2016 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid

NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.

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.

On March 29, 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened two Preliminary Evaluations (PE19-003 on Hyundai and PE19-004 on Kia) to broadly investigate incidents of non-crash fires (regardless of origin or operational status of the vehicle) on various model year Hyundai and Kia vehicles.  During the PE investigations, Hyundai and Kia issued several recalls to address vehicle fires, including those due to engine failures involving various engine types.  The remedies for the engine failure recalls typically involve engine inspection (to detect existing damage), and if necessary, engine replacement.  Additionally, both manufacturers have been installing an engine control software modification known as Knock Sensor Detection Software (KSDS) which is intended to detect impending engine failure, alert the driver, and limit engine power (to lessen likelihood of engine failure).KSDS is being installed under recalls and non-safety field actions, and both companies have extended limited engine warranties (see recall files). On December 22, 2021, ODI upgraded PE19-003 and PE19-004 to this Engineering Analysis (EA21-003, covering both Hyundai and Kia) to evaluate the scope of the prior recalls related to engine failures/fires and the efficacy of the recall remedies for the recalls, as well as the long-term viability of related programs and non-safety field actions being conducted by Hyundai and Kia.  The former issue involved approximately 550,000 MY 2013 Hyundai Elantra, MY 2011 Kia Sorento, and MY 2012-2015 Kia Rio.  The latter issue involved approximately 2.5 million recalled vehicles, which have been identified as displaying potential remedy concerns: Hyundai recalls 15V-568, 17V-226, 20V-746, and 21V-727; and Kia recalls 17V-224, 19V-120, 20V-750, and 21V-844. Regarding the recall scope issue, among all of the scope vehicles identified at EA opening, ODI found only the MY 2011 Kia Sorento vehicles equipped with both the Theta II 2.4L 4-cylinder Multi-Point Injection (MPI) and the Lambda II 3.5L 6-cylinder MPI engines experienced relatively high rates of reported fires.  In December 2023, Kia issued recall 23V-877 that will cover about 80,000 MY 2011 Kia Sorento vehicles equipped with the Theta II 2.4L MPI engines.  The remedy will involve an inspection, and if necessary, a replacement of the engine, as well as the installation of KSDS.  It should be noted that in 2021 these vehicles were included in a KSDS product improvement campaign with warranty extension.  For the MY 2011 Sorento vehicles equipped with the Lambda II 3.5L engines, ODI believes that future engine failures/fires involving these vehicles will likely be due to a lax in adhering to the proper or scheduled engine maintenance (regular engine oil changes), rather than a design or manufacturing engine issue. Regarding the issue of the efficacy of the recall remedies, ODI found the majority of the recalled Hyundai and Kia vehicles, by model, experienced lower reported fire rates after the remedies were applied.  Furthermore, ODI found that for most vehicles that did not receive the recall remedies, by model, experienced relatively high fire rates.  To address this problem, Hyundai informed ODI in December 2023, that it will renotify all of its owners covered by the Hyundai recalls of engine failures/fires every 8 months for the next 3 years.  In December 2023, Kia stated that it will renotify the majority of its owners every 8 months for the next 3 years.Several previously recalled Kia models are excluded from the renotification due to their lower reported rates of engine fires.  Overall, the renotification actions will help to increase the recall completion rates, thus reduce the frequency of engine fires in the future. In view of the recall action being taken by Kia and renotification actions being taken by both Kia and Hyundai, ODI is closing this Engineering Analysis.  Also, both companies have been released from the 2020-iniated Consent Orders (Kia since November 2022 and Hyundai since November 2023).  The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.  To review the reports 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.

EGR needs to be replaced as this is a major engine issue

NHTSA ID

11751204

Incident

Jan 7, 2026

Vehicle experiences intermittent DTC C222908 (Integrated Brake Actuator internal circuit malfunction). Warning lights (Brake, ABS, ESC, Hybrid System) illuminate intermittently, brake pedal feel changes, and regenerative braking fails. Dealer confirmed stored code but refused repair stating "no current issue". This is a known failure in 2015-2019 Hyundai hybrids that can lead to sudden loss of hydraulic brake assist and increased stopping distance. Safety critical defect.

NHTSA ID

11700973

Incident

Nov 11, 2025

The car will randomly lose acceleration and jerk forward. It will make a beeping noise while the hev system warning flashes on the dash. It also says to turn off engine. While the warning is flashing and engine light is on it goes into a limp mode and you have limited acceleration. It has almost caused multiple wrecks when I go to acceleration from turning or at lights in traffic because I cant go over 20-30 mph. I have turned the car on and off and the hev system and engine light turns off and the car continues to work normal. It eventually comes back on and does the same loss of power/hev warning. It will be random and does not matter on how fast you are going to trigger the warning lights and loss of power.

NHTSA ID

11692279

Incident

Jan 1, 2025

The contact owns a 2016 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid. The contact stated that while driving at 20 MPH, the message "Shut Down" was displayed, and the vehicle lost motive power. The contact was able to pull over to the side of the road; however, the vehicle failed to restart. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with engine failure, and the contact was informed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired due to the cost. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and declined to cover the repair under warranty. The failure mileage was approximately 140,600.

NHTSA ID

11680336

Incident

May 28, 2025

Mileage

140,600 mi

The contact owns a 2016 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle went into LIMP Mode with several unknown warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was towed to the dealer and was diagnosed with engine failure. The contact was informed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 70,000.

NHTSA ID

11659350

Incident

May 6, 2025

Mileage

70,000 mi

The contact owns a 2016 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle inadvertently lost motive power. The contact was able to pull over to the shoulder of the roadway, and the message "Warning - Do not Attempt to Restart" was displayed. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, who diagnosed a failure of the engine wiring harness. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure reoccurred. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer and was diagnosed as a failure with the engine wiring harness. The vehicle was not repaired. The vehicle had been back to the dealer several times. Recently, the contact was informed that the wiring harness was soy-based insulated, and rodents were causing damage to the wiring harness due to the smell. The manufacturer was notified of the failure but provided no assistance. The failure mileage was 80,000. The VIN was not available.

NHTSA ID

11658460

Incident

May 2, 2025

Mileage

80,000 mi

The contact owns a 2016 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid. The contact stated while driving approximately 65 MPH, the check engine warning light was illuminated, and the vehicle stalled. The contact was able to exit the highway; however, the contact was unable to restart the vehicle. The contact had the vehicle towed to a dealer to be diagnosed. The vehicle was diagnosed, and it was determined that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact stated that prior to the engine failure, the engine had been replaced two years prior. The manufacturer was not informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 180,000.

NHTSA ID

11644593

Incident

Dec 2, 2024

Mileage

180,000 mi

While on the highway vehicle started shaking violently, flashing engine light then service hybrid system along with every light on the dash! Car still running poorly, stiff steering very hard to slow down to get to safety! By the time I was able to pull over the engine was knocking and a burning smell was coming from the engine compartment. I popped the hood shut the car off , the exhaust manifold and converter(in one together) was so hot it was glowing! I’m thankful I was able to get to safety without it catching fire because it was on its way there! I called for a tow and sent it to the dealer where Hyundai is replacing the engine.

NHTSA ID

11615081

Incident

Aug 31, 2024

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued an urgent safety advisory regarding dangerous, counterfeit driver‑side airbag inflators manufactured by Jilin Province Detiannuo Automobile Safety System Co., Ltd. (DTN), that have been identified in U.S. vehicles following prior crashes, theft, or non‑certified airbag replacements. These inflators are not approved for use, may rupture during deployment, and have caused serious injuries and fatalities. Please see attached announcement, provided by NHTSA, for more details.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has identified the presence of substandard and dangerous driver’s-side airbag inflators manufactured by Jilin Province Detiannuo Automobile Safety System Co., Ltd. (DTN). These inflators were not supplied, approved, or authorized by the vehicle manufacturers and have primarily been found in vehicles that previously experienced a crash and underwent airbag replacement using non-genuine parts. These dangerous inflators have ruptured during deployment, posing a serious risk of injury or death due to metal fragments entering the vehicle cabin. To date, Hyundai is aware of three people who have died while driving a Hyundai vehicle with one of these substandard replacement airbag inflators that deployed in what likely would have been a survivable crash. NHTSA has issued a public advisory urging vehicle owners and service professionals to have vehicles inspected if there is reason to believe that a non-genuine replacement airbag may have been installed. Vehicles with salvage or rebuilt titles, prior airbag deployments, or unknown repair histories may present a higher risk. NHTSA strongly cautions against self-inspection by vehicle owners and recommends inspection by trained technicians.

Hyundai has settled a class action lawsuit that alleges that certain Hyundai and Kia Class Vehicles (defined below) contain defective ZF-TRW airbag control units (“ZF-TRW ACUs”) that are vulnerable to a condition called electrical overstress, which may cause the vehicles’ airbags and other safety features to fail during a collision. Hyundai has not been found liable for any claims alleged in the lawsuit. Instead, Hyundai reached a voluntary settlement (referred as “the Settlement” or “the proposed Settlement”) to avoid lengthy litigation and provide relief to people who own ed or leased Class Vehicles in the United States and U.S. Territories. Class Members may be entitled to compensation if they submit valid and timely Claims.

A Class Action settlement regarding the TRW Airbag was recently decided. Based on the Class Action, customers are eligible for certain settlement benefits. Impacted vehicles are also noted below. For further information regarding settlement benefits and contacts, please review the corresponding dealer notification. It is available on Hyundaidealer.com under Hyundai Tech Info > Service News.

A Class Action settlement regarding the TRW Airbag was recently decided. Based on the Class Action, customers are eligible for certain settlement benefits. Please see attached for details. Impacted vehicles are also noted below. For further information regarding settlement benefits and contacts, please review the dealer notification per the attached. It is also available on Hyundaidealer.com under Hyundai Tech Info > Service News.

This bulletin provides information regarding condensation related to the accumulated moisture in the headlamp, rear combination lamp, daytime running lamp (DRL), or fog lamp. This TSB illustrates the various causes of condensation inside the lamp assembly. Lamp assembly replacement is NOT necessary in most cases. This condition can be eliminated by turning on the lamps with the engine running for several minutes or during normal driving operation.