POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION:INTERNAL:PARK PAWL
Defect Description
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2026 Escape and Lincoln Corsair vehicles. The integrated park module may fail to lock into the park position when the driver shifts into park. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
... number 114, "Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention."Read moreConsequence
A loss of park function can allow the vehicle to rollaway, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy
The Secondary On Board Diagnostic Module C (SOBDMC) software will be updated over-the-air (OTA) or by a dealer, free of charge. Interim letters, notifying owners of the safety risk, were mailed June 5, 2026. Additional letters will be sent once the remedy is available, anticipated in August 2026. O
... wners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25C69. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall became searchable on NHTSA.gov on May 15, 2026. This recall expands previous NHTSA recall number 25V863.Read more208 vehicles affected
Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company
SEAT BELTS:REAR/OTHER:RETRACTOR
Defect Description
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2025-2026 Corsair and Escape vehicles. The seat belt retractors for the left and right rear passenger seats may not be securely fastened.
Consequence
An improperly secured seat belt retractor may not restrain an occupant as intended, increasing the risk of injury during a crash.
Remedy
Dealers will inspect and secure, or replace the seat belt retractor bolts, as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed December 26, 2025. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25C68. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs)
... involved in this recall became searchable on NHTSA.gov on December 15, 2025.Read more780 vehicles affected
Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company
Complaint Statistics
7 total complaints
Top Reported Components
| Component | Complaints |
|---|
| ENGINE | 2 |
| FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM | 1 |
| POWER TRAIN | 1 |
| SUSPENSION | 1 |
| SERVICE BRAKES | 1 |
| ELECTRICAL SYSTEM | 1 |
Incident date: May 15, 2026
Description On your vehicle, the integrated park module ipm may not properly engage the park pawl, preventing the vehicle from locking into park when park p is selected. If this condition occurs, a wrench light and shift system fault message will be displayed in the instrument panel cluster. Additi
... onally, the vehicles electronic parking brake epb will automatically apply. Safety Risk If the park pawl is not properly engaged and the electronic parking brake - epb - is not applied, your vehicle may experience a roll-in-park, increasing the risk of a crash. Remedy A remedy is not yet available. Ford Motor Company is working to provide software for this repair. When the remedy becomes available, Ford Motor Company will notify you via mail to schedule a service appointment with your dealer for repairs to be completed free of charge. The remedy is anticipated to be available July 10, 2026. Next Steps Contact your dealer for more information to schedule the free service.Read more
Incident date: May 15, 2026
Description On your vehicle, the integrated park module ipm may not properly engage the park pawl, preventing the vehicle from locking into park when park p is selected. If this condition occurs, a wrench light and shift system fault message will be displayed in the instrument panel cluster. Additi
... onally, the vehicles electronic parking brake epb will automatically apply. Safety Risk If the park pawl is not properly engaged and the electronic parking brake - epb - is not applied, your vehicle may experience a roll-in-park, increasing the risk of a crash. Remedy A remedy is not yet available. Ford Motor Company is working to provide software for this repair. When the remedy becomes available, Ford Motor Company will notify you via mail to schedule a service appointment with your dealer for repairs to be completed free of charge. The remedy is anticipated to be available July 10, 2026. Next Steps Contact your dealer for more information to schedule the free service.Read more
Incident date: May 15, 2026
Description On your vehicle, the integrated park module ipm may not properly engage the park pawl, preventing the vehicle from locking into park when park p is selected. If this condition occurs, a wrench light and shift system fault message will be displayed in the instrument panel cluster. Additi
... onally, the vehicles electronic parking brake epb will automatically apply. Safety Risk If the park pawl is not properly engaged and the electronic parking brake - epb - is not applied, your vehicle may experience a roll-in-park, increasing the risk of a crash. Remedy A remedy is not yet available. Ford Motor Company is working to provide software for this repair. When the remedy becomes available, Ford Motor Company will notify you via mail to schedule a service appointment with your dealer for repairs to be completed free of charge. The remedy is anticipated to be available July 10, 2026. Next Steps Contact your dealer for more information to schedule the free service.Read more
Incident date: Feb 13, 2026
Sudden loss of acceleration. This occurred while making a left turn across traffic from a stop. At approximately 7mph the car would not accelerate any further. I was luckily able to coast the vehicle into a center turn lane. Upon coming to a stop I was unable to get any acceleration. The vehicle was
... turned off and turned back on again and operated normally. There were no trouble codes displayed.Read more
Incident date: Feb 13, 2026
Sudden loss of acceleration. This occurred while making a left turn across traffic from a stop. At approximately 7mph the car would not accelerate any further. I was luckily able to coast the vehicle into a center turn lane. Upon coming to a stop I was unable to get any acceleration. The vehicle was
... turned off and turned back on again and operated normally. There were no trouble codes displayed.Read more
Incident date: Feb 13, 2026
On 8/14/24 I had the rear springs replaced due to a broken spring. Now today 2/25/26 I was inform that I have a broken front spring. This vehicle is only 9 years old and we have had spring break in the front and back. This seems like a premature failure of a critical suspension component. Though for
... tunately nothing happened in the way a bodily injury the failure could very well lead to an inability to properly control the vehicle if the broken spring were to slip and crash is possible. For example a tire could be punctured at a high rate of speed. I may not be able to maintain control with the broken suspension component. The vehicle springs should last more than 7 years before failure. I have owned many vehicles over the years a lot older than this one and with more miles and have never experience spring failure.Read more
Incident date: Feb 19, 2026
I am submitting a formal safety complaint regarding a severe design defect in the 3.5L V6 engine of my 2013 Ford Explorer. The vehicle is equipped with an internal, chain-driven water pump that is currently failing at 100000 miles, as evidenced by coolant actively draining from the factory weep hol
... e. Because this pump is located inside the engine block and driven by the timing chain, a complete seal failure dumps engine coolant directly into the oil pan. This is a critical safety hazard. When the coolant and oil mix, it destroys the engine bearings and causes the engine to completely seize without warning. If this sudden engine seizure occurs while driving at highway speeds, it results in an immediate and total loss of motive power, power steering, and power brakes. This defect creates an extreme crash hazard for the occupants of the vehicle and other drivers on the road. The internal weep hole provides virtually no dashboard warning or indicator to the driver before this catastrophic failure occurs. I am requesting that the NHTSA investigate this known, dangerous design flaw to force a mandatory safety recall before this sudden loss of vehicle control causes severe injuries or fatalities.Read more
NHTSA Safety Investigations, FORD ESCAPE
Investigations opened by NHTSA into potential safety defects. These are separate from recalls and may or may not result in a recall.
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2020
Failed Door Check Arm Attachment Point
On July 7, 2023, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE23-013 to investigate instances of check arm bracket failure in the front doors in model year (MY) 2020-2021 Ford Escape vehicles. At the time of opening, ODI received 118 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) alleging this failure. T
... o date, ODI has received 593 VOQs alleging this failure, with a variety of reported failure conditions. The most common reported failure condition was reduced door functionality (e.g. door was more difficult to open or close) and the least common was inadvertent door opening. Other reported failure conditions include inability to latch and inability to open. Three VOQs reported injuries, one of which requiring medical attention. ODI conducted a consumer survey which yielded an additional 44 injuries (although the VOQs did not indicate any injury), none of which requiring medical attention. All these injuries were bumps/bruises from the door closing on occupants’ arms and legs while entering and exiting the vehicle. The function of the check arm system is to provide hold-open assist at specific angles and to assist with door closing energy. It does not provide vertical support of the door and is independent of the latching mechanism. This failure is progressive and detectable by vehicle occupants. Consumers commonly report hearing a popping or snapping noise when opening and closing the door. This noise is caused by some of the welds between the bracket and door structure failing and detaching. There may also be visible damage present to the welds in the door structure. Continued use of the door may result in all welds separating and the bracket fully detaching from the door structure, which could lead to increased resistance in closing and opening the door, restrained window operation, and the door freely rotating when open. ODI inspected 3 consumer vehicles in the field, and 2 test vehicles at Ford’s testing facility. The test vehicles were retrofitted with the failed component. ODI observed an increased door closing resistance, however, was unable to reproduce an inadvertent open while parked or driving, or a failure to latch or open condition. Testing also verified this failure did not affect the door ajar warning system. This system provides an audible and visual warning in the event a door did not achieve primary latch position. Ford has provided details on a one-time-repair customer satisfaction program (23B56), stating that they will provide customers with a letter, currently targeted for March 2024, to bring their vehicle to a Ford dealership for a proactive repair. Dealers will inspect the door check arm welds for damage and will either provide a rivet plate to reinforce the existing door check arm or will provide a replacement door, depending on the level of damage present. Customers will be eligible for reimbursement if they previously paid to repair this issue. In view of the high detectability of failure, low potential hazard to drivers, and Ford’s customer satisfaction program to provide a proactive repair, this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.Read more
AQ, Open
, Model Year: 2021
Healey Brothers Ford / Open Recall Sale
NHTSA is opening this audit query to investigate whether Healey Brothers Ford, LLC of Beacon, New York, has complied with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Safety Act requires, among other things, that a manufacturer notify its dealers of defects related to m
... otor vehicle safety and noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in turn that a dealer not deliver a new vehicle subject to a recall unless the recall remedy has been performed. 49 U.S.C. § 30120(i).NHTSA is in receipt of information that indicates this dealer delivered at least one new vehicle to a first purchaser without having performed required recall repairs. Accordingly, we are opening this audit query to seek additional information concerning this issue.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2013
Loss of Motive Power
On July 16, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to investigate alleged instances of sudden stalling without warning on model year (MY) 2013 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with 1.6L GTDI turbocharged engines. Complaints alleged that vehicles stalled
... due to engine overheating, resulting in a delayed or no restart condition. When the investigation was opened, ODI had received 40 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs). At this time, ODI has received 173 VOQs with five reported fires and no reported crashes. In investigating the incidents alleged in the VOQs, ODI revisited an apparently related recall that Ford had issued in November 2013 (Recall 13V-583). In Recall 13V-583, Ford recalled all MY 2013 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with the 1.6L engines, built from October 5, 2011, to June 2, 2013. This recall addressed potential engine compartment fires due to localized overheating of the engine cylinder head leading to cracks that can cause oil leaks onto a hot engine surface. The remedy was to provide several enhancements to the engine shielding, cooling and control systems, which involved recalibration of the powertrain calibration module and the instrument cluster system. The recalibration implemented a “Failure Mode Effects Management” (FMEM) strategy to alert the driver of a low coolant state and limit the power to the engine to prevent overheating to the point of cracking the cylinder head. The FMEM strategy includes a “Low Engine Coolant – Service Required” message in the instrument cluster when the coolant reaches a prescribed low level and the engine continues to perform normally, and a coolant level sensor that was incorporated such that if the coolant level is further reduced, the engine enters a reduced power mode (vehicle speed limited to about 40 mph). If the vehicle is driven farther and coolant is not added to the vehicle, the vehicle enters a further reduced power mode and audible and visual alerts will appear and sound, and the engine will be limited to operation at idle speeds. ODI sent Ford an information request letter in August 2018, and, in April 2021, additionally required that Ford provide an update of its field and warranty data. In response, Ford provided 4,047 customer complaints, field reports, and legal claims, consisting of 3,865 unique VINs, and 47,214 warranty claims, consisting of 33,684 unique VINs. Having had repeated discussions with ODI, Ford eventually binned all 4,047 post-recall reports and all 47,214 warranty claims to those that relate to loss of motive power due to coolant loss. Having so binned these reports and claims, Ford reported that the relevant number dropped to 227 reports with 222 unique VINs and 2,774 warranty claims with 1,875 unique VINs. In analyzing its own responsive data, Ford maintained that the remedy for Recall 13V-583 adequately addresses the risk of loss of motive power resulting from an engine overheat due to low coolant by providing clear warnings and progressive reduced power FMEM strategies. Ford further maintained that some complaints imply that the vehicles properly displayed the advanced and progressive warnings and reduced engine power modes, but that complainants ignored them. Ford, therefore, reported that it has not identified any further defect in the coolant system and that it believes the rate of complaints of reduced motive power (which some customers perceive reduced power as vehicle stalls) due to low coolant is low for the subject vehicles. Ford further states it believes that it has not identified any other related unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety due to loss of motive power due to coolant loss or engine overheat. In addition to analyzing the vast amount of responsive data provided by Ford, ODI worked with NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center to review 1,462 VOQs with 1,347 unique VINs that were potentially related to this investigation. ODI found that 997 VOQs were relevant post-recall complaints. Of these, 161 VOQs included instances of stalling, sometimes preceded by warnings (low engine coolant message, audible/beeping sound, engine malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) illumination, etc.) and/or drivability issues (reduced power, vehicle jerking or shuddering, etc.). The other categories of complaints/failures were less severe or unrelated/undetermined: 73 related limp mode, nine related stall while vehicle stationary, 21 stalls unknown if related, 271 coolant failure without allegation of stalling, 64 engine MIL with no allegation of stalling, 267 not related to this investigation, 116 unknown if related, and 15 fires (including the initial 5 reports) that were ultimately determined to not be related to this investigation. ODI found that a relatively small percentage of the post-recall complaints involved loss of motive power (161 out of 997 VOQs; and 222 out of 3,865 Ford reports), while the remaining complaints involved vehicles in the early stages of FMEM mode, or were unrelated or undetermined if related to this investigation. ODI has further found that the number of complaints has declined significantly since mid-2021. Based on the analysis of the failure data indicating a declining trend of VOQs of loss of motive power, and in consideration of the remedy for Recall 13V-583 and NHTSA’s ongoing consent order with Ford, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. The agency will continue to monitor this issue under the heightened oversight pursuant to the consent order and the agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.Read more
DP, Closed
, Model Year: 2008
Loss of power steering while driving
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 equ
... ipped 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 pagesRead more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2009
Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
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. Du
... ring 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 thatRead more
DP, Closed
, Model Year: 2005
Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction
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) 200
... 5 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.Read more
DP, Closed
, Model Year: 2002
Cruise Control Cable
On July 8, 2012, The Center for Auto Safety has petitioned NHTSA to open defect investigations on Model Year (MY) 2002 ? 2004 Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute vehicles with certain cruise control cables.The Center for Auto Safety has also petitioned for a hearing to address whether Ford Motor Company (
... Ford) and Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) met their obligations to notify owners and correct a defect in certain Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute vehicles.The petitions to open investigations are denied as unnecessary and the petitions to conduct hearingsare denied.ODI IDs referenced above are: 10109921, 10116267, 10116574,10121108, 10125928, 10128545, 10130133,10137520, 10153327, 10155295, 10155817, 10159048, 10164205, 10165007, 10177337, 10184382, 10195378,10199728, 10201424, 10203178, 10204179, 10207677, 10214472, 10218668, 10222869, 10229600, 10255417,10256387, 10258046, 10259777, 10260591, 10266150, 10273613, 10291508, 10303282, 10303434, 10316154,10321828, 10323339, 10325817, 10331278, 10334038, 10335779, 10341773, 10342450, 10345004, 10363982,10370338, 10379444, 10432635, 10451652, 10466261, 891605, 10053779, 10125132, 10146998, 10149101,10160004, 10161052, 10170988, 10178811, 10204780, 10215610, 10222996, 10239609, 10252790, 10253666,10262773, 10264280, 10280669, 10289784, 10294932, 10312464, 10316440, 10343662, 10354530, 10413665,10461195Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
Stuck Throttle
In a letter dated July 25, 2012 Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR), NHTSA Recall No. 12V-353 to NHTSA identifying a safety defect involving inadequate clearance between the engine cover and the speed control cable connector, which could result in a stuck throttle c
... ondition.The vehicles involved are model year (MY) 2001 through MY 2004 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with 3.0L V6 engines and speed (cruise) control.A redesigned engine cover was implemented in production beginning in MY 2005, which provided additional clearance of the speed control cable to the engine cover.Similarly on July 26, 2012 Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan submitted a DIR to NHTSA, NHTSA Recall No. 12V-357, identifying the safety defect described above in MY 2001 through MY 2006 and MY 2008 Mazda Tribute vehicles (no Tribute vehicles were produced in MY 2007) equipped with 3.0L V6 engines and speed control.Unlike the Ford Escape recall scope, the Mazda Tribute scope is broader as Mazda Tribute vehicles incorporated a similar engine cover design as related to the clearance to the speed control cable in MYs 2001 through 2006 and MY 2008.The failure report summary above reflects reports identified by ODI in review of data submitted to the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) and reports submitted to Ford and to Mazda.ODI identified 44 reports likely related to the safety defect described in the DIRs; 39 involving Ford Escape vehicles and 5 involving Mazda Tribute vehicles. This Preliminary Evaluation is closed.The ODI report cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers: 10116267, 10128545, 10128681, 10137520, 10153327, 10165007, 10199728, 10234846, 10335779, 10466261, and 10468307.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2010
Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage
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 th
... e 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.Read more
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
Engine Compartment Fire
Ford and Mazda recalled model year (MY) 2001 through 2004 Ford Escape (07V-156) and Mazda Tribute (07V-157) vehicles due to non-crash fires or non-fire thermal events originating in the engine compartment at or near the ABS control module.Approximately 545,700 vehicles were subject to the initial sa
... fety recalls and approximately 424,700 vehicles were serviced under those campaigns. The campaigns addressed potentially damaged, missing or misplaced seals in the ABS control module wiring harness electrical connector that could allow brake fluid to enter the connector, possibly resulting in corrosion, short-circuit, melting, smoke and/or fire.Since the recall, the agency is aware of 260 subject vehicles that have reportedly experienced non-crash fires or non-fire thermal events originating at or near the ABS control module in vehicles some time after being serviced under the campaign. The post-recall repair incident rates for MY 2001 and 2002 subject vehicles are 90.9 and 126.7 (normalized per 100,000 vehicles serviced under the recall campaigns), respectively.These rates are much higher than the post-recall repair incident rate for MY 2003 and 2004 subject vehicles, which are 5.0 and 3.7 per 100K, respectively.Similarly, the post-recall repair key-off fire incident rates in the MY 2001 and 2002 subject vehicles is 54.3 per 100K, compared to 0.5 per 100K for the MY 2003 and 2004 subject vehicles.The agency is aware of 12 key-off fire incidents, all involving MY 2001 and 2002 subject vehicles, where the vehicle was parked inside a structure when the fire started.In five of those incidents, the fire spread from the vehicle to the structure itself.Ford has identified the brake master cylinder reservoir cap in certain MY 2001 and 2002 subject vehicles as a potential source for brake fluid leaks that could affect ABS module connector integrity.The reservoir caps used on the MY 2003 and 2004 subject vehicles are reportedly an improved design from those used on the earlier models.By letter dated January 4, 2012, Ford notified the agency that it would conduct another safety recall (identified by NTHSA Recall No. 12V-005 and Ford Recall No. 11S24) of certain MY 2001 and 2002 Ford Escape vehicles to perform a more thorough remedy to address the risk of fire originating at the ABS control module.In addition to double-checking the ABS control module wiring harness electrical connector weather seal (which should have been addressed under the previous recall campaign), Ford will replace brake master cylinder reservoir caps to address the leaking cap problem and reduce the risk of brake fluid entering the subject electrical connector.Ford will also modify the electrical system such that the ABS control module is de-energized when the ignition key is switched off to further reduce the risk of an unattended vehicle fire in units that may have sustained some small loss of connector integrity that may not be evident upon visual examination.Similarly, Mazda notified the agency by letter dated January 19, 2012, that it would also conduct a safety recall (identified by NTHSA Recall No. 12V-016 and Mazda Recall No. 6712A) of certain MY 2001 and 2002 Mazda Tribute vehicles.Ford estimates repair parts will be available beginning the second quarter of 2012. Until recall repairs are made both Ford and Mazda are advising owners of affected vehicles to reduce the safety concern by parking their vehicles outdoors away from structures to prevent a potential fire from spreading.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.Read more
RQ, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE
IN LETTERS DATED MARCH 30, 2007, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) AND MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS (MAZDA) NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT THEY WILL CONDUCT RECALLS 07V-156 AND 07V-157, RESPECTIVELY, TO REMEDY A SAFETY DEFECT THAT MAY RESULT IN FIRE IN A WIRING CONNECTOR USED IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2001-20
... 04 FORD ESCAPE AND MAZDA TRIBUTE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ABS.THE RECALL CAMPAIGN PRESCRIBES AN INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, WHICH SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED ONLY IF NECESSARY.IF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE PASSES THE VISUAL INSPECTION THEN THE RECALL INSTRUCTS THE TECHNICIAN TO APPLY ELECTRICAL GREASE (FORD PART NUMBER XG-12) TO THE ABS MODULE CONNECTOR AND VERIFY SYSTEM OPERATION.TO DATE, APPROXIMATELY 388,500 SUBJECT VEHICLES (71.7% OF THE TOTAL RECALL POPULATION) HAVE BEEN SERVICED UNDER THE RECALL CAMPAIGN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH (373,985) PASSED THE VISUAL INSPECTION AND RECEIVED ONLY THE ELECTRICAL GREASE APPLIED TO THE ABS MODULE CONNECTOR. THE AGENCY IS AWARE OF AT LEAST 86 UNIQUE SUBJECT VEHICLES THAT HAVE REPORTEDLY EXPERIENCED NON-CRASH FIRE INCIDENTS ORIGINATING IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AT OR NEAR THE ABS CONTROL MODULE SOME TIME AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED UNDER THE SUBJECT RECALL.THE MANUFACTURER HAS PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION THAT INDICATES CERTAIN VEHICLES WERE IMPROPERLY SERVICED UNDER THE SUBJECT RECALL AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACTORY WIRE TIE-WRAP NOT BEING REMOVED FROM THE WIRING HARNESS (WHICH INDICATES A PROPER INSPECTION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED) AND BY INCORRECT GREASE BEING APPLIED, INCORRECT AMOUNTS OF GREASE, AND EVEN INSTANCES WHERE NO GREASE WAS APPLIED TO THE ABS MODULE CONNECTOR.ALSO, THERE REMAIN SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SEVERITY OF THE REPORTED FIRE INCIDENTS.THE MANUFACTURER CONTENDS THAT MOST REPORTED FIRES WERE ACTUALLY NON-FIRE THERMAL EVENTS WITH DAMAGE LIMITED TO THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS AND THAT MOST VEHICLES ARE REPAIRED AND RETURNED TO SERVICE.HOWEVER, THE TREND APPEARS TO BE ONGOING WITH 5 REPORTED INCIDENTS HAVING OCCURRED IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS.ACCORDINGLY, THIS RECALL QUERY HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RECALL REMEDY.Read more
DP, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE
THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) RECEIVED A DEFECT PETITION DATED MARCH 5, 2009 ALLEGING THAT THE PETITIONER NEVER RECEIVED THE RECALL REMEDY FOR 07V-156 AND THAT, AS A RESULT, THE PETITIONER'S MY2003 FORD ESCAPE CAUGHT FIRE AT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE.IN RESPONSE TO ODI FOLLOW-UP, THE MANUFA
... CTURER VERIFIED THAT THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE HAD IN FACT RECEIVED SERVICE RELATED TO SAFETY RECALL 07V156 - A FACT LATER CORROBORATED BY THE PETITIONER.CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIRE EXPERIENCED IN THE PETITIONER'S REMEDIED VEHICLE INDICATE THAT THE REMEDY WAS INEFFECTIVE.ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY ODI IDENTIFIED AN ADDITIONAL 6 SIMILAR (ALLEGED TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AT OR NEAR THE ABS CONTROL MODULE ) NON-CRASH FIRE INCIDENTS IN SUBJECT VEHICLES KNOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED THE RECALL REMEDY.ACCORDINGLY, A RECALL QUERY (RQ09-002) HAS BEEN OPENED TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RECALL REMEDY.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE
IN LETTERS DATED MARCH 30, 2007, FORD AND MAZDA NOTIFIED NHTSA THAT THEY WILL CONDUCT SAFETY RECALLS TO REMEDY A SAFETY DEFECT THAT MAY RESULT IN FIRE IN A WIRING CONNECTOR USED IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2001-2004 FORD ESCAPE AND MAZDA TRIBUTE SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ABS.RECALL 07V-156
... INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY 446,450 MY 2001-2004 ESCAPE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM OCTOBER 22, 1999 THROUGH JANUARY 23, 2004.RECALL 07V-157 INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY 95,300 MY 2001-2004 TRIBUTE VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM APRIL 17, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 19, 2003. ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURERS, THE ELECTRICAL WIRING CONNECTORS TO THE ABS ELECTRONIC CONTROL MODULE WERE MANUFACTURED WITH WIRE SEALS MISSING OR IMPROPERLY INSTALLED IN SOME WIRING HARNESSES USED IN THE RECALL POPULATIONS.THIS MAY ALLOW ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS SUCH AS WATER OR BRAKE FLUID TO ENTER THE ABS ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR INTERFACE AND CAUSE CORROSION OF THE ELECTRICAL TERMINALS.SUCH CORROSION MAY RESULT IN AN ILLUMINATED ABS TELLTALE, AN OPEN CIRCUIT, AND/OR AN ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE ORIGINATING AT THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR.TO REMEDY THE DEFECT, THE MANUFACTURERS WILL INSPECT THE CONNECTORS FOR SEAL INTEGRITY.IF A SEAL INTEGRITY ISSUE IS IDENTIFIED THE VEHICLE WILL BE REPAIRED AS NECESSARY.ALL VEHICLES WILL HAVE DIELECTRIC GREASE APPLIED TO THE CONNECTORS TO FURTHER REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINANTS ENTERING THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTORS. TO DATE, ODI IS AWARE OF 120 NON-CRASH RELATED FIRE INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AT OR NEAR THE ABS ELECTRONIC CONTROL MODULE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, WHICH REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 80 PERCENT OF THE RECALL POPULATION.OF THE 120 ALLEGED FIRES, 6 ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED INSIDE A GARAGE STRUCTURE.IN 4 INCIDENTS, COMPLAINANTS ALLEGED THE STRUCTURE OR ADJOINING STRUCTURE(S) SUFFERED SMOKE DAMAGE, WHILE IN 2 INCIDENTS, THE ALLEGED FIRES CAUSED MORE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TOTALING APPROXIMATELY $50,000 EACH.THERE ARE NO KNOWN INJURIES OR FATALITIES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.BASED ON THE FORD AND MAZDA RECALLS, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.Read more
RP, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
ENGINE STALLING
SUMMARY:THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT AFTER HAVING THE RECALL REMEDY PERFORMED ON HER MODEL YEAR (MY) 2001 FORD ESCAPE, IT CONTINUED TO EXHIBIT AN INTERMITTENT STALL CONDITION.CONSEQUENTLY, SHE PETITIONED THE AGENCY TO EXAMINE THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECALL REMEDY FOR SAFETY RECALL 04V-165.ON APRIL 5, 200
... 4, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT WOULD CONDUCT A RECALL OF 321,903 MY 2001 THROUGH 2002 AND CERTAIN 2003 MY ESCAPE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 3.0L ENGINES MANUFACTURED BETWEEN JANUARY 21, 2000 AND SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 AT THE KANSAS CITY ASSEMBLY PLANT.THESE VEHICLES EXHIBITED AN INTERMITTENT ENGINE STALL DURING DECELERATIONS AT VEHICLE SPEEDS BELOW 40 MPH DUE TO AN EXCESSIVELY RICH FUEL-AIR MIXTURE IN THE ENGINE.AS A REMEDY, FORD DEALERS ARE INSTRUCTED TO REPROGRAM THE POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE (PCM) TO A REVISED CALIBRATION TO PREVENT THE STALLING CONDITION. IN ITS JULY 23, 2004 RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION?S (ODI) JULY 1, 2004 INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER, FORD STATES THAT AS OF JUNE 30, 2004 THE RECALL REMEDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 174,014 VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF VEHICLE OWNERS (LESS THAN .1%) WHO HAVE HAD THE REMEDY PERFORMED ON THEIR VEHICLES HAVE HAD ADDITIONAL DECELERATION STALLING ISSUES.FORD ALSO STATES THAT THE PCM HAS TO ?LEARN? THE NEW PROGRAM AND THAT ANY SUBSEQUENT STALLING WOULD BE TEMPORARY.TO VERIFY FORD?S CLAIM, ODI CONDUCTED A RANDOM SURVEY OF 20 COMPLAINANTS WHO HAD THE REMEDY PERFORMED ON THEIR VEHICLES AND WHO EXPERIENCED A SUBSEQUENT STALLING EVENT.ODI FOUND THAT MOST OF THEM HAD ISOLATED STALLING PROBLEMS, SUPPORTING FORD?S ALLEGATION THAT THE PCM MUST ?LEARN? THE NEW PROGRAM.IN ADDITION, IN A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH ODI, THE PETITIONER STATED THAT A FORD ENGINEER FOUND A FAULTY IGNITION SWITCH AS THE CAUSE OF THE STALLING IN HER VEHICLE.THUS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT THIS TIME TO SUGGEST THE RECALL REMEDY IS INADEQUATE.FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF THE AGENCY?S INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED AND THE PETITION IS DENIED.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
SAFETY BELT BUCKLE FAILURE
THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON JULY 14, 2003 BASED ON 4 REPORTS ALLEGING THE DRIVER'S SAFETY BELT BUCKLE FAILED TO LATCH OR REMAIN LATCHED.MAZDA NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT TRANSFERRED ENGINEERING RESPONSIBILITY TO FORD WHEN THE VEHICLE DESIGN WAS BROUGHT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR PRODUCTION IN FORD'S ASS
... EMBLY PLANTS.FORD DETERMINED THAT THE SAFETY BELT BUCKLE IS SUBJECT TO LATERAL FLEXING DURING USE THAT COULD ALLOW A PORTION OF THE BUCKLE CABLE STALK CONVOLUTE TUBING THAT EXTENDS INTO THE BUCKLE ASSEMBLY TO CONTACT THE MOLDED PLASTIC ANTI-RATTLE POST ON THE UPPER BUCKLE COVER.THIS CONTACT MAY CAUSE THE POST TO FATIGUE AND FRACTURE, ALLOWING THE BACKSIDE OF THE LATCH TO WEDGE BELOW THE BROKEN EDGE OF THE POST.IN THIS ORIENTATION, THE BROKEN POST MAY HINDER THE INTENDED ROTATION OF THE LATCH DURING INSERTION OF THE LATCH PLATE RESULTING IN A NO-LATCH OR FALSE-LATCH CONDITION.FORD'S SUPPLIER AUTOLIV, INC. PROVIDED BUCKLE COVERS WITHOUT THE ANTI-RATTLE POST BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2000.RECALL SCOPE:THE AFFECTED VEHICLES ARE 2001 MODEL YEAR FORD ESCAPE AND MAZDA TRIBUTE BUILT AT THE CLAYCOMO (KANSAS CITY), MISSOURI ASSEMBLY PLANT THROUGH MAY 31, 2001.RECALL REMEDY:FORD-LINCOLN-MERCURY AND MAZDA DEALERS, RESPECTIVELY, WILL REPLACE BOTH DRIVER AND FRONT PASSENGER SAFETY BELT BUCKLE COVERS WITH NEWLY DESIGNED SERVICE BUCKLE COVERS.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.Read more
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
ENGINE STALLING
FORD'S AND MAZDA'S LETTERS TO NHTSA DATED APRIL 5 AND APRIL 9, 2004, STATE THAT THEY WILL RECALL MODEL YEAR 2001-03 FORD ESCAPE AND MAZDA TRIBUTE VEHICLES WITH THE V6 ENGINE BUILT THRU SEPTEMBER 11, 2002.DEALERS WILL ADJUST ENGINE CALIBRATION IN THE PROGRAMMABLE CONTROL MODULE (PCM), WHICH IN ITS CU
... RRENT SETTING, CAN CAUSE THE ENGINE TO SHUT DOWN IF THE VEHICLE IS DECELERATING AT SPEEDS BELOW 40 MPH. THE ENGINE SHUTS DOWN DUE TO EXCESSIVELY RICH AIR-FUEL MIXTURES BEING SENT TO THE ENGINE.WHEN THE ENGINE SHUTS DOWN, DRIVERS MAY NOTICE A LOSS OF POWER ASSIST FOR THEIR STEERING AND BRAKES. THE MAJORITY OF THE COMPLAINANTS HAVE INDICATED TO THE AGENCY THAT THE STALL IS INTERMITTENT AND CAN HAPPEN MORE THAN ONCE.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
ENGINE STALLING
RQ, Closed
, Model Year: 2001
GASOLINE VAPOR INTRUSION
There is no summary currently available