Latest vehicle complaints

possible connecting rod bearing or other internal engine component failure. A sudden engine failure while driving could cause an unexpected loss of propulsion, creating a serious safety hazard, particularly on highways or in heavy traffic. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate whether the completed recall remedy adequately addresses vehicles that continue experiencing abnormal engine knocking and potential internal engine damage. The engine remains installed in the vehicle and is available for inspection. I am requesting further investigation into this safety concern.

underlying issue. Throughout these visits, we have been given different explanations and advised to pay for or address different repairs, including: Replacing the battery. Repairing a leaking pipe. Being informed that oil particles were found and that the oil filter had not been changed. Most recently, being told that the starter may be the cause of the problem. We have continued to cooperate with the dealership, follow its recommendations, and bring the vehicle back whenever the same issue occurs. However, after six visits, we are still dealing with the same problem. It is extremely concerning that a vehicle requiring repeated service for the same symptoms has not received a definitive diagnosis or a lasting repair. What makes this situation even more frustrating is the dealership's refusal to provide us with a courtesy vehicle. We were told that because we did not originally purchase the vehicle from their dealership, and because we have supposedly exhausted the available discounts, we would need to arrange and pay for our own rental vehicle. We find this reasoning unacceptable. We are bringing a Land Rover vehicle to an authorized Land Rover dealership for repairs, not requesting a personal favor. The fact that we purchased the vehicle elsewhere should not determine whether we receive reasonable assistance while our vehicle is repeatedly being serviced for unresolved mechanical problems. Furthermore, we should not be financially penalized or lef

formal investigation into this incident by Tesla's FSD safety and engineering teams. 2. A review of the vehicle's telemetry, camera footage, collision data, and FSD operating logs from the time of the incident. 3. An explanation of why the vehicle did not detect or attempt to avoid the obstruction. 4. Confirmation of whether this incident represents a known limitation or potential safety issue with the current FSD software. 5. A written response documenting Tesla's findings and any corrective actions or recommendations. Please preserve all available vehicle data and telemetry associated with this incident. I am not simply reporting vehicle damage. I am reporting a potentially significant safety issue involving a driver-assistance system that I expected to identify and respond to a substantial obstruction in the roadway. I would appreciate confirmation that this complaint has been escalated to the appropriate safety and engineering personnel. Sincerely, [[redacted]] [[redacted]] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Stellantis to recall and my van was a omission. i want to be assured that i have a safe van to drive. would like your help if you can to get this van as part of the recall from manufacture vin#[[redacted]] [[redacted]] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

dark she thought it was unsafe especially with the debris that was present. She limped to the next freeway exit due to the car not being able to let her get past a certain speed she says was around 55 MPH. Since then we have viewed the car as a hazard to our safety to drive.

was told that the car could not be fixed and would likely be out of service or weeks or months because the necessary part was on backorder. I was not provided a replacement Nissan Pathfinder. I asked for any car with a third row and was refused. When the car part still had no ETA after three weeks, I placed a complaint with Nissan Consumer Affairs. I referenced the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, a federal law which provides that manufacturers must offer a buyback to the consumer if the car cannot be reasonably repaired pursuant to the warranty. This defect is undisputedly covered by the bumper to bumper warranty. I was initially refused a buyback because Nissan explained that 3 weeks without the car is no yet unreasonable. I was promised further review and resolution if the part was still not available by [[redacted]]. Then on [[redacted]], the arbitration specialist emailed me that she may have an update on when the part could be available on [[redacted]]. I reminded her of her initial promise of the [[redacted]] deadline. She refused to answer. I called several times and left messages asking for a call back by [[redacted]] as promised. I was refused a call back. I asked to be escalated to a supervisor and was further refused. I believe that depriving me of the car in unreasonable, and expecting me to drive it with an unsafe airbag defect is a safety hazard. By failing to address the safety concern timely and failing to buyback the defective vehicle, Nissan is endorsing the driving of the car. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

28, 2025, the dealership estimated replacement at $2,233.02, but parts were backordered. Despite this critical classification, the dealership advised that the vehicle could be driven, while warning that road debris could puncture the inadequately protected fuel tank, potentially causing gasoline spillage and a fire hazard. When we returned in August 2026, nine months later, replacement parts remained unavailable, leaving this critical condition unresolved. Other 2016 Range Rover Sport owners have reported similar corrosion in NHTSA complaints 11715458 and 11739019. More concerning, an owner of an L405 Range Rover publicly reported severe fuel tank shield corrosion, attributing it to galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals. That owner also claimed Land Rover acknowledged the issue as safety-related and granted a repair credit after a federal complaint. These reports suggest the problem may extend beyond the 2016 Range Rover Sport to other Land Rover models, raising concerns about a broader design or materials defect rather than isolated wear. Given the recurring complaints, potential fuel leakage and fire hazards, and prolonged parts shortages, I question why this issue has not prompted a safety recall. I request that NHTSA investigate the extent of this condition across Land Rover models, its underlying cause, and whether a recall or manufacturer corrective action is warranted.

vehicle reached 24,000 miles. The vehicle currently has approximately 58,000 miles. I previously brought the vehicle to an authorized Kia dealership for diagnostic evaluation. However, the dealership was unable to reproduce the problem or identify its cause. The underlying safety concern remains unresolved. I am particularly concerned because an unexpected engine shutdown at highway speeds creates a significant risk of a collision and endangers the occupants of the vehicle and surrounding motorists. I have also become aware of other owner-reported incidents involving 2025 Kia K4 vehicles experiencing unexpected shutdowns and switching into Accessory Mode while driving. I am requesting that NHTSA document this complaint and evaluate whether this recurring condition represents a potential safety-related defect affecting 2025 Kia K4 vehicles. I am willing to provide additional documentation, dealership records, and vehicle information if needed. Vehicle: 2025 Kia K4 Purchase date: August 2025 Current mileage: Approximately 58,000 First occurrence: Before 24,000 miles Dealer investigation: Conducted, but no cause identified.

operation, and the warning light disappeared. This is approximately the third time this same failure has occurred within the past 15,000 miles. The vehicle has approximately 200,000 miles and previously displayed diagnostic trouble code P0720, indicating an output shaft speed sensor circuit malfunction. These symptoms appear consistent with a possible failure of the transmission's molded lead frame or integrated output shaft speed sensor in the 6R80 automatic transmission. I am concerned that this intermittent failure could result in an unexpected transmission downshift, sudden deceleration, or loss of normal transmission operation while driving at highway speeds, increasing the risk of a collision. I understand similar transmission lead-frame failures have been documented in other Ford vehicles equipped with the 6R80 transmission. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate whether the 2017 Ford Expedition is affected by the same potential safety defect.

occasions. Since vehicle is under warranty it was brought to the dealership both times and have had zero resolution. During its last visit I was without the car for a month. I Contacted KIA corporate who denied a buy back. This vehicle will undoubtedly kill or injure my family or more if driven. I have been responsible and not done so to protect the public. But I need the car. Car is available for inspection at anytime. Videos available upon request.

now forcing me to take delivery of an unregistered, illegal vehicle, hanging up the phone on me when I request safe transit or legal temporary tags, and demanding their service loaner vehicle back. I am filing this complaint due to severe recall repair delays and resulting state vehicle compliance failures.

before it caused any damage. Oil had exploded all over the engine and a hose had bursted off. Again, no warnings/lights ever came up. Vehicle could have exploded and caused major harm/death to me or anyone nearby on the road. Vehicle has been towed to a Subaru dealership and they have done a tear down inspection. Currently waiting on Subaru of America to do an inspection themselves.