED AND THERE WAS NO RECALL ISSUED FOR THIS PROBLEM. THE COST WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY. I PROCEEDED TO HAVE THEM ORDER ME A NEW THROTTLE BODY. THE LEAD TIME WOULD BE 2-3 WEEKS FOR THE NEW PART. DURING THAT TIME THE SAME PROBLEM HAS HAPPENED 3 MORE TIMES, 2 OF WHICH WERE AT A SPEED OF 65 MPH AND 1 TIME STARTING OFF FROM A RED LIGHT AT A SPEED OF LESS THAT 10 MPH. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS PROBLEM ON LINE I HAVE FOUND THIS TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE AND A RECALL FOR THE THROTTLE BODY SHOULD BE ISSUED AND REPAIRS MADE BY FORD AT NO COST TO THE OWNERS. I FEEL THAT I WAS PUT IN A VERY DANGEROUS LIFE THREATENING POSITION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521562

39,104 miles · Jun 23, 2013
Power Train

DRIVING VEHICLE ON 6/23/13 APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH AND IT SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION AND BEGAN TO JERK FORWARD. "WRENCH" INDICATOR APPEARED ON DASH. PULLED VEHICLE OVER AND WAITED; HOWEVER, PROBLEM CONTINUED. VEHICLE WOULD ONLY MOVE FORWARD AT LESS THAN 5 MPH WHILE JERKING AS IT TRAVELED. HAVE HAD CONSTANT PROBLEMS WITH THIS VE…

Read full complaint

DRIVING VEHICLE ON 6/23/13 APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH AND IT SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION AND BEGAN TO JERK FORWARD. "WRENCH" INDICATOR APPEARED ON DASH. PULLED VEHICLE OVER AND WAITED; HOWEVER, PROBLEM CONTINUED. VEHICLE WOULD ONLY MOVE FORWARD AT LESS THAN 5 MPH WHILE JERKING AS IT TRAVELED. HAVE HAD CONSTANT PROBLEMS WITH THIS VEHICLE SINCE PURCHASE. A COUPLE MONTHS AFTER PURCHASE ON 2011, WHILE TRAVELING ON AN INTERSTATE AT 70 MPH, THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY LOST ACCELERATION, ALMOST CAUSING A SERIOUS CRASH. VEHICLE WAS PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD AND TOWED TO DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER. SINCE THAT TIME, THE TRANSMISSION HAS BEEN SHIFTING HARD AND CREATING NOISES; HOWEVER, THE DEALERSHIP HAS BEEN UNABLE FIND A PROBLEM. TODAY, THE VEHICLE "DIED" AGAIN AND HAD TO BE PULLED OF THE ROAD. HAVE HAD VEHICLE IN THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT REPEATEDLY TO ADDRESS ISSUE; HOWEVER, NO FIX HAS BEEN PROVIDED. NOW, JUST AFTER THE WARRANTY EXPIRED (CURRENTLY 39,104) THE VEHICLE HAS FAILED AGAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521271

38,010 miles · Jun 22, 2013
EnginePower Train

WHILE TRAVELING THE INTERSTATE, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY DROPPED TO APPROXIMATELY 600 RPM AND SUBSEQUENTLY DOWN SHIFTED TO LOW GEAR. I FOUND MYSELF IN THE INSIDE LANE, DURING RUSH-HOUR TRAFFIC, DECELERATING FROM 70MPH TO 5MPH WITH NO PLACE TO GO. I WAS LUCKY, BUT NOT POPULAR. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT (WRENCH) CAME ON AND I SLOWLY FOUND…

Read full complaint

WHILE TRAVELING THE INTERSTATE, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY DROPPED TO APPROXIMATELY 600 RPM AND SUBSEQUENTLY DOWN SHIFTED TO LOW GEAR. I FOUND MYSELF IN THE INSIDE LANE, DURING RUSH-HOUR TRAFFIC, DECELERATING FROM 70MPH TO 5MPH WITH NO PLACE TO GO. I WAS LUCKY, BUT NOT POPULAR. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT (WRENCH) CAME ON AND I SLOWLY FOUND MY WAY TO THE EMERGENCY LANE. AFTER TURNING OFF THE ENGINE AND RESTARTING, EVERYTHING WAS OK. THIS HAPPENED ANOTHER TIME WITH, PRETTY MUCH, THE SAME STORY. THE FORD DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A BAD/STUCK THROTTLE BODY. I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THEM TO FIX THE PROBLEM, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY PARTS AND APPARENTLY VERY LITTLE INTEREST. FORD CORPORATE SAYS THEY WILL HELP WITH THE COST, BUT WILL NOT RETURN MY CALLS, SO I'M LEFT TO WONDER ABOUT THAT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10521175

49,000 miles · Jun 20, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train

I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE COMPLETELY STALLED AND S SERVICE LIGHT CAME ON. AS I TRIED TO MOVE OUT OF TRAFFIC I WAS NEARLY HIT BY MULTIPLE VEHICLES COMING FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS. I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE COVERED UNDER POWER TRAIN WARRANTY. AFTER EXPLAINING…

Read full complaint

I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH WHEN MY FORD ESCAPE COMPLETELY STALLED AND S SERVICE LIGHT CAME ON. AS I TRIED TO MOVE OUT OF TRAFFIC I WAS NEARLY HIT BY MULTIPLE VEHICLES COMING FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS. I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE COVERED UNDER POWER TRAIN WARRANTY. AFTER EXPLAINING TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WHAT HAD HAPPENED, BEFORE THEY LOOKED AT MY VEHICLE, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS. APPARENTLY, THE PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY IS SO COMMON THEY CAN'T KEEP THE PARTS IN STOCK. THIS PROBLEM CAUSES THE VEHICLE TO STALL OR SURGE FORWARD, USUALLY AT RATES OF SPEED EXCEEDING 40MPH. I WAS INFORMED THAT FORD DOES NOT CONSIDER THIS PART OF THE POWER TRAIN. $401.04 LATER I HAD MY VEHICLE BACK. AS I WAS PAYING THE SERVICE CASHIER INFORMED ME THAT THIS WAS THE 12TH THAT HAD FIXED THAT WEEK (IT WAS ONLY WEDNESDAY) AND TO HOLD ONTO MY RECEIPT BECAUSE IT REALLY SHOULD BE RECALLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10520879

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