NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter32,596 miles · Jul 9, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I HAVE BEEN HAVING THIS ISSUE FOR MANY MONTHS WHERE THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE RIGHT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. IT WOULD SHIFT VERY HARD & JERK EVEN HARDER FROM 1ST/2ND & 2ND/3RD. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP & THEY EXPLAINED IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION SO I PAID FOR A TRANSMISSION FLUSH EVEN THOUGH IT ONLY HAD 32K…
Read full complaint
I HAVE BEEN HAVING THIS ISSUE FOR MANY MONTHS WHERE THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE RIGHT WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION. IT WOULD SHIFT VERY HARD & JERK EVEN HARDER FROM 1ST/2ND & 2ND/3RD. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP & THEY EXPLAINED IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION SO I PAID FOR A TRANSMISSION FLUSH EVEN THOUGH IT ONLY HAD 32K MILES. THEY ALSO AT THIS TIME RESENT THE COMPUTER TO MY DRIVING HABITS? THE PROBLEM CONTINUED. TOOK IT BACK TO THE SHOP LAST WEEK TWICE & THEY BELIEVE THAT IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY BUT ALL COMPUTER CHECKS SHOWED THE TRUCK AS FINE. YESTERDAY WHILE DRIVING 45MPH, IT ALL OF SUDDEN SHIFTED HARD LIKE IT WENT INTO NEUTRAL. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE GAS PEDAL & THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. I DID NOT LOSE POWER STEERING & WAS ABLE TO COAST OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I AT THIS TIME NOTICED THE WRENCH LIGHT WAS ON IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE DASH. THE SERVICE MANAGER AT FORD TOLD ME THIS WOULD HAPPEN & THAT I NEEDED TO GET THE TRUCK TO THEM WITH THE LIGHT ON SO THAT THEY COULD GET THE CODE THEY NEEDED IN ORDER TO FILE THE CLAIM WITH FORD & REPLACE THE THROTTLE BODY. I WAS TOO FAR FROM THE DEALERSHIP TO JERK DOWN THE ROAD OVER 5 MILES IN NOTHING MORE THAN A CREEPER PACE ESPECIALLY DURING RUSH HOUR. WHEN I APPLIED MY FOOT TO THE GAS PEDAL IT WAS NON RESPONSIVE. I WAS TOLD BY THE SERVICE MANAGER THAT IF I TURNED OFF THE TRUCK & RESTARTED IT THE WRENCH LIGHT WOULD GO AWAY & THAT IT DOES NOT SEND AN ERROR CODE TO THE COMPUTER FOR THEM TO REFERENCE. I HAD TO TURN IT OFF, BUT NOT BEFORE TAKING PICTURES FOR MY RECORDS. I TRIED TO RESTART THE TRUCK & IT STRUGGLED BUT FINALLY TURNED OVER OF WHICH THEN IT DROVE FINE. ARRIVED AT THE DEALERSHIP & THEY CONFIRMED IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY BUT THAT THE PARTS ARE ON AN INDEFINITE BACK ORDER. NOW WE WAIT. A COMPLETE INCONVENIENCE & RIDICULOUS THAT FORD WILL NOT ISSUE A RECALL ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY KNOW THIS IS A PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523863
60,000 miles · Jul 3, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING NORTHBOUND ON TIDEWATER TRAIL (RT 17) BETWEEN GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND TAPPAHANOCK, VA THE CAR SUDDENLY STOPPED WITH FORWARD MOTION AT THE SAME RATE OF SPEED. I COASTED OVER TO THE SIDE AND PARKED ON THE SHOULDER, OR GRASS BESIDE THE ROAD. THERE WAS NO SAFE PLACE TO PULL OVER. I LET THE CAR SIT FOR A MINUTE, THEN ST…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING NORTHBOUND ON TIDEWATER TRAIL (RT 17) BETWEEN GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND TAPPAHANOCK, VA THE CAR SUDDENLY STOPPED WITH FORWARD MOTION AT THE SAME RATE OF SPEED. I COASTED OVER TO THE SIDE AND PARKED ON THE SHOULDER, OR GRASS BESIDE THE ROAD. THERE WAS NO SAFE PLACE TO PULL OVER. I LET THE CAR SIT FOR A MINUTE, THEN STARTED IT UP AGAIN. IT SEEMED TO BE OK FOR ABOUT 3 MORE MILES AT A REDUCED RATE OF SPEED WITH FLASHERS ON, THEN IT DID THE SAME THING. I CALLED FOR A TOW TRUCK AND HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED BACK TO A GARAGE UP THE STREET FROM WHERE I LIVE. THEY INDICATED IT WAS A THROTTLE BODY DEFECT AND THAT THE PART WAS BACKORDERED. I HAD FORD ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE TOW THE CAR TO HARRIS FORD IN NEWPORT NEWS VA AND THEY CONFIRMED YESTERDAY THAT THE THROTTLE BODY PART HAD FAILED ON THE VEHICLE AND THAT IT WAS BACKORDERED. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BRINGING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST FORD BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUE AND IF THEY ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM THEY SHOULD AT THE LEAST DO A RECALL AND HAVE AMPLE PARTS ON HAND TO REPAIR THE VEHICLES IN A TIMELY MANNER, OR PREVENT FAILURE BEFORE A FEMALE DRIVING ALONE IS STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD DRIVING WHAT SHE ASSUMES TO BE A SAFE VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED. I AM VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523004
61,000 miles · Jul 2, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE CONTINUALLY HAS A DECREASE IN POWER. AFTER STEPPING ON GAS PEDAL STARTS TO "CHUG" ALONG SLOWLY EVENTUALLY SPEEDS BACK UP AND ENGAGES TO NORMAL SPEED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522900
45,565 miles · Jul 1, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ON. VEHICLE LOST POWER LIKE YOU HAD KICKED THE CRUISE OFF. PUSHED ON THE ACCELERATOR BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. SHUT VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WORKED FINE. WENT ABOUT A MILE DOWN THE ROAD AND IT DID IT AGAIN. HAD IT TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID IT WAS T…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ON. VEHICLE LOST POWER LIKE YOU HAD KICKED THE CRUISE OFF. PUSHED ON THE ACCELERATOR BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. SHUT VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTED AND IT WORKED FINE. WENT ABOUT A MILE DOWN THE ROAD AND IT DID IT AGAIN. HAD IT TOWED TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID IT WAS THE THROTTLE BODY WHICH THEY SAID WOULD COST $300 PLUS THE COST FOR TOWING. THIS WAS DANGEROUS BECAUSE I COULD HAVE BEEN HIT FROM BEHIND WHEN IT SUDDENLY DECELERATED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522668
47,000 miles · Jul 1, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
A FEW WEEKS AGO, MY ESCAPE WOULD SLOW DOWN AND OR STOP INTERMITTENTLY FOR NOW REASON. THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME 2 TIMES IN ONE WEEK AND BY TWO WEEK FROM THE FIRST DATE OF OCCURRENCE. IT HAD STARTED TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN AND OCCURRING THE LAST TIME 3 TIMES THAT DAY. I TOOK IT TO MY FORD DEALERSHIP (JACK MADDEN FORD) IN NORWOO…
Read full complaint
A FEW WEEKS AGO, MY ESCAPE WOULD SLOW DOWN AND OR STOP INTERMITTENTLY FOR NOW REASON. THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME 2 TIMES IN ONE WEEK AND BY TWO WEEK FROM THE FIRST DATE OF OCCURRENCE. IT HAD STARTED TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN AND OCCURRING THE LAST TIME 3 TIMES THAT DAY. I TOOK IT TO MY FORD DEALERSHIP (JACK MADDEN FORD) IN NORWOOD, MA. I WAS OUTSIDE OF MY WARRANTY SO I WAS TOLD THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY ORIGINALLY BUT THEN I WAS CALLED LATER THAT DAY AND TOLD THAT I HAD A FAULTY THROTTLE DRIVE AND THAT IT WOULD BE REPLACED FOR FREE. I WAS NOT TOLD WHY IT WOULD BE REPLACED FOR FREE BUT THAT IT WAS UNDER WARRANTY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522579
44,000 miles · Jul 1, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH AND APPROACHING AN ENTRANCE RAMP, THE ENGINE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. THE ENGINE WAS RESTARTED WITH THE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED; HOWEVER THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE UP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH AND APPROACHING AN ENTRANCE RAMP, THE ENGINE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. THE ENGINE WAS RESTARTED WITH THE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED; HOWEVER THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE UPON APPLYING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 44,000.
NHTSA ODI #10522569
63,000 miles · Jun 30, 2013
Electrical SystemFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
I AM A SINGLE FEMALE AND KEEP MY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE UP TO DATE. I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE TO CALL ON TO HELP IN TIMES OF CAR TROUBLE. THE ENGINE WOULD LOSE POWER AND START TO 'COAST' TO A STOP AT VARYING SPEEDS, INCLUDING ON AN INTERSTATE. I HAD TO PULL THE CAR OVER, TURN IT OFF, AND RESTART. THE RESTART WAS ALWAYS TROUBLESOME. ONCE…
Read full complaint
I AM A SINGLE FEMALE AND KEEP MY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE UP TO DATE. I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE TO CALL ON TO HELP IN TIMES OF CAR TROUBLE. THE ENGINE WOULD LOSE POWER AND START TO 'COAST' TO A STOP AT VARYING SPEEDS, INCLUDING ON AN INTERSTATE. I HAD TO PULL THE CAR OVER, TURN IT OFF, AND RESTART. THE RESTART WAS ALWAYS TROUBLESOME. ONCE THE DEALERSHIP LOOKED AT THE CAR, I WAS TOLD I WOULD HAVE TO WAIT AT LEAST 2 WEEKS FOR A REPLACEMENT PART. I HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE FOR 2 WEEKS, PUTTING MYSELF AND ANY PASSENGER IN DANGER OF BEING INVOLVED IN AND CAUSING A MAJOR CAR ACCIDENT. I CALLED THE DEALER 2 WEEKS LATER; THE DEALER DID NOT CONTACT ME. I PICKED UP THE PART AND HAD IT INSTALLED. I ALSO PURCHASED A CABIN AIR FILTER IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME. TO MY SURPRISE, THE CAR DID NOT EVEN HAVE A CABIN AIR FILTER INSTALLED WHEN I PURCHASED THE NEW VEHICLE. I HAVE NEVER HAD THAT FILTER REPLACED. I HAVE SEVERE ALLERGIES AND CURRENTLY TAKE 2 SHOTS. I WAS NOT HAPPY TO DISCOVER THE AIR ENTERING MY CAR WAS HELPING TO CONTRIBUTE TO MY PROBLEMS WITH MY ALLERGIES. I WILL NOT PURCHASE ANOTHER FORD. THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE DOES NOT PROMOTE REPEAT CUSTOMERS. FORD DOES NOT STAND BEHIND THEIR VEHICLES AND ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE SAFETY OF THEIR CUSTOMERS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522512
44,500 miles · Jun 29, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING WHEN IT APPEARED TO STALL SHUT CAR OFF I DROVE TO DEALERSHIP. I WAS INFORMED IT WAS BAD THROTTLE ASSEMBLY. IT WILL COST $411TO FIX DEALER OFFERED TO TAKE 10% OFF.IF MY WIFE WAS DRIVING SHE WOULD HAVE TOTALLY TOTALLY PANICKED AND MOST LIKELY CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. FORD NEEDS TO STEP TO THE PLATE AND FIX THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522402
19,800 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingPower Train
AT APPROX. 19,800 MILES WAS DRIVING ALONG THE INTERSTATE AND THE ESCAPE STARTED LOSING POWER. I WENT FROM RUNNING 75 MPH TO 40 MPH. THE ESCAPE NOW HAS APPROX. 33,000 MILES AND IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. AS OF APRIL 28, 2013 IT HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR A TOTAL OF 46 DAYS AND HAS HAD 8 REPAIR ATTEMPTS. NO WARNING LIGHTS NOR THE CHE…
Read full complaint
AT APPROX. 19,800 MILES WAS DRIVING ALONG THE INTERSTATE AND THE ESCAPE STARTED LOSING POWER. I WENT FROM RUNNING 75 MPH TO 40 MPH. THE ESCAPE NOW HAS APPROX. 33,000 MILES AND IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. AS OF APRIL 28, 2013 IT HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR A TOTAL OF 46 DAYS AND HAS HAD 8 REPAIR ATTEMPTS. NO WARNING LIGHTS NOR THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT HAS EVER COME ON. THIS ESCAPE CLUNKS, SURGES, LOSES POWER, CUT'S OFF AND AT TIMES WILL NOT EVEN CRANK. THE TRANSMISSIONS HAS BEEN REPROGRAMMED, THE THROTTLE BODY AND MOTOR ASY - THROTTLE BODY AIR INTAKE HAS BEEN REPLACED, THE VAPOR MANAGEMENT VALVE HAS BEEN REPLACED, THE TORQUE CONVERTOR HAS BEEN REPLACED. LOST IN ARBITRATION WITH THE BBB BECAUSE FORD SAID IN THEIR LAST REPAIR ATTEMPT THAT THE VEHICLE HAS OPERATING AS NORMAL. JUNE 5, 2013 CAR WAS BACK IN SHOP BECAUSE AT 7:45 AM STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT, WHILE MY FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE THE RPM'S SURGED UP TO 4000, COULD HARDLY KEEP IT FROM RUNNING THE LIGHT, ONCE THE LIGHT CHANGED TOOK OFF AND WITHIN 4 TENTHS OF A MILE LOST POWER AND SHUT OFF. IT TOOK ME 8 MINUTES TO GET IT TO CRANK, DROVE ABOUT 15 MILES, SURGING ALL THE WAY, AND THE CAR DIED AGAIN, TAKING ME 10 MINUTES TO GET IT TO CRANK. TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE SHOP, THEY KEPT IT FOR 7 DAYS, RETURNED IT AND SAID THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE PROBLEM. JUNE 20, 2013 TRIED TO CRANK THE CAR AT 10:00 AM, IT WOULD CRANK, BUT GO DEAD, FINALLY AT 11:10 AM IT STAYED CRANKED, DROVE AT 3 TENTHS OF A MILE, CAR GOES DEAD. TAKES ME 5 MINUTES TO RE-CRANK WENT STRAIGHT TO THE SHOP. THIS CAR IS DANGEROUS AND FORD NEEDS TO RE-CALL.
NHTSA ODI #10522370
39,000 miles · Jun 26, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND SUDDENLY MY VEHICLE LOST ALL RPM'S, I COASTED ON TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED MY VEHICLE OFF. DURING THIS TIME A WRENCH LIGHT ALSO CAME ON MY VEHICLE. A FEW MINUTES LATER I RESTARTED IT AND IT WENT APROX 1/2MILE BEFORE DOING IT AGAIN. I AGAIN PULLED OVER, RESTARTED ENGINE AND WAS ABLE TO DR…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND SUDDENLY MY VEHICLE LOST ALL RPM'S, I COASTED ON TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURNED MY VEHICLE OFF. DURING THIS TIME A WRENCH LIGHT ALSO CAME ON MY VEHICLE. A FEW MINUTES LATER I RESTARTED IT AND IT WENT APROX 1/2MILE BEFORE DOING IT AGAIN. I AGAIN PULLED OVER, RESTARTED ENGINE AND WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME WITH NO FURTHER PROBLEMS. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES SINCE IN THE PAST 2 WEEKS. THE FORD SERVICE DEPT TOLD ME THAT THIS IS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY AND THEY ARE UNABLE TO FIX IT WITHOUT US PAYING IN FULL FOR THE REPAIR. THE WRENCH LIGHT DOES NOT STAY ON. WE WERE TOLD THE ACTUATOR WAS STUCK OPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10521941
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