NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
268 reportsClear category filter46,000 miles · May 14, 2015
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemPower Train
I HAVE HAD THIS VEHICLE FOR ONE YEAR, AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO RECOUNT ALL OF THE TIMES IT HAS STALLED ON ME WHILE DRIVING IT. IT HAS STALLED IN PARKING LOTS, IN HEAVY STOP-AND-GO TRAFFIC, MAKING TURNS, PULLING INTO MY DRIVEWAY, AND ACCELERATING TO ENTER THE FREEWAY. IT STARTED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF PURCHASE. I TOOK IT TO…
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD THIS VEHICLE FOR ONE YEAR, AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO RECOUNT ALL OF THE TIMES IT HAS STALLED ON ME WHILE DRIVING IT. IT HAS STALLED IN PARKING LOTS, IN HEAVY STOP-AND-GO TRAFFIC, MAKING TURNS, PULLING INTO MY DRIVEWAY, AND ACCELERATING TO ENTER THE FREEWAY. IT STARTED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF PURCHASE. I TOOK IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP IN AUGUST OF 2014 WHERE THEY PERFORMED RECALL WORK WHICH INCLUDED THROTTLE BODY REPLACEMENT, REPROGRAMMED THE PCM, AND A POWER STEERING ADVISORY ITEM. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO STALL. THE STALLING SEEMS TO HAPPEN JUST AFTER FILL-UP AND HAPPENS INTERMITTENTLY UNTIL THE GAS GAUGE READS LESS THAN THREE-FOURTHS AND AT LOW SPEEDS. I FILLED IT UP YESTERDAY, AND IT HAS STALLED SEVEN TIMES SINCE THEN. IT HAPPENS WHEN COASTING TO A STOP OR MAKING A TURN. ON THE FREEWAY AT HIGH SPEEDS, IT RUNS WELL. THE ISSUE WAS COMPOUNDED IN FEBRUARY WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE EVAP CANISTER WAS FULL OF GAS. IT, ALONG WITH A TUBE HOSE ASSEMBLY (BL8Z9D667B-AF), WAS REPLACED ONLY FOR IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. THE PURGE VALVE WAS STUCK OPEN AND HAD TO BE REPLACED ALONG WITH A SECOND EVAP CANISTER. THE STALLING ISSUE CONTINUED, AND THE DEALERSHIP FOUND THE CANISTER TO BE SATURATED WITH GAS AGAIN. THIS TIME, THEY SAID THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE GAS TANK TO CORRECT THE ISSUE AS THEY BELIEVE IT IS A VALVE BUILT INTO THE TANK WHICH SEEMS ABSURD. I HAVE NOT DONE THIS SINCE THEY QUOTED A COST OF OVER $2000. EVEN IF I HAVE THAT DONE, IT WILL ONLY CORRECT THE CANISTER ISSUE, NOT THE STALLING. I HAVE READ HUNDREDS OF POSTS ON THE INTERNET FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS WITH THE SAME MODEL YEAR AS I HAVE. THESE ARE BOTH ISSUES THAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE RESULT OF A DEFECT IN THE MANUFACTURING OF THIS VEHICLE DUE TO THE VOLUME OF OWNERS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEMS. I FEEL FORD NEEDS TO STEP UP AND CORRECT THESE ISSUES.
NHTSA ODI #10716565
73,000 miles · Apr 20, 2015
Power Train
DRIVING TO WORK MY ESCAPE LOST POWER AND SPUTTERED TO A STOP. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I SHUT OFF THE RADIO, FAN AND VEHICLE. THE TURNED THE VEHICLE BACK ON AND IT RESUMED RUNNING. I SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE. HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL BE MY LAST OR THAT A RECALL WILL COME FORWARD AS THIS SEEMS TO BE AN O…
Read full complaint
DRIVING TO WORK MY ESCAPE LOST POWER AND SPUTTERED TO A STOP. THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. I SHUT OFF THE RADIO, FAN AND VEHICLE. THE TURNED THE VEHICLE BACK ON AND IT RESUMED RUNNING. I SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE. HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL BE MY LAST OR THAT A RECALL WILL COME FORWARD AS THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING ISSUE WITH FORDS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10706579
21,150 miles · Apr 10, 2015
Power TrainCrashInjury
WHILE SLOWING TO COME TO A COMPLETE STOP IN A TURNING LANE BEHIND TWO OTHER VEHICLES, THE SUBJECT VEHICLE'S TRANSMISSION SLIPPED FROM GEAR AND DISENGAGED THE ENGINE. WHEN THE VEHICLES TRANSMISSION REENGAGED THE ENGINES REMAINING TORQUE NOT YET DISPLACED, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD CAUSING A LOSE OF CONTROL AND THE BRAKES TO LOCK…
Read full complaint
WHILE SLOWING TO COME TO A COMPLETE STOP IN A TURNING LANE BEHIND TWO OTHER VEHICLES, THE SUBJECT VEHICLE'S TRANSMISSION SLIPPED FROM GEAR AND DISENGAGED THE ENGINE. WHEN THE VEHICLES TRANSMISSION REENGAGED THE ENGINES REMAINING TORQUE NOT YET DISPLACED, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD CAUSING A LOSE OF CONTROL AND THE BRAKES TO LOCK UP FROM ATTEMPTING THE BRAKING ACTION ALREADY TAKING PLACE. THE SUBJECT VEHICLE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN THE DEALERSHIPS SERVICE DEPT. TO HAVE ITS TRANSMISSION THAT PREVIOUSLY AND COMPLETELY BURNT ITS CLUTCHES OUT AT ONLY 14,775 MILES DRIVEN. THE SYMPTOMS OF THE TRANSMISSION BURNING THE CLUTCHES OUT WAS PRESENTING ITSELF IN AN INCREASING MANNER FROM AROUND 5,000 MILES. THE NEWLY REBUILT TRANSMISSION FAILED AT ONLY 21,150 MILES AT THE TIME OF THE TOTAL LOSS INCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10704863
15,180 miles · Apr 10, 2015
Power Train
WHILE ENTERING A MAIN ARTERY OF TRAFFIC FROM A SIDE ROAD, DURING THE ACCELERATION BETWEEN 35-45MPH, THE TRANSMISSION DISENGAGED FROM THE ENGINE. THE ENGINE, NOT BEING SUBJECT TO TRANSFERRING ENERGY TO THE TRANSMISSION BEGAN TO GAIN RPM EXCEEDINGLY FASTER ON ITS OWN WITH THE OPERATORS FOOT STILL ONLY APPLYING THE EQUAL FORCE APPL…
Read full complaint
WHILE ENTERING A MAIN ARTERY OF TRAFFIC FROM A SIDE ROAD, DURING THE ACCELERATION BETWEEN 35-45MPH, THE TRANSMISSION DISENGAGED FROM THE ENGINE. THE ENGINE, NOT BEING SUBJECT TO TRANSFERRING ENERGY TO THE TRANSMISSION BEGAN TO GAIN RPM EXCEEDINGLY FASTER ON ITS OWN WITH THE OPERATORS FOOT STILL ONLY APPLYING THE EQUAL FORCE APPLICABLE TO NORMALLY EXECUTE THE ENTRANCE ON TO THE MAIN ROAD. THE TRANSMISSION REGAINED TRACTION WITH THE ENGINE AND THE VEHICLE SUFFERED A VIOLENT LUNGE FORWARD THAN DISENGAGED ONCE MORE AND REPEATED THE SAME AGAIN WITH THE DISENGAGE AND LUNGE FORWARD. THE OPERATOR WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AROUND THE BLOCK AT NO MORE THAN 10MPH AROUND THE BLOCK TO GARAGE THE VEHICLE AND CALL FORD TO REPORT THE INCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10704861
60,101 miles · Mar 18, 2015
Power Train
SLOWING DOWN IN MY FORD ESCAPE THE TRANSMISSION INTERMEDIATELY DOWN SHIFTS SO HARD THAT IT SHAKES MY CAR AND MAKES A LOUD NOISE. HAVE BROUGHT TO THE DEALERSHIP 4 TIMES AND ARE NOT ABLE TO DUPLICATE THE INTERMEDIATE PROBLEM. FIRST TIME THEY RESET SOME SORT OF CHIP IN THE TRANSMISSION AND IT HELPED FOR ONLY A SHORT WHILE. IT D…
Read full complaint
SLOWING DOWN IN MY FORD ESCAPE THE TRANSMISSION INTERMEDIATELY DOWN SHIFTS SO HARD THAT IT SHAKES MY CAR AND MAKES A LOUD NOISE. HAVE BROUGHT TO THE DEALERSHIP 4 TIMES AND ARE NOT ABLE TO DUPLICATE THE INTERMEDIATE PROBLEM. FIRST TIME THEY RESET SOME SORT OF CHIP IN THE TRANSMISSION AND IT HELPED FOR ONLY A SHORT WHILE. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME AND IS INTERMEDIATE, THE DEALERSHIP DOES NOT DRIVE IT LONG ENOUGH TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10695067
34,000 miles · Nov 22, 2014
Power TrainSteeringVehicle Speed Control
I WAS CROSSING A HIGHWAY AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS I HAD NO POWER! JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE IT WAS AT FORD FOR A TORQUE AND STEERING RECALL. WHEN I CALLED FORD TO INFORM THEM WHAT HAPPENED THEY SAID I WILL HAVE TO PAY $130 FOR THEM TO DIAGNOSE IT! I'M NOT HAPPY WITH FORDS RESPONSE. THIS IS A REAL DANGER AND THEY NEED TO TA…
Read full complaint
I WAS CROSSING A HIGHWAY AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS I HAD NO POWER! JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE IT WAS AT FORD FOR A TORQUE AND STEERING RECALL. WHEN I CALLED FORD TO INFORM THEM WHAT HAPPENED THEY SAID I WILL HAVE TO PAY $130 FOR THEM TO DIAGNOSE IT! I'M NOT HAPPY WITH FORDS RESPONSE. THIS IS A REAL DANGER AND THEY NEED TO TAKE IT SERIOUS! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10660280
49,000 miles · Oct 31, 2014
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ALONG MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY REFUSED TO ACCELERATE, I WAS HOLDING THE GAS TO THE FLOOR AND IT WOULDN'T BUDGE. IT WAS IDLING STRANGELY AND SURGING. A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED IN THE SCREEN ON THE DASH. I WAS ON A HILL AND WAS UNABLE TO PULL OF THE ROAD. LUCKILY, NO ONE WAS BEHIND ME. I WAITED A FEW MOMENTS AND RESTA…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ALONG MY FORD ESCAPE SUDDENLY REFUSED TO ACCELERATE, I WAS HOLDING THE GAS TO THE FLOOR AND IT WOULDN'T BUDGE. IT WAS IDLING STRANGELY AND SURGING. A WRENCH SYMBOL APPEARED IN THE SCREEN ON THE DASH. I WAS ON A HILL AND WAS UNABLE TO PULL OF THE ROAD. LUCKILY, NO ONE WAS BEHIND ME. I WAITED A FEW MOMENTS AND RESTARTED THE ESCAPE, IT WENT AND THEN CONTINUED TO DECELERATE ONCE AGAIN. I WILL BE TAKING THIS BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP TO BE FIXED. BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED, UPON RESEARCHING THE ISSUE I FOUND MANY MORE COMPLAINTS ONLINE. WHY HASN'T THIS ISSUE BEEN RECALLED? IT IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS AND IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE ESCAPE CUTS OFF AT THE WRONG TIME AND GETS SOMEONE KILLED. THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE IT BECOME AN EPIDEMIC LIKE THE CHEVY COBALT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10651677
34,566 miles · Oct 26, 2014
Power Train
TRANSMISSION SLIPS AFTER COLD START. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10650103
31,000 miles · Oct 25, 2014
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, I HEARD A SOUND SIMILAR TO THE CAR'S AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION DOWNSHIFTING. I LOOKED DOWN AND SAW THAT I HAD NO ACCELERATION AS I PUSHED ON THE GAS PEDAL. I STOPPED AT A SAFE LOCATION AND SAT WITH THE CAR IDLING FOR ABOUT A MINUTE. DURING THIS TIME I NOTICED THE RPMS HUNTING AT IDLE SPEED. I TURNE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY, I HEARD A SOUND SIMILAR TO THE CAR'S AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION DOWNSHIFTING. I LOOKED DOWN AND SAW THAT I HAD NO ACCELERATION AS I PUSHED ON THE GAS PEDAL. I STOPPED AT A SAFE LOCATION AND SAT WITH THE CAR IDLING FOR ABOUT A MINUTE. DURING THIS TIME I NOTICED THE RPMS HUNTING AT IDLE SPEED. I TURNED THE CAR OFF. I RESTARTED THE CAR AND THE ENGINE TURNED OVER A FEW MORE TIMES THAN USUAL BEFORE IT FINALLY CAUGHT. AFTER THAT, I HAD NO OTHER PROBLEMS FOR THE TWO MORE HOURS I DROVE IT. THIS PROBLEM APPEARS TO BE WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY GIVING EITHER A FALSE SIGNAL OR TEMPORARILY LOSING SIGNAL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10649980
57,000 miles · Oct 8, 2014
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
AS I WAS DRIVING MY CAR LOST IT THROTTLE. THE ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN BUT I HAD NO ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. I PULLED THE CAR OVER. TURNED IT OFF, THEN BACK ON AND THE CAR APPEARED TO SHOW NO ISSUES. ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER THE ISSUE APPEARED AGAIN. SAME SOLUTION. FROM MY RESEARCH THIS APPEARS TO BE A COMMON ISSUE AND COULD VER…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING MY CAR LOST IT THROTTLE. THE ENGINE CONTINUED TO RUN BUT I HAD NO ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. I PULLED THE CAR OVER. TURNED IT OFF, THEN BACK ON AND THE CAR APPEARED TO SHOW NO ISSUES. ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER THE ISSUE APPEARED AGAIN. SAME SOLUTION. FROM MY RESEARCH THIS APPEARS TO BE A COMMON ISSUE AND COULD VERY MUCH ENDANGER ANYONE IN THE VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10643425
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