NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter40,600 miles · Apr 19, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainUnknown Or Other
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A ROAD GOING APPROX. 50MPH, I SUDDENLY, AND WITHOUT WARNING, LOST POWER TO THE VEHICLE. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES, IT WOULD TEND TO LUNGE FORWARD. ONCE STOPPED, I PLACED IN PARK, SHUT OFF ENGINE THE ATTEMPTED TO START UP AGAIN. IT DID START UP, HOWEVER, IT HAPPENED 2 MOR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A ROAD GOING APPROX. 50MPH, I SUDDENLY, AND WITHOUT WARNING, LOST POWER TO THE VEHICLE. PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES, IT WOULD TEND TO LUNGE FORWARD. ONCE STOPPED, I PLACED IN PARK, SHUT OFF ENGINE THE ATTEMPTED TO START UP AGAIN. IT DID START UP, HOWEVER, IT HAPPENED 2 MORE TIMES LATER THAT DAY. I WOULD HATE FOR THIS TO HAPPEN WHILE TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN WITH ONCOMING TRAFFIC....COULD BE DEADLY!!! FORD NEEDS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND MAKE THIS RIGHT AS I HAVE NOW READ FAR TOO MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS EXACT SAME THING. THE NEXT OCCURRENCE COULD BE INJURY OR EVEN DEATH. I SHOULD NOTE THAT AS OF 1 WEEK LATER, I HAVE NOT HAD THE PROBLEM FIXED YET AND THE INCIDENT DESCRIBED ABOVE HAS HAPPENED AT LEAST 2 TIMES PER DAY NOW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508861
43,082 miles · Apr 14, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE PURCHASED JANUARY 2013 WITH ~37K MILES. FIRST MONTH OF OWNERSHIP, I HAD CODE INDICATING A FUEL DELIVERY PROBLEM BUT IT CLEARED ON ITS OWN. I ATTRIBUTED IT TO BAD GAS, THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE WARNING SIGN I MISSED. TODAY ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH, IT FELT LIKE THE VEHICLE SHIFTED OUT OF SEQUENCE, NOTI…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE PURCHASED JANUARY 2013 WITH ~37K MILES. FIRST MONTH OF OWNERSHIP, I HAD CODE INDICATING A FUEL DELIVERY PROBLEM BUT IT CLEARED ON ITS OWN. I ATTRIBUTED IT TO BAD GAS, THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE WARNING SIGN I MISSED. TODAY ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60MPH, IT FELT LIKE THE VEHICLE SHIFTED OUT OF SEQUENCE, NOTICING THE LACK OF POWER/LOW RPMS I TRIED TO GIVE IT GAS TO NO AVAIL. I SAFELY NAVIGATED TO THE SHOULDER AS IT COASTED DOWN TO A STOP. THE ORANGE WRENCH LIT UP. UPON STOPPING THE CAR SPUTTERED HARD AND THREATENED TO STALL. THE GAS PEDAL WAS USELESS. I SHUT THE CAR OFF, SHUT OFF THE RADIO/AC AND GAVE IT A MOMENT. IT RESTARTED WITH MINOR HESITATION. THE ORANGE WRENCH HAD CLEARED BUT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME IN (IT STAYED IN THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST). IT IDLED OK, ALLOWED ME TO ADMINISTER FUEL AND REV THE ENGINE. THINKING THE PROBLEM HAD PASSED, I MERGED BACK ONTO THE HIGHWAY AND CAME UP TO SPEED. ABOUT A HALF A MILE LATER I FELT THE NOTED LOSS OF ENGINE POWER (I BELIEVE THIS IS THE "LIMP-HOME" METHOD THAT IS CITED IN SOME THINGS I HAVE READ TODAY). AGAIN, MY GAS PEDAL IS USELESS AND I RE-ENGAGE THE HAZARDS AND MOVE OFF OF THE ROAD. THIS TIME THE CAR DOES NOT STALL BUT IDLES AROUND 900RPM WITH SOME SPUTTERING. GAS PEDAL IS STILL USELESS. I RINSE AND REPEAT THE ABOVE PROCESS A THIRD TIME, WHEN IT DOES THE SAME THING ANOTHER HALF MILE LATER, I GIVE UP AND CALL A MORE CAR SAVOY FRIEND. HIS FIRST GUESS IS ALSO FUEL PUMP/SOMETHING CLOGGED BUT WE ARE BOTH BAFFLED BECAUSE THE SYMPTOMS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANY CONDITION WE HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED. DECIDING IT COULD BE NURSED HOME, THE FOURTH ATTEMPT AT STARTING IT, I MADE THE LAST 2 MILES STAYING 40MPH OR BELOW. THERE WAS NO SPUTTERING/LOSS OF FUEL DELIVERY CAPABILITIES DURING THIS ATTEMPT. AFTER SOME RESEARCH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMON THROTTLE BODY ISSUES FOUND ME... *TR
NHTSA ODI #10508166
18,982 miles · Mar 26, 2013
EnginePower Train
WHILE DEPRESSING BRAKE TO STOP AT RED LIGHT OR STOP SIGN, ENGINE SURGES WITH FORCED ACCELERATION. MUST HIT THE BRAKE HARD TO HOLD THE VEHICLE FROM GOING ON ITS OWN. SURGE LASTS A LONG TIME AND I MUST PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. LAST TIME CAR WAS STILL SURGING WHEN I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE, HAD TO TURN OFF CAR …
Read full complaint
WHILE DEPRESSING BRAKE TO STOP AT RED LIGHT OR STOP SIGN, ENGINE SURGES WITH FORCED ACCELERATION. MUST HIT THE BRAKE HARD TO HOLD THE VEHICLE FROM GOING ON ITS OWN. SURGE LASTS A LONG TIME AND I MUST PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. LAST TIME CAR WAS STILL SURGING WHEN I RESTARTED THE VEHICLE, HAD TO TURN OFF CAR AGAIN. THIS HAS HAPPENED 4 TIMES AND MY VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. THE DEALERSHIP CLAIMS THEY CANNOT FIX THE VEHICLE UNLESS THEY CAN SEE THIS HAPPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10504542
30,000 miles · Mar 22, 2013
Power Train
WHEN THE WEATHER STARTED GETTING COLDER, THE TRANSMISSION STARTED OUT HARD TO SHIFT. I TRAVEL FOR WORK AND WHEN I AM IN HEAVY TRAFFIC IT IS DANGEROUS, BECAUSE IT TAKES A WHILE FOR THE CAR TO SHIFT OUT. WHEN IT DOES FINALLY SHIFT, IT IS A HARD SHIFT AND HARD TO CONTROL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10504185
16,000 miles · Mar 4, 2013
Power Train
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE HAS NOW HAD SERVICE THREE TIMES IN TWO YEARS FOR "BUCKING/SLIPPING" IN THE TRANSMISSION. THE "BUCKING/SLIPPING" IS EXPERIENCED WITH ALL GEARS BUT GENERALLY WORSE BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD AND JUST STARTING OUT. IT IS ALSO BAD WHEN THE CAR HAS BEEN IDLE FOR MANY DAYS. ALL THREE TIMES ITS BEEN IN FOR SERVICE AT THE F…
Read full complaint
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE HAS NOW HAD SERVICE THREE TIMES IN TWO YEARS FOR "BUCKING/SLIPPING" IN THE TRANSMISSION. THE "BUCKING/SLIPPING" IS EXPERIENCED WITH ALL GEARS BUT GENERALLY WORSE BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD AND JUST STARTING OUT. IT IS ALSO BAD WHEN THE CAR HAS BEEN IDLE FOR MANY DAYS. ALL THREE TIMES ITS BEEN IN FOR SERVICE AT THE FORD DEALER THEY SAY ITS THE ADAPTIVE TRANSMISSION THAT IS THE CULPRIT. THEY REDO THE ALGORITHMS ITS FINE FOR A WEEK THEN GOES BACK TO NORMAL. THE LATEST SERVICE ALSO INCLUDED HAVING THE TRANSMISSION AXLE SEALS REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10501198
38,000 miles · Feb 26, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
VEHICLE WAS RUNNING ROUGH AT IDLE AND CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON. AT STOP LIGHTS, STOP SIGNS, OR ANY IDLE TIME CAR WOULD BUCK FORWARD LIKE IT WAS GOING TO STALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10500487
Mileage unknown · Feb 26, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WE WERE JUST PULLING OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE CAR LOST ALL POWER. IT JERKED FORWARD AND THEN STOPPED. WE WERE STOPPED ON THE HIGHWAY AND COULD NOT GET THE CAR TO FORWARD. I TURNED THE CAR OFF WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN TRIED AGAIN. THE CAR AGAIN JERKED FORWARD WENT A SHORT DISTANCE AND THEN SHUT DOWN AGAIN, ON THE H…
Read full complaint
WE WERE JUST PULLING OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE CAR LOST ALL POWER. IT JERKED FORWARD AND THEN STOPPED. WE WERE STOPPED ON THE HIGHWAY AND COULD NOT GET THE CAR TO FORWARD. I TURNED THE CAR OFF WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN TRIED AGAIN. THE CAR AGAIN JERKED FORWARD WENT A SHORT DISTANCE AND THEN SHUT DOWN AGAIN, ON THE HIGHWAY. LUCKILY WE WERE ONLY A MILE OR SO FROM THE DEALERSHIP WHERE WE BOUGHT THE CAR. WE TURNED THE CAR OFF AND STARTED IT 5 TIMES AND WERE ABLE TO GET THE MILE TO THE DEALERSHIP. WHEN THIS FIRST HAPPENED, A WRENCH APPEARED ON THE DASH, SIGNALING A POWERTRAIN ISSUE AND TO GET TO THE DEALERSHIP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AFTER THE CAR WAS LOOKED AT BY THE MECHANIC AT THE DEALERSHIP IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY AND WOULD COST $400 TO REPAIR. ACCORDING TO THE DEALERSHIP, THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR FORD, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOMETHING SO SERIOUS THAT IT CAN CAUSE A SERIOUS ACCIDENT OR DEATH IS NOT BEING RECALLED. I GUESS FORD DOESN'T WANT THE COST TO REPAIR THEIR DEFECTIVE PARTS AND OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF ITS CUSTOMERS OR THE LAWSUIT THAT WILL FOLLOW. FOR THIS REASON, I HAVE NOTIFIED ALL OF MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS NOT TO BUY ANOTHER FORD. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE NHTSA WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS AND MAKE A RECALL MANDATORY, NOT GIVE IN TO THE MIGHTY FORD COMPANY AND THEIR LACK OF CONCERN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10500485
65,000 miles · Feb 25, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70MPH WHEN MY CAR SEEMED TO JUST COMPLETELY LOSE POWER. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, TURN IT OFF AND RESTART IT. THE INCIDENT HAPPENED EXACTLY THE SAME A COUPLE OTHER TIMES. ALSO HAPPEN ONCE WHEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. I WAS AT A BUSY INTERSECTION AND THE CAR…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70MPH WHEN MY CAR SEEMED TO JUST COMPLETELY LOSE POWER. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, TURN IT OFF AND RESTART IT. THE INCIDENT HAPPENED EXACTLY THE SAME A COUPLE OTHER TIMES. ALSO HAPPEN ONCE WHEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. I WAS AT A BUSY INTERSECTION AND THE CAR LOST POWER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. I WAS NOT ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE UNTIL I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTED IT. I WAS NEARLY T-BONED AT 5 MONTHS PREGNANT. DEALER WAS HAVING A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT WHAT WAS WRONG BUT FINALLY FIGURED OUT THAT IT WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DRIVE TRAIN WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO STALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10500036
39,000 miles · Feb 12, 2013
EnginePower Train
THREE TIMES WHILE TRAVELING AT 60+ MPH ON THE INTERSTATE THE VEHICLE LOST ALL THROTTLE RESPONSE AND A YELLOW WRENCH ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. TRYING TO NAVIGATE FROM THE LEFT LANE ACROSS 3 LANES OF HIGHSPEED RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC WAS VERY DANGEROUS. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE LOCAL DEALER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND WAS TOLD…
Read full complaint
THREE TIMES WHILE TRAVELING AT 60+ MPH ON THE INTERSTATE THE VEHICLE LOST ALL THROTTLE RESPONSE AND A YELLOW WRENCH ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. TRYING TO NAVIGATE FROM THE LEFT LANE ACROSS 3 LANES OF HIGHSPEED RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC WAS VERY DANGEROUS. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE LOCAL DEALER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND WAS TOLD IT WAS A BAD THROTTLE BODY. THIS INCIDENT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN SERIOUS INJURY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10497854
42,500 miles · Feb 1, 2013
Power Train
I WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN AS I STRAIGHTEN OUT MY CAR FROM THE TURN MY CAR LOST POWER. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE GAS BUT WASN'T GOING FORWARD AND THE VEHICLE WAS SHAKING REALLY BAD. THE IRONIC THING IS I FELT A TUG HERE AND THERE BEFORE BUT I THOUGHT I WAS BEING PARANOID. I DON'T THINK I WAS!!! THANK GOODNESS I HAD TURNED OUT OF TRA…
Read full complaint
I WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN AS I STRAIGHTEN OUT MY CAR FROM THE TURN MY CAR LOST POWER. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE GAS BUT WASN'T GOING FORWARD AND THE VEHICLE WAS SHAKING REALLY BAD. THE IRONIC THING IS I FELT A TUG HERE AND THERE BEFORE BUT I THOUGHT I WAS BEING PARANOID. I DON'T THINK I WAS!!! THANK GOODNESS I HAD TURNED OUT OF TRAFFIC. I DIDN'T WANT TO TURN IT ON AGAIN I REMEMBERED I HAD A TOW CARD FROM WHEN I BOUGHT MY VEHICLE. IF THIS IS SOME DEFECT I NEED TO KNOW. I HAD MY LAST VEHICLE FOR 11 YEARS AND NEVER DID SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN. I BOUGHT A NEW CAR SO THAT I DON'T GET STRANDED AND I DID GET STRANDED. I HAD IT TOWED TO MAXWELL FORD AFTER THEY TESTED IT TODAY I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10496116
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