Page 121 of 44,303 (2,215,138 complaints)
Incident date: Jul 3, 2025
. The contact owns a 2017 Ford Explorer. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V347000( ); however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The local dealer was contacted and it was confirmed that the part was not available. The contact stated that the manufacturer exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was made aware of t
... he issue. The contact had experienced the failure causing the B- Pillar trim to eject from the vehicle and the fused was blown. The failure mileage was 102,000.Read more
Incident date: May 22, 2026
The contact owns a 2023 Mercedes Benz EQB 250. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 26V073000 (Electrical System) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The vehicle was taken to the dealer and the dealer was contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The dealer confirmed that the remedy parts were not yet available. The manufacturer was m
... ade aware of the issue. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated their concern. The contact stated that the vehicle is unsafe and hazard to drive for the contact daughter and other passenger The contact had not experienced a failure.Read more
Incident date: Apr 1, 2026
The display panel is completely blank, no speedometer, ABS, oil, engine trouble or temperature warning lamps. Contacted local dealer and Yamaha Motor Co. They said it is a common problem with this model and no replacement parts available. Not having any warning lamps is a safety concern.
Incident date: May 21, 2026
The driver-side front door window developed a crack suddenly while the vehicle was in normal use. There was no known impact, and no object was seen or heard striking the glass. The crack originated near the edge of the window close to the side mirror and spread across the glass. There were no warning messages, alerts, or prior symptoms before the failure. The failure appeared spontaneous. This c
... ondition poses a safety concern because the integrity of the side window is compromised. The crack continued to spread, which could reduce occupant protection in the event of a side impact and may lead to sudden shattering. It also has the potential to affect driver visibility. The issue was not inspected by the dealership prior to repair. The dealership advised that they could not perform the repair in-house and directed the repair to a third-party glass facility, where the window was replaced. No definitive impact point was identified prior to replacement. Based on the fracture pattern and lack of impact evidence, the failure appears consistent with a stress-related crack rather than road debris damage. Additionally, there are multiple reports from other owners describing similar cracks occurring in the same location on this vehicle model, suggesting a possible defect trend. The original failed component is no longer available for inspection, as it was replaced during repair.Read more
Incident date: May 5, 2026
I bought a 2020 Hyundai Elantra in 2024 with 67k miles on it. After driving 22k miles the check engine light went on and when it was brought in to get it checked the transmission went out. I did not buy a warranty so I understood it would not be covered. The issue I had was it was very hard to get information on the condition of the car that was sold to me. What I found out was that the transmissi
... on fluid was likley not changed ever and definetly not checked before the car was sold since the check engine light was not on and the engine sounded fine when I bought it. Which when I did meet with the service manager was informed of. The service manager noted that the IVT transmission has a long history of going out and is a bad design. He stated that most cars are not being made with it anymore and that this is well known problem. My biggest issue is that they knew this when it was sold and since the car was already over 60k when they got it should have at least checked the fluid or put in new fluid due to the history of transmission problems on the car. It is very likely this was not done to the likelihood the fluid was already bad and the transmission would have gone out so they wanted to pass it on to the customer. I know it is on me to know about a car when it is purchased but did not think of checking specifically on what type of transmission was in the car and now always will. I have had two Hyundai and both went over 200k without problem. To have one go 89k and go out was totally unexpected and there were no warnings except a check engine light. The service manager was nice but told me there was nothing that could be done.Read more
Incident date: May 17, 2026
Component or system that failed: The GPS navigation system and cellular connectivity module in my 2024 Tesla Model Y (VIN: [XXX] ) have intermittently lost signal and become completely nonfunctional multiple times over the past month. Tesla's service documentation indicates this affects the vehicle's connectivity hardware or managing software. The vehicle is available for inspection upon request.
... Safety risk: Loss of GPS navigation while driving creates a safety hazard when traveling unfamiliar routes, in low-visibility conditions, or during emergencies. Loss of cellular connectivity simultaneously disables Tesla's roadside assistance and the vehicle's calling capability. The vehicle acknowledges this risk by displaying a yellow caution alert reading "Poor GPS location accuracy — Additional attention may be required" on the primary touchscreen while in motion, with no advance warning before the failure occurs. Reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or service center: Yes. On May 22, 2026, Tesla Service Columbia-Two Notch Rd, 6301 Two Notch Road, Columbia, SC 29223, confirmed this as a known issue. The service advisor stated Tesla is aware of the defect but has no repair available and instructed me to submit in-car bug reports each time it occurs. Inspected by manufacturer or others: Yes, by Tesla's service center on May 22, 2026. No independent, police, or insurance inspection has been performed. Warning lamps or prior symptoms: A yellow triangle caution icon with the message "Poor GPS location accuracy — Additional attention may be required" appears on the primary touchscreen during each failure, but only after GPS has already degraded — no advance warning is given. This has occurred four times since April 2026, with each event lasting between 15 seconds and over one minute. UNKNOWN as to specific trigger conditions. Photographic documentation has been retained. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: May 20, 2026
The drivers side front seat belt buckle will not latch. There is no dirt or other debris in the latch to stop it from functioning.
Incident date: May 18, 2026
I am filing a safety complaint regarding my 2022 GMC Terrain after experiencing a sudden infotainment system failure that also disabled my backup camera functionality. The infotainment screen in my vehicle suddenly went completely black without warning and without any physical damage to the vehicle. The screen failure caused the backup camera to stop functioning as well, creating a significant sa
... fety concern while reversing and parking. The vehicle currently has approximately 50,000 miles. When I contacted the GMC dealership regarding the issue, I was informed that this is a common problem with GMC Terrains. However, because my factory warranty expired only weeks before the failure occurred, GMC declined to provide any financial assistance or goodwill repair coverage despite acknowledging the issue is commonly seen. This defect directly impacts federally required rear visibility safety equipment and creates unnecessary risk to drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and surrounding vehicles. Backup cameras are an essential safety feature, and the sudden failure of the infotainment system removes access to that safety function entirely. I believe this may be a widespread defect involving the infotainment and electrical systems in the 2022 GMC Terrain and request that NHTSA investigate this issue further for potential recall or manufacturer accountability.Read more
Incident date: May 20, 2026
Formal Consumer Complaint Statement — GM / Crivelli Buick I am filing a formal consumer complaint against Crivelli Chevrolet Buick GMC and General Motors/Buick regarding what I believe was discriminatory and unfair treatment in connection with a warranty-covered vehicle repair. The customer is [XXX] , owner of a 2017 Buick Encore. The vehicle was serviced by Crivelli Chevrolet Buick GMC in Mt.
... Pleasant, Pennsylvania, on or about May 20, 2026, for a turbocharger failure covered under GM Special Coverage Bulletin N232395330. The vehicle had recently passed Pennsylvania safety and emissions inspection on April 30, 2026. The turbo-related diagnostic code appeared on or about [XXX]. Crivelli completed the minimum turbocharger warranty repair but then informed the customer that additional intake/manifold-related repairs were needed and would not be covered. The customer disputed this because the additional failure appeared during the same repair sequence and appears directly related to the covered turbocharger failure. A written request was faxed asking Crivelli to review the invoice, compare the repair to GM’s covered parts list, and submit the related intake/manifold issue to GM for collateral coverage, goodwill review, or warranty consideration. Crivelli did not respond to the fax notice and did not return the customer’s calls. When the customer attempted to follow up with the service department, Scott from the service department refused to review the concern, refused to provide further service, and refused to contact GM regarding the related warranty issue. Based on the conduct, tone, refusal to review the documentation, refusal to escalate to GM, and refusal to provide equal service, I believe the customer was denied fair consumer service because of race.The customer is not asking for special treatment. The customer is asking for equal treatment, proper review of GM’s own warranty/special coverage bulletin, and fair handling of a related mechanical INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ARead more
Incident date: May 20, 2026
Formal Consumer Complaint Statement — GM / Crivelli Buick I am filing a formal consumer complaint against Crivelli Chevrolet Buick GMC and General Motors/Buick regarding what I believe was discriminatory and unfair treatment in connection with a warranty-covered vehicle repair. The customer is [XXX] , owner of a 2017 Buick Encore. The vehicle was serviced by Crivelli Chevrolet Buick GMC in Mt.
... Pleasant, Pennsylvania, on or about May 20, 2026, for a turbocharger failure covered under GM Special Coverage Bulletin N232395330. The vehicle had recently passed Pennsylvania safety and emissions inspection on April 30, 2026. The turbo-related diagnostic code appeared on or about [XXX]. Crivelli completed the minimum turbocharger warranty repair but then informed the customer that additional intake/manifold-related repairs were needed and would not be covered. The customer disputed this because the additional failure appeared during the same repair sequence and appears directly related to the covered turbocharger failure. A written request was faxed asking Crivelli to review the invoice, compare the repair to GM’s covered parts list, and submit the related intake/manifold issue to GM for collateral coverage, goodwill review, or warranty consideration. Crivelli did not respond to the fax notice and did not return the customer’s calls. When the customer attempted to follow up with the service department, Scott from the service department refused to review the concern, refused to provide further service, and refused to contact GM regarding the related warranty issue. Based on the conduct, tone, refusal to review the documentation, refusal to escalate to GM, and refusal to provide equal service, I believe the customer was denied fair consumer service because of race.The customer is not asking for special treatment. The customer is asking for equal treatment, proper review of GM’s own warranty/special coverage bulletin, and fair handling of a related mechanical INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ARead more
Incident date: May 20, 2026
Formal Consumer Complaint Statement — GM / Crivelli Buick I am filing a formal consumer complaint against Crivelli Chevrolet Buick GMC and General Motors/Buick regarding what I believe was discriminatory and unfair treatment in connection with a warranty-covered vehicle repair. The customer is [XXX] , owner of a 2017 Buick Encore. The vehicle was serviced by Crivelli Chevrolet Buick GMC in Mt.
... Pleasant, Pennsylvania, on or about May 20, 2026, for a turbocharger failure covered under GM Special Coverage Bulletin N232395330. The vehicle had recently passed Pennsylvania safety and emissions inspection on April 30, 2026. The turbo-related diagnostic code appeared on or about [XXX]. Crivelli completed the minimum turbocharger warranty repair but then informed the customer that additional intake/manifold-related repairs were needed and would not be covered. The customer disputed this because the additional failure appeared during the same repair sequence and appears directly related to the covered turbocharger failure. A written request was faxed asking Crivelli to review the invoice, compare the repair to GM’s covered parts list, and submit the related intake/manifold issue to GM for collateral coverage, goodwill review, or warranty consideration. Crivelli did not respond to the fax notice and did not return the customer’s calls. When the customer attempted to follow up with the service department, Scott from the service department refused to review the concern, refused to provide further service, and refused to contact GM regarding the related warranty issue. Based on the conduct, tone, refusal to review the documentation, refusal to escalate to GM, and refusal to provide equal service, I believe the customer was denied fair consumer service because of race.The customer is not asking for special treatment. The customer is asking for equal treatment, proper review of GM’s own warranty/special coverage bulletin, and fair handling of a related mechanical INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ARead more
Incident date: May 1, 2026
2023 Nissan Rogue. The contact stated that while driving the vehicle fishtailed. The vehicle was taken to two dealers where one, the issue could not be duplicated and the other the vehicle was diagnosed with knocking noise, bolt that was loose inside of the cradle at the bottom of the suspension that holds everything up. a common concern and characteristic of the vehicle one dealer diagnose a
... s The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the issue.Read more
Incident date: May 18, 2026
2019 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid experienced a serious charging system failure during routine overnight charging using a standard Level 2 home charger that had previously worked without issue. In the morning, the charging connector was physically trapped in the vehicle charge port and could not be removed despite repeated normal troubleshooting attempts, including repeated unlock cycles, charger powe
... r cycling, breaker reset, and reseating attempts. Because the Pacifica Hybrid disables operation while a charging connector is detected, the vehicle became completely undrivable and required towing. Multiple AAA tow operators were unable to move the vehicle normally. We ultimately had to personally research and guide the tow operators through the manual neutral override procedure in order to get the vehicle into neutral and onto the tow truck. The dealership has suggested that the connector may have fused or arced together during charging and is attempting to characterize the situation as “not the vehicle’s fault.” Regardless of the precise electrical mechanism, this event occurred during ordinary intended use of the vehicle’s charging system. The end result was that the vehicle trapped the connector, immobilized itself, and stranded the owner without any meaningful owner-accessible recovery method. This is not ordinary wear and tear or a cosmetic inconvenience. This was a charging-system immobilization event involving a vehicle platform that already has a documented history of charging-system recalls and software-related charging concerns. The vehicle was being used exactly as intended. No misuse, modification, or improper operation occurred. A vehicle shouldn't become completely inoperable during routine charging. I am requesting review of this matter as a significant charging-system failure and requesting goodwill assistance regarding the substantial diagnostic and repair costs now being imposed on the customer for an event that occurred during normal operation.Read more
Incident date: May 18, 2026
2019 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid experienced a serious charging system failure during routine overnight charging using a standard Level 2 home charger that had previously worked without issue. In the morning, the charging connector was physically trapped in the vehicle charge port and could not be removed despite repeated normal troubleshooting attempts, including repeated unlock cycles, charger powe
... r cycling, breaker reset, and reseating attempts. Because the Pacifica Hybrid disables operation while a charging connector is detected, the vehicle became completely undrivable and required towing. Multiple AAA tow operators were unable to move the vehicle normally. We ultimately had to personally research and guide the tow operators through the manual neutral override procedure in order to get the vehicle into neutral and onto the tow truck. The dealership has suggested that the connector may have fused or arced together during charging and is attempting to characterize the situation as “not the vehicle’s fault.” Regardless of the precise electrical mechanism, this event occurred during ordinary intended use of the vehicle’s charging system. The end result was that the vehicle trapped the connector, immobilized itself, and stranded the owner without any meaningful owner-accessible recovery method. This is not ordinary wear and tear or a cosmetic inconvenience. This was a charging-system immobilization event involving a vehicle platform that already has a documented history of charging-system recalls and software-related charging concerns. The vehicle was being used exactly as intended. No misuse, modification, or improper operation occurred. A vehicle shouldn't become completely inoperable during routine charging. I am requesting review of this matter as a significant charging-system failure and requesting goodwill assistance regarding the substantial diagnostic and repair costs now being imposed on the customer for an event that occurred during normal operation.Read more
Incident date: Mar 31, 2026
I had problems with the brakes at first (system pressure). Than it was a powertrain failure. Followed by Turbocharger wastegate failure. It affected the vacuum system, brakes, and acceleration ability. Brakes became firm, but not stopping as well when applied. Had extreme loss of power trying to get up to speeds to enter highway & interstate at 60 then 70 mph. Dealership ended up replacing turbo w
... astegate. Exactly one week after getting it back. All the same happened again. Seeing others complaining of turbo wastegate failure (which is tied into vacuum/ pressure system & does in turn affect vehicle breaking system)Read more
Incident date: May 14, 2026
The contact owns a 2016 Nissan Murano. The contact stated that on two occasions while making a left and right turn, the vehicle lost power and the vehicle was drifted to a safe location on the side of the road while advising others to go around her. There were no warning lights or messages. The vehicle was put into park (P) but then the vehicle was put into drive (D) and reverse (R) the vehicle di
... d not accelerate or reverse as intended. The contact stated that her husband attempted to change gears until the vehicle finally accelerated while in drive (D) after 15 minutes, and the vehicle was taken to the residence. During the first occasion, the vehicle was taken to a dealer where the failure could not be replicated. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 81,476.Read more
Incident date: May 22, 2026
Ghost touch screen sudden changes in the volume to the maximum while driving. The Mazda dealership where I bought the car said I would need to pay for it, because the car is not under warranty. Mazda said they would not cover the repair.
Incident date: Aug 25, 2025
The front windshield reflects the dash below making it difficult to see out the windshield. Visibility is extremely important while driving. This is obviously on continual problem during daylight hours.
Incident date: May 2, 2026
STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, WHEN IT CHANGED TO GREEN THE TRUCK WOULD NOT MOVE. DISPLAYED HYBRID SYSTEM STOPPED WORKING, SHIFT INTO PARK. WE WERE THE FIRST VEHICLE AT THE LIGHT IN A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA WITH NO SHOULDER. TRAFFIC TRYING TO MANOUVER AROUND OUR VEHICLE WERE AT RISK OF CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. PARAMEDICS ARRIVED TO TRY AND DIRECT TRAFFIC. THE TRUCK HAD TO BE TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY V
... ERRIFIED THAT THE ENGINE SIEZED.Read more
Incident date: Mar 10, 2026
I believe that I was sold a car with an unsafe engine. I bought the van from Libertyville Honda in Libertyville on [XXX]. The car had 107K miles on it. A liile over a mounth later the check engine light came on and the van started running bad. When I did some reasearch I found out that a safty report to an iscident dated [XXX] when the car had 107k miles on it. This means that the car was not driv
... en much from the date of the incedent before it was sold to me. The car was sold to me with the same amount of miles as the day of the incent. I believe the issue with the engine was not permently repaired before the car was sold to me. this is the report [XXX]. "Slowing turning into driveway car would not stop RPM at 2k." " Then shifted to neutral where rpm climed to 4k" My safty was at risk because I was driving a car that could have sped up without warning. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: Apr 21, 2026
This is supplemental evidence for NHTSA Safety Complaint #11739200 UNIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE PACKET SEE UPLOADED FILE
Incident date: Apr 21, 2026
This is supplemental evidence for NHTSA Safety Complaint #11739200 UNIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE PACKET SEE UPLOADED FILE
Incident date: Apr 21, 2026
This is supplemental evidence for NHTSA Safety Complaint #11739200 UNIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE PACKET SEE UPLOADED FILE
Incident date: May 22, 2026
SOS MODULE FAILURE 3 TIMES IN 8 MONTHS
Incident date: May 21, 2026
While driving, a critical heavy-duty front lower control arm / lateral link bolt completely detached from my vehicle and was found intact on the ground with factory green threadlocker still visible on the threads. The undercarriage and chassis show absolutely ZERO signs of external impact, scrape, or road hazard damage. This structural failure caused an immediate, severe safety hazard, rendering t
... he vehicle completely unsafe to drive due to a catastrophic risk of wheel separation and total loss of steering control. This exact component failure is identical to Tesla's historical safety recalls, specifically NHTSA Recall Campaign Number 21V835000 and its expansions, which explicitly state: "the front suspension lateral link bolts may not have been secured to the correct specifications... causing the fasteners to loosen over time and separate from the sub-frame." Because the bolt loosened and fell out over time due to insufficient factory torque, the loose component put uneven mechanical stress on the lower control arm, resulting in the complete failure and damage of the control arm assembly. Tesla Service Center has refused to honor this as a latent manufacturing defect, hiding behind warranty expiration. They have unconscionably misclassified a known, life-threatening production defect as standard "wear and tear," forcing me to pay a $265 diagnostic fee and the full cost of a complete control arm replacement under protest. I am filing this report because Tesla is actively endangering consumers by failing to expand their suspension fastener recall to cover vehicles experiencing the exact same catastrophic manufacturing defect outside the arbitrary warranty period. NHTSA ODI complaint records show multiple substantially similar failures outside Tesla’s recall VIN population, including ODI Nos. 11630487, 11554803, 11494976, 11493354, 11486040, 11689987, 11675200, and 11632785 for Model Y vehicles, and ODI Nos. 11720800, 11705487, 11675676, 11664858, 11637813, etcRead more
Incident date: May 21, 2026
While driving, a critical heavy-duty front lower control arm / lateral link bolt completely detached from my vehicle and was found intact on the ground with factory green threadlocker still visible on the threads. The undercarriage and chassis show absolutely ZERO signs of external impact, scrape, or road hazard damage. This structural failure caused an immediate, severe safety hazard, rendering t
... he vehicle completely unsafe to drive due to a catastrophic risk of wheel separation and total loss of steering control. This exact component failure is identical to Tesla's historical safety recalls, specifically NHTSA Recall Campaign Number 21V835000 and its expansions, which explicitly state: "the front suspension lateral link bolts may not have been secured to the correct specifications... causing the fasteners to loosen over time and separate from the sub-frame." Because the bolt loosened and fell out over time due to insufficient factory torque, the loose component put uneven mechanical stress on the lower control arm, resulting in the complete failure and damage of the control arm assembly. Tesla Service Center has refused to honor this as a latent manufacturing defect, hiding behind warranty expiration. They have unconscionably misclassified a known, life-threatening production defect as standard "wear and tear," forcing me to pay a $265 diagnostic fee and the full cost of a complete control arm replacement under protest. I am filing this report because Tesla is actively endangering consumers by failing to expand their suspension fastener recall to cover vehicles experiencing the exact same catastrophic manufacturing defect outside the arbitrary warranty period. NHTSA ODI complaint records show multiple substantially similar failures outside Tesla’s recall VIN population, including ODI Nos. 11630487, 11554803, 11494976, 11493354, 11486040, 11689987, 11675200, and 11632785 for Model Y vehicles, and ODI Nos. 11720800, 11705487, 11675676, 11664858, 11637813, etcRead more
Incident date: May 22, 2026
Went to dealer cause air bag malfunction came on they said it was the driver seat belt clicker being faulty. They wanted 250 to fix it. I fixed it myself for 50. To find out it was the passenger clicker. They have a recall on the passenger but dealer lied said it was driver side to get me to pay n them 250
Incident date: May 22, 2026
Went to dealer cause air bag malfunction came on they said it was the driver seat belt clicker being faulty. They wanted 250 to fix it. I fixed it myself for 50. To find out it was the passenger clicker. They have a recall on the passenger but dealer lied said it was driver side to get me to pay n them 250
Incident date: Apr 3, 2026
Vehicle: 2016 Toyota RAV4 Color: Factory Super White / Blizzard Pearl (whichever applies) I am filing a complaint regarding a well-known latent manufacturing defect involving peeling factory paint on my 2016 Toyota RAV4. The original factory-applied white paint is peeling and delaminating from the exterior metal body panels under normal use and maintenance conditions. The paint failure appears un
... related to any accident, impact, misuse, neglect, or environmental damage. The failed component is the factory-applied exterior paint and coating system on the vehicle’s metal body panels. The affected areas are available for inspection upon request. The paint is separating from the primer/base layer and peeling off in sheets, exposing underlying surfaces and creating risk of corrosion and reduced vehicle value. Toyota has publicly acknowledged widespread issues involving “Super White (040)” and “Blizzard Pearl (070)” paint on numerous Toyota models, including RAV4 vehicles, through Customer Support Program ZKG and multiple Technical Service Bulletins. Toyota documents specifically state the issue involves paint adhesion failure during the manufacturing process causing peeling on exterior metal body panels. This issue creates safety concerns because exposed metal surfaces may eventually corrode or rust, reducing long-term structural integrity and potentially creating visibility distractions while driving as paint continues to separate and peel unexpectedly. Large peeling sections can also detach while driving and create roadway debris hazards for other motorists. The condition has been widely reported by consumers across online forums, complaint databases, and dealerships for many years. Numerous owners of white Toyota vehicles have reported identical failures involving factory paint peeling and delamination. The problem has been visually confirmed by dealership personnel / independent body shop personnel (modify if applicable). And they have refused to cover it at allRead more
Incident date: May 22, 2025
The contact owns a 2016 Jeep Wrangler. The contact stated while the vehicle was parked, the antilock brake system warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was diagnosed that the antilock brake system needed to replaced however, the dealer recommended that the vehicle be taken to a dealer. The vehicle was not repaired. The vehicle was taken to a deale
... r where it was diagnosed once again that the antilock brake system needed to be replaced however, the parts were not available. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 76,000.Read more
Incident date: Apr 8, 2026
The contact owns a 2021 Ford F-150. The contact stated while driving at 60 MPH, the accelerator pedal was depressed, however the vehicle failed to accelerate as intended. The contact stated that several unknown warning lights illuminated and the engine seized. The contact stated while attempting to start the vehicle, the vehicle failed to start. The vehicle was towed to the residence. The independ
... ent mechanic diagnosed the vehicle with metal shavings on the fuel injectors. The contact was informed that the fuel system and fuel injectors needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact was informed of the recall, NHTSA Campaign Number: 24V957000 (Fuel System, Diesel). The vehicle was towed to the dealer where it was diagnosed with a failed high pressure fuel pump. The contact was informed that the high pressure fuel pump needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact was informed of a gasoline odor in the fuel system. The contact was informed that the repair was not covered under the recall. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and a case was filed. The contact was advised to take the vehicle to the dealer for diagnostic testing. The manufacturer was informed that the dealer denied the repair. The failure mileage was approximately 124,000.Read more
Incident date: May 11, 2026
My car stalls out when accelerating. The same issue explained by NHTSA recall 23V-858 but my vin is not included in the recall and it's a 2017 Honda CRV. I have almost been re ended when it stalls in traffic.
Incident date: Jan 1, 2026
The contact owns a 2019 Hyundai Kona. The contact observed excessive oil consumption, which has progressively caused the vehicle to stall 2 to 3 times per week. While the engine can be restarted, it idles and runs roughly immediately afterward. Additionally, the contact noted a distinct smell of burning oil exiting from the exhaust system. The contact referenced NHTSA Campaign Number: 21V301000 (E
... NGINE) however, the VIN was not included in the recall repair. The vehicle was taken to a independent mechanic where it was diagnosed to have excessive oil consumption. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 78,000.Read more
Incident date: Mar 27, 2026
I am reporting premature cooling system failure on my 2021 Audi SQ7 equipped with the 4.0L twin-turbo V8 (EA825 engine). The vehicle developed a coolant leak from the water pump and thermostat housing assembly at relatively low mileage (less than 27,000 miles). The failure caused coolant loss and low coolant warning messages, requiring major repair due to the engine’s integrated “hot-V” coo
... ling system design. Research shows many similar reports involving Audi EA825 4.0T vehicles (SQ7, SQ8, RS6, RS7, etc.) experiencing water pump and thermostat leaks, along with multiple revised OEM part numbers and redesigned components. This defect creates a potential safety risk because sudden coolant loss can lead to overheating, limp mode, loss of power, or breakdown while driving. I request that NHTSA investigate whether these recurring cooling system failures on EA825 4.0T engines represent a broader defect trend. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Read more
Incident date: May 14, 2026
We were informed of safety recalls for our Toyota Rav 4 2009 . We called the local Toyaota dealership for the recalls and was told on the phone after we dropped it off that they did the inspection to make sure the recalls could be completed and informed us that they could ,but they needed to keep overnight because they had to order the parts. Prior to dropping the vehicle off the car was able to b
... e driven and no known issues were visible. Received call following told to come pick it up and that they officially refused to perform the recalls repairs. They stated that excessive structural damage and unsafe to drive to this degradation. Because the structural rust is directly in the exact suspension components targeted by this safety recalls. The vehicle cannot be remedied under standard recall procedures. By refusing the repair without providing an alternative solution The manufacture is failing its federal obligation to remedy a known safety defect. The vehicle is currently trapped in a regularity deadlock. It can not legally or safely be repaired. It is now deemed unsafe to be driven period. When the dealership gave the vehicle back, They wanted us to sign off and yes we refused because they told us it was inspected and was going to be repaired. When they did the inspection it is known that they have to bang , wrench and or pull on these parts to check to see if recall can be completed. Which they told us it could. When the vehicle was picked up we immediately noticed that the steering wheel was no longer in the correct position and that it was making an extreme screeching sound. We did not reach back out to the dealership as we feel they definitely caused more damage and already treated us poorly. We are requesting that the NHTSA intervenes to compel Toyota to provide an alternative remedy. Either structural vehicle replacement or a KB buyback to remove this 100% unsafe vehicle from the road. because the structural rust is directly impacting the exact components .Read more
Incident date: May 14, 2026
We were informed of safety recalls for our Toyota Rav 4 2009 . We called the local Toyaota dealership for the recalls and was told on the phone after we dropped it off that they did the inspection to make sure the recalls could be completed and informed us that they could ,but they needed to keep overnight because they had to order the parts. Prior to dropping the vehicle off the car was able to b
... e driven and no known issues were visible. Received call following told to come pick it up and that they officially refused to perform the recalls repairs. They stated that excessive structural damage and unsafe to drive to this degradation. Because the structural rust is directly in the exact suspension components targeted by this safety recalls. The vehicle cannot be remedied under standard recall procedures. By refusing the repair without providing an alternative solution The manufacture is failing its federal obligation to remedy a known safety defect. The vehicle is currently trapped in a regularity deadlock. It can not legally or safely be repaired. It is now deemed unsafe to be driven period. When the dealership gave the vehicle back, They wanted us to sign off and yes we refused because they told us it was inspected and was going to be repaired. When they did the inspection it is known that they have to bang , wrench and or pull on these parts to check to see if recall can be completed. Which they told us it could. When the vehicle was picked up we immediately noticed that the steering wheel was no longer in the correct position and that it was making an extreme screeching sound. We did not reach back out to the dealership as we feel they definitely caused more damage and already treated us poorly. We are requesting that the NHTSA intervenes to compel Toyota to provide an alternative remedy. Either structural vehicle replacement or a KB buyback to remove this 100% unsafe vehicle from the road. because the structural rust is directly impacting the exact components .Read more
Incident date: May 14, 2026
We were informed of safety recalls for our Toyota Rav 4 2009 . We called the local Toyaota dealership for the recalls and was told on the phone after we dropped it off that they did the inspection to make sure the recalls could be completed and informed us that they could ,but they needed to keep overnight because they had to order the parts. Prior to dropping the vehicle off the car was able to b
... e driven and no known issues were visible. Received call following told to come pick it up and that they officially refused to perform the recalls repairs. They stated that excessive structural damage and unsafe to drive to this degradation. Because the structural rust is directly in the exact suspension components targeted by this safety recalls. The vehicle cannot be remedied under standard recall procedures. By refusing the repair without providing an alternative solution The manufacture is failing its federal obligation to remedy a known safety defect. The vehicle is currently trapped in a regularity deadlock. It can not legally or safely be repaired. It is now deemed unsafe to be driven period. When the dealership gave the vehicle back, They wanted us to sign off and yes we refused because they told us it was inspected and was going to be repaired. When they did the inspection it is known that they have to bang , wrench and or pull on these parts to check to see if recall can be completed. Which they told us it could. When the vehicle was picked up we immediately noticed that the steering wheel was no longer in the correct position and that it was making an extreme screeching sound. We did not reach back out to the dealership as we feel they definitely caused more damage and already treated us poorly. We are requesting that the NHTSA intervenes to compel Toyota to provide an alternative remedy. Either structural vehicle replacement or a KB buyback to remove this 100% unsafe vehicle from the road. because the structural rust is directly impacting the exact components .Read more
Incident date: May 19, 2026
While pulling into my parking garage at work I put my 2017 Ford Fusion into park to open the door and scan my card. When I tried to shift out of park the gear shifter indicated a shifting fault that required service. The car was towed to a Ford Service Center where the problem as diagnosed to be the shift control linkage, specifically the shift cable bushing. I have come to understand that this pa
... rt has had issues in the 2013-2016 Ford Fusion models resulting in a recall. This issue appears to also be in the 2017 Ford Fusion as the results of the fault are identical to those of the 2013-2016 models. The component has been diagnosed by a certified ford service center. There were no warning lamps or prior indicators of this issue. Warning lamps only turned on after the issues occured.Read more
Incident date: Apr 20, 2026
The contact owns a 2019 Ford Flex. The contact stated while reversing, the rear view camera screen displayed a blue screen. In addition, the error code indicated that the rear view camera display was unavailable. The failure occurred intermittently. The dealer was made aware of the failure, and the contact was informed that the parts were unavailable. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by a
... n independent mechanic or dealer. The contact received a recall notification, NHTSA Campaign Number: 24V951000 (Back Over Prevention) however the parts were unavailable. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 74,000.Read more
Incident date: May 22, 2026
I brought my Ford EcoSport into the Baxter. Ford, in Papillion, Nebraska, because it was malfunctioning, the oil pressure got real low and my car was not accelerating like it should Also I advise them that there is an open recall on the vehicle. As well and I that the recall and the engine malfunction are related. They told me that it wasn't, and I'm sure it was. Then, they advised me that after s
... peaking with Ford. Ford agreed to pay $3000 for a new engine, while I was responsible for the remaining $4000, I asked if I can have an email showing the communication with Ford, I was advised that they don't have access to that. They're unable to forward me an email, which is a red flag i would like to get a second opinion on the diagnosis of my engine in the fort. Ecosport. I don't understand why they would not be able to forward me an email of the communication between them and Ford. When asked the service manager about that, he advised that he does not have access to it. Which is a red flag? Is there anything you guys can do?Please let me know.Thank you have a good dayRead more
Incident date: Feb 20, 2025
Always driving east my cruise control, lane keeping assist and other safety systems stop working. Cars behind me are not aware of my sudden slow down. The alert said to clean the plastic H in the grill. I have been to two Honda dealers and the problem persists. Honda corporate in California calls it radar blindness. Aware of problem but no fix. I feel it is sun reflection off of the plastic H in t
... he grill as it’s always clean and only happens when I drive east bound. I didn’t realize I was buying a problem when I bought my CRV. Please helpRead more
Incident date: Feb 20, 2025
Always driving east my cruise control, lane keeping assist and other safety systems stop working. Cars behind me are not aware of my sudden slow down. The alert said to clean the plastic H in the grill. I have been to two Honda dealers and the problem persists. Honda corporate in California calls it radar blindness. Aware of problem but no fix. I feel it is sun reflection off of the plastic H in t
... he grill as it’s always clean and only happens when I drive east bound. I didn’t realize I was buying a problem when I bought my CRV. Please helpRead more
Incident date: Feb 20, 2025
Always driving east my cruise control, lane keeping assist and other safety systems stop working. Cars behind me are not aware of my sudden slow down. The alert said to clean the plastic H in the grill. I have been to two Honda dealers and the problem persists. Honda corporate in California calls it radar blindness. Aware of problem but no fix. I feel it is sun reflection off of the plastic H in t
... he grill as it’s always clean and only happens when I drive east bound. I didn’t realize I was buying a problem when I bought my CRV. Please helpRead more
Incident date: May 1, 2026
The contact stated that while driving the vehicle began to unexpectedly slow and then stalled. The vehicle was unable to restart. No warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the issue. The approximate failure mileage 215,000.
Incident date: Sep 6, 2024
Real bumper assembly rotted off the frame was dragging behind the truck I'm at 60mph luckily nobody was behind me pulled over and removed it all both frame rails was rusted in half Hanging On by a little piece every place I called will not fix it want me to buy a whole frame truck has 220 miles on it with no rear bumper
Incident date: May 22, 2026
Contacted ford about recalls 26S28 and 19V075 and they report that my vehicle is out of the warranty period for repair. They were advised that this is under a NHTSA recall and still refuse to honor the NHTSA safety recall stating that it is outside the window for replacement. Again advised them that this is a NHTSA recall and they still refuse to honor it. My vehicle is inoperable due to this.
Incident date: May 22, 2026
Contacted ford about recalls 26S28 and 19V075 and they report that my vehicle is out of the warranty period for repair. They were advised that this is under a NHTSA recall and still refuse to honor the NHTSA safety recall stating that it is outside the window for replacement. Again advised them that this is a NHTSA recall and they still refuse to honor it. My vehicle is inoperable due to this.
Incident date: May 15, 2025
The contact owns a 2024 Mazda CX-5. The contact stated while driving at 45 MPH, the check engine light illmiunated. The contact mention when depressing accelerator pedal, the RPM's get suck independently and the vehicle fails to respond as intended. A dealer was contacted. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed, however the dignanoses was unknown. The vehicle was not repaired. The man
... ufacturer was not notified on the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 39,381.Read more
Incident date: May 15, 2025
The contact owns a 2024 Mazda CX-5. The contact stated while driving at 45 MPH, the check engine light illmiunated. The contact mention when depressing accelerator pedal, the RPM's get suck independently and the vehicle fails to respond as intended. A dealer was contacted. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed, however the dignanoses was unknown. The vehicle was not repaired. The man
... ufacturer was not notified on the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 39,381.Read more
Incident date: Mar 21, 2026
While driving on highway with cruise control set at 65 mph, the engine started misfiring, lost power and multiple warning lights came on. This was the first and only time I had engine problems and I never had any warning lights come on prior to this incident. Dealer confirmed engine experienced complete failure and need to be replaced.