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: 18 of 47 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.
Visibility/wiper. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Electrical System. Review the 10 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Fuel/propulsion System. 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.
1 crash reports1 fire reports1 injury reports
What owners actually said
47 reports
Mileage unknown · Aug 30, 2024
Unknown Or Other
The windshield started leaking, with potential damage to the interior and electrical system. (No such damage has occurred yet as I immediately sent it to Land Rover Princeton NJ) and was diagnosed by them and confirmed that the leak was due to the windshield. However, in April 2019, the windshield of the vehicle was replaced and…
Read full complaint
The windshield started leaking, with potential damage to the interior and electrical system. (No such damage has occurred yet as I immediately sent it to Land Rover Princeton NJ) and was diagnosed by them and confirmed that the leak was due to the windshield. However, in April 2019, the windshield of the vehicle was replaced and repaired due to a leak, as well as a recall noted here: [XXX] I’ve contacted the Land Rover corporate office in Mahwah, NJ to file a claim since it appears the recall repair was inadequate, given that the same problem is recurring. They have submitted and denied the claim, stating that since the recall was already performed by the previous owner, they are not liable to pay for the repairs. From my research with auto-glass companies, their expertise states that a windshield normally should last the lifetime of a vehicle and that any leaks indicates improper installation (such as incorrect sealing or inadequate bonding) or faulty materials. The recall was issued due to a known defect, and it is reasonable to expect that the repair addresses this issue comprehensively. Since the windshield is leaking again, it suggests that the initial repair may have been insufficient. I believe it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that such defects are properly resolved. When mentioning this to them, they stated “there’s no way you can prove it’s faulty and good luck getting a lawyer to prove that as well.” I have yet to receive an official invoice from the Princeton Land Rover service dept but was quoted $2071.00 plus tax. I am awaiting a formal letter/email from headquarters LANDROVER that states my claim was officially denied and the specific reasons it was denied (as they only told me over the phone) INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11611777
Mileage unknown · Jul 31, 2024
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
The contact owns a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover. The contact stated while driving at an undisclosed speed, the brake pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to stop as intended. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was diagnosed with a fractured brake line. The contact was informed that the brake lin…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover. The contact stated while driving at an undisclosed speed, the brake pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to stop as intended. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was diagnosed with a fractured brake line. The contact was informed that the brake line needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The failure reoccurred. The vehicle was taken to another independent mechanic where it was diagnosed with a fractured brake line. The contact was informed that the brake line needed to be replaced. The vehicle was being repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown.
NHTSA ODI #11605681
Mileage unknown · Feb 15, 2024
Electrical SystemVisibility/wiper
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 · Jan 31, 2024
Electrical System
My gearbox got stuck and didn’t let me change gears. No warnings showed up until an hour later.
NHTSA ODI #11569167
Mileage unknown · Sep 23, 2023
Electrical SystemSeat Belts
There is an auto start/stop that does nothing. The auto/man heating/cooling does not work properly. Middle seat belt broken. When attempting to contact dealer we were ignored. [XXXXXX] showed me on the report where [XXX] said the restraints worked but it was not truthful. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORM…
Read full complaint
There is an auto start/stop that does nothing. The auto/man heating/cooling does not work properly. Middle seat belt broken. When attempting to contact dealer we were ignored. [XXXXXX] showed me on the report where [XXX] said the restraints worked but it was not truthful. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11546165
Mileage unknown · Sep 16, 2023
Unknown Or Other
Unknown
NHTSA ODI #11544899
Mileage unknown · Aug 31, 2023
Fuel/propulsion System
The fuel outlet flange mounted on the fuel tank cracked, which caused a fuel leak that could have resulted in a fire. This has been confirmed by the dealership currently servicing the vehicle. There were no hazard lights that came on to indicate an issue. Only the extreme smell of raw fuel. There has been another recall for th…
Read full complaint
The fuel outlet flange mounted on the fuel tank cracked, which caused a fuel leak that could have resulted in a fire. This has been confirmed by the dealership currently servicing the vehicle. There were no hazard lights that came on to indicate an issue. Only the extreme smell of raw fuel. There has been another recall for this same issue on other models. Please expand to my model too as this is extremely concerning and dangerous. Recall date 2021-08-12 Recall no. 21V635000 Thank you.
NHTSA ODI #11541916
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.
NHTSA ODI #11515882
Mileage unknown · Jan 10, 2023
Structure
Water leaking through the windshield
NHTSA ODI #11501062
61,000 miles · Dec 5, 2022
Visibility
The contact owns a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. The contact stated while reversing the vehicle, water inadvertently poured all over the contact. The contact notice that water was leaking from behind the rearview mirror. The dealer was contacted and informed about the incident. The dealer stated that the vehicle was alread…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. The contact stated while reversing the vehicle, water inadvertently poured all over the contact. The contact notice that water was leaking from behind the rearview mirror. The dealer was contacted and informed about the incident. The dealer stated that the vehicle was already repaired under an unknown recall and that the repair had to be paid for out-of-pocket. The manufacture was contacted but offered no assistance. The contact was referred back to the dealer for assistance. The failure mileage was 61,000.
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