2013 Kia Sorento: Complaints, Recalls & Known Issues

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received eight Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) and eight Kia America, Inc. (Kia) Part 573 Recall Reports between 2016 and 2023. The combined 16 safety recalls all involve the antilock braking system (ABS) modules or Hydraulic Electronic Control Units (HECU) manufactured by the equipment supplier Mando. The Part 573 Recall Reports contain varying defect descriptions and differing remedy descriptions for the same or similar equipment supplied by Mando. Safety recalls included in this Audit Query (AQ) review include: Hyundai recalls 20V-520, 20V-543, 21V-161, 21V-160, 21V-303, 22V-056, 22V-810, and 23V-651. Kia recalls 16V-815, 20V-518, 20V-519, 21V-137, 21V-331, 22V-051, 22V-800, and 23V-652 The purpose of this AQ is to evaluate the timeliness and scoping of Hyundai and Kia’s defect decision making and adherence with reporting requirements; and understand the varying defect descriptions and remedies between these recalls.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received a letter dated July 13, 2022, petitioning the Agency to initiate a safety defect investigation into loss of motive power allegations attributed to oil drain pan assembly failures on certain Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Kia America, Inc. vehicles spanning Model Years (MY) 2005-2021. The Petitioners cited examples of complaints indicating that the subject vehicles were experiencing rapid loss of engine oil due to oil drain plug back outs, resulting in loss of motive power and/or catastrophic engine damage. Additional complaints were provided which alleged that the oil drain pans lack sufficient structural integrity and are susceptible to cracking. The petition itself can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI number 11481745. On September 12, 2022, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Defect Petition (DP22-003) to evaluate the Petitioners’ request. The Petitioners have provided additional complaints within four supplemental letters dated January 31, 2023, March 21, 2023, May 23, 2023, and August 4, 2023. ODI’s evaluation included the review and analysis of the complaints and supporting information submitted by the Petitioners, as well as additional complaints submitted directly to NHTSA which referenced either the oil drain plug or a crack in the oil pan. After reviewing the available data, ODI has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into the oil drain pan assemblies of the subject vehicles. Based on a review of the available information, a loss of motive power resulting from an oil drain plug back out has not occurred between the initial sale of a vehicle and the completion of its first oil change. If during an oil change service, a technician fails to remove the existing drain plug gasket before installing a new gasket, it is likely that a proper seal between the drain plug and the oil pan will not be made. An improper seal between the drain plug and oil pan could lead to the backing out on the drain plug, resulting in the sudden loss of oil while driving. Additionally, the provided examples of oil pan cracks were localized to the immediate vicinity of the oil drain plug and/or appeared to be the result of direct-contact with a tool during servicing.  There is no information to support that a vehicle-based defect exists relating to the oil pan assembly, and instead the documented incidents are related to the failure to follow the proper maintenance procedures during oil change service. In October 2023, Hyundai published a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) that provided detailed instructions for oil change service on its gasoline powered vehicles, specifically highlighting the need to remove and replace the existing drain plug gasket prior to reinstalling the drain plug. After a thorough review of the material submitted by the petitioner, the information already in NHTSA's possession, and the potential risks to motor vehicle safety implicated by the petitioners' allegations, NHTSA does not believe that a formal investigation is warranted. Therefore, the petition is denied. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) further detailing NHTSA’s reasons for denial of the petition will be published. The reference numbers for the complaints to NHTSA cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for DP22-003. To review those complaints and the additional complaints ODI added to its evaluation which are cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

On March 29, 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened two Preliminary Evaluations (PE19-003 on Hyundai and PE19-004 on Kia) to broadly investigate incidents of non-crash fires (regardless of origin or operational status of the vehicle) on various model year Hyundai and Kia vehicles.  During the PE investigations, Hyundai and Kia issued several recalls to address vehicle fires, including those due to engine failures involving various engine types.  The remedies for the engine failure recalls typically involve engine inspection (to detect existing damage), and if necessary, engine replacement.  Additionally, both manufacturers have been installing an engine control software modification known as Knock Sensor Detection Software (KSDS) which is intended to detect impending engine failure, alert the driver, and limit engine power (to lessen likelihood of engine failure).KSDS is being installed under recalls and non-safety field actions, and both companies have extended limited engine warranties (see recall files). On December 22, 2021, ODI upgraded PE19-003 and PE19-004 to this Engineering Analysis (EA21-003, covering both Hyundai and Kia) to evaluate the scope of the prior recalls related to engine failures/fires and the efficacy of the recall remedies for the recalls, as well as the long-term viability of related programs and non-safety field actions being conducted by Hyundai and Kia.  The former issue involved approximately 550,000 MY 2013 Hyundai Elantra, MY 2011 Kia Sorento, and MY 2012-2015 Kia Rio.  The latter issue involved approximately 2.5 million recalled vehicles, which have been identified as displaying potential remedy concerns: Hyundai recalls 15V-568, 17V-226, 20V-746, and 21V-727; and Kia recalls 17V-224, 19V-120, 20V-750, and 21V-844. Regarding the recall scope issue, among all of the scope vehicles identified at EA opening, ODI found only the MY 2011 Kia Sorento vehicles equipped with both the Theta II 2.4L 4-cylinder Multi-Point Injection (MPI) and the Lambda II 3.5L 6-cylinder MPI engines experienced relatively high rates of reported fires.  In December 2023, Kia issued recall 23V-877 that will cover about 80,000 MY 2011 Kia Sorento vehicles equipped with the Theta II 2.4L MPI engines.  The remedy will involve an inspection, and if necessary, a replacement of the engine, as well as the installation of KSDS.  It should be noted that in 2021 these vehicles were included in a KSDS product improvement campaign with warranty extension.  For the MY 2011 Sorento vehicles equipped with the Lambda II 3.5L engines, ODI believes that future engine failures/fires involving these vehicles will likely be due to a lax in adhering to the proper or scheduled engine maintenance (regular engine oil changes), rather than a design or manufacturing engine issue. Regarding the issue of the efficacy of the recall remedies, ODI found the majority of the recalled Hyundai and Kia vehicles, by model, experienced lower reported fire rates after the remedies were applied.  Furthermore, ODI found that for most vehicles that did not receive the recall remedies, by model, experienced relatively high fire rates.  To address this problem, Hyundai informed ODI in December 2023, that it will renotify all of its owners covered by the Hyundai recalls of engine failures/fires every 8 months for the next 3 years.  In December 2023, Kia stated that it will renotify the majority of its owners every 8 months for the next 3 years.Several previously recalled Kia models are excluded from the renotification due to their lower reported rates of engine fires.  Overall, the renotification actions will help to increase the recall completion rates, thus reduce the frequency of engine fires in the future. In view of the recall action being taken by Kia and renotification actions being taken by both Kia and Hyundai, ODI is closing this Engineering Analysis.  Also, both companies have been released from the 2020-iniated Consent Orders (Kia since November 2022 and Hyundai since November 2023).  The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.  To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received a petition letter dated October 10, 2021, requesting an investigation of possible defects in the electronic throttle control (ETC) system on certain Kia vehicles resulting in the opening of DP21-003. Accordingly, Model Year (MY) 2005-2016 Kia Optima/K5, MY 2006-2015 Kia Sorento, MY 2007-2016 Hyundai Elantra, MY 2007-2016 Hyundai Santa Fe, MY 2006-2015 Hyundai Sonatas are all part of the subject population. The petition was originally filed as a Vehicle Owner Questionnaire that can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under reference (ODI) number 11439675.On November 12, 2021, ODI opened Defect Petition DP21-003 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. ODI performed trend analyses of the VOQs related to vehicle speed control issues for all the subject vehicles and found that none of the 52 Model/Model Year Hyundai/Kia vehicles demonstrated any actionable trend that warranted an investigation.Petitioners submitted 1119 VOQs and non-VOQ cases in which sudden uncommanded acceleration (SUA) or loss of motive power (LOMP) incidents were alleged.For the 1119 reports, 220 were incidents involving crashes, from which 69 subject Hyundai-Kia vehicles were inspected by Hyundai/Kia dealer technicians, Hyundai/Kia engineers, and/or third-party representatives.ODI found the inspections identified no vehicle defects related to the ETC system.Of the 220 crash-involved reports, 13 Event Data Recorder (EDR) records were downloaded successfully and 11 of those indicated driver error: (i.e.) pedal misapplication.A condition where the accelerator pedal is mistakenly applied instead of the brake pedal when the driver wants to stop the vehicle.In addition, ODI reviewed a scientific journal paper published in Forensic Science International in 2016 by Mr. Park et al ., as well as related test videos. ODI does not believe there is any evidence of uncontrollable SUA occurrences in any of the tests reviewed. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) reviewed the allegations regarding the potential noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124.Based on the information provided, the Agency concludes there is insufficient information for us to determine if a possible non-compliance exists.Finally, both Hyundai and Kia informed ODI that all their vehicles manufactured after 2012 were equipped with an ETC management system, in which the engine speed will go to idle when the system sees signals from both the brake pedal and accelerator pedal at the same time; this is commonly known as the brake-throttle override system.After thoroughly assessing the material submitted by the petitioner, information already in NHTSA's possession, information submitted by Hyundai and Kia in response to an Information Request letter, and the potential risks to safety implicated by the petitioner's allegation, NHTSA does not believe that a formal investigation is warranted. After full consideration of appropriate factors, the petition is denied. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) further detailing NHTSA?s reasons for denial of the petition will be published.

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) based on seventy-four Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) reporting headlight failures on model year (MY) 2011-2013 KIA Sorento vehicles.In its response to ODI's June 25, 2020, information request letter (portions of which were submitted under request for confidentiality), Kia Motor America (Kia) provided design details of the headlight system showing that each headlight circuit is independently powered by the Smart Junction Box (SJB), a power control module. Kia claimed that the design minimizes the chance of both headlights failing simultaneously due to a headlight connector defect, a component located downstream of the SJB. Kia also advised that the SJB contains a safety feature designed to monitor power consumption for each headlight circuit; if excessive current is being demanded by either headlight the SJB will open the circuit (i.e., stop supplying current). Lastly Kia presented testing showing that the maximum headlight connector temperature achieved prior to the SJB opening the circuit was below the autoignition temperature of the plastic material the connector housing is made of, which Kia maintains eliminates the potential for a fire originating from an electrically overheated headlight connector. In its review of all available data, ODI determined that the majority of both VOQ and Kia customer complaints (1,339 reports in total) involved the loss or dimming of a single low beam headlight assembly caused primarily by a poor or overheated connector terminal located at the headlight. In some cases the failures were momentary in nature (i.e., flickering) with the headlights coming back on without driver intervention. A minority of VOQs and Kia complaints (the 196 Other reports) alleged simultaneous (and persistent) loss of both low beam headlights, and in most cases the driver was able to take an action (e.g., toggle the headlight switch, or use the ON rather than the AUTO setting on the headlight switch) to reinstate the low beam headlights. The high beam headlights were not seen to be affected and were available for drivers to use as alternate lighting.ODI did not identify any crashes or injuries, nor any fire incidents caused by a headlight related defect. While some VOQ and Kia reports alleged or indicated a fire occurrence, the incidents were found to involve melting or smells/odors due to thermal overheating of the plastic headlight connector housing, rather than an open flame fire.ODI notes that in April 2019, Kia initiated a 10 years/unlimited mileage warranty extension program to replace the headlight connector for MY 2011-2013 Sorento vehicles.Based on this analysis, a safety-related defect has not been identified at this time, and ODI is closing the investigation. This does not constitute a finding by the Agency that a safety-related defect is not present; the Agency will take further action if warranted by additional information received.The reference (ODI) numbers for the VOQs cited above are included in the downloadable version of this closing resume available at NHTSA.gov.

During this Preliminary Evaluation (PE), the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) assessed the scope, frequency and potential safety-related consequences of non-crash vehicle fires caused by both engine failures and failures of other vehicle systems/components in model year (MY) 2011-2014 Kia Optima, MY 2011-2014 Kia Sorento and MY 2010-2015 Kia Soul vehicles equipped with Theta II, Gamma, Nu and Lambda II engines (approximately 1.7 million vehicles). ODI also reviewed field and other data on other Kia vehicles (approximately 3.6 million additional vehicles) equipped with the same engines used in the above-mentioned vehicles.As a result of this PE, Kia has issued NHTSA Recalls 20V-750 and 21V-844 to address potential engine failures and fires in certain Kia vehicles equipped with various engine types.Additional information on these and other related recall actions is available in the downloadable version of this resume available at NHTSA.gov.In addition, ODI has upgraded this PE to an Engineering Analysis (EA) 21-003 which will focus on potential recall scope concerns and recall remedy concerns related to the engine failure-related recalls mentioned above and conducted previously.See the EA21-003 Opening Resume available at NHTSA.gov for more information.Also available in the downloadable version of this resume is a list of the reference numbers for the 444 ODI reports, or Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs), cited above which ODI received through mid-November 2021.Note that the Manufacturer reports cited above are customer complaints received through March 2019.

In a letter dated June 11, 2018, the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a safety defect investigation into non-collision related fires on model year (MY) 2011-2014 Kia Optima and Sorento, and Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe vehicles. In a letter dated July 24, 2018, CAS requested that MY 2010-2015 Kia Soul vehicles be added to the petition. CAS stated that there is a higher number of complaints to NHTSA regarding non-crash fires on these vehicles compared to other similar vehicles. The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) had already opened Recall Queries (RQ17-003 and RQ17-004) on all Kia and Hyundai vehicles equipped with Theta II engines for engine failures that may cause stalling and fires.The queries cover most of the petition subject Optima, Sorento, Sonata, and Santa Fe vehicles but not any of the subject Soul vehicles.On August 21, 2018, ODI opened a Defect Petition (DP18-003) to evaluate whether to grant or deny the CAS petition. ODI sent Information Request letters to Kia and Hyundai (September and October 2018) requesting information on all engine and non-engine related fires in the petition vehicles.ODI performed extensive analysis on the information obtained from Kia and Hyundai. During the DP18-003 analysis, Kia and Hyundai each initiated three additional safety recalls related to engine compartment fires on certain petitioned and non-petitioned vehicles (nearly 740,000 total vehicles: Recalls 18V-907, 18V-934, 19V-101, 19V-063, 19V-120, and 19V-204). Based on ODI?s review of the applicable materials, including responses to Information Requests sent to multiple manufacturers, Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQ), and Early Warning Data, NHTSA decided to grant the petition.The CAS petition was granted on March 29, 2019. Preliminary Evaluations (PE19-003 on Hyundai and PE19-004 on Kia) have been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and potential safety-related consequences of alleged defects relating to non-collision vehicle fires in the 2011-2014 Kia Optima and Sorento, 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe, and 2010-2015 Kia Soul.Attached is a list of the reference numbers for the 404 VOQs cited above.

NHTSA opened Recall Query (RQ) 17-003 to investigate the timeliness and scope of Kia?s Theta II GDI engine recall (Recall No. 17V-224), and Kia?s compliance with reporting requirements. On November 23, 2020, the Agency entered into a Consent Order with Kia to administratively resolve NHTSA?s assertions of violations of law in connection with RQ17-003. NHTSA?s assertions included that Kia may be liable for civil penalties on multiple grounds, including that Recall No. 17V-224 was untimely and Kia?s recall report contained certain inaccuracies.Under the Consent Order, Kia agreed to a total civil penalty of $70,000,000. The total civil penalty included a payment of $27,000,000 as a Non-Deferred Amount.Kia also agreed to a sum of $27,000,000 as an Abeyance Amount to be deferred and held in abeyance pending its satisfactory completion, as reasonably determined by NHTSA, of the requirements of the Consent Order.Kia also agreed to a $16,000,000 Performance Obligation Amount to be expended by Kia to fulfill specified Safety Data Analytics Infrastructure obligations. The Consent Order also includes other terms designed to enhance Kia?s safety practices, and requires Kia to retain a Third-Party Auditor who directly reports to NHTSA.Other than RQ17-003, the Consent Order is not intended to affect any other current or future investigation of NHTSA which may involve vehicles equipped with Theta II GDI engines. In particular, Engineering Analysis (EA) 21-003 (which is upgraded from Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-004) continues NHTSA?s evaluation of certain performance and design issues relating to the Theta II and other engines.Nothing in the Consent Order discharges Kia from any obligation to comply with the Safety Act or regulations thereunder, including the obligation to carry out recalls in accordance with the law, and to initiate a recall upon any future determination by Kia, or upon any finally adjudicated order from NHTSA, that vehicles equipped with Theta II GDI engines contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety or do not comply with an applicable FMVSS.This RQ is closed. Closure of this RQ has no bearing on the terms of the Consent Order, including Kia's ongoing performance obligations, and does not represent a determination by the agency as to Kia's performance under the Consent Order to date.

The investigation focused on spontaneous breakage (fracture) of the panoramic sunroof (sunroof) on MY 2011-2013 Kia Sorento vehicles. The sunroof is constructed of tempered glass (often referred to as ?safety glass?), which, when broken, crumbles into granular chunks rather than splintering into jagged shards. The failure summary above shows NHTSA reports identified by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), and reports submitted by Kia from start of production of the subject MY 2011-2013 Kia Sorento through October 8, 2019, the date of ODI's last request for Kia data.Reports of sunroof failures typically occurred while the vehicle was in motion and often described a loud noise when the fracture occurred. If the sunshade is closed when the sunroof fractures, the particles are contained, otherwise the particles can drop into the passenger compartment.Reported injuries generally were minor in nature, such as nicks and cuts that often occurred when complainants were cleaning-up glass particles post-incident. No crash incidents have been identified, and complaints display a declining trend since 2014.During EA14-002, ODI requested and obtained failure data for the subject vehicles, the MY 2014 Sorento (which used a similar sunroof from a different supplier), and other peer Kia products (Optima and Sportage).ODI also requested and obtained failure data for peer vehicles produced by Hyundai, Ford, Nissan, and Volkswagen and failure reports through a General Order NHTSA issued to 13 OEMs (including Kia) in April 2016.This produced a significant volume of data upon which ODI bases this closing. NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) also conducted testing on the subject sunroofs in an attempt to better understand potential hazards.In its responses to ODI, Kia states it has continuously monitored sunroof failure allegations throughout this investigation, and that the only consistently identified cause is external impact from foreign objects. Kia notes that the sunroof complies with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for glazing, and that it has not identified a manufacturing defect or assembly process error despite significant investigative efforts. Kia maintains that the field data supports its conclusion that an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety does not exist, citing a comparatively moderate failure rate, low injury risk posed by tempered glass, and the lack of an identified defect mechanism. Kia further notes it has received no reports of crashes due to driver distraction related to roof failure events, nor is NHTSA aware of any such reports.NHTSA's April 2016 General Order requested data on vehicles with panoramic glass sunroofs greater than 0.5 square meters in area. The response identified 97 distinct models produced over 11 model years totaling some 10 million vehicles. Over 4,000 sunroof fractures were reported (none of which alleged a crash due to driver distraction) forming a high to low frequency continuum by model.While the subject vehicles were at the high end of the spectrum, they were not the highest.Through its analysis of the information obtained to date, ODI has not identified sufficient evidence of a safety-related defect in the subject sunroof. This includes the absence of any suggestive trends by region, seasonality, date of production, or vehicle age, together with the minor nature of the alleged injuries and the lack of crash allegations in the subject or any of the peer vehicles. Accordingly, the investigation is closed. ODI will take further actions if warranted by new evidence. The reference numbers for the ODI failure reports cited above, as well as additi

On October 21, 2013 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-035 in order to further examine claims that the sunroof would spontaneously break on 2011-2013 Kia Sorento vehicles.The majority of these claims occurred while the vehicle was in motion.Glass shattering while driving may distract the driver, and the resulting glass particles which enter the passenger compartment may injure occupants.To date, ODI has received a total of 26 reports of sunroof breakage on the subject vehicles. Of those, 24 occurred while the vehicle was in motion.There were also four (4) injury incident reports for minor cuts/scratches. Kia submitted a total of 123 field incidents related to sunroof breakage in response to ODI's information request. Of this number, ODI identified 78 unique vehicle identification numbers (VINs), with 9 matching ODI complaint vehicles.Sixty of the submitted reports occurred while the vehicle was in motion.Fourteen (14) of the submitted reports alleged minor cuts/scratches from falling glass.Kia also submitted a total of 101 warranty and goodwill claims for sunroof replacement, of which 86 unique VINs were identified.Kia stated in its response that their field inspections identified only one potential cause for the sunroof breakage - external impacts from rocks or other foreign objects encountered while the vehicle was in motion.In the other instances, no evidence of a defect was found, however, Kia's inspection results were inconclusive as to a cause for the breakage.Kia advises that the Sorento sunroofs also have a greater surface area than many other vehicles, potentially making them more susceptible to road debris strikes.While ODI recognizes that the Sorento may be more at risk due to its larger impact area, the rate of ODI reported incidents is concerning.Thus, the investigation has been upgraded toan Engineering Analysis (EA14-002) to further analyze the scope, frequency, and consequence of these failures.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers: 10345933, 10410440, 10432904, 10453957, 10466987, 10478778, 10492886, 10502219, 10508983, 10514388, 10531972, 10534883, 10553341, 10555931, 10556212, 10562460, 10562516, 10563779, 10564555, 10567351, 10568629, 10572959, 10575487, 10583122, 10583626, 10584650