Latest vehicle complaints

message was displayed on the instrument panel. The vehicle was towed to a dealer, where a diagnostic evaluation revealed that the DC-DC converter had failed and required replacement. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 60,000.

her life due to the sudden failure and exposure to passing traffic. She reached the shoulder without a collision. The vehicle required an emergency tow through her insurance company, and she received transportation home. The vehicle had undergone a safety inspection in August before this incident. A Ford dealership confirmed an internal engine leak allowing coolant into a cylinder's combustion chamber. A borescope inspection found liquid on top of the piston, and a cooling-system pressure test confirmed coolant entering the combustion chamber. The spark plugs were severely carbon-fouled, causing a misfire. Replacing them temporarily improved the symptoms, but the misfire quickly returned. The dealership determined that the engine requires a rebuild or replacement. The diagnosis appears to correspond to Ford Customer Satisfaction Program 21N12, dated June 9, 2022. We were not notified of this issue before the incident and found no corresponding safety recall for this vehicle in NHTSA's records. This sudden failure caused loss of propulsion and impaired control at highway speed, forcing an emergency maneuver onto a narrow shoulder after dark. The check engine light provided no advance warning. We request that NHTSA investigate this defect and determine whether a safety recall is warranted to prevent similar incidents and injuries.

repeatedly. Even after I manually dismiss the advertisement, it returns when I reenter the vehicle. Rivian is effectively forcing me to clear an unsolicited commercial promotion to access a camera display essential to safely backing up. This is an entirely unacceptable design and safety failure. Rivian should be particularly sensitive to this issue given its recent federal safety recall, NHTSA Recall 26V-597, involving software notifications obstructing rearview-camera images. That recall specifically addresses compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, which governs rear visibility. While the Ghostbusters promotion may involve a different software condition, the safety concern is substantially similar: a driver shifts into reverse and cannot see the required rearview-camera image because an on-screen notification is obstructing it. The fact that this obstruction involves a commercial entertainment promotion rather than an essential vehicle notification makes the situation even more troubling.

[redacted]: [[redacted]] confirmed the new recall engine installation was successful, but noted a catalytic converter exhaust leak. The shop agreed to fix it under the 8-year/80,000-mile Federal Emissions Defect Warranty. No transmission faults existed or were reported. • [redacted]: [[redacted]] called back to state the engine was good, but the vehicle now suffered a severe transmission torque converter issue. Mechanically, this specific component was crushed when technicians forced the engine block and transmission bellhousing together while misaligned during reassembly 5:22 PM: Consumer discussed the newly created transmission damage with [[redacted]]. • 5:23 PM: Consumer called GM [[redacted]]; the receptionist screened the call and refused to transfer it. 5:33 PM: Consumer filed a case with Ford Corporate (Complaint #CXH-[redacted] who confirmed local dealer workmanship liability. 6:24 PM: GM [[redacted]] returned the call and pressured the consumer to use their personal extended warranty. Consumer firmly refused, citing Section III, Item B of their First Mile Platinum contract, which strictly excludes coverage for workshop repair negligence and non-factory errors.[redacted]: GM [[redacted]] called again, making an aggressive, bad-faith attempt to force the consumer to take a broken vehicle, falsely claiming a slipping transmission is "ok to drive." When the consumer refused the extreme safety hazard, [[redacted]] threatened that all this will fall back on consumer INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

message on phone to leave short message and would call back. No identification so not sure what place l left message to. [redacted]. No one called so I called the [[redacted]] number and explained what has happened so far. They said they would call the dealership and call me back. They called back and said the talked to the service manager and parts were on back order and would call me back. [redacted]. No one has called back. The way things are going I don't know for sure if I'm on a repair list. I was hoping for something from the dealership confirming that as soon as parts came in I would be called. Should I wait for ever to be called? Should I wait until there is an accident that caused injury or worse? Just need some assurance. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Campaign Number: 17V354000 (Fuel System, Gasoline), which was completed on the VIN in 2009. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that the repair was not covered under warranty. The failure mileage was approximately 70,000.

[[redacted]]. Pepe Cadillac diagnosed the failure as involving metal shavings/contamination in the oil, internal engine failure consistent with spun bearing and/or crankshaft/connecting rod issues, and stated that it matches the known L87 6.2-liter V8 manufacturing defect. A complete engine replacement is required. The vehicle remains at the dealership waiting on a new engine. This failure pattern matches the manufacturing defects that were the subject of the prior safety recall on 2021-2024 L87 engines (NHTSA 25V274000) and that are currently under investigation in Engineering Analysis EA26005, which covers 2021-2026 model year vehicles including the Escalade and Escalade ESV. I am submitting this complaint so that it can be added to the open investigation. Sudden loss of propulsion while driving is a clear safety defect. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

separation. Repeated slide-out malfunctions, including crooked operation, binding, and floor damage. Cargo-door and latch-related concerns requiring multiple repairs. Water intrusion, roof failures, and structural deterioration concerns. These reported conditions appear similar to issues currently under investigation by NHTSA under PE24-029, which was opened after complaints alleging excessive frame flex in certain Grand Design fifth-wheel trailers. NHTSA's investigation summary references complaints involving cargo doors opening while traveling, entry doors opening while traveling, and slide-outs extending during transit. The owners report repeated service visits and ongoing failures, yet many of the original concerns allegedly remain unresolved. Of particular concern is the possibility that structural movement, frame flex, body distortion, or a chassis-related condition may be contributing to the recurring slide-out, door, alignment, and leveling-system issues. Given the reported incidents involving slide-outs opening while the RV was being towed, along with symptoms consistent with those being reviewed in PE24-029, I respectfully request that NHTSA review this vehicle for potential structural, frame, chassis, door-retention, and slide-out safety defects and determine whether these issues may represent a broader safety concern affecting other similarly equipped fifth-wheel trailers.

in [[redacted]]. The technician confirmed the suspension problems and replaced the affected front lower suspension links. The repair was completed [redacted], and I paid $1,807.44, including the suspension repair and alignment-related work. I am reporting this because I understand NHTSA is investigating front lower lateral-link failures involving 2021-2023 Tesla Model Y vehicles. My vehicle experienced deterioration of components in this same area of the front suspension and required replacement. My lateral link did not detach while driving, and I did not experience a crash. The problem was discovered during inspection before a more serious failure occurred. I have Tesla's original diagnosis and estimate as well as the paid independent repair invoice and can provide both if requested. I am concerned that these suspension components may be failing prematurely and could present a safety risk if the deterioration progresses to separation or loss of wheel control. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

case manager reaches out she blocks me and says they can't submit payment with no explanation. Same tools, same fluids and same 6 speed transmission as a Honda Pilot or Accord. All I get is excuses because they don't want to pay and offer no resolution. Worst customer experience I've ever had and can't leave town with my vehicle!