Owners of 2010-2011 Chevrolet Camaro cars have filed a lawsuit against General Motors alleging airbag defects cause the "Service Airbag" lights to illuminate due to a loss of the passenger airbag systems.

The proposed Camaro class-action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Philip Bryde, Jennifer Waters and Alvin Northington concerning owners and lessees of 2010 through 2011 Chevrolet Camaro cars in the U.S.

Plaintiff Philip Bryde says he purchased a new 2010 Chevrolet Camaro and in 2014 the car’s front passenger airbag light began to malfunction which caused a trip to a dealer in August 2014.

The lawsuit alleges the dealer found a history code for the passenger airbag sensor and the code was cleared but no repairs were performed. However, the airbag problem recurred and the airbag sensor was replaced for $699.56, paid by Mr. Bryde.

Plaintiff Jennifer Waters says she purchased a new 2010 Chevrolet Camaro and in May 2014, the front passenger airbag light began to malfunction and Waters learned the airbag sensor needed to be replaced for at least $500. The plaintiff claims she declined the repair.

Then in February 2016, the Camaro was brought to a dealership and Waters was again told it could be repaired at a considerable cost, so the plaintiff again declined the repairs but lost $115 for out-of-pocket for the airbag light diagnosis.

The plaintiffs say owners of the 2010-2011 Camaro cars experience airbag warning lights turning on and off when a passenger is in the seat, something that could cause the airbag to fail in a crash. Other owners watch as the "Service Airbag" light illuminates and stays on, causing the passenger airbag sensor to be replaced.

The problems can occur at any time at any speed while driving, leaving an occupant unprotected in a crash.

According to the lawsuit, General Motors knows about the alleged defects not only based on internal testing, but based on complaints submitted by owners of the 2010-2011 Camaros. Owners of the cars have complained to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and to CarComplaints.com about the alleged airbag light problems.

"At around 29,000 miles, the airbag light came on intermittently. Took it in, they "fixed" it and for the next four months it was fine. My warranty expired at 30,000 miles or 3 years. At 36,000 miles and 3 1/2 years the problem is back, only this time, the light stays on." - 2011 Chevrolet Camaro owner / Midlothian, Texas

Separately, the owner of a 2010 Chevy Camaro says their airbag light is still on after being told repairs would cost up to $1,500.

"'Service Airbag Light' came on while cruising at highway speeds for no apparent reason. Is still on and I was told it would cost somewhere between $750.00 to $1500.00 to fix. Warranty is up due to age, not mileage, but Chevrolet doesn't even care." - 2010 Chevrolet Camaro owner / Millville, Massachusetts

The plaintiffs say many consumers experience airbag failures but are unaware because they don't notice the warning lights. Once an owner does notice the light and wants it fixed, they are looking at hundreds if not thousands of dollars to cover the repairs.

The Camaro airbag lawsuit alleges that beginning in 2010, GM issued airbag system technical service bulletins to dealerships, but didn't recall the cars. According to the plaintiffs, GM concealed the alleged airbag defects to keep consumers buying the cars, something the plaintiffs would not have done if they would have known about the airbag problems.

The plaintiffs claim GM has caused 2010-2011 Camaro owners to waste money at dealerships or other repair facilities to pay for airbag defects that should have caused the cars to be recalled. In addition, the lawsuit alleges Camaro owners haven't been offered suitable replacement parts for the airbag problems and GM hasn't offered to reimburse owners for expenses incurred.

The 2010-2011 Chevy Camaro "service airbag" light lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California - Philip Bryde, Jennifer Waters and Alvin Northington, et al v. General Motors, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro, 2011 Chevrolet Camaro and other model years of Chevy Camaros.

General Motors told its dealerships to stop selling about 60,000 model year Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse and GMC Acadia SUVs after discovering the window stickers (Monroney labels) have incorrect fuel efficiency numbers.

GM says the stickers show the SUVs get 1 to 2 miles per gallon more than they do, a problem that could get the automaker in trouble with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

GM says it discovered the problem while working on Monroney labels for model year 2017 vehicles. In addition, it's estimated tens of thousands of SUVs are already in the hands of consumers, so GM will need to deal with each customer concerning complaints about incorrect fuel efficiency numbers.

The automaker hasn't said anything about a recall but at the least, new window labels will be mailed to customers.

GM blames the problem on a simple mistake that shows the SUVs get 1 to 2 miles per gallon higher than they do for city, highway and combined driving. The automaker says incorrect labels were used on front-wheel-drive and four-wheel-drive vehicles, most indicating a 2 mpg estimate too high for the SUVs.

The window stickers, technically called Monroney labels, give prospective buyers important details about vehicles, including estimated fuel economy ratings. At a minimum, GM and its dealers will be required to update all advertising materials, labels, websites, etc. to correct the false information.

The EPA hasn't released a statement whether action will be taken against GM for the mistakes, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) hasn't released any associated recall details. However, it's likely it won't take long for attorneys to jump on GM with class-action lawsuits.

This isn't the first time an automaker has been in trouble from incorrect window stickers or wrong fuel economy numbers. GM had its own window sticker issues in June 2014 when a Cadillac owner sued the automaker for selling vehicles with window stickers that contained incorrect safety rating information.

The owner said the Monroney sticker listed 5-star safety ratings awarded by NHTSA when in fact the car hadn't yet received any safety ratings from the government.

Also in June 2014, Ford announced it was lowering the fuel economy ratings for about 200,000 model year 2013-2014 hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles as well as most model year 2014 Fiestas. As in the case of the GM SUVs, Ford had to update the Monroney stickers for the affected cars and the automaker also reimbursed owners up to $1,050 each as a "goodwill payment."

Prior to 2014, the EPA went after Hyundai and Kia over inflated mileage claims after government testing didn't match mileage claims submitted by the automakers.

As an example, the EPA found the Kia Soul was advertised as getting six miles per gallon more than it actually did, something that caused a $395 million settlement with the government.

The South Korean Ministry of Environment says it found evidence that new Nissan Qashqai compact SUVs are equipped with illegal devices to cheat on emissions tests.

According to environmental officials, the Nissan Qashqai, equipped with Euro 6 diesel engines, will not be sold in South Korea until Nissan can fix all the SUVs, including 814 vehicles that will be recalled.

South Korean officials say emission tests show some vehicles from various manufacturers turn off devices used to reduce emissions when temperatures reach about 122 degrees Fahrenheit. The purpose of the device deactivation is to protect the engines from overheating. However, South Korea says the Nissan Qashqai is the only vehicle that disables the emission reduction device at 95 degrees.

Officials say this is clearly intentional manipulation of the emissions reduction devices, a claim Nissan says is false.

"Nissan does not manipulate data related to our vehicles. Nissan has not and does not employ illegal defeat or cheat devices in any of the cars that we make." - Nissan Korea

Nissan further says the findings by South Korean officials contradict the findings of other regulators, including those in the European Union. Nevertheless, South Korean officials plan on fining Nissan 330 million won ($280,000) and will place a stop-sale on the SUVs.

Unlike the lack of criminal proceedings in the U.S. against automaker executives, South Korea says prosecutors may criminally indict Takehiko Kikuchi, the head of operations for Nissan Korea. This would follow actions taken against Volkswagen as South Korean prosecutors have been asked to indict two officials from VW's Korean operations.

Since 2007, the Nissan Qashqai has been manufactured in Britain and uses an engine from Nissan's business partner, Renault. Korean officials didn't indicate if any additional companies are involved in the alleged illegal Nissan emissions scheme.

South Korean lawyers are already talking about class-action lawsuits against Nissan to require the automaker to refund the cost of the SUVs to South Korean consumers and pay for the loss of value of the SUVs.

Government regulations say automakers must repair recalled vehicles to make sure consumers are safe. But consumer safety advocates say that is not happening in the case of some 1998 – 2003 model year Ford Windstar minivans with rear axles prone to breaking due to rust.

And, they say all consumers should be worried that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t see this as a problem.

In 2010 Ford first recalled about 528,000 Windstars, saying a “completely fractured rear axle may lead to a loss of vehicle control” with “little or no warning.” But the automaker told the N.H.T.S.A. not all of them would get a new axle as the result of a recall.

Ford said it would only replace an axle only if it was cracking.

Otherwise, it would install supporting brackets that would “extend axle durability in the presence of corrosion.”

The brackets were intended as a safety device “to prevent any future axle fractures from causing a loss of control,” John Cangany, a Ford spokesman said in an email. “Even with the brackets installed, there was still a potential for the axle to continue to corrode and crack.”

The federal regulators thought that was okay.

“The support brackets that were the recall remedy, eliminated the safety-related consequence if they were properly installed,” Bryan Thomas, the agency’s director of communications, said recently in a statement.

But federal regulations require a repair that will eliminate danger.  A couple of brackets to prevent “a loss of control,” doesn’t do that, said Joan Claybrook, a consumer advocate and former head of Public Citizen who was in charge of the N.H.T.S.A. from 1977 to 1981.  If Ford’s recall is going to be “lawful” all Windstars should get a new axle, Claybrook said.

The problem is that Ford isn’t replacing the axle, but instead trying to prevent a “catastrophic result” if it breaks,  said Allan J. Kam, a safety consultant from Bethesda, Md., who was the senior enforcement lawyer for the agency before retiring in 2000.

Ford’s position is that there won’t be any “catastrophic results.”  Just before the recall in 2010, a Ford spokesman said even if an axle broke the driver should be able to maintain control.

But shortly after the 2010 recall was announced, federal regulators took the unusual step of urging owners not to delay getting the problem fixed. The reason was a crash that killed Sean Bowman, a 28-year-old Massachusetts man.

Karen Aldana, a spokeswoman for N.H.T.S.A., told The New York Times the agency decided to issue the warning after inspecting the Windstar in which Bowman died and concluding there was a concern an axle failure could increase the chance of a crash.

Some Windstar owners are angry at Ford and the safety agency for the way the recall has been handled. The agency has at least 75 complaints from owners who had the reinforcement brackets installed only to have the axle break anyway – in some cases within a year.

“I heard a loud pop. The van started to feel funny in the rear,” a Clinton, Iowa owner wrote in April, 2011. “I looked at the rear axle and it had snapped in half. Needless to say this was inspected in January for this very same recall. My family was with me and could have been injured or killed because of this.”

Ford’s use of reinforcing brackets did nothing but “delay the inevitable,” a Plainsboro, New Jersey, owner wrote federal regulators last year. “I don’t know how many more of these death traps are out there, where people believe they had the problem corrected.”

Last year federal regulators saw some of those owner complaints and – without opening a public investigation – quietly asked Ford about it.

As part of that inquiry, Ford and regulators inspected three Windstars involved in crashes. The conclusion was that the axles broke because the brackets were not properly installed.

Were the crashes caused by the rear axle breaking?

Ford’s report said “the root cause of the accidents was inconclusive” and there were no details about the seriousness of the crashes. But the automaker agreed to a new recall to check all the brackets.

If the brackets were not installed properly, the owner would get a new axle at no charge.

But if the brackets were installed properly – even if the axle broke – the owner would not get a new axle.

However, Ford agreed to sell the owner a new axle for $300, about one third of the normal cost.

But even a discount for the axle violates federal regulations because repairs must be free, said Clarence Ditlow, the executive director of The Center for Auto Safety, a non-profit consumer advocacy group.

One of the Windstar owners who is confused and infuriated by the recalls is Bettina Worboy of Columbus, Ohio.

Last October she came out of work and found her 2003 Windstar sagging on one side: the rear axle had quietly broken, a disaster for a family with four children and limited resources.

But, when she got to her home there was a letter from Ford. It said her minivan was being recalled. Ford said it wanted to make sure when the minivan was recalled in 2010 that the supporting brackets were installed properly.

She thought this was great news.

Ford was going to help her.

Her axle broke, so the supporting brackets couldn’t have been done properly. It seemed logical.

“I thought it was a blessing,” she said in a telephone interview. “I thought it was going to be taken care of one hundred percent.”

But a few days later the dealer told Mrs. Worboy that the brackets had been installed properly and even though her axle eventually broke she would not get a free axle.

“My blood was boiling. I was like ‘You are telling me the brackets were put on properly? But they didn’t do the job?’”

When Ford wouldn’t help she finally dipped into a tight, family budget and gave the dealer $300.

“That was our main vehicle to transport all our kids,” she said. “So, I couldn’t fight it anymore. I had to have it fixed. I have a nice, shiny axle.”

Ford and Lincoln owners who experienced spark plugs breaking when trying to change the plugs have claim benefit deadlines approaching after Ford agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit.

Without admitting guilt, Ford agreed to settle the lawsuit after owners said it cost a fortune to replace the spark plugs. Some owners paid more than $1,000 to have repair facilities use special tools to remove the broken spark plugs.

The class-action lawsuit alleges spark plugs get stuck inside the cylinder heads in Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with 5.4-liter 3-valve engines. Owners report that trying to remove the spark plugs often causes the plugs to break off, making it impossible to remove the plugs without the needed tools.

The consolidated class-action lawsuit settlement includes the following Ford and Lincoln vehicles sold or leased in the U.S., all equipped with 5.4-liter 3-valve engines:

• 2004-2008 Ford F-150
• 2005-2008 Ford F-250 and F-350
• 2005-2008 Ford Expedition
• 2005-2008 Lincoln Navigator
• 2006-2008 Lincoln Mark LT

The consolidated lawsuit, Ford Motor Co. Spark Plug and 3-Valve Engine Products Liability Litigation, was granted final settlement approval in January 2016, but affected owners of the Ford and Lincoln vehicles must file claims and submit the proper documentation to receive benefits.

Ford Spark Plugs Claim Benefit Deadlines

- If your Ford or Lincoln spark plugs were replaced before October 23, 2015, the deadline for submitting a claim is August 25, 2016.

- If your spark plugs were replaced on or after October 23, 2015, the deadline for submitting claims is February 27, 2017.

Ford Spark Plugs Lawsuit Eligibility Guidelines

Every eligible owner who spent more than $300 in parts and labor to replace eight spark plugs in a vehicle with less than 120,000 miles will be eligible for reimbursement on a percentage of the amount paid over $300. The amount of reimbursement will depend upon the cost incurred by the owner and by the documentation the owner can provide.

The documents an owner kept will be important to receive reimbursement. Those documents can consist of copies of receipts or other documentation that shows the following:

1. The services performed.
2. The identity of the repair facility that replaced the spark plugs.
3. The date of service.
4. The amount paid.
5. The vehicle identification number (VIN).
6. The mileage on the vehicle.

Owners whose first spark plug replacement occurred after 120,000 miles but prior to December 22, 2015, are also eligible for reimbursement if they provide the information listed above and do the following:

• Identify the Ford dealership that instructed them to wait to have the spark plugs in the vehicle replaced and the approximate date on which this information was told to the owner.
• Provide dealership service records establishing the vehicle was taken to a Ford dealership between 90,000 and 120,000 miles.

If an owner can't submit the proper documents to prove the work performed on the spark plugs, it's possible to still file a claim to receive reimbursement up to $50. The choice whether to pay undocumented claims will be left to the claims administrator.

It should be noted that Ford and Lincoln owners with vehicles that have more than 120,000 miles and who have not yet had the spark plugs replaced are not eligible for reimbursement.

Owners who file a claim and accept Ford's offer will be releasing Ford and its suppliers from all claims contained in the lawsuit. This simply means accepting the settlement benefits prevents an owner from suing Ford over the spark plug problems.

Click here to file a claim.

Read owner-reported complaints about the Ford and Lincoln vehicles named in the spark plug lawsuit.

• Ford F-150
• Ford F-250 and F-350
• Ford Expedition
• Lincoln Navigator
• Lincoln Mark LT

Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) has trailer light control problems and has ordered one recall involving vans and a separate recall for the trailer tow lights sold separately for the vans.

Chrysler says more than 1,500 model year 2014-2016 RAM ProMaster and 2015-2016 ProMaster City vans have trailer tow lighting control modules with software errors. Those errors can prevent illumination of the trailer brake lights, leaving any vehicles traveling behind to guess what the van is going to do.

FCA investigated possible problems with the lights and determined software changes had been implemented to minimize battery drain. Those software changes caused errors that can cause the trailer tow brake lights to work on first use and fail thereafter.

The recalled 2014-2016 RAM ProMaster vans were manufactured July 24, 2015, to February 15, 2016, and the 2015-2016 ProMaster City vans were built August 15, 2014, to February 1, 2016.

FCA doesn't know when the ProMaster van recall will begin. RAM dealers will replace the trailer tow light control modules to keep the lights working.

Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 800-853-1403 and give them recall number S22.

Accessory Trailer Tow Light Control Modules

The equipment recall includes more than 84,000 trailer light modules with the part number 68229650AB. The accessory modules were sold specifically for use on RAM ProMaster and ProMaster City vans.

The same software errors that caused the vans to be recalled applies to the recall of 84,000 accessory trailer light modules.

Chrysler says equipment recall notices will be mailed to owners who may have purchased the Mopar tow kits. Owners who have thrown out money for trailer tow light repairs can be reimbursed by FCA for the expense, as long as proof of repair payments are confirmed.

Chrysler doesn't know when the accessory module recall will begin, but dealers will need to replace all affected trailer tow light control modules.

Owners with questions should call FCA at 800-853-1403 and use Chrysler's recall number S29.

Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) has announced two recalls totaling about 580,000 cars and SUVs, but no word has been announced concerning when the recalls will begin.

Jeep Wrangler

About 500,000 of the recalled vehicles are model year 2007-2010 Jeep Wrangler SUVs, including 7,435 right-hand-drive SUVs sold for duties such as delivering mail.

An internal investigation by Chrysler found dust and dirt can affect the clockspring inside the steering wheel and prevent the driver-side airbag from deploying in a crash.

The automaker says it's likely the dirt and dust is collected when the top or doors are removed from the SUV during off-road use. A driver will notice an airbag warning light if the airbag is disabled, a condition that requires an immediate call to a dealer.

The automaker says no reports of accidents or injuries have been received.

Chrysler says almost 393,500 of the Jeep Wranglers are recalled in the U.S., 35,412 in Canada, 8,529 in Mexico and 62,580 Jeep Wranglers are recalled outside North America.

FCA says the 2007-2010 Wranglers need new steering wheel back covers and steering column shrouds, but the automaker doesn't know when the recall will begin.

Fiat 500

A separate recall will see more than 80,000 model year 2012-2016 Fiat 500 cars called back so dealers can upgrade the clutch release systems. Chrysler says the cars are equipped with manual transmissions, but cars with turbocharged engines aren't included in the recall.

The automaker says the clutch can move beyond what it was designed to do and cause damage capable of interfering with the shifting of gears and the movement of the car.

Although no accidents or injuries have been reported, FCA says some incidents have caused damage, but the percentage is a very small 0.01 percent.

The number of affected Fiat 500 cars in the U.S. is estimated to be 39,217, with an additional 7,834 cars in Canada, 7,155 in Mexico and 26,268 that are located outside North America.

Chrysler doesn't know when the Fiat 500 recall will begin, but affected owners with questions about either recall should call the automaker at 800-853-1403.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the Jeep Wrangler SUVs and Fiat 500 cars named in the recalls:

• Jeep Wrangler - 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / All model years
• Fiat 500 - 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016

Subaru is recalling 766 model year 2015 Legacy and Outback vehicles that could be difficult to handle while driving.

Subaru discovered excess moisture in a storage tank of brake fluid that caused a gel-like material to form in the brake systems. The automaker determined the fluid can clog a valve filter in the vehicle dynamics control system.

In certain cases where electronic stability control is activated, the feature may not help to prevent a loss of vehicle control.

Subaru blames the problem on a storage tank that was exposed to the atmosphere during a plant shutdown period from July 4 to July 19, 2015.

The Indiana plant tested for moisture in the fluid when the tank arrived at the facility, but moisture levels were not tested after the plant shutdown period. Subaru says from now on any storage periods will require tests for moisture before the brake fluid is used.

Subaru doesn't know when the recall will begin, but dealers will need to flush and replace the brake fluid and do some work with the anti-lock braking system.

Owners of the recalled 2015 Legacy and Outback vehicles may call Subaru at 800-782-2783 and give them recall number WTC-64.

This is the second recall of Legacy and Outback vehicles announced by Subaru in a week. A May 12 recall of 48,500 model year 2016-2017 Legacy and Outback vehicles was announced because the steering wheels may fail to turn the wheels.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has received a petition to investigate alleged airbag system defects in 2006-2010 Pontiac Solstice and 2007-2010 Saturn Sky cars.

The petitioner, Troy Lyman, claims the passenger sensing system sensor mats can break and cause the passenger airbags to fail in a crash.

In his defect petition, Mr. Lyman says 933 complaints have been submitted to NHTSA about the disabled passenger airbags, not only on the Solstice and Sky but also several General Motors vehicles.

The petition seeks an investigation into specific problems that allegedly occur when the passenger seat sensor mat kinks, folds and eventually breaks. This can cause the passenger airbag warning light to illuminate indicating the airbag system is turned off.

Based on complaints submitted to CarComplaints.com, owners of Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice cars say the problem is both a safety issue and an expensive issue.

"As complained by most Saturn Sky owners this should be recalled. HUGE SAFETY ISSUE!! Is it really going to take more deaths to have this considered "re-callable"? I now have both airbag lights on and estimated cost of repairs is close $1500." - 2007 Saturn Sky owner / Houston, Texas

"Yes, the car is older (2007), but it has been garage kept and had only 12,000 miles when the failure occurred. Not sure how many of those miles included a passenger actually sitting in the passenger seat (~60% = 7200mi?). Hard to believe the switch could fail with so little use, even harder to believe it costs $700 parts + labor (as quoted by the dealer)." - 2007 Saturn Sky owner / Tyrone, Pennsylvania

The expense issue doesn't get any better for Pontiac Solstice owners, at least based on repair price quotes ranging from $700 to $1,050.

"On the right side airbag is not working, I had it checked out and they said it would be 1,050 dollars to fix it." - 2007 Pontiac Solstice owner / Annapolis, Maryland

"This should be recalled because it is a safety issue because the passenger air bag is now inoperative. there should have been an ON OFF switch installed and the 700 dollars the dealer quoted me to fix this problem is absurd. he could not guarantee this problem would not return." - 2007 Pontiac Solstice owner / Fayetteville, North Carolina

Mr. Lyman's petition claims the break in the sensor mat will cause the circuitry of the mat to fail until expensive repairs are performed.

NHTSA says it will investigate the allegations to either grant or deny the claims. If the safety agency determines there is cause to further research the alleged defects, the government will open an official investigation.

CarComplaints.com will update our website with NHTSA's decision.

Read owner-reported complaints about the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky:

• Pontiac Solstice - 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010
• Saturn Sky - 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010

General Motors will reportedly offer compensation to about 170,000 owners, lessees and rental car customers because of overstating fuel economy on 2016 Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse and GMC Acadia SUVs.

GM hasn't released official details of what will be offered to customers, but its likely to be in the form of cash, debit cards or some other compensation.

GM determined the SUVs were sold with an overstated fuel economy of 1 to 2 miles per gallon, so compensation will be offered based on the difference between advertised and actual miles per gallon. Estimates are 130,000 customers purchased or leased the SUVs and 40,000 more vehicles are currently used for corporate and rental vehicles.

GM says it discovered the problem while working on new window stickers (Monroney labels) for model year 2017 vehicles. The automaker blames the problem on a simple mistake caused by new emissions software in the 2016 SUVs that should have meant new emissions tests. Instead, the window stickers went out with the SUVs without any new emissions tests performed on the vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working with GM to guarantee the SUVs are marketed and sold with correct fuel economy estimates. However, the EPA has not announced if it will take legal action against the automaker.

Although compensation details are currently unknown, it's possible accepting an offer from General Motors will waive the right to sue GM, something a Florida man has already done in court.

Sean Tolmasof, who purchased a 2016 Chevrolet Traverse, alleges he and other GM owners now have SUVs with decreased monetary values because of the window stickers. Tolmasoff claims he wouldn't have purchased the Traverse if he would have known about the 1 to 2 mpg discrepancy.

NHTSA Oversight of GM Extended

The GM SUV fuel economy problems occurred near the same time the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sent GM a letter informing the automaker it will be watched closely for another year. NHTSA says it is extending by a year its federal oversight of GM's decision-making concerning safety issues and recalls.

GM agreed to the consent order in 2014 after the mess caused by hiding defective ignition switches for at least 10 years. NHTSA says GM has performed well the past two years and the automaker believes the oversight has helped improve safety.

As part of the 2014 consent order, General Motors must provide written safety reports every month to the government, including for safety issues that don't involve recalls.

Under the terms of the agreement, this will be the third and final year NHTSA will monitor GM.

Suzuki says it didn't intentionally cheat on fuel economy tests while the automaker admits it spent the past six years selling 2.1 million cars with incorrect fuel economy estimates.

Saying it discovered “discrepancies” in its tests, Suzuki denies it deliberately manipulated the cars to make them easier to sell. However, Suzuki said nothing for six years until Japan's transport ministry ordered all automakers to provide details about emissions and fuel economy.

Japanese authorities have been cracking down since Mitsubishi admitted it manipulated fuel economy numbers for the past 25 years.

Suzuki says it did nothing to intentionally alter fuel efficiency data and the only discrepancies were found in the emissions and fuel efficiency testing process. Japanese officials say it is "outrageous" the automaker didn't follow proper testing procedures for 16 models encompassing more than two million vehicles.

Suzuki says all affected vehicles are located in Japan and were tested based on readings from numerous parts, not as a single reading taken from each car. The automaker says it conducted tests on a hill that experienced heavy winds, something that allegedly made accurate readings nearly impossible.

The affected vehicles under investigation include the following 16 Japanese models:

Minicars

• Suzuki Alto
• Suzuki Alto Lapin
• Suzuki Wagon R
• Suzuki Hustler
• Suzuki Spacia
• Suzuki Every
• Suzuki Carry
• Suzuki Jimny

Normal and Large Vehicles

• Suzuki Solio
• Suzuki Ignis
• Suzuki Baleno
• Suzuki SX4 S-CROSS
• Suzuki Swift
• Suzuki Escudo 2.4
• Suzuki Escudo
• Suzuki Jimny Sierra

Suzuki says the "discrepancies" not only resulted from numerous parts of the car tested instead of the car as a whole, but inaccurate results were received because the tests were conducted indoors because of the bad conditions outside.

"The company apologizes for the fact that we did not follow rules set by the country." Suzuki CEO Osamu Suzuki

Suzuki says it has no plans on altering fuel economy estimates for the cars, but that position could change based on what Japanese authorities decide. The automaker also has no plans to recall the two million vehicles because they aren't considered a safety hazard.

A class-action lawsuit against General Motors concerning false safety ratings on window stickers for 2014 Cadillac CTS cars will proceed after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the automaker.

Plaintiff Geri Siano Carriuolo filed the 2014 lawsuit after purchasing a 2014 Cadillac CTS the plaintiff believed had achieved 5-star safety ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Carriuolo had every right to believe what she did about the safety ratings because the window sticker, called a Monroney sticker, clearly said the CTS was awarded 5-star safety ratings in three categories: Frontal Crash Driver, Frontal Crash Passenger and Rollover.

Things were fine for the next four months until the plaintiff got a letter from GM that said the Cadillac CTS window sticker was wrong.

According to the lawsuit, GM told owners the CTS didn't have 5-star safety ratings from NHTSA because the cars hadn't yet been tested by NHTSA. Carriuolo alleges the false window stickers caused consumers to pay a premium for cars with non-existent safety ratings.

Other Cadillac owners across the country also complained about the incorrect window stickers and imaginary 5-star safety ratings.

"Purchased a new 2014 Cadillac Cts, window sticker showed clearly and as a selling feature that the car received a government 5 star safety rating for frontal crash, driver and passenger and for roll over. Five months later, May 16, 2014 I received a letter from Cadillac stating that there was an error and the car did not receive a 5 star government rating and they sent me a new window sticker.. I feel this is false advertising promoting the safety of the car based on us government safety rating." - 2014 Cadillac CTS owner / Woodbury, New York

The lawsuit alleges that in an attempt to satisfy Cadillac customers, GM offered those customers satellite radio service in addition to On-Star service as compensation for the errors.

A district court had certified the case as a class-action but General Motors appealed the certification by arguing the court erroneously certified the lawsuit because:

1. There are not questions of law or fact common to the class.
2. Any common questions of law or fact do not predominate.
3. A class action is not superior.
4. The representative parties will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

GM essentially claims that trying to calculate damages based on each customer will cause problems if the claims are treated the same under a class-action lawsuit.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the automaker and agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the lawsuit was correctly certified as a class-action by the district court. The court upheld class-action certification by saying each owner is connected by the question: Did General Motors violate the law by affixing inaccurate Monroney stickers to 2014 Cadillac CTS sedans sold or leased in Florida?

The court ruled it was obvious NHTSA had not assigned any safety ratings to the 2014 Cadillac CTS cars because they hadn't been tested by the government.

The case will proceed based on violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act that says a company cannot use "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce."

The General Motors 2014 Cadillac CTS window sticker lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida - Carriuolo, et al v. General Motors Company.

The plaintiff is represented by Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-Rubin.

Although GM has been dealing with the Cadillac CTS window sticker issues since 2014, the automaker is currently steeped in a load of problems concerning incorrect window stickers on popular SUVs.

General Motors says about 170,000 model year 2016 Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse and GMC Acadia SUVs had window stickers with false fuel economy ratings.

Volkswagen is recalling 366 vehicles to fix tire pressure monitoring problems and to correct tire pressure labels.

VW says the 2016 Touareg SUVs have tire pressure monitoring systems that may not have been calibrated properly. This means a driver may not have all kinds of bells and whistles sounding off if the tire pressure falls below recommended levels.

Additionally, Volkswagen says the tire pressure information printed on the labels is incorrect.

VW says it has already notified Touareg owners to get the SUVs to dealers so the tire pressure systems and the tire pressure safety labels can be corrected.

Owners with questions should contact their local Volkswagen dealer and ask about recall number 44M9.

Volkswagen has ordered previous recalls due to tire label problems, including a recall in February 2016 for Beetle Convertibles with incorrect tire pressure safety labels.

Then in June 2015, the VW Tiguan was recalled because of faulty tire pressure labels.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has closed a 2014 "audit query" of Fiat Chrysler's (FCA) recall processes and its management of its parts division Mopar.

The investigation was opened following a recall of nearly 972,000 model year 2003-2012 Dodge Ram 1500, 2500 and 3500 trucks after reports of left tie-rod ball studs breaking and causing a loss of steering.

NHTSA had concerns about Chrysler's poor communications with the safety agency concerning parts needed for two recalls, both that involved defects that could cause a loss of steering control. The government requested information from FCA about the availability of parts for recall repairs based on a high volume of consumers complaints about parts restrictions.

NHTSA says "FCA steadfastly denied it had placed parts restrictions on its dealers to manage issues of parts scarcity," but consumer complaints continued to flow in about dealers claiming they couldn't get the parts.

The government talked to Chrysler dealerships about the conflicting claims between owners and Chrysler's information showing parts were available. The dealers told NHTSA a different story than the safety agency was hearing directly from Chrysler.

The dealers provided documents to NHTSA that showed the automaker had put into place parts restrictions and in some cases had canceled back orders for parts needed by dealers for their customers.

The government also discovered Chrysler had notified its dealerships asking them to return the recall remedy parts because of concerns about the quality of the parts. In other words, the automaker had effectively canceled its safety recall program without telling NHTSA. In addition, FCA failed to respond to questions the government asked concerning the parts.

Chrysler finally admitted it did put into place a parts restriction concerning the recalls and knew dealers were unable to get the parts needed to repair the vehicles.

NHTSA says it is closing the recall investigation because of a consent order FCA agreed to in July 2015 admitting violations of federal safety laws. Under the government agreement, NHTSA imposed a total penalty of $175 million, $70 million of which Chrysler paid in September 2015 and another $70 million that was paid in January 2016.

The automaker also agreed to buy back certain vehicles and provide incentives to its customers for recall failures involving trucks and SUVs.

As part of the agreement, FCA is monitored concerning safety defects, parts availability and the overall workings of the automaker. Although the audit query is closed, NHTSA says Chrysler could face additional penalties if it deviates from the consent order.

Allegations of Hyundai Sonata unintended acceleration events have caught the attention of Singapore safety officials who are looking into claims of Hyundai Sonata cars that experience "unintended acceleration in reverse gear."

According to local newspaper reports, the investigation was opened after accidents were reported from a taxi company called ComfortDelGro, the largest taxi company in Singapore.

Although Sonata owners across the world have complained about unintended acceleration, most complaints have always involved cars speeding forward. This investigation is focusing on allegations involving incidents that occurred in reverse gear where the operators slammed into objects located behind the Sonata cars.

Hyundai Sonata owners have previously complained about unintended acceleration events, sometimes in situations that involved both driving forward and in reverse.

"...once ignition is on and put car into drive or reverse to pull out of space, the car races back and or forth. I must always be aware of this when pulling out from a parking space. I cannot go right into drive or reverse as the car will speed in both directions. I must keep my foot on the brake until car warms up. This is dangerous and alarming because it feels like the car will not stop!" - 2010 Hyundai Sonata owner - Staten Island, New York

Singapore officials say they have no idea what might be causing the reports and no conclusions can be reached at this early stage of the investigation. As for Hyundai, it will cooperate fully with any agency that has questions about the cars.

Hyundai customers have complained about accidents caused by unintended acceleration but previous government investigations found no problems with the Hyundai vehicles. For example, South Korean safety officials have tried to replicate what could be occurring when the acceleration events are taking place, but those officials concluded sudden unintended acceleration is not caused by mechanical or electronic problems with the cars.

Hyundai Sonata owners in the U.S. claim their cars can take off on their own and cause not only a scary ride, but also plenty of property damage.

"I was approaching a stoplight and as I was approaching stop light and attempted to put on brakes to stop. Instead of stopping the car the car sped up and didn't stop until I smashed into him. Car did not stop until collision occurred upon impact. I called insurance reported incident, and with this collision there was $1300 damage to his vehicle." - 2011 Hyundai Sonata owner / Harwood Heights, Illinois

A few years ago a different alleged Hyundai Sonata unintended acceleration event was investigated by the South Korean Ministry of Land, Transport & Maritime Affairs.

The incident caused serious injuries to the man and woman, both in their 60s, after their Sonata allegedly took off and out of control slamming into another vehicle while traveling about 80 miles per hour. (See video below)

South Korean officials said they could find nothing wrong with the Hyundai Sonata and blamed the accident on driver error.

Owners of 2011 Chevrolet Equinox and 2011 GMC Terrain SUVs who have complained about excessive oil consumption problems may receive help from General Motors based on technical service bulletin (TSB) 15285C.

Owners of the SUVs say their vehicles consume oil at excessively rapid rates and cause constant refills and repairs. The 2011 Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain SUVs are equipped with 2.4-liter gas engines, vehicles that have come under previous service bulletins for the same oil consumption issues.

GM describes excessive oil consumption as a vehicle that uses a quart of oil every 2,000 miles or less and blames the problem on wearing of the piston rings.

Owners of the 2011 Chevrolet Equinox have complained about tossing out money for oil then facing the prospect of expensive engine repairs.

"It is using a quart of oil every 450 miles. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. Suggestion is rings and seals or a new engine. They did offer us an extra $1,000 if we wanted to trade it for a new GM product. Why would I want another one?" - 2011 Chevrolet Equinox owner / Rochester, Minnesota

"My 2011 Chevrolet Equinox 2.4L Used 4 qts of oil in less than 5,000 miles. When I saw the Chevy Equinox I decided to buy it without enough research. I was lulled into believing that the US car makers had learned their lesson, when the Japanese car makers almost put them out of business in the 1980's, with higher quality long lasting cars. It looks like I was wrong." - 2011 Chevrolet Equinox owner / South Lyon, Michigan

However, other owners have complained about the results of those expensive engine repairs.

"According to invoice replaced 1 Piston, gasket and chain! It now runs worse then before! Idles at 500 rpm." - 2011 Chevrolet Equinox owner / El Paso, Texas

Chevy and GMC dealers were told in previous technical service bulletins to install updated engine control module calibration and perform an oil consumption test. This time dealers are told to diagnose the problem and replace the pistons.

General Motors says repairs will be made free of charge based on warranty coverage extended to 7.5 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first. The coverage begins from the date of sale of the SUV.

If you own a 2011 GMC Terrain or Chevy Equinox and experience excessive oil consumption, contact your local dealership and ask about TSB 15285C.

CarComplaints.com has received complaints about excessive oil consumption in the 2011 Chevrolet Equinox and 2011 GMC Terrain:

• 2011 Chevrolet Equinox (Oil consumption complaints here and here)
• 2011 GMC Terrain (Oil consumption complaints)

Toyota is recalling more than 1.5 million Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles in the U.S. to replace Takata airbags at risk of exploding. Toyota names the following models as part of the recall:

• 2009-2011 Toyota Corolla
• 2009-2011 Toyota Matrix
• 2006-2011 Toyota Yaris
• 2010-2011 Toyota 4Runner
• 2011 Toyota Sienna
• 2008-2011 Scion xB
• 2007-2011 Lexus ES
• 2010-2011 Lexus GX
• 2006-2011 Lexus IS

The move isn't unexpected after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced 35-40 million additional Takata airbags would be recalled in the U.S. The government made its decision after confirmation of the root cause for the airbags to explode like hand grenades.

The airbags have killed at least 10 people in the U.S. and injured more than 140 because of metal airbag inflators located inside the airbags. NHTSA says three independent investigations prove a combination of time, moisture and high temperatures cause the explosive chemical inside the inflators to become unstable and degrade over time.

The chemical, ammonium nitrate, is used in the inflators as the propellant to deploy the airbags in a crash, but the chemical can burn too quickly and rupture the metal canister.

Exposure to humidity and changes in high temperatures alter the chemical compound, at least in airbags that don't have a drying agent called a desiccant, a separate chemical used to absorb moisture.

Toyota says this latest recall involves defective passenger-side frontal airbag inflators that dealers will handle in two ways. Toyota says a dealership will replace the airbag inflator or the entire airbag assembly based on the model of vehicle.

To date, the automaker has recalled about 4.7 million vehicles in the U.S. because of the dangerous Takata airbags.

NHTSA hasn't released details of the recall and Toyota has only said affected owners should watch the mail.

CarComplaints.com has many complaints about the Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles named in the Takata airbag recall:

• Toyota Corolla
• Toyota Matrix
• Toyota Yaris
• Toyota 4Runner
• Toyota Sienna
• Scion xB
• Lexus ES
• Lexus GX
• Lexus IS

A Volkswagen timing chain tensioner lawsuit alleges numerous VW and Audi vehicles have defects in the timing chain tensioning systems that cause complete engine failure. The proposed class-action lawsuit includes many VW and Audi vehicles.

• 2008-2010 and 2012 Volkswagen Beetle
• 2009-2013 Volkswagen CC
• 2008 -2012 Volkswagen EOS
• 2008-2012 Volkswagen Golf
• 2008-2012 Volkswagen GTI
• 2008-2012 Volkswagen Jetta
• 2008-2012 Volkswagen Passat
• 2008-2011 Volkswagen R32
• 2008-2010 Volkswagen Rabbit
• 2009-2012 Volkswagen Routan
• 2008-2012 Volkswagen Tiguan
• 2008-2013 Volkswagen Touareg
• 2011 Volkswagen Touareg Hybrid
• 2008-2012 Audi A3
• 2008-2012 Audi A4
• 2008-2012 Audi A5
• 2010-2012 Audi A6
• 2012 Audi A7
• 2008-2012 Audi TT
• 2010-2012 Audi Q3
• 2009-2012 Audi Q5
• 2012 Audi Q7

Plaintiff David Zimand says he leased a 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Wolfsburg Edition with a 2.0-liter TSI engine in April 2009, and in 2012 bought the same vehicle from the same dealership.

In March 2014, Zimand’s 2009 VW Jetta experienced the tensioning system failure which caused catastrophic engine failure. After a trip to a dealer, the plaintiff claims he had to pay to replace the camshaft, chain, chain tensioner, brackets, valves, and numerous other engine parts.

The VW and Audi A3 vehicles are equipped with EA888 2.0L TSI engines with engine codes CCTA or CBFA. The remaining Audi vehicles are equipped with EA888 2.0L TFSI engines designated with engine codes CAEB, CAEA, or CDNC. The plaintiff says all the engines with these five codes are versions of the EA888 engine and all use the same timing chain tensioning system.

The lawsuit alleges Volkswagen represents in the warranty and maintenance schedules that the tensioning system is expected to last for about 120,000 miles without the need for repairs. In fact, according to the plaintiff, owners are provided manuals that do not show any timing chain system inspection or maintenance schedules at all.

The lawsuit says Volkswagen intentionally concealed the timing chain tensioner defects causing owners to spend a fortune to repair or replace the damaged engines. The out-of-pocket expenses can be thousands of dollars, an expense owners say they wouldn't have to pay if VW would have admitted the truth about the defects.

"Timing chain tensioner failure: I had the car towed to my local VW dealer and was extremely surprised upon receiving news that my engine and turbo were blown and both needed to be replaced. I have since persuaded the dealership I purchased from to cover the installation of a replacement engine, but purchasing the new engine and turbo (upwards of $9K for oem) has fallen on me." - 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan owner / Fitchburg, Wisconsin

The plaintiff also claims the tensioning system presents a clear and present danger to owners and others on the roads because the engines can fail at any time and leave the vehicles dead in the middle of traffic.

The tensioning system defects, according to the plaintiff, have been present since the vehicles were manufactured and sold. Based on this, the automaker should have known the timing chain tensioner problems would occur during the useful life of the engine.

The lawsuit alleges VW knowingly concealed the defects for the purpose of increasing profit and selling cars. In addition, the lawsuit alleges Volkswagen and Audi have sent several technical service bulletins to dealers describing the problems. The bulletins talked about timing chain tensioner problems going back to 2010.

The Volkswagen and Audi timing chain tensioner class-action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey - David Zimand, et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

A BMW i3 "range extender" (REx) class-action lawsuit alleges the cars suddenly lose both power and speed when the range extender option is activated.

The BMW lawsuit focuses on 2014-2016 i3 REx cars advertised as including a "fuel extender" gasoline engine with a small gas tank that sends gas to the engine when the battery level drops.

BMW announced the i3 electric car to the world in 2013 as "an electric vehicle that performs like a BMW...because it is one.”

According to the i3 lawsuit, BMW advertises the fuel extender as a generator to produce electricity and extend the range of the car from 81 miles per charge to 150 miles per charge. But the plaintiff says the problem arises from BMW allegedly failing to tell consumers that when the fuel extender is activated, the i3 REx cannot maintain the speed and performance of normal operation.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed after plaintiff Edo Tsoar leased a 2015 BMW i3 REx in January 2016. Tsoar says a big reason he leased the car was because of the range extender feature, but the plaintiff now says his decision was a mistake.

The i3 REx lawsuit alleges while the range extender is active and the car is full of passengers or going up a hill, the speed will dramatically decrease as the battery charge goes down. Mr. Tsoar says BMW knew about this problem but failed to tell consumers so the automaker could keep selling the cars.

The plaintiff says the problem with the range extender is the sudden and severe loss of power that occurs without warning, creating a danger on the roads.

Mr. Tsoar says the problem happened to him when the battery was around 6 percent and the car was traveling up a hill in a line of traffic. The plaintiff claims the car suddenly lost power and decreased speed, causing Mr. Tsoar to quickly change lanes because the i3 was moving slowly. After this occurring on numerous occasions, the plaintiff says he noticed the battery was always near 5 percent and the range extender feature was activated.

Tsoar says he tried to return the i3 to the dealership and was told he should change his driving habits to avoid the problem. The plaintiff says he now avoids driving more than 80 miles per charge because of the alleged defect.

A California 2014 BMW i3 owner echoes the allegations laid out in the range extender lawsuit and adds another problem experienced with the car.

"driving at highway speed of 65 mph, with battery power drained, the rex (reserve engine) turns on. Suddenly, speed drops from 65 mph to 40 mph while on a 2-lane ca freeway, almost causing me to be rear-ended by traffic. One month later, same situation, same problem."

The i3 owner went on to complain about a separate issue with the total capable miles even when using the REx option.

"manufacturer states a combined mileage range of 80 miles on battery, 60 miles on rex (reserve engine), for a combined range of 140 miles. I have never had more than 60 miles on battery and 40 miles on rex for a combined mileage of 100 miles, 40% less than BMW states, even though I use a professionally installed level 2 charger."

The BMW i3 REx lawsuit alleges owners paid premium prices for their cars believing the range extender option was worth the extra money.

The BMW i3 range extender (REx) lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Edo Tsoar, et al v. BMW of North America, LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by MLG Automotive Law.

Ford is recalling close to 271,000 F-150 trucks to fix brake problems that have allegedly caused nine accidents.

The automaker says the 2013-2014 Ford F-150 trucks need the master cylinders replaced because brake fluid could leak into the brake boosters. This will cause a loss of braking, but Ford says the brake fluid leak affects only the front wheels and rear braking isn't affected.

As for the nine accidents, Ford says no injuries have been reported from the accidents but there is a report of an alleged injury "involving interaction with the vehicle’s brakes."

All the trucks are equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built in Michigan between August 1, 2013, through August 22, 2014, and in Kansas City from August 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014.

According to data from Ford, about 225,012 recalled F-150 trucks are in the U.S., 43,682 are in Canada and 402 in Mexico.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hasn't released information concerning when the F-150 recall will begin. Ford says its dealers will replace the brake master cylinders on all the trucks. In addition, Ford will replace the brake booster if the master cylinder is leaking brake fluid.

2016 Lincoln MKX Recall

A separate recall involves only five model year 2016 Lincoln MKX crossover SUVs that need the seatback trim covers replaced. Ford is calling it a "safety compliance recall" ordered because the seatback trim cover for the left-side second-row seat was made for the China market, not the U.S.

Unlike the Ford F-150 recall, the automaker says no accidents or injuries are related to the problem.

The five SUVs were built September 24-25, 2015, and all are located in the U.S.

Ford didn't release details about when the 2016 Lincoln MKX recall will begin, but dealers will inspect and replace the seatback trim cover for the left-side second-row seat and install a tether cover bezel when the recall begins.

Owners with questions about any of the recalls should call Ford at 866-436-7332.

CarComplaints.com will update this page when the government releases details.

Read complaints submitted by owners of the Ford F-150 and Lincoln MKX:

• Ford F-150 - 2013 / 2014 / All model years
• Lincoln MKX - 2016 / All model years