← New search

2011 Ford Escape

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2011 Ford Escape do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 996.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,061 reports with mileage · 255 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Steering. Review the 409 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 268 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 253 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

38 crash reports7 fire reports29 injury reports

What owners actually said

1,316 reports
122,000 miles · May 6, 2021
Steering

DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THE VEHICLE POWER STEERING COMPLETELY CUT OFF. UPON TAKING TO THE SHOP THEY STATED IT WAS A CHECK ENGINE CODE THAT REFERRED TO A RECALL

NHTSA ODI #11415424

136,000 miles · Apr 28, 2021
SteeringSuspensionWheels

I HAVE A 2011 FORD EACAPE.... WE LOST POWER STEERING 2-3 YEARS AGO IN MY CAR WHILE DRIVING ON TWISTY HILLY ROADS IN ITHICA, NY ON WAY TO GET OUR 3 YOUNG GRANDCHILDREN AND THANK GOD IT WAS MY HUSBAND DRIVING BECAUSE I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT... TONS OF CARS RECALLED... SAME MAKE,SAME MODEL,SAME YEAR AND MA…

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2011 FORD EACAPE.... WE LOST POWER STEERING 2-3 YEARS AGO IN MY CAR WHILE DRIVING ON TWISTY HILLY ROADS IN ITHICA, NY ON WAY TO GET OUR 3 YOUNG GRANDCHILDREN AND THANK GOD IT WAS MY HUSBAND DRIVING BECAUSE I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT... TONS OF CARS RECALLED... SAME MAKE,SAME MODEL,SAME YEAR AND MADE AT SAME PLANT IN KANSAS!!!!! BUT FORD NEVER RECALLED MU VIN#..... WE WERE STRANDED THERE AND LOST TIME FROM WORK!!!! WE TOOK IT TO 3 FORD DEALERS WITH NO HELP!!! WANTING ALMOST $2,400!!!!! LOST TIME FROM WORK GETTING IT FIXED WHICH TOOK OVER 3WEEKS AND FINALLY OUR MECHANIC FOUND THE PART!!!! POWER STEERING COLUMN!!!! HOW WITH 1,000S OF COMPLAINTS IS MINE NOT COVERED!!!! IT'S THE STEERING COLUMN!!!! IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A MUFFLER!!!! NOW AFTER PAYING TO GET IT FIXED !!!! I HAVE SINCE GIVEN THIS TO MY 18 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER FOR HER SENIOR YEAR AND SHE LOST POWER STEERING ALMOST SENDING HER INTO HEAD ON TRAFFIC!!!!! MY DAUGHTER ALMOST GOT KILLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YES WE WERE TOLD ITS THE GOD [XXX] STEERING COLUMN AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT DO I HAVE TO SO TO GO AFTER FORD FOR THIS SERIOUS ISSUE!!!!!! THEY MAKE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SELLING FAULTY, DANGEROUS CARS!!!!!!! AND ARE ALLOWED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO GET AWAY WITH IT!!!!!! THEY KNOW FULL WELL THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE AND SHOULD HAVE RECALLED ALL OF THE 2011 ESCAPES TO GET THAT PART FIXED!!!!!! ALL!!!! WHEN ARE YOU OR SOMEBODY GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS [XXX]!!!!!!!!! ALMOST EXACTLY 3 YEARS TO THE DAY OF WHEN THIS HAPPENED BEFORE!!!! NOW I HAVE TO WAIT AGAIN TO FIND A PART, PAY TONS OF MONEY AGAIN!!! AND THANK GOD MY DAUGHTER DIDN'T GET HURT!!!!! PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).

NHTSA ODI #11414354

50,000 miles · Apr 27, 2021
Service Brakes

ALL BRAKE/ABS WARNING LIGHTS COME ON AND BRAKE PEDAL GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR ON STARTUP BRAKE SYSTEM FAILURE OCCURS INTERMITTENTLY, AND REPEATEDLY AT ONLY 50K MILES. RESTARTING THE CAR RESULTS IN SOME BRAKE FUNCTION WITH ABS AND CHECK BRAKE WARNINGS. MECHANIC HAS READ THE CODES WHICH INCLUDE EVERY PART OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM.…

Read full complaint

ALL BRAKE/ABS WARNING LIGHTS COME ON AND BRAKE PEDAL GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR ON STARTUP BRAKE SYSTEM FAILURE OCCURS INTERMITTENTLY, AND REPEATEDLY AT ONLY 50K MILES. RESTARTING THE CAR RESULTS IN SOME BRAKE FUNCTION WITH ABS AND CHECK BRAKE WARNINGS. MECHANIC HAS READ THE CODES WHICH INCLUDE EVERY PART OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM. EVERY. SINGLE. PART.

NHTSA ODI #11414190

Mileage unknown · Apr 22, 2021
Steering

AT 65 MPH ON HIGHWAY I LOST STEERING CONTROL, NO MOVEMENT OF STEERING WOULD CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE CAR

NHTSA ODI #11413450

117,000 miles · Apr 16, 2021
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE LOSS POWER STEERING ASSIST WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE POWER STEERING FUNCTIONALITY RETURNED AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED. THE CONTACT HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE HE WAS INF…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE LOSS POWER STEERING ASSIST WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE POWER STEERING FUNCTIONALITY RETURNED AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS RESTARTED. THE CONTACT HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. LIBERTY FORD MAPLE HEIGHTS (5500 WARRENSVILLE CENTER RD, MAPLE HEIGHTS, OH 44137) AND THE MANUFACTURER WERE NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT HIS VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING). THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 117,000.

NHTSA ODI #11408436

132,000 miles · Apr 12, 2021
Steering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING ASSIST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO MONACO FORD (767 NEW LONDON TURNPIKE, GLASTONBURY, CT 06033) AND DIAGNOSED WITH STEERING FAILURE. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE STEERIN…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING ASSIST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO MONACO FORD (767 NEW LONDON TURNPIKE, GLASTONBURY, CT 06033) AND DIAGNOSED WITH STEERING FAILURE. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT YET REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL ASSOCIATED WITH THE VIN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A RECALL WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V284000 (STEERING) HOWEVER, HIS VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED HOWEVER, THE VEHICLE HAD EXPERIENCED THE FAILURE STATED IN THE RECALL CAMPAIGN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 132,000.

NHTSA ODI #11407786

138,000 miles · Apr 1, 2021
Fuel/propulsion SystemSteering

MY POWER STEERING ASSIST LIGHT IS ON AND I CAN NOT STEER MY VEHICLE. I GOT IN TO TAKE MY KIDS OUT AND I COULD NOT STEER. ITS TOO UNSAFE TO DRIVE, AND I READ THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH FORD UNDER STEERING ISSUE COMPLAINTS. IF MY VEHICLE IS COVERED TO BE REPAIRED UNDER A RECALL I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE NEXT STEP. ITS AROUND $1000 …

Read full complaint

MY POWER STEERING ASSIST LIGHT IS ON AND I CAN NOT STEER MY VEHICLE. I GOT IN TO TAKE MY KIDS OUT AND I COULD NOT STEER. ITS TOO UNSAFE TO DRIVE, AND I READ THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH FORD UNDER STEERING ISSUE COMPLAINTS. IF MY VEHICLE IS COVERED TO BE REPAIRED UNDER A RECALL I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE NEXT STEP. ITS AROUND $1000 TO FIX AND I CAN NOT AFFORD THIS.

NHTSA ODI #11405899

78,000 miles · Mar 29, 2021
Steering

DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WHILE DRIVING 65MPH AND LOST POWER STEERING, (TRACTION CONTROL LED CAME ON) AND RIGHT TURN SIGNAL QUIT WORKING ALL TOGETHER - HAD TO HOLD IT TO PULL OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I HAVE ALREADY FIXED THIS ISSUE BEFORE, 4 YEARS AGO, FOR $2000. THEY QUOTED ME $2400 AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THERE SEEMS TO BE A RECAL…

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON THE INTERSTATE WHILE DRIVING 65MPH AND LOST POWER STEERING, (TRACTION CONTROL LED CAME ON) AND RIGHT TURN SIGNAL QUIT WORKING ALL TOGETHER - HAD TO HOLD IT TO PULL OFF THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I HAVE ALREADY FIXED THIS ISSUE BEFORE, 4 YEARS AGO, FOR $2000. THEY QUOTED ME $2400 AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THERE SEEMS TO BE A RECALL FOR THIS ISSUE WITH FORD ESCAPES (14S05), JUST NOT FOR MY VIN.

NHTSA ODI #11405473

175,000 miles · Mar 26, 2021
Fuel/propulsion SystemSteering

THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILED ON MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE. STATIONARY WHEN HAPPENED. SO, FRUSTRATED THAT I CANT STEER IT AND HAVE TWO KIDS I NEED TO TOTE AROUND BUT ITS VERY UNSAFE AND I CANT DRIVE IT WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR FOR SAFETY CONCERNS. ALSO MY FUEL INTAKE FAILED AND A WARNING LIGHT IS ON FOR IT. I READ THAT BOTH OF THESE…

Read full complaint

THE POWER STEERING ASSIST FAILED ON MY 2011 FORD ESCAPE. STATIONARY WHEN HAPPENED. SO, FRUSTRATED THAT I CANT STEER IT AND HAVE TWO KIDS I NEED TO TOTE AROUND BUT ITS VERY UNSAFE AND I CANT DRIVE IT WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR FOR SAFETY CONCERNS. ALSO MY FUEL INTAKE FAILED AND A WARNING LIGHT IS ON FOR IT. I READ THAT BOTH OF THESE EXACT ISSUES HAVE BEEN RECALLED ON THIS MODEL. PLEASE HELP.

NHTSA ODI #11405046

87,000 miles · Mar 23, 2021
Power TrainSteeringSuspension

I HIT A BUMP IN THE ROAD AND WHEEL ON PASSENGER SIDE OF VEHICLE WHEN UP INTO WHEEL WELL. ALMOST HIT ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHEN I LOST ALL STEERING. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP VIA TOW TRUCK AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FRONT SUBFRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTEN AT 87,000 MILES DRIVER SIDE IS NOT FAR FROM BREAKING I WAS TOLD REPAIRS WOULD COS…

Read full complaint

I HIT A BUMP IN THE ROAD AND WHEEL ON PASSENGER SIDE OF VEHICLE WHEN UP INTO WHEEL WELL. ALMOST HIT ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHEN I LOST ALL STEERING. I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP VIA TOW TRUCK AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FRONT SUBFRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTEN AT 87,000 MILES DRIVER SIDE IS NOT FAR FROM BREAKING I WAS TOLD REPAIRS WOULD COST AS MUCH AS THE VEHICLE IS WORTH

NHTSA ODI #11404594

Official recalls

2

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 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.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

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

4

DP15001 · 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.

Go deeper into Ford Escape problems