Kia is recalling 47 model year 2017 Kia Cadenza cars with brake vacuum hoses that can kink and cause problems with braking performance.

At the least, a kinked hose can cause longer stopping distances and do it without any warning.

The recall is scheduled to begin April 17, 2017, when dealers will replace the affected brake vacuum hoses.

If you own a 2017 Kia Cadenza and have questions about the recall, please call the automaker at 800-333-4542. Kia's number for this recall is SC146.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the Kia Cadenza and other Kia models.

Volkswagen UK complaints are still being filed even after cars were allegedly fixed to make their emission systems legal. Numerous UK media outlets report VW owners say their cars are running worse than before the automaker made repairs.

Out of about 1.2 million affected diesel vehicles in the UK, Volkswagen says about 540,000 have been repaired, most that required an allegedly simple software update.

UK owners of Audi, Seat, Skoda and VW diesel vehicles with emissions problems have complained from the beginning about the fact U.S. 2-liter owners have been treated to buybacks and compensation worth $10 billion while UK owners are stuck with repairs that will allegedly fix the cars.

VW admits the company would go bankrupt if it compensated UK owners as it did U.S. owners, and the automaker was given the go-ahead by UK regulators to skip buybacks and compensation.

It must be noted the number of UK complaints filed after the cars were allegedly fixed is small compared to the number of repaired cars, and there is no proof any alleged problems are caused by VW's repairs. However, about 3,500 owners have made complaints about their cars experiencing all kinds of troubles since the emissions systems were worked on.

Some owners say their cars broke down shortly after VW made emissions repairs and other owners say it's like driving different cars.

Based on UK complaints, owners say their cars have worse fuel economy than they did before the automaker worked on the cars. Other owners say they are having problems starting their cars, while others complain the cars experience a loss of power without warning.

In addition, owners say they hear noises they never heard before and in some cases, the cars decelerate without warning.

UK owners say when they complain to dealers after the cars were allegedly repaired, the dealers say the owners will need to pay for repairs.

A British law firm is investigating if the problems are directly caused by software updates or any other work performed by VW dealers and said it will share details of the investigation with UK regulators. The UK class-action lawsuit includes more than 30,000 owners and more are climbing onboard each week.

Volkswagen, prior to the UK agreement, promised it would investigate any complaints made by owners after the emissions repairs. The automaker says it's aware of the complaints and all complaints will be addressed.

Word of the UK complaints has left some owners in doubt about having the emission systems repaired. Technically, those owners aren't required to participate in related recalls, but environmental regulators will likely step in because they want the illegal emission systems fixed.

Have a complaint about your Volkswagen vehicle? Add your complaint here, about any vehicle.

Ford is recalling about 52,600 of its 2017 Ford F-250 gasoline-powered 6.2-liter trucks to fix problems that can cause the trucks to roll away and hit anything the trucks want to hit.

Ford didn't release much information but did say the F-250 trucks run on gasoline (not diesel) and can roll away even when the trucks are in PARK.

The automaker blames the rollaway risk on a damaged park rod actuating plate that may not move the automatic transmission into PARK. Although the trucks can move with the gear shifter indicating PARK, Ford says no accidents or injuries have been reported related to the F-250 trucks.

However, the parking brake should always be applied after shifting the truck into PARK.

All the recalled 2017 F-250 trucks were built in Kentucky between October 9, 2015, and March 30, 2017.

Ford says about 48,421 of the trucks are in the U.S. and another 4,143 are in Canada.

The automaker didn't mention when the 2017 F-250 recall will begin. Ford dealers will inspect and replace the park rod actuating plates, if needed.

CarComplaints.com will update this page when additional recall details are released, but F-250 owners with questions should call Ford at 866-436-7332 and ask about recall number 17C06.

Read complaints about Ford F-250 trucks and other Ford models.

The owner of a 2007 Jeep Patriot has filed a petition with the government to investigate why Patriot engines stall after putting gas in the tanks.

In a letter sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the petitioner says his 2007 Jeep Patriot stalls after filling the gas tank even though the tank isn't over-filled.

The petitioner says the SUV stalls repeatedly and numerous dealer visits and repairs have done nothing to fix the problem. The petition lists at least 35 reports from 2007 Patriot owners about the exact same problem.

"I'm experiencing what I've found to be a well-documented issue with a vapor-liquid separator valve located in the gas tank of my 2007 Jeep Patriot. After fueling, moments after starting the car and putting it into drive, the car will stall and shut off. It will immediately re-start and run again but is pretty much guaranteed to shut off at every stop (I.e. at an intersection or while exiting the gas station) for the next few minutes. It also leads to hesitations of the engine while driving at full speed. This has happened to me the last four times I've filled my gas tank."

"I bought a new gas cap and yes Jeep brand and still the same problem. I have been reading other owners issue and they are identical to mine. The car stalls and shut off in the middle of traffic, at a stop light or just whenever. I was reading some complaints and they were saying the charcoal canister is the problem. The complaint also said you can not replace the charcoal canister, because it was build into the fuel tank, so you have to replace the whole fuel tank. The cost for a new fuel tank is around $1,250."

"After filling gas tank with fuel, after 30ish seconds the engine will stall and sometimes recover, sometimes quit. This happens regardless of whether I am stopped at a light/sign or driving. I have read numerous reports of others having this same issue. Seems that the charcoal canister is filling with gas."

"Every time after I fill the gas tank, I start the engine, it runs fine for 1-2 min. Then begins to buck and jolt like it wants to shut off. I've even had the engine completely shut off while on the highway."

NHTSA says an estimated 29,600 Jeep Patriots are part of the investigation into possible stalling problems associated with filling the gas tanks. Safety regulators will evaluate the evidence and decide if an official defect investigation should be opened.

CarComplaints.com will update our website with results of the Jeep Patriot petition.

Read about 2007 Jeep Patriot fuel system problems.

Kia is recalling 135 model year 2017 Niro crossover SUVs that can lose power steering due to damaged motor driven power steering connectors.

Losing power steering can be trouble while driving at slow speeds or around curves, so Kia dealers will need to replace the motor driven power steering connectors when the recall begins on April 7, 2017.

Concerned 2017 Kia Niro owners should call the automaker at 800-333-4542 and ask for information about recall number SC145.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about numerous models of Kia vehicles.

Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) is recalling nearly 30,000 model year 2014 Fiat 500L cars with problems related to the gas pedals. The Fiat 500L can hesitate when the driver eases off the accelerator pedal and then pushes the pedal.

The automaker says the hesitation only occurs momentarily and can be resolved by completely releasing the gas pedal, then pressing on the pedal. FCA says it found the problem during a review of data received from the field.

"Twice driving on freeway we push gas pedal down to accelerate and car does nothing, wasn't sure if it was going to stop or ?? same thing happens when we're driving and want to speed up and for example pass a car or go through an intersection. The problem has been intermittent but the longer I drive the car the more frequently it's been happening." - 2014 Fiat 500L owner / Los Angeles, California

Hesitation problems in traffic can be trouble, but Chrysler says its data shows no related accidents or injuries.

About 25,600 recalled Fiat 500L cars are in the U.S. and another 4,080 are located in Canada.

Fiat dealers say they can fix the hesitation problems by updating the software calibration that helps control how the gas pedals function.

Chrysler didn't say when the recall will begin and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hasn't said a word, but CarComplaints.com will update this page when a recall date is announced.

Until then, owners of 2014 Fiat 500L cars should watch their mailboxes or call FCA at 800-853-1403.

Read complaints about the Fiat 500L and other Fiat models.

A Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit is finally settled and over as a federal judge gave final approval to the settlement terms concerning 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe SUVs.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiffs Julia Reniger and Greg Battaglia who claim their SUVs kept stalling without warning, causing problems with trying to steer and stop the SUVs.

The plaintiffs allege Hyundai knew about the stalling problems but concealed the information from consumers and making trips to dealerships didn't help because dealers typically said the problems couldn't be duplicated.

In the case of Julia Reniger, she claims numerous dealer visits did nothing to help and she finally traded in the Santa Fe. The dealer had changed the battery and worked on the throttle body, but Reniger claims the SUV continued to stall while traveling at various speeds.

Throughout the years, Hyundai Santa Fe owners have complained about their engines stalling at every speed, including highway speeds where stalling engines can raise hell with other drivers.

"I have a 2012 Santa Fe that stalls on the freeway at speeds of 60-80mph. This has happened at least every couple of weeks since I bought this POS car back in March 2013. I've taken it in numerous times. Of course, they cannot replicate the error. I actually have video of me driving on the freeway with NO RPMs and while keeping my foot pressed all the way down on the accelerator, got the car back up to 70 with ZERO RPMs. How the hell does that happen? Dealer thinks I'm nuts." - 2012 Hyundai Santa Fe owner / Gilbert, Arizona

"In October 2015, my 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe lost acceleration while going 70 mph in the left lane. We could have been killed, but were able to flag cars to slow down so we could coast to the right side of the highway to stop. This is the second time this has happened. ...Hyundai appears to want to wait until someone dies before fixing it. Hyundai won't do a buyback for me. I read that there was a class action lawsuit regarding the stalling in CA, but don't know it's status." - 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe owner / Strawberry Plains, Tennessee

A previous customer service campaign told owners the problem only occurs when a specific set of operating conditions are present and the SUVs can be restarted once they stall, claims the plaintiffs say are false.

With the 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit finalized by the court, the automaker agrees to reimburse customers on a claims-made basis for out-of-pocket costs if the customer's SUV experienced a documented stall. In addition, a software update will be available for free for 10 years after the date the SUVs were sold as new.

In addition, the automaker will provide a special cash incentive on a claims-made basis to customers who wish to replace their Santa Fe SUVs.

Hyundai is also offering an enhanced rebate program that provides rebates from $500 to $2,000 for customers who experienced two documented stall events.

For those who experienced one documented stall event, Hyundai is offering a rebate of $250 to $1,000 on the purchase or lease of a new Hyundai vehicle, depending upon the specific new vehicle purchased or leased.

Finally, any dealer or customer incentives that otherwise would be available to customers at the time of the new vehicle purchase or lease will remain available notwithstanding availability of the rebate certificate or enhanced rebate certificate.

The Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Julia Reniger, Greg Battaglia, Oren Jaffe, Lucia Saitta and Ann Mancuso, et al, v. Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. 

CarComplaints.com has complaints about stalling engines in 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe SUVs:

Hyundai Santa Fe Complaints - 2010 / 2011 / 2012

Tesla won't legally be able to sell its electric cars in Utah after the Utah Supreme Court agreed with state regulators who earlier ruled the automaker does not qualify for a license to sell the vehicles.

In 2015, state licensing officials turned down Tesla's request to sell its cars in the state by saying a car manufacturer cannot own a dealership, something it saw Tesla was trying to do. Tesla argued it doesn't use dealerships, but does all its business through its own "service centers."

The automaker has its own showrooms to market its cars where a potential customer can learn about the vehicles from company staff, then order a specific vehicle right from the showroom. There are no "dealer lots" or inventory as seen with typical auto dealerships.

State officials say the law was put into place to prevent an automaker from opening up shop and competing against its own dealers, but Tesla argues the law does nothing but protect a monopoly, one that forces consumers to pay a middleman (the franchised dealer) when buying a car.

Tesla says consumers should be allowed to buy vehicles direct from the very company that created the cars and do it without the expense and hassle of buying through dealerships that had nothing to do with building the cars.

However, the court ruling against Tesla wasn't about selling direct to consumers, but stood on a company Tesla created called Tesla UT, a company that applied for a dealer license. The Utah justices ruled this one point is enough to uphold the decision by state licensing officials to deny Tesla a license to sell its vehicles.

The Utah ruling is the latest blow to Tesla and its sell-direct-to-consumer business philosophy. Tesla filed suit against the state of Michigan after that state said the automaker couldn't sell vehicles direct to consumers. In the lawsuit, Tesla says one Michigan legislator admitted, “The Michigan dealers do not want you here. The local manufacturers do not want you here. So you’re not going to be here.’’

At the same time, the automaker learned no vehicles would be sold in Missouri as the Missouri Department of Revenue was sued by the Missouri Auto Dealers Association to block Tesla from doing business in the state.

The revenue department had allowed Tesla to do business in the state, something that irked dealers because of Tesla's business model of not selling through dealerships. A judge ruled in favor of the dealers association by saying Tesla violates state law by selling directly to consumers.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has come under fire for its voluntary agreements made with companies concerning driverless cars invading U.S. roads.

Consumer advocates have repeatedly complained NHTSA should be creating rules to mandate self-driving companies abide by strict regulations enforced by safety regulators. But the government seems to be more concerned with allowing driverless car companies to test their technology under only voluntary guidelines.

One of the biggest champions of those guidelines is former NHTSA chief Mark Rosekind who has now taken a job with self-driving car company Zoox. Rosekind was one of the chief architects behind NHTSA's 15-point checklist that companies must use to test self-driving vehicles on the roads, a checklist that is completely voluntary.

Now advocacy group Consumer Watchdog says that Rosekind joining forces with the very industry he was supposed to regulate is the latest example of NHTSA staff taking jobs in the auto industry, a process seen as unethical, and something that undermines the public's trust in the safety agency.

Consumer Watchdog views this as selling out to the auto industry for a high-paying job, something that makes it appear NHTSA is similar to a job fair for automakers.

"Consumers can have no confidence that NHTSA's autonomous vehicle guidance was developed with public safety in mind when Administrator Rosekind was shopping his resume to potential future employers in the robot car industry while the policy was being drafted." - Consumer Watchdog

Consumer Watchdog called on the Senate to refuse to confirm the next nominee for NHTSA administrator unless the nominee pledges not to work as an employee or consultant to the auto industry or developers of self-driving car technology for at least seven years after leaving the position.

"It's simply outrageous that companies using our public streets as their private laboratories are playing by rules crafted by people who end up working for them." - Consumer Watchdog

Consumer advocates say NHTSA is ignoring its safety responsibilities by leaving enforceable regulations on the floor and allowing the self-driving car industry to regulate itself.

The advocacy group says Rosekind is not the first top NHTSA staffer to join the industry the agency allegedly regulates. In addition, it seems to be a disturbing trend as the Department of Transportation inspector general found that 40 officials left NHTSA for jobs with automakers, their law firms or auto industry consultants, all from 1984 to 2010.

In January, General Motors hired NHTSA's chief counsel, Paul Hemmersbaugh, to serve as policy director with a focus on "transportation as a service." Consumer Watchdog says Hemmersbaugh's resume describes him as the principal author of NHTSA's federal automated vehicles policy.

Zoox, based in Silicon Valley, is one of 27 companies with permits to test self-driving cars on public roads in California.

Audi is recalling more than 11,600 model year 2017 Audi A3 and S3 sedans after the automaker found problems with the passenger frontal airbags.

In a lower-speed crash, the passenger airbag control unit software can deploy the airbag incorrectly if the front passenger is sitting on the edge of the seat or lying in the seat in a reclined position.

Continental Corporation, the supplier of the affected airbag components, determined the cause of the problems after Audi found incorrect triggering of the airbags during the second stage of a low-risk crash test.

The supplier determined the airbag control module software has errors that can cause the airbag to deploy the passenger frontal airbag more forcefully than needed. New software was created and tested by the supplier and put into production lines, and by March 2017, Audi decided the defect was bad enough to order a recall of the A3 and S3.

Owners should receive recall notices from Audi in April 2017 describing how the automaker will update the airbag control module software.

Owners of recalled 2017 Audi A3 and S3 sedans may contact Audi at 800-253-2834 and use recall number 69Q3.

A recall caused by occupants lying in passenger seats may seem strange, but Mercedes-Benz ordered a recall just a week ago for the exact same problem.

Ford door sensor problems have caused the owner of a 2011 Ford Edge to file a class-action lawsuit alleging door sensors fail and cause "door ajar" lights to illuminate on the 2011-2014 Ford Edge, 2011-2015 Lincoln MKX, 2013 Ford Flex and 2013 Lincoln MKT.

Plaintiff Roger Kinnunen purchased a new 2011 Ford Edge and by October 2012 he experienced a “door ajar” warning light on his instrument panel. Kinnunen says he took the SUV to a dealership that verified the door ajar light was coming on, but replacing the door latch assembly would fix the problem.

In February 2015, the Edge once again experienced a door ajar warning light, causing the plaintiff to contact the dealer. A technician said a technical service bulletin had been issued by Ford with instructions to remove the door latch and cycle it.

Then the door ajar warning light came on again a year later, but this time the dealer said Ford wouldn't cover the cost for repairs, leaving the plaintiff holding the checkbook. Upset, Kinnunen took the Ford Edge to an independent repair shop where the door latch assembly was replaced for $206.91.

The defect allegedly begins with contamination of the electrical contacts on the door sensor, something that will eventually cause the sensors to fail. A driver will likely see a warning light that says "Door Ajar" and then experience problems with the door latches and locks.

According to the plaintiff, single or multiple doors on the vehicles may not lock at any time, whether the vehicle is turned on or off and despite necessary commands by the operator. This jeopardizes safety by making the Ford vehicles more vulnerable to theft, unintentional door openings during operation and other risks that could have otherwise been avoided.

Then there is the danger to children sitting in the rear seats since the child door lock safety features can become inoperable. In addition, car batteries will drain if the door sensors and latches fail when the car is turned off.

Based on court documents, Ford concealed the door sensor problems even though the automaker knew certain components within the door latch systems do not reduce contamination to minimize door sensor failures.

For customers with vehicles within the warranty periods, Ford has allegedly done nothing more than to temporarily repair the door sensors and latches or replace assemblies with other similarly defective door latch assemblies.

Ford has also allegedly refused to take any action to correct the root cause of this concealed defect when it manifests in vehicles both in and outside the warranty period.

The plaintiff says Ford has long been aware about the door sensor problems through complaints, warranty claims, information from Ford dealers and internal records, yet has refused to recall the vehicles to repair the door latches and sensors.

Saying Ford has been deceptive and unfair with affected owners and caused owners to lose money and a loss of value of the cars, Kinnunen says he would not have purchased his Ford Edge if Ford would have admitted the problems with the door sensors and latches.

Overall, the lawsuit alleges the affected vehicles were manufactured with defective door latch systems that make the door sensors fail. And once the door sensors stop operating, the "door ajar" lights illuminate and the door latch assemblies and latching systems completely fail. The only known fix is to replace the door latch assemblies, something that typically leaves owners paying for repairs.

The Ford door sensor class-action lawsuit, if approved, will include all persons or entities in the U.S. who are current or former owners and/or lessees of 2011-2014 Ford Edge, 2011-2015 Lincoln MKX, 2013 Ford Flex and 2013 Lincoln MKT vehicles.

The Ford door sensor lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Michigan - Roger Kinnunen, et al, v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiff is represented by the Miller Law Firm, P.C., and McCune Wright Arevalo LLP.

In October 2016, federal safety regulators opened an investigation into Ford Edge door ajar lights after owners suspected the door sensors were faulty. But even after admitting 2,000 complaints had been filed about the Edge door ajar lights, the government closed the investigation without finding evidence of a defect.

Hyundai is recalling 572,000 model year 2013-2014 Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe Sport vehicles because the engines can seize.

Hyundai says machining errors occurred when the engines were built and those errors can cause the engine bearings to wear out early.

Those prematurely worn bearings will cause the engine to lock up, something a dealer will need to fix by replacing the engine short block.

Hyundai says the Sonata and Santa Fe Sport engine recall will begin around May 19, 2017.

Owners with questions should call Hyundai at 800-633-5151 and ask about recall number 162.

Kia is recalling more than 618,000 model year 2011-2014 Kia Optima, 2012-2014 Sorento and 2011-2013 Sportage vehicles because the engine bearings can wear out too early and cause the engines to seize.

Kia blames the problems on machining problems that occurred during manufacturing, something dealers will need to fix by replacing the engine assemblies.

The Kia Optima, Sorento and Sportage recall should begin May 25, 2017.

Affected owners who have questions should call Kia customer service at 800-333-4542 and ask about recall number SC147.

The Kia recall was announced the same time Hyundai announced a recall of 572,000 Sonata and Santa Fe Sport vehicles.

Honda is recalling more Accords to replace Takata airbags at risk of exploding when they deploy.

More than 37,400 model year 2003 Honda Accords equipped with four-cylinder engines will be called back to dealers to determine if original passenger frontal airbags were replaced with dangerous Takata airbag inflators.

In December 2016, Honda was notified of an abnormal airbag deployment in a 2003 Honda Accord that occurred to both frontal airbags. The automaker identified two companies, Neaton, and Takata, as suppliers for the passenger frontal airbag modules for the 2003 Accord.

Honda then confirmed that Neaton airbag modules were used for mass production while Takata modules were used for replacement service parts only for the 2003 Honda Accord.

Honda says it believes only a small percentage of Accords had the original passenger frontal airbags replaced with Takata inflators, but Honda can't take a chance considering the majority of deaths have occurred in Honda vehicles. Accord occupants are left helpless when the metal inflator inside the airbag explodes and sends shrapnel into the cabin and the occupants.

Accord owners will be contacted in May 2017 and asked to get the cars to dealers for inspection. Dealers will inspect the passenger frontal airbag modules to determine if they were made by Takata and any Takata airbags will be replaced with inflators from a company called Daicel.

If you own a 2003 Honda Accord equipped with a four-cylinder engine and have questions, call Honda at 888-234-2138 and request information about recall number KF0.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the 2003 Honda Accord and other model years of Honda Accords.

BMW is recalling nearly 17,000 MINI Cooper vehicles with brake lights that go out when they should go on.

BMW says the 2016-2017 MINI Cooper Clubman, Cooper S Clubman and JCW Clubman have bumper-mounted brake lights that stop working when the brakes are applied at the same time the turn signals are activated.

The vehicles are equipped with brake lights embedded within the rear bumpers on the left- and right-end of the vehicles. Each brake light consists of outboard and inboard compartments which are simultaneously illuminated when the brakes are applied.

MINI programmed the lights in a way that if the brakes are applied during the time when a turn signal is activated (and vice-versa), the brake light within the inboard compartment is deactivated. This is against federal regulations that require the brake lights to be “steady-burning.”

The MINI recall will begin May 22, 2017, when dealers reprogram the software that controls the brake lights.

Affected owners of the 2016-2017 MINI Cooper Clubman, Cooper S Clubman and JCW Clubman may call the automaker at 866-825-1525.

Honda Pilot SUVs need new gas tanks, at least for 136 model year 2016 Honda Pilots.

The automaker says problems occurred during manufacturing where the wrong material was used to form the fuel tanks and causing a bond that isn't strong enough.

That weak bond won't hold after enough heat exposure, time and vibrations, eventually causing the gas tank walls to separate. From that point the gas will leak, and leaking gas near any ignition source is nothing but trouble.

Honda says both two-wheel-drive and four-wheel-drive SUVs are affected by the recall, a recall scheduled to begin April 24, 2017.

If you own a 2016 Honda Pilot and need more information, call Honda at 888-234-2138. Honda's number for this recall is KE8.

CarComplaints.com has complaints you can read about the 2016 Honda Pilot and other model years of Honda Pilot SUVs.

A Mazda Connect "live traffic" lawsuit alleges the automaker sold 2016 models with navigation software that was supposed to provide real-time traffic alerts to help drivers avoid traffic and take alternative routes.

However, the plaintiff says real-time traffic doesn't work and Mazda has no plans on making it work.

The proposed Mazda real-time traffic class-action lawsuit includes all consumers who purchased and/or leased a 2016 Mazda vehicle advertised to include factory-installed navigation software with real-time traffic alerts.

According to the lawsuit, the owner's manual says live traffic alerts are included in the system to help drivers avoid current traffic events like road closures or traffic jams caused by an accident.

Mazda says the system provides offline historical traffic information (historical speed information or traffic patterns) that can be taken into account in the route calculation of a trip based on the time of day and the day of week whenever suitable data exists.

Plaintiff Edward Lewand claims he purchased a 2016 Mazda with the Grand Touring Package that Mazda said included live traffic alerts as part of the navigation software system. The plaintiff says the real-time traffic feature was a big reason he paid $1,500 for the Grand Touring Package compared to a model without the Package.

According to the complaint, Mazda offered marketing brochures that specifically told consumers the software included “an available factory-integrated navigation system with cutting-edge features such as voice command, real-time traffic alerts and advanced lane guidance.”

Mr. Lewand says the live traffic alerts worked as intended for a few months but then stopped, showing a "greyed out" traffic button that was supposed to be used for real-time alerts.

When the live traffic feature worked, Lewand says he received alerts of upcoming heavy traffic on his route and the system offered him alternate routes. But then the system stopped working and each time he tried to activate the live traffic system, the touchscreen menu always showed the "traffic" button in a way that indicated it was no longer functional.

The missing real-time traffic alerts have upset many 2016 Mazda owners, including this CX-5 driver from California.

"When we found out the Navigation system comes standard in the Touring package, we said great. Then we found out why its free, because its does not integrate Live traffic. Basically the Nav feature is useless to use and we have to mount our phone so we can see Waze and reroute our route accordingly. Seriously, the Nav system is trash without live traffic. Spoke with Mazda, they are not going to add live traffic overlay to the Nav system. And there is no subscription option either." - 2016 Mazda CX-5 owner / Santa Cruz, California

Lewand says he brought his vehicle to the dealership numerous times for service and the dealer couldn't get the real-time traffic alert system to function. After multiple dealer visits, Mazda technicians finally told Mr. Lewand the real-time traffic feature was disabled by updates to the software.

Through its Mazda Connect update service, Mazda allegedly confirmed the live traffic feature had been disabled but admitted the software was originally designed into the current navigation system in the vehicles.

The plaintiff claims Mazda had a temporary agreement with a traffic service provider that enabled the automaker to provide the live traffic alerts, but the agreement has since expired. Mazda then allegedly started advertising the Grand Touring Package with portable Garmin navigation devices instead of the factory-installed real-time traffic software.

Based on the lawsuit and as of the beginning of 2016, drivers have been unable to access real-time traffic alerts and Mazda didn't bother to tell consumers the feature wouldn't work. This has caused consumers to allegedly own vehicles worth less than advertised.

The Mazda Connect live traffic lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Central District of California, Southern Division - Edward Lewand, et al, v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, automakers and safety advocates are always left scratching their heads when car owners don't have free repairs performed when cars are recalled to fix safety defects.

Federal safety regulators say 20 percent of car owners skip the free repairs, even when the safety defects are serious and can cause accidents, injuries and deaths. That's a lot of people considering more than 50 million vehicles were recalled in the U.S. in 2015.

The question of why owners ignore recalls was on the minds of researchers at the University of Michigan, so they conducted a survey of 516 drivers and asked that very question. Considering many recalls mean the difference between life and death, some of the answers show how lackadaisical people can be concerning auto safety.

According to researchers, the distance to a dealership can mean the difference between a repaired or unrepaired car, as only 45 percent of owners say they would definitely get their vehicles repaired when the dealerships are more than 30 minutes away. But knock 15 minutes off the trip and the number of people who would get repairs jumps to 81 percent.

And researchers found time is everything when an owner has to wait for repairs. If an owner has to wait less than a week for repairs, 74 percent say they will absolutely get repairs performed, but only 27 percent of owners will get the repairs if the wait time is longer than six months.

University researchers also say 38 percent of car owners ignore recalls because they worry about dealerships trying to sell more repairs than required under the recall. Another 37 percent of consumers say they don't want to turn their vehicles over to dealers, and 36 percent of owners worry about it taking too long for dealers to perform recall repairs.

It also seems that for some car owners, receiving free repairs that will possibly save their lives isn't good enough, as 51 percent of consumers say there should be incentives to get free repairs made, incentives such as a free tank of gas or free oil changes.

A Tesla sudden unintended acceleration lawsuit is in full swing in a California courtroom as the plaintiffs allege Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles are prone to unintended acceleration that is the result of design defects that allow the vehicles to crash head-on into fixed objects.

Although the Tesla lawsuit now includes multiple plaintiffs, the suit was originally filed by Ji Chang Son, 46, a South Korean celebrity who lives in California. The plaintiff claims he was returning home with his son when the Tesla Model X slowed to about 6 mph while turning into the driveway to pull into the garage.

The lawsuit alleges the Model X accelerated at full power and crashed through the interior wall of the garage, destroying everything in the path of the SUV and finally stopping in the living room.

Both occupants were allegedly trapped inside the SUV because wooden support beams were blocking the doors, all while smoke was flowing into the vehicle. Believing the SUV was going to go up in flames, Kyung Min Son crawled out a window and ran to the other side to help his father escape.

According to the lawsuit, a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of unintended acceleration reports from 2000 to 2010 shows one unintended acceleration event per 100,000 vehicles per year.

By comparison, within the first year of 18,240 Tesla Model X SUVs being on the roads, there have been 13 reported incidents of sudden unintended acceleration. The plaintiffs claim this equals 71 acceleration events per 100,000 vehicles per year.

However, the big topic about the Tesla lawsuit is how the plaintiffs look at unintended acceleration events. Affected owners say even if they accidentally press the gas pedals to the floorboards, the vehicles should not accelerate and crash.

"Irrespective of whether the SUA [sudden unintended acceleration] events in the Tesla vehicles are caused by mechanical issues with the accelerator pedal, an unknown failure in the electronic motor control system, a failure in other aspects of the electrical, mechanical, or computer systems, or some instances of pedal misapplication, the Model S and Model X are defective and unsafe."

The argument behind that thinking is that Tesla equips all its Model X vehicles, and has equipped its Model S vehicles since March 2015, with automatic emergency braking where the computer will use the cameras and the radar sensors to determine the distance from objects in front of the vehicles.

When a frontal collision is considered unavoidable, the system is designed to automatically apply the brakes to reduce the impact. But the plaintiffs claim Tesla has programmed the system to deactivate when it receives instructions from the accelerator pedal to drive full speed into a fixed object.

According to the lawsuit, Tesla's automatic emergency braking operates when driving between 5 mph to 85 mph, but in some circumstances the system will not automatically apply the brakes or will completely stop applying the brakes.

There allegedly won't be any braking “in situations where you are taking action to avoid a potential collision. For example: • You turn the steering wheel sharply. • You press the accelerator pedal. • You press and release the brake pedal. • A vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, or pedestrian, is no longer detected ahead.”

Based on court documents, the plaintiffs say automatic emergency braking won't work when the computer believes the driver is commanding full throttle acceleration directly into fixed objects immediately in front of the vehicle. This is especially dangerous because the vehicles are capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in 2.9 seconds.

Even with reports of Model S and Model X drivers hitting frontal objects, Tesla has allegedly failed to create and install computer algorithms that would prevent a driver from slamming into fixed objects and instead blames drivers for the incidents.

Obviously, Tesla sees things very differently and has asked the court to dismiss the sudden unintended acceleration lawsuit. To start, the automaker wants the court to dismiss 13 of the 27 claims for violations of consumer protection statutes, breaches of warranty and contract and product liability.

Saying the claims are "fatally defective," Tesla argues express warranty claims should be dismissed because the lawsuit alleges design defects exist with Tesla’s entire fleet of vehicles and not a defect in “materials or workmanship” covered by Tesla’s express Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty. According to the lawsuit, courts have routinely held that such warranties do not cover design defects.

In addition, the plaintiffs claim they were misled by marketing claims, but Tesla says those claims fail because no plaintiff can prove he ever read or saw any of the alleged statements.

Tesla told the court the plaintiffs want the automaker to do something no automaker has ever done: “develop and implement computer algorithms that would eliminate the danger of full throttle acceleration into fixed objects” even if they are caused by human errors.

Tesla says no automaker has a legal duty to design a failsafe car and on top of that, data from the plaintiff's vehicles shows each unintended acceleration incident was caused by the drivers, typically by hitting the gas pedals instead of the brake pedals. 

A Jeep Liberty gas tank lawsuit has been dismissed by a Missouri judge after the plaintiff claimed Fiat Chrysler concealed defects with the location of the gas tanks, causing a loss of vehicle value.

The plaintiff says Chrysler lied about the gas tanks in Jeep vehicles, only to later order a recall of the SUVs.

The plaintiff says he bought his 2003 Jeep Liberty in 2013 believing the SUV was safe, until Chrysler recalled the Jeeps to help protect the gas tanks from rear impacts that could cause the Jeeps to go up in flames.

In 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requested that FCA recall Jeep Liberty and Grand Cherokee SUVs at risk of fires due to the location of the gas tanks, but Chrysler fought the request and said the vehicles were safe.

The case hinged on press releases from June 2013 when Chrysler said the Jeeps were not defective and that federal safety regulators were wanting recalls because those regulators didn't have the proper information.

But it wasn't long after those statements that Fiat Chrysler announced a recall of 1.5 million Jeeps to install trailer hitches to the rear of the SUVs even though the government wanted 2.7 million Jeeps recalled.

Chrysler had already won dismissal of the proposed class-action lawsuit in 2015, but the plaintiff amended the complaint and told the judge the automaker completely failed by placing the plastic gas tanks behind the rear axles of the Jeeps. According to the lawsuit, Jeep owners have lost money because of the recall and because of the location of the gas tanks.

The judge ruled there was no evidence that two press releases Chrysler posted in 2013 were ever sent to the used car dealership where the plaintiff bought his Jeep Liberty. Those press releases talked about the safety of the SUVs and were posted to Chrysler's website after the government requested the automaker recall the Jeeps.

The plaintiff claims the dealership should have known they were selling a defective Jeep, but the judge disagreed and said that Fiat Chrysler had no connection with the sale of the Jeep Liberty.

In addition, just because the plaintiff eventually saw the press releases doesn't mean the dealership that sold the Jeep saw the press releases before selling the Jeep.

The Jeep gas tank lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri - Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC.

Faltermeier is represented by Shank & Moore LLC.