NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter40,000 miles · Jul 18, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, I WAS TRAVELING AT APROX. 35MPH WHEN IT FIRST HAPPENED. MY RPM GAUGE STARTED TO "BOUNCE" FROM 1 TO 4 REPEATEDLY. MAKE IT VERY HARD TO STOP AND COULD NOT GIVE IT GAS. AT THE SAME TIME, MY POWER-TRAIN WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND CALL FOR ASSISTANCE.…
Read full complaint
DRIVING HOME FROM WORK, I WAS TRAVELING AT APROX. 35MPH WHEN IT FIRST HAPPENED. MY RPM GAUGE STARTED TO "BOUNCE" FROM 1 TO 4 REPEATEDLY. MAKE IT VERY HARD TO STOP AND COULD NOT GIVE IT GAS. AT THE SAME TIME, MY POWER-TRAIN WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER AND CALL FOR ASSISTANCE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525517
37,195 miles · Jul 17, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TRAVELING 70 MPH ON INTERSTATE NORTH WEST OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA AT 5:00 IN THE MORNING USING CRUISE CONTROL. CRUISE CONTROL WENT OFF AND CAR HAD A CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF POWER. NO RESPONSE TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE OPEN END WRENCH EMBLEM CAME ON THE DASH BOARD. CAR SPEED DROPPED TO 2.5 MPH WITH OCCASIONAL DOUBLE SURGES UP TO…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING 70 MPH ON INTERSTATE NORTH WEST OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA AT 5:00 IN THE MORNING USING CRUISE CONTROL. CRUISE CONTROL WENT OFF AND CAR HAD A CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF POWER. NO RESPONSE TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE OPEN END WRENCH EMBLEM CAME ON THE DASH BOARD. CAR SPEED DROPPED TO 2.5 MPH WITH OCCASIONAL DOUBLE SURGES UP TO 4.5 MPH. HAD TO DRIVE ON SHOULDER FOR 1 1/2 MILES AT 2.5 MPH IN ORDER TO GET TO AN EXIT AND CALL FOR ASSISTANCE. WAS ON MY OWN AND TOTALLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. CALLED FORD MOTOR ASSIST AND THEY TOWED VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP. THIS WAS A SUNDAY SO HAD TO SPEND NIGHT IN MOTEL BEFORE COULD SEE SERVICE PEOPLE. DIAGNOSIS ENDED UP BEING THROTTLE CONTROL NEEDING REPLACED. HAD COMPLAINED TO LOCAL DEALERSHIP ABOUT SOMETHING BEING WRONG WITH WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE TRANSMISSION AS THE CARE WOULD SURGE OR SHIFT FUNNY SEVERAL TIMES CLEAR UP TO JUST PRIOR TO REACHING 36,000 MILE WARRANTY. SINCE THIS OCCURRED AT 37,195 AND 500 MILES AWAY FROM HOME IT WAS CONSIDERED AN OUT OF WARRANTY REPAIR AND COST $478.00. I AM THANKFUL IT WAS 5:00 IN THE MORNING ON A SUNDAY AS HAD THIS OCCURRED IN RUSH HOUR IN A FURTHER LEFT HAND LANE, THE SUDDEN DECELERATION WOULD LIKELY HAVE CAUSE A BAD ACCIDENT. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROBLEM!!!!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525492
59,294 miles · Jul 17, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHEN WITHOUT WARNING, I SUDDENLY HAD NO POWER AT ALL. MY ACCELERATION WAS GONE, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, HOWEVER EVERYTHING WAS RUNNING, AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS NOT ON. I PUMPED THE GAS PEDAL AND GOT NOTHING, FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE COMING UP ON MY RIGHT…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHEN WITHOUT WARNING, I SUDDENLY HAD NO POWER AT ALL. MY ACCELERATION WAS GONE, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE ENGINE HAD DIED, HOWEVER EVERYTHING WAS RUNNING, AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS NOT ON. I PUMPED THE GAS PEDAL AND GOT NOTHING, FORTUNATELY THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE COMING UP ON MY RIGHT, WHICH I WAS ABLE TO TURN INTO. AT THAT POINT I NOTICED THE "WRENCH" ICON LIGHTED UP ON THE DASHBOARD, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND SEE IF IT WAS A GLITCH, SINCE I HAD JUST HAD THE OIL CHANGED AT THE DEALERSHIP EARLIER IN THE DAY. AT LEAST I WAS HOPING THAT WAS THE CASE. THE CAR STARTED PERFECTLY, IT TOOK A FEW SECONDS TO SHAKE ITSELF, WHICH STILL WORRIED ME, AND PROCEEDED TO ACT NORMALLY AS I DROVE HOME, WHERE I CURRENTLY AM. I ADVISED MY SON ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND HE CHECKED UP ON AUTO DEFECTS ON THE FORD ESCAPE AND BROUGHT THEM TO MY ATTENTION, THAT IS WHY I AM REPORTING WHAT HAPPENED TO ME TODAY. I WILL BE BRINGING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEALERSHIP FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING DUE TO MY NEEDING THE USE OF MY VEHICLE FOR WORK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525281
48,500 miles · Jul 16, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
LEAVING PARKING LOT AND THE CAR BEGAN TO LURCH. THEN IT BEGAN TO IDLE WITH THE LURCH. PRESSED ACCELERATOR AND NO RESPONSE OTHER THAN THE LURCHING IDLE. HAD THE CAR TOWED TO FORD DEALER. THE SERVICE ADVISOR LATER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND THAT THE PARTS ARE BACK ORDERED. PROBABLY 12 DAYS WAS HIS STA…
Read full complaint
LEAVING PARKING LOT AND THE CAR BEGAN TO LURCH. THEN IT BEGAN TO IDLE WITH THE LURCH. PRESSED ACCELERATOR AND NO RESPONSE OTHER THAN THE LURCHING IDLE. HAD THE CAR TOWED TO FORD DEALER. THE SERVICE ADVISOR LATER STATED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND THAT THE PARTS ARE BACK ORDERED. PROBABLY 12 DAYS WAS HIS STATEMENT. RECENTLY FOUND OUT THAT IT MAY BE 3 TO 4 MORE WEEKS FOR THE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525230
56,700 miles · Jul 15, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED, THE VEHICLE INSTANTLY LOST POWER. GAS PEDAL WAS NON-RESPONSIVE. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE TO A SAFE SPOT OFF THE MAIN ROADWAY. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO PARK, IT IDLED ROUGHLY AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED A FEW SECONDS. TURNED THE VEHICLE BAC…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED, THE VEHICLE INSTANTLY LOST POWER. GAS PEDAL WAS NON-RESPONSIVE. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE TO A SAFE SPOT OFF THE MAIN ROADWAY. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PUT INTO PARK, IT IDLED ROUGHLY AND THE ORANGE WRENCH WARNING LIGHT CAME ON. TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND WAITED A FEW SECONDS. TURNED THE VEHICLE BACK ON AND WAS ABLE TO RETURN HOME WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. TOOK VEHICLE TO LOCAL DEALER SERVICE THE NEXT DAY AND WAS INFORMED THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM AND THAT THE REPAIR PART NEEDED IS CURRENTLY ON EXTENSIVE BACKORDER, MAYBE UP TO SEVERAL WEEKS. THE PRIMARY CONCERN OVER THIS TYPE OF ISSUE IS THAT IT COULD OCCUR TO SOMEONE WHO IS AT HIGHWAY SPEED AND WOULD BE UNABLE TO REACH A STOPPING POINT SAFELY. THE FACT THAT THE PART NEEDED TO FIX THE ISSUE IS ON EXTENSIVE BACKORDER INDICATES THAT THIS IS HARDLY AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524911
46,000 miles · Jul 15, 2013
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE HAS GONE INTO LIMP MODE WHILE IN MOTION THREE TIMES THIS MONTH, JULY 2013. MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS A MALFUNCTIONING THROTTLE BODY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524891
23,700 miles · Jul 15, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON FREEWAY WITH SPEED APPROX. 60MPH, ACCELERATOR BECAME INACTIVE, NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE, THE CAR SEEMED THAT IT HAD DIED. WE MANEUVERED TO THE RIGHT LANE AND THEN PULLED OFF ONTO THE SHOULDER. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK AGAIN UNTIL WE TURNED THE CAR OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED ONCE MORE A WEE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON FREEWAY WITH SPEED APPROX. 60MPH, ACCELERATOR BECAME INACTIVE, NO ACCELERATION WAS POSSIBLE, THE CAR SEEMED THAT IT HAD DIED. WE MANEUVERED TO THE RIGHT LANE AND THEN PULLED OFF ONTO THE SHOULDER. THE ACCELERATOR WOULD NOT WORK AGAIN UNTIL WE TURNED THE CAR OFF AND STARTED IT AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED ONCE MORE A WEEK LATER - WHEN WE TOOK THE CAR TO FORD SERVICE WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS LIKELY THE THROTTLE MODULE BUT FORD WOULD NOT REPLACE IT EVEN THOUGH OUR CAR IS UNDER WARRANTY FOR A FEW MORE MONTHS. ON 7/13/2013, WE WERE ON THE FREEWAY AGAIN AT 60MPH APPROX. AND WITHIN A 5MILE STRETCH OF FREEWAY, THE SAME THING HAPPENED 5 TIMES, EACH TIME WE WERE IN HEAVY FREEWAY TRAFFIC. WE WERE ON OUR WAY OUT OF TOWN, BUT TURNED AROUND AND CAME BACK, TAKING A BACK ROAD RATHER THAN THE FREEWAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524803
35,300 miles · Jul 14, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE LOST POWER - WAS RUNNING BUT COULD NOT ACCELERATE. TURNED CAR OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS OPERATING CORRECTLY. CALLED DEALERSHIP SERVICE TO INQUIRE IF THEY KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. THEY ADVISED THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE. INCIDENT OCCURRED 2 ADDITIONAL TIMES OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. LAST TIME VEHIC…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE LOST POWER - WAS RUNNING BUT COULD NOT ACCELERATE. TURNED CAR OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WAS OPERATING CORRECTLY. CALLED DEALERSHIP SERVICE TO INQUIRE IF THEY KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. THEY ADVISED THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE. INCIDENT OCCURRED 2 ADDITIONAL TIMES OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. LAST TIME VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. TOOK TO DEALERSHIP AND WE WERE ADVISED CAR OUT OF WARRANTY. WE INSISTED THERE WAS A PROBLEM AND IT WAS DANGEROUS TO OPERATE. THEY WOULD NOT TOW SO WE DROVE VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP AND THEY REPLACED THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. WE WERE ONLY CHARGED A $75 DEDUCTIBLE. VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN OPERATED ENOUGH TO DETERMINE IF PROBLEM IS FIXED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524714
49,500 miles · Jul 13, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED THE ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOSES POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING BUT THE VEHICLE BEGINS TO SLOW AND DEPRESSING THE THROTTLE HAS NO EFFECT. THE ONLY INDICATION ON THE DASH IS A SMALL WRENCH SHAPED LIGHT ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE. ONCE THE VEHICLE IS STOPPED, I TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTART. FROM THE POIN…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED THE ESCAPE SUDDENLY LOSES POWER. THE ENGINE REMAINS RUNNING BUT THE VEHICLE BEGINS TO SLOW AND DEPRESSING THE THROTTLE HAS NO EFFECT. THE ONLY INDICATION ON THE DASH IS A SMALL WRENCH SHAPED LIGHT ON THE LOWER LEFT SIDE. ONCE THE VEHICLE IS STOPPED, I TURN THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTART. FROM THE POINT THE ESCAPE RUNS FINE. THIS PROBLEM STARTED TWO WEEKS AGO. IT HAS OCCURRED SIX TIMES. 4 OCCURRENCES ON THE HIGHWAY AND SPEED AND 2 OCCURRENCES ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS WHILE TRAVELING IN THE 20 - 25 MPH RANGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524661
68,256 miles · Jul 11, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING THE TRUCK SUDDENLY WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND JUST SHUT OFF. I WAS ABLE TO START AND COAST OVER OUT OF TRAFFIC.TRUCK WOULD START AGAIN BUT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE NO MORE THEN 5-10MPH AND SHUT OFF.VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO SOUTHGATE FORD I WAS PUT IN A DANGEROUS POSITION ON THE ROAD.THIS COULD HAVE BEEN FATAL IF I WAS ON THE FREEW…
Read full complaint
DRIVING THE TRUCK SUDDENLY WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND JUST SHUT OFF. I WAS ABLE TO START AND COAST OVER OUT OF TRAFFIC.TRUCK WOULD START AGAIN BUT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE NO MORE THEN 5-10MPH AND SHUT OFF.VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO SOUTHGATE FORD I WAS PUT IN A DANGEROUS POSITION ON THE ROAD.THIS COULD HAVE BEEN FATAL IF I WAS ON THE FREEWAY. ON TOP OF ALL OF THE SAME COMPLAINS OF THE SAME THING THE DEALERSHIP SAYS I HAVE TO PAY FOR WORK & PARTS TRUCK PASS MY WARRANTY LIMIT AND WOULD NOT HONOR MY FORD EMPLOYEE DISCOUNT FOR PARTS OR AARP DISCOUNT TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY PLUS ICAN PURCHASE ONLINE THE PARTS FROM FORD .SOUTHGATE WANTS TO CHARGE ME $476.54 FOR PARTS I CAN ORDER FROM FORDS THE PARTS MYSELF FOR $262.09 ONLINE. WHAT A SHAME CHECKIN THE OASIS RESULTS FOR MY VEHICLE I AM APPAULED THIS IS NOT ON THE RECALL LIST. HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO BE KILLED FIRST BEFOE THIS IS ADDRESSED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10524371
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