2017 Hyundai Sonata
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Hyundai › Sonata › 2017
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2017 Hyundai Sonata. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
3 recalls name the 2017 Hyundai Sonata. Newest first.
Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) is recalling certain 2015-2017 Sonata, 2016-2017 Sonata Hybrid, and Sonata Plug-In Hybrid vehicles. The Smart Junction Box (SJB) software logic may not properly interpret the signals received from the multifunction switch, which could cause the turn signal to activate in the opposite direction of what the driver intended.
A turn signal that activates in the opposite direction of what was intended by the driver increases the risk of a crash.
Dealers will update the SJB software, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed November 19, 2021. Owners may contact Hyundai customer service at 1-855-371-9460. Hyundai's number for this recall is 210.
Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) is recalling certain 2017-2018 Sonata, 2016-2018 Sonata Hybrid, 2018-2020 Accent, and 2016-2017 Azera vehicles. The trunk latch may become damaged, preventing the opening of the trunk from the inside. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 401, "Internal…
A person inside the trunk compartment may become trapped, increasing their risk of injury.
Dealers will replace the trunk latch base, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed December 4, 2021. Owners may contact Hyundai customer service at 1-855-371-9460. Hyundai's number for this recall is 208.
Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai) is recalling certain model year 2017 Hyundai Elantra vehicles manufactured April 15, 2016, to September 13, 2016, and Sonata vehicles manufactured May 27, 2016 to September 16, 2016. In these vehicles, the end seal for the driver's frontal air bag inflator may not have been properly installed, possibly resulting in reduced…
In the event of a crash, an air bag that does not inflate fully increases the risk of injury.
Hyundai will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver's frontal air bag module, free of charge. The recall began February 13, 2017. Owners may contact Hyundai customer service at 1-855-371-9460. Hyundai's number for this recall is 156.
The contact owns a 2017 Hyundai Sonata. The contact stated that while driving at 65 MPH, there was an abnormal sound coming from the vehicle with the check engine warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, where it was diagnosed with engine failure. The contact was informed that the engine was consuming oil. The contact referenced an unknown recall; however, the VIN was not under recall. The contact was informed to take the vehicle to the dealer for assistance. The failure mileage was approximately 180,000.
The contact owns a 2017 Hyundai Sonata. The contact stated that while driving at 65 MPH, there was smoke coming from under the hood, and the vehicle lost automotive power and the vehicle was barely moving. The contact was able to drive the vehicle to the residence at a slow speed. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, and the contact was informed that the engine was consuming an excessive amount of engine oil and that there was no oil in the engine. The contact stated that the vehicle had received an oil change one week prior to the failure. The dealer was contacted and made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 180,000.
I had recently taken my 2017 Hyundai Sonata in for an Engine Diagnostic check at the Bel Air Hyundai dealership, (10/15/26) worth $199.99 for an hour of maintenance, after experiencing sudden jolts when powering on and driving, needing additional time warming up. My initial thought was that the temperature gauge had gotten stuck again, or that the sensor needed to be fixed. I suggested that the dealership check for this issue before doing the diagnostic to see if it was still needed afterward. My service advisor, Kevin, said that this is included as part of the diagnostic testing. I figured it would be in the best interest for my vehicle to do an initial check, regardless of cost, to avoid further complications down the line, yet the 9 C2 update was performed without my consent or knowledge beforehand. They performed a multipoint inspection, which shows on record I had it done months prior during my last oil change, free of charge on both occasions, yet it only shows the vehicle, not engine. I have the lifetime warranty as advertised, covered by Zurich, which my service advisor showed me on his computer. However, he said my concern was a mechanical issue, not covered under this warranty. After the diagnostic was performed, I was shown the invoice, including the 9 C2 emissions page at the end, explaining the effects of this update. It does not serve as a systemic improvement, but a worsening change in operation and performance. I was only told about the service after it was performed. It is astounding because the side effects explained on the 9 C2 form are the actual concerns I had before bringing the car in. The update was not a necessary procedure, from my understanding this will only lead to more safety risks down the line. After doing research, given recent complaints about how it has affected many vehicles, I must share that they should have notified me beforehand to be aware about these risks so that I could make the personal decision for my vehicle.
I had my engine replaced under the Theta Engine lawsuit and I was due for the 9C2 service campaign and it was installed...ever since I picked up my car it shifts weird between 1st and 2nd. I brought it back to a different Hyundai dealer as the warranty work was done at another location and they recommended a transmission flush and relearn. They can feel it slipping and the other dealership noted no problems, which leads me to believe it was because of the service campaign. I also called corporate and the customer service rep had heard of this before as well as a bunch of forums online.
I am reporting an unaddressed, critical safety defect involving the Theta II engine in my 2017 Hyundai Sonata. The engine has developed a severe internal metallic knocking noise consistent with connecting rod bearing failure—the exact manufacturing defect associated with Hyundai's major engine recall campaigns (such as Recall 198 / Campaign 966)
I was driving down the road when my sunroof glass completely ripped away from the top and flew off. The glass is gone but the frame is still there but bent. I took it to a auto glass repair shop that stated "sunroof glass separated from urethane, came off and bent frame." I am dropping off at Hyundai dealership 9.17.26 to have them inspect. My insurance will not cover repairs. So I am hoping maybe this has happened to other people. There was a recall on sunroofs for the 2014-2016 Hyundai Sonata's NHTSA campaign 16V726000 A bonding issue with the front sunroof wind deflector anchor plate can cause the deflector to come loose and jam the glass panel when closing, or detach entirely while the car is moving.
The vehicle suffered a sudden, catastrophic internal mechanical engine failure out of nowhere without any warning lights or previous symptoms. An inspection of the engine cylinder revealed a physical hole blown through the top of the Cylinder 2 piston, causing immediate and complete loss of engine compression. This sudden structural failure caused the vehicle to completely lose all propulsion and stall unexpectedly while in operation, creating an immediate, severe safety hazard on the road.This vehicle features Hyundai's 2.4L Theta II Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engine, a family with a well-documented history of manufacturing defects, severe oil consumption, and catastrophic internal structural failures. Because this failure occurred instantly and without a progressive warning, it put occupants at risk of a severe rear-end collision or stranding in an unsafe traffic pattern. I am filing this safety report because the catastrophic destruction of the internal engine components presents a persistent and dangerous hazard to public safety.
We had a recall done, Campaign 92C, and every since then the car drives horrible. It's worse when cool, it sputters, and hesitates especially when excellerating. Even after warmed up it seems to slam in and out of gear at low speeds, even when foot is not on the gas. The drive is choppy. The dealership told us to drive it and let the transmission "learn" our driving patterns, but it has not resolved itself. Before campaign car ran smooth, now shuttering and sputtering.
I was driving and all of a sudden the traction lights turned on and the sterring wheel is hard to turn. Almost go in a car accident. The windows just stopped working and the brakes light constantly keep getting burned out.
I am writing to report a direct violation of the Theta II Class Action Settlement terms by Hyundai Motor America. This morning , I emailed an Executive Case Manager explicitly explaining that my 2017 Sonata has an active P1326 code, has the 2019 KSDS update, and requires a mandatory diagnostic under NHTSA Recall 17V226 that cannot be denied due to a salvage title. Instead of replying to my facts, the Case Manager Kathy gave me a hard denial falsely framing my federal recall safety request as a "voluntary goodwill warranty" issue to justify her rejection. Please help me in getting authorization my car with Hyundai dealership in Plano Tx to run the bearing rod test and get it fixed.
My engine seemed to be consuming oil way to much I had to do a oil change at 61,000 recommend by tire plus but at 58,000 is when I had to change my oil I also noticed there is a buring smell and its also been leaking oil at times I went to get it checked out by a mechanic at tireplus but they also they are seeing that the oil consumption was not normal and they recommend a possible recall for it because it hazardous for how fast its consuming and the leaks
Driving home from work on [XXX] (not a safe location)when my car lost power and engine light began to flash. I pulled off to the side of road and called my dad. He came with a code reader and said there was a code P1326. He cleared the code and car drove normally again. 2 days later it began to run rough. I was told about the engine recall so I called Hyundai corporate and told them this same story. I was advised to take to dealership and have the “rod bearings inspected” and shouldn’t matter that my dad cleared the code. The dealership(Massey Hyundai MD) said it had a burnt valve and not part of warranty. But never checked rod bearings. When I called corporate. They said nothing they could do. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
High oil consumption, burning a quart of oil or more every 500 miles since bought used at Hyundai dealership.
My 2017 Hyundai Sonata SE, equipped with the Theta II 2.4L GDI engine, is experiencing severe powertrain failures including rhythmic metallic engine knocking, catastrophic oil consumption, and un-commanded surges/jumping in speed while driving. These symptoms manifested following an unauthorized engine replacement performed by Hyundai of El Cajon under Repair Order [XXX], where the dealer covertly outsourced my vehicle to a third-party shop (Legacy Motor Works) to install an unverified used salvage engine block rather than a certified factory assembly. This vehicle is a Class Vehicle under In re: Hyundai and Kia Engine Litigation (Case No. [XXX]), and the KSDS software update (Campaign 953) was successfully completed on my vehicle in 2019. The engine knock, surging, and oil consumption are consistent with the known connecting rod bearing failure defect described in NHTSA investigation PE17-007. The dealership is currently denying warranty coverage, citing a mileage limit that does not exist under my Lifetime Powertrain Warranty, and they are withholding physical documentation of the repair terms. The vehicle is also experiencing secondary safety failures, including a continuous airbag SRS warning light (two years) and electrical shorts caused by the salvage-yard alternator installation, which have destroyed 4 to 5 car batteries. This engine failure represents a significant safety hazard, as the vehicle periodically loses power and surges without driver input. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate this pattern of warranty denial, parts-sourcing fraud, and the safety risks posed by this substandard engine installation. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
The RED light is lit on the dashboard for the airbag. Unable to use steering wheel electronic features which helps with and was designed for hands free controls. I am unable to cycle through the electronic features or engage the cruise control due to the steering wheel electronics are in-op. Please help and get a recall started. This is not on the consumer.
[XXX] [XXX] [XXX]; [XXX] [XXX] [XXX] Date: XXX To: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) Subject: Formal Safety Defect Complaint – 2017 Hyundai Sonata Theta II Engine Failure, Excessive Oil Consumption, Intake/Engine Component Failure and Safety Hazard Dear Sir or Madam: I am submitting this formal complaint and request for immediate investigation into the dangerous and ongoing mechanical failures involving my 2017 Hyundai Sonata equipped with the Theta II engine. I believe this vehicle contains a serious manufacturing and/or engineering defect that presents a substantial safety hazard to consumers. My vehicle has experienced a pattern of progressive mechanical failure beginning with abnormal and excessive oil consumption, which appears to be directly associated with malfunctioning engine airflow and intake-related components. Specifically, the lower engine airflow system and intake functionality appear defective, placing excessive strain on the intake manifold system and contributing to cascading engine failures. As a result of these failures, the vehicle has experienced: Severe and excessive oil burning/consumption Intake manifold malfunction and abnormal operating stress Suspected overheating and/or premature head gasket failure Ignition coil failure and electrical shorting/misfires Progressive engine deterioration rendering the vehicle unsafe and unreliable Increased risk of sudden engine shutdown, stalling, fire hazard, or catastrophic engine failure while operating The vehicle has become increasingly unreliable and inoperable due to these conditions. These failures raise significant concerns regarding public safety, especially given the known history of complaints and recalls associated with Hyundai Theta II engine defects. I am deeply concerned that this vehicle may reflect a broader pattern of defective manufacturing, insufficient quality control. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Supplemental Information to Existing NHTSA Complaint involving a 2017 Hyundai Sonata Plug-in Hybrid (VIN: [XXX] ) While traveling at approximately 70 MPH on a heavily traveled highway, the vehicle suddenly and completely lost propulsion without warning. The vehicle rapidly decelerated in traffic, creating a significant safety hazard for my family and surrounding motorists and requiring emergency maneuvering to reach the shoulder. The vehicle was towed to an authorized Hyundai dealership, where diagnostic testing identified multiple high-voltage battery system fault codes: • P0B68 • P0B6D • P0B72 The dealership diagnosed a high-voltage battery system failure requiring battery replacement. The vehicle is currently non-drivable. During my research, I found multiple owner reports involving Hyundai Sonata Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid vehicles experiencing loss of power, hybrid system failures, limp mode conditions, and propulsion-related incidents. I also learned that Hyundai previously issued Recall 18V166000 involving 2016–2018 Sonata Plug-in Hybrid vehicles due to battery management system and voltage protection device concerns that could result in loss of power while driving. Dealer says does appply for my car. Although my vehicle’s fault codes may differ from those addressed in the recall, both involve battery-related failures capable of affecting propulsion and creating a highway safety risk. My concern extends beyond my individual vehicle. A high-voltage battery or battery management system failure that can cause a complete loss of propulsion at highway speed without warning presents a potentially serious safety risk. I respectfully request that NHTSA evaluate whether similar incidents involving Hyundai Sonata Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid vehicles indicate a broader safety concern warranting further review. I can provide dealership diagnostic reports, repair estimates, towing records, photos, and videos upon request. Thank you for your consideration, [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATI
I am writing to report a serious, premature failure of a primary emissions and safety-related component (the catalytic converter) that has occurred as a direct consequence of a known, unaddressed manufacturing defect in Hyundai's Theta II engine. My vehicle has a documented history of excessive engine oil consumption. This inherent manufacturing flaw causes the engine to burn motor oil at an extreme rate, forcing unburned oil directly into the exhaust system. Over time, this oil has fouled and destroyed the catalytic converter substrate, triggering trouble code P0420 and causing a complete component failure. A dealership inspection at Heritage Hyundai Towson (RO #XXX) confirmed "excessive wear" and failure of the catalytic converter. Because the catalytic converter is failing prematurely due to a liquid defect (excessive oil burning) rather than standard wear and tear, it poses an environmental hazard, compromises vehicle emissions control, and can lead to sudden engine stalling or reduced power while driving, presenting an active safety risk. Hyundai Motor America (Case #XXX) has formally denied assistance to rectify this consequential damage, despite full awareness of the underlying engine defect. I request that NHTSA investigate how Hyundai’s ongoing oil consumption manufacturing issues are causing cascading safety and emissions component failures in these vehicles. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
The rod bearings failed in the engine. The vehicle is currently at the dealership and is available for inspection. Rod bearing failure can cause complete engine seizure while driving, creating a serious risk of losing vehicle control at any speed. This is a known issue with Hyundai's Theta II engine. Yes. The dealership performed a diagnostic on April 27, 2025 and confirmed rod bearing failure. Yes. The dealership inspected the vehicle and Hyundai corporate opened a warranty case and arranged the repair appointment, initially confirming coverage before later denying the claim without providing documentation. The dealership has also repeatedly failed to provide documentation supporting the denial of my warranty claim despite my requests beginning April 29, 2025. I have also been unable to get callbacks from the dealership after being promised updates on May 1st, May 7th, and after requesting a manager on May 18th. As of May 27, 2025 I have still not received any documentation or a callback. The check engine light came on prior to the failure. I proactively checked and changed the oil, added Lucas oil treatment, replaced the spark plugs, and replaced the battery attempting to diagnose and resolve the issue before bringing it to the dealership. No oil pressure warning light ever appeared. The check engine light persisted despite these efforts which is what led me to bring the vehicle in.
I have a Hyundai Sonata 2017 one year after I bought the car I started having acceleration problems. I have had the throttle changed and the valve gasket cover repaired. On April 15, 2026 the check engine light came on. On April 29th I got theta 2 emissions update installed at Hyundai Auburn, Al. I took it too auto zone the same day the code P1326 was showing up and P0014. On May 5th my car entered limp mode for excessive oil leakage, I got an oil change April 6, 2026. My car has never done that until the update was installed. I get my oil changed every 6 months and also have sent them records. They denied my claim due to lack of maintenance.
Engine failed while driving, Took it to dealership and the engine is seized. We were declined by Hyundai an engine replacement even though the Theta 2 engines have a lifetime replacement warranty because these engines are known to fail. They constantly deny due to 'severe owner neglect' because people do their own oil changes.
The vehicle experienced repeated engine-related failures associated with the P1326 error code, which indicates a potential engine defect. The issue first occurred around February 2023 at approximately 51,500 miles, when a warning light appeared. The problem has recurred multiple times despite inspections and service attempts. In January 2024, a dealership performed a software update related to the P1326 code. Shortly after this update, the engine began consuming excessive oil (approximately 2 liters per 1,000 miles). The condition worsened over time, and the vehicle failed an oil consumption test conducted by a dealership. The issue was confirmed by an authorized dealership, which ultimately diagnosed the engine as failed and requiring replacement in May 2026 at approximately 99,000 miles. The problem has been reproducible, with the P1326 warning code appearing multiple times over the life of the vehicle. This condition creates a significant safety risk because the engine may lose power, misfire, or stall unexpectedly while driving, increasing the risk of a crash, especially at highway speeds or in traffic. The vehicle has already experienced engine misfire and severe performance issues. Warning indicators included the P1326 error code and check engine light, which first appeared in 2023 and recurred multiple times thereafter. The engine oil consumption issue developed after the 2024 service and continued to worsen. The failed engine is currently available for inspection upon request.
Engine experienced severe metallic knocking and loss of power. A certified Hyundai technician confirmed a FAILED Bearing Clearance Test (RO #354331). Hyundai Motor America is refusing to honor the Engine II Class Action Settlement warranty, citing internal code A99 because the vehicle was purchased at an auction, even though the title is CLEAN. This pose a safety risk of engine seizure and potential fire.
Consistent burning of oil
The failed component is the engine assembly in my 2017 Hyundai Sonata SE with the 2.4L Theta II GDI engine. The failure involves excessive oil consumption and internal engine failure, specifically suspected piston ring deterioration allowing oil to pass into the combustion chambers. The vehicle is available for inspection upon request. Safety was put at risk because the engine was losing oil rapidly. If the oil level drops too low, the engine can seize, stall, or lose power while driving. Sudden engine failure at road or highway speeds could increase the risk of a crash. The issue required constant oil monitoring and made the vehicle unsafe to rely on. The problem was confirmed by both an independent repair shop and a Hyundai dealership. At about 99,813 miles, an independent shop diagnosed oil burning from the tailpipe. I then paid for major repairs, including cylinder head and valve work, but the oil consumption continued. A later independent inspection found internal oil consumption consistent with failed piston rings and oil bypassing into the combustion chambers. The Hyundai dealership performed Hyundai’s oil consumption testing process, including combustion chamber cleaning and rechecking oil level. The vehicle failed and engine replacement was approved. The dealer quoted $11,400-$12,000 for replacement. The vehicle has been inspected by an independent repair facility, a Hyundai dealership, and reviewed by Hyundai Motor America Customer Care under case number 42489659. Hyundai denied assistance, stating the vehicle is outside warranty due to time and mileage. Symptoms first appeared around 99,813 miles and included excessive oil consumption, burning oil from the tailpipe, reduced power/dragging, abnormal rattle/noise during low-speed acceleration, and poor fuel economy. After repairs, the oil level still dropped below minimum quickly. I am filing this complaint because this condition may cause sudden engine damage, stalling, or loss of power while driving.
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has become aware of eight vehicle crashes in which a rupture of a Jilin Province Detiannuo Automobile Safety System Co., Ltd. (DTN) air bag inflator occurred during the deployment of the driver side air bag. All eight drivers in these crashes sustained serious or fatal injuries that appear linked to the ruptures. Six of those drivers sustained fatal injuries and two sustained severe injuries. In all eight incidents, the subject inflators had been installed as replacement equipment after the vehicle was involved in a previous crash. Information gathered during NHTSA’s initial analysis of these incidents indicates that the inflators were potentially imported illegally into the United States. In conjunction with this safety investigation, NHTSA is also working with appropriate authorities to address any illegal activities associated with the importation of these inflators. As a result of the significant safety concerns relating to these inflators, as well as extensive information already obtained by ODI relating to their field ruptures, ODI is moving directly to the Engineering Analysis (EA) stage of its investigative process rather than first opening a Preliminary Evaluation. NHTSA has taken a variety of actions to address the risks posed by the importation of substandard or counterfeit air bag components. However, until recently, these risks appeared spread across a variety of components and manufacturers. As part of ODI’s continuous monitoring of this issue, the agency has obtained information to suggest that at least eight incidents involve ruptures of inflators manufactured by DTN. In parallel with this dedicated investigation into DTN inflators, ODI will continue to monitor reports of field incidents to evaluate risks from other substandard imported air bag components. In 2012, ODI first became aware of substandard or counterfeit air bag modules sold through online marketplaces, such as auction sites. NHTSA obtained examples of these air bag modules and conducted testing. None of the inflators equipped in these modules were manufactured by DTN. This testing revealed that the inflators consistently malfunctioned during deployments, such as by failing to deploy the air bag or expelling metal shrapnel due to a rupture. This led NHTSA to release a consumer advisory in October 2012 to alert the public and repair professionals to the potential dangers of substandard or counterfeit air bag modules. ODI also worked with major vehicle manufacturers, who released advisories and notifications concerning the use of such air bag modules. Since then, NHTSA has continuously monitored for reports of malfunctioning air bags that may be associated with substandard or counterfeit components. These monitoring efforts have been supported by the increased visibility the advisories have brought to the issue, and by several standing general orders in place as part of separate investigations into Takata and ARC inflators, which require certain manufacturers to report any alleged or suspected inflator field ruptures to NHTSA. Until 2017, ODI was not aware of any field incidents involving an abnormal deployment of an imported substandard or counterfeit air bag module. In September 2017, ODI became aware of a crash involving a model year (MY) 2009 Honda Civic where the air bag ruptured during deployment, killing the driver. After inspecting the vehicle and air bag parts, ODI determined that the air bag inflator was not original equipment and that the air bag module was likely a substandard import. Insufficient information existed to determine the manufacturer of the inflator in this incident, however, it does not appear to resemble those manufactured by DTN. On June 16, 2023, ODI received a Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ #11527380) alleging that the rupture of a driver side air bag caused fatal injuries to the driver of a MY 2020 Chevrolet Malibu. ODI’s assessment of the rupture indicated that the air bag inflator was not original equipment but was instead manufactured by DTN, a Chinese company (also known as Yoshibayashi Toku theanol Automotive Safety Systems Co. Ltd.). From June 2023 to July 2024, ODI became aware of four additional ruptures involving substandard air bag modules equipped on Chevrolet Malibu vehicles. At the time, insufficient information existed for these crashes to determine who manufactured the ruptured inflators. As a result, NHTSA released a consumer advisory on July 10, 2024, alerting car buyers and owners to be aware of cheap, substandard replacement air bag inflators that can cause death or serious injury in a crash. The advisory urged consumers who own or are considering the purchase of a used vehicle to learn the vehicle’s history and ensure the vehicle has genuine air bag inflators. In March 2025, NHTSA learned about another rupture involving a suspected substandard, aftermarket inflator that was equipped in a MY 2017 Hyundai Sonata. The driver of this vehicle sustained fatal injuries that appeared related to the rupture. In August 2025, NHTSA received a similar report of a fatal air bag rupture in a MY 2019 Hyundai Sonata. Most recently, in October 2025, ODI received a report of a fatal air bag rupture in a MY 2020 Chevrolet Malibu. Photographs of the air bag components in these three crashes indicated that the ruptures all involved inflators manufactured by DTN. Further investigation of the inflator fragments in three of the prior incidents confirmed that they also involved DTN inflators. Photographs of the components involved in one of the other incidents also strongly suggest that the ruptured inflator was manufactured by DTN. This opening resume exceeded space limitations and is continued in an attachment uploaded to the investigation.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received a letter dated July 13, 2022, petitioning the Agency to initiate a safety defect investigation into loss of motive power allegations attributed to oil drain pan assembly failures on certain Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Kia America, Inc. vehicles spanning Model Years (MY) 2005-2021. The Petitioners cited examples of complaints indicating that the subject vehicles were experiencing rapid loss of engine oil due to oil drain plug back outs, resulting in loss of motive power and/or catastrophic engine damage. Additional complaints were provided which alleged that the oil drain pans lack sufficient structural integrity and are susceptible to cracking. The petition itself can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI number 11481745. On September 12, 2022, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Defect Petition (DP22-003) to evaluate the Petitioners’ request. The Petitioners have provided additional complaints within four supplemental letters dated January 31, 2023, March 21, 2023, May 23, 2023, and August 4, 2023. ODI’s evaluation included the review and analysis of the complaints and supporting information submitted by the Petitioners, as well as additional complaints submitted directly to NHTSA which referenced either the oil drain plug or a crack in the oil pan. After reviewing the available data, ODI has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into the oil drain pan assemblies of the subject vehicles. Based on a review of the available information, a loss of motive power resulting from an oil drain plug back out has not occurred between the initial sale of a vehicle and the completion of its first oil change. If during an oil change service, a technician fails to remove the existing drain plug gasket before installing a new gasket, it is likely that a proper seal between the drain plug and the oil pan will not be made. An improper seal between the drain plug and oil pan could lead to the backing out on the drain plug, resulting in the sudden loss of oil while driving. Additionally, the provided examples of oil pan cracks were localized to the immediate vicinity of the oil drain plug and/or appeared to be the result of direct-contact with a tool during servicing. There is no information to support that a vehicle-based defect exists relating to the oil pan assembly, and instead the documented incidents are related to the failure to follow the proper maintenance procedures during oil change service. In October 2023, Hyundai published a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) that provided detailed instructions for oil change service on its gasoline powered vehicles, specifically highlighting the need to remove and replace the existing drain plug gasket prior to reinstalling the drain plug. After a thorough review of the material submitted by the petitioner, the information already in NHTSA's possession, and the potential risks to motor vehicle safety implicated by the petitioners' allegations, NHTSA does not believe that a formal investigation is warranted. Therefore, the petition is denied. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) further detailing NHTSA’s reasons for denial of the petition will be published. The reference numbers for the complaints to NHTSA cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for DP22-003. To review those complaints and the additional complaints ODI added to its evaluation which are cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.