NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,316 reports63,990 miles · Jun 10, 2016
EngineVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND MY VEHICLE STARTED TO IDLE FUNNY, LIKE IT WAS GOING TO STOP RUNNING AND IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AT ALL, I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OR DO ANYTHING ALMOST LIKE IT WAS DISCONNECTED. THE ENGINE LIGHT ALSO CAME ON AT THIS TIME. MY F…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND MY VEHICLE STARTED TO IDLE FUNNY, LIKE IT WAS GOING TO STOP RUNNING AND IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AT ALL, I HAD TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS PEDAL IT WOULD NOT ACCELERATE OR DO ANYTHING ALMOST LIKE IT WAS DISCONNECTED. THE ENGINE LIGHT ALSO CAME ON AT THIS TIME. MY FIANCEE' CAME TO WHERE I WAS AT AND HE SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF AND THEN STARTED IT BACK UP AND THE ENGINE LIGHT WAS OFF AND THE VEHICLE WAS BACK TO RUNNING AGAIN LIKE NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. I HAVE READ SEVERAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE THROTTLE BODY BEING BAD AND THAT FORD AND FORD GARAGES WHERE REFUSING TO FIX THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THE VEHICLES DOING THIS AND I THINK THAT IS SO WRONG ON MANY LEVELS DUE TO FORD BEING A TOP MANUFACTURER OF VEHICLES THEY SHOULD STAND BY THE VEHICLES AND FIX ANY PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WITH THE VEHICLES. I DON'T HAVE ANY WARRANTY AND I AM ON LIMITED INCOME AND CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY A BIG TOW BILL OR PLAY FOR A MAJOR REPAIR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10873640
32,000 miles · Jun 7, 2016
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE SHOOK AND DECELERATED. THE SERVICE ENGINE NOW WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT HAD TO COAST THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED IN NOVEMB…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE SHOOK AND DECELERATED. THE SERVICE ENGINE NOW WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT HAD TO COAST THE VEHICLE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED IN NOVEMBER OF 2015 PER A MANUFACTURER RECALL FOR THE SAME FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT REPAIR THE VEHICLE A SECOND TIME FOR THE SAME FAILURE. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE VIN WAS INVALID. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 32,000.
NHTSA ODI #10873021
74,000 miles · Jun 2, 2016
Electrical SystemPower Train
I CONTINUE TO HAVE ISSUES WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB), UP TO AND INCLUDING THE COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF THE SYSTEM. I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE AND HAVE ABIDED BY ALL SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS MAKE/MODEL. THE EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE ETB RUNS OUT AT 100K (VEHICLE CURRENTLY AT 75K). THERE ARE TIMES THE …
Read full complaint
I CONTINUE TO HAVE ISSUES WITH THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY (ETB), UP TO AND INCLUDING THE COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF THE SYSTEM. I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE AND HAVE ABIDED BY ALL SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS MAKE/MODEL. THE EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE ETB RUNS OUT AT 100K (VEHICLE CURRENTLY AT 75K). THERE ARE TIMES THE VEHICLE SHIFTS SO VIOLENTLY THAT ONE WOULD BELIEVE THEY'VE BEEN REAR-ENDED. WHEN I TAKE MY VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALERSHIP (5 TIMES, 2 DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS), I'M TOLD THEY RE-PROGRAM THE SYSTEM AND TO GIVE IT ANOTHER 500 TO 1000 MILES FOR THE SYSTEM TO RELEARN MY DRIVING HABITS. THE "REBOOT" LASTS BETWEEN 800 TO 1500 MILES ON AVERAGE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE ETB CAN'T BE REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY AT THIS POINT.
NHTSA ODI #10872057
142,000 miles · May 25, 2016
Steering
I FILED A COMPLAINT THE OTHER DAY BUT IT HAS GOTTEN SO MUCH WORSE THAT I HAD TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALER. THEY TOLD ME THAT THE PSCM WAS BAD. ALMOST $1300. IT WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL I HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT. THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM AS RECALL #14S05 BUT IT DOES NOT REACH OUR MANUFACTURER DATE. IT IS TIME FOR THEM TO STEP UP AN…
Read full complaint
I FILED A COMPLAINT THE OTHER DAY BUT IT HAS GOTTEN SO MUCH WORSE THAT I HAD TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALER. THEY TOLD ME THAT THE PSCM WAS BAD. ALMOST $1300. IT WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL I HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT. THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM AS RECALL #14S05 BUT IT DOES NOT REACH OUR MANUFACTURER DATE. IT IS TIME FOR THEM TO STEP UP AND EXTEND THE RECALL TO COVER ALL OF THE DATES BEFORE SOMEONE GETS KILLED WHEN THE POWER STEERING GOES OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN LIKE HAPPENED TO ME THE OTHER DAY. I WAS MAKING A LEFT TURN IN THE INSIDE TURNING LANE WHEN IT STOPPED WORKING. NOT ONLY DID I LOSE POWER STEERING BUT IT SNATCHED THE WHEEL OUT OF MY HAND. I ALMOST HIT THE CAR NEXT TO ME BEFORE I GOT CONTROL OF IT. IF MY WIFE HAD BEEN DRIVING, AND IT IS HER VEHICLE, SHE WOULD HAVE HIT THE CAR NEXT TO HER. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE THE ONLY ONES COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS. THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO PUT A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ON US TO GET IT FIXED.
NHTSA ODI #10870829
67,500 miles · May 24, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control
I HAVE A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. I WAS DRIVING ON A 2 WAY STREET AND THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING OUT OF NOWHERE AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE BEFORE GETTING REAR ENDED. WHAT IS FRUSTRATING ABOUT THIS IS FORD HAD A RECALL A COUPLE YEARS AGO FOR MY MAKE AND MODEL FOR A BAD THROTTLE .. SAME EXACT …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2011 FORD ESCAPE. I WAS DRIVING ON A 2 WAY STREET AND THE GAS PEDAL STOPPED WORKING OUT OF NOWHERE AND I COULD NOT ACCELERATE. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE BEFORE GETTING REAR ENDED. WHAT IS FRUSTRATING ABOUT THIS IS FORD HAD A RECALL A COUPLE YEARS AGO FOR MY MAKE AND MODEL FOR A BAD THROTTLE .. SAME EXACT ISSUE I HAD WHERE I WAS DRIVING AND COULDNT ACCELERATE. INSTEAD OF REPLACING THE THROTTLE THEY GAVE 1.6 MILLION CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM WARRANTIES.. SO BASICALLY YOU HAD TO HAVE AN ISSUE BEFORE IT WOULD BE REPLACED. I CALLED FORD CORP 5/23/16 AND BECAUSE MY VIN# WASNT ONE IN THE RECALL THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR MY $400 BILL. IT IS THE SAME EXACT ISSUE AS THE RECALL BUT SINCE MY VIN# IS DIFFERENT THEY WONT PAY. HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE. LUCKILY I DIDNT GET INTO AN ACCIDENT . I FIND IT INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT FORD RECALLS THE THROTTLE BODY IN THEIR CARS AND WILL NOT DO THE RIGHT THING AND PAY FOR MINE. I DRIVE THE HIGHWAY EVERYDAY TO WORK AND I CANT EVEN IMAGINE IF IT FAILED ON THE HIGHWAY. ALL BECAUSE I DONT HAVE THE RIGHT VIN#.. MAYBE THEY NEED TO CONSIDER EXPANDING THEIR VIN#'S. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE AND THE FACT THEY DONT CARE MAKES ME RETHINK MY NEXT CAR PURCHASE. WE HAVE 2 FORD'S NOW AND I DONT SEE A 3RD IN MY FUTURE.
NHTSA ODI #10870604
142,000 miles · May 18, 2016
Steering
LAST YEAR IT BEGAN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED THE POWER STEERING WOULD NOT WORK. YOU COULD SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTART IT AND IT WOULD WORK. AS TIME WENT BY IT HAPPENED MORE FREQUENTLY AND I CALLED THE FORD DEALER ABOUT A RECALL SOMEONE HAD TOLD ME ABOUT AND WAS TOLD THAT OUR ESCAPE WAS NOT INCLUDED AND THAT I SHOULD FI…
Read full complaint
LAST YEAR IT BEGAN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED THE POWER STEERING WOULD NOT WORK. YOU COULD SHUT THE ENGINE OFF AND RESTART IT AND IT WOULD WORK. AS TIME WENT BY IT HAPPENED MORE FREQUENTLY AND I CALLED THE FORD DEALER ABOUT A RECALL SOMEONE HAD TOLD ME ABOUT AND WAS TOLD THAT OUR ESCAPE WAS NOT INCLUDED AND THAT I SHOULD FILE A COMPLAINT WITH YOU. I DID THAT LAST YEAR AND HAVE GOTTEN NO RESPONSE. IT HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE. IT HAS BEEN SHUT OFF AND RESTARTED SO MANY TIMES THAT IT KILLED THE BATTERY. IT STILL HAD VOLTS BUT NO LONGER HAD ENOUGH COLD CRANKING AMPS TO START THE ENGINE. NOW IT HAS HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES WHILE I WAS DRIVING. WHEN IT STOPS IT ALMOST SNATCHES THE STEERING WHEEL OUT OF YOUR HANDS. THERE IS NEVER ANY WARNING AND NO WARNING LIGHTS COME ON. SOMETIMES WHEN IT IS QUIET IN THE CAR I CAN HEAR A CLICK COME FROM THE STEERING COLUMN AND IT EITHER QUITS WORKING OR IF IT WAS NOT WORKING IT START BACK. THREE DAYS AGO IT HAPPENED WHILE I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN AT AN INTERSECTION THAT HAS TWO TURN LANES AND I ALMOST HIT THE CAR NEXT TO ME. IF IT HAD HAPPENED WHILE MY WIFE WAS DRIVING SHE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HIT THEM. THERE IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY OF THIS AS IT IS HER VEHICLE. I AM DRIVING IT THIS WEEK BECAUSE I AM A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HER DRIVING IT. I LIVE IN MARYLAND AND WORK ALL WEEK IN NEW JERSEY. I HOPE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN WHILE I AM ON THE NJ TURNPIKE AS PEOPLE ON THERE LIKE TO STAY CLOSE AND GOES FAST. I REALLY HAVE NO CHOICE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO WORK AND CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE IT FIXED. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL POSSIBILITIES THAT GO FROM SOFTWARE PROGRAMING, SENSOR REPLACEMENT OR STEERING COLUMN REPLACEMENT. IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE SYMPTOMS THAT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL BUT HAS NOT BEEN.
NHTSA ODI #10865552
61,000 miles · May 10, 2016
Electrical SystemEngine
VEHICLE ENGINE SUDDENLY AND RANDOMLY CUTS OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF DRIVING, IN MOTION ON THE HIGHWAY, OR SOON AFTER STARTING TO DRIVE, IN MOTION LEAVING A PARKING LOT. THE ACCELERATOR BECOMES UNRESPONSIVE AND THE CAR SPUTTERS TO A STOP. WHEN YOU TRY TO RESTART THE CAR IT TURNS ON AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED.
NHTSA ODI #10864293
95,000 miles · May 9, 2016
Steering
POWER STEERING ASSIST RANDOMLY MALFUNCTIONS CAUSING LOSS OF POWER STEERING AT BOTH LOW SPEED AND HIGH SPEED BOTH GOING STRAIGHT OR TURNING. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES. FORD HAS A RECALL ON THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER MY VEHICLE IS NOT LISTED UNDER THE RECALL DESPITE BEING MANUFACTURED AT THE SPECIFIC PLANT THEY IDENTIFIED THE PROB…
Read full complaint
POWER STEERING ASSIST RANDOMLY MALFUNCTIONS CAUSING LOSS OF POWER STEERING AT BOTH LOW SPEED AND HIGH SPEED BOTH GOING STRAIGHT OR TURNING. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES. FORD HAS A RECALL ON THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER MY VEHICLE IS NOT LISTED UNDER THE RECALL DESPITE BEING MANUFACTURED AT THE SPECIFIC PLANT THEY IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM WITH. THE RECALL DATE STARTED ONE MONTH AFTER MY VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED. FORD IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE MECHANICAL FAILURE AND REFUSES TO COVER THE COST OF REPAIRS FOR THEIR MANUFACTURING DEFECT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN AWARE OF SINCE 2009. THE RECALL NUMBER IS 14S05.
NHTSA ODI #10863984
78,000 miles · May 3, 2016
Power Train
WHILE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING AT 70 MPH THAN ALL OF A SUDDEN LOSES POWER. BROUGHT VEHICLE TO AUTONATION FORD KATY AND WAS TOLD THEIR IS A RECALL FOR ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. ASKED PROPERTY TO REPAIR TOLD THEY COULD NOT DO SO UNLESS VEHICLE SHOWED ISSUE AT THE DEALERSHIP. I THINK THIS IS AN UNSAFE PRACTICE AND SHOULD BE REPAIRED A…
Read full complaint
WHILE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING AT 70 MPH THAN ALL OF A SUDDEN LOSES POWER. BROUGHT VEHICLE TO AUTONATION FORD KATY AND WAS TOLD THEIR IS A RECALL FOR ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. ASKED PROPERTY TO REPAIR TOLD THEY COULD NOT DO SO UNLESS VEHICLE SHOWED ISSUE AT THE DEALERSHIP. I THINK THIS IS AN UNSAFE PRACTICE AND SHOULD BE REPAIRED ASAP.
NHTSA ODI #10862821
76,000 miles · May 3, 2016
Power Train
TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED 70 MPH VEHICLE LOSES ALL POWER. BROUGHT VEHICLE TO AUTONATION FORD KATY TEXAS WAS TOLD THERE WAS A ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY RECALL. ASKED DEALERSHIP TO FIX AND WAS TOLD THEY COULD NOT UNLESS VEHICLE REPLICATED ISSUE AT THE DEALERSHIP. I FEEL THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE DO TO FUT…
Read full complaint
TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED 70 MPH VEHICLE LOSES ALL POWER. BROUGHT VEHICLE TO AUTONATION FORD KATY TEXAS WAS TOLD THERE WAS A ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY RECALL. ASKED DEALERSHIP TO FIX AND WAS TOLD THEY COULD NOT UNLESS VEHICLE REPLICATED ISSUE AT THE DEALERSHIP. I FEEL THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE DO TO FUTURE SAFETY ISSUES
NHTSA ODI #10862816
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