EXTERIOR LIGHTING:HEADLIGHTS
2019 Tesla Model 3
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 606 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2019 Tesla Model 3, most frequently naming the driver assistance, electrical and suspension categories. 22 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 14 NHTSA investigations name it; and 106 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 119 |
| Oct 2021 | 3 | 122 |
| Nov 2021 | 5 | 127 |
| Dec 2021 | 6 | 133 |
| Jan 2022 | 5 | 138 |
| Feb 2022 | 27 | 165 |
| Mar 2022 | 11 | 176 |
| Apr 2022 | 8 | 184 |
| May 2022 | 6 | 190 |
| Jun 2022 | 15 | 205 |
| Jul 2022 | 41 | 246 |
| Aug 2022 | 19 | 265 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 274 |
| Oct 2022 | 6 | 280 |
| Nov 2022 | 9 | 289 |
| Dec 2022 | 10 | 299 |
| Jan 2023 | 9 | 308 |
| Feb 2023 | 9 | 317 |
| Mar 2023 | 10 | 327 |
| Apr 2023 | 11 | 338 |
| May 2023 | 12 | 350 |
| Jun 2023 | 8 | 358 |
| Jul 2023 | 8 | 366 |
| Aug 2023 | 8 | 374 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 379 |
| Oct 2023 | 7 | 386 |
| Nov 2023 | 9 | 395 |
| Dec 2023 | 7 | 402 |
| Jan 2024 | 8 | 410 |
| Feb 2024 | 12 | 422 |
| Mar 2024 | 11 | 433 |
| Apr 2024 | 6 | 439 |
| May 2024 | 15 | 454 |
| Jun 2024 | 14 | 468 |
| Jul 2024 | 4 | 472 |
| Aug 2024 | 12 | 484 |
| Sep 2024 | 9 | 493 |
| Oct 2024 | 8 | 501 |
| Nov 2024 | 7 | 508 |
| Dec 2024 | 3 | 511 |
| Jan 2025 | 6 | 517 |
| Feb 2025 | 3 | 520 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 524 |
| Apr 2025 | 1 | 525 |
| May 2025 | 6 | 531 |
| Jun 2025 | 3 | 534 |
| Jul 2025 | 7 | 541 |
| Aug 2025 | 7 | 548 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 552 |
| Oct 2025 | 5 | 557 |
| Nov 2025 | 4 | 561 |
| Dec 2025 | 4 | 565 |
| Jan 2026 | 3 | 568 |
| Feb 2026 | 4 | 572 |
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 575 |
| Apr 2026 | 6 | 581 |
| May 2026 | 7 | 588 |
| Jun 2026 | 3 | 591 |
| Jul 2026 | 10 | 601 |
| Aug 2026 | 5 | 606 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Driver assistance25731.7%
- Electrical8911.0%
- Suspension8210.1%
- Airbags789.6%
- Brakes637.8%
- Steering526.4%
- Seat belts506.2%
- Interior & seats455.5%
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
22 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.govTIRES:PRESSURE MONITORING AND REGULATING SYSTEMS
SEAT BELTS:FRONT:WARNING LIGHT/DEVICES
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
Lower Lateral Link detachment
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received 156 complaints alleging a suspension failure in model year (MY) 2018-2020 Model 3 and MY 2021-2023 Model Y vehicles. The suspension failure involves the detachment of the front lower lateral link, which potentially causes a loss of vehicle directional control. In most cases, there was no advance warning or indication that the suspension failure would occur. Some cases cite noises occurring prior to failure, but note that the vehicle provides no visual warnings. Once the failure occurs, the vehicle may not be drivable, thus requiring a tow. Tesla has previously recalled vehicles for lateral link detachments through two recalls. Recall 21V-835 addressed 2,791 MY2019-2021 Tesla Model 3 vehicles due to a production issue. Recall 23V-235 addressed 422 2018-2019 Tesla Model 3 vehicles that had experienced similar failures to those recalled under 21V-835. The subject failures for this investigation exceed the scope of these recalls and do not appear to be related to the production issue that prompted those recalls. ODI is opening this Preliminary Evaluation to determine the underlying cause, scope, and severity of the potential problem and to fully assess the potential safety-related issues. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
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.
Compliance with Standing General Order 2021-01 Reporting Requirements
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) has identified numerous incident reports submitted by Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) in response to Standing General Order 2021-01 (the “SGO”), in which the reported crashes occurred several months or more before the dates of the reports. The majority of these reports involved crashes in which the Standing General Order in place at the time required a report to be submitted within one or five days of Tesla receiving notice of the crash. When the reports were submitted, Tesla submitted them in one of two ways. Many of the reports were submitted as part of a single batch, while others were submitted on a rolling basis. Preliminary engagement between ODI and Tesla on the issue indicates that the timing of the reports was due to an issue with Tesla’s data collection, which, according to Tesla, has now been fixed. NHTSA is opening this Audit Query, a standard process for reviewing compliance with legal requirements, to evaluate the cause of the potential delays in reporting, the scope of any such delays, and the mitigations that Tesla has developed to address them. As part of this review, NHTSA will assess whether any reports of prior incidents remain outstanding and whether the reports that were submitted include all of the required and available data. The SGO reports cited in the Opening Resume, can be found at NHTSA.gov/SGOCrashReporting under the following SGO 2021-01 report IDs: 13781-11020-1 13781-10844-1 13781-10843-1 13781-10530-1 13781-10160-1 13781-10159-1 13781-10157-1 13781-10146-1 13781-10122-1 13781-10098-1 13781-10097-1 13781-10096-1 13781-10095-1 13781-10094-1 13781-10093-1 13781-10023-1 13781-10022-1 13781-10021-1 13781-10020-1 13781-10017-1 13781-10016-1 13781-10015-1 13781-10014-1 13781-10013-1 13781-10012-1 13781-6047-1 13781-9930-1 13781-9917-1 13781-9928-1 13781-9925-1 13781-9924-1 13781-9923-1 13781-9922-1 13781-9835-1 13781-9834-1 13781-9833-1 13781-9832-1 13781-9831-1 13781-9830-1 13781-9829-1 13781-9827-1 13781-9818-1 13781-9780-1 13781-9779-1 13781-9778-1 13781-9777-1 13781-9775-1 13781-9774-1 13781-9773-1 13781-9772-1 13781-9771-1 13781-9770-1 13781-9728-1 13781-9688-1 13781-9715-1 13781-9714-1 13781-9713-1 13781-9712-1 13781-9711-1 13781-9710-1 13781-9709-1 13781-9696-1 13781-9695-1 13781-9694-1 13781-9693-1 13781-9692-1 13781-9691-1 13781-9690-1 13781-9687-1 13781-9686-1 13781-9342-1 13781-9319-1 13781-9019-1 13781-8910-1 13781-8732-1 13781-8712-1 13781-8310-1 13781-7897-1 13781-7895-1 13781-7835-1 13781-7798-1 13781-7797-1 13781-7758-1 13781-7757-1 13781-7756-1 13781-7755-1 13781-7667-1 13781-7399-1 13781-7398-1 13781-7397-1 13781-7396-1 13781-7395-1 13781-7394-1 13781-7393-1 13781-7389-1 13781-7388-1 13781-7387-1 13781-7386-1 13781-7385-1 13781-7383-1 13781-7187-1 13781-7186-1 13781-7185-1 13781-7184-1 13781-7181-1 13781-7023-1 13781-6399-1 13781-6389-1 13781-6388-1 13781-6387-1 13781-6386-1 13781-6379-1 13781-6378-1 13781-6377-1 13781-6375-1 13781-6214-1 13781-6172-1 13781-6155-1 13781-6154-1 13781-6122-1 13781-6120-1 13781-6118-1 13781-5800-1
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
Tesla recently introduced auto parking as part of its FSD technology (Software 2026.20.6.11). Whenever we set the car destination to “home”, the auto parking has been able to gradually maneuver the car and self park in our garage. On 8/11, around 8:30pm, the car made a mistake during the auto parking. During the auto reverse into garage, the car came too close to the side of the garage and the driver side mirror hit the wall and partially broke. The driver was monitoring the car. If the car has kept its angle, it would have made it through correctly. But looks like it miscalculated and in a fraction of a second, the car’s side mirror hit the garage wall. Given the “ park” feature is new, looks like it hasn’t been tested well. It should be recalled until it is fixed and impacted drivers should be compensated for their repairs.
- NHTSA ID
- 11756615
- Incident
- Aug 11, 2026
Noise came from front left wheel while driving around a turn. Later the same day another noise when turning the wheel when leaving a parking spot. Steering felt strange. It was late at night, so left the vehicle until the morning. In the morning, discovered a large bolt in front of the vehicle. The front left wheel was turned differently than the right front wheel. Had to spend almost $400 to get the vehicle towed to a Tesla service center. They later confirmed, "The cause was detached links from the bushings and bolts. Technician replaced the front lower lateral links, front lower compliance links, and front stabilizer bar bushing brackets. Total cost for those repairs was $1,902.90. This could easily have resulted in an accident and even a fatality if we were not so lucky.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754524
- Incident
- Jul 31, 2026
Over a period of several weeks, the front suspension increasingly made noise (squeaking and groaning) and felt loose when turning and going over bumps. The front control arms were replaced 10/31/24. The problem has begun recurring over the last few months, with the same noise occurring and progressively worsening.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754415
- Incident
- Oct 31, 2024
I am writing to report a serious safety incident involving my 2019 Tesla Model 3. My goal is not to assign blame, but to make Tesla aware of an incident that I believe warrants review from a safety perspective. While the vehicle was parked, my children were sitting inside watching TV, we were standing 5 ft from the vehicle. My younger son was seated in the front passenger seat, and my older son, not realizing his brother had leaned over the top of the seat, adjusted the passenger seat upward. As the seat moved up, it trapped my younger son's neck against the seat and obstructed his airway. Fortunately, we were a couple of feet away and heard the sound of glass breaking. We were able to free him, and he began breathing again and no serious injury occurs. It was an extremely frightening situation that could have had a much more serious outcome. During the incident, the panoramic glass roof also shattered from the pressure of my youngest son's head. I understand this may have occurred because of the force involved, but I wanted to include it as part of the overall event. I recognize that children should not play inside vehicles unsupervised, but they are 8 and 10 and were not rough housing just watching Netflix in the Telsa. However, this incident made me question whether additional safeguards could help prevent a similar situation in the future. Specifically, I wonder if there are opportunities to improve obstruction detection or pinch protection when a seat encounters resistance near a person's head or neck or making the seat unable to get so close to the ceiling an continue to rise. I wanted to bring this incident to your attention so safety teams can review it. If there is any additional information that would be helpful, including photographs, the vehicle VIN, or other details, I would be happy to provide them.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754413
- Incident
- Aug 1, 2026
The vehicle has quite a bit of noise coming from the suspension during normal driving. Creaks and groans.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754233
- Incident
- Jul 29, 2026
Between 2023 and 2026, I have had several clunking and creaking sounds from the suspension. These were then found isolated to "lateral and compliance link detachments" and Tesla noted these were "serious safety issues" and fixed them out of warranty at a cost of roughly $2500. When I pointed out that vehicles within this model range (manufactured April 2019 at the Fremont, CA plant) were flagged for a recall, they mentioned my vehicle was outside that range and insisted on an out-of-pocket repair. Further, I have similarly had to have the front left driver's side seat belt harness replaced because of a restraint control module failure. I have owned 3 other vehicles and have never had a restraint control module/seatbelt fail over just 82000 miles of use.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754101
- Incident
- May 14, 2026
Honestly since I took delivery the vehicle I did notice a clunking sound every time I would turn into a steep driveway. I reported the problem to Tesla on multiple occasions and they either could not replicate the sound or find the problem when they inspected the vehicle. So I lived with the on and off clunking sound. Years later while driving on the freeway I heard a really hard clunk and I began to lose control of the car luckily I was close to home and I was able to make it to my street. Upon arrival my tires completely fell off the control arm and I could move the steering wheel at all. I had to get it towed to the body shop. Long story short the lower control arm bolt completely fell off. I just happy this didn’t result in a major accident. But I had to get the car towed. I am pretty upset that Tesla pretty much said there is no issue. My family has Teslas and in all of them I hear the same clunking sound.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754053
- Incident
- Oct 6, 2025
About one month ago, my 2019 Tesla Model 3 developed a suspension issue that caused a noticeable vibration in the rear of the vehicle whenever I drove above 40 mph. At first, we suspected the problem was related to a tire. However, after the technicians at the Tesla Service Center lifted the vehicle for inspection, they discovered a much more serious issue. They brought me into the service area to show me that the right rear suspension was being held together by only the front portion of a bolt. The retaining nut had completely come off, leaving the bolt barely in place. Had that bolt shifted even a few millimeters while I was driving, it could have resulted in a catastrophic suspension failure and a serious accident. Tesla determined that the loose bolt had caused damage to the right rear (passenger-side) suspension assembly. The necessary repairs totaled approximately $1,800, which I paid to restore the vehicle to safe operating condition.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754048
- Incident
- Jun 4, 2026
Manufacturer communications
A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.
SERVICE BRAKES
On certain Model 3 vehicles, brake lines may be corroded beyond acceptable limits, which may result in loss of brake fluid. Loss of brake fluid will result in a customer facing alert if the fluid reaches the predetermined level to trigger an alert. Upon customer complaint of a low brake fluid alert, evidence of a brake fluid leak, or a failed periodic roadworthiness inspection, inspect the brake lines. If corrosion is found on any of the brake lines, replace all brake lines on the vehicle with new corrosion-resistant parts, in one combined repair. NOTE: Due to dual reduncancy, vehicle safety is not impacted by corrosion on the brake lines.
SERVICE BRAKES
On certain Model 3 vehicles, brake lines may be corroded beyond acceptable limits, which may result in loss of brake fluid. Loss of brake fluid will result in a customer facing alert if the fluid reaches the predetermined level to trigger an alert. Upon customer complaint of a low brake fluid alert, evidence of a brake fluid leak, or a failed periodic roadworthiness inspection, inspect the brake lines. If corrosion is found on any of the brake lines, replace all brake lines on the vehicle with new corrosion-resistant parts, in one combined repair. NOTE: Due to dual reduncancy, vehicle safety is not impacted by corrosion on the brake lines.
SUSPENSION
A firmware diagnosis feature is being introduced on Model 3 and Model Y vehicles that monitors wheel alignment over time. This feature detects changes in wheel alignment that may be related to incorrect tire pressures, degraded ball joints, bushings or damaged suspension links. If the feature determines that an inspection at a Tesla Service Center is required, a customer-facing alert will appear on the touchscreen.
Tesla does not provide physical owner's manual copies. Instead, all available owner’s manual content is integrated into the vehicle software, and only the content relevant for a given vehicle, based on vehicle configuration and software version installed, is displayed on its touchscreen. This file contains all available owner’s manual content for the vehicle converted to PDF format, and given the distribution method and NHTSA’s submission format requirements, it is the best available representative copy of owner’s manual content. However, a customer who accesses the owner’s manual via their vehicle’s touchscreen would only see the parts of this PDF file that are relevant to their vehicle.
Tesla does not provide physical owner's manual copies. Instead, all available owner’s manual content is integrated into the vehicle software, and only the content relevant for a given vehicle, based on vehicle configuration and software version installed, is displayed on its touchscreen. This file contains all available owner’s manual content for the vehicle converted to PDF format, and given the distribution method and NHTSA’s submission format requirements, it is the best available representative copy of owner’s manual content. However, a customer who accesses the owner’s manual via their vehicle’s touchscreen would only see the parts of this PDF file that are relevant to their vehicle.
Tesla does not provide physical owner's manual copies. Instead, all available owner’s manual content is integrated into the vehicle software, and only the content relevant for a given vehicle, based on vehicle configuration and software version installed, is displayed on its touchscreen. This file contains all available owner’s manual content for the vehicle converted to PDF format, and given the distribution method and NHTSA’s submission format requirements, it is the best available representative copy of owner’s manual content. However, a customer who accesses the owner’s manual via their vehicle’s touchscreen would only see the parts of this PDF file that are relevant to their vehicle.
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.