Ford Recalls Fire Escape For a Third Time

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon
ford recalls fire escape for a third time

They say the third time is always a charm.

I don’t think this was what they meant.

As first reported by The Associated Press, a third recall has been issued for the Louisville, Kentucky-built Ford Escape, and the second to involve those with the 1.6L four-pot under the hood. Instead of fuel lines, however, improperly installed coolant plugs will turn your chariot of great escapes into a chariot of fire, the result of coolant leaking onto said engine after the plug falls out onto the highway.

The issue, according to Ford spokesperson Marcey Zweibel, first came about at one of their dealerships, where an employee driving an Escape experienced the conflagration first-hand; the fire was extinguished with no injuries reported.

In all, 7,600 Escapes with the English-built 1.6L engine fall under the recall, where owners can take their crossover into the nearest dealership for a free service appointment to correct the potentially fatal error.

Photo credit: Ford

Join the conversation
22 of 40 comments
  • CJinSD CJinSD on Sep 06, 2012

    I've seen many people assert that small, turbocharged engines in big, heavy vehicles are just fine this time, because the automakers creating them have learned from their past mistakes and know what they're doing this time. It is to laugh.

    • See 11 previous
    • Tuffjuff Tuffjuff on Sep 07, 2012

      @tresmonos This isn't really Ford related, because they've clearly stuck their money on boosting everything, but what happened to small sixes? Are the real world benefits of going with the, what is it, 2.0 turbo'd four versus the tried and true NA 3.0 six that much for BMW that they'd go that route? I know the four puts out more torque, but real-world (if real world even matters anymore) aren't they about the same? And GM's 3.0 in the Equinox/Terrain - great engine on paper, but terrible EPA (and, IIRC, real world) numbers. Why is that? Was the lack of torque that big of a deal, and more to the point if 185-ish foot pounds out of the 2.4 four can move the Equinox/Terrain well enough to get mid or MAYBE high 20's MPG on the highway, what's wrong with 230 or whatever the 3.0 puts out? I understand it's got more horse power than torque, but does it really have to wind up THAT much to make use of it? I'm not an engineer, so I won't pretend to know if the fact that the Escape's engine is boosted is the reason for these problems, or if it's bad product planning around the engine that's the problem, but if a company figures they need to at least offer a non-NA option, it can't be THAT hard to pull off?

  • Acd Acd on Sep 06, 2012

    Too bad. I'm renting a 2013 Escape now and I really like it. It is a great size--not too big, not too small, it handles great, looks good, is comfortable and has a nicely trimmed inside. Ride is a little choppy but overall I'm as impressed with this Escape as I was unimpressed with a 2012 Explorer last week. The Explorer drove like it was the size of a department store, guzzled gas and every detail seemed to be intentionally made to piss me off. It was comfortable and did ride nice but I'll take an Escape any day.

    • See 4 previous
    • Rudiger Rudiger on Sep 07, 2012

      @rudiger I don't know. Besides the 1.6EB engine, above the S the SE gets Sync, aluminum wheels, better cloth on the seats, foglights, privacy glass, and chrome exhaust tips. That doesn't seem to be a whole lot for the extra $2400. But I do agree that the SE really should have been the base Escape (and at the lower 'S' price, too). If Ford had done that, they'd absolutely murder the CR-V in sales.

  • Mfgreen40 Mfgreen40 on Sep 06, 2012

    The 4.6 L ford with 2 valve head had four aluminum threads retaining the spark plug. A lot of them failed. I see some of their new V-6 and 4 cyl. engines have 16 threads on the plug. Of course they do not admit to poor engineering on the 4.6.

    • Mik101 Mik101 on Sep 06, 2012

      Exactly... not to mention that direct injection in and of itself only results in about 3% BSFC improvement. The other benefit is the increased cooling from the fuel stratification. A turbo is nothing but variable displacement, increasing the amount of heat and stress in the smaller engine when the added power is used. In normal driving wear shouldn't be all that increased, but there are also lots of folks that won't do the maintenance. This is what is going to make it harder on subsequent owners. Unlike NM, I don't have faith in the engineers to fix that, as after the warranty is over, the company would rather have you keep coming back for parts...

  • Ion Ion on Sep 06, 2012

    TTAC used to be above posting recall articles. Guess we make exceptions so long as its not a VAG product or a recall that will bring shame to the Toyoda family.