RoadVitals

2017 Mitsubishi I-Miev Problems

Owner-reported complaints filed with NHTSA, grouped by component

Data refreshed

Owner complaintsComplaints are reports submitted to NHTSA by owners and drivers. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a complaint does not establish that a defect exists. Volume is influenced by how many of a vehicle were sold, how long it has been on the road, and how much attention an issue has received.
1
Latest Feb 19, 2020
Components namedHow many of our component categories appear on at least one report for this model year. One report can name several.
1
Crash or fire reportedComplaints whose submitter recorded that a crash or a fire occurred. These are the reporter's own answers on the NHTSA form, not verified findings.
0

What this page shows

Everything below is an owner-reported complaint submitted to NHTSA about the 2017 Mitsubishi I-Miev, grouped by the component NHTSA recorded on the report. These are not confirmed defects, and they are not recalls. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a category with more reports in it is not evidence that a part is defective.

Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.

Reports by component

Ranked by how many owner reports name each component category

  • Brakes1100.0%

Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.

Each component in detail

What the reports in each category say, in the owners' own words

Brakes

Reports naming service brakes, the antilock braking system, brake hoses, master cylinders or the parking brake.

1
report

From owner reports, verbatim

THIS IS PART OF AN EXISTING RECALL NHTSA #19V-804, MANUFACTURER #SR-19-002 REGARDING A VACUUM BRAKE PUMP. RECALL WAS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER 8, 2019, WITH NOTICES SENT TO OWNERS ON JANUARY 7, 2020. MULTIPLE CALLS TO DEALER TO SCHEDULE THE REPAIR REBUFFED AS DEALER CLAIMS THEY CANNOT GET THE PART FROM MANUFACTURER TO PERFORM REPLACEMENT. CALLS TO MANUFACTURER, DURING ADVERTISED BUSINESS HOURS, REJECTED BY AUTOMATIC CALL SYSTEM. IT HAS BEEN 14 WEEKS (OVER 3 MONTHS) SINCE RECALL WAS ANNOUNCED BY MANUFACTURER AND 6 WEEKS SINCE THE RECALL NOTICE WAS SENT TO OWNERS. MANUFACTURER IS NON-RESPONSIVE AND NOT FULFILLING THEIR AGREED TO OBLIGATIONS. MITSUBISHI HAS SAID THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THIS RECALL, BUT ARE DRAGGING THEIR FEET AND WILL NOT OBTAIN OR DISTRIBUTE PARTS TO DEALERSHIPS. MITSUBISHI IS ALLOWING A KNOWN SAFETY DEFECT TO FESTER ON THEIR PRODUCT BY NOT FULFILLING THEIR OBLIGATIONS. PLEASE FORCE THIS COMPANY TO COMPLY WITH THEIR OWN DIRECTIVES AND NOT JUST PAY LIP SERVICE TO THIS ISSUE.

NHTSA ID 11310189 · filed Feb 19, 2020

Too few reports in this category for a page of its own — they appear in the full complaint list.

Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers.

Elsewhere on this vehicle

Data sources

Data on this page last refreshed .