BACK OVER PREVENTION:SOFTWARE
2022 Ford Escape
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 240 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2022 Ford Escape, most frequently naming the fuel system, engine and brakes categories. 19 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 2 NHTSA investigations name it; and 157 manufacturer communications are on file.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Complaint activity over time
When owners filed reports about this model year
View as table
| Month | Complaints filed | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| May 2022 | 2 | 2 |
| Jul 2022 | 2 | 4 |
| Aug 2022 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 8 |
| Oct 2022 | 2 | 10 |
| Nov 2022 | 3 | 13 |
| Dec 2022 | 1 | 14 |
| Jan 2023 | 5 | 19 |
| Feb 2023 | 5 | 24 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 30 |
| Apr 2023 | 3 | 33 |
| May 2023 | 7 | 40 |
| Jun 2023 | 5 | 45 |
| Jul 2023 | 1 | 46 |
| Aug 2023 | 2 | 48 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 50 |
| Oct 2023 | 3 | 53 |
| Dec 2023 | 3 | 56 |
| Jan 2024 | 4 | 60 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 63 |
| Apr 2024 | 5 | 68 |
| May 2024 | 3 | 71 |
| Jul 2024 | 3 | 74 |
| Aug 2024 | 5 | 79 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 82 |
| Oct 2024 | 8 | 90 |
| Nov 2024 | 4 | 94 |
| Dec 2024 | 5 | 99 |
| Jan 2025 | 2 | 101 |
| Feb 2025 | 3 | 104 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 110 |
| Apr 2025 | 2 | 112 |
| May 2025 | 4 | 116 |
| Jun 2025 | 5 | 121 |
| Jul 2025 | 6 | 127 |
| Aug 2025 | 4 | 131 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 140 |
| Oct 2025 | 7 | 147 |
| Nov 2025 | 5 | 152 |
| Dec 2025 | 10 | 162 |
| Jan 2026 | 9 | 171 |
| Feb 2026 | 6 | 177 |
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 187 |
| Apr 2026 | 10 | 197 |
| May 2026 | 10 | 207 |
| Jun 2026 | 11 | 218 |
| Jul 2026 | 8 | 226 |
| Aug 2026 | 2 | 228 |
| Sep 2026 | 5 | 233 |
| Oct 2026 | 6 | 239 |
| Nov 2026 | 1 | 240 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Fuel system8829.8%
- Engine4013.6%
- Brakes3411.5%
- Powertrain (other)3210.8%
- Driver assistance248.1%
- Electrical206.8%
- Body & structure206.8%
- Steering62.0%
Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.
Safety recalls
19 campaigns cover this model year
Recalls apply to specific vehicles, not to every vehicle of a model year. Check your VIN with NHTSA or your manufacturer's dealer to confirm whether a recall affects your vehicle.
Check a VIN on NHTSA.govVISIBILITY:WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER:MOTOR
STRUCTURE:BODY:HATCHBACK/LIFTGATE:HINGE AND ATTACHMENTS
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
Underhood fires caused by fuel leak
On April 11, 2024, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) opened this Recall Query (“RQ”) to investigate the adequacy of, including various safety concerns associated with, the remedy program in recalls 22V-859 (filed Nov. 18, 2022) and 24V-187 (filed Mar. 8, 2024). The vehicle population associated with these recalls includes certain MY 2020-2022 Ford Escape vehicles and MY 2021-2023 Ford Bronco Sport vehicles equipped with 1.5L engines. The safety defect in each recall involves high-pressure fuel injectors that are susceptible to cracking, allowing liquid fuel and fuel vapor to migrate onto hot surfaces within the engine compartment potentially resulting in underhood vehicle fires. The remedy programs described in recalls 22V-859 and 24V-187 are identical and involve both a software component and a hardware component. Specifically, Ford developed an updated engine control software designed to detect a pressure drop in the high-pressure fuel rail, provide instrument cluster messaging to the driver, invoke a strategy to disable the high-pressure fuel pump, derate the engine output, and lower the temperatures of possible ignition sources within the engine compartment. Additionally, Ford would install a tube into the engine’s cylinder head drain hole to shunt spilled liquid fuel past the various hot surfaces within the engine compartment and ultimately discard the spilled liquid fuel onto the roadway. ODI identified various safety concerns with this remedy program, which, among other things, notably did not include repairing or replacing the defective part and potentially did include the introduction of new safety defects (like fuel spilling near the spark plugs and fuel spilling onto the public roadway). NHTSA opened this investigation to evaluate these concerns with the remedy program, including whether the vehicles were still susceptible to underhood fires even post-remedy. As described in more detail in the Additional Summary posted simultaneously with this resume, ODI conducted a thorough investigation that included analyzing data and other materials received in response to two Information Requests, as well as inspections of post-remedy vehicles that experienced an underhood fire. ODI and Ford worked to identify and locate vehicles that experienced post-remedy fires and conduct joint vehicle inspections. ODI’s investigation also prompted Ford to initiate a more in-depth evaluation of the defect, including Ford’s conducting component level testing of high-pressure fuel injectors. ODI met with Ford on several occasions throughout this investigation to jointly conduct certain of these described tasks and to discuss test results. A collateral issue surfaced as a result of this investigation: in March 2025, Ford realized that despite relevant repairs having been recorded as successfully completed, approximately 33,576 vehicles subject to recalls 22V-859 and 24V-187 did not have the software component of the remedy program installed correctly. Thus, on March 27, 2025, Ford filed a new related recall (25V-165) for these vehicles, notifying NHTSA and the public that they were still at risk of experiencing an underhood vehicle fire due to cracked fuel injectors despite the consumer having had their vehicle remedied pursuant to one of the two earlier recalls. In June 2025, Ford committed to implementing a new remedy program to repair the vehicles. On July 11, 2025, Ford documented this commitment in a new recall filing (25V-467), which explains that Ford’s upcoming remedy program will involve proactive replacement of all high-pressure fuel injectors within the recall population. In view of the recall action taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Recall Query, which was opened given NHTSA’s concerns that the initial remedy programs of the software to detect the pressure drop plus installation of the drain tube did not constitute an adequate repair. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.
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. To 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.
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
The contact owns a 2022 Ford Escape. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V467000 (Fuel System, Gasoline); however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated that the check engine warning light was illuminated. The dealer was contacted and confirmed that the part was not yet available. The dealer referred the contact to the NHTSA Hotline to report the failure. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue. The failure mileage was 67,000.
- NHTSA ID
- 11776764
- Incident
- Aug 9, 2026
- Mileage
- 67,000 mi
E29 light-emission malfunction warning indicator. Large evaporation leak. Dealer notified and repaired 10/16/26 at 54,399 miles and 10/27/26 at 54,835 miles. Items not under warranty.
- NHTSA ID
- 11774834
- Incident
- Oct 16, 2026
In early XXX, my 2022 Ford Escape SE (1.5L EcoBoost) experienced repeated engine stalls while my wife was driving with our children inside. The vehicle had only 33,028 miles. Whenever the A/C was engaged, the engine stalled and could not restart normally until the A/C was turned off. With the A/C off, the vehicle could restart and drive. Turning the A/C back on caused the engine to stall again. A strong burning/electrical smell accompanied the malfunction and persisted even with the A/C off. The failure occurred suddenly, without prior symptoms. Whether dashboard warning lights appeared is UNKNOWN. Losing engine power while driving created a serious collision risk for my family and other motorists. I drove the vehicle to [XXX] of [XXX], and reported the problem. The dealership documented the engine stalling while driving and burning smell under Repair Order #XXX, dated XXX. [XXX] diagnosed a catastrophic internal A/C compressor failure with metal contamination throughout the A/C system, requiring extensive repairs. However, identifying the failed compressor does not explain why it failed or its precise relationship to the engine stalling. Despite repeated requests since XXX, Ford has not provided a technical explanation of the root cause or whether a manufacturing or supplier defect was considered. Ford Customer Relations closed my case with these questions unanswered. Whether the dealership reproduced the stalling during testing or Ford conducted a separate physical inspection is UNKNOWN. The vehicle remains at Germain Ford awaiting repair authorization. To my knowledge, the failed components remain installed and available for inspection. I have requested their preservation. I request NHTSA investigate this potential safety defect to determine whether other Ford Escape owners may be at risk. I am concerned this failure could occur without warning in other vehicles, putting additional families at risk. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- NHTSA ID
- 11774820
- Incident
- Sep 9, 2026
Driving on I-70 and exiting into Salina, KS when the transmission began to slip and drove very herky-jerky. Could feel begin to slip the day before and scheduled an appointment to have it looked at. Luckily the exit was close to the location. Safety was not too much of concern because it could still drive about 30 mph and the traffic was not too busy off the highway. The slippage from the day before was a warning. In addition, another car from the Kansas Municipal Utilities Fleet of Escapes had had the transmission slip just a day prior and there as another one at the end of September. All of them had loose transmission pins that required a complete rebuild.
- NHTSA ID
- 11772450
- Incident
- Sep 3, 2026
While driving I pushed the switch to open my sunroof. The motor began pulling the sunshade back when I heard a loud popping/cracking noise. This was the large black plastic piece falling off due to lack of adhesive. The plastic part basically ripped the shade off the rails and it is now stuck in the headliner of the car. This is such shoddy design, and it is extremely dangerous. What if this happens while driving at high speeds with people in the back. Ford should do something about this as I have seen many, many people complain of the same issue. And of course it is never covered under warranty so people are out like $1500 to get it fixed.
- NHTSA ID
- 11772329
- Incident
- Oct 1, 2026
This recall has not been resolved by Ford in a timely manner while newer recalls have been announced and remedies were made available.
- NHTSA ID
- 11770736
- Incident
- Oct 13, 2026
When attempting to turn, the steering wheel locked up, loosened, locked up, loosened, locked up, loosened
- NHTSA ID
- 11768363
- Incident
- Sep 12, 2026
The contact owns a 2022 Ford Escape. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V467000 (FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE); however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The local dealer was contacted, and it was confirmed that the part was not yet available. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was not made aware of the issue.
- NHTSA ID
- 11768104
- Incident
- Sep 30, 2026
Manufacturer communications
A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.
POWER TRAIN
Special Field Action 26L03 Certain 2013-2024 Model Year California Emissions-Certified Vehicles Transmission Fluid Auxiliary Pump Reimbursement
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM; POWER TRAIN
For 20222026 vehicles equipped with a 8F35 transmission, a revision to the Road Testing Vehicle procedure has been made in the WSM, Section 307-01 > Diagnosis and Testing. This updated procedure improves the diagnosis of customer reported transmission concerns and aids in locating the proper root cause. During diagnosis and testing, details regarding whether the condition is more prevalent when the vehicle is hot or cold, throttle percentage at the time of occurrence, vehicle speed, the specific shift involved, and whether the issue occurs during transmission engagements (N>R, N>D, R>D, and/or D>R) should be noted in the warranty claim. Engineering requests including these detailed operating conditions that will significantly assist with root cause analysis. Diagnosis, testing, and repair should use established labor times outside this article.
STRUCTURE:BODY
This article supersedes TSB 25-2466 to add Bronco Sport, Escape, Maverick and Corsair, as well as removing Expedition and Navigator. One time use parts for Corsair and Bronco Sport were also added to the parts list. Some of the vehicles listed in the Model statement above may exhibit a headliner rattle or sagging condition around the roof opening panel. This may be due to the adhesive separating from the headliner substrate.
SEATS
For Various Ford and Lincoln vehicles, if diagnostics lead to the replacement of the front seat cushion cover J-clips, lower-level service parts are now available. Use service part W709919-S901 if the J-clip is completely detached from the seat cover and W715386-S424 if the clip is still partially attached. It is not necessary to replace the seat cover if only the J-clip is separating from the cover. Refer to PTS Home > Technical Assistance > Technical Support Videos > Section 501- Body and Paint > Seat J-Clips. For claiming, use causal parts from list below and labor operations 63100A and 63100A5. Causal Parts for claiming: Bronco/Bronco Sport/Escape/Explorer/Expedition/Navigator: 7862900 or 7862901 F-150/F-Super Duty: 1562900 or 1562901 Ranger/Maverick: 6062900 or 6062901
POWER TRAIN
This bulletin supersedes 26-2194. Reason for update: update the Parts list to correct a part description " Loctite 638", update the claim quantity for the drain/fill plug, update the claim quantity of the wheel hub bolts (Corsair) and limited the parts list for Edge/Nautilus to only the rear drive unit fluid. Some of the vehicles listed in the Model statement above may exhibit all of the following conditions: Shudder chatter condition, most noticeable at low speeds turning No relevant diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) present This may be due to internal rear drive unit (RDU) fluid contamination.
POWER TRAIN
Some 2020-2026 Corsair/Escape, 2021-2026 Bronco Sport, and 2022-2026 Maverick vehicles equipped with an 8F35 transmission may exhibit a shudder condition, most noticeable at speeds below 60 mph (100 km/h), with no relevant diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) stored in the powertrain control module (PCM). Sometimes, this may be perceived/felt as an engine misfire. This may be due to the torque converter. If Pinpoint Test K: Torque Converter Clutch Operation in Workshop Manual (WSM), Section 307-01 > Diagnosis and Testing > Diagnosis by Symptom directs to replace the torque converter, remove and replace the torque converter and torque converter seal. Refer to WSM, Section 307-01 > Removal and Installation > Torque Converter Seal. Remove the main control valve body. Refer to WSM, Section 307-01 > Removal and Installation > Main Control Valve Body. Overhaul and thoroughly clean the main control valve body. Refer to WSM, Section 307-01 > Overhaul > Main Control Valve Body. Reverse the removal procedure to reassemble the transmission. Install the transmission. Refer to WSM, Section 307-01 > Installation. For claim
Manufacturers file copies of the bulletins they send to dealers with NHTSA. These often describe diagnostic or repair procedures for a known condition. They are not recalls: repairs described in a bulletin are usually only free if the vehicle is still under warranty or the manufacturer has extended coverage.
Compare model years
Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model
| Year | Complaints | Recalls | Investigations | Issue Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 3 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 2025 | 26 | 9 | 0 | 52.5 |
| 2024 | 78 | 8 | 0 | 62.3 |
| 2023 | 102 | 11 | 0 | 60.2 |
| 2022Viewing | 240 | 19 | 2 | 67.5 |
| 2021 | 356 | 19 | 2 | 67.3 |
| 2020 | 1,625 | 23 | 2 | 62.7 |
| 2019 | 605 | 3 | 0 | 59.4 |
| 2018 | 1,834 | 4 | 0 | 59.6 |
| 2017 | 2,711 | 4 | 0 | 57.7 |
| 2016 | 1,194 | 4 | 0 | 62.8 |
| 2015 | 1,150 | 9 | 2 | 69.1 |
| 2014 | 2,091 | 16 | 2 | 64.0 |
| 2013 | 2,753 | 18 | 3 | 61.2 |
| 2012 | 604 | 2 | 2 | 54.8 |
| 2011 | 1,321 | 3 | 4 | 56.4 |
| 2010 | 2,071 | 5 | 4 | 55.7 |
| 2009 | 1,696 | 3 | 3 | 54.8 |
| 2008 | 1,974 | 5 | 3 | 58.2 |
| 2007 | 254 | 4 | 2 | 54.8 |
| 2006 | 464 | 5 | 1 | 53.9 |
| 2005 | 1,394 | 5 | 2 | 55.3 |
| 2004 | 499 | 8 | 6 | 61.8 |
| 2003 | 558 | 9 | 8 | 65.2 |
| 2002 | 1,027 | 10 | 10 | 67.3 |
| 2001 | 996 | 15 | 11 | 66.3 |
| 2000 | 5 | 0 | 0 | — |
Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers. Older model years have had longer for reports to accumulate.