Engine. Review the 86 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Exterior Lighting. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Electrical System. Review the 12 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

8 crash reports6 fire reports6 injury reports

Seat Belts complaints

5 reports

Clear category filter

Mileage unknown · Jul 16, 2026

Seat Belts

Driver's side seatbelt retraction mechanism failed without warning. Intentionally brought car to dealer ASAP since it was close to 100,000 miles pointed out. This was serious safety defect dealer refused to repair under warranty.

NHTSA ODI #11750832

Mileage unknown · Jul 12, 2024

Seat Belts

Read full complaint

Drivers side seat belt strap does not retract back when removed and has faulty latch which sometimes pops out. Dealer told us that because the car had over 60,000 miles on it that we would be responsible for payment to replace the pretensions and other internal parts plus the latch. This car was bought new in 2019 and had only been involved in one accident which the seat belt was not used due to the fact that the car was parked when it was struck. Since this is a safety issue which could result in my death or serious injury in the event of a vehicle accident I am taking a chance evey time i drive this vehicle. The approximate cost according to hyundai would be around $1800.00 - $2000.00. I consider this a manufacturer defect that hyundai should replace and be responsible for the cost. They refuse to fix this issue unless I pay for the repair. I never heard of a seat belt having a mileage cut off at any amount of mileage. Please advise me if you can enforce safety defect repair to be paid for by hyundai. If you are not able to hold hyundai liable I would appreciate any entity that you may know of that can make them replace for free the defective belt and latch. I'm afraid to drive this car without a working seat belt on the drivers side nor do I have the outrageous money for it to be repaired at my expense.

NHTSA ODI #11601401

Mileage unknown · Apr 16, 2024

Air BagsElectrical SystemSeat Belts

Read full complaint

Airbag light came on. Car is in otherwise perfect shape (red flag). Brought to Hyundai dealer. Was told it was a short somewhere on front passenger side. But it will cost $250 to figure out where. Then possibly over $1000 to fix it!! Upon researching it I found many complaints on same issue on otherwise normal good condition sonata’s. Clearly they used inferior components designed to fail. Similar to their stealable cars (with a USB cable) I’m sure you’re fermi liar with. They hid that until TIC TOK put out videos showing how to. They HAD TO fix it due to owners auto insurance going up (way up). I can’t afford to repair this pressing safety issue. Hyundai should be held responsible for using knowingly faulty parts in their air bag system then charging customer large $ just to make an otherwise perfectly running car safe to operate. Oh, then they said they’d offer me a “loaner” till fixed. But their “loner” costs $50 per day!! That’s a RENTAL not a loaner.

NHTSA ODI #11583375

60,000 miles · Apr 5, 2024

Air BagsSeat Belts

The contact owns a 2019 Hyundai Sonata. The contact stated that the air bag warning light had been illuminated. The contact stated that while pulling on the seat belt, the warning light was deactivated; however, the warning light activated shortly after. The vehicle had not been taken to the dealer. The vehicle had not been repa…

Read full complaint

NHTSA ODI #11581278

10,500 miles · Jul 27, 2021

Seat BeltsCrashInjury

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2019 Hyundai Sonata. The contact stated while she was at a red light, another vehicle crashed into the back of her vehicle however, the seat belt failed to retract, causing the contact to suffer whiplash and a bump to her knees against the dashboard behind the steering wheel. A police report was filed. The contact stated she was able to drive the vehicle to her residence, where she noticed she had sustained injuries on her legs and her right leg was swollen, as well as multiple other injuries. The contact sought medical attention. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken to the dealer and the driver’s side seat belt was replaced however, the seat belt was still not latching securely. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic who advised the contact to drive the vehicle up to a certain speed and step on the brake pedal to see if the seat belt would operate as needed. The contact did so, and the seat belt operated as needed. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and advised the contact to mail photos of the vehicle and other documents. The contact provided the needed documentation as requested. The approximate failure mileage was 12,246.

NHTSA ODI #11426678

Official recalls

No recalls in this snapshot.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

DP22003 · Loss Of Motive Power

Opened Sep 12, 2022 · Closed Dec 12, 2023

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received a letter dated July 13, 2022, petitioning the Agency to initiate a safety defect investigation into loss of motive power allegations attributed to oil drain pan assembly failures on certain Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Kia America, Inc. vehicles spanning Model Years (MY) 2005-2021. The Petitioners cited examples of complaints indicating that the subject vehicles were experiencing rapid loss of engine oil due to oil drain plug back outs, resulting in loss of motive power and/or catastrophic engine damage. Additional complaints were provided which alleged that the oil drain pans lack sufficient structural integrity and are susceptible to cracking. The petition itself can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI number 11481745. On September 12, 2022, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Defect Petition (DP22-003) to evaluate the Petitioners’ request. The Petitioners have provided additional complaints within four supplemental letters dated January 31, 2023, March 21, 2023, May 23, 2023, and August 4, 2023. ODI’s evaluation included the review and analysis of the complaints and supporting information submitted by the Petitioners, as well as additional complaints submitted directly to NHTSA which referenced either the oil drain plug or a crack in the oil pan. After reviewing the available data, ODI has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into the oil drain pan assemblies of the subject vehicles. Based on a review of the available information, a loss of motive power resulting from an oil drain plug back out has not occurred between the initial sale of a vehicle and the completion of its first oil change. If during an oil change service, a technician fails to remove the existing drain plug gasket before installing a new gasket, it is likely that a proper seal between the drain plug and the oil pan will not be made. An improper seal between the drain plug and oil pan could lead to the backing out on the drain plug, resulting in the sudden loss of oil while driving. Additionally, the provided examples of oil pan cracks were localized to the immediate vicinity of the oil drain plug and/or appeared to be the result of direct-contact with a tool during servicing. There is no information to support that a vehicle-based defect exists relating to the oil pan assembly, and instead the documented incidents are related to the failure to follow the proper maintenance procedures during oil change service. In October 2023, Hyundai published a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) that provided detailed instructions for oil change service on its gasoline powered vehicles, specifically highlighting the need to remove and replace the existing drain plug gasket prior to reinstalling the drain plug. After a thorough review of the material submitted by the petitioner, the information already in NHTSA's possession, and the potential risks to motor vehicle safety implicated by the petitioners' allegations, NHTSA does not believe that a formal investigation is warranted. Therefore, the petition is denied. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) further detailing NHTSA’s reasons for denial of the petition will be published. The reference numbers for the complaints to NHTSA cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for DP22-003. To review those complaints and the additional complaints ODI added to its evaluation which are cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

EA19001 · Electrical Overstress

Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.