I am adding to the list of those that have reported serious safety hazards surrounding a KNOWN MANUFACTURING DEFEAT detailed in LAND ROVER TSB #N221NAS2/NHTSA TSB # [XXX] issued on [XXX]. This particular Range Rover Evoque was domiciled in California by the previous owner until I purchased the vehicle in November 2021 from CarM…
Read full complaint
I am adding to the list of those that have reported serious safety hazards surrounding a KNOWN MANUFACTURING DEFEAT detailed in LAND ROVER TSB #N221NAS2/NHTSA TSB # [XXX] issued on [XXX]. This particular Range Rover Evoque was domiciled in California by the previous owner until I purchased the vehicle in November 2021 from CarMax. Never experienced an issue is the very dry climate of Sacramento. But since I moved to Ketchikan AK, with all the rainfall it receives, it is not uncommon to be driving and being dripped on from the water egress. In addition to that, there are multiple electrical issues that can be directly attributed to this issue. Fortunately, for now, they do not give rise to not being able to drive the car, but one wonders just what it will take for the NHTSB to do a full blown safety recall on this ticking timebomb. Because of my location, there are no dealerships in the State of Alaska which means if it were to be serviced by a dealer, I will need to ferry the car back and forth to the State of Washington...which would add an additional $3,000+ on top of the quoted $2,000 plus for a typical windshield parts and labor replacement. I feel taken as NO PARTY wants to take responsibility for this obvious safety issue caused by a known manufacturer product defect. They took lawn darts off the market after one death. What will it take to correct this accident waiting to happen? [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11572207
Mileage unknown · Apr 6, 2023
Visibility/wiper
Whenever it rains, the windshield leaks on the passenger side of my vehicle. I had it inspected at the local Land Rover dealership and was told, "it's a thing", and was informed it would cost me $2,000 to repair it. This issue has not yet caused any safety concerns, but the dashboard instruments are beginning to fail, which coul…
Read full complaint
Whenever it rains, the windshield leaks on the passenger side of my vehicle. I had it inspected at the local Land Rover dealership and was told, "it's a thing", and was informed it would cost me $2,000 to repair it. This issue has not yet caused any safety concerns, but the dashboard instruments are beginning to fail, which could be an indicator of water damage.
1. Water leaking inside the car from top of front windshield. Yes, it is available for inspection. 2. Reduced visibility and distracted driving risk as amid rain/ snow water leak leading to water droplets on eyes/ prescription eyeglasses while driving the vehicle. 3. and 4. Yes problem has been reproduced, confirmed & inspected …
Read full complaint
1. Water leaking inside the car from top of front windshield. Yes, it is available for inspection. 2. Reduced visibility and distracted driving risk as amid rain/ snow water leak leading to water droplets on eyes/ prescription eyeglasses while driving the vehicle. 3. and 4. Yes problem has been reproduced, confirmed & inspected by both Land Rover dealership & Progressive insurance site visitor/ claims specialist. 5. No, there were no warning lamps/ messages prior to failure. I personally first noticed during and after winter storm in CT on Fri 2/25/22 upon water leak and interior damage next day including flickering interior car lights and loud static sounds from speakers. I purchased the car in July 2019 from CarMax in Virginia. At this time, car is still under MaxCare warranty (including mechanical issues) and has Comprehensive coverage (including weather-related damage) via Progressive Insurance. As a healthcare provider/ physician, I’m in CT at Yale University Hospital at this time for clinical patient care hence experienced the Winter storm on Feb 25 following which I arranged a diagnostic at Land Rover North Haven service center. CarMax refused warranty care citing “weather-related” and just yesterday Progressive site visitor declined claim citing they found RUST under carseat and internal wiring as the N221 RECALL from 12/2018 was never appropriately fixed leading to accumulated rust damage w/in the car equipment where FIRST TIME I WAS INFORMED OF SUCH RECALL & REPAIR NEVER disclosed by CarMax upon 2019 purchase or my regular maintenance via Land Rover service depts! Progressive rep forwarded the Recall documents & urged I speak with Land Rover directly. North Haven service dept refused to help and provided LR USA customer relations ph # where representative declining accountability citing per report they received in January 2019 by LR of Hunt Valley recall fixed and that cust rel. supervisor will call me back (no call in 36 hr yet). Please help!
NHTSA ODI #11457367
Mileage unknown · Feb 12, 2022
Visibility/wiper
The front windshield has a leak on the passenger side that leaks water into the car. This has not caused any damage at this current time. I believe this is linked to SERVICE ACTION N221: WINDSHIELD WATER LEAKS
NHTSA ODI #11451650
Mileage unknown · Aug 24, 2021
Electrical SystemStructureVisibility/wiper
Water ingress manufacturing defect caused major electrical failures, including all central console components & mold/mildew growth due to inconspicuous 1st leak. Official Land Rover dealership replaced windshield in 2019 under warranty based on TSB N221. Another leak occurred in 2020 during pandemic, but no repairs completed. T…
Read full complaint
Water ingress manufacturing defect caused major electrical failures, including all central console components & mold/mildew growth due to inconspicuous 1st leak. Official Land Rover dealership replaced windshield in 2019 under warranty based on TSB N221. Another leak occurred in 2020 during pandemic, but no repairs completed. The last water leak in 5/2021 resulted in water visibly dripping onto interior surfaces by windshield. Water shorted more components -- unable to start car without emergency maneuver in manual, couldn't lock or unlock, use windshield wipers, all due to electrical system failure from water damage stemming from manufacturing defect. Extremely concerned the next leak could damage airbag functionality, steering, headlights, or any number of components reliant on electrical connectivity. Car has been at dealership service center since 6/23/21. LR stating it's "wear and tear"...refusing to cover repair under CPO warranty (ending in 5/30/22) or acknowledge poor workmanship leading to defect, though they state a new windshield is necessary. This is a very common problem with specific Land Rover vehicles...evidenced by countless experiences from owners in forums and complaint boards. I'm too scared to drive the car, as another water ingress issue could again lead to numerous hazards as a result of sudden electrical failures or visibility loss.
NHTSA ODI #11430246
Mileage unknown · Aug 9, 2021
Unknown Or OtherVisibility/wiper
During a rain, the windshield started leaking on the passenger side. The water obscured visibility on the entire passenger side, and it was like a waterfall in the car. This was a dangerous situation; the visibility is already poor in the rain without additional help from the leaking windshield. There was a recall on the windsh…
Read full complaint
During a rain, the windshield started leaking on the passenger side. The water obscured visibility on the entire passenger side, and it was like a waterfall in the car. This was a dangerous situation; the visibility is already poor in the rain without additional help from the leaking windshield. There was a recall on the windshield (N221NAS2), this was already performed, yet it's leaking 2 years later. Unfortunately, the manufacture refuses to honor that the recall failed, and I have to pay $2000 out of pocket for the repair. When I checked online, I realized this is a prevalent problem with a lot of owners. Obscured visibility during rain is a serious issue and can use fatal accidents (I read many stores of owners who had near-miss accidents due to this); that is why I decided to report this problem.
NHTSA ODI #11428349
42,800 miles · May 4, 2021
StructureVisibility/wiper
SUDDENLY NOTICED WATER ON THE CONSOLE SND DRIVER SIDE MATS. THEN FELT INTERIOR HEADER LINING SOAKED, SUN VISORS, SIDE PILARS AND DASHBOARD WET. ALSO ROOF SHADE VERY WET. CALLED RR DEALER. TILD ME TO BRING IT IN. NEVER TOLD ME IT WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. CHARGED ME 408.00 FOR A RIDICULOUS DIAGNOSTIC CHECK, TOLD ME MY BRAKES AND …
Read full complaint
SUDDENLY NOTICED WATER ON THE CONSOLE SND DRIVER SIDE MATS. THEN FELT INTERIOR HEADER LINING SOAKED, SUN VISORS, SIDE PILARS AND DASHBOARD WET. ALSO ROOF SHADE VERY WET. CALLED RR DEALER. TILD ME TO BRING IT IN. NEVER TOLD ME IT WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. CHARGED ME 408.00 FOR A RIDICULOUS DIAGNOSTIC CHECK, TOLD ME MY BRAKES AND TIRES NEEDED REPLACEMENT WHICH I KNEW I TOLD THEM BEFORE HAND. THE FINAL SENTENCE IN THE VIDEO SAYS THERE IS A LEAK COMING FROMVTHE WINDSHIELD SOMEWHERE BUT CANNOT REPAIR IT. NOW, ITS RAINING IN NYC SND MY CAR IS SOAKED. THIS IS ANOTHER COMPLAINT I READ ON HERE, SAME YEAR, MODEL AND MILEAGE, SAME LEAK PLUS MY WIPERS ON THE DRIVERS SIDE NEVER CLEAN THE WINDSHIELD PROPERLY. ALWAYS MY OWN MECHANIC SAID HE WILL LOOK AT IT AND ADVISE ME. THATS WHAT LAND ROBER OF PARAMUS, NJ SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME FOR NO CHARGE!!! NOW I HAVE A WATER DAMAGED CAR WHICH I BELIEVE IS A MANUFACTURER FLAW!!!! I NEED HELP. PLEASE ADVICE!! DR [XXX] PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA ODI #11415070
Mileage unknown · Feb 11, 2021
Visibility/wiper
THE FRONT WINDSHIELD DRIPS WATER FROM THE TOP PASSENGER SIDE. THE WINDSHIELD HAS HAD NO CRACK OR DING OR OTHER DAMAGE
NHTSA ODI #11395750
42,000 miles · Nov 30, 2020
Visibility/wiper
FRONT WINDSHIELD STARTING LEAKING WHERE THE TOP OF THE GLASS AND THE INTERIOR HEADLINER MEETS. CAR HAS 42000 MILES.
NHTSA ODI #11377154
33,000 miles · Nov 25, 2020
Visibility/wiper
WATER DRIPS IN FROM WINDSHIELD. THIS CAUSES A DISTRACTION WHILE DRIVING. I'M ASSUMING THE SEAL IS BAD.
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
1
EA21002 · 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.
2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year