This data is from the NHTSA — the US gov't agency tasked with vehicle safety. Complaints are spread across multiple & redundant categories, & are not organized by problem.
So how do you find out what problems are occurring? For this NHTSA complaint data, the only way is to read through the comments below. Any duplicates or errors? It's not us.
The vehicle's front rotors were starting to pit and corrode. The dealer has been contacted. There is a recall for the same problem. Recall # 00 V 136 000. Both dealer and manufacturer refused to honor recall repair on consumer's vehicle. They're claiming that the recall doesn't apply to the vehicle because was not in Ohio when recall was issued.
Prior to recall notice 00V-136 the left front brake rotor broke while driving, the consumer is requesting reimbusement for the repairs made prior to notification. Nlm
Prior to second recall notification received, the second front rotor failed, however consumer previously had a front rotor replaced and was reimbursed, and now the manufacturer is denying consumer for the second rotor being repaired because they are stating that they have on file that consumer has already been reimbursed for both rotors, conumer is requesting reconsideration for the second rotor, consumer stated the vehicle would vibrate and pull to the left, the dealer replaced both calipers and replaced the rear brake shoes.
Consumer states vehicle is experinceing the same problem with brake motor as mentioned in recall 00 V 136 000. Manufacturer refuses to apply recall repairs to vehicle because Delaware was not listed in recall notice, consumer purchased and drove vehicle extensively in Delaware, the first sign of corrosion caused consumer to have to replace the right front rotor and resurface the left front rotor, the second sign of corrosion required replacement of the resurfaced rotor, the rear rotors were also exhibiting corrosion damage.
Prior to second recall notification received, the second front rotor failed, however consumer previously had a front rotor replaced and was reimbursed, and now the manufacturer is denying consumer for the second rotor being repaired because they are stating that they have on file that consumer has already been reimbursed for both rotors, conumer is requesting reconsideration for the second rotor, consumer stated the vehicle would vibrate and pull to the left, the dealer replaced both calipers and replaced the rear brake shoes.
Prior to second recall notification received, the second front rotor failed, however consumer previously had a front rotor replaced and was reimbursed, and now the manufacturer is denying consumer for the second rotor being repaired because they are stating that they have on file that consumer has already been reimbursed for both rotors, conumer is requesting reconsideration for the second rotor, consumer stated the vehicle would vibrate and pull to the left, the dealer replaced both calipers and replaced the rear brake shoes.
Vehicle has extended braking distance, mechanic noticed the rear rotors were disintegrating. Front rotors had to be replaced for the same problem 2 years ago. Front stabilizer defective.
Since purchasing vehicle brake rotors have been turned twice, and front rotors are currently being replaced for vibration occurring during normal braking at any speed. Dealership informed consumer that vehicle's history shows previous service for rotor problems. Please provide any additional information/attachments.
Consumer received recall 00V136000 concerning front brake rotors. Upon examination by a private mechanic, rear brake rotors were in same condition as front brake rotors, excessively worn/warped. Please provide any additional information/attachments.
Consumer received recall notic E 00V136000. When she contacted manufacturer and dealership, service was refused because her vehicle was classified as salvaged.
Received recall notice 00V136000. Had recall repairs done after taking vehicle to dealership. One month later, received notice. Took vehicle to dealership, mechanic replaced rotors. Brakes were okay. At 73,000 miles had to take it back due to rotors shattering when brakes were applied. Informed ceramic, and rotors placed on vehicle with metallic pads. Mechanic refused to turn rotors unless paid for. Also, due to wear and tear on rotors after 8,000 miles.
Prior to recall notification #879 consumer was having problems with the vehicle pulling to the left or the vehicle would shake when applying the brakes, rotors and pads were replaced, mechanic took vehicle for test drive and after drivng for a few miles and returned the rotors were burned out and so dealership replaced rotors again each time consumer would go in with same problem rotors would be warped, consumer was advised when rotors were be changed that the wheel hub was damaged and that he would be responsible since it looked like the damaged was caused by him, consumer was denied reimbursement from manufacturer stating that his situation did not fit the criteria under the recall, because the information that was submitted did not show a separation of the rotor from the hub, or corrosion.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T S
- Linden, MI, USA