2013 Hyundai Sonata

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) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received a petition letter dated October 10, 2021, requesting an investigation of possible defects in the electronic throttle control (ETC) system on certain Kia vehicles resulting in the opening of DP21-003. Accordingly, Model Year (MY) 2005-2016 Kia Optima/K5, MY 2006-2015 Kia Sorento, MY 2007-2016 Hyundai Elantra, MY 2007-2016 Hyundai Santa Fe, MY 2006-2015 Hyundai Sonatas are all part of the subject population. The petition was originally filed as a Vehicle Owner Questionnaire that can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under reference (ODI) number 11439675.On November 12, 2021, ODI opened Defect Petition DP21-003 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. ODI performed trend analyses of the VOQs related to vehicle speed control issues for all the subject vehicles and found that none of the 52 Model/Model Year Hyundai/Kia vehicles demonstrated any actionable trend that warranted an investigation.Petitioners submitted 1119 VOQs and non-VOQ cases in which sudden uncommanded acceleration (SUA) or loss of motive power (LOMP) incidents were alleged.For the 1119 reports, 220 were incidents involving crashes, from which 69 subject Hyundai-Kia vehicles were inspected by Hyundai/Kia dealer technicians, Hyundai/Kia engineers, and/or third-party representatives.ODI found the inspections identified no vehicle defects related to the ETC system.Of the 220 crash-involved reports, 13 Event Data Recorder (EDR) records were downloaded successfully and 11 of those indicated driver error: (i.e.) pedal misapplication.A condition where the accelerator pedal is mistakenly applied instead of the brake pedal when the driver wants to stop the vehicle.In addition, ODI reviewed a scientific journal paper published in Forensic Science International in 2016 by Mr. Park et al ., as well as related test videos. ODI does not believe there is any evidence of uncontrollable SUA occurrences in any of the tests reviewed. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) reviewed the allegations regarding the potential noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124.Based on the information provided, the Agency concludes there is insufficient information for us to determine if a possible non-compliance exists.Finally, both Hyundai and Kia informed ODI that all their vehicles manufactured after 2012 were equipped with an ETC management system, in which the engine speed will go to idle when the system sees signals from both the brake pedal and accelerator pedal at the same time; this is commonly known as the brake-throttle override system.After thoroughly assessing the material submitted by the petitioner, information already in NHTSA's possession, information submitted by Hyundai and Kia in response to an Information Request letter, and the potential risks to safety implicated by the petitioner's allegation, NHTSA does not believe that a formal investigation is warranted. After full consideration of appropriate factors, the petition is denied. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) further detailing NHTSA?s reasons for denial of the petition will be published.

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.

Excessive oil consumption. I lose 3 qt of oil every 1200 miles. I have had the required maintenance on the car and still having excessive oil consumption.

NHTSA ID

11756370

Incident

Sep 8, 2025

My 2013 Hyundai Sonata (VIN [XXX]) suffered a driver's airbag clock spring failure, completely disabling the primary restraint safety system. ABS light was on, the horn and all other electronics on the steering wheel were not functioning. All symptoms indicated in the recall This vehicle is explicitly covered under Hyundai Extended Warranty Campaign TXXA/TXXJ for 15 years/unlimited miles. However, Hyundai's validation systems are actively rejecting my VIN and blocking my federal right to a cost-free safety remedy or repair reimbursement. I replaced clock-spring and mechanic suggested i check into the recall. I attached receipt for repairs INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11755968

Incident

Jun 23, 2026

This vehicle is subject to a known Theta II connecting rod bearing defect (Recall 162 / KSDS) and a related class action settlement. On October 2, 2025, the vehicle stalled while entering the highway. It was taken to Ken Garff Hyundai Surprise, and the following day, October 3, 2025, it entered engine protection mode (limp mode) during the dealership's own test drive, the exact behavior the Knock Sensor Detection System is designed to trigger for connecting rod bearing wear. The dealership's own service advisor documented in writing, as early as December 27, 2025, that he did not like how the vehicle ran and drove and wanted to resubmit a warranty claim. Despite this documented concern, on May 5, 2026, the dealership's service manager told Hyundai corporate that nothing was wrong with the vehicle and that it could be picked up. Hyundai corporate maintained that the engine had passed bearing clearance testing on two occasions, October 3, 2025 and May 23, 2026. I was told the vehicle was safe and retrieved it on June 29, 2026, out of necessity after my family's other vehicle was totaled in an accident. Approximately ten days later, the engine failed completely while I was driving with my family in the vehicle. Hyundai's own repair order documented the crankshaft as seized at over 95 lb-ft of torque. Hyundai subsequently approved and completed a full engine replacement. I am filing this report because a vehicle with a documented, known defect and a documented internal safety concern was represented to me as safe to drive, and it failed catastrophically with my family inside it within days of that representation

NHTSA ID

11754108

Incident

Oct 2, 2025

Car stalls when I’m at a red light, very dangerous

NHTSA ID

11752933

Incident

Jul 24, 2026

When my father was driving, the vehicle stalled out with no prior odd activity. He pulled over to the side of the road and attempted to start the vehicle. He saw smoke, opened the hood, saw flames and cleared the area of the vehicle. Due to the large Hyundai/Kia engine recall for his year of vehicle, the engine had been replaced 2-3 times and ONLY EVER been serviced by the dealership. We do not know if all recall repair work had been done, because there was also a fuel line recall which was "fixed" in 2020 and 2022.

NHTSA ID

11751024

Incident

Jul 3, 2026

Bought car from a used car dealership, car fax report filed 3 other owners, with a well maintenance report on file with oil change done atleast every 5K miles. Bought car in January 2026, maintenance had been done before car was taken off the lot. At 3k miles since hsving the ca on 05/15/26 I got my oil changed and cabin filters replaced. It’s only been less than 1500 miles and car engine had reportedly seized.

NHTSA ID

11750382

Incident

Jul 10, 2026

Driving my car, oil light comes on. I take to a local mechanic who said he sees this often, my engine is going to seize up and confirmed via VIN my car is affected by the Sonata Engine Recall campaign XXX. Vanessa At Hyundai said to take it to a dealership immediately for further inspection as it may not be safe to drive. Took to dealership on XXX. While at the dealership, service manager said on XXX “my car was perfect, didn’t know why it was even there and trying to find something wrong with it was like chasing unicorns.” I said please look again and on XXX the engine seized up as it was taken on a drive by said advisor. Via dealership, they took pictures of manifold, but Hyundai denied my replacing my engine per the recall. I called Hyundai to request an appeal and received a case number/case manager ( Madge case # XXX) on XXX. I then submitted maintenance records which showed at least one oil change at each requested interval and still denied on XXX. I continued to call both parties: dealership & case manager but got no reply. I received my case manager’s direct line at Hyundai on XXX via [XXX] who said no notes were on file and case manager would return call in 1-3 days and he has never returned my calls, nor has the service manager who said my car was in perfect driving condition. Today is July 8 and I am still waiting for a written letter or phone call explaining the reason for my denial. Napelton Hyundai is also charging me $215.00 for the engine inspection when my paperwork shows a NO CHARGE to you. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11749190

Incident

May 15, 2026

The contact owns a 2013 Hyundai Sonata. The contact stated that while driving at 60 MPH, the airbag warning light illuminated, and the horn failed to engage as intended. Additionally, the vehicle failed to respond when the accelerator pedal was depressed. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the brake vacuum pump was not operating correctly and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired by replacing the clock spring. The contact related the failure to a clock spring warranty extension TSB; however, the VIN was excluded. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and offered no assistance. The failure mileage was 124,000.

NHTSA ID

11749065

Incident

Jun 14, 2026

Mileage

124,000 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.

In response to this trend, we engineered a software upgrade that addresses the social media theft method and made it available to owners of eligible models free of charge at authorized Hyundai dealers since early 2023. In addition to the anti-theft software, we’ve developed a new zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protector hardware upgrade that can be installed at the ignition cylinder location to provide additional protection against the social media theft method. Because your Hyundai vehicle with the VIN listed above (“Subject Vehicle”) was not factory-equipped with an engine immobilizer and was previously eligible for the software upgrade, you are now eligible until March 31, 2027 to have the ignition cylinder protector installed — if you request it — at no cost to you through an authorized Hyundai dealership.

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.

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. 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.