Latest vehicle complaints

Subaru has informed me that my vehicle's VIN is not included in the campaign. However, the component and type of failure described in the campaign appear relevant to the failure experienced by my vehicle. I contacted Subaru of America Customer Advocacy and requested an explanation of the technical distinction between the condition addressed by WUJ-95 and the failure diagnosed in my vehicle. Subaru declined to compare the conditions and denied my request for goodwill assistance or reimbursement. The company considers its review complete. I recognize that my vehicle's failure does not automatically establish that it qualifies for the existing campaign. However, I am concerned that a similar failure of the front exhaust bellows occurred in a vehicle of the same model year and engine type. I respectfully request that NHTSA review this report in conjunction with other complaints and available technical information to determine whether the failure warrants further examination, including whether it may affect emissions performance or present other safety concerns.

diagnosis. The cause of the failure has not yet been determined. I am concerned that this sudden and unexpected loss of propulsion, accompanied by rapid deceleration, could create a serious safety hazard, particularly when traveling at highway speeds or in heavy traffic. I request that NHTSA review this incident to determine whether it represents a potential vehicle safety defect.

completed the recall repair in [redacted], including work on the front seat-belt buckle switch wiring. Despite that repair, the passenger-side warning problem continues. I reported the condition during a subsequent service visit at Hendrick Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in [[redacted]]. The dealership stated that no fault codes were found and the technician could not reproduce the malfunction. Consequently, no corrective repair was performed. The intermittent malfunction continues during normal vehicle operation. I am concerned that the passenger restraint system may not function as intended in a collision. The underlying cause remains unknown. I request that NHTSA review whether the Recall 82B remedy was effective on this vehicle or whether another restraint-system defect exists. The vehicle remains available for inspection. No crash or injury has been reported in connection with this malfunction. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

StabiliTrak A General Motors authorized Cadillac dealership has diagnosed the problem as a failure of the brake control module. Of particular concern, the GM dealership informed me that it has been unable to locate a replacement part, even after conducting a nationwide search of GM parts as well as after-market parts sources. This seems very unacceptable. This situation raises two significant concerns: 1.A malfunction involving an essential electronic braking and vehicle stability-control component may compromise vehicle safety. 2.An owner of a relatively low-mileage vehicle (approximately 70,000 miles) may be unable to obtain a necessary safety-related repair because the manufacturer cannot locate the replacement component. I am concerned about the safety implications for myself and other owners of 2017 Cadillac XT5 vehicles who may experience the same failure. I respectfully request that NHTSA: •Review reported failures involving the electronic brake control module in 2017 Cadillac XT5 vehicles. •Determine whether similar failures have been reported by other owners. •Investigate whether this condition represents a potential safety-related defect. •Examine the availability of replacement brake control modules and the impact on owners who cannot obtain necessary repairs. •Determine whether further manufacturer action, including a safety recall or other corrective action, is warranted.

complete. I am concerned this does not comply with the remedy specified for stored P1C2D03 and leaves the vehicle susceptible to the loss-of-motive-power condition addressed by NHTSA Recall 22V760000/SC250. After receiving no update since late morning [redacted], I called near closing XXXand was told their only Authorized Kia Warranty Service Technician was out sick. That evening I emailed the GM documenting the SC250 concern and requested resolution by Monday morning, including release of my vehicle while the transmission was ordered or a loaner/rental if unsafe to release. As of Monday afternoon, I have received no response. I also opened a case with Kia Corporate on [redacted]. The dealership sent me a $528.28 invoice via text and is retaining my vehicle pending payment of the entire invoice. This includes $178.98 I understand to be recall-related diagnosis/labor, although SC250 states there is no charge to the owner for this repair, plus $311.36 for A/C diagnosis and a $36.94 miscellaneous fee. I was instructed to drive approximately 1,000 more miles for the A/C issue. The odometer is approximately 99,2XX miles, which would exceed 100,000 miles and may affect CPO warranty coverage. A rear clunking concern potentially related to Kia TSB TRA105 was not resolved. I request NHTSA investigate whether SC250 was properly completed and whether this vehicle is safe to operate without the transmission replacement specified for stored P1C2D03. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

a 2025 Honda HR-V, was driven on the same routes by the same drivers for about two years and never sustained a chip or crack. The frequency of damage on this CR-V suggests the windshield glass or its design is unusually susceptible to chipping and cracking. A cracked windshield impairs driver visibility and can affect the windshield-mounted Honda Sensing camera that controls lane keeping and automatic emergency braking. I am requesting that this be recorded as a potential defect in the windshield glass on the 2026 CR-V.

fire, the cause of the failure was not determined. The vehicle was deemed a total loss by the insurance provider. The manufacturer was notified of the failure by telephone, and a case was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 194,000.

RDU fluid contamination condition on 2019 through 2023 Edge AWD vehicles. More importantly, Ford previously issued Safety Recall 21S02, NHTSA Recall 21V011, covering certain 2020 Ford Edge AWD vehicles because the RDU could contain insufficient lubricating oil. Ford stated that insufficient RDU lubrication could cause the unit to seize, resulting in loss of mobility and potential loss of vehicle control and increasing the risk of a crash. That recall was limited to a specific production population. My vehicle is now experiencing failure of the same major drivetrain component but is not being repaired under a safety recall, leaving me responsible for the cost of repair or replacement. I am concerned that the population affected by RDU problems may extend beyond the vehicles included in the existing recall. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate RDU failures in 2020 Ford Edge AWD vehicles outside the population covered by Recall 21V011, including whether the repeated Ford service communications concerning the RDU indicate a broader defect and whether additional vehicles should be recalled. The problem began at approximately 60,000 miles. The symptoms are vibrating/grinding on the rear axel.

the car to the dealer because the engine is probably bad. Took car to the dealer, told them of all the previous work I just had done and asked them to check for any recalls or campaigns. Two recall/campaigns were updates, 9C2 and P33. Was told I needed Oil Flow Control valve Exh, got that replaced but lights were still on. Next, I was told I needed an Oil Pressure Switch, got that replaced, lights were still on. Dealer wants to do exploratory search to see if they can find out why lights are on but tell me I will have to pay for everything as they replace parts. What? I just paid them $1224.67 and nothing's fixed, lights are still on. Spoke with svc rep, [[redacted]] over the phone, she told me the engine light is still on and the oil light goes off during acceleration, I picked up my car as I can't keep getting nickeled and dimed after every part is replaced with no correction to the issue I came in for. Now the car runs like shit and burning gas like crazy. Engine is making sounds and acceleration is loud and slow. I believe this engine is going out and needs to be recalled as well. So many Santa Fe's are having this same issue and at 44,000 miles, I shouldn't be having any problems with this car. How is this allowed from the manufacturer? These engines are going to stop working, hopefully not while anyone is driving. Hyundai should be made to fix this asap. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

dealership and get it diagnosed and contact their legal firm (just two weeks ago), then ask for an exception. The service writer actually showed me a flow chart of how they are supposed to talk about the issue and told me that they cannot talk about it unless a customer brings it up AND says that it is causing a problem. I called today and the legal number was not accepting calls and Mazda corporate told me there was nothing that they could do. I also have another 2018 Mazda that has the exact same issue so I will submit a separate incident under that VIN number. Mazda is covering this up and this should absolutely be a safety recall. I have a video of the malfunction if you would like it.

approaching. Even at low speeds and in residential settings, the sound is extremely difficult to hear unless a person is very close to the vehicle and actively listening for it. I brought the vehicle to an authorized Cadillac dealership to determine whether the volume of the AVAS could be increased. The dealership informed me that the system cannot be adjusted at the dealer level and that any changes would need to come directly from General Motors through a software or over-the-air update. I believe this condition presents a safety concern. The purpose of the AVAS is to provide an audible warning for pedestrians because electric vehicles operate very quietly. If the warning sound is not noticeable under normal conditions, pedestrians, especially children, may not realize a vehicle is approaching until it is too late. For this reason, I respectfully request that NHTSA investigate whether the AVAS on the Cadillac Optiq provides an adequate and effective audible warning in real-world driving environments and whether it fully meets the intent of pedestrian safety requirements. I also encourage a review of whether a software update or other corrective action may be necessary to improve the effectiveness of the pedestrian warning system. I am concerned that if this issue is not addressed, it could increase the risk of pedestrian accidents and create unnecessary safety and liability concerns for vehicle owners and the public. Thank you for your time and consideration

Regardless, this is a safety issue and it is unacceptable it is being ignored considering no improvements were made to the design. What difference does it make replacing the part with another faulty part two years after manufacture when now the car is 15 years old? The part is certainly in worse condition now and I fear the safety of highway travel going forward. Ford doesn't seem to have any compassion. Please let me know if you would like photos to be sent in. I am willing to provide images of the corroded part that can fail anytime soon. NHTSA Bulletin: [[redacted]] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

vehicle was towed to a tow yard. The insurance company then towed the vehicle to another tow yard for inspection. The vehicle was deemed a total loss. The contact associated the failure with NHTSA Campaign Numbers: 22V835000 (Power Train) and 23V060000 (Electrical System). The failure mileage was 33,000.

the intake manifold, vapor canister purge valve, and PCV component, stating that no leaks were found during the inspection. The contact had the removed parts inspected by an independent mechanic, who found an internal leak. The contact stated that the OnStar system indicated that the check engine warning light was illuminated, and an abnormal exhaust odor emanated from the vehicle. While driving, the driver experienced drowsiness and expressed concern regarding carbon monoxide exposure. The contact stated that the tailpipe was damaged and expressed concern regarding warranty coverage for the turbocharger and catalytic converter. The manufacturer was notified of the failure regarding DTC: P0029, but declined warranty coverage. The contact believed that the failures were associated with Special Coverage Programs: N232395320 and N192211170. Although repairs and software updates were performed, the contact remained concerned that the underlying mechanical failures were not properly diagnosed or resolved, and that PCV, turbocharger, and exhaust failures caused reduced engine performance, cabin exhaust fumes, and risk of carbon monoxide exposure. The failure mileage was approximately 55,753.