IllustrationThe car showed a gear box faultvwarning and the transmission locked. The battery low voltage also came on . Have not been able to fix problem. Keri’s happing at random times
2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Discovery Sport years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 17 of 39 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine. Review the 15 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 6 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 6 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports
Engine complaints
15 reportsUpper and lower hoses that the Antifreeze travels through disconnected while driving on the highway due to the dipping in the roadway. Not enough play in the hoses to accommodate the stretching and pulling on the hoses while the car goes up and down resulting in the hose’s disconnecting and losing antifreeze and the engine shutt…
Read full complaint
Upper and lower hoses that the Antifreeze travels through disconnected while driving on the highway due to the dipping in the roadway. Not enough play in the hoses to accommodate the stretching and pulling on the hoses while the car goes up and down resulting in the hose’s disconnecting and losing antifreeze and the engine shutting down. It happened to me 2 times in a matter of 3 weeks resulting in this dangerous situation.
My vehicle just hit over the 90,000 mark. I did all recommended services when they were due, less the spark plug replacement as I just hit that marker. I was driving on 285 in Atlanta in the far left lane and went to speed up which did not occur. My car was still on but would not accelerate. I ended up being able to get to pull …
Read full complaint
My vehicle just hit over the 90,000 mark. I did all recommended services when they were due, less the spark plug replacement as I just hit that marker. I was driving on 285 in Atlanta in the far left lane and went to speed up which did not occur. My car was still on but would not accelerate. I ended up being able to get to pull over 5 lanes and park. Turned off my car and it would not crank. Called Land Rover SOS and waited 2 hours for a tow to the dealership. In that time I was able to get my car running to get some AC flowing 3 times and heard no crazy noises or knocking noises; attempted to drive each time and pushing the gas got me no more than 5 mph. Dealership called a couple days later stating that although my engine was sludge and metal free ‘meticulously clean’ I needed a new engine due to my engine jumping time. I corrected the service advisor that the timing chain jumps time, not the engine. Requested a service manager to contact me and was told the same thing and that it is a very common problem with my make and model around 100,000-120,000 miles. I requested they pull codes as they encounter this issue and know what it is and didn’t want to waste time and money in the process cuz they knew what the problem was. They provided the codes later that afternoon(P0011 & P052A) and I retrieved more than what they gave me when I took my car off the property to another mechanic as I was not forking over $14,000 for a new engine. I replaced the camshaft sensor myself as a starting point and car would turnover and sputter off like it wasn’t getting gas. After reading other complaints, I see this happens often. Not safe at all to be driving in 5-7 lanes of Atlanta hwy traffic. Still waiting to see what this other mechanic is going to fix.
2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport, HSE - 81,000 miles - broken timing chain, engine damage. The vehicle was stopped at a light when it completely shut down, would not restart, would not advance, and would not go into neutral to be pushed off to the side of the road. This occurred on my way to work during the morning rush hour. Fo…
Read full complaint
2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport, HSE - 81,000 miles - broken timing chain, engine damage. The vehicle was stopped at a light when it completely shut down, would not restart, would not advance, and would not go into neutral to be pushed off to the side of the road. This occurred on my way to work during the morning rush hour. For my own safety, I had to leave the vehicle in the middle of the street and walk to a safe place to wait for assistance. The vehicle remained in the middle of a bi-directional, 2-lane intersection for 3 hours waiting for a tow truck. The vehicle has ~ 81,000 miles. Had an oil change and diagnostic one month prior to the failure. The diagnostic was done because the engine light came on, but then went back off. The diagnostic test reported no issues found with the vehicle. Just one month later, the engine failed. The diagnostic after the engine failure reported the timing chain broke and damaged the engine. This vehicle went from without any issues to a broken timing chain and engine damage in one month's time. Of note, when I looked up recalls on this vehicle, I noticed there was the same issue that resulted in a timing chain recall for the 2013-2014 Land Rover Discovery.
Hello, My 2017 Land Rover with 63,000 miles on it had engine failure while driving on the highway - (the car is a great condition and has been to all service requirements at the dealerships)- the dealership is stating the cam shaft sensor failure, allegedly causing total engine failure. I know there was a similar recall on the…
Read full complaint
Hello, My 2017 Land Rover with 63,000 miles on it had engine failure while driving on the highway - (the car is a great condition and has been to all service requirements at the dealerships)- the dealership is stating the cam shaft sensor failure, allegedly causing total engine failure. I know there was a similar recall on the 2014 Land Rover Discovery Sport - I wasn't sure if you had also received any information on later years for the car model.
Cam position sensor failure, timing chain tensioner failure, valve cover cracked.
I purchased a used 2017 Disco sport last July in great condition. After one year of driving it, and reaching a total of 70k miles, the camshaft intake actuator broke off, separating from the car. Clearly highlighting a textbook NHTSA “critical safety defect”. I only noticed the issue due to the check engine light and an engine f…
Read full complaint
I purchased a used 2017 Disco sport last July in great condition. After one year of driving it, and reaching a total of 70k miles, the camshaft intake actuator broke off, separating from the car. Clearly highlighting a textbook NHTSA “critical safety defect”. I only noticed the issue due to the check engine light and an engine fluttering noise. My local LR technician openly confirmed with me that this routinely happens with the 2015-2017 discovery sport and other Evoque models, as reported in LR’s technical bulletin (LTB00916NAS5 - Intake Camshaft Variable Cam Timing Actuator - Component Failure). In order to to fix this part I was been quoted $2362.00, and was told the part is essentially the same and could likely break again, putting myself and passengers at serious risk. When I told Land Rover’s customer service center of the issue they said they are not responsible since the warranty only cover the first 50k miles. Since this has been acknowledged by Land Rover as a common component failure, which has led to the part being on back order, it warrants LR to submit a formal recall on the part. Fixing it should also be free of charge. I feel it is unethical and irresponsible to Land Rover’s customers, to expect them to pay for an engineering failure both with their wallet and potentially their lives.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 LAND ROVER DISCOVERY SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENGINE FAILED. THE CONTACT BECAME AWARE THAT ENGINE OIL WAS LEAKING FROM THE VEHICLE. SEVERAL DAYS LATER THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND VEHICLE STALLED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO JAGUAR LAND ROVER…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 LAND ROVER DISCOVERY SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENGINE FAILED. THE CONTACT BECAME AWARE THAT ENGINE OIL WAS LEAKING FROM THE VEHICLE. SEVERAL DAYS LATER THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND VEHICLE STALLED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO JAGUAR LAND ROVER ANAHEIM HILLS (5401 E. LA PALMA, AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CA, 92807, (714) 646-7053) TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE DEALER PERFORMED A DIAGNOSTIC THAT LOCATED FAILURE CODES AT THE CANISTER PURGE SOLENOID AND THE OXYGEN SENSOR. THE DEALER REPLACED THE CANISTER PURGE SOLENOID AND THE OXYGEN SENSOR HOWEVER, THE REPAIR DID NOT CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THE THAT THE VEHICLE CRUISE CONTROL FAILED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO SET THE CRUISE CONTROL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 26,028.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 LAND ROVER DISCOVERY SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED EVERY 12,000 MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER JAGUAR LAND ROVER ANAHEIM HILLS (5401 E. LA PALMA AVE, ANAHEIM, CA 92807, (714) 646-7053) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH NEEDING THE AIR FILTER …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 LAND ROVER DISCOVERY SPORT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED EVERY 12,000 MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER JAGUAR LAND ROVER ANAHEIM HILLS (5401 E. LA PALMA AVE, ANAHEIM, CA 92807, (714) 646-7053) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH NEEDING THE AIR FILTER TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED HOWEVER, THE ISSUE PERSISTED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 49,525.
THE VEHICLE WOULD ACCELERATE NORMALLY THAN OUT OF THE BLUE. IT LOOSES POWER, ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATING ADVISING NOT TO CONTINUE DRIVING. CODE ADVISING P0299 'TURBO CHARGER'COMMON PROBLEM APPARENTLY MECHANICS ADVISING ONLINE FORUMS AND REPAIR IDEAS. VEHICLE ONLY HAS APPROXIMATELY 60,000 ON IT AND ALL APPROVED MAINTENANCE. NOW THE…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE WOULD ACCELERATE NORMALLY THAN OUT OF THE BLUE. IT LOOSES POWER, ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATING ADVISING NOT TO CONTINUE DRIVING. CODE ADVISING P0299 'TURBO CHARGER'COMMON PROBLEM APPARENTLY MECHANICS ADVISING ONLINE FORUMS AND REPAIR IDEAS. VEHICLE ONLY HAS APPROXIMATELY 60,000 ON IT AND ALL APPROVED MAINTENANCE. NOW THEY ARE DENYING MAJOR REPAIR THAT IS A COMMON ISSUE!!
Official recalls
216V942000 · Seat Belts:pretensioner
Dec 29, 2016
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Land Rover) is recalling certain model year 2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport vehicles and 2016-2017 Land Rover Range Rover and Range Rover Sport vehicles. The affected vehicles have seatbelt pretensioners that may not function properly in the event of a crash.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the front seat seatbelt pretensioners do not function properly, the seat occupants may not be adequately restrained in the event of a crash, increasing the risk of injury.
Remedy: Land Rover will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the front seat belt assemblies, replacing them as necessary, free of charge. The recall began February 20, 2017. Owners may contact Land Rover customer service at 1-800-637-6837. Land Rover's number for this recall is P095.
16V889000 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Arm
Dec 9, 2016
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Land Rover) is recalling certain model year 2016-2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport vehicles manufactured May 30, 2016, to August 24, 2016, and 2016-2017 Range Rover Evoque vehicles manufactured June 7, 2016, to August 26, 2016. The affected vehicles have front lower control arm fasteners that may fail due to an assembly error, possibly resulting in separation of the steering knuckle.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the fasteners were to fail causing the knuckle to separate, vehicle handling may be affected, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Land Rover will notify owners, and dealers will replace the hardware that connects the front lower control arm to the knuckle, free of charge. The recall began on January 27, 2017. Owners may contact Land Rover customer service at 1-800-637-6837. Land Rover's number for this recall is Q650/Q651.
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
1EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.