2018 Infiniti Q60

While driving home, I experienced an extreme amount of white smoke coming from my exhaust. The smoke was so severe that I could barely see vehicles behind me. Because I was on the freeway and concerned about my safety and the safety of others, I pulled over when safe and had the vehicle towed home and then to an Infiniti dealership for diagnostics. I had previously researched Infiniti’s extended powertrain warranty for turbochargers applicable to my specific year/model and learned of premature turbocharger failures and the potential for resulting engine damage. The dealership confirmed that my turbocharger had failed, but also stated that my engine was failing and that the engine damage would not be covered under warranty. The service technician initially attributed the engine failure to inadequate oil changes. When I explained that I had recently had the oil changed and had consistently maintained the vehicle, he stated that because my oil changes were performed outside of the dealership, they may not have been done properly and the vehicle may not have been adequately inspected. He also referenced the hiring practices of other companies as a possible cause. I am concerned that this explanation is being used to avoid addressing whether the known turbocharger defect caused or contributed to the engine failure.There were no warning lights or other indications before this incident that my vehicle was experiencing a catastrophic mechanical problem. The failure occurred suddenly while I was traveling on the freeway, leaving my vehicle undriveable and requiring a tow. My primary concern is safety. If these turbochargers are known to fail prematurely and can cause significant oil leakage and subsequent engine damage, loss of power, or other mechanical failures, waiting until the turbocharger fails may create a serious safety hazard. A sudden loss of power or acceleration on a freeway could result in a collision, while substantial oil leakage can cause a fire.

Component/System: Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) / Airbag Occupancy Classification System — Passenger Side What Happened: The airbag/SRS warning light illuminated on my 2018 Infiniti Q60 (VIN [XXX], 102,388 miles). The vehicle was taken to Sewell Infiniti of Dallas ([XXX]) for diagnosis. The technician performed a diagnostic scan and found fault code B00A0-00 related to the passenger seat occupancy classification system. The technician performed a relearn and reset procedure on the occupancy sensor (Step 1 of the progressive repair protocol, at a cost of $143.99). The relearn procedure failed. The technician confirmed the control units are functioning correctly but that the seat sensors have failed and only come with the new passenger front seat frame assembly. The technician also identified a fault code for the right front seat belt buckle switch located inside the passenger front seat belt buckle, which was found during the relearn attempt. The buckle is currently functional but the fault code is present. Sewell Infiniti confirmed the final repair required is replacement of the passenger front seat frame assembly at a quoted cost of $7,948.69, which includes the occupancy classification sensor and the seat belt buckle switch. This repair has not yet been authorized or completed. The vehicle is currently being driven with the airbag warning light illuminated and the occupancy sensor fault unresolved. Is the component available for inspection? Yes. The vehicle is in my possession and available for inspection upon request. How Safety Was Put at Risk: The passenger seat occupancy classification system is a critical component of the supplemental restraint system. Its function is to detect whether a passenger is present in the front passenger seat and to classify the occupant appropriately so that the airbag control module can determine whether and how to deploy the passenger frontal airbag in a collision. With the occupancy INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)

The vehicle was subject to an active manufacturer safety recall involving the oil pressure control system and diagnostic trouble code P06DA, which requires inspection and replacement of the Engine Room Sub-Harness if the condition is present. The defect was confirmed by an authorized dealer, DTC P06DA was verified, and the Engine Room Sub-Harness was replaced in accordance with the recall remedy instructions. However, the manufacturer failed to fully remedy the recall, as the consumer was required to pay a significant portion of the repair cost out-of-pocket. While the manufacturer provided partial reimbursement, the remaining balance was charged to the vehicle owner despite the repair being performed solely to address a safety recall condition. Requiring consumer payment to obtain a mandated safety recall repair does not constitute a complete or timely remedy under recall obligations. This complaint is submitted to document the manufacturer’s failure to fully comply with safety recall requirements and to seek appropriate oversight and corrective action.

On Feb 5, 2025, I received written confirmation from Infiniti Consumer Affairs (Case #[XXX]) that my vehicle was eligible for recall repair. However, on Jan 27, 2025, my Infiniti dealer (Stevens Creek Infiniti) informed me that Infiniti had denied the recall, despite this being necessary for California emissions compliance. This contradicts their initial confirmation and leaves me unable to legally smog or register the vehicle. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)