SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC:FOUNDATION COMPONENTS:DISC:ROTOR; WHEELS:LUGS/NUTS/BOLTS/STUDS
2024 Tesla Cybertruck
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 179 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2024 Tesla Cybertruck, most frequently naming the electrical, body & structure and driver assistance categories. 11 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 4 NHTSA investigations name it; and 55 manufacturer communications are on file.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Complaint activity over time
When owners filed reports about this model year
View as table
| Month | Complaints filed | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 2024 | 2 | 2 |
| May 2024 | 4 | 6 |
| Jun 2024 | 2 | 8 |
| Jul 2024 | 1 | 9 |
| Aug 2024 | 3 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 15 |
| Oct 2024 | 1 | 16 |
| Nov 2024 | 3 | 19 |
| Dec 2024 | 8 | 27 |
| Jan 2025 | 3 | 30 |
| Feb 2025 | 7 | 37 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 43 |
| Apr 2025 | 6 | 49 |
| May 2025 | 10 | 59 |
| Jun 2025 | 9 | 68 |
| Jul 2025 | 5 | 73 |
| Aug 2025 | 5 | 78 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 80 |
| Oct 2025 | 9 | 89 |
| Dec 2025 | 5 | 94 |
| Jan 2026 | 5 | 99 |
| Feb 2026 | 5 | 104 |
| Mar 2026 | 8 | 112 |
| Apr 2026 | 12 | 124 |
| May 2026 | 27 | 151 |
| Jun 2026 | 7 | 158 |
| Jul 2026 | 9 | 167 |
| Aug 2026 | 1 | 168 |
| Sep 2026 | 6 | 174 |
| Oct 2026 | 4 | 178 |
| Nov 2026 | 1 | 179 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Electrical5625.5%
- Body & structure3716.8%
- Driver assistance3114.1%
- Visibility188.2%
- Powertrain (other)167.3%
- Steering167.3%
- Exterior lighting125.5%
- Brakes83.6%
Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.
Safety recalls
11 campaigns cover this model year
Recalls apply to specific vehicles, not to every vehicle of a model year. Check your VIN with NHTSA or your manufacturer's dealer to confirm whether a recall affects your vehicle.
Check a VIN on NHTSA.govEXTERIOR LIGHTING
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:SOFTWARE; EXTERIOR LIGHTING
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
FSD Collisions in Reduced Roadway Visibility Conditions
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening this Engineering Analysis to evaluate Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) degradation detection system. The focus of this investigation will be to assess the system’s ability, when encountering reduced roadway visibility conditions, to detect degradation and alert the driver with sufficient time to respond. ODI will evaluate the performance of FSD in degraded roadway conditions and the updates or modifications by Tesla to the degradation detection system, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of the updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI discussed individual incidents and its initial findings during the PE phase of its investigation with Tesla. As part of those discussions, Tesla’s post-incident analysis indicated that the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s degradation detection system, both as originally deployed and later updated, fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired camera visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. In upgrading PE24031 to an Engineering Analysis (EA), ODI will gather further information on the updated degradation detection system, including the status of updating vehicles and scope of compatible vehicles, the system’s visibility degradation detection capability, and alerts or warnings to the driver. Lastly, ODI will conduct analysis on six recent potentially related incidents. These incidents can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-11937, 13781-13211, 13781-13569, 13781-13633, 13781-13693, 13781-13788. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
Traffic safety violations while Full Self Driving ("FSD") is engaged
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) is opening this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to assess the scope, frequency, and potential safety consequences of FSD executing driving maneuvers that constitute traffic safety violations. This investigation concerns versions of FSD that Tesla has labeled as "FSD (Supervised)" and "FSD (Beta)." Tesla characterizes FSD as an SAE Level 2 partial automation system requiring a fully attentive driver who is engaged in the driving task at all times. Level 2 partial automation systems are designed to support and assist the driver in performing certain aspects of the driving task, requiring a driver to supervise and intervene as necessary. The driver remains fully responsible at all times for driving the vehicle, including complying with applicable traffic laws. ODI’s investigation will therefore focus, in particular, on whether certain driving inputs within the control authority of FSD forestall the driver’s supervision when they are unexpectedly performed. ODI has identified a number of incidents in which the inputs to the dynamic driving task commanded by FSD induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws. Although reports of this nature span a variety of behaviors, the reports appear to most commonly involve two types of scenarios. The first type of scenario involves a vehicle operating with FSD proceeding into an intersection in violation of a red traffic signal. The second type of scenario involves FSD commanding a lane change into an opposing lane of traffic. With respect to the first type of scenario, ODI has identified 18 complaints and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating at an intersection with FSD engaged, failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface. Some complainants also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal. ODI has identified six Standing General Order ("SGO") reports in which a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection. Of these incidents, four crashes resulted in one or more reported injuries. At least some of the incidents appeared to involve FSD proceeding into the intersection after coming to a complete stop. ODI's pre-investigative work, including coordination with the Maryland Transportation Authority and State Police, indicated that the problem may be repeatable, given that multiple subject incidents occurred at the same intersection in Joppa, Maryland. NHTSA understands that Tesla has since taken action to address the issue at this intersection. With respect to the second type of scenario, ODI has identified 2 SGO reports, 18 complaints, and 2 media reports alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, entered opposing lanes of travel during or following a turn, crossed double-yellow lane markings while proceeding straight, or attempted to turn onto a road in the wrong direction despite the presence of wrong-way road signs. Likewise, ODI has identified 4 SGO reports, 6 complaints, and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, proceeded straight through an intersection in a turn-only lane or executed a turn at an intersection in a through lane despite the presence of lane markings or signals. Complaints also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior. Some complaints alleged that more than one of these failures occurred and, as such, the numbers are not cumulative. Some of the reported incidents appeared to involve FSD executing a lane change into an opposing lane of travel with little notice to a driver or opportunity to intervene. ODI’s review will assess whether there was prior warning or adequate time for the driver to respond to the unexpected behavior or to safely supervise the automated driving task. This review will assess any warnings to the driver about the system's impending behavior; the time given to drivers to respond; the capability of FSD to detect, display to the driver, and respond appropriately to traffic signals; and the capability of FSD to detect and respond to lane markings and wrong-way signage. NHTSA's review will also consider any updates or modifications to the system(s) that may affect the performance of FSD with respect to obeying traffic safety laws and signals. This assessment will focus, in particular, on the types of traffic safety violations described above, as most reports identified thus far have centered around those behaviors. While the behaviors under investigation appear to occur most frequently at intersections, NHTSA’s investigation will encompass any other types of situations in which this behavior may arise, such as when traveling adjacent to a lane of opposing traffic or when approaching railroad crossings. If other evidence received during this investigation involve other types of traffic safety violations, those may be considered as part of this assessment as well. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov. The SGO reports cited in this Resume are listed below by report ID and are available for download at NHTSA.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting. 13781-8739-1, 13781-8995-1, 13781-9623-1, 13781-10333-1, 13781-10872-1, 13781-10930-1, 13781-10939-1, 13781-10941-1, 13781-11069-1, 13781-11305-1, 13781-11579-1 Media reported allegations included as a separate attachment.
Recall 23V838 Remedy Effectiveness
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening a Recall Query to assess the remedy adequacy of Recall 23V838. On December 12, 2023, Tesla filed a Defect Information Report (Recall 23V838) applicable to all Tesla models produced and equipped with any version of its Autopilot system, which Tesla described as an SAE Level 2 (L2) Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). Autopilot is the simultaneous engagement of Tesla’s Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC) and Autosteer. In describing the safety defect, Tesla’s Defect Information Report (DIR) explained that “the prominence and scope of the system’s controls may be insufficient to prevent driver misuse,” and Tesla committed to the deployment of a multipart remedy aimed at improving system and engagement controls and reducing mode confusion. EA22002 (upgraded from PE21020) was opened to investigate whether Tesla’s Autopilot contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and involved extensive crash analysis, human factors analysis, vehicle evaluations, and assessment of vehicle control authority and driver engagement technologies. The work conducted in these investigations aligns with Tesla’s conclusion in its 23V838 recall filing. During EA22002, ODI identified at least 13 crashes involving one or more fatalities and many more involving serious injuries in which foreseeable driver misuse of the system played an apparent role. Tesla filed Recall 23V838 to address concerns regarding the Autopilot system investigated in EA22002. Following deployment of the remedy in Recall 23V838, ODI identified concerns due to post-remedy crash events and results from preliminary NHTSA tests of remedied vehicles. Also, Tesla has stated that a portion of the remedy both requires the owner to opt in and allows a driver to readily reverse it. Tesla has also deployed non-remedy updates to address issues that appear related to ODI’s concerns under EA22002. This investigation will consider why these updates were not a part of the recall or otherwise determined to remedy a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk. ODI is therefore opening this Recall Query investigation to further evaluate the adequacy of the remedy for recall 23V838.
FSD Collisions in Reduced Roadway Visibility Conditions
On October 17, 2024, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE24031) of Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) to assess: the ability of the FSD system to detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions; whether any other FSD crashes had occurred under degraded roadway visibility conditions that are similar in nature to the four SGO-reported crashes identified in the opening document, and if so, the contributing circumstances for each of those crashes; and any updates or modifications by Tesla to the FSD system that may affect the performance of FSD in degraded roadway visibility conditions, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of any such updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. During this phase of the investigation, ODI reviewed the materials provided by Tesla detailing any actions taken, or changes, modifications, and updates made that may relate to the alleged defect. ODI reviewed information related to Tesla’s transition to a vision-only perception system, and its deployment of the strategy in vehicles. ODI’s findings include information on limitations of the vision-only perception system and updates made in response to known subject crashes. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. ODI reviewed certain public statements, including those made during an April 2025 earnings call, in which Tesla stated that it had developed a breakthrough “direct photon-counting” capability that eliminates the degradation that the camera-based system experiences when glare is encountered. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI has discussed individual incidents and its initial findings with Tesla. Based on Tesla’s post-incident analysis, the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s FSD system fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants where the camera-based system performance degrades significantly. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the FSD system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired its visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. ODI is upgrading this investigation (PE24031) to Engineering Analysis (EA) 26002 to further evaluate this matter. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
The vehicle was parking under full self driving. As it got close to parking pillar it slowed down like it's going to stop but then bumped it.
- NHTSA ID
- 11775104
- Incident
- Sep 28, 2026
purchased a pre-owned 2024 Tesla Cybertruck directly from Tesla and took delivery on October 1st, 2026. Before delivery, I noticed the tailgate would not latch properly. A Tesla employee forced it closed, but the truck was delivered with the problem unresolved. After delivery, the tailgate unexpectedly opened multiple times while I was driving, including on the highway. I had to pull over to close it. This endangered me and other motorists. I requested service on October 2nd, 2026, and brought the truck to Tesla on October 14th. Tesla subsequently repaired the tailgate, but the problem was apparent before delivery. The rear camera was scratched or damaged at delivery and later replaced by Tesla. I have also experienced interruptions to Tesla’s self-driving or driver-assistance features when camera functions were unavailable, raising concerns about camera-dependent safety systems. The truck also shakes and makes unusual noises above about 70 miles per hour. The cause has not been identified, and the vibration remains unresolved. I do not feel safe driving it at highway speeds until it’s inspected. Shortly after delivery, I found numerous cockroaches and ants, particularly around the bed and tailgate. My daughter has a documented cockroach allergy, which makes exposure a serious concern for my family. Tesla service described the infestation as a hazard and said service could not proceed until professional cleaning was completed. I no longer feel this vehicle is safe. I have service records, photos, and messages documenting my reports. I ask NHTSA to review the potential safety defects, especially the tailgate opening while driving, the camera-related driver assistance interruptions, and the unresolved highway vibration.
- NHTSA ID
- 11771620
- Incident
- Oct 1, 2026
All tires have upper side wall and tread cracks and tears. This is causing the tread to fall off in pieces and chunks of tire tread with a size of 1 inch diameter or more are going is missing and the tire wire mesh underneath the tread is exposed. All tires have similar issues and several tread areas have signs of tread peeling and about to fall off. Tire issue was reported to Tesla at around 6,000 miles when a tire rotation was refused from local tire shop. I took vehicle in for service and Tesla did nothing about it. I took truck back again at around 7,000 miles and the issue again was ignored and they told me to deal with manufacturer. I called manufacturer and they only offered a partial credit but I am responsible for full tax, disposal and labor. The tires currently have about 7,500 miles and my truck in only 15 months old. Looked online for researched and there are many other cybertruck owners experiencing the same exact issue with tire tread separation. Internet sources state the problem is due to Dry Rot which causes tire tread separation, cracking and separation of internal foam sound insulation. Several owners have experienced tire blowouts and most also are unaware of tire issue and only become aware when in process of tire rotation which is recommended at about 6,250 miles
- NHTSA ID
- 11771501
- Incident
- Jul 25, 2026
The PCS2 (Power Conversion System) is an integrated power module that handles AC home charging, DC-DC conversion for the 48V low-voltage systems, and PowerShare (V2L/V2H). • The Defect: Early units (mostly pre-2026 and Foundation Series models) suffer from thermal fatigue in the AC charging MOSFETs. • Symptoms: AC charging speeds drop from 48 amps to 24 amps, error codes like PCS2_a136_cycloAMosfetHealthCheckFailed appear, and AC/home charging eventually fails completely.
- NHTSA ID
- 11771287
- Incident
- Oct 14, 2026
Today, I nearly ran someone over, and felt the need to send this feedback, as I never saw a person in my A-pillar blindspot. I was driving manually, making a left-hand turn, and never saw the man pictured below. He walked perfectly as to be obscured by my A-Pillar the entire time. I caught a flash of him sprinting out of the way in my driver’s side window as I nearly ran him over. (I am working on a road-capture mobile application that happened to be running on my phone in the center of my windshield at the time, resulting in this image. This mount was not obscuring my vision, nor that of FSD. FSD was inactive, I was driving manually.) Obviously I accept fault here, but I can’t help but feel that Tesla has an opportunity to make the Cybertruck safer here, likely through software. I have FSD, I believe the cameras saw him fine, but I did not see him for even a second. There has to be something Tesla can implement here that would alert me of his presence, stop me, apply the brakes, something. Something that didn’t activate today.
- NHTSA ID
- 11769901
- Incident
- Oct 8, 2026
The contact owns a 2024 Tesla Cybertruck. The contact stated that while driving 25 MPH, the steering wheel became unresponsive, and the vehicle crash into eight vehicles parked along the side of the road. The contact attempted to turn the steering wheel away from the vehicles but was unable to regain control of the vehicle because the steering wheel was firm. Following the crash, the vehicle was towed to a dealer and then to a body shop. The contact instructed the body shop not to perform any repairs because until the vehicle was thoroughly diagnosed. However, the body shop was unable to perform a diagnostic test or retrieve the EDR information. The manufacturer was notified of the failure but refused to assist with the request to investigate why the steer-by-wire system failed. The vehicle was inspected by the body shop but not repaired. The failure mileage was 1,000.
- NHTSA ID
- 11767736
- Incident
- Feb 10, 2025
- Mileage
- 1,000 mi
While driving on a highway with Full Self-Driving engaged, I approached an exit and applied steering input to take control. I expected the system to disengage and the Cybertruck to follow my steering input. The vehicle did not respond in the manner I expected and left the paved roadway, entering a grass field. To my knowledge, it did not strike another vehicle, guardrail, tree, or structure. The airbags nevertheless deployed, and a collision event was indicated. I cannot determine from my observations what triggered the restraint system or whether contact with the ground or another condition played a role. After the vehicle came to rest, it lost power to the extent that it would not operate normally and I could not access parts of it by the usual means. Tesla personnel attempted to supply external power but could not restore normal operation. They ultimately had to force access to the trunk to retrieve belongings. The disabled vehicle was towed to Tesla’s Mechanicsburg Service Center and then to Sun Motors Collision Center. I notified Tesla and requested an explanation specific to this incident. Tesla has provided me with vehicle data through its privacy process. Unfortunately, Tesla stated most of the data was unavailable without explanation, such as video recordings and event data. In correspondence through September 17, Tesla referred to general driver responsibility and collision-related warranty coverage, but I have not received a technical explanation that resolves the steering behavior, the airbag deployment, or the power loss. I have followed up with Tesla multiple times. Their final response is "We don't comment on causes." They refuse to provide any other information or support the warranty. I do not know whether a vehicle system malfunction caused or contributed to the roadway departure or whether the later events were consequences of the departure.
- NHTSA ID
- 11767489
- Incident
- Aug 19, 2026
The contact owns a 2024 Tesla Cybertruck. The contact stated that while driving 20 MPH with the autopilot feature engaged the vehicle failed to stop at a stop sign. The contact manually intervened and stopped the vehicle. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 11,818.
- NHTSA ID
- 11767458
- Incident
- Sep 28, 2026
- Mileage
- 11,818 mi
Manufacturer communications
A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.
POWER TRAIN
On certain Cybertruck vehicles, the halfshaft bolts may lose torque, which may cause a loud grinding noise if the hub and axle facespline teeth become unseated and damaged. If axle grinding noise is present before starting this bulletin, replace the hub, halfshaft, and halfshaft bolt on the impacted corner. Replace the remaining halfshaft bolts on the unaffected halfshaft locations. Then, run a Double Pedal Torque Test to confirm the hub and halfshaft facespline teeth are properly seated. If no axle grinding noise is present before starting this bulletin, replace all 4 halfshaft bolts and run a Double Pedal Torque Test to confirm the hub and halfshaft facespline teeth are properly seated.
POWER TRAIN
On certain Cybertruck vehicles, the halfshaft bolts may lose torque, which may cause a loud grinding noise if the hub and axle facespline teeth become unseated and damaged. Replace all 4 halfshaft bolts and run a Double Pedal Torque Test to confirm the hub and halfshaft facespline teeth are properly seated.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
On certain Cybertruck vehicles, the AC junction box to fast charge contactor HV harness might have a poor crimp connection, which may cause increased resistance and localized heating in the harness. If the ancillary cover is removed for other procedures, replace the AC junction box to fast charge contactor HV harness with version -J or later.
STRUCTURE:BODY
On some Cybertruck vehicles, the adhesive in top edge and/or center reinforcement bracket of the tailgate might delaminate, which may cause noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH). Inspect the vehicle for symptoms related to the condition. If symptoms are present, rework or replace the tailgate assembly.
STRUCTURE:BODY
On some Cybertruck vehicles, when the tonneau cover is closed, the tonneau slat water management channel is exposed, which under certain environmental conditions, may cause excessive water to enter the cargo bed.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
On certain Cybertruck vehicles, the left body controller's printed circuit board was misaligned with its heatsink, which may cause the board to crack when the enclosure is closed. This may lead to a graceful power-off event.
Manufacturers file copies of the bulletins they send to dealers with NHTSA. These often describe diagnostic or repair procedures for a known condition. They are not recalls: repairs described in a bulletin are usually only free if the vehicle is still under warranty or the manufacturer has extended coverage.
Compare model years
Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model
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. Older model years have had longer for reports to accumulate.