2015 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.

My Hyundai Sonata engine stalled out while driving on the highway. I had it towed to a dealership with the hope they would fix the issue because it was supposed to be covered under warranty from a recall. The dealership said the engine replacement would be covered as long as they got approval from Hyundai. Hyundai apparently only asked that specific dealership for the service records that they had, didn’t even reach out to me or try to find any other service records on the vehicle and denied the claim for “neglect of maintenance” because that dealership only had records from 0-90,000 miles. The dealership got back to me and told me the news and I told them that I will get all service records from 0 miles to current. I got all those records together and sent them to the dealer. A week later they called and said Hyundai was again going to deny my request because of the same “neglect of maintenance” which isn’t true based on the records I have and they have. I have driven the vehicle less than 10,000 miles and there has been nothing wrong with it. No check engine lights ever and regular oil changes.

NHTSA ID

11756074

Incident

May 16, 2026

The contact owns a 2015 Hyundai Sonata. The contact stated that while driving on several occasions at various speeds, the vehicle lost power, and the check engine warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was taken to a dealer where it was diagnosed that the engine had failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure reoccurred within a year. The vehicle was taken back to the same dealer where it was diagnosed and determined that a software update was needed. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure persisted. The vehicle was then taken back to the same dealer, and there was oil on the pistons and a tune-up was needed. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure persisted. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer, where it was advised that an oil consumption test could not be provided until the pistons had failed. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, and a complaint was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 88,000.

NHTSA ID

11755866

Incident

Jun 29, 2019

Mileage

88,000 mi

Vehicle: 2015 Hyundai Sonata VIN: [XXX] Mileage: ~85,000 Description of the Problem: While driving, the vehicle suddenly began producing thick smoke from under the hood without warning. I safely maneuvered to the shoulder to avoid an accident. The engine subsequently seized completely and became inoperable. My mechanic diagnosed this as a known internal manufacturing defect in the Theta II engine (connecting rod bearing failure), a widely documented issue for this model and production year. Oil and coolant levels were confirmed normal with no leaks, ruling out maintenance neglect. I initially paid for an unnecessary starter replacement before this diagnosis was confirmed. This is a serious safety hazard that could cause loss of engine power and control while driving, posing a risk to myself and other drivers on the road. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11755594

Incident

Aug 6, 2026

1.) Following Hyundai's 9C2 Campaign update for the ECU that was completed back on May 27th, 2026, my 2015 Sonata went into limp mode [solid check engine light present] while I was accelerating up an on-ramp on the 2nd drive cycle since the update was performed. I was already far away from the dealership so I was forced to limp it to my local shop that I regularly use to have it checked out. It was confirmed that the code on the vehicle was P200A for intake manifold runners. Since the update was for smog regulation, the code was cleared in order to see if it would come back. Since then, it has not, however the vehicle continues to have one persistent problem. The RPMs will dramatically dip and then surge back upwards while the car is coasting (no gas and no brake applied). 70% of the time, you can feel the car violently jerk as it appears to try and correct itself. 2.) I've brought this car to multiple dealerships, have a case open with corporate and have also found that this is a systemic issue with this specific update in these cars. All and all, nothing has been done. I'm repeatedly turned away over and over again because their techs are only permitted to look into it once they have hard evidence of a fault. In this case, that would be a dashboard light. I'm told that I may only return if the check engine light comes back, which as I mentioned previously, posed a HUGE safety risk to myself the first time it appeared. If I can only go 55mph down the highway, I am at risk of being rear-ended or struck in some way. 3.) The problem has not been reproduced by the dealer as they will not test drive it to see the dip and spike. However, the code was still pending for awhile in the vehicle before it cleared it on its own, so that was acknowledged by at least one place. 4.) Vehicle has not been inspected by anyone but a dealership and local mechanic. 5.) No other signs prior to the vehicle limping out on me other than some acceleration concerns on May 27th, 2026.

NHTSA ID

11755317

Incident

May 27, 2026

Since the 9C2 update on June 24, 2026, my vehicle has not driven the same. I'm experiencing clunky or harsh gear changes at low speeds, especially during stop-and-go driving. When I slow down and then accelerate again, the vehicle sputters or hesitates before responding. While driving at lower speeds, I also feel intermittent skips or small surges, almost like bubbles or brief misfires. These symptoms were not present before the 9C2 update, and they have noticeably affected the drivability of the vehicle. It was suggested the transmission needed time to "relearn" driving patterns, but it has been several weeks with no change

NHTSA ID

11755188

Incident

Jun 24, 2026

Engine / Short block assembly / Connecting rod bearing seizure. The engine suffered a sudden, catastrophic seizure while I was actively driving on a steep incline mountain road with a cliff on one side and forest on other. The vehicle experienced an immediate, total loss of motive power, forcing an emergency maneuver onto the shoulder in 5 seconds with no power steering or power brakes, creating an extreme collision hazard on a high-speed incline. The rod bearing melted due to a manufacture defect and could have also possible caught fire in heavy fire country. The fuel pump was also leaking recently and just replaced. They are nearly $1800 for a new pump because of price gauging because they are in "high demand". The Check Engine Light was solid (not flashing) for a thermostat code (P0128) due to extreme internal friction/heat from the failing bearings. There were no flashing KSDS warnings or physical signs of engine overheating. My car was denied a new engine under a Federally Mandated Warranty explicitly stating the exact symptoms of internal engine defect that happened in my car under "owner neglect" even though I have changed my oil regularly and even before the manufacture recommended time frames to do so. I've changed the valve covers, 02 sensors, thermostats, and plenty more on this car than any other car I have ever owned proving I'm actually an exceptional owner. I remained nice to all corporate staff during this process while they denied my car proper care under a Federal Mandate. I bought this car to believe that Hyundai was a superior company in regards to warranties, price, and function as opposed to the more expensive counterparts of the same class. Which in the end has cost me way more, and almost my life. This car is dangerous and the company has done everything in their power to try to cover it up while placing blame on the very consumers that are believing in them to do better.

NHTSA ID

11755077

Incident

Jul 3, 2026

Driving vehicle at slow speed crossing an intersection and engine completely shut down. The engine has completely seized and needs replaced due to a known recall. I have only owned the vehicle for 7 months. Hyundai is refusing to pay for engine replacement claiming a previous recall prior to me owning the vehicle should have been completed. I only drove the vehicle 1,000 miles in that time at nothing over 50 mph. There was no notification to me about this recall.

NHTSA ID

11754029

Incident

Jul 15, 2026

I was driving my 2015 Hyundai Sonata approximately 35 mph after leaving the Hyundai dealership following an engine replacement when the hood unexpectedly flew completely open without warning. The hood struck the windshield, completely obstructing my forward visibility and creating an extremely dangerous situation. I was able to safely pull over without causing a collision, but the vehicle sustained extensive damage and was declared a total loss by my insurance company. During the same service visit in which the engine was replaced, the dealership recommended replacing the hood latches, but I declined that repair. Hyundai later informed me that the hood latching system was functioning properly after the engine replacement and that the vehicle passed its post-repair inspection and road test. Approximately one mile after leaving the dealership following the engine replacement, the hood unexpectedly opened while I was driving. There were no hood-ajar warnings, warning lights, or other indications that the hood was not properly secured before the incident. The sudden loss of visibility created a serious risk of a crash that could have resulted in severe injury or death. I am submitting this complaint because I believe this incident represents a significant vehicle safety issue that should be investigated.

NHTSA ID

11753510

Incident

Jun 29, 2026

Certain Santa Fe (TMA), Santa Fe Sport (AN), Sonata (LFA), and Tucson (TL) vehicles equipped with Theta II engines may exhibit elevated engine-out emissions. The California Air Resources Board has determined that these vehicles may be releasing air pollutants which exceed Federal and California standards.

Certain Santa Fe (TMA), Santa Fe Sport (AN), Sonata (LFA), and Tucson (TL) vehicles equipped with Theta II engines may exhibit elevated engine-out emissions. This bulletin provides instructions for updating the Engine Control Module (ECM) to address this condition.

Following completion of Service Campaign 9C2 (Theta II Emissions Improvement), certain vehicles may exhibit a brief hesitation or rough shifting condition during cold start operation. If present, this condition is expected to occur only within approximately the first 1-3 minutes after engine start, while the catalyst is reaching its normal operating temperature.

Following completion of Service Campaign 9C2 (Theta II Emissions Improvement), certain vehicles may exhibit a brief hesitation or rough shifting condition during cold start operation. If present, this condition is expected to occur only within approximately the first 1-3 minutes after engine start, while the catalyst is reaching its normal operating temperature.

Some Hyundai vehicles with exterior white paint may exhibit peeling or bubbling on metal body panels: hood, fender(s), roof, door(s), quarter panel(s), and tailgate/trunk. The paint warranty coverage for affected vehicles has been extended to 10 years/unlimited miles from the date of original retail delivery or date of first use and is valid for original and subsequent owners.

Certain Hyundai vehicles with exterior white paint may exhibit peeling or bubbling on metal body panels: hood, fender(s), roof, door(s), quarter panel(s), and tailgate/trunk. The paint warranty coverage for affected vehicles has been extended to 10 years/unlimited miles from the date of original retail delivery or date of first use and is valid for original and subsequent owners. The warranty extension does not apply to any vehicle that has ever been declared a total loss or sold for salvage by a financial institution or insurer or has a branded or similar title under any state’s law.