NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filter46,851 miles · Jun 3, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HE DROVE AT 70 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. A DIAGNOSTIC WAS PERFORMED WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE DEALER ADVISED THA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HE DROVE AT 70 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED SEVERAL TIMES WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. A DIAGNOSTIC WAS PERFORMED WHICH LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE THROTTLE BODY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS ON BACK ORDER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS FAILURE 46,851.
NHTSA ODI #10514892
54,000 miles · Jun 1, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING ON I40 MY VEHICLE LOST THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. I COASTED TO THE SHOULDER AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SURGE FORWARD AND STOP WHILE I ATTEMPTED TO PUT IT IN PARK. THIS HAPPENED TWICE MORE ON THIS TRIP, AFTER RESTARTING THE ENGINE TO REST THE ISSUE SO I COULD DRIVE AT ALL. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO FORD THREE TIMES FOR SERVI…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON I40 MY VEHICLE LOST THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. I COASTED TO THE SHOULDER AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SURGE FORWARD AND STOP WHILE I ATTEMPTED TO PUT IT IN PARK. THIS HAPPENED TWICE MORE ON THIS TRIP, AFTER RESTARTING THE ENGINE TO REST THE ISSUE SO I COULD DRIVE AT ALL. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO FORD THREE TIMES FOR SERVICE FOR THIS. THEY REST CODE AND TELL ME FORD IS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE THROTTLE BODY BUT WON'T FIX IT FOR FREE. I AM IN FACT TYPING THIS COMPLAINT IN THE SERVICE WAITING AREA. I HAVE EXPERIENCED SURGES FORWARD WHILE SITTING IN TRAFFIC AND HAD ALL POWER DROP OUT AT INTERSTATE SPEEDS. IT'S INSANE FORD HASN'T RECALLED THIS PART AND REPAIRED IT. I HOPE ME OR MY FAMILY DON'T HAVE TO BE INJURED OR KILLED FOR THEM TO TAKE CARE OF THIS FAULTY PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514599
38,700 miles · May 31, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING DOWN I-55 IN ST. LOUIS, MY CAR LOST POWER. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT THE THROTTLE WAS INOPERATIVE. TURNED THE KEY OFF, WAITED A FEW SECONDS, AND STARTED THE CAR. IT RAN FINE, LIKE REBOOTING A COMPUTER. THIS HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE ON SIDE STREETS AND IT HAPPENED…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN I-55 IN ST. LOUIS, MY CAR LOST POWER. I PULLED TO THE SHOULDER WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING BUT THE THROTTLE WAS INOPERATIVE. TURNED THE KEY OFF, WAITED A FEW SECONDS, AND STARTED THE CAR. IT RAN FINE, LIKE REBOOTING A COMPUTER. THIS HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE ON SIDE STREETS AND IT HAPPENED ONE MORE TIME BEFORE I GOT HOME ON I-55. WENT TO THE DEALER WITH CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON. $98 FOR DIAGNOSIS, THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM. BACK ORDER FOR OVER 30 DAYS, SO THIS MUST BE A BIGGER PROBLEM. THEY CLEANED THE THROTTLE BODY AND FUEL SYSTEM, ANOTHER $140, WHICH THEY SAID WOULD HELP UNTIL THE PART CAME IN. CAR JUST OUT OF WARRANTY 2700 MILES. KINDA SCARY TO LOSE POWER WHEN YOUR IN TRAFFIC. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514580
64,117 miles · May 31, 2013
Fuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
DRIVING ON INTERSTATE AT 65MPH AND VEHICLE JUST NO LONGER HAD ANY. ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I PRESSED REPEATEDLY AS VEHICLES WERE BEHIND AND TO THE LEFT OF ME. NO RESPONSE I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY CUT HARD RIGHT OFF INTERSTATE TO SIDE OF ROAD, VEHICLE WAS RUNNING ROUGH AND ENGINE REPAIR INDICATOR CAME ON STILL NO ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I …
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON INTERSTATE AT 65MPH AND VEHICLE JUST NO LONGER HAD ANY. ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I PRESSED REPEATEDLY AS VEHICLES WERE BEHIND AND TO THE LEFT OF ME. NO RESPONSE I HAD TO IMMEDIATELY CUT HARD RIGHT OFF INTERSTATE TO SIDE OF ROAD, VEHICLE WAS RUNNING ROUGH AND ENGINE REPAIR INDICATOR CAME ON STILL NO ACCELERATOR RESPONSE I PUT VEHICLE IN PARK TURNED OFF IGNITION AND RESTARTED. VEHICLE RESTARTED WILL ENGINE INDICATOR STILL ON BUT NOW HAD ACCELERATOR RESPONSE. BROUGHT TO DEALER DIAGNOSED AS DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY, IS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER BECAUSE OF FAILURES AND WAS TOLD IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR THAT PART TO GO, ESPECIALLY WILL SO FEW MILES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514425
35,000 miles · May 30, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, I DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP OXMOOR FORD AND WAS TOLD MY THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. NO ETA AS TO WHEN THE PART WOULD ARRIVE QUOTED $600. SPENDING $53 PER DAY FOR A RENTAL CAR. I GOOGLED THROTTLE BODY SAW WHERE ALL THE OTHER COMPLAINTS W…
Read full complaint
MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE WOULD NOT ACCELERATE, I DROVE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP OXMOOR FORD AND WAS TOLD MY THROTTLE BODY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. NO ETA AS TO WHEN THE PART WOULD ARRIVE QUOTED $600. SPENDING $53 PER DAY FOR A RENTAL CAR. I GOOGLED THROTTLE BODY SAW WHERE ALL THE OTHER COMPLAINTS WERE POSTED THOUGHT I WOULD ADD MINE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514320
42,535 miles · May 30, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
THIS VEHICLE HAS LOST POWER UNEXPECTEDLY TWICE IN THE LAST MONTH WHILE EITHER DECELERATING FROM FREEWAY SPEEDS (FIRST TIME) AND WHILE CRUISING AT 65 MPH (SECOND TIME). IN BOTH INSTANCES THE WRENCH LITE CAME ON AND THE RPM LEVEL DROPPED TO BELOW 900 RPM AND WAS ERRATIC. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO PUT ON MY HAZARD FLASHERS AND PULL…
Read full complaint
THIS VEHICLE HAS LOST POWER UNEXPECTEDLY TWICE IN THE LAST MONTH WHILE EITHER DECELERATING FROM FREEWAY SPEEDS (FIRST TIME) AND WHILE CRUISING AT 65 MPH (SECOND TIME). IN BOTH INSTANCES THE WRENCH LITE CAME ON AND THE RPM LEVEL DROPPED TO BELOW 900 RPM AND WAS ERRATIC. LUCKILY, I WAS ABLE TO PUT ON MY HAZARD FLASHERS AND PULL TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IN BOTH CASES. BOTH TIMES, I SHUT THE CAR OFF AND IT RESTARTED RESUMING NORMAL PERFORMANCE. THIS UNPREDICTABLE LOSS OF POWER CAN BECOME A SERIOUS HAZARD IN A FREEWAY FULL OF DRIVERS. I SEE A GROWING NUMBER OF ESCAPE DRIVERS EXPERIENCING THE SAME THING, SO IT APPEARS AS THOUGH A TREND IS HAPPENING FOCUSING ON SUSPECT THROTTLE BODY UNITS. I AM SURE FORD WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, BUT WONDER HOW BAD IT NEEDS TO GET BEFORE THEY DO. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10514267
45,600 miles · May 26, 2013
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS IDLING AT A STAND-STILL ON THE HIGHWAY (OR VERY CLOSE TO A STAND-STILL - MAY HAVE BEEN ROLLING AT APPROX. 5 MILES PER HOUR) AS TRAFFIC CAME TO A STOP DUE TO A LANE MERGE AHEAD. WHEN TRAFFIC STARTED TO SLOWLY MOVE FORWARD AGAIN, I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE AND STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL TO ACCELERATE FORWARD BUT THE CAR DID …
Read full complaint
I WAS IDLING AT A STAND-STILL ON THE HIGHWAY (OR VERY CLOSE TO A STAND-STILL - MAY HAVE BEEN ROLLING AT APPROX. 5 MILES PER HOUR) AS TRAFFIC CAME TO A STOP DUE TO A LANE MERGE AHEAD. WHEN TRAFFIC STARTED TO SLOWLY MOVE FORWARD AGAIN, I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE AND STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL TO ACCELERATE FORWARD BUT THE CAR DID NOT MOVE. I TRIED STEPPING ON THE GAS PEDAL ONCE MORE AND AGAIN THE CAR WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. SINCE THE CAR WAS STILL IN DRIVE GEAR, I MANAGED TO GET THE CAR TO ROLL INTO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD ON ITS OWN TO GET OUT OF THE WAY OF TRAFFIC. CAR STARTED TO BUCK AND VIBRATE WHEN I TRIED USING THE GAS PEDAL AGAIN TO ACCELERATE FORWARD IN THE SHOULDER AND WOULD STILL NOT MOVE FORWARD. I NOTICED THEN THAT THE ORANGE WRENCH ICON WAS LIT UP ON THE DASH. I THEN PUT THE CAR IN PARK AND TURNED THE ENGINE OFF AS I FELT IT WAS NO LONGER SAFE TO DRIVE. HAD TO CALL A TOW TRUCK TO TOW THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP. DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS AN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY AND SAID IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY AS IT WAS AN ELECTRONIC/EXTERNAL PART. HAD BOUGHT THE CAR BRAND NEW IN DEC 2010. I WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT THE CAR WAS LESS THAN 2 1/2 YEARS OLD AND HAD A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT COULD HAVE LED TO A DANGEROUS SITUATION. I WAS MOVING SLOWLY IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE DURING HOLIDAY TRAFFIC WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, AND I WAS LUCKY THAT I WAS NOT IN A BUSY INTERSECTION OR TRAVELING AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED WHEN I LOST ACCELERATION DUE TO THE THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10513579
57,000 miles · May 20, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE JERKED AND DECELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE JERKED AND DECELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 57,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512840
16,780 miles · May 20, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
FIRST INCIDENT: WAS DRIVING ON EXPRESS WAY FEEDER ROAD ATTEMPTING TO ACCELERATE TO ENTER XWAY RAMP WHEN CAR SUDDENLY BEGAN TO QUICKLY DECELERATE. APPLYING GAS YIELDED NO RESULT. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD AND ESSENTIALLY COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT. TURNED OFF ENGINE. RESTARTED CAR AFTER A FEW MINUTES AND PROBLEM WAS GONE. SECO…
Read full complaint
FIRST INCIDENT: WAS DRIVING ON EXPRESS WAY FEEDER ROAD ATTEMPTING TO ACCELERATE TO ENTER XWAY RAMP WHEN CAR SUDDENLY BEGAN TO QUICKLY DECELERATE. APPLYING GAS YIELDED NO RESULT. PULLED TO SIDE OF ROAD AND ESSENTIALLY COASTED INTO A PARKING LOT. TURNED OFF ENGINE. RESTARTED CAR AFTER A FEW MINUTES AND PROBLEM WAS GONE. SECOND INCIDENT: ONE DAY LATER, WAS DRIVING ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET WHEN AGAIN THE CAR SUDDENLY BEGAN TO RAPIDLY DECELERATE. APPLYING ACCELERATED YIELDED NO RESULTS. COASTED TO STOP AT SIDE OF ROAD. TURNED OFF ENGINE. WAS AGAIN ABLE TO RESTART CAR AND PROBLEM WAS GONE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512760
15,500 miles · May 19, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN BETWEEN 25 AND 40 MPH AND COMPLETE LOSS OF DRIVE POWER/SPEED OCCURRED (VEHICLE ABRUPTLY SLOWS TO ~4 MPH). IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO GET VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD TO AVOID A COLLISION. THIS HAS OCCURRED 4 TIMES IN THE PAST 3 WEEKS (TWO INCIDENTS ON 5/19/13). VEHICLE WILL BE TAKEN TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION/REP…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN BETWEEN 25 AND 40 MPH AND COMPLETE LOSS OF DRIVE POWER/SPEED OCCURRED (VEHICLE ABRUPTLY SLOWS TO ~4 MPH). IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO GET VEHICLE TO SIDE OF ROAD TO AVOID A COLLISION. THIS HAS OCCURRED 4 TIMES IN THE PAST 3 WEEKS (TWO INCIDENTS ON 5/19/13). VEHICLE WILL BE TAKEN TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION/REPAIR WEEK OF 5/19/13. ENGINE STAYS RUNNING AT IDLE, BUT VERY ROUGH WHEN IN DRIVE. IF PLACED IN NEUTRAL, ENGINE RUNS, BUT WILL NOT REV UP WITH GAS PEDAL. NO THROTTLE RESPONSE WHEN ISSUE OCCURS. AFTER KEY OFF AND 30 SECOND WAIT AND RESTART, VEHICLE PERFORMS AS INTENDED. NO MIL LIGHTS ON DASHBOARD. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10512711
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