NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter53,530 miles · Aug 4, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOPPED POSITION THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AND THE CAR CAME TO AN IDLE SPEED IN TRAFFIC. I EXITED HIGHWAY AND IDLED ONTO THE RAMP TO THE NEAREST PARKING LOT. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A WHILE AND TRIED TO RESTART WITH HESITATION AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME AND TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP THE N…
Read full complaint
WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOPPED POSITION THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AND THE CAR CAME TO AN IDLE SPEED IN TRAFFIC. I EXITED HIGHWAY AND IDLED ONTO THE RAMP TO THE NEAREST PARKING LOT. AFTER TURNING THE CAR OFF FOR A WHILE AND TRIED TO RESTART WITH HESITATION AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME AND TO THE NEAREST FORD DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY.(CROSSROADS FORD- INDIAN TRAIL, NC) THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT CLEANED THE INJECTORS AND FUEL THROTTLE BODY ALONG WITH A OIL CHANGE AND TRANSMISSION FLUSH.($300) THE CAR STILL HAD A IDLING ISSUE BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST LEFT OVER RESIDUE CLEANING ITSELF OUT.( I HAVE COMPLAINED OF SHIFTING PROBLEMS/ACCELERATION PROBLEMS WITH CAR SINCE PURCHASE IN 2011. I HAVE TAKEN IT INTO KEITH HAWTHORNE FORD OF BELMONT (WHERE PURCHASED) SEVERAL TIMES WITH THIS COMPLAINT. NOTHING COULD EVER BE FOUND.) THE SECOND INCIDENT DATE IS 8-2-13. I WAS ON HWY 74 IN INDIAN TRAIL AND HAD PULLED OUT AHEAD OF TRAFFIC LEAVING A STOP LIGHT WITH PLENTY OF TIME TO ACCELERATE TO SPEED AND THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING AGAIN. I PUT MY FLASHERS ON AND IDLED TO THE NEXT PARKING LOT ON THE RIGHT WHICH WAS A FOOD LION SHOPPING CENTER. I WAS ALMOST REAR-ENDED BY A RED & WHITE TRACTOR TRAILER BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SLOW DOWN IN TIME, IT JUST WAS ABLE TO GET IN THE LEFT LANE BEFORE HITTING ME. SEVERAL CARS WERE BACKED UP AND SLAMMING ON BRAKES TO KEEP FROM HITTING ME. THERE WAS NO SAFE PLACE TO PULL OVER SO I HAD TO IDLE TO THE PARKING LOT. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AS IN THE EARLIER INCIDENT AND GOT IT RESTARTED AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT THE MILE OR 2 BACK TO CROSSROADS FORD. I RECEIVED A CALL TODAY FROM THE SERVICE STAFF THAT THE FUEL THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND IT WOULD COST AN ADDITIONAL $500 TO WHICH THEY WOULD DEDUCT $100 FOR THE SERVICE PERFORMED 2 DAYS EARLIER. THE CAR REMAINS AT THE CROSSROADS FORD WHILE I AWAIT A CALL FROM A CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENT FOR THIS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533462
39,000 miles · Aug 3, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHETHER I DRIVING IN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC OR HIGHWAY MY FORD ESCAPE WOULD START HESITATION. COULD NOT GET A CHARGE FROM TO DRIVE SUV. OR MY ESCAPE WOULD POWER AND THE ENGINE WOULD DIE WHILE DRIVING OR WHEN I WAS PULLING OUT FROM INTERSECTION. I TOOK FORD ESCAPE TO A FORD DEALERSHIP THEY DID WHATEVER TEST AND TOLD ME THEY WOULD HAV…
Read full complaint
WHETHER I DRIVING IN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC OR HIGHWAY MY FORD ESCAPE WOULD START HESITATION. COULD NOT GET A CHARGE FROM TO DRIVE SUV. OR MY ESCAPE WOULD POWER AND THE ENGINE WOULD DIE WHILE DRIVING OR WHEN I WAS PULLING OUT FROM INTERSECTION. I TOOK FORD ESCAPE TO A FORD DEALERSHIP THEY DID WHATEVER TEST AND TOLD ME THEY WOULD HAVE TO ORDER PART. TWO WEEKS OF WAITING FOR PART TO ARRIVE AND STILL NO PART DEALERSHIP TOLD ME PART WAS ON A STATE ORDER BECAUSE I WAS IN FLORIDA WHEN THIS HAPPENED AND I WAS FROM ILLINOIS WITH MY TRIP ENDING AND NEEDED TO GET HOME. I FELT DEALERSHIP WAS GIVING ME RUN AROUND SO I CALLED MAIN HEADQUARTERS IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN AND WAS TOLD THE THROTTLE BODY WAS ON BACK ORDER BECAUSE FORD WAS HAVING PROBLEMS FIGURING OUT PROBLEM AND THEREFORE COULD NOT SEND PART BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CORRECTED THROTTLE BODY PART TO SEND. I ASKED IF FORD WAS DOING A RECALL ON ESCAPE AND WAS TOLD NOT AT THIS TIME. I RECEIVED A CALLED FROM FORD MOTOR CO. ABOUT 2 DAYS LATER TELLING ME THE PART WOULD BE SENT TO DEALERSHIP BY WEDNESDAY OF FOLLOWING WEEK AND THAT A CALL WAS ALSO PLACED TO DEALERSHIP TO INFORM THEM THE PART WAS FOR MY ESCAPE NOT THE TWO FORD ESCAPES WITH SAME PROBLEM THAT WERE AHEAD OF MINE. BY THE FOLLOWING WEEK ON WEDNESDAY MY FORD ESCAPE WAS REPAIRED AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME BACK TO ILLINOIS. TO THIS DAY I AM NOT SURE IF I HAVE A REPLACEMENT PART THAT HAS FIXED THE PROBLEM OR IF FORD MOTOR CO. SENT ME THE SAME PART THAT WILL AGAIN BREAK DOWN ON ME. I HAVE KEPT TRACK OF ALL PHONE CALLS I MADE DATE TIME AND WHO I SPOKE WITH AND ALSO THE CALLS FROM FORD MOTOR CO. TO ME. NEEDLESS TO SAY I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE WHOLE MATTER AND I AM FILING THIS COMPLAINT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533442
57,500 miles · Aug 2, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
THE VEHICLE WAS ON THE HIGHWAY AND LOST POWER, THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED IN TWO WEEKS. THE DEALER WAS NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM THE FIRST GO AROUND. VEHICLE WOULD START BUT HAD NO POWER, ENGINE LIGHT AND SERVICE WRENCH, HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. THEY DETERMINED IT TO BE A BAD THROTTLE BODY, …
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE WAS ON THE HIGHWAY AND LOST POWER, THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED IN TWO WEEKS. THE DEALER WAS NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM THE FIRST GO AROUND. VEHICLE WOULD START BUT HAD NO POWER, ENGINE LIGHT AND SERVICE WRENCH, HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. THEY DETERMINED IT TO BE A BAD THROTTLE BODY, WHICH WAS NOT COVERED UNDER MY WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533186
53,000 miles · Aug 1, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING WITH MY TWO KIDS IN TRAFFIC ON 95 WHEN MY TRUCK JUST SEEMED TO STOP WORKING. IT DID NOT STALL, THE ENGINE WAS STILL WORKING, I COULD STEER BUT COULD NOT ACCELERATE . I QUICKLY HAD TO GET OVER FOUR LANES TO THE SHOULDER . WHEN I DID, I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND WAITED A COUPLE MINUTES. I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON AND IT …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING WITH MY TWO KIDS IN TRAFFIC ON 95 WHEN MY TRUCK JUST SEEMED TO STOP WORKING. IT DID NOT STALL, THE ENGINE WAS STILL WORKING, I COULD STEER BUT COULD NOT ACCELERATE . I QUICKLY HAD TO GET OVER FOUR LANES TO THE SHOULDER . WHEN I DID, I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND WAITED A COUPLE MINUTES. I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON AND IT WAS A HARD START, ALMOST AS IF IT WERE GOING TO NOT START. TO GET .I CALLED MY FORD DEALERSHIP AND EXPLAINED AS BEST AS I COULD TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT~ WHO IN TURN ,OVER THE PHONE DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS ELECTRICAL AND INFORMED ME MY WARRANTY WOULDN'T COVER IT, I SHOULD TAKE IT TO MY MECHANIC. I DROPPED MY TRUCK OFF AND HE TRIED TO FIX WHATEVER MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PROBLEM, COSTING US $500. MY HUSBAND PICKED IT UP AND WE TOOK IT OUT THAT NIGHT ~ IT HAPPENED FIVE MORE TIMES . THIS WAS SATURDAY NIGHT, MONDAY I TRIED TO CALL FORD AND TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED. I WAS ON THE PHONE OFF AND ON FOR ABOUT 3-4 HOURS TRYING TO HAVE THIS HANDLED. FINALLY, I WAS TOLD BY MY MECHANIC~NOT THE DEALERSHIP~ ABOUT THIS BEING SOMETHING I COULD LOOK UP, THAT OTHER OWNERS HAD THIS SAME EXACT ISSUE. FORD TOLD ME TO BRING IT IN ON WED, I HAD TO CALL FORD CORPORATE TO FIND OUT IF I WAS ENTITLED TO A RENTAL AND DID I HAVE TO PAY A $100 DEDUCTIBLE. IT WAS LIKE PULLING TEETH TO HAVE THIS HANDLED. ON WED WHEN I WAS SUPPOSED TO DROP IT OFF, AFTER MORE DISCONNECTED PHONE CALLS AND VOICEMAILS~ I ASKED TO SPEAK WITH A DIRECTOR OR MANAGER. IN MIND EXPERIENCE HE WAS TREATING ME AS IF I WERE A CHILD AND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THE FORD ESCAPES.AFTER TELLING HIM WHAT I FOUND OUT ONLINE I WAS TOLD "IF YOU READ ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET, THAT'S SIMPLY YOUR RESEARCH." I AM DISGUSTED WITH MY EXPERIENCE,MY TRUCK IS SUPPOSEDLY FIXED. I DO NOT TRUST A COMPANY TO FIX SOMETHING THEY ARE PRETENDING DOESN'T EXIST. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533109
65,000 miles · Jul 31, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING ON MAJOR INTERSTATE IN DOWNTOWN HOUSTON AT RUSH HOUR DOING 65 MILE AN HOUR WHEN CAR SUDDENLY STALLED CAUSING ME TO COME TO ALMOST A COMPLETE CRAWL AND I KEPT SEEING A FLASHING WRENCH IN MY DASH AREA AS THE CAR TUGGED ROUGHLY WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE. MY CAR WAS ALMOST HIT BY SEVERAL CARS AS OTHERS SLAMMED ON BRAKE…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON MAJOR INTERSTATE IN DOWNTOWN HOUSTON AT RUSH HOUR DOING 65 MILE AN HOUR WHEN CAR SUDDENLY STALLED CAUSING ME TO COME TO ALMOST A COMPLETE CRAWL AND I KEPT SEEING A FLASHING WRENCH IN MY DASH AREA AS THE CAR TUGGED ROUGHLY WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE. MY CAR WAS ALMOST HIT BY SEVERAL CARS AS OTHERS SLAMMED ON BRAKES BEHIND. I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A 5 LANE HIGHWAY AND I HAD TO CROSS TWO LANES DOING 10 MILES PER HOUR TO GET OVER TO THE RIGHT. I WAS A VERY SCARY ORDEAL, I WAS SHOOK UP AND DISORIENTED BY THE ORDEAL. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND SAT ON THE MEDIAN FOR 10 MINS AND STARTED THE CAR BACK UP AND THE FLASHING WRENCH WAS GONE. I CALLED FORD ABOUT A SIMILAR INCIDENT THAT I HAD LAST FALL OF 2012 AND THEY ASSURED ME THAT THERE WERE NO ISSUES REPORTED LIKE THIS FOR THE VEHICLE. PLEASE RESEARCH THE FACT THAT MY VIN IS STATED AS INVALID. MY VIN IS [XXX]. I GAVE THIS # TO THE FORD COMPANY WHEN I CALLED LAST YEAR AND NOW IT'S SHOWING AS INVALID?? THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT I FEEL THAT MY CAR IS UNSAFE AFTER THIS HAPPENING AGAIN TODAY AND KNOWING THAT I NEARLY CAUSED SEVERAL ACCIDENTS ON THE INTERSTATE AND PUT MY OWN LIFE IN DANGER IS CAUSING ME TO REACH OUT SEE WHAT ACTIONS I CAN TAKE AGAINST FORD TO FIX THIS ISSUE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532964
54,000 miles · Jul 31, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
ENGINE CUT OUT WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 55MPH AND 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT LIT UP ON THE DASHBOARD. I PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD AND WAITED ABOUT TEN MINUTES BEFORE RE-STARTING VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE STARTED OK BUT 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT STAYED ON. I TOOK IT TO SERVICE STATION AND THEY RAN DIAGNOSTIC AND GOT CODE P2111 - THROTTLE ACTUATO…
Read full complaint
ENGINE CUT OUT WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 55MPH AND 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT LIT UP ON THE DASHBOARD. I PULLED OVER TO SIDE OF ROAD AND WAITED ABOUT TEN MINUTES BEFORE RE-STARTING VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE STARTED OK BUT 'CHECK ENGINE' LIGHT STAYED ON. I TOOK IT TO SERVICE STATION AND THEY RAN DIAGNOSTIC AND GOT CODE P2111 - THROTTLE ACTUATOR STUCK OPEN. I MADE REPAIR APPOINTMENT AT FORD DEALER FOR NEXT DAY. WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK THE ENGINE STALLED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT BUT RE-STARTED OK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532795
35,000 miles · Jul 29, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
GOING DOWN ROAD, FIRST NO GAS PEDAL CONTROL , THEN STARTS TO MAKE ENGINE AND WHOLE VEHICLE PULSATE. STARTING TO GET WORSE AND DANGEROUS, ABOUT 3 TO4 TIMES A TRIP. DEALER HAS TOLD US THE PART IS ON BACKORDER ,MEANWHILE TRYING TO DEAL WITH IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532437
3,500 miles · Jul 29, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM HOME, DRIVING THE SUV AND SLOWED DOWN TO TURN THE CORNER, WHEN I TRIED TO HIT THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, THE CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE PAST 5MPH. A FEW LIGHTS CAME ON THE DASHBOARD AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT HOME. WHEN I RESTARTED IT, IT WORKED FINE. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, WHICH SAID THEY CO…
Read full complaint
I WAS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM HOME, DRIVING THE SUV AND SLOWED DOWN TO TURN THE CORNER, WHEN I TRIED TO HIT THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, THE CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE PAST 5MPH. A FEW LIGHTS CAME ON THE DASHBOARD AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT HOME. WHEN I RESTARTED IT, IT WORKED FINE. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, WHICH SAID THEY COULDN'T DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I HAD ONLY OWNED THE CAR FOR 6 MONTHS AT THE TIME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532336
42,000 miles · Jul 28, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING AT FREEWAY SPEED WHEN ENGINE LOST ALL POWER. UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. RESTARTED VEHICLE AND PROCEEDED BACK ON TO FREEWAY. INCIDENT REPEATED 5 TIMES IN 10 MILES OF DRIVING. FINALLY LOCATED A FORD DEALERSHIP. COMPUTER CODE INDICATED FAULTY THROTT…
Read full complaint
DRIVING AT FREEWAY SPEED WHEN ENGINE LOST ALL POWER. UNABLE TO ACCELERATE. ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. WAS ABLE TO PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. RESTARTED VEHICLE AND PROCEEDED BACK ON TO FREEWAY. INCIDENT REPEATED 5 TIMES IN 10 MILES OF DRIVING. FINALLY LOCATED A FORD DEALERSHIP. COMPUTER CODE INDICATED FAULTY THROTTLE BODY. UNABLE TO REPAIR SAME DAY BECAUSE DEALERSHIP DID NOT HAVE THE PART. CALLED 7 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS WITHIN A 200 MIL RADIUS AND ADVISED NO ONE HAD THE PART IN STOCK. APPEARS THIS IS A POPULAR PROBLEM. FINALLY FOUND THE PART THE FOLLOWING DAY AND DEALER INSTALLED. NO PROBLEMS SINCE. WAS FORCED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE UNTIL THE PART ARRIVED AS I WAS OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS WHEN THIS OCCURRED. THE LOSS OF ACCELERATION RESULTED IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. I EXPERIENCED THIS NOT ONLY AT HIGHWAY SPEED BUT ALSO WHEN TRYING TO ENTER THE FREEWAY. I WAS ALMOST HIT TWICE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532215
40,638 miles · Jul 27, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON PARKWAY AT 60 MPH LOST POWER WAS ABLE TO COAST TO SIDE OF ROAD. ONCE I SHUT CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED, IT WOULD DRIVE FINE. ONCE I HIT 60 AGAIN IT WOULD POWER OFF AGAIN. I WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE UNDER 50 FOR CONTINUOUS POWER. WENT TO SAYVILLE FORD FOR REPAIR. THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE. TURNS OUT ITS THE SAME PROBL…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON PARKWAY AT 60 MPH LOST POWER WAS ABLE TO COAST TO SIDE OF ROAD. ONCE I SHUT CAR OFF THEN RESTARTED, IT WOULD DRIVE FINE. ONCE I HIT 60 AGAIN IT WOULD POWER OFF AGAIN. I WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE UNDER 50 FOR CONTINUOUS POWER. WENT TO SAYVILLE FORD FOR REPAIR. THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE. TURNS OUT ITS THE SAME PROBLEM EVERYONE IS HAVING. I PAID $486.89 FOR REPAIR. $171.68 FOR PART AND $315 FOR LABOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10532120
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