2020 Hyundai Sonata

Car was taken to dealership for inspection. Upon inspection, it was determined that the fuel tank had expanded and pushed towards the heat shield, and expanded upward pushing up the back seats of vehicle. It was determined to not safe to drive. Manufacturer contacted me and offered a buyback. Upon their offer of a buyback, it was determined that I would owe the manufacturer approximately $2,000. I have requested that they fix it, and they have refused to give me the paperwork I requested about the car's condition and fixability. I am in the process of negotiating and am filing this complaint for the record.

Hyundai Motors America has failed to comply with its statutory obligations in conducting the recall campaign 25V796, and is instead engaging in behavior substantially similar to that which has been previously censured by NHTSA. My Sonata suffered irreparable damage related to this campaign as confirmed by HMA. 49 U.S.C. § 30120(a)(1)(A) allows HMA to choose one of three remedies: repair, replacement, or refund. However, they 1) say it cannot be safely repaired, 2) will not replace it, and 3) are not offering a repurchase as required by statute, i.e. "by refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation." Instead, Hyundai's case manager Aditya informed me on 5/29/2026 at 12:57 PM that they will make a repurchase offer "based on the Kelly Blue Book value." I protested and cited the statute, but he maintained that Hyundai has their process and subsequently gave an unconscionably low offer that was not based on any reasonable measure of depreciation. I insisted on a reasonable, defensible calculation. I proposed 1) using the state formula for calculating reasonable depreciation as applied in both Texas and California (HMA and my home states), or 2) using actual market values (of which I have tangible data) to determine the actual market loss in value. Hyundai has rejected both of these reasonable proposals in favor of an arbitrary formula that would leave me with thousands of dollars in lost value. On June 9, 2026, when I pressed Executive Case Manager Jenifer for an explanation of their proposed depreciation formula, she only stated that "it’s a standard calculation across the board" and that it applies "regardless of state" and they "will not change it." The NHTSA discussed this behavior in its Final Order and Determination against Fiat in Federal Register Vol. 45 No. 7, and endorsed a "reasonable" model similar to my proposal #2 above. It found Fiat non-compliant for its behavior which had a nearly similar impact.

NHTSA Complaint Statement Subject: Stop‑Drive Recall – Vehicle Held Since March 5, 2026 – No Remedy, No Transportation, Buyback Delayed I am filing a complaint regarding a stop‑drive safety recall that has left me without access to my vehicle since March 5, 2026, and the manufacturer has not provided a timely remedy, transportation assistance, or a completed buyback. My vehicle has been at the dealership since March 5 due to a manufacturer-issued stop‑drive recall. The dealership has confirmed they cannot legally release the vehicle because of the stop‑drive order. The vehicle is not repairable at this time, and the manufacturer initiated a buyback process. However, the manufacturer has been extremely slow to communicate or complete the buyback. Despite multiple attempts to contact them, I have not received a clear timeline, and the process has stalled. I have also not been provided with a loaner vehicle or consistent rental reimbursement, even though the stop‑drive order prevents me from using my car. Because of the delay, I am now facing financial hardship, including a past‑due car loan on a vehicle I cannot legally drive and cannot retrieve. I am effectively without transportation and without a remedy. I am requesting NHTSA’s assistance because the manufacturer has not met its obligations to provide a timely remedy or adequate support for a stop‑drive recall that has removed my vehicle from service for an extended period.

Vehicle subject to NHTSA Recall 25V796000 (fuel system defect). In July 2025, while driving, a loud explosive sound came from the rear of the vehicle followed by raw gasoline fumes entering the cabin. Vehicle was towed to a Hyundai dealership and held approximately 120 days before being returned as repaired. In December 2025, the exact same defect recurred. A third-party diagnostic scan (performed before drop-off) confirmed DTC Code P14EE — Fuel Tank Check Valve / Evaporative Purge System failure — directly related to the recall. The vehicle was held an additional 110+ days while the dealer awaited a new remedy from the manufacturer. Total days out of service: 230+. The recall repair has now failed twice. The safety defect was never successfully corrected after a reasonable number of attempts. The vehicle is currently being withheld by the dealership pending an unrelated disputed repair charge.

It was smoking from the engine, I immediately stopped the vehicle. My safety was put at risk immediately while being in the vehicle when the air bags deployed hitting me in the face and causing my face to swell. The safety of others was put at risk due to others being right next to me and putting others at risk of engine blowing up. Yes, the vehicle has been inspected by police. There were no warning signs on the vehicle.

On 2/19/2026 while driving, my 2020 Hyundai Sonata Limited 1.6T began making several loud explosive / popping sounds. At the same time, the fuel gauge on the display screen appeared to rapidly drop, as if the vehicle was losing gas. Immediately following this, the vehicle began to hesitate and lose power while accelerating. The hesitation felt like the engine was misfiring or struggling to maintain consistent performance. There were multiple explosive sounds before and during the hesitation. This created a major safety concern while driving and the vehicle underwent an inspection at Hyundai in Deland, FL. The service department was brief and stated they needed to keep the vehicle for repair for an unknown amount of time as the fuel tank expanded. No further information was provided at that time.

My vehicle was at a manufacturer‑authorized dealership for a federally mandated recall repair. While the vehicle was in the dealership’s exclusive care, custody, and control, it was struck by a third‑party cleaning vendor operating on dealership property and was declared a total loss. I did not hire or authorize this vendor. After the incident, the manufacturer informed me in writing that the dealership would repair the damage at their own expense, separate from the recall work. The manufacturer also stated they were covering the recall‑related repairs and were coordinating with the dealership. They provided weekly updates, monitored the recall repair, and escalated a backordered recall part. Later, after the dealership confirmed the vehicle was a total loss, the manufacturer reversed its position and stated it was “not involved.” The dealership has refused to identify the cleaning company responsible for the loss, their insurer, or any claim information, preventing any direct follow‑up. The manufacturer continues to direct me to “work with the parties involved,” even though the responsible vendor has not been disclosed. This raises concerns about the safety and oversight of the recall repair process, the handling of vehicles during recall service, and the manufacturer’s response when a vehicle is destroyed during a recall procedure.

I have taken my vehicle to a certified Hyundai dealership multiple times due to intermittent starting issues. The car will unlock remotely, and the lights and electrical components will turn on, but the engine will not start. When this happens, I press the ignition button to turn the vehicle off and then try again. Sometimes it eventually starts, but there have been several occasions when it would not start at all, forcing me to call for a tow or have the battery jumped. This issue occurs most often in cool or cold weather. I had a brand new battery installed at the dealership in July 2025, yet the problem has continued. I have been dealing with this for over a year and have even been stranded out of state in below-freezing temperatures. Each time I bring the vehicle in, the dealership states they are unable to replicate the issue while it is in their service department.

While stopping at a major highway intersection on [XXX] for a red light vehicle stalls and will not start back up while everyone else continues at a 55 mph mile an hour passing me on each side! This happened more than 6 times . While you’re stuck in intersection,you have to keep trying to start the car eventually it will start . Apparently it is EGR valve and is a very common problem. IT IS NOTED IN THE common problem for this year making model and the repair cost is in the range of $1600 even the dealership said it is a very common problem. They have been experiencing it. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

My 202 Hyundai Sonata is involved in the current hyundai fuel system recall. on 10/26/25 the fuel tank expanded and caused three explosive "boom" sounds inside the vehicle while I was driving with passengers. The backseat began heating and rising upward due to fuel tank swelling. The tank became pressurized, hissing, bubbling, and would not accept fuel. The vehicle became inoperable. The car has now been at hyundai of camelback since 10/27/25 (30 days). Hyndai Corporate has repeatedly delayed providing a remedy and keeps telling me they "need another week". I have received no repair plan, and no decision. This violates the requirement for a timely recall remedy. The defect caused structural damage and created a serious safety hazard. "