2023 Tesla Model Y

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.

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.

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.

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

I am experiencing a loud, persistent creaking and groaning noise coming from the front suspension of my 2023 Tesla Model Y whenever the vehicle travels over bumps, uneven road surfaces, or during low-speed steering maneuvers.This structural front-end noise raises immediate safety concerns regarding a potential premature failure of critical suspension components, specifically the front lower lateral links or upper control arm ball joints. I am deeply concerned that this component wear could lead to a sudden detachment of the suspension link while driving, resulting in a sudden loss of steering control and an immediate crash hazard.Tesla is aware of widespread suspension issues in these model years, but there is currently no active safety recall to protect owners from catastrophic part failure. I am filing this to urge a mandatory safety recall before a serious failure occurs. I have just over 63,000 miles

NHTSA ID

11756495

Incident

Jul 15, 2026

I am filing a complaint regarding the low-beam headlights on my Tesla. The headlights emit an excessively bright glare that impairs the visibility of oncoming traffic and surrounding motorists, creating a hazardous driving condition. This issue corresponds to federal safety non-compliance under FMVSS No. 108 and NHTSA Recall Campaign No. 26V507, where the low beams were found to output up to 230.1 candela, nearly doubling the legal federal limit of 125 candela. The excessive illumination creates a 'veiling glare' that threatens highway safety, particularly during inclement weather conditions such as rain, snow, or fog. I request that my vehicle be physically inspected and serviced with compliant hardware components as outlined by federal regulators.

NHTSA ID

11756327

Incident

Jun 1, 2026

Yes. Here’s a tighter version designed to stay **under 1,800 characters including spaces** while retaining the key safety facts. I am reporting a serious front suspension failure on my 2023 Tesla Model Y. A bolt fell out near the front control arm/lower suspension bushing area. Tesla’s service invoice confirms the vehicle required pickup from my driveway “due to a bolt falling out near the front control arm bushing area.” The vehicle is available for inspection, although I do not know if Tesla retained the replaced parts. This was a serious safety risk because a front suspension failure could affect steering, wheel position, and vehicle control. Fortunately, it occurred on my residential street near my home. Had this happened at highway speed with my family in the vehicle, the consequences could have been catastrophic. Tesla inspected and repaired the vehicle, replacing the front lower lateral and compliance links on both sides and performing an alignment. Tesla’s written diagnosis states the issue “stemmed from a loose component in the front suspension system.” However, I was verbally told the failure resulted from striking a curb or pothole. There was no apparent impact damage to the body, tires, rims, or undercarriage. My insurance adjuster later contacted Tesla and was reportedly told there was NO evidence the vehicle struck anything. My claim was denied as a result. Tesla’s written repair documentation also contains no mention of impact or collision damage. I received no warning lamp or dashboard message before the failure. The significant symptom was the suspension bolt falling out. I am concerned that a critical suspension component became loose without evidence of impact. I ask NHTSA to investigate whether this could be related to a broader Model Y suspension or fastener safety issue.

NHTSA ID

11756136

Incident

Apr 5, 2026

A FRONT BAR ON THE LOWER FRONT LEFT OF THE CAR COLLAPSED LEAVING 2 SCREWS ON THE GROUNG AND STEERLING WHEEL NOT USABLE

NHTSA ID

11756135

Incident

Aug 10, 2026

Defect Summary: Front suspension lower lateral link bolt backing out / stripped internal subframe weld-nut threads. Incident Description: While driving, the vehicle developed front-end suspension instability / clunking. Upon inspection by Tesla Service, technicians determined that the lateral link attachment bolt stripped the internal subframe threads, requiring a complete $4,599 subframe assembly replacement. Safety Risk: Lateral link bolt separation causes a complete loss of suspension alignment and wheel control without prior warning or dashboard alerts, creating an immediate crash hazard at highway speeds. Manufacturer Response: The defect manifested immediately prior to logging the ticket at 20 miles past the Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty limit). Tesla refused warranty coverage, treating a known structural fastener defect as customer wear-and-tear and demanding $4,599 for subframe replacement.

NHTSA ID

11756128

Incident

Aug 10, 2026

Our car phantom brakes when traveling through shadows frequently and occasionally at random. This occurs at high speed as well as low speed.

NHTSA ID

11756091

Incident

Aug 3, 2026

I experienced issues with the handling and suspension of this vehicle beginning in September 2024. I made an appointment and took it to Tesla in October 2024 at 10,484 miles, and the Tesla service center refused to look at the suspension because they were “unable to replicate” the crunching noise I was hearing on their test drive. In November 2024, I had a total control arm failure resulting in the vehicle needing to be towed to the Tesla service center. The repair was a retorque, but I still experienced issues I was told were “normal” because of the vehicle’s weight. The issue became worse in July 2026. Please see August 2026 invoice for very concerning notes regarding the vehicles state after Tesla told me it was “normal.” Invoice indicates “The right hand lateral link bolt was held by a few threads and the top nut was no longer welded on the subframe.” This could have caused a deadly accident when steering at highway speeds, but Tesla said the noises I was hearing when turning were normal. I urge NHTSA to investigate this as it seems to be a common issue with 2020-2023 Model Y’s suspensions. How many others have been turned away by Tesla because they were unable to replicate an intermittent sound that they deemed as “normal” that could ultimately lead to essential components being held onto by “a few threads?”

NHTSA ID

11755748

Incident

Aug 8, 2026

Yesterday, my Tesla Model Y 2022 suffered a catastrophic failure. The front lower forward control arm completely detached from the subframe due to a missing/fallen-out factory bolt. For the past couple weeks leading upto last night's incident, I've been hearing a "small thump/thud" sound whenever i accelerate the vehicle. I reported this issue to Tesla and arranged a service appointment for coming Wed Aug 12 2026 but unfortunately the catastrophic failure occured last night 5 days before the scheduled service appointment.

NHTSA ID

11755611

Incident

Aug 7, 2026

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.

On certain Model S, Model X and Model Y vehicles, the interior camera requires replacement to mitigate reduced driver attentiveness detection performance in low-light conditions.

On some Model Y vehicles, the center high mounted stop light may cause interference with the power supply line for the High Voltage Controller (HVC), which can falsely trigger High Voltage Interlock Loop (HVIL) alerts HVP_w026_HvilFault or BMS_a036_SW_HvpHvilFault.

On certain Model S, Model X and Model Y vehicles, the interior camera requires replacement to mitigate reduced driver attentiveness detection performance in low-light conditions.

On certain Model Y vehicles, the LH and/or RH rear primary body seals might cause wind noise in the cabin.

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.