2019 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.

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.

The primary failure is in the Engine/Powertrain system and Knock Sensor Detection System (KSDS), causing 6 identical sudden engine stalls (OBD-II code P1326) from 09/2000 to 06/2026. Additionally, severe excessive oil consumption was documented during 2 of these diagnostic visits, showing deep-seated engine issues. The vehicle and all records are available for inspection at the Hyundai dealer. Safety was severely threatened on 6 occasions. The vehicle abruptly stalled at 60+ mph in active highway traffic, forcing an immediate engine shutdown. This left me with highly impaired steering and braking control in fast-moving traffic, creating an imminent risk of high-speed rear-end collisions and jeopardizing my life and others. The primary stalling defect and P1326 code were confirmed 6 separate times by the authorized Hyundai dealership. The secondary excessive oil consumption issue was also formally confirmed by the dealer during 2 of those visits. Despite multiple dealership-confirmed diagnoses, no permanent repair has been achieved. The vehicle has been inspected during all 6 visits by dealership technicians. For the current (6th) visit, the dealer could not resolve the recurring defect and formally contacted Hyundai Corporate Technical Support for expert analysis, which is currently ongoing. Except for the first visit, the pattern is identical: the car stalls, the dealer clears codes/replaces KSDS, and it stalls again within 3 weeks. Notably, during the 4th visit, they replaced the Intake Manifold. Now, on this 6th visit, they demand I pay to replace that same part again. This proves they cannot diagnose the root engine failure and are only applying useless, temporary fixes. Prior to all 6 stalls, the flashing Check Engine / Hybrid Warning light triggered on the dashboard. This critical KSDS alert was followed within seconds by a total loss of motive power. Also, a history of rapid engine oil depletion and low-oil alerts was documented in 2 of the diagnostics.

NHTSA ID

11750679

Incident

Jun 22, 2026

Purchased 2019 after 44,000 miles engine was replaced metal in engine and inverter coolant issue July 2025 117,000 my inverter coolant light came in and off several times then car through all warning lights hev check engine warning shut it down went into limp mode Towed to dealership they checked and cleared codes said it threw 13 codes but after clearing they stated nothing wrong with it As they went to pull car around it happened again this time code was knock sensor which they relaxed at no charge extended warranty They next day after picking up while at idle hev warning went in shut car off and it was gone kept driving nonissues The next day again it happened and this time the engine light stayed on Spoke with dealership they said they would charge me diagnosis charge of 208 and if it was related to what they did. It would be covered also stated if the engine light was flashing it would be covered or it isn’t the engine isn’t covered The inverter coolant is not bubbling or moving when car is on it is an inverter coolant issue that was a problem back when my first engine was repaired and should be covered I love my vehicle but I have had so many issues since getting it major things and the lighting system showing a black spot in my view as well that could not be fixed I will attach pictures of earning lights and video of coolant not circulating and the dealership filled the coolant way over the top I have to now take it back again to have it looked at

NHTSA ID

11674772

Incident

Jul 13, 2025

When accelerating, the vehicle automatically hesitates and loses power. This happens when pulling out from complete stops as well as moving slowly to passing other vehicles. The tachometer still shows power but the brakes depress and there is no power to the vehicle and it hesitates feeling as if the ABS are kicking in. In order for it to resolve itself you have to let it run its course. The service departments at the dealer have felt it but can’t pinpoint an answer.

NHTSA ID

11451450

Incident

Oct 1, 2021

TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2019 HYUNDAI SONATA. WHILE THE CONTACT WAS PULLING INTO AN INTERSECTION, A SECOND VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE OF HIS VEHICLE. THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED; HOWEVER, THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED BROKEN RIBS, AND INJURIES TO THE LEG, HEAD, AND ARM. MEDICAL ATTENTION WAS RECEIVED AND POLICE REPORT NUMBER: [XXX] WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND TOWED FROM THE SCENE. BROADWAY AUTOMOTIVE (1010 S. MILITARY AVE, GREEN BAY, WI) AND THE MANUFACTURER WERE NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 3,500. *DT ('PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).')*JB

NHTSA ID

11290285

Incident

Oct 10, 2019

Mileage

3,500 mi

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.

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.

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.

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.