2020 Subaru Ascent Problems, complaints & recalls

reasons and to bring visibility to other drivers. Even Subaru dealer's state that this is a known problem and always the left headlight assembly. FYI, the whole assembly needs to be replaced, and the price range is around 1,300.00. I have reached out to Subaru, and they simply state vehicle is out of warranty, and they will not do anything about it. I say this is a known imbedded issue due to engineering, quality control etc. and each delivered vehicle is more than likely going to experience this issue which again I perceive as a safety issue. Again, LED lights are used because of their long-life expectancy. But in Subaru's case, their lights are designed to fail much sooner than one should reasonably expect. Subaru needs to do the right thing and stand behind these faulty lights and return the vehicle to the level of safety it was intended to offer. However, the only way they are possibly going to consider this if the NHTSB gets involved. I have provided a phot of my car showing the lights. One is lit and one is not.

potential safety risk when the vehicle loses power or experiences unexpected changes in operation while driving, particularly in traffic or at highway speeds. The concern is heightened because transmission failure can leave the vehicle unable to safely continue operating and can cause collisions with other vehicles on the road. 3.Yes. The dealership was able to reproduce the issue, which caused the check engine light to illuminate and confirmed that there is an active problem requiring further diagnosis/repair. 4.The vehicle has been inspected and evaluated by the Subaru dealership/service center. To my knowledge, it has not been inspected by police or insurance representatives. Subaru of America has reviewed my case and the repair history but has declined assistance with the repair or to open a case. 5.Yes. The dealership was able to reproduce the issue, which caused the check engine light to illuminate. The transmission problem was also associated with operation that prompted me to have the vehicle inspected. The check engine light illuminated when the dealership replicated the condition. This current transmission is a replacement transmission done by Subaru do to a previous recall of the same issue. The current transmission only has 83,000 miles on it.

issue with the transmission. They refused due to the mileage, 121,010. •What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? The transmission is slipping •How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? The car is hesitant to go from a starting position. The car will jerk back and forth when trying accelerate when merging or crossing a road. I am also very concerned of catastrophic failure at high speeds. •Has the problem been reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or independent service center? The dealer has confirmed the transmission is bad via camera teat. •Has the vehicle or component been inspected by the manufacturer, police, insurance representatives or others? Just the dealership •Were there any warning lamps, messages or other symptoms of the problem prior to the failure, and when did they first appear? No dash lights just the feeling and sounds.

2026. While approaching a stop sign at approximately 35 mph, I again applied the brakes under normal driving conditions. The vehicle did not decelerate as expected and entered the intersection, colliding with a vehicle traveling perpendicular to my direction of travel. Both vehicles were towed. No injuries were reported. During both incidents, there were no forward collision warnings, automatic emergency braking interventions, or other alerts observed prior to impact. Following the second collision, the vehicle was inspected by an independent technician. Brake components inspected were found to be within serviceable condition and no evidence of neglect or improper maintenance was noted. During inspection, abnormal brake pedal behavior was observed, including continued downward pedal travel while steady pressure was applied. The technician documented that the reported condition was not consistent with normal braking performance and stated that an intermittent hydraulic and/or brake assist related issue could not be ruled out. The vehicle has been regularly maintained according to manufacturer recommendations. Due to the repeat nature of the condition, the lack of warning or intervention from safety systems, and the occurrence of two collisions despite normal brake application, I believe this condition represents a significant safety risk. The vehicle has since been declared a total loss and may be available for further inspection.

sections. Subaru has also issued TSB 09-106-23 involving exhaust manifold weld cracking and redesigned replacement components for this issue. Symptoms began in the low 70,000-mile range and progressively worsened before formal diagnosis at approximately 83,000 miles. This appears to be a widespread defect involving emissions/exhaust components. Many owners online report loud cold-start exhaust noise, cracked manifold welds, failed flex pipe sections, exhaust fumes/smells, and expensive manifold replacement repairs. My concern is both the widespread nature of the defect and Subaru's handling of complaints regarding the issue. Initially, Subaru denied assistance because the vehicle has a branded title. After documentation was provided showing federally mandated emissions-related coverage/extensions were active for this VIN regardless of title status, the denial basis changed to mileage. After explaining symptoms began prior to the mileage threshold, Subaru then cited lack of dealership service history after my ownership despite the vehicle being regularly maintained by a local mechanic. I am requesting NHTSA review whether this exhaust manifold/flex pipe defect represents a broader reliability and emissions-related defect trend affecting Subaru Ascent vehicles. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

module. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure persisted sporadically. The vehicle was taken back to the same dealer on the second visit where it was diagnosed that the transmission needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired, but the failures reoccurred approximately 5,000 miles later. The vehicle was taken to the same dealer on the third visit where it was diagnosed that the tie rod end and bushing needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure persisted. The vehicle was then taken to the same dealer on the fourth visit where the failure could not be replicated. The vehicle towed to the same dealer on a fifth occasion where it was diagnosed that the transmission needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired as of yet. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and a complaint was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 82,000.

and [[redacted]] , a technician discovered that one brake caliper bolt was missing entirely and a second was dangerously loose. The vehicle had been driven at highway speeds in a winter storm with an improperly and incompletely assembled brake system for an extended distance before help was found. The second Monro location secured the caliper bolt and confirmed the vehicle safe to continue. The original Fairport location was contacted and their manager acknowledged the issue but has failed to provide any meaningful resolution after nearly four months. In a formal BBB complaint response, Monro Inc. confirmed that the caliper bolt had not been properly secured and acknowledged filing an insurance claim for resulting rim damage - an implicit admission of negligence. I am filing this complaint because an improperly assembled brake system - specifically a missing caliper bolt - represents a serious and potentially fatal safety hazard. If this is a pattern of negligence at Monro locations, other consumers may be at risk. BBB Complaint Case #[redacted] is on file documenting Monro's formal response and admission. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

leak, which did not replicate the issue. The retailer indicated that further diagnostic work would require significant interior disassembly and cleaning at the owner's expense before the source of the leak can be determined. The manufacturer was contacted regarding this issue and declined assistance, citing "lack of required maintenance." The specific maintenance and its relationship to the water intrusion have not been identified, and the source of the leak has not yet been diagnosed. The retailer also stated that technicians would not enter the vehicle due to the extent of the mold contamination. As a result, standard recall repairs have not been performed while the vehicle remains in this condition. A dealership technician also documented in a recorded inspection that water was present beneath the carpet, that the source of the leak could not be identified without further disassembly, and that the extent of mold contamination created an unsafe working environment. This condition creates a potential health and safety concern due to mold exposure inside the passenger cabin, particularly for a child occupant. In addition, excessive interior moisture has caused window fogging, which may impair visibility while driving. No warning lights or prior indicators were observed before the issue was discovered. The problem has been confirmed by a Subaru retailer. The vehicle remains available for inspection.

harnesses." According to the dealership diagnosis, the transmission hydraulic pressure sensor failed and allowed transmission fluid to migrate into the vehicle's electrical wiring harness system. Fluid traveled through the transmission harness and continued into the bulkhead and engine harnesses, contaminating multiple electrical systems. Due to the extent of contamination, the dealership determined that all three harnesses must be replaced. The repair estimate is approximately $8,933. Transmission fluid entering the wiring harness can disrupt communication between the transmission control system and other powertrain components. This electrical contamination can cause erratic transmission operation or sudden loss of propulsion while the vehicle is in motion, increasing crash risk. Subaru has issued recalls and service bulletins involving CVT transmission and hydraulic pressure sensor failures in earlier Ascent vehicles using the same drivetrain. My March 2020 vehicle appears to have experienced the same failure pattern. Despite the documented component failure and extensive wiring contamination, the manufacturer declined to fully cover the repair. I request that NHTSA review this failure mode to determine whether hydraulic pressure sensor seal failures allowing transmission fluid to migrate into wiring harness systems represent a broader defect affecting Subaru Ascent vehicles.

continued after replacement. Car hesitates while accelerating making it dangerous to accelerate to speed needed to merge into traffic. Same transmission symptoms occurring now that were present prior to complete transmission failure in 11/2021 that left me in middle of busy freeway with a disabled car. Subaru not taking transmission symptoms seriously. Continuous brush off from service and Subaru. Car is a lemon. Subaru not standing by product. Oil should not be leaking from every orfice of engine.

harness and ultimately contaminated the Engine Control Module (ECM), rendering the vehicle undrivable. Authorized Subaru dealership Huberger Subaru in Colorado Springs documented the following: - Replacement of the transmission secondary pressure sensor - Replacement of the engine wiring harness - Check engine light returned after repair - Confirmed oil contamination of the ECM Despite repeated repairs and part replacements, the vehicle remains out of service for over seven months, with no confirmed timeline for resolution. Subaru of America has not provided meaningful updates or a clear repair plan, and corporate representatives have failed to respond to emails and phone calls. The extended downtime and lack of repair constitute a safety concern, as the vehicle could fail while in use under certain conditions. Additionally, $400 was improperly withdrawn from my account in July 2025 for rental reimbursement during the warranty repair period and has not been refunded. I am seeking prompt resolution, including repair or replacement of the vehicle, reimbursement for the rental charge, and any appropriate actions from Subaru to address this safety-related defect.