2025 Volvo XC90 Problems

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the safety alert audible sounds failed to function as intended. The contact stated that the alerts failed to provide an audible alert. The contact turned off the vehicle and started and the system independently reset. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, and an unknown software update was performed. The vehicle was repaired; however, the failure reoccurred. The failure became persistent. The contact stated that while reversing, the rear-view camera screen seized. The contact stated that the rear-view camera displayed a still image. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 4,500.

The accident avoidance system engaged during a 55mph drive on a divided 4 lane road. no other cars on road, no animals. Car swerved sharply to left half way into left lane and brakes engaged sharply, enough that driver and passenger in front went forward. after clearing warning, and proceeding down the road a few hundred feet, same thing happened. Has also occurred during navigation of a sharp curve, possible due to picking up a small reflection sign well off road.

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the safety alert audible sounds failed to function as intended. The contact stated that the alerts failed to provide an audible alert. The contact turned off the vehicle and started and the system independently reset. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, and an unknown software update was performed. The vehicle was repaired; however, the failure reoccurred. The failure became persistent. The contact stated that while reversing, the rear-view camera screen seized. The contact stated that the rear-view camera displayed a still image. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 4,500.

I am extremely disappointed with my 2025 Volvo XC90. The vehicle’s interface shuts down frequently, which is extremely dangerous—especially at highway speeds. On several occasions, including at night, the entire system has gone completely blank. This creates a serious safety hazard and puts lives at risk. Despite repeated complaints, the dealership has been ineffective and has provided no meaningful fix. In addition, when exiting a parking position, the exterior side mirrors deploy very slowly, making it unsafe to merge into traffic or assess surrounding vehicles. This delay is another clear hazard. Most concerning, the vehicle has shut down entirely while driving on multiple occasions. This is a life-threatening defect and completely unacceptable in a vehicle of this class. I paid over $90,000 for my XC90, expecting the highest standards of safety and reliability. Instead, I regret this purchase every day. Volvo’s failure to address these critical safety issues has severely undermined my confidence in the vehicle and the brand.

I was parallel parked. I put the vehicle in reverse to pull out. When I’d gone a few feet in reverse I baked and the brakes were HARD and failed to stop the car immediately. I nearly hit the car behind me. He/she honked at me, that’s how close I was. It happened three times. I think in all three incidents I was going in reverse. I had the dealership look at the vehicle but they could not replicate the issue. So they claim that it is safe to drive!

I am writing to report a serious safety concern related to a recent over-the-air software update for my 2025 Volvo XC90. On March 10, 2026, I was prompted to install a software update and scheduled it to complete overnight. The following morning, the vehicle interface indicated that the update had been successfully completed. Additionally, during a routine service visit on March 12, 2026, dealership personnel also believed the update had been properly installed. However, on March 15, 2026, while driving, I experienced a critical and dangerous failure: my brakes became unresponsive, and I was unable to stop the vehicle using the brake pedal. Multiple warning lights appeared simultaneously. Fortunately, I was near my home and was able to safely bring the vehicle to a stop by coasting through nearby streets. This situation could have resulted in a catastrophic accident had it occurred on a highway or in heavy traffic, particularly as my daughter was in the vehicle at the time. The vehicle was subsequently towed to the dealership. I was informed that during the initial installation attempt, the battery voltage dropped below the required level, causing the update to pause. Critically, I received no notification that the update had failed or was incomplete, and the vehicle interface continued to indicate that the update had been successfully installed. Upon inspection on March 16, 2026, the dealership determined that the software update resumed and completed installation on March 15—while I was actively operating the vehicle. At that time, the vehicle lost communication with its electronic systems, resulting in the loss of braking functionality. This sequence of events raises a significant safety concern. A software update that can pause due to low battery voltage and later resume without any notification—particularly while the vehicle is in operation—creates an unacceptable risk to drivers, passengers, and the public.

I am filing this complaint regarding misleading and inconsistent safety labeling on the Nuna REVV convertible car seat. The car seat’s physical sticker, the Nuna website product page, and the user manual all contain conflicting information about the height and weight limits for different installation configurations (vehicle belt vs. lower anchor, rear-facing vs. forward-facing). Specifically: • The website listed rear-facing use with vehicle belt as 5–30 lbs with a height range of 18–34 inches, and lower anchor belt as 5–30 lbs. The sticker on the seat displayed the height limit only for certain configurations, suggesting height was not a factor for others. • After I raised the discrepancy, Nuna’s own customer service team initially told me the sticker was correct and the lower anchor configuration had different limits. They later reversed course after consulting their CPST team, confirming that the rear-facing maximum is 30 lbs OR 34 inches for ALL installation methods — contradicting what both the sticker and website indicated. • This means both the NHTSA-approved sticker on the seat and the website contained incorrect or misleading information at the time of purchase. My [XXX] son ([XXX]) has been using this seat rear-facing based on the published specifications, but is actually over the height limit. This is a serious safety concern. Car seat labels are NHTSA-regulated and are the primary resource parents use to determine safe use. Conflicting information between the label, manual, and website creates a situation where children may be used outside the seat’s tested parameters without their parents’ knowledge. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the labeling on the Nuna REVV to determine whether it meets federal safety labeling standards and whether a corrective action or recall is warranted. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

I am filing this report regarding a serious and potentially dangerous issue with my 2025 Volvo XC90 (VIN: [XXX]), purchased new on [XXX]. On [XXX], with only 4,516 miles, I experienced a sudden and unexplained drop in tire pressure while driving. I pulled over safely, replaced the flat with a temporary tire, and took it to a local tire shop. The technician informed me that the rear passenger-side rim had a severe internal crack on the inside barrel, causing an air leak. There was no visible damage to the tire, no pothole impact, no curb hit—only a clean break in the rim, which suggests a possible structural or manufacturing defect. I immediately brought the car to the original dealership (Volvo Cars Clear Lake in Friendswood, TX), where Service Advisor Jared Black dismissed my concern and refused to cover the repair under warranty, claiming the rim must have hit a rock. I disagreed and requested documentation of this finding, but Mr. Black initially refused to provide the inspection report. After persistent arguing and a 5-hour wait at the service center, I was finally given a report showing a $2,338.99 wheel replacement recommendation, not covered by warranty. I bought a Volvo for its safety reputation, but this rim cracked under normal driving conditions and low mileage. A failure like this at highway speeds could have been catastrophic. I believe this warrants an official safety investigation to determine whether other 2025 Volvo XC90 rims may be at risk of similar failure. Please investigate. I have documentation available and am willing to provide additional information. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

The rear passenger windows have a defective haze in the glass that distorts and reduces clarity of visibility. Issue reported to dealership and VOLVO USA yet no resolution. Research indicates that this is a concern with various models - some dealers are replacing the glass, others claim this is normal.

I was backing out of my drive. It was an early morning and it was very foggy. The windows were foggy and not totally defrosted yet. My camera wasnt showing everything around but we were having constant upgrade issues during this week of October 5th through the 10th. My automatic braking never activated even though it was turned on. I ran into a cattle feeder overhang. I never seen it in my camera view. The windows seem to have a really bad fog to them. My back driver tail-light got broken and back driver panel got dented and scratched. There are probably more things involved as its in the shop as I am typing this out. The adjustor had to send another estimate to my insurance company for more damages done. I haven't gotten word back from them yet. But, it's over $3,000. All of the issues seemed to resolve after the update was finished after that week. My automatic braking worked after that.

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that while driving through a residential area at 35 MPH, the vehicle independently slowed down with the message "Engine Has Now Stopped" displayed on the instrument panel. The contact pulled over and turned off the vehicle. The contact stated that the vehicle initially failed to restart after the first attempt; however, the vehicle restarted after the second attempt and resumed normal operation after the failure. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and referred the contact to the dealer. The vehicle was taken to a dealer however, the dealer was unable to determine the cause for the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 2,300.

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated while driving at various speeds, the air bag light illuminated, and a message to return the vehicle to the dealer was displayed. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed. The vehicle was diagnosed with a software installation failure. The vehicle was repaired but the failure persisted. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer and remained with the dealer for further diagnostic testing. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 1,000.

The original OEM tires on a 2025 Volvo XC90 (purchased new in March 2025) failed prematurely due to what appears to be a manufacturing defect. Tire size: [e.g. 275/45R20]. Brand: [e.g. Pirelli Scorpion]. DOT: 193 7B594P 1924 (manufactured week 19 of 2024). The vehicle's original tires were removed in November 2025 for winter tire installation, at which point the odometer showed 6,808 miles. The tires were stored indoors in bags and never used again until April 2026, when a professional tire shop (Discount Tire) refused to remount them on the vehicle citing unsafe condition. The tires exhibit severe sidewall bulging, starburst cracking indicating internal structural failure, and at least one tire shows a deep gash with internal steel cords exposed. Three of the four original tires are affected. The fourth original tire was replaced in June 2025 after it failed during normal highway driving - the cause was attributed to a road hazard at the time but is now believed to be the same underlying defect. The replacement tire (a different unit purchased separately) shows no defects whatsoever. The safety risk is significant: three tires with structural sidewall failure were on an active vehicle for the first 6,808 miles of its life, including at highway speeds. One tire experienced an in-service failure. The remaining three deteriorated to the point a professional installer deemed them unsafe to mount. The failed tires are available for inspection. The problem has been confirmed by an independent tire service center (Discount Tire) who refused to install due to safety concerns. The manufacturer has not yet inspected the tires. There were no warning lamps or prior symptoms before the June 2025 in-service failure, and no visible signs of the sidewall damage were observed until the tires were removed from storage in April 2026.