Page 165 of 44,908 (2,245,377 complaints)
Incident date: Jul 12, 2026
In July 2026, the rear power liftgate on my Toyota RAV4 suddenly stopped operating properly and would not close. I was unable to push the hatch down normally and then noticed that one of the hinges appeared bent and the liftgate was misaligned. Because I needed to close the vehicle, I tried to lower the hatch very slowly, moving it down only a small amount at a time so I would not put additional
... pressure on the damaged hinge. While I was doing this, the hatch suddenly sprang back upward and struck me in the shoulder. It took approximately 15 minutes of carefully working with the hatch before I was finally able to get it closed. One hinge was replaced for $400, but after the liftgate was opened only about three times, the hinge became bent again and the hatch was once again visibly misaligned. I have since received an estimate of approximately $3,000 because I was told that multiple components may need to be replaced. At this point I am not opening the liftgate for fear that the broken parts will become worse. The problem has not been successfully repaired and no one has been able to explain why the replacement hinge failed almost immediately. I am concerned that the liftgate may unexpectedly move, fail to close or latch properly, or strike someone while they are attempting to operate it. This appears to be a recurring failure rather than normal wear and tear.Read more
Incident date: Feb 11, 2025
The contact owns a 2012 Kia Sorento. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the accelerator pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to accelerate as intended. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to exceed 20 MPH. There were several unknown warning lights illuminated, and the air bag warning light was also illuminated. The contact received notification of NHT
... SA Campaign Number: 23V652000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic). The vehicle was taken to the dealer, and the recall repair was performed. The failure reoccurred six months later. The vehicle was towed to the dealer. The contact was informed that the failure was caused by wiring issues with the front passenger's seat. The vehicle was not yet repaired. The vehicle was towed to an alternate dealer. The vehicle had not been diagnosed. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 227,079.Read more
Incident date: Feb 11, 2025
The contact owns a 2012 Kia Sorento. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the accelerator pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to accelerate as intended. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to exceed 20 MPH. There were several unknown warning lights illuminated, and the air bag warning light was also illuminated. The contact received notification of NHT
... SA Campaign Number: 23V652000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic). The vehicle was taken to the dealer, and the recall repair was performed. The failure reoccurred six months later. The vehicle was towed to the dealer. The contact was informed that the failure was caused by wiring issues with the front passenger's seat. The vehicle was not yet repaired. The vehicle was towed to an alternate dealer. The vehicle had not been diagnosed. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 227,079.Read more
Incident date: Aug 5, 2026
The telematics control module in this vehicle failed. A dealer diagnostic scan on 03/09/2026 at 67,839 miles documented the following active and history codes: U0198 Lost Communication with Telematics Module, reported independently by the Radio, Body Control Module, and Instrument Panel Cluster Control Module; U0499 Invalid Data Received from Telematics Module, reported by the Engine Control Modul
... e; U1962 Unable to Authenticate Serial Data Message; B1A1F Ethernet Bus 4 (+) Circuit Open with a Low Voltage/High Temperature symptom; and P00FF Body Control Module Requested MIL Illumination, listed as Current. As a result, the check engine light is commanded on. All OnStar functions are inoperative, including Automatic Crash Response and Emergency SOS, which are safety systems. The OnStar button has no illumination at all. Remote functions and vehicle connectivity are dead. No warning message or notification of a module fault was ever displayed in the vehicle. The infotainment system reports “Your Software is Up-to-Date” and the Device Registration screen reports “Registered.” The last over-the-air software update this vehicle received was in August 2023Read more
Incident date: May 8, 2026
On XXX, the engine in my 2019 Lincoln MKZ (Mileage 58,089) with the 2.0L EcoBoost engine suffered a catastrophic, sudden failure while driving. The vehicle began to overheat & run extremely rough, triggering multiple warning lights. It is now inoperable and unsafe to drive. The vehicle was towed to a Lincoln dealership (Tasca Lincoln in [XXX]) for diagnosis. The work order number is RO #XXX. The d
... ealership confirmed the failure is due to a well-documented manufacturing defect known as "coolant intrusion," where the engine block cracks internally, allowing coolant to leak directly into the engine cylinders. The diagnostic trouble codes stored were P0217 (Engine Overheat Condition), P0302 (Cylinder 2 Misfire Detected), & P0316 (Misfire Detected on Startup). This issue is specifically addressed in Ford's own Technical Service Bulletin 19-2346. This coolant intrusion defect creates a critical safety hazard. The engine can lose its coolant and fail without any prior warning, leading to a complete loss of power while the vehicle is in motion. A sudden seizure of the engine at highway speeds could cause a catastrophic accident, endangering myself, my passengers, & other drivers on the road. Estimated Cost for Repair: $10,781.40 (for complete engine replacement). I contacted Lincoln Customer Relations (Case #XXX) to request assistance with this known manufacturing defect. I was informed that there is no goodwill assistance available & that my case was being forwarded to their internal Vehicle Safety Division. This confirms that Ford is aware this is a serious safety issue. This is not a normal wear-and-tear failure; it is a fundamental defect in the engine's design that Ford has acknowledged internally through its service bulletins. An engine should not fail catastrophically due to a manufacturing defect on a [XXX] vehicle. I urge the NHTSA to investigate this defect to determine if a safety recall is warranted to protect the public. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(Read more
Incident date: Feb 1, 2026
The second-row seat belt sensor chimes persistently whenever the seat is occupied although the seat belt is buckled properly. Currently the only seat belt affected is the one directly behind the front passenger seat.
Incident date: Aug 18, 2026
The airbag warning light for the front passenger seat has been intermittently lighting. Both when the passenger seat is occupied and vacant. The light sometimes indicates the passenger airbag is off when there is a passenger in the seat. I took the car to the Subaru dealer where I purchased the vehicle.. Per the dealership service report: “SCANNED CODES AND FOUND CODE B1760 STORED IN BODY CONTR
... OL MODULE REGARDING THE PASSENGER FRONT SEAT BOTTOM. RECOMMEND REPLACEMENT DUE TO A FAULTY OCCUPANT DETECTION SENSOR.” This car was recalled several years ago regarding the passenger seat airbag sensor issue. The car was serviced per the recall. This car has not been in an accident. The car has approximately 70,000 miles which were driven primarily by me. The front passenger seat was occupied less than 25 percent of the time. There was never anything spilled on the seat. The seat was not used to transport anything other than a passenger. The dealer service department now wants $1566.79 to fix this issue. I contend that recall did not fix the issue correctly and I should not be charged for a faulty part or design that was not properly remedied the first time. The dealer will not resolve the issue and has referred me to corporate Subaru. I have contacted Subaru and am awaiting a response. Case # 260818-1700931. This is a safety issue that Subaru needs to address immediately.Read more
Incident date: Aug 18, 2026
The airbag warning light for the front passenger seat has been intermittently lighting. Both when the passenger seat is occupied and vacant. The light sometimes indicates the passenger airbag is off when there is a passenger in the seat. I took the car to the Subaru dealer where I purchased the vehicle.. Per the dealership service report: “SCANNED CODES AND FOUND CODE B1760 STORED IN BODY CONTR
... OL MODULE REGARDING THE PASSENGER FRONT SEAT BOTTOM. RECOMMEND REPLACEMENT DUE TO A FAULTY OCCUPANT DETECTION SENSOR.” This car was recalled several years ago regarding the passenger seat airbag sensor issue. The car was serviced per the recall. This car has not been in an accident. The car has approximately 70,000 miles which were driven primarily by me. The front passenger seat was occupied less than 25 percent of the time. There was never anything spilled on the seat. The seat was not used to transport anything other than a passenger. The dealer service department now wants $1566.79 to fix this issue. I contend that recall did not fix the issue correctly and I should not be charged for a faulty part or design that was not properly remedied the first time. The dealer will not resolve the issue and has referred me to corporate Subaru. I have contacted Subaru and am awaiting a response. Case # 260818-1700931. This is a safety issue that Subaru needs to address immediately.Read more
Incident date: Aug 18, 2026
The airbag warning light for the front passenger seat has been intermittently lighting. Both when the passenger seat is occupied and vacant. The light sometimes indicates the passenger airbag is off when there is a passenger in the seat. I took the car to the Subaru dealer where I purchased the vehicle.. Per the dealership service report: “SCANNED CODES AND FOUND CODE B1760 STORED IN BODY CONTR
... OL MODULE REGARDING THE PASSENGER FRONT SEAT BOTTOM. RECOMMEND REPLACEMENT DUE TO A FAULTY OCCUPANT DETECTION SENSOR.” This car was recalled several years ago regarding the passenger seat airbag sensor issue. The car was serviced per the recall. This car has not been in an accident. The car has approximately 70,000 miles which were driven primarily by me. The front passenger seat was occupied less than 25 percent of the time. There was never anything spilled on the seat. The seat was not used to transport anything other than a passenger. The dealer service department now wants $1566.79 to fix this issue. I contend that recall did not fix the issue correctly and I should not be charged for a faulty part or design that was not properly remedied the first time. The dealer will not resolve the issue and has referred me to corporate Subaru. I have contacted Subaru and am awaiting a response. Case # 260818-1700931. This is a safety issue that Subaru needs to address immediately.Read more
Incident date: Jul 16, 2026
This is what happened: While Full Self-Driving (FSD) was engaged, the vehicle approached an intersection and appeared unable to correctly follow the roadway. Instead of following the intended road path, the vehicle continued forward, drove over the curb, and struck a road sign. The impact knocked the sign down, and the sign subsequently struck the vehicle, including the roof glass. The roof glass
... shattered and small pieces of glass entered the cabin, exposing both the driver and front passenger to a safety risk. Vehicle data obtained after the incident shows that the vehicle was in ACTIVE_FSD leading up to the collision. FSD changed from ACTIVE to UNAVAILABLE approximately 1.5 seconds before the crash algorithm wake-up. Significant braking occurred only very close to the collision, and no Automatic Emergency Braking intervention was recorded during the incident window. The data also shows multiple substantial steering movements shortly before the collision. Accelerator-pedal data does not establish driver acceleration as the cause of the collision. The available samples show an accelerator position of 2.0% shortly before the collision and 0.0% in the next recorded sample. The driver applied the brake shortly before impact. There were no prior warning lamps or messages indicating that FSD was about to become unavailable before the vehicle departed the roadway. The vehicle has been inspected/repaired following the collision, and vehicle data relating to the incident has been obtained and preserved. Police responded to the collision, and the incident was also reported to insurance. A police report was filed, and the case number is 2026-07160174. I have not yet received the formal CR-4 crash report. Following the collision, I experienced significant psychological distress and trauma-related stress symptoms as a result of the incident.Read more
Crash
Incident date: Jul 16, 2026
This is what happened: While Full Self-Driving (FSD) was engaged, the vehicle approached an intersection and appeared unable to correctly follow the roadway. Instead of following the intended road path, the vehicle continued forward, drove over the curb, and struck a road sign. The impact knocked the sign down, and the sign subsequently struck the vehicle, including the roof glass. The roof glass
... shattered and small pieces of glass entered the cabin, exposing both the driver and front passenger to a safety risk. Vehicle data obtained after the incident shows that the vehicle was in ACTIVE_FSD leading up to the collision. FSD changed from ACTIVE to UNAVAILABLE approximately 1.5 seconds before the crash algorithm wake-up. Significant braking occurred only very close to the collision, and no Automatic Emergency Braking intervention was recorded during the incident window. The data also shows multiple substantial steering movements shortly before the collision. Accelerator-pedal data does not establish driver acceleration as the cause of the collision. The available samples show an accelerator position of 2.0% shortly before the collision and 0.0% in the next recorded sample. The driver applied the brake shortly before impact. There were no prior warning lamps or messages indicating that FSD was about to become unavailable before the vehicle departed the roadway. The vehicle has been inspected/repaired following the collision, and vehicle data relating to the incident has been obtained and preserved. Police responded to the collision, and the incident was also reported to insurance. A police report was filed, and the case number is 2026-07160174. I have not yet received the formal CR-4 crash report. Following the collision, I experienced significant psychological distress and trauma-related stress symptoms as a result of the incident.Read more
Crash
Incident date: Jul 16, 2026
This is what happened: While Full Self-Driving (FSD) was engaged, the vehicle approached an intersection and appeared unable to correctly follow the roadway. Instead of following the intended road path, the vehicle continued forward, drove over the curb, and struck a road sign. The impact knocked the sign down, and the sign subsequently struck the vehicle, including the roof glass. The roof glass
... shattered and small pieces of glass entered the cabin, exposing both the driver and front passenger to a safety risk. Vehicle data obtained after the incident shows that the vehicle was in ACTIVE_FSD leading up to the collision. FSD changed from ACTIVE to UNAVAILABLE approximately 1.5 seconds before the crash algorithm wake-up. Significant braking occurred only very close to the collision, and no Automatic Emergency Braking intervention was recorded during the incident window. The data also shows multiple substantial steering movements shortly before the collision. Accelerator-pedal data does not establish driver acceleration as the cause of the collision. The available samples show an accelerator position of 2.0% shortly before the collision and 0.0% in the next recorded sample. The driver applied the brake shortly before impact. There were no prior warning lamps or messages indicating that FSD was about to become unavailable before the vehicle departed the roadway. The vehicle has been inspected/repaired following the collision, and vehicle data relating to the incident has been obtained and preserved. Police responded to the collision, and the incident was also reported to insurance. A police report was filed, and the case number is 2026-07160174. I have not yet received the formal CR-4 crash report. Following the collision, I experienced significant psychological distress and trauma-related stress symptoms as a result of the incident.Read more
Crash
Incident date: Dec 25, 2025
The contact owns a 2023 Toyota Tundra. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V767000 (Engine and Engine Cooling). The contact stated that while driving 40 MPH, there was white smoke coming from the exhaust pipe. The vehicle was taken to a dealer to be diagnosed, and the head gasket needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired under the recall because there was sludge
... found inside the engine. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 70,000.Read more
Incident date: Oct 1, 2024
The contact owns a 2012 BMW 528XI. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle came to a stop and the Automatic START/STOP feature activated; however, the engine failed to restart. The message "Drive Train Malfunction Error" was displayed. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, who determined that the timing chain had fractured, causing unknown parts to enter the engin
... e. The contact was informed that the timing chain needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact associated the failure with NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V707000 (Engine and Engine Cooling); however, the VIN was not included in the recall. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 119,000.Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
The vehicle exhibits an unaddressed factory programming defect where the Plug-In Charge Control ECU fails to enter sleep mode while plugged in or resting. This causes continuous, heavy parasitic drain on the 12V auxiliary battery, causing chronic low-voltage state across critical systems. The 12V auxiliary network supplies power to the primary control units, CAN-bus communication modules, and dyna
... mic stability systems. Operating under chronic low-voltage causes system instability, erratic sensor processing, voltage brownouts, and rapid degradation of the 12V battery. In severe traffic or isolated operations, a depleted 12V battery creates a distinct safety hazard, including sudden loss of propulsion control, electrical failure, and stranded conditions. Toyota acknowledged this software logic flaw internally under Technical Service Bulletin T-SB-0054-24. However, because Toyota classifies this defect as a TSB rather than a mandatory safety recall, owners are left vulnerable to unexpected low-voltage electrical failures on public roads and are forced to pay out-of-pocket for an ECU reflash to repair a pre-existing manufacturing defect. This issue requires a mandatory federal safety investigation and zero-cost recall to update all affected control modules.Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
The vehicle exhibits an unaddressed factory programming defect where the Plug-In Charge Control ECU fails to enter sleep mode while plugged in or resting. This causes continuous, heavy parasitic drain on the 12V auxiliary battery, causing chronic low-voltage state across critical systems. The 12V auxiliary network supplies power to the primary control units, CAN-bus communication modules, and dyna
... mic stability systems. Operating under chronic low-voltage causes system instability, erratic sensor processing, voltage brownouts, and rapid degradation of the 12V battery. In severe traffic or isolated operations, a depleted 12V battery creates a distinct safety hazard, including sudden loss of propulsion control, electrical failure, and stranded conditions. Toyota acknowledged this software logic flaw internally under Technical Service Bulletin T-SB-0054-24. However, because Toyota classifies this defect as a TSB rather than a mandatory safety recall, owners are left vulnerable to unexpected low-voltage electrical failures on public roads and are forced to pay out-of-pocket for an ECU reflash to repair a pre-existing manufacturing defect. This issue requires a mandatory federal safety investigation and zero-cost recall to update all affected control modules.Read more
Incident date: Aug 16, 2026
I own a 2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia that recently received a fuel-pump-related recall repair under FCA Recall 93C / NHTSA Campaign 25V-586 at an authorized Alfa Romeo dealership. Approximately three days after the recall repair was completed, I was driving the vehicle in active traffic with my daughter when the vehicle unexpectedly began decelerating and lost drive power. I had to shut the vehicle off
... , and afterward the vehicle would not restart. The vehicle had to be towed back to the Alfa Romeo dealership. The service advisor subsequently advised me that the current problem was related to the fuel system and that the fuel-related component was being replaced again. The vehicle remains at the dealership while the repair is being completed. This is also the second time this vehicle has completely shut down while I was driving. During a prior incident, the vehicle became disabled on a busy roadway and police responded and blocked traffic around the vehicle because of the danger posed by its location. I am concerned that the Recall 93C repair did not adequately remedy the fuel-system defect, that the replacement component failed, or that the recall repair was otherwise connected to the subsequent loss-of-drive-power event. I have repair records, towing documentation and video relating to the current repair and will retain the dealership's final diagnostic report when it becomes available.Read more
Incident date: Jun 24, 2026
The "Maintenance Mode" required to change the wiper blades malfunctioned, and the wipers- without the rubber blades attached- suddenly smashed onto the windshield, creating a large star crack/shatter, which spread across the entire windshield in two long cracks by the next day. If someone's hand had been in the path of the wipers, it would have been cut or broken by the force/sharp edge. The "Main
... tenance Mode" should not disengage unless the car is seriously jostled or put into gear (did not occur). This malfunction of the system is a safety concern in itself and has created a secondary safety concern with the severely damaged windshield. A case was opened with Volvo Corporate on XXX (case #XXX). Volvo has NEVER contacted me regarding this. I have called [XXX] and [XXX]) each week to check in and have been told that my case manager is not available, I can not change case managers to someone available or speak to anyone other than the phone operator. I have waited up to 1.5 hours on hold or received an automated return call 2+ hours later, often missing it. I emailed ([XXX]) as recommended by an operator with pictures and video of the incident and damage. I visited our local dealer ([XXX] in [XXX]) and spoke with the service manager. He did not have an open case for our vehicle. He said he would email the local headquarters. When I followed up with him the next week- after he did not respond to my email a week after he supposedly emailed them- he told me there was no local headquarters and that he emailed the same address I had previously. We contacted the dealer where the vehicle was purchased ([XXX]). They looked up our account and said there was no open case connected to our account,/name even though I have a case number I have used in every call to Volvo Corporate, which they have told me was under investigation. They also indicated that they have heard this same experience from other customers. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: Jun 24, 2026
The "Maintenance Mode" required to change the wiper blades malfunctioned, and the wipers- without the rubber blades attached- suddenly smashed onto the windshield, creating a large star crack/shatter, which spread across the entire windshield in two long cracks by the next day. If someone's hand had been in the path of the wipers, it would have been cut or broken by the force/sharp edge. The "Main
... tenance Mode" should not disengage unless the car is seriously jostled or put into gear (did not occur). This malfunction of the system is a safety concern in itself and has created a secondary safety concern with the severely damaged windshield. A case was opened with Volvo Corporate on XXX (case #XXX). Volvo has NEVER contacted me regarding this. I have called [XXX] and [XXX]) each week to check in and have been told that my case manager is not available, I can not change case managers to someone available or speak to anyone other than the phone operator. I have waited up to 1.5 hours on hold or received an automated return call 2+ hours later, often missing it. I emailed ([XXX]) as recommended by an operator with pictures and video of the incident and damage. I visited our local dealer ([XXX] in [XXX]) and spoke with the service manager. He did not have an open case for our vehicle. He said he would email the local headquarters. When I followed up with him the next week- after he did not respond to my email a week after he supposedly emailed them- he told me there was no local headquarters and that he emailed the same address I had previously. We contacted the dealer where the vehicle was purchased ([XXX]). They looked up our account and said there was no open case connected to our account,/name even though I have a case number I have used in every call to Volvo Corporate, which they have told me was under investigation. They also indicated that they have heard this same experience from other customers. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)Read more
Incident date: Aug 7, 2026
TAKE A BREAK" - the feature prompts the driver to “Take a Break” with that text and a‘Coffee Cup” logo after a certain period of continuous driving. There are instances when turning it off is necessary and Hyundai has removed that option - high distracting false alarm rate. The alert, visual and auditory are intrusive, unnecessary, demonstrate a high false alarm rate leading to frustration
... and distraction. While designed as a safety feature, it has the opposite effect. The system inaccurately interprets the driver’s behavior as signs of fatigue with alerts popping up at an alarming rate. Perfectly normal and safe driving behaviors see the alert popping up again and again. Further there are environmental interferences - bright sunlight, reflections off glasses, bumpy roads requiring frequent corrections - system interprets these as driver inattention and cannot tell the difference between drowsy driving and navigating a poorly maintained highway. New Hyundai models do not allow the driver to disable the Take a Break alert. “You’re cruising down the highway, minding your own business, alert and focused, when your Hyundai flashes a coffee cup icon and tells you to take a break. Again - this for the third or fourth time in 20 minutes. You’re not tired, not swerving, and frankly, you’re getting annoyed”. The system is disruptive and unsafe as it disrupts the driver activating when the system detects inattentive driving, suggesting breaks even if the driver does not feel fatigued. The alert can illuminate even during short drives of less than 30 minutes. The alert can occur extremely frequently, especially during long drives, which is extremely annoying. The warning can appear shortly after starting a trip and may repeat every few minutes, which is extremely frustrating. It is far more disruptive than safe and helpful.Read more
Incident date: Aug 6, 2026
Three times the back hatch has opened on its own within minutes after parking it, and car off.Last time I feared I was going to be crushed against garage door. The hatch continues to open even after hitting me. Last time was very hard to stop it. I no longer walk behind the van if garage door has been closed.
Incident date: Aug 19, 2026
The contact owns a 2020 Ford Explorer. The contact received notifications of NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V675000 (Power Train), 25V093000 (Seat Belts), 26V402000 (Power Train), and 26V451000 (Seats) and would like to be removed from the recall distribution list. The local dealer and manufacturer were contacted.
Incident date: Aug 19, 2026
The contact owns a 2020 Ford Explorer. The contact received notifications of NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V675000 (Power Train), 25V093000 (Seat Belts), 26V402000 (Power Train), and 26V451000 (Seats) and would like to be removed from the recall distribution list. The local dealer and manufacturer were contacted.
Incident date: Aug 19, 2026
The contact owns a 2020 Ford Explorer. The contact received notifications of NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V675000 (Power Train), 25V093000 (Seat Belts), 26V402000 (Power Train), and 26V451000 (Seats) and would like to be removed from the recall distribution list. The local dealer and manufacturer were contacted.
Incident date: Aug 18, 2026
I believe that my vehicle is subject to Recall Campaign # 21V197000. The vehicle is a 2016 Mercedes-Benz CLA250. I've had to have this part ( Front Stationary Roof panel) adhered 5 times in the last 10 months. Mercedes refuses to acknowledge the above campaign #. Not only is this a safety risk to my self and other drivers, there is risk of water damage any electrical components. When this issue
... was brought to their attention I was told this was VIN specific and no recalls were attached to this vehicle. The photos are from 2 separate incidents. There are no warning lights. My vehicle has had at least 2 unbiased inspections and available upon requet.Read more
Incident date: Jun 13, 2026
The wiring harness failed causing erratic and unpredictable behavior at 65 MPH on this 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 with 77,500 miles on the odometer. General Motors no longer makes the wiring harness and there are none available in the market. This otherwise flawless truck (for which I paid $40,000 at a reseller in 2024) is essentially now totaled (undrivable) and GM will not take any responsibi
... lity or provide any other remedy beside $750 toward the purchase of a brand new truck.Read more
Incident date: Jun 13, 2026
The wiring harness failed causing erratic and unpredictable behavior at 65 MPH on this 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 with 77,500 miles on the odometer. General Motors no longer makes the wiring harness and there are none available in the market. This otherwise flawless truck (for which I paid $40,000 at a reseller in 2024) is essentially now totaled (undrivable) and GM will not take any responsibi
... lity or provide any other remedy beside $750 toward the purchase of a brand new truck.Read more
Incident date: Jun 13, 2026
The wiring harness failed causing erratic and unpredictable behavior at 65 MPH on this 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 with 77,500 miles on the odometer. General Motors no longer makes the wiring harness and there are none available in the market. This otherwise flawless truck (for which I paid $40,000 at a reseller in 2024) is essentially now totaled (undrivable) and GM will not take any responsibi
... lity or provide any other remedy beside $750 toward the purchase of a brand new truck.Read more
Incident date: Aug 10, 2026
On 08/10/2026 was riding my 2026 Suzski GSX 8R ruffly around 3:20pm the throttle grip mechanically/electronically stuck at full throttle in second gear at approximately 35 mph. The grip remained open after i released it. Pulling the cluch caused the engin to disengage/release. The motorcycle accelerated beyond my control and I had to put it down. I was rushed to the hospital with head/neck left si
... de chest pains and both knees swollen. The bike is currently and still being inspected by the dealership that sold me the bike. There were no warning lamps, or messages or problems with the bike prier to me putting it down. This was a brand new bike just at the breakin point of 600miles.Read more
1 injured
Incident date: Aug 16, 2026
On July 14, 2026, the vehicle's engine was replaced by an authorized dealership under an official Kia recall. On August 16, 2026, while driving on the highway, heavy smoke suddenly began emitting from the engine compartment. When attempting to slow down, the braking system suffered a total loss of power and failed completely. To stop the vehicle, it had to be steered into the highway median to
... intentionally scrape against it to force a stop. Immediately upon exiting the vehicle, heavy flames were observed under the engine compartment before completely engulfing the front of the car. The fire department extinguished the fire, and the vehicle is a total loss.Read more
Fire
Incident date: Aug 16, 2026
On July 14, 2026, the vehicle's engine was replaced by an authorized dealership under an official Kia recall. On August 16, 2026, while driving on the highway, heavy smoke suddenly began emitting from the engine compartment. When attempting to slow down, the braking system suffered a total loss of power and failed completely. To stop the vehicle, it had to be steered into the highway median to
... intentionally scrape against it to force a stop. Immediately upon exiting the vehicle, heavy flames were observed under the engine compartment before completely engulfing the front of the car. The fire department extinguished the fire, and the vehicle is a total loss.Read more
Fire
Incident date: Aug 16, 2026
On July 14, 2026, the vehicle's engine was replaced by an authorized dealership under an official Kia recall. On August 16, 2026, while driving on the highway, heavy smoke suddenly began emitting from the engine compartment. When attempting to slow down, the braking system suffered a total loss of power and failed completely. To stop the vehicle, it had to be steered into the highway median to
... intentionally scrape against it to force a stop. Immediately upon exiting the vehicle, heavy flames were observed under the engine compartment before completely engulfing the front of the car. The fire department extinguished the fire, and the vehicle is a total loss.Read more
Fire
Incident date: Jul 8, 2026
WHILE PULLING INTO A DRIVEWAY WITH FOOT ON THE BRAKE, THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD HITTING GARAGE DOOR AND ABRUPTLY LURCHED BCK 3-4 FT. AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY, NO WARNING SIGNAL ON THE DISPLAY OR COLLISION AVOIDENCE SYSTEM ACTION. FORTUNATELY, KNOWONE WAS INJURED (OTHER THAN GARAGE DOOR)
Incident date: Jul 8, 2026
WHILE PULLING INTO A DRIVEWAY WITH FOOT ON THE BRAKE, THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD HITTING GARAGE DOOR AND ABRUPTLY LURCHED BCK 3-4 FT. AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY, NO WARNING SIGNAL ON THE DISPLAY OR COLLISION AVOIDENCE SYSTEM ACTION. FORTUNATELY, KNOWONE WAS INJURED (OTHER THAN GARAGE DOOR)
Incident date: Jul 3, 2026
The contact owns a 2012 GMC Sierra 2500 equipped with Armstrong Tires, Tire Line: Tru Trac HT, Tire Size: 245/75/17, DOT Number: 1E6DAE022625. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic for a routine tire rotation but was informed there were massive bubbles on the tires, and on one tire, there was a bulge the size of an apple on the sidewall of the tire. The contact r
... eplaced the tires. The local dealer was not contacted. The manufacturer was contacted and declined to accept the mileage claim and requested photos of the tires. The tire failure mileage was approximately 27,000. The vehicle failure mileage was approximately 146,500.Read more
Incident date: Jul 3, 2026
The contact owns a 2012 GMC Sierra 2500 equipped with Armstrong Tires, Tire Line: Tru Trac HT, Tire Size: 245/75/17, DOT Number: 1E6DAE022625. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic for a routine tire rotation but was informed there were massive bubbles on the tires, and on one tire, there was a bulge the size of an apple on the sidewall of the tire. The contact r
... eplaced the tires. The local dealer was not contacted. The manufacturer was contacted and declined to accept the mileage claim and requested photos of the tires. The tire failure mileage was approximately 27,000. The vehicle failure mileage was approximately 146,500.Read more
Incident date: Aug 19, 2026
Odometer Fraud. The contact purchased a 2012 Toyota Tundra. The contact discovered that there was a mileage discrepancy after the purchase. The vehicle was a dealer sale. At the time of purchase, the vehicle mileage was 149,000. It was later discovered upon checking the vehicle history that the mileage was 378,000.
Incident date: Apr 19, 2026
The contact owns a 2024 Ford Ranger. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 26V238000 (Structure, Electrical System); however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The contact stated that there was an abnormal burning odor inside the vehicle, and the instrument cluster flickered while driving. The dealer was contacted and confirmed that parts were not yet av
... ailable. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that a second letter would be sent once the remedy was available, and parts were anticipated by the end of August 2026. The failure mileage was approximately 323.Read more
Incident date: Apr 19, 2026
The contact owns a 2024 Ford Ranger. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 26V238000 (Structure, Electrical System); however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The contact stated that there was an abnormal burning odor inside the vehicle, and the instrument cluster flickered while driving. The dealer was contacted and confirmed that parts were not yet av
... ailable. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that a second letter would be sent once the remedy was available, and parts were anticipated by the end of August 2026. The failure mileage was approximately 323.Read more
Incident date: Mar 11, 2026
I have had this car for a little over a year and it has given me nothing but problems they won’t let me out of my contract. It’s a 2018 Jeep compass and I’ve already had to replace the thermostat. My service transmission light is coming on all of a sudden, I’m having to put the oil in all the time it has completely shut down on the highway. Just stopped moving turned off on is own! So dang
... erous and IRead more
Incident date: Mar 11, 2026
I have had this car for a little over a year and it has given me nothing but problems they won’t let me out of my contract. It’s a 2018 Jeep compass and I’ve already had to replace the thermostat. My service transmission light is coming on all of a sudden, I’m having to put the oil in all the time it has completely shut down on the highway. Just stopped moving turned off on is own! So dang
... erous and IRead more
Incident date: Jul 9, 2026
The contact owns a 2022 Hyundai Palisade. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the accelerator pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to accelerate as intended. The contact stated that several unknown warning lights were illuminated, and the engine seized. The contact stated that while attempting to start the vehicle, the vehicle started. The vehicle was taken t
... o the dealer. In addition, the unknown warning lights were off. The failure was not duplicated. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken to the dealer three times within a month. The failure was intermittent. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 70,000.Read more
Incident date: Oct 11, 2025
When driving in fully electric mode on the highway, my 4xe lit up an error message of “electric mode temporarily unavailable” and lost all power and momentum. I went from 70mph to 50 mph in heavy traffic before the hybrid motor came back to provide power after approximately 4-5 seconds. This is a repeating occurrence when attempting to drive in fully electric mode, even at low speeds. I have n
... early been hit in rear end collisions when I have lost power as there is no warning, the acceleration just fails and I lose all power and momentum.Read more
Incident date: Oct 11, 2025
When driving in fully electric mode on the highway, my 4xe lit up an error message of “electric mode temporarily unavailable” and lost all power and momentum. I went from 70mph to 50 mph in heavy traffic before the hybrid motor came back to provide power after approximately 4-5 seconds. This is a repeating occurrence when attempting to drive in fully electric mode, even at low speeds. I have n
... early been hit in rear end collisions when I have lost power as there is no warning, the acceleration just fails and I lose all power and momentum.Read more
Incident date: Oct 11, 2025
When driving in fully electric mode on the highway, my 4xe lit up an error message of “electric mode temporarily unavailable” and lost all power and momentum. I went from 70mph to 50 mph in heavy traffic before the hybrid motor came back to provide power after approximately 4-5 seconds. This is a repeating occurrence when attempting to drive in fully electric mode, even at low speeds. I have n
... early been hit in rear end collisions when I have lost power as there is no warning, the acceleration just fails and I lose all power and momentum.Read more
Incident date: Aug 17, 2026
While driving on the interstate, the moonroof glass began opening without any input from the moonroof controls. The power sunshade was still closed at the time. I opened the sunshade manually so it would not interfere with the glass. After the glass opened, I was unable to get it to remain fully closed. When I was able to close the glass, it would reopen on its own several more times. I also hear
... d a clicking sound during the repeated opening and closing. After this occurred, the power sunshade also stopped operating correctly. It would open fully, but when closing, it would stop approximately halfway and leave the front portion of the moonroof uncovered. It would not close completely. There were no warning lights or other dashboard indications during the incident. The only way I was eventually able to get both the moonroof glass and the sunshade to close completely was to leave the vehicle turned off for approximately two hours and then perform the moonroof reset/initialization procedure. After the reset, both the glass and sunshade returned to normal operation. The most concerning part of the incident was that the moonroof glass opened by itself while the vehicle was being driven, without anyone touching the controls.Read more
Incident date: Aug 17, 2026
While driving on the interstate, the moonroof glass began opening without any input from the moonroof controls. The power sunshade was still closed at the time. I opened the sunshade manually so it would not interfere with the glass. After the glass opened, I was unable to get it to remain fully closed. When I was able to close the glass, it would reopen on its own several more times. I also hear
... d a clicking sound during the repeated opening and closing. After this occurred, the power sunshade also stopped operating correctly. It would open fully, but when closing, it would stop approximately halfway and leave the front portion of the moonroof uncovered. It would not close completely. There were no warning lights or other dashboard indications during the incident. The only way I was eventually able to get both the moonroof glass and the sunshade to close completely was to leave the vehicle turned off for approximately two hours and then perform the moonroof reset/initialization procedure. After the reset, both the glass and sunshade returned to normal operation. The most concerning part of the incident was that the moonroof glass opened by itself while the vehicle was being driven, without anyone touching the controls.Read more
Incident date: Jul 26, 2026
The vehicle sputtered and stalled on the highway. I was able to restart after a few minutes and then it stalled again. I was able to get it to a repair shop after stalling about 3 times on the way. The diagnostic code was for the high pressure fuel pump. This was replaced. Four weeks later the same problem occurred. This time I stalled on a major freeway. I was able to restart and get it off the f
... reeway. It stalled so frequently that I had to call a tow. The vehicle is throwing the same diagnostic code but the shop suspects the low pressure fuel pump may be the source of the issue.Read more
Incident date: Aug 16, 2026
On August 16, 2026, at approximately 12:00 PM, while driving a 2025 Dodge Ram Rebel GT during a rainfall event with an ambient temperature of approximately 80°F, the vehicle's glass spontaneously shattered with no external object or debris impact. The vehicle's air conditioning system was actively running inside the cab, creating a severe thermal differential against the exterior rainwater. The v
... ehicle was also actively towing a personal watercraft trailer at the time of the failure. The glass failed with an explosive, gunshot-like noise, indicating a catastrophic release of internal glass tension rather than a stone impact. This unexpected glass blowout presents an immediate passenger safety hazard and visibility impairment while operating under towing conditions.Read more
Incident date: Aug 15, 2026
Subject: Vehicle Lost Power While Driving – Potential Battery/Electrical Safety Issue On August 15, 2026, my vehicle suddenly began malfunctioning and lost power while I was driving my daughter to a medical appointment. I was on/near Highway 20 and had to maneuver the vehicle into a parking lot to avoid being struck. My daughter and I were extremely fortunate not to be injured. The vehicle was
... subsequently towed to Mall of Georgia Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram for evaluation. The dealership stated that both the main and auxiliary batteries need to be replaced and indicated that the main battery purchased from AutoZone may be faulty. The main battery was purchased from AutoZone on June 20, 2026. After an earlier vehicle failure, AutoZone tested the battery on July 24, 2026, and reported it as 100% charged/good. AutoZone Corporate has since stated that its testing equipment is functioning properly, while the dealership maintains that the battery is faulty. I am concerned that there may be an underlying battery, electrical, charging, or vehicle-system safety issue that caused the vehicle to lose power while being driven. I am requesting that NHTSA document this incident and determine whether it may represent a safety defect or a broader vehicle safety concern. I can provide the battery purchase receipt, AutoZone test results, dealership service records, towing records, and other documentation upon request.Read more