STRUCTURE:BODY
2016 Tesla Model X
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 445 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2016 Tesla Model X, most frequently naming the suspension, electrical and driver assistance categories. 12 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 18 NHTSA investigations name it; and 142 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 2021 | 16 | 243 |
| Feb 2021 | 6 | 249 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 255 |
| Apr 2021 | 10 | 265 |
| May 2021 | 6 | 271 |
| Jun 2021 | 4 | 275 |
| Jul 2021 | 9 | 284 |
| Aug 2021 | 3 | 287 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 290 |
| Oct 2021 | 4 | 294 |
| Dec 2021 | 4 | 298 |
| Jan 2022 | 1 | 299 |
| Feb 2022 | 2 | 301 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 304 |
| Apr 2022 | 3 | 307 |
| May 2022 | 3 | 310 |
| Jun 2022 | 5 | 315 |
| Jul 2022 | 4 | 319 |
| Aug 2022 | 6 | 325 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 329 |
| Oct 2022 | 7 | 336 |
| Nov 2022 | 6 | 342 |
| Dec 2022 | 4 | 346 |
| Jan 2023 | 5 | 351 |
| Feb 2023 | 5 | 356 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 361 |
| Apr 2023 | 5 | 366 |
| May 2023 | 5 | 371 |
| Jun 2023 | 1 | 372 |
| Jul 2023 | 1 | 373 |
| Aug 2023 | 3 | 376 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 377 |
| Oct 2023 | 2 | 379 |
| Dec 2023 | 6 | 385 |
| Jan 2024 | 1 | 386 |
| Feb 2024 | 5 | 391 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 393 |
| Apr 2024 | 4 | 397 |
| May 2024 | 3 | 400 |
| Jun 2024 | 1 | 401 |
| Aug 2024 | 3 | 404 |
| Oct 2024 | 2 | 406 |
| Nov 2024 | 1 | 407 |
| Dec 2024 | 5 | 412 |
| Jan 2025 | 2 | 414 |
| Feb 2025 | 4 | 418 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 424 |
| Apr 2025 | 1 | 425 |
| May 2025 | 5 | 430 |
| Jun 2025 | 1 | 431 |
| Jul 2025 | 1 | 432 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 433 |
| Oct 2025 | 2 | 435 |
| Nov 2025 | 1 | 436 |
| Dec 2025 | 1 | 437 |
| Jan 2026 | 3 | 440 |
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 442 |
| Apr 2026 | 1 | 443 |
| May 2026 | 1 | 444 |
| Jul 2026 | 1 | 445 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Suspension15026.1%
- Electrical9416.4%
- Driver assistance7813.6%
- Steering5810.1%
- Body & structure559.6%
- Visibility335.7%
- Brakes244.2%
- Interior & seats152.6%
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
12 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.govSEAT BELTS:FRONT:WARNING LIGHT/DEVICES
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: INSTRUMENT CLUSTER/PANEL
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.
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
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.
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
I was driving the vehical when something went wrong. The vehicle showed a warning stating "ABS disabled". I was worried by this, when I saw further warnings appear including "Safety restraint system issue" "Power braking assist reduced" and something about steering. The dashboard also showed "Park Brake fault" and a red icon with a seatbelt and another with an airbag. Alarmed, I pulled to the side of the road. I then discovered that I could not use the parking brake or turn on the flashers. There is no manual parking brake, and the car thought it was still driving. I was facing downhill and the only way to keep the car from rolling was to keep my foot on the brake. I had to call 911 and could only safely exit the vehicle, after they had ensured it would not roll. Again, I could not exit the vehicle, or even put on flashers to warn traffic. Tesla attempted to have me reboot the operating system but this also failed -- apparently there is no manual reboot or brake avalible.
- NHTSA ID
- 11751426
- Incident
- Jul 16, 2026
I own a 2016 Tesla Model X P100D equipped with the Large Drive Unit (LDU). The component that fails is the rotor coolant seal in the rear drive unit motor. Coolant leaks internally into the motor and inverter, causing bearing wear, corrosion, isolation faults, and eventual complete drive unit failure. The affected drive units are still installed and available for inspection upon request. This defect puts my safety and the safety of others at risk because it can cause sudden loss of propulsion (especially at highway speeds), power reduction, or total drivetrain shutdown, potentially leading to a crash. Coolant in high-voltage areas also raises electrical fault/fire risks. The problem is widely reproduced and confirmed: Tesla service centers are familiar with it and replace failed units with updated “-U” revisions that include a coolant bypass. Independent EV shops confirm the exact root cause (rotor seal failure) via encoder inspections showing coolant intrusion and through disassembly. This is a documented pattern failure in all 2012–2020 LDU vehicles. No police or insurance inspections have occurred yet, as no crash or total failure has happened. Tesla is aware of the recurring issue through service records on similar vehicles. Early symptoms before full failure typically include rear motor whining/grinding (especially under load), reduced power warnings, “Rear Drive Unit Fault” messages, and visible coolant on the speed sensor. These can appear gradually. My vehicles have not yet experienced total failure, but the defect is known to be inevitable. I am proactively monitoring encoder sensors. Because this is a systemic design defect affecting thousands of vehicles with clear safety implications, I request NHTSA open an investigation and require Tesla to issue a recall for free repairs/replacements on all affected 2012–2020 LDU vehicles.
- NHTSA ID
- 11735432
- Incident
- May 1, 2026
The rack-and-pinion system failed, causing steering to become difficult at low speeds and worsening rapidly over weeks. It was inspected by a mechanic at EV Coastal in Santa Ana, who said it was not the U-Joint or bolt corrosion issue addressed by an earlier NHTSA recall. There were no notifications either visible to me or to the mechanic in service mode. The accident was at low speeds and a partial cause was my daughter's difficulty making a smooth adjustment with the steering wheel. She was pulling out of a parking spot and collided with a car going a little faster than it should have in a parking lot. Fortunately, the damage was limited to a scratch to the passenger side door of the other car (see photo) and scratches to the right side of the front fender of the Tesla.
- NHTSA ID
- 11734564
- Incident
- Apr 25, 2026
Coolant heater failure resulting in no regenerative braking .
- NHTSA ID
- 11726854
- Incident
- Feb 11, 2026
I don't think Tesla ever did the steering bolt recall per SB-20-32-002 on my vehicle. I had all the bolts fail, with obvious corrosion, and the motor separated from the rack causing a loss of power steering while moving. You can see where the bolt physically failed and the corrosion both on the remainder of the bolt and the entire mating surface of the motor to the steering rack. Going back through my service records, it is only listed once on 9 June 2021 with notes of "Parts not available" hidden in the comments. Tesla is telling me this was done, with comments about a January 2021 visit, but I never took it to them in January (I did in February) and the February visit has no mention of the recall. Regardless, one of two things happened: either Tesla didn't do the recall and I fell victim to the issue or the recall was done and the new, updated bolts still failed due to corrosion and exposure to a corrosive, winter environment. I still suspect the former for the reason that no visible evidence of the protective wax coating required by the TSB could be seen on the motor or steering rack. Perhaps they swapped the bolts but didn't apply the wax, which allowed for continued corrosion? I won't know for sure until they continue with the repair, but I'm worried they are going to toss the parts and sweep this under the rug and foot me with the full bill. Regardless, I want this documented that I had a failure despite the recall so that any other owner with a similar problem can see this record.
- NHTSA ID
- 11725858
- Incident
- Mar 14, 2026
The contact owns a 2016 Tesla Model X. The contact stated that while driving during a rainstorm, the power steering assist feature suddenly failed, and the steering wheel became difficult to turn in either direction. The driver was able to forcefully turn the steering wheel and drive the vehicle a short distance to the residence. The vehicle was later towed to the local Tesla Service Center who diagnosed that the steering rack circuit board had failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not yet repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, but no assistance was offered. The contact was informed that the VIN was not included in NHTSA Campaign Number: 20V062000 (STEERING). The contact stated that the vehicle had experienced the failure listed in the recall. The failure mileage was 80,000.
- NHTSA ID
- 11713627
- Incident
- Dec 25, 2025
- Mileage
- 80,000 mi
2016 Tesla Model X experienced Electronic Parking Brake failure with alerts stating ‘parking brake did not release.’ Tesla is charging for replacement despite known EPB defect and recall affecting 2016 Model X vehicles. This is a safety-related braking issue.
- NHTSA ID
- 11712871
- Incident
- Jan 19, 2026
While driving a notification popped up, parking brake may not be applied while driving. This notification appears in rain or snow making me think it is weather related malfunctioning.
- NHTSA ID
- 11710187
- Incident
- Dec 29, 2025
Manufacturer communications
A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
On certain Model S and Model X vehicles, the battery powered Pyrotechnic High Voltage (HV) Battery Disconnect will reach the end of its battery lifespan in the near future, which will trigger alerts and may limit the vehicle’s performance.
STRUCTURE:BODY
For some Model X vehicles built before May 2018, should water seep into the printed circuit board of the rear door cladding sensor, an alert might be displayed on the touchscreen.
STRUCTURE:BODY
On some Model X vehicles, the front roof applique and/or center spine applique may have been applied to the roof without the use of primer, which could cause the applique(s) to separate from the roof. This bulletin employs an improved inspection process which replaces the one for SB-20-12-005.
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.