NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
245 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Feb 26, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
WE WERE JUST PULLING OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE CAR LOST ALL POWER. IT JERKED FORWARD AND THEN STOPPED. WE WERE STOPPED ON THE HIGHWAY AND COULD NOT GET THE CAR TO FORWARD. I TURNED THE CAR OFF WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN TRIED AGAIN. THE CAR AGAIN JERKED FORWARD WENT A SHORT DISTANCE AND THEN SHUT DOWN AGAIN, ON THE H…
Read full complaint
WE WERE JUST PULLING OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY WHEN THE CAR LOST ALL POWER. IT JERKED FORWARD AND THEN STOPPED. WE WERE STOPPED ON THE HIGHWAY AND COULD NOT GET THE CAR TO FORWARD. I TURNED THE CAR OFF WAITED A FEW MINUTES AND THEN TRIED AGAIN. THE CAR AGAIN JERKED FORWARD WENT A SHORT DISTANCE AND THEN SHUT DOWN AGAIN, ON THE HIGHWAY. LUCKILY WE WERE ONLY A MILE OR SO FROM THE DEALERSHIP WHERE WE BOUGHT THE CAR. WE TURNED THE CAR OFF AND STARTED IT 5 TIMES AND WERE ABLE TO GET THE MILE TO THE DEALERSHIP. WHEN THIS FIRST HAPPENED, A WRENCH APPEARED ON THE DASH, SIGNALING A POWERTRAIN ISSUE AND TO GET TO THE DEALERSHIP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AFTER THE CAR WAS LOOKED AT BY THE MECHANIC AT THE DEALERSHIP IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY AND WOULD COST $400 TO REPAIR. ACCORDING TO THE DEALERSHIP, THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR FORD, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOMETHING SO SERIOUS THAT IT CAN CAUSE A SERIOUS ACCIDENT OR DEATH IS NOT BEING RECALLED. I GUESS FORD DOESN'T WANT THE COST TO REPAIR THEIR DEFECTIVE PARTS AND OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF ITS CUSTOMERS OR THE LAWSUIT THAT WILL FOLLOW. FOR THIS REASON, I HAVE NOTIFIED ALL OF MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS NOT TO BUY ANOTHER FORD. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE NHTSA WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS AND MAKE A RECALL MANDATORY, NOT GIVE IN TO THE MIGHTY FORD COMPANY AND THEIR LACK OF CONCERN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10500485
28,520 miles · Feb 26, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. UPON RESTARTING, THE VEHICLE RESUMED AS NORMAL. THE FAILURE RECURRED THREE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER. THE VEHICLE WAS COASTED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. UPON RESTARTING, THE VEHICLE RESUMED AS NORMAL. THE FAILURE RECURRED THREE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 28,520. ...UPDATED 03/27/13 *BF UPDATED 3/28/13 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE ON HIS WAY TO THE DEALER, THE VEHICLE WENT INTO A LURCHING MOTION FOUR TIMES. TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AT THE TIME, SO HE WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THREE WERE RECORDED ON THE BLACK BOX, WHICH REACHED ITS CAPACITY. THE LAST ONE, CAUSED THE WRENCH LIGHT TO ILLUMINATE AND IT REMAINED ON. THE DEALER REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. AS OF 03/22/13, THE VEHICLE WAS PERFORMING AS DESIGNED. THE CONSUMER STATED HE ENTERED A FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROAD WITH LITTLE TRAFFIC COMING TOWARD HIM. AS HE ENTERED THE FIRST WESTBOUND LANE, THE VEHICLE WENT INTO A LURCHING MOTION, SLOWING DOWN HIS FORWARD MOVEMENT WITH TRAFFIC COMING CLOSER TO THE DRIVERS SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE THEN WENT INTO NEUTRAL MODE AND HE WAS BALE TO COAST INTO THE LEFT TURN LANE, CONTINUE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC LIGHT CONTROLLED INTERSECTION AND COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSECTING ROADWAY. HE NOTICED THE TAX SHOWED 2,000 RPM. HE CYCLED THE KEY AND THE ENGINE STARTED AND OPERATED NORMALLY.
NHTSA ODI #10500187
200 miles · Feb 26, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH AND APPLIED THE ACCELERATOR HOWEVER, THERE WAS A DELAY IN VEHICLE RESPONSE. THE FAILURE RECURRED SPORADICALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN UPDATED THE COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM HOWEVER, THE FAILURE PERSISTED. THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH AND APPLIED THE ACCELERATOR HOWEVER, THERE WAS A DELAY IN VEHICLE RESPONSE. THE FAILURE RECURRED SPORADICALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN UPDATED THE COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM HOWEVER, THE FAILURE PERSISTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER FOR A SECOND TIME AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200.
NHTSA ODI #10500097
65,000 miles · Feb 25, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70MPH WHEN MY CAR SEEMED TO JUST COMPLETELY LOSE POWER. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, TURN IT OFF AND RESTART IT. THE INCIDENT HAPPENED EXACTLY THE SAME A COUPLE OTHER TIMES. ALSO HAPPEN ONCE WHEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. I WAS AT A BUSY INTERSECTION AND THE CAR…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70MPH WHEN MY CAR SEEMED TO JUST COMPLETELY LOSE POWER. I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, TURN IT OFF AND RESTART IT. THE INCIDENT HAPPENED EXACTLY THE SAME A COUPLE OTHER TIMES. ALSO HAPPEN ONCE WHEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. I WAS AT A BUSY INTERSECTION AND THE CAR LOST POWER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. I WAS NOT ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE UNTIL I TURNED OFF THE CAR AND RESTARTED IT. I WAS NEARLY T-BONED AT 5 MONTHS PREGNANT. DEALER WAS HAVING A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT WHAT WAS WRONG BUT FINALLY FIGURED OUT THAT IT WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DRIVE TRAIN WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO STALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10500036
Mileage unknown · Feb 4, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control
2011 FORD ESCAPE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE ACCELERATION WHILE FOOT IS ON BRAKE. *SMD THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10495761
Mileage unknown · Jan 29, 2013
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS WHERE MY CAR WILL NOT ACCELERATE DURING COLD WEATHER MONTHS. JANUARY 4, 2013 WAS WHEN I NEARLY GOT INTO AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE OF IT. ONE MORNING WHEN I WAS ON MY WAY TO WORK, I PULLED OUT ONTO A MAIN ROAD AND MY CAR'S ACCELERATION DRASTICALLY SLOWED DOWN (TO ABOUT 5-10 MPH ON A 40MPH ROA…
Read full complaint
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS WHERE MY CAR WILL NOT ACCELERATE DURING COLD WEATHER MONTHS. JANUARY 4, 2013 WAS WHEN I NEARLY GOT INTO AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE OF IT. ONE MORNING WHEN I WAS ON MY WAY TO WORK, I PULLED OUT ONTO A MAIN ROAD AND MY CAR'S ACCELERATION DRASTICALLY SLOWED DOWN (TO ABOUT 5-10 MPH ON A 40MPH ROAD). THE VEHICLE BEHIND ME ALMOST SLAMMED RIGHT INTO ME BECAUSE MY BRAKE LIGHTS WERE NOT ON (AND WHY WOULD THEY BE? I HAD MY FOOT ON THE GAS PETAL TRYING TO MAKE IT GO!) THE FACT THAT FORD DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THIS PROBLEM IS SCARY! I AM HONESTLY CONCERNED THAT ONE DAY THIS WILL CAUSE ME TO GET INTO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10495043
2,000 miles · Jan 3, 2013
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
AFTER STOPPING AND UPON ACCELERATION THE ENGINE COMPLETELY SHUTS DOWN AND THE CAR STALLS. AFTER PUTTING THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTING THE CAR, IT RUNS OKAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME 4 TIMES OVER A 23 MONTH PERIOD. EACH TIME I HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE FIRST TWO TIMES I WAS TOLD THE CAR WAS STILL BREAKING …
Read full complaint
AFTER STOPPING AND UPON ACCELERATION THE ENGINE COMPLETELY SHUTS DOWN AND THE CAR STALLS. AFTER PUTTING THE CAR IN PARK AND RESTARTING THE CAR, IT RUNS OKAY. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME 4 TIMES OVER A 23 MONTH PERIOD. EACH TIME I HAVE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE FIRST TWO TIMES I WAS TOLD THE CAR WAS STILL BREAKING IN AND IT MUST BE DUE TO THE GAS I WAS USING. THE THIRD TIME, THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE "WRENCH" LIGHT ONLY CAME ON ONCE. THEY SAID THEY HAD A NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED WITH AND REPLACING THE THROTTLE BODY HELPED. THREE WEEKS AFTER THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY, IT HAPPENED AGAIN! THIS TIME ONLY THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. FORD SAYS THEY NEED A CODE TO TRY TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS ONE OTHER PERSON, WHO HAS THE SAME MAKE AND MODEL AS MINE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING TOO. THIS PERSON ALSO HAD THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACED. THE FACT THAT NO CODE IS TRIPPED IS A PROBLEM IN ITSELF! PLEASE HELP! I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO BE KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490869
45,500 miles · Dec 18, 2012
Engine And Engine CoolingVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT MERGED TO THE SHOULDER AND RESTARTED THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE A TECHNICIAN ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT MERGED TO THE SHOULDER AND RESTARTED THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE A TECHNICIAN ADVISED THAT THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE DID NOT HAVE A DIAGNOSTIC TEST PERFORMED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY RECALLS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 45,500 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 47,000. UPDATED 01/09/13*LJ
NHTSA ODI #10489106
40,000 miles · Nov 19, 2012
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
WHILE PULLING ONTO HIGHWAY ONRAMP THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO JERK VIOLENTLY AND SUDDENLY SHUT DOWN AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. IT WAS A BUSY TRAFFIC TIME AND THE SUDDEN DECELERATION OF MY VEHICLE CAUSED OTHERS TO HAVE TO SUDDENLY BRAKE TO AVOID A COLLISION. PULLED VEHICLE TO SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SHUT IT OFF. RESTARTED AND THE PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
WHILE PULLING ONTO HIGHWAY ONRAMP THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO JERK VIOLENTLY AND SUDDENLY SHUT DOWN AND WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. IT WAS A BUSY TRAFFIC TIME AND THE SUDDEN DECELERATION OF MY VEHICLE CAUSED OTHERS TO HAVE TO SUDDENLY BRAKE TO AVOID A COLLISION. PULLED VEHICLE TO SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SHUT IT OFF. RESTARTED AND THE PROBLEM SEEMED TO BE FIXED. BEGAN DRIVING VEHICLE TO DEALER WITH HAZARD LIGHTS AND PROBLEM OCCURRED ABOUT 4 MORE TIMES. DEALER REPLACED THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY, WHICH FIXED THE PROBLEM. IT WAS A SCARY INCIDENT AS WE WERE JUST SECONDS AWAY FROM JOINING HEAVY TRAFFIC ON THE INTERSTATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10485237
44,700 miles · Oct 31, 2012
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
2011 FORD ESCAPE WAS BEING DRIVEN @ 55 MPH IN TRAFFIC & IT SUDDENLY LOST POWER. ORANGE WRENCH APPEARED, MOTOR RUNNING ROUGH. STEERED TO EMERGENCY LANE. TURNED OFF IGNITION, WAITED, RE-STARTED. I WENT ON TO MY MEETING THE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP NEAR WHERE I WORK. THEY SAID TO DRIVE IT THERE (IF POSSIBLE) NEXT TIME WITHOUT CU…
Read full complaint
2011 FORD ESCAPE WAS BEING DRIVEN @ 55 MPH IN TRAFFIC & IT SUDDENLY LOST POWER. ORANGE WRENCH APPEARED, MOTOR RUNNING ROUGH. STEERED TO EMERGENCY LANE. TURNED OFF IGNITION, WAITED, RE-STARTED. I WENT ON TO MY MEETING THE TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP NEAR WHERE I WORK. THEY SAID TO DRIVE IT THERE (IF POSSIBLE) NEXT TIME WITHOUT CUTTING OFF THE ENGINE. TWO DAYS LATER (LOCAL DEALERSHIP CLOSED) WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, RAINY NIGHT, COUNTY ROAD, NO "EMERGENCY LANE", WAS ABLE TO GET PULLED OVER (NOT ALWAYS AN OPTION ON A COUNTRY ROAD). DAUGHTER WAS WITH ME - FRIGHTENED HER. TURNED IT OFF, RESTARTED. NEXT DAY (SATURDAY) I TOOK IT TO LOCAL FORD DEALER. SAID NEED THE LIGHT ON, BUT WOULD SEE IF THE DIAGNOSTICS TOLD ANYTHING. BORROWED CAR FROM MY DAUGHTER. THIS WAS INCONVENIENCE TO ME AND HER. DEALER CALLED MONDAY, SAID IT CLEARS THE CODE EACH TIME THE CAR IS RE-STARTED. THEY KEPT MY VEHICLE OVERNIGHT. DID IT AGAIN WITH THE MECHANIC DRIVING. HE DROVE IT AT ABOUT 10-15 MPH TO THE DEALERSHIP. I GOT ONLINE AND THERE ARE MANY ISSUES INVOLVING THROTTLES. MANY RECALLS, BUT NOT ON MY MODEL. ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON DIAGNOSTICS SHOWED IT WAS THE THROTTLE. THIS IS A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT & IT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY RECALLED. I DRIVE ABOUT 60 MILES A DAY ON THE INTERSTATE & I NEED MY VEHICLE TO BE DEPENDABLE. IF A SEMI TRUCK CAME UP BEHIND ME IT COULD HAVE CAUSED A WRECK, OR EVEN LOSS OF LIFE. I LOVE MY ESCAPE & HAVE BEEN A LOYAL FORD CUSTOMER. SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO ADMIT THERE'S A PROBLEM & MAKE THINGS RIGHT. FORD SHOULD RESOLVE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL. I PICKED IT UP LAST NIGHT & AM DRIVING IT TODAY. I WILL BE IN FEAR OF IT HAPPENING EVERY TIME I DRIVE THIS VEHICLE. MY VEHICLE HAS LOW MILEAGE, IS MAINTAINED REGULARLY. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, NOR SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY REPAIRS. I WOULD LIKE A REFUND ON THE REPAIR COSTS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10482785
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