2018 Tesla Model 3 Problems, complaints & recalls

given me a written diagnostic explanation for the airbag replacement, or confirmation of why the recall remedy consisting in a matched sensor/airbag combination has to be paid for by the customer. I am concerned that the recall remedy did not hold, failing three times, and that a safety-critical system was left in question for nearly four weeks. I have 20 years of experience in automotive seating and am willing to provide records. Records available: service invoices, estimate, and written communications with Tesla.

through the black jacket with conductor and red insulation on the same flat face. No tooth marks, scalloped bites, shredded insulation, or nesting material - a shear, not rodent damage.Service Manager [[redacted]] first blamed a rabbit, then wrote it "was an example" and that Tesla does not need droppings, nesting, or chew marks to call a severed harness outside damage. He has no photos from the 8/18 install; the tech is on leave. Two emails to [[redacted]] went unanswered. Related BAR complaint filed (ref [redacted]).Rear wheel speed sensor feeds ABS, traction control, and Automatic Emergency Braking. Failure disables these safety systems. A part that fails days after Tesla service with an undocumented "cut," followed by a warranty denial based on inference rather than evidence, indicates possible workmanship or installation issues that could affect other vehicles. Requesting NHTSA review of Tesla's service practices for this component.Tesla Service Burbank, [[redacted]], [[redacted]]. [[redacted]], [[redacted]].[[redacted]], [[redacted]], [[redacted]] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

secondary autopilot processor is no longer communicating and "a new car computer is needed." The failure has disabled Automatic Emergency Braking, Forward Collision Warning and Lane Departure Warning, as well as FSD / Autopilot. Tesla denied a goodwill replacement in writing on [redacted], stating there was no evidence linking the failure to a software update, after the technician confirmed the computer had failed. Tesla provided a written estimate for the replacement of $2,616.37 total (invoice dated [redacted]). I have not authorized the repair. Tesla also confirmed in writing that my vehicle is not currently eligible for the HW4 upgrade. I sent a formal Notice of Dispute to Tesla at [[redacted]] on [redacted] and received no response; I sent a follow-up on [redacted]. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

the passengers. Upon taking the vehicle to the Tesla Service Center, technicians diagnosed the vehicle with severely degraded and failing front lower arms, compliance links, and control arm bushings. My vehicle only had a little over 29,000 total miles on the odometer. This premature degradation represents a critical component failure rather than standard wear and tear. A failure or detachment of the lower lateral link at highway speeds presents an immediate safety risk due to potential loss of directional steering control. This failure is directly identical to the conditions outlined in the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation Preliminary Evaluation PE26006, opened on July 29, 2026, targeting front lower lateral link failures on 2018-2020 Model 3's. The issue has since been repaired by Tesla Service on October 6, 2026. I am filing this complaint to formally document this premature safety component failure for the ongoing PE26006 federal investigation. We stopped driving the vehicle and used our other cars, waiting for appointments at Tesla, as well as waiting for the parts to arrive, which took quite a while. Thankfully, we had a couple other cars that we were able to use while we were waiting for the repair to be performed.

and labor. This specific failure mirrors the exact conditions currently being monitored under the active NHTSA preliminary evaluation into Tesla Model 3 and Model Y front lower lateral link detachment. Despite the severe safety risk associated with sudden structural failure or detachment of these critical suspension components while driving, my vehicle's specific VIN is not currently covered under Tesla's existing, highly limited recall campaigns (such as Recalls 21V-835 or 23V-235). I am submitting this complaint to request that NHTSA expand the scope of its current suspension investigation to ensure owners who have already paid out of pocket for these premature structural failures are officially included in a mandatory manufacturer recall and eligible for retroactive reimbursement.

while driving. Tesla has acknowledged this as there is an active bulletin (Service Bulletin SV-23-31-001) for torque check on this component. This issue is also identical to the HTSA Recall 23V-235, however, our VIN is not included in the batch. Tesla is quoting around $7k for repairs. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

at the location overnight. The contact stated that the following day, while attempting to start the vehicle, the vehicle started and was driven to the residence. The dealer was contacted by phone and made aware of the failure. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where the contact was informed that the failure was because of a software glitch. The vehicle was repaired. In addition, the Mobile App produced a fault code indicating the vehicle was parked and unable to start. The manufacturer was contacted by phone and made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 62,000.

[redacted] (Invoice #[redacted]; Odometer: 89,939 miles), I brought this exact vehicle to the Tesla Service Center in [[redacted]], specifically complaining of a front-end steering issue (Clicking noise when steering wheel turns right)Tesla technicians noted could not duplicate and performed no diagnostic torque checks or structural inspections of the lateral link fasteners Correlation to Known Safety Defect / Recall 23V-235 (SB-23-31-001) Safety Recall 23V-235 (Tesla Bulletin SB-23-31-001)Tesla acknowledges that front suspension lateral link fasteners on 2018-2019 Model 3s can loosen and back out over time, leading to lateral link separation from the subframe while driving. Crucially, Tesla's defect report explicitly highlights that "abnormal noise from the front suspension when steering" is the primary early warning indicator of loosening fasteners before total separation occurs Defect Summary & Remedy Denial:We previously brought the vehicle to Tesla Service reporting the exact warning symptom front-end steering noise associated with loosening lateral link fasteners The issue was left uncorrected, directly resulting in eventual fastener detachment lateral link separation and severe consequential damage to the front subframe structure Tesla Service management refused recall remedy or goodwill coverage on the grounds that this specific VIN was excluded from the narrow VIN list for Recall 23V-235 despite the vehicle exhibiting the identical defect INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

reproduce the failure by operating the trunk and provided Tesla video evidence. Tesla has now diagnosed an internal fault in the same original trunk harness and says the harness requires replacement. This appears consistent with the safety condition addressed by 21V-00D: repeated trunk movement can damage the harness/coaxial cable and cause loss of the rearview camera. I repeatedly asked Tesla what diagnostic evidence shows this is a different failure mechanism. Tesla has not identified one. Instead, Tesla has repeatedly stated that it considers this separate because approximately 3 years have passed since the recall remedy. I asked whether this three-year distinction comes from a NHTSA requirement or written Tesla policy; Tesla could not identify one. My concern is that vehicles considered successfully remedied by retaining the original harness and installing the guide may remain susceptible to the recalled failure after additional trunk-use cycles. Original harness retained -> recall guide installed -> continued trunk use -> internal harness fault -> rearview-camera failure. I am reporting this so NHTSA can evaluate whether this represents a potential durability/effectiveness issue with the 21V-00D guide-protector remedy and whether similar post-remedy failures are occurring in other affected vehicles. Tesla correspondence and service documentation are attached.

or using obscuring angles). I possess dated photographic evidence of the complete link separation prior to tow-in on a flatbed, which directly contradicts Tesla's service records. This is submitted to alert investigators that field incidents for PE26006 are actively being mislabeled and obscured in Tesla's internal repair databases.

no impact of any kind. Inspection at the scene showed that the driver's side front lower lateral link had separated at its inboard, subframe end. The link was hanging down and resting on the pavement, still attached at the wheel end. A close-up photo shows the bushing inner core with two bolt ears and empty bolt holes: no fastener present and no broken fastener remnant. The link is not bent, gouged, or scraped. The left front wheel was pushed rearward in the wheel arch and was pressed against the rear edge of the fender, which damaged the fender and a brake line. The tire and wheel have no curb rash or impact marks. The vehicle was not included in recall 23V-235, and Tesla's VIN recall lookup shows all recalls issued for it as completed. Mileage at the time was approximately 108,043 miles. The vehicle was declared a total loss and has since gone to salvage. This failure appears to match Preliminary Evaluation PE26006.

passenger seat harness assemblies. This breakage occurred purely due to the mechanical wear-and-tear of normal fore-and-aft seat tracking (including the standard vehicle "Easy Entry" setting). Because the electrical line cleanly severed, communication to the Occupant Classification System (OCS) sensor was totally cut off, preventing the vehicle from accurately detecting passenger occupancy or correctly configuring front passenger airbag deployment logic in a collision. Tesla has addressed this known design vulnerability internally via Service Bulletin SB-23-20-002, replacing the weak early-production parts with ruggedized components. However, because the vehicle was past its calendar warranty period despite having only 45,000 miles, I was forced to pay $1,322.00 out of pocket to restore critical safety systems. Because a severed seat harness disables essential airbag safety constraints through normal everyday use, this represents a systemic manufacturing defect that should be escalated from a Technical Service Bulletin to a mandatory Safety Recall to protect all owners. Specific Component Part Numbers Replaced: First Row Seat Harness Assemblies: P/N 1489060-02-G & 1489060-03-G Passenger Airbag Assembly Module: P/N 1077323-00-G Seat Position / Occupancy Sensor Module: P/N 1099592-00-F

during that repair. The current failure presents the same symptom that the recall was intended to correct: loss of the backup camera image. Current Problem: In September 2026, the rearview camera again began displaying a black screen. Tesla Service has diagnosed the vehicle and quoted approximately $439 for repair. Tesla advised that the recall was completed in 2023 and that the repair warranty has expired, therefore the current repair is not covered. Reason for Complaint: I believe this may be a recurrence of the same safety-related defect addressed by the original recall. Although the recall repair was completed, the same safety condition has reoccurred. I am requesting that NHTSA review whether the recall remedy adequately resolved the defect and whether owners should be responsible for subsequent repairs involving the same failure mode.