Latest vehicle complaints

push. I was terrified that I was not going to be able to stop. I was scared I was going to be hit and someone would get seriously injured. I then received a call from Cascade Automotive saying that my engine seized from rod bearing failure but my engine was under warranty under the Kia Engine Class Settlement. I called Kia Consumer service and they said my Vin# qualified and was under warranty. I then had it towed to Kia of Puyallup. They confirmed it was a Rod Bearing failure that caused the seizure and told me it did qualify for the warranty. But then told me since I didn't get the HECU fuse update its void. I told them I never got a notice for the recall. They said it didn't matter and said to fix it, it would be $6700. I called Kia Consumer again and asked what can be done and they said nothing. I asked if they had any record of sending me or my dad ([[redacted]]) the recall notice and they said no and he wasn't in their records as the registered owner. I then asked since they have no record of sending the recall notice to me or my dad and I had no way of knowing about the HECU fuse if the warranty is good now and they said no, I should have looked for recall. There were no warning signs. I have maintained my car and had the oil changed regularly. My safety was put in jeopardy because Kia failed to notify me of a faulty engine and the HECU fuse. I asked for the records saying no notice was given and they said it was against their policy to send that. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

scratches. My primary concern is the possibility of exterior roof material separating and detaching while traveling at highway speeds, potentially creating a hazard for following motorists. Ford issued safety recall 26S32 (NHTSA 26V299) involving certain Bronco MIC hardtops that may experience cracking and delamination, potentially resulting in portions of the exterior roof material detaching while driving. Although my vehicle does not appear to fall within the affected manufacturing period, the deterioration I am observing raises concerns about a potentially similar failure mechanism. I am also concerned that repeated freeze-thaw cycles during the upcoming winter could worsen the existing deterioration if moisture enters cracks or separated layers, potentially increasing the risk of material detachment. The condition has been documented with photographs and reported to an authorized Ford dealership. The dealership submitted a replacement request to Ford under claim CXH-09688700-W8C9N6. Ford subsequently denied the request, stating that the repair was not considered warrantable. I am requesting that NHTSA evaluate whether this deterioration could represent a safety-related manufacturing defect affecting additional Ford Bronco hardtops beyond those included in the existing recall population. The roof is currently installed and available for inspection if needed.

documented in Toyota service bulletin T-SB-0008-21 (front carrier assembly pinion shafts), but this transaxle - serial A4A20M 00395, built at TMMWV in December 2020 - is immediately outside the bulletin's affected range (A4A20L00101-A4A20L01824, November 2020). It failed identically, which suggests the November 2020 production change did not fully correct the defect. **Inspection:** A Toyota dealer confirmed the failure by test drive and inspection. Toyota (the manufacturer) has not inspected the vehicle. No police or insurance inspection. **Symptoms:** A whine at all speeds. No warning lamps or messages. No crash, injury, or fire.

driving at about 13 mph. I recorded the warning on video. Active Lane Assist was switched OFF and was NOT engaged when the warning appeared. In a separate recent incident, my wife was driving with Active Lane Assist also switched OFF. She reported that the steering wheel unexpectedly turned to the right on its own, without her intentionally steering right. The vehicle moved toward a curb, struck it, and the wheel rim was damaged. I do not know whether the warning and steering incident have the same cause. However, unexpected steering movement while driver assistance is off presents a serious potential loss-of-control and collision risk. I am concerned for my family's safety. I request a safety investigation. The vehicle is available for inspection, and I can provide prior dealership repair records and video evidence of the warning.

intermittently does not fold out and glass does not move/adjust. Dealership reportedly ordered part during Sept [[redacted]] repair window, has not been repaired yet with no update from dealership. [FIELD: HOW WAS SAFETY AFFECTED?] High-beam failure forces single-handed steering at night. Sudden ADAS/screen shutdowns cause driver distraction and lose safety monitoring. Engine stalling creates severe collision risks at intersections and on active roads.Mirror issue prevents ability to safely monitor changing road conditions/other drivers. [FIELD: WARNING LIGHTS AND MESSAGES] Cluster displayed "System Disabled: Poor Outward Camera Visibility" in clear weather with clean windshield (Oct [[redacted]] & [[redacted]]). No warnings for engine stalling, HUD loss, or headlight failure. [FIELD: REPRODUCTION & INSPECTIONS] Dealer failed to reproduce due to brief test drives. Inspected only by Jim Shorkey Kia and 1 independent mechanic (who diagnosed earlier resolved oil leak/solenoid timing belt issue). INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

accelerator, but the vehicle behaved as though I was not pressing the pedal at all. At that moment, oncoming traffic was approaching, creating an extremely dangerous situation. Because the vehicle would not accelerate as expected, I was unable to proceed through the turn normally, placing me at serious risk of being struck by approaching traffic. The engine did not completely shut off. Instead, the vehicle appeared to sputter and struggle for approximately 5-10 seconds while I continued attempting to accelerate. After this period, the vehicle unexpectedly regained power and resumed moving forward normally. No collision occurred. However, the incident created a significant and immediate safety hazard. If oncoming traffic was traveling faster, as often occurs when making left turns off of highways, there likely would have been a serious collision.

battery discharge. The driver pulled into a commercial charging station. The vehicle failed to charge, leaving both the contact's son and grandson stranded. Roadside Assistance was contacted but declined towing service, stating that the warranty had expired. AAA towed the vehicle to the dealer at the owner's expense. The vehicle was towed three times from the charging station to the dealer within 50 miles. The dealer determined that the vehicle was unrepairable. The contact was provided a loaner vehicle, and the dealer informed the contact that the manufacturer offered a buyback. The dealer initiated a buyback case without authorization from the contact, and the manufacturer contacted the contact regarding the buyback offer. The Attorney General was contacted and informed that the vehicle qualified for repurchase or replacement of equivalent value. The contact was in the process of submitting a request to the Attorney General for buyback assistance. The contact associated the failure with the recall repair. The failure mileage was approximately 24,200.

stability and braking control, especially over bumps or in an emergency maneuver. The loose shock could also strike and damage nearby brake lines, wiring, the tire, or axle components. CONFIRMATION: On [[redacted]], an independent repair shop found the right-rear shock sheared at its base, with no sign of impact or other damage. The mechanic said he had never seen this failure before. On [[redacted]], at the first available appointment, Volvo Cars Danbury (Danbury, CT) confirmed the right-rear shock was broken and recommended replacing both rear shocks. INSPECTIONS: The authorized Volvo dealer inspected the vehicle and submitted a goodwill request to Volvo, which Volvo declined. To my knowledge, Volvo has not inspected the failed part directly. No police or insurance inspection. WARNING SIGNS: On [[redacted]], I first noticed metal-on-metal noises from the rear while driving on the highway. No warning lamps or messages appeared. There were no other symptoms before the noise began. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

of the vehicle. In addition, the contact stated that the failure was a known failure with the vehicle. The manufacturer was contacted, and a case was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 40.

inoperative. The screen remains black and will not boot. The vehicle simultaneously displayed a Dynamic Road Sign Display malfunction and an Emergency Call Function Limited warning. Most concerning, the factory rearview camera initially continued functioning but subsequently stopped displaying an image entirely, creating a safety concern when reversing. An authorized Volkswagen dealership has diagnosed the infotainment control module located in the glove box as failed and confirmed that neither soft resets nor dealership-level reset procedures can restore functionality. Replacement of the control module is required. I also contacted Volkswagen Orange Park, whose service department acknowledged that similar infotainment failures are a known issue. I have encountered reports from other Volkswagen Atlas owners describing similar failures and am concerned about a potentially widespread defect. This failure occurred following a Volkswagen-issued OTA software update, not an aftermarket modification. I am concerned that the manufacturer's update may have contributed to the control module failure and the resulting loss of the factory rearview camera. I request that NHTSA investigate whether a defect involving Volkswagen's OTA software updates or infotainment control modules may cause permanent module failure and loss of safety-related vehicle functions.

was made by Dodge to provide me information on the recall. The parts to do the recall are obsolete and Dodge insists they have no responsibility in fixing the vehicle, even though the parts are well known to Dodge as being defective. The nut and bolt was the proximate cause of the extensive damage to driveshaft where a new driveshaft is needed. Due to the fact that the recalled parts are the culprit, I am asking Dodge to repair the vehicle to working condition or at least total out my truck and pay me out. I would expect Dodge to stand by their product when they provide a defective product to their consumers. Could you please advise me if I have any legal standing to get Dodge to pay for this?

folds from the mat, it loses all grip and begins to slide. I informed two different Tesla dealers about the incident and they simply suggested I buy an identical replacement mat. They did not consider it a warranty issue and didn't admit that the mats were inherently defective even though this identical problem has been clearly documented and discussed on numerous internet forums.