Latest vehicle complaints

remedied. Before arranging shipment, the shipping company informed me that it will not proceed while the recall remains open unless I provide additional documentation showing that the recall has been resolved. I contacted Infiniti and Nissan dealerships in the UAE and the wider Middle East to ask whether they could inspect the vehicle and complete the applicable recall remedy. I was advised that these dealerships do not inspect or perform recall repairs on U.S.-specification vehicles that have been imported into the region. This has left me in a difficult position: the vehicle cannot be shipped unless I provide documentation that the recall has been addressed, yet the local dealerships I contacted have indicated that they will not provide the inspection or remedy because the vehicle is a U.S.-specification import. I respectfully request NHTSA's assistance in identifying an appropriate path forward. Specifically, I would appreciate guidance on whether the manufacturer can provide an authorized remedy, written confirmation of the recall status and available remedy, or other official documentation that may help the shipping company determine whether shipment can proceed. If NHTSA cannot issue a statement confirming that the recall cannot be remedied in the UAE or Middle East, I would appreciate referral to the appropriate manufacturer contact or agency resource that can address this situation. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

bag warning light illuminated, the horn failed to function as intended, and power steering fluid was leaking. The vehicle was taken to an alternate independent mechanic, where diagnosis confirmed a broken air bag clock spring damaged during the initial repair. The vehicle was returned to the initial independent mechanic, who stated the replacement rack and pinion was defective. The rack and pinion and horn were replaced, and the vehicle was repaired; however, the failure recurred. The failure mileage was approximately 161,059.

catastrophic internal failure. A second Hyundai dealership later diagnosed a connecting-rod bearing failure affecting Cylinder 2. My vehicle is covered by Hyundai Recall 203, which concerns defective piston oil rings that can lead to abnormal oil consumption, engine damage, and potentially engine stalling. The vehicle previously passed Hyundai's recall inspection/software procedure, but the engine has now experienced a catastrophic mechanical failure involving knocking and sudden stalling while driving. Hyundai has declined to replace the engine under the recall and has attributed the failure to an out-of-warranty maintenance/oil-related issue. I am also concerned about the reliability of the diagnostic process: the first dealership initially told me that a compression test had been performed and supported its conclusion about the engine failure, but later confirmed that no compression test had actually been performed. I am concerned that the prior recall remedy or inspection did not adequately identify or prevent the defect, and that an affected vehicle was allowed to remain in service until it suffered sudden engine failure and loss of motive power in traffic. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate whether this failure is related to Recall 203 and whether the recall remedy adequately protects owners whose vehicles initially passed the inspection but later experience engine damage, knocking, or stalling.

After the Cybertruck had remained completely stopped at the red light for approximately 10-15 seconds, it suddenly began moving forward without any intentional acceleration or other input from me. The vehicle struck the vehicle stopped directly in front of it and then came to a stop. I am reporting this incident because the vehicle moved unexpectedly while FSD was engaged and the vehicle was already stopped at a red light. This behavior created a collision and may present a safety risk to occupants, pedestrians, and other road users. I have photographs of the vehicles and the accident scene. I am also preserving the relevant vehicle camera footage and other evidence associated with the incident. Tesla has been asked to document the event, review the vehicle's logs, FSD data, and camera footage, and preserve all relevant information. I request that NHTSA investigate this incident and determine whether it may indicate a defect or safety issue involving Tesla's FSD system, vehicle controls, or related software. I also intend to have the vehicle inspected by Tesla to identify any damage or safety-related issues resulting from the collision. Thank you INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

several years ago. The replacement components installed during that recall service failed to function as intended during this qualifying crash event, pointing to a critical remedy failure or long-term component degradation. Prior to the collision, the vehicle's onboard diagnostic system indicated the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) was fully operational. The dashboard airbag warning light performed its normal self-check bulb illumination for a few seconds upon vehicle startup and turned off completely while driving. No active fault lights or SRS warning indicators were present to alert me to a system malfunction. As a direct result of the airbag non-deployment, I was unconscious for a few seconds and in cognitive decline for several minutes. I have bruising, neck, knee and hip strain and the only restraint was the seat belts. The vehicle sustained severe front-end damage and was towed to Anytime Towing and was released to Farmers Insurance who has yet to disclose my vehicle location. I am requesting a formal safety investigation into this recall remedy failure. The onboard diagnostic system failed to detect a critical system vulnerability, and a previously remedied safety component failed to protect occupants during a direct 30 mph collision.

situation on a busy roadway. We had the vehicle towed to a Hyundai dealership for diagnosis and assistance. We waited over a month without receiving an update. When we went to the dealership in person, we learned that they had been contacting the previous owner rather than us. After providing our correct contact information even though they were given this information upon vehicle arrival, we were told that the dealership would work on getting the issue resolved and would contact us with an update. We were subsequently informed that Hyundai would not replace the engine, allegedly due to severe negligence and a lack of maintenance service receipts. We perform our own oil changes regularly and have maintained the vehicle to the best of our ability. We believe it is unfair to classify this as negligence solely because we do not have receipts from a professional service center for work we performed ourselves. When we told them that we would have an oil analysis performed to prove that it was not negligence on our part, they accused us of possibly changing the oil before it was towed. This is an insane and unprofessional accusation. We understand that engine failures involving this vehicle may be covered by Hyundai engine-related recalls, warranty extensions, or class action settlement provisions. We are requesting a thorough and fair review of our case to determine whether the engine failure qualifies for coverage. Thank you, [[redacted]] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

electronic power-steering assistance stopped functioning, making the vehicle extremely difficult to steer. I was able to exit the roundabout and pull into a parking lot without a collision. I turned the vehicle off, waited approximately five minutes, and restarted it. The warning lights were no longer illuminated. Diagnostic information later reviewed by Grand Junction Subaru documented that the vehicle's electrical voltage had dropped to 8.6 volts during the incident. The dealership could not reproduce the event or conclusively identify its cause. Although the original alternator reportedly tested normal, the dealership reprogrammed the ECU/ECM, disabled the DCM, and replaced the alternator. Because the root cause remains unconfirmed, I am concerned that the sudden low-voltage condition and loss of steering assistance could recur at highway speed. Because [[redacted]] and the two-lane roundabout are very busy, I felt that my life was in danger. As I continued through the roundabout, there was a Ford Platinum 3/4 ton truck next to me. If he would not have been paying attention, I feel like there would have been a collision and possibly personal injury to myself. I'm glad that this incident happened at a lower rate of speed but I am concerned that it will happen again and maybe the next time while I'm on the highway traveling at highway speeds. It could be fatal to and others. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

coolant getting past the valves into the engine cylinders. Nissan then stated that the EGR cooler failed, allowing coolant into the engine and causing it to overheat. The engine must be replaced. Nissan declined to cover the repair, stating the EGR cooler is not covered under its extended engine warranty. A third-party inspector for the vehicle's service contract is expected to examine the vehicle. The dealer has been asked to retain the failed EGR cooler for inspection. This vehicle is included in recall 25V-437 (engine bearings). The recall remedy (Nissan campaign R25D1: ECM reprogram and engine check) was completed by a Nissan dealer on [[redacted]], at about 56,500 miles, and the engine was reported in good condition. The engine failed about 9,500 miles later. Prior warnings: Sluggish throttle reponse about 30 miles before total failure. The engine oil level was full, and the oil had been changed shortly before the trip. Other owners have reported similar EGR cooler failures on 2022 Rogues leading to coolant intrusion, overheating, and engine failure. I believe the EGR cooler on the 1.5L VC-Turbo engine can fail internally and cause a sudden loss of motive power, and it should be investigated. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

replacing parts. Software flashes clear the codes but have not fixed the ongoing issues. The manufacturer is aware and multiple cases have been opened with them without resolution. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)