Model-year record

2024 Tesla Model 3
See the complaints, recalls, crash rating, and fuel economy in the public record. Then check the mileage and history of the car you found.
This page shows records, not a buy or avoid call.
The same model year can include a well-kept car and a neglected one. Use these records to plan what to check. Use the specific-car check when you know the mileage.
Complaints filed
201
Reports to NHTSA, 2024
Safety recalls
4
NHTSA campaigns on record
NHTSA crash test
Not rated
Overall NCAP rating
Combined MPG
130
EPA estimate
Known issues
Unknown Or Other issues lead owner complaints (25% of 201 reports), followed by steering (17%).
+ 11 more component categories with fewer reports.
Share of all 201 NHTSA complaints for this model year, grouped by the component owners named. Bars are scaled to the largest category. Examples: ODI 11741100, ODI 11739971, ODI 11732592, ODI 11682105, ODI 11680594.
Individual complaint reports(201)
Showing the 50 most recent reportsElectrical SystemJul 2026 · ODI 11751698 · crashDetails +Close −
I am writing to report an accident involving my son who was driving Tesla 2024 Model-3 on July 18th 2026 approximately 10:15 AM EST. He was returning home from his volunteering with Emergency medical Service(EMS) when the vehicle's steering wheel suddenly froze. while attempting to maneuver the vehicle to safe location , it collided with a roadside barrier. fortunately , my son was not injured , but the vehicle sustained significant damage, including deployment of airbag and damage to front passenger side. this incident occurred at a speed of approximately 26 MPH
- Reported
- Jul 2026
- Incident date
- Jul 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Parking BrakeJul 2026 · ODI 11750946Details +Close −
2024 Model 3, under 20k miles; burning smell and brake drag from right rear wheel while driving; parking brake fault alerts UI_a019, EPBR_a176, EPBR_a182; dealer inspection found cracked EPB caliper case housing near the electrical connector; Tesla SB-20-33-002 documents this same crack occurring without external impact.
- Reported
- Jul 2026
- Incident date
- Jul 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
StructureJul 2026 · ODI 11748800 · crashDetails +Close −
On two separate occasions, June 4 at approximately 5:35pm and July 2 at approximately 3:40pm, the vehicle backed into a carport pole at my home while a Tesla driver assistance feature was engaged. I reported both incidents to Tesla and filed complaints with NHTSA.
- Reported
- Jul 2026
- Incident date
- Jul 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Vehicle Speed ControlJun 2026 · ODI 11746845Details +Close −
While turning right, I slowed down and put on my turn lights. The vehicle accelerated all of a sudden and did a sharp right. There was a vehicle in front of me in the opposite direction and my car turned very sharply to avoid it. The accelerator pedal was fully pressed down and for that fraction of a second, it didn’t allow me to control the speed.
- Reported
- Jun 2026
- Incident date
- Jun 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Lane DepartureJun 2026 · ODI 11746042 · crashDetails +Close −
On June 7, 2026 an accident occurred on Overlook Parkway, Riverside southbound (near chabot ct intersection) involving my 2024 model 3 that was in FSD mode (Full self driving). The car be veered from the street and hit a light pole as the road was curving to the left. Airbags were deployed, and the car was a total loss, but nobody was hurt. The carhad automatic emergency braking and lane keeping assistance and despite this in FSD Full self driving mode managed to hit the lightpole and the accident occured. Can you investigate if this is a defect in the safety features of the car, or Tesla's FSD software or Automatic emergency braking and lane keeping assistance software? Thank you.
- Reported
- Jun 2026
- Incident date
- Jun 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Unknown Or OtherJun 2026 · ODI 11745062 · 1 injuriesDetails +Close −
I am reporting a recurring safety defect regarding the exterior door handle assembly on my 2024 Tesla Model 3. On 6/15/26, the exterior door handle of caused a finger entrapment incident, resulting in an avulsion of a gel nail and significant trauma to the nail bed. The artificial nail remains trapped within the door assembly. Despite seeking service at the local Tesla Service Center, technicians failed to retrieve the object or address the entrapment hazard. This design creates a severe pinch-point hazard that poses an ongoing risk of injury to all users Despite bringing the vehicle in for service on 6/18/26 to have the hazardous object removed, the service center performed only a cursory visual inspection and refused to disassemble the handle, leaving the entrapment hazard in place. The design of the door handle creates a clear pinch-point/entrapment zone that poses a safety risk to all occupants. I am reporting this to document both the design defect and the failure of the manufacturer to address the resulting safety hazard upon request.
- Reported
- Jun 2026
- Incident date
- Jun 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- 1 injuries
Forward Collision AvoidanceJun 2026 · ODI 11742280Details +Close −
Speed profiles do not allow safe operation of the vehicle. Changes in speed profiles result in unsafe behavior. Standard speed profile regularly results in speed up to 73+ in a 55mph zone being selected by the vehicle. Chill mode results in speeds of 58 when traffic is traveling at 65mph. Switching profiles from standard to chill results in a rapid deceleration within the lane leading to problems with traffic behind the vehicle. In active school zones, system regularly does not acknowledge school zone speed limit and proceeds at 25-30mph in a 15 mph school zone even on Sloth profile. European FSD has a max speed setting that allows these problems to be prevented, but it is missing as a critical safety feature in the US version of FSD 14.
- Reported
- Jun 2026
- Incident date
- Jun 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Electrical SystemJun 2026 · ODI 11742199Details +Close −
Rear passenger door electronic release did not work. Technician indicated rear door harness corroded making the door inoperable.
- Reported
- Jun 2026
- Incident date
- Jun 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Unknown Or OtherMay 2026 · ODI 11741100 · crashDetails +Close −
- Tesla FSD - My son was driving on FSD on state highway, while on FSD, the car suddenly turned left and hit the concrete barrier and spun out of control. All the air-bags were deployed and car front crashed completely. The car is near totaled, My son was able to get out the car with a bruise on right hand. -No -No -No warning was on, the car was on full FSD and suddenly turned left and drove into the concrete barrier and crashed and spun , I had no time to react/take over.
- Reported
- May 2026
- Incident date
- May 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Unknown Or OtherMay 2026 · ODI 11739971 · crash · 1 injuriesDetails +Close −
I was using actual smart summon to get my vehicle out of my garage. While standing behind the vehicle, it indicated that the car was in drive with no reversing lights on. The vehicle then rapidly lurches backwards, striking me and a freezer. After reviewing the dashcam footage the vehicle stated it was in drive and never once activated its reverse lights, even when they was objects and a human behind the car, still reversed at a high rate of speed.
- Reported
- May 2026
- Incident date
- May 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash 1 injuries
Unknown Or OtherMay 2026 · ODI 11739198Details +Close −
Attached is a photo of the lower driver-side knee bolster/under-dash panel after it detached while I was driving. The panel dropped directly into the pedal area and interfered with normal foot access to the brake and accelerator pedals. Given that no broken attachment points or damaged clips were reportedly identified, I am requesting a formal review of both the safety concern and the handling of this issue.
- Reported
- May 2026
- Incident date
- May 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
SteeringApr 2026 · ODI 11733743Details +Close −
The steering wheel turn signal buttons on my Tesla Model 3 intermittently becoming unresponsive or getting stuck signaling left or right. This prevents me from reliably signaling lane changes or turns. This is a safety risk because I may be unable to properly signal maneuvers as required under Maryland Vehicle Law §21-604, potentially confusing nearby drivers and increasing the risk of an accident. As this is a moving violation, I can be fined and or points on my driving record The issue has occurred multiple times during normal driving but has not yet been formally confirmed by a service center.
- Reported
- Apr 2026
- Incident date
- Apr 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Electrical SystemApr 2026 · ODI 11733637Details +Close −
This car was designed without steering wheel stalks for control of the directionals. In their place it uses push buttons on the steering wheel. It becomes difficult to start the directionals when the steering wheel is turned because the buttons are no longer in a standard position and aren't easily located. This is especially difficult in traffic circles or when making rapid turns where directionals are needed. In addition if your fingers are kept rested on the buttons the system alarms and tells you they have been in place too long and the buttons stop working. I believe Tesla should offer an after market replacement returning to a much safer and standard steering column stalk which is and has been used on almost all cars for at least 75 years.
- Reported
- Apr 2026
- Incident date
- Apr 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Unknown Or OtherApr 2026 · ODI 11732498 · 1 injuriesDetails +Close −
On March 21, 2026, the vehicle’s Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) and Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC), suffered a severe "phantom braking" failure. While driving, the vehicle engaged in a violent, full-force emergency brake application without any external hazard or driver input. This unprompted deceleration caused the seatbelt to exert extreme pressure and trauma on my abdomen. As I was [XXX] pregnant, this abrupt stop was medically treated as a high-force accident. The trauma caused pregnancy abnormalities, requiring a 20-hour hospital admission for observation and fetal monitoring. I contacted Tesla customer service multiple times. Initially, I was told a service check was necessary, but the Service Center stated they could not provide assistance for "automatic behavior" issues. A corporate representative (Angel) admitted the vehicle should have been flagged for a formal medical claim and instructed me not to visit the service center. Despite this, I took the vehicle to the Service Center on April 15, 2026. Technicians confirmed they had no findings or solutions regarding the phantom braking event. No warning lamps, audible alerts, or system messages appeared prior to the failure. Upon requesting the vehicle data logs for the date of the incident, I noticed that the specific timeframe of the event was "missing" from the record. The manufacturer cited a VIN-matching error as the cause for the data gap. On April 20, 2026, Tesla corporate denied that a claim had ever been filed and stated they would not take responsibility for injuries related to pregnancy or a fetus, claiming these do not meet their internal threshold for medical injury. The vehicle remains available for inspection. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Apr 2026
- Incident date
- Mar 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- 1 injuries
Unknown Or OtherApr 2026 · ODI 11732592 · crashDetails +Close −
2024 Tesla model 3 driving on the turnpike heading south of NJ right between exit 5-6 when my vehicle suddenly and spontaneously spun out into the guardrail, while at the same time the automatic emergency brake was disabled. Weather conditions were slightly rainy, there was no signs of traction issues or alerts regarding any concerns. Luckily no other vehicles were hit. The vehicle has not been inspected by any other of the above questioned. No such warning signs, lamps, or symptoms prior to this failure. I do have the dash cam footage that shows the incident.
- Reported
- Apr 2026
- Incident date
- Feb 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Electrical SystemMar 2026 · ODI 11726987Details +Close −
The vehicle's horn becomes completely inaudible during heavy rain, particularly during downpours. This is a serious safety concern as the horn is a critical safety device for alerting other drivers and pedestrians. The issue has occurred repeatedly since the vehicle had approximately 7,060 miles on it and continues at the current mileage of 28,617 miles.\n\nThe issue was first reported to the manufacturer's service center on February 20, 2025, at 7,060 miles. The service center documented the concern as the horn not working after rain. A Low Voltage Circuit Integrity Check and miscellaneous labor were performed (Invoice #3000S0012397168). However, the manufacturer's service center stated the horn was \"working as designed\" at the time of inspection and advised the owner to monitor the issue and record video. The problem was not resolved.\n\nThe issue has been reported to the manufacturer's service center on multiple subsequent occasions, but they have been unable to reproduce it because the horn functions normally in dry conditions. The defect only manifests during rain and downpours, making it difficult to demonstrate on demand at a service center.\n\nThis is a significant safety hazard. During heavy rain, when visibility is already reduced and driving conditions are more dangerous, the horn -- which is one of the most basic and essential safety devices on any vehicle -- is rendered completely nonfunctional. The owner feels powerless in dangerous situations when the horn cannot be heard. The horn is required safety equipment under FMVSS 571.108, and a horn that fails during adverse weather conditions represents a serious defect.
- Reported
- Mar 2026
- Incident date
- Feb 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Forward Collision AvoidanceFeb 2026 · ODI 11720733Details +Close −
I continue to experience phantom "forward collision avoidance" warnings. Tesla has looked at this several times, even once charging me $60 to clean the cameras (should be under warranty in my opinion). Latest response to problem: known issue, no known hardware cause. In other words live with it. They even suggested buying FSD package at $1200/yr as a solution! One more than one occasion the TACC and Autosteer disengaged with traffic behind me. Very scary.
- Reported
- Feb 2026
- Incident date
- Feb 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
WheelsFeb 2026 · ODI 11720438Details +Close −
The Michelin tires used for this particular model have a foam issue. This foam is put by Michelin to reduce road Noice and they are coming apart thus creating a rattle in the car making it a hazard while driving on the highway. Tesla replaced one of my tires on May 27, 2025 free of charge and told me it was a known issue. Today 2/25/26 I have the same issue and they're quoting me almost $400. I told them about the tire issue and why there's no recall and they told me to contact NHTSA. They just want to change them one at a time until warranty expires so they don't have to replace all defective tires. I guess they're waiting for somebody to have an accident and sue them to fix the problem.
- Reported
- Feb 2026
- Incident date
- May 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Electrical SystemJan 2026 · ODI 11712810Details +Close −
Screen is black and no app access. No power to accelerate.
- Reported
- Jan 2026
- Incident date
- Jan 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
SteeringJan 2026 · ODI 11712202 · crash · 1 injuriesDetails +Close −
I purchased a 2024 Tesla Model 3 a little over a year ago. Recently, and after an update, myself, and other drivers in my life, noticed the self-driving feature was malfunctioning - to the point I used the audio reporting feature to report this problem twice to Tesla. The car would veer off the road when flasing lights appeared and would jerk suddenly for no reason when it thought there was a obstruction in the road (sticks, plastic bags, etc.). Last month this malfunction has caused an accident, and my car has been totaled, my insurance will not cover it, and I have been advised by two separate attorneys to sue. This has been litigated in court with lawsuits against Tesla (See Benavides v. Tesla; see also IN RE: TESLA ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS LITIGATION). I had notified Telsa twice of this issue, the car left the lane and did not notice a concrete barrier on the left side going north on I-95 in or around Broward County. To my knowledge no one has inspected the car. I was not warned that this car would cause an accident, the problem first appeared when I reported the issue using the voice reporting feature around November 2025. It is currently located at a tow facility in Broward County, FL and can be inspected there.
- Reported
- Jan 2026
- Incident date
- Dec 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash 1 injuries
Seat BeltsJan 2026 · ODI 11710315Details +Close −
on Jan 4th 2026 my car popped a waring RCM2_a700 Front Right Safety Restraint System Issue - I took it in Jan 5th 2026 they said they could not replicate the warning and it was a GLITCH. On Jan 10th 2026 the warning popped up again
- Reported
- Jan 2026
- Incident date
- Jan 2026
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Back Over PreventionJan 2026 · ODI 11709516 · crashDetails +Close −
Incident Description (in my own words): This incident occurred in the parking lot of the [XXX] in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. It was evening after sunset. The parking lot was dark but illuminated by overhead parking lights. My Tesla Model 3 headlights and vehicle lights were fully on. I was reversing slowly out of a tight parking space, traveling approximately 2–3 miles per hour. I was intentionally moving cautiously. My attention at the time was focused on the front right corner of the vehicle, as clearance there was tight. While reversing, the rear of my vehicle struck a parked truck behind me. The truck was relatively high (its headlights were positioned high on the vehicle). Neither I nor my passenger heard any rear collision warning, cross-traffic warning, or parking alert prior to impact. The vehicle also did not apply automatic braking. The contact occurred at very low speed and resulted in only minor cosmetic damage (a small dimple/deformation), but I was surprised that no warning or braking intervention occurred. Based on prior experience driving this vehicle, the collision and parking warning systems are typically configured to warn early, and I had confidence that a warning or automatic braking would activate in this scenario. Following the incident, I conducted a simple test by placing cones in front of the vehicle to see whether forward collision warnings would activate. They did not. While I understand cones may not trigger frontal collision alerts, this further contributed to my concern about object detection reliability in low-speed scenarios. The vehicle’s cameras were clean and unobstructed. I regularly clean the camera lenses. I am filing this complaint because my confidence in the vehicle’s collision warning and automatic braking systems has been shaken. I recently submitted a similar complaint regarding a collision involving our Tesla Model Y, and these two incidents—on two different Tesla vehicles—raise concerns for me INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Jan 2026
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Air BagsDec 2025 · ODI 11705295Details +Close −
SUPPLEMENT TO PREVIOUS COMPLAINT (VIN: ...XXX): CRITICAL NEW EVIDENCE OF MULTI-POINT SAFETY FAILURE. On Dec 10, 2025, Tesla Service performed a full diagnostic and repair of the airbag safety system. In addition to the previously reported "damaged wires" in the passenger seat (OCS Module), the technician ALSO had to replace the Steering Column Control Module (SCCM) to resolve the active safety faults. Safety Implication: The vehicle was sold with simultaneous hardware failures in both the passenger occupant sensing system AND the driver's steering column airbag controls. This confirms widespread physical/electrical trauma to the vehicle's Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) that was concealed at the time of sale. The dealer released a vehicle with compromised safety hardware in both the driver and passenger zones. I have attached the official Tesla Invoice confirming these replacements. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Dec 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Air BagsDec 2025 · ODI 11704891Details +Close −
SUPPLEMENT TO ODI # 11702355 and 11698467: Validated proof of physical defect: Tesla Service diagnosis (Dec 10, 2025) confirms "damaged wires at the OCS module" caused the airbag failure. This finding indicates the vehicle suffered physical trauma that was concealed prior to sale. The presence of damaged internal safety wiring is inconsistent with a factory-condition vehicle and suggests the vehicle was released to the public after substandard repairs to a prior wreck. The airbag system was disabled due to this physical damage.
- Reported
- Dec 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
SteeringDec 2025 · ODI 11704744Details +Close −
I am leasing a 2024 Tesla Model 3. The vehicle has a steering column defect that was previously acknowledged and temporarily repaired by Tesla Service. Within days, the issue returned. Tesla has now informed me that the steering column has a known design flaw, that replacement parts are still in development, and that any repair attempted now would fail. Despite this, I am being asked to continue driving the vehicle until at least January. This defect affects the steering system, a critical safety component, and raises serious concerns regarding vehicle control and driver safety. Tesla has not offered a loaner vehicle or alternative transportation while awaiting a permanent fix. I believe this vehicle is unsafe to operate and am reporting this as a safety-related defect in the steering system.
- Reported
- Dec 2025
- Incident date
- Dec 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Unknown Or OtherDec 2025 · ODI 11704483Details +Close −
When there’s heavy rain, the horn is muffled very badly you can barely hear it.
- Reported
- Dec 2025
- Incident date
- Dec 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
SteeringDec 2025 · ODI 11704105Details +Close −
I purchased this used Tesla Model 3 (VIN: [XXX] ) from a licensed dealer on July 15th, 2025. The vehicle is still under the original manufacturer warranty. Since ownership, I have experienced a persistent metal-impact noise coming from the suspension and steering area, especially when going over speed bumps, uneven road surfaces, or low-speed turns. The noise sounds like loose metal parts making contact. Tesla service has attempted repairs multiple times, including a recent visit that lasted several weeks. Although some minor issues were addressed, the abnormal metal impact noise continues and has never been fully resolved. The repeated unresolved noise raises concerns about structural integrity and potential failure within components related to steering, wheels, or suspension. While the vehicle remains operable, the issue affects driving confidence, comfort, and concentration. Over time, the repeated metal noise has caused stress and anxiety because I am unsure whether a part will loosen or fail while driving. Since the problem remains after multiple attempts to repair, I am reporting this as a potential safety-related defect. Thank you. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Dec 2025
- Incident date
- Nov 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Air BagsDec 2025 · ODI 11702355Details +Close −
NHTSA Complaint Narrative (Copy & Paste) CRITICAL SAFETY DEFECT: SALE OF VEHICLE WITH DISABLED AIRBAGS Incident: 10/24/2025 | Dealer: Braman Cadillac (Miami, FL) | VIN: [XXX] Braman Cadillac sold me this 2024 Tesla Model 3 representing it as "clean/no accidents." In reality, they released a vehicle with a disabled airbag system resulting from a crash that occurred in their inventory. 1. DISABLED RESTRAINT SYSTEM (RCM): Tesla Service Mode diagnostics confirm the Restraint Control Module (RCM) is in "Post Replacement" state, displaying the prompt: "Post Replacement Tasks - Routine requires Service Mode Plus authentication." This proves the airbag computer was replaced following a crash/electrical trauma but NEVER calibrated. Consequently, the SRS is disabled and will not deploy. The vehicle explicitly warns: "The Safety Restraint System may not perform as designed." The dealer released a non-roadworthy vehicle. 2. EVIDENCE OF DEALER KNOWLEDGE: Internal logs show critical crash fault codes (VCFRONT_a059 & RCM2_a003) logged on Oct 15, 2025. Dealer records confirm the car was in their exclusive inventory on this date (listed since Sept 23). These faults were active 9 days before sale. The dealer ignored active safety warnings to facilitate the transaction. 3. CONCEALED DAMAGE: Inspection by Classic Collision confirmed hidden structural damage requiring $9,676.69 in repairs, consistent with the uncalibrated module. CONCLUSION: Braman Cadillac knowingly sold a vehicle with a lethal safety defect. I demand an investigation into their release of vehicles with uncalibrated safety modules. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Dec 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Unknown Or OtherNov 2025 · ODI 11702043Details +Close −
Tesla Model 3 Software & Trunk Security Issue Vehicle: Tesla Model 3, 2024 Issue Date: September 25, 2025 I am reporting a serious software reliability and security defect in my Tesla Model 3. On September 25, 2025, the trunk opened on its own overnight due to what appears to be a software malfunction, resulting in the theft of $500 in personal belongings. The Tesla app sent only one notification while I was sleeping, with no alerts for over eight hours, failing to provide proper security warnings. Tesla customer support was unable to resolve the issue and suggested multiple drivers might have access, even though only one friend has access to the car and it was not her doing. Vehicle data from Tesla privacy support showed two hours missing during the trunk event, and Tesla could not explain why, only speculating a software glitch. This incident demonstrates a critical software and security failure that compromises vehicle safety and personal property. Tesla has failed to provide an explanation, solution, or preventive fix. I am reporting this as a serious software reliability and consumer safety concern. Best, [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Sep 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Vehicle Speed ControlNov 2025 · ODI 11701831Details +Close −
Component/system that failed: Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software version 14.x (2025.38.x and later). The issue is software-only and remains installed on any vehicle updated to v14. Description of safety defect: FSD v14 deliberately removes the driver’s ability to set or adjust maximum speed offset using the right scroll wheel (feature present in all prior versions including my current v13.2.9). As a result, the system routinely exceeds posted speed limits by 5–20 mph with no way for the supervised driver to correct it short of fully disengaging FSD. The vehicle ignores speed-limit signs, relies on inaccurate map data, and follows surrounding traffic speed instead of the legal limit, even in school zones, construction zones, residential areas, and adverse weather. This significantly increases risk of collision, injury, and traffic citations. Reproduced/confirmed: Widely reproduced by thousands of owners on Tesla forums, Reddit, and X immediately after v14 rollout in late 2025. I have chosen to remain on v13.2.9 to avoid this exact defect. Inspected by manufacturer or others: No in-person inspection required; Tesla has full remote log access. Multiple owners have submitted in-car bug reports. Warning lamps/messages: None. The speed-offset control is simply grayed out and non-functional by design in v14. Vehicle available for inspection upon request.
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Nov 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Air BagsNov 2025 · ODI 11701498Details +Close −
Safety restraint warning in car, unsure of actual issue but warning keeps popping up. Presumed that the seatbelts or airbags would not properly work in event of a crash. Dealer/company says it's a known issue, with other cars needing a fix too, however they aren't able to specify exactly the issue or issue a timeframe on repair. Issue first started appearing in Late August of this year, and has become more frequent as of recent. Potentially this is a critical safety issue regarding airbag/seatbelt's potentially failing to work as designed for all similiar models.
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Aug 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Electrical SystemNov 2025 · ODI 11700777Details +Close −
To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting a formal safety complaint regarding a potentially dangerous defect in my 2024 Tesla Model 3. Unlike traditional vehicles that use a dedicated horn assembly, this model relies on the external speaker system as its horn. While this may function under normal conditions, during rain or heavy moisture the speaker becomes saturated with water, causing the horn’s output to become extremely quiet and ineffective. This is a serious safety concern. The horn is a primary means of warning surrounding drivers and pedestrians of danger, especially in poor weather conditions, where visibility is already compromised. Ironically, during heavy rain when a horn is most needed it becomes significantly quieter and nearly unusable. I have personally experienced this issue multiple times, and it poses a clear risk to myself and other road users. I believe this design presents a safety defect because: The horn does not function at full volume when wet. The speaker-based horn assembly is exposed to moisture and not adequately protected. Drivers may be unable to alert surrounding traffic during hazardous weather conditions. No warning is provided to the driver that the horn is impaired. I request that the NHTSA investigate whether the use of a speaker-based horn system without adequate waterproofing meets federal motor vehicle safety standards, and whether Tesla should issue a service bulletin, recall, or design modification to restore safe horn functionality regardless of weather conditions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am willing to provide photos, videos, or further documentation if needed.
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Nov 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Forward Collision AvoidanceNov 2025 · ODI 11699992Details +Close −
The forward-facing camera on my vehicle repeatedly fogs up inside the sealed camera housing, creating a light to severe haze across the camera lens. This internal fogging obstructs the camera’s view and affects the vehicle’s safety systems that rely on it, including forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, lane keeping, and adaptive cruise control. The components are available for inspection upon request. This obstruction puts my safety at risk because these systems either disable themselves or operate unpredictably when the camera view is blocked. The issue occurred again this year under normal outdoor temperatures, and the fogging cannot be cleared by the driver or by using defrost or cabin heat. The problem has been confirmed previously by a Tesla service center, where technicians inspected the camera area and told me my vehicle had one of the worst cases they had seen and told me this is a common issue. They attempted a repair, but the issue has returned, making it a recurring defect. No police or insurance representatives have inspected it. During the first occurrence, the vehicle displayed messages indicating that features like Autopilot, cruise control, and lane assist were disabled due to camera obstruction. The current recurrence produced visible internal haze over the camera lens and a warning message appeared which I do have that Tesla acknowledges this is an issue and that rather than fixing it, you can bring your car in for expedited cleaning. I have read others stating Tesla changed their windshield design and it doesn't heat up this area properly any longer. This issue has happened in multiple winter seasons and directly affects the proper operation of safety-critical driver assistance systems.
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Nov 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Forward Collision AvoidanceNov 2025 · ODI 11699081Details +Close −
While driving with FSD engaged and set to standard profile, FSD accelerated to 76mph in a 55 zone. This is on software version 14.1.4. Unfortunately this new update no longer allows you to set your speed while using FSD, you can only select sloth, chill, standard, hurry, or mad max.
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Nov 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
StructureNov 2025 · ODI 11698467 · crashDetails +Close −
COMBINED FORMAL & SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT – UPDATED WITH VIDEO EVIDENCE DISCLOSURE To: Florida Division of Motorist Services – Consumer Complaint Division Attn: Dealer Licensing & Compliance Section [XXX] Via Online Portal: [XXX] Date: November 09, 2025 Re: Misrepresentation in Sale of 2024 Tesla Model 3 by Braman Cadillac, Miami, FL VIN: [XXX] Purchased: [XXX] | Price Paid: $42,000.05 Dealer License: [XXX] Complainant: [XXX] , 100% P&T Disabled Veteran Braman Cadillac: Two days after taking delivery on [XXX], your salesperson Luis Manotas and finance manager Joshua Gonzalez were provided video evidence of the vehicle's structural damage. This evidence was escalated to your used car sales manager, who contacted me offering $1,000 to "settle" or threatened to retrieve the vehicle and auction it—despite already possessing my full payment. I countered with $1,800, which was rejected. This coercive tactic instilled fear of losing both vehicle and funds, underscoring your dealership's awareness of defects and intent to evade responsibility. Produce all related communications, video receipts, and internal notes within 10 business days, or face federal subpoena and enhanced penalties. SUMMARY OF MISREPRESENTATION – UPDATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE The following timeline, supported by the attached Carfax report (dated August 28, 2025), Braman listing (September 23, 2025, at 21,015 miles), video evidence affidavit, and $1,000 offer documentation, establishes Braman Cadillac's pattern of concealment and coercion: INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Forward Collision AvoidanceNov 2025 · ODI 11697482Details +Close −
I was in process of completing a right hand turn, likely doing around 30 - 35 mph, when the vehicle suddenly and significantly applied the brakes, slowing the vehicle almost instantly down to around 12 mph, from what I had noticed. The road was entirely clear of any other vehicles, hazards, pedestrians or cyclists, with exception of a few parked cars along the curbs. There was absolutely NO reason for this abrupt braking maneuver, and it is at least the second time it has occurred within the past 11 months, both on a right hand turn. Today's incident jerked my head and neck abruptly, leaving me with a headache. It has undermined my confidence in the vehicle.
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Nov 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Unknown Or OtherNov 2025 · ODI 11697082Details +Close −
Turn signal indicator buttons stick and/or activate the opposite turn indicator of the button pressed. Issue is persistent and I have had two other steering wheels replaced and all three have the same problem. Tesla technician told me that it is an issue with the steering wheel and there was no fix. Have a video of the problem but I am currently unable to upload.
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Nov 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Lane DepartureNov 2025 · ODI 11697172 · crashDetails +Close −
In early 2025, while reversing the vehicle, the backup camera proximity alert system failed to provide audible warnings of an obstacle. The visual display worked, but the system provided no beeping or audible alerts as I reversed toward a pole in the vehicle's blind spot, even though I was within the range where warnings should have been activated resulting in over $4K in damages. The same alert failure happened on 10/23/25 as I backed out of a parking space. I no longer live in the local area, but reported the safety issue in person during a visit on August 27, 2025. The acting service manager told me to expect a response in 10-14 days. After not hearing back, I followed up via the app on September 28, 2025. When I received a response on October 2, 2025, I was told my request is beyond the timeframe of when this could be inspected (30 days). The vehicle is covered under Tesla's 4-year/50,000-mile New Vehicle Limited Warranty, which covers defects in materials and workmanship. A failed backup camera system is precisely such a defect. California Song-Beverly Act: California's lemon law (Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.) requires manufacturers to repair defects covered by warranty. There is no 30-day reporting requirement under CA law. Federal Safety Standards: The backup camera is required safety equipment under 49 CFR 571.111. A malfunctioning backup camera renders the vehicle non-compliant with federal safety standards. Presumption of Manufacturing Defect: Under California law, defects occurring within 18 months/18,000 miles are presumed to be manufacturing defects (Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)). This accident was well within that window. When I reported this defect to Tesla, they initially refused to: Conduct a safety inspection of the proximity alert/parking sensor system Retrieve diagnostic data or video footage to verify the system failure Test or repair the defective equipment under warranty As of 10/30/25, the local dealer agreed to a vehicle inspection
- Reported
- Nov 2025
- Incident date
- Jan 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Forward Collision AvoidanceOct 2025 · ODI 11696818Details +Close −
Yesterday I had another near miss collision and like all the others there was zero reaction from the car, an accident would happen long before the car would react. How many deaths are you going to allow to happen before you take proper action? It’s obvious someone there is being bought because the dangers can be easily proven over and over. My previous car would have braked long before I would have had to steer away from the oncoming vehicle, my Tesla has given me zero protection from front end collisions like the pictures provided.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Forward Collision AvoidanceOct 2025 · ODI 11695584Details +Close −
A recent update has caused the vehicle to no longer acknowledge an important speed sign. This was confirmed by another Tesla, it is due to an update. This is unsafe and is capable of allowing the vehicle to travel through town at 75 mph where pedestrians cross the highway. If the camera gets blinded at the wrong time then it will NOT see people or vehicles as it plows into them. I made Tesla service aware and tried to submit a bug report but Tesla app simply says they are aware that the camera may not always read the signs. However, this was never an issue until a recent update. When are you going to make them liable?
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Electrical SystemOct 2025 · ODI 11695350Details +Close −
Tesla suddenly lost power without any warning or a chance to move to safer area. Had to call 911. Incident around 5pm Oct 23rd 2025 at intersection of E Pennsylvania Ave and Wallace Rd, Dowingtown, PA
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
SteeringOct 2025 · ODI 11695128 · crashDetails +Close −
On October 17, 2025, while Full Self-Driving (Supervised) was engaged, the vehicle made an abrupt, uncommanded steering input to the right, causing a collision with a tunnel wall. This crash appears to be the result of a critical vehicle hardware failure. In the 24 hours prior to the crash, the vehicle logged multiple critical steering errors, including EPAS3P_a086_dasMia, which indicates the Electric Power Assisted Steering system was "Missing in Action" and not communicating. Furthermore, the vehicle has logged daily, recurring hardware faults for the Steering Column Control Module (SCCM_a016_hardwareError) since it was purchased. The uncommanded steering action created an extremely dangerous safety condition resulting in a collision. All stability and traction control faults appeared at the exact moment of impact, not before, indicating the steering system failure was the root cause. The problem has been confirmed by the vehicle's own internal diagnostic logs. The vehicle is available for inspection.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash
Forward Collision AvoidanceOct 2025 · ODI 11694033Details +Close −
Recently I had three back to back near miss head on collisions on highway early morning still dark. These three along with a previous near miss the vehicle had zero reaction to the imminent collision with roughly half a second to spare. It happened so fast that I must have let go of the record button as there was no saved video. I am working with lemon law firm and class action firm, get your crap together because these recent accidents reported in AZ are also your fault for not reacting appropriately to previous complaints.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Unknown Or OtherOct 2025 · ODI 11694034Details +Close −
I have reported to Tesla how dangerous it can be long term to have one pedal driving and to use the accelerator as a cancelation mode to it’s many errors, see uploaded example picture. Also, having lighted notifications on mirrors causes people to subconsciously ignore actual blinkers of other vehicles; the only thing that should be on a side mirror is an adjustable fish eye mirror that allows to see the entire side lanes and tire placement.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Lane DepartureOct 2025 · ODI 11692997Details +Close −
Subject: FSD lane-selection issues at three specific Santa Clara locations Vehicle: [2024 Model 3], software [2025.32.8], FSD [v13.2.9] 1) 2025-10-12 [approx time 6:30pm PT] – Westbound [XXX] crossing [XXX] . Expected: proceed straight in through lane. Observed: FSD moves into left-turn lane to cross [XXX] . 2) 2025-10-12 [approx time 1pm PT] – Southbound toward [XXX] . Expected: choose left-turn lane. Observed: FSD sometimes stays in straight-through lane when attempting a left turn. 3) 2025-10-12 [approx time 4pm PT] – [XXX] exit to [XXX] approaching [XXX]. Expected: merge left lane before making a left turn. Observed: FSD sometimes stops at green in the through lane after failing to merge left. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Power TrainOct 2025 · ODI 11693178 · crash · 1 injuriesDetails +Close −
Possible unintended acceleration incident While approaching the driveway the car accidentally accelerated on its own, cause a collision. We request that Tesla preserve all vehicle logs and telemetry data for safety investigation. VIN: [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash 1 injuries
Exterior LightingOct 2025 · ODI 11692963Details +Close −
The push type turn signals for the model 3 almost caused when accident when I had to enter and exit a roundabout. The orientation wasn’t clear and I was trying to signal to not exit instead - another car misunderstood my intent. this miscommunication lead to a close call. I’ve been driving for over 20 years - this is an unsafe implementation of something basic.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Electrical SystemOct 2025 · ODI 11692742 · crash · 2 injuriesDetails +Close −
My Model 3 was T-boned in an intersection, hitting both the front and rear doors, as a result of a vehicle running a red light. The driver that hit us was speeding and didn’t hit brakes. The impact pushed the Tesla almost in a complete 360 on an adjacent street where the driver side of the car jumped a curb and stopped after hitting a pole slightly on the driver side. Red light etc all substantiated by police report. Airbags deployed on the passenger side from the seat and upper panels. Front airbags failed on both sides. There was also a delayed airbag deployment from the back of the driver seat that only ripped the seat but never deployed fully. The smell of fire / burning and debris was all that happened from the driver seat. I requested a crash report from Tesla which outlines the speed and airbag deployment. The report says that knee level airbags deployed but they never did. I crossed referenced crash test speed data and various complaints about Tesla airbags. The data reviewed seems to indicate that I experienced failed equipment which is currently under review. I’ve also reviewed various sources of information about 7 2024 Model 3 driver side airbag known issues, where Tesla only recalled one vehicle. I’ve been told that other recalls for this issue are u see evaluation and to keep checking my vin for details. I share this because serious injuries can be caused by this failure, especially when hit by an SUV. The vehicle was totaled, not drivable and towed from the scene. Please be cautious if you have a 2024 model 3 and demand that Tesla look into the airbag manufacturing issues promptly and issue relative recalls. The collision alert also failed.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Sep 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- Crash 2 injuries
Vehicle Speed ControlOct 2025 · ODI 11691882Details +Close −
Full self drive 14.1 removes the max speed setting that allows drivers to control the speed of the vehicle while under computer control, leaving no way to prevent the car from speeding when the speed profiles choose to drive over 28+ mph over the speed limit. The lack of ability to control the speed of the system is fundamentally unsafe by design.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
Unknown Or OtherOct 2025 · ODI 11691520Details +Close −
The turning signal buttons (this car has buttons instead of a typical stalk) often becomes stuck. It’s like all of the buttons on the left side of the steering wheel are already pushed down, and therefore, I cannot indicate whether I’m turning by pushing that turning button.
- Reported
- Oct 2025
- Incident date
- Oct 2025
- Mileage
- Not provided
- Outcome flags
- None reported
This page shows the latest 50 reports to keep it usable. The count above includes every complaint NHTSA has returned for this model year.
Recalls(4)
Open a recall to read what NHTSA says is wrong, what can happen, and how it gets fixed. Check the VIN and remedy eligibility with a dealer; federal no-charge requirements have an age limit, though a manufacturer may offer more coverage.
Back Over PreventionJul 2025 · 25V002000Details +Close −
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024-2025 Model 3, Model S, 2023-2025 Model X, and Model Y vehicles. The computer circuit board may short, resulting in the loss of the rearview camera image. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 111, "Rear Visibility."
Risk: A rearview camera that does not display an image reduces the driver's rear view, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Tesla released an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Tesla will also identify any vehicles that experienced a circuit board failure, or stress that may lead to a circuit board failure, and replace the affected computers, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed March 7, 2025. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-25-00-001.
Open full NHTSA recall record →Air Bags · 24V284000Details +Close −
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling one 2024 Model 3 vehicle. The driver seat side air bag module was assembled without a deflector that directs gas flow during deployment.
Risk: Without a deflector, the air bag may deploy improperly, increasing the risk of injury during a crash.
Remedy: Tesla service replaced the side air bag, free of charge. The affected vehicle was repaired April 12, 2024. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-13-001.
Open full NHTSA recall record →Latches/Locks/Linkages · 24V554000Details +Close −
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2021-2024 Model 3, Model S, Model X, and 2020-2024 Model Y vehicles. The hood latch assembly may fail to detect an unlatched hood condition after the hood has been opened.
Risk: An unlatched hood can fully open, obstructing the driver's view and increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Tesla has released an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed September 24, 2024. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-00-012.
Open full NHTSA recall record →Tires · 24V935000Details +Close −
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck, 2017-2025 Model 3, and 2020-2025 Model Y vehicles. The tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) warning light may not remain illuminated between drive cycles, failing to warn the driver of low tire pressure. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 138, "Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems."
Risk: Driving with improperly inflated tires increases the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Tesla released an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed February 15, 2025. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-00-018.
Open full NHTSA recall record →A campaign can apply to this model year without being incomplete on a specific vehicle. Check the VIN with NHTSA or a dealer to confirm whether a particular car needs repair.
Investigations
7 NHTSA investigations on record
Investigations are agency reviews, not findings that a vehicle is defective.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening this Engineering Analysis to evaluate Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) degradation detection system. The focus of this investigation will be to assess the system’s ability, when encountering reduced roadway visibility conditions, to detect degradation and alert the driver with sufficient time to respond. ODI will evaluate the performance of FSD in degraded roadway conditions and the updates or modifications by Tesla to the degradation detection system, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of the updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI discussed individual incidents and its initial findings during the PE phase of its investigation with Tesla. As part of those discussions, Tesla’s post-incident analysis indicated that the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s degradation detection system, both as originally deployed and later updated, fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired camera visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. In upgrading PE24031 to an Engineering Analysis (EA), ODI will gather further information on the updated degradation detection system, including the status of updating vehicles and scope of compatible vehicles, the system’s visibility degradation detection capability, and alerts or warnings to the driver. Lastly, ODI will conduct analysis on six recent potentially related incidents. These incidents can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-11937, 13781-13211, 13781-13569, 13781-13633, 13781-13693, 13781-13788. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) is opening this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to assess the scope, frequency, and potential safety consequences of FSD executing driving maneuvers that constitute traffic safety violations. This investigation concerns versions of FSD that Tesla has labeled as "FSD (Supervised)" and "FSD (Beta)." Tesla characterizes FSD as an SAE Level 2 partial automation system requiring a fully attentive driver who is engaged in the driving task at all times. Level 2 partial automation systems are designed to support and assist the driver in performing certain aspects of the driving task, requiring a driver to supervise and intervene as necessary. The driver remains fully responsible at all times for driving the vehicle, including complying with applicable traffic laws. ODI’s investigation will therefore focus, in particular, on whether certain driving inputs within the control authority of FSD forestall the driver’s supervision when they are unexpectedly performed. ODI has identified a number of incidents in which the inputs to the dynamic driving task commanded by FSD induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws. Although reports of this nature span a variety of behaviors, the reports appear to most commonly involve two types of scenarios. The first type of scenario involves a vehicle operating with FSD proceeding into an intersection in violation of a red traffic signal. The second type of scenario involves FSD commanding a lane change into an opposing lane of traffic. With respect to the first type of scenario, ODI has identified 18 complaints and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating at an intersection with FSD engaged, failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface. Some complainants also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal. ODI has identified six Standing General Order ("SGO") reports in which a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection. Of these incidents, four crashes resulted in one or more reported injuries. At least some of the incidents appeared to involve FSD proceeding into the intersection after coming to a complete stop. ODI's pre-investigative work, including coordination with the Maryland Transportation Authority and State Police, indicated that the problem may be repeatable, given that multiple subject incidents occurred at the same intersection in Joppa, Maryland. NHTSA understands that Tesla has since taken action to address the issue at this intersection. With respect to the second type of scenario, ODI has identified 2 SGO reports, 18 complaints, and 2 media reports alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, entered opposing lanes of travel during or following a turn, crossed double-yellow lane markings while proceeding straight, or attempted to turn onto a road in the wrong direction despite the presence of wrong-way road signs. Likewise, ODI has identified 4 SGO reports, 6 complaints, and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, proceeded straight through an intersection in a turn-only lane or executed a turn at an intersection in a through lane despite the presence of lane markings or signals. Complaints also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior. Some complaints alleged that more than one of these failures occurred and, as such, the numbers are not cumulative. Some of the reported incidents appeared to involve FSD executing a lane change into an opposing lane of travel with little notice to a driver or opportunity to intervene. ODI’s review will assess whether there was prior warning or adequate time for the driver to respond to the unexpected behavior or to safely supervise the automated driving task. This review will assess any warnings to the driver about the system's impending behavior; the time given to drivers to respond; the capability of FSD to detect, display to the driver, and respond appropriately to traffic signals; and the capability of FSD to detect and respond to lane markings and wrong-way signage. NHTSA's review will also consider any updates or modifications to the system(s) that may affect the performance of FSD with respect to obeying traffic safety laws and signals. This assessment will focus, in particular, on the types of traffic safety violations described above, as most reports identified thus far have centered around those behaviors. While the behaviors under investigation appear to occur most frequently at intersections, NHTSA’s investigation will encompass any other types of situations in which this behavior may arise, such as when traveling adjacent to a lane of opposing traffic or when approaching railroad crossings. If other evidence received during this investigation involve other types of traffic safety violations, those may be considered as part of this assessment as well. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov. The SGO reports cited in this Resume are listed below by report ID and are available for download at NHTSA.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting. 13781-8739-1, 13781-8995-1, 13781-9623-1, 13781-10333-1, 13781-10872-1, 13781-10930-1, 13781-10939-1, 13781-10941-1, 13781-11069-1, 13781-11305-1, 13781-11579-1 Media reported allegations included as a separate attachment.
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) has identified numerous incident reports submitted by Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) in response to Standing General Order 2021-01 (the “SGO”), in which the reported crashes occurred several months or more before the dates of the reports. The majority of these reports involved crashes in which the Standing General Order in place at the time required a report to be submitted within one or five days of Tesla receiving notice of the crash. When the reports were submitted, Tesla submitted them in one of two ways. Many of the reports were submitted as part of a single batch, while others were submitted on a rolling basis. Preliminary engagement between ODI and Tesla on the issue indicates that the timing of the reports was due to an issue with Tesla’s data collection, which, according to Tesla, has now been fixed. NHTSA is opening this Audit Query, a standard process for reviewing compliance with legal requirements, to evaluate the cause of the potential delays in reporting, the scope of any such delays, and the mitigations that Tesla has developed to address them. As part of this review, NHTSA will assess whether any reports of prior incidents remain outstanding and whether the reports that were submitted include all of the required and available data. The SGO reports cited in the Opening Resume, can be found at NHTSA.gov/SGOCrashReporting under the following SGO 2021-01 report IDs: 13781-11020-1 13781-10844-1 13781-10843-1 13781-10530-1 13781-10160-1 13781-10159-1 13781-10157-1 13781-10146-1 13781-10122-1 13781-10098-1 13781-10097-1 13781-10096-1 13781-10095-1 13781-10094-1 13781-10093-1 13781-10023-1 13781-10022-1 13781-10021-1 13781-10020-1 13781-10017-1 13781-10016-1 13781-10015-1 13781-10014-1 13781-10013-1 13781-10012-1 13781-6047-1 13781-9930-1 13781-9917-1 13781-9928-1 13781-9925-1 13781-9924-1 13781-9923-1 13781-9922-1 13781-9835-1 13781-9834-1 13781-9833-1 13781-9832-1 13781-9831-1 13781-9830-1 13781-9829-1 13781-9827-1 13781-9818-1 13781-9780-1 13781-9779-1 13781-9778-1 13781-9777-1 13781-9775-1 13781-9774-1 13781-9773-1 13781-9772-1 13781-9771-1 13781-9770-1 13781-9728-1 13781-9688-1 13781-9715-1 13781-9714-1 13781-9713-1 13781-9712-1 13781-9711-1 13781-9710-1 13781-9709-1 13781-9696-1 13781-9695-1 13781-9694-1 13781-9693-1 13781-9692-1 13781-9691-1 13781-9690-1 13781-9687-1 13781-9686-1 13781-9342-1 13781-9319-1 13781-9019-1 13781-8910-1 13781-8732-1 13781-8712-1 13781-8310-1 13781-7897-1 13781-7895-1 13781-7835-1 13781-7798-1 13781-7797-1 13781-7758-1 13781-7757-1 13781-7756-1 13781-7755-1 13781-7667-1 13781-7399-1 13781-7398-1 13781-7397-1 13781-7396-1 13781-7395-1 13781-7394-1 13781-7393-1 13781-7389-1 13781-7388-1 13781-7387-1 13781-7386-1 13781-7385-1 13781-7383-1 13781-7187-1 13781-7186-1 13781-7185-1 13781-7184-1 13781-7181-1 13781-7023-1 13781-6399-1 13781-6389-1 13781-6388-1 13781-6387-1 13781-6386-1 13781-6379-1 13781-6378-1 13781-6377-1 13781-6375-1 13781-6214-1 13781-6172-1 13781-6155-1 13781-6154-1 13781-6122-1 13781-6120-1 13781-6118-1 13781-5800-1
On January 6, 2025, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation 24003 (PE24033) to investigate Actually Smart Summon (Summon) sessions resulting in crashes during active sessions. According to Tesla, Summon is a short-distance SAE Level 2 system, controlled by the user from a cell phone within a certain distance and intended for use in parking lots and on private property. ODI analyzed complaint data provided by Tesla as well as complaints submitted to ODI from consumers to identify Summon incidents resulting in crashes. ODI's analysis indicates that almost all Summon reported crashes involved minor property damage claims with no reported incidents involving a vulnerable road user, injury, fatality, or major property damage as indicated by an air bag deployment or vehicle tow away. Out of millions of Summon sessions, a fraction of 1% resulted in an incident. Almost all those incidents took place where, typically early in a Summon session, the system or person using the app failed to fully detect or respond appropriately to vehicle surroundings resulting in minor impacts. Incidents took place when app users did not have a complete 360-degree view of the surroundings in the app to assess situational awareness. This limited the app user’s ability to determine whether an impact was imminent during initial vehicle maneuvers such as reversing in close proximity to an obstacle or a curb. ODI found that the impacts most often occurred with parking gates, adjacently parked vehicles, and short parking bollards. During this investigation, ODI identified two Summon crashes related to camera blockages. In both crashes, Summon attempted to navigate a snowy parking lot with snow partially or fully obstructing the forward-facing cameras. Summon did not detect the camera blockage and the vehicles collided with unoccupied parked vehicles while navigating the parking lot. App users in both instances did not command a vehicle stop or pause despite the obstructed camera visible in the camera stream in the app. On January 15, 2025, Tesla released Over-the-Air (OTA) Software (SW) Update Action numbers 578998 and 579185 for vehicles in service to implement a camera blockage detection condition. Both OTAs improve camera blockage detection mechanisms. Additionally, on January 20, 2025, and January 30, 2025, Tesla identified additional system requirements associated with camera visibility checks and released OTA SW-578752 and SW-580322, respectively. These firmware updates reduce false negative camera blockage detections due to snow or condensation. In its investigation, ODI identified one Summon incident where the vehicle did not yield for a gate arm blocking a garage exit lane and the app user did not command a vehicle stop or pause, resulting in an impact. On February 6, 2025, Tesla deployed OTA SW-578839 to improve vehicle reaction to dynamic gates. This OTA update upgraded vehicle perception systems through a high-fidelity occupancy determination network, which uses data from vehicle sensory systems to improve reconstruction of field objects with high accuracy. On November 20, 2025, Tesla further improved vehicle performance by adding object detections from a separate neural network through OTA SW-580514. Owners of the affected vehicles received all six OTA SW updates. Tesla also released these SW updates to production vehicles. See online public file for detailed descriptions of all six OTA SW updates. Due to low incident occurrence and low incident severity, this preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete online public file.
On October 17, 2024, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE24031) of Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) to assess: the ability of the FSD system to detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions; whether any other FSD crashes had occurred under degraded roadway visibility conditions that are similar in nature to the four SGO-reported crashes identified in the opening document, and if so, the contributing circumstances for each of those crashes; and any updates or modifications by Tesla to the FSD system that may affect the performance of FSD in degraded roadway visibility conditions, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of any such updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. During this phase of the investigation, ODI reviewed the materials provided by Tesla detailing any actions taken, or changes, modifications, and updates made that may relate to the alleged defect. ODI reviewed information related to Tesla’s transition to a vision-only perception system, and its deployment of the strategy in vehicles. ODI’s findings include information on limitations of the vision-only perception system and updates made in response to known subject crashes. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. ODI reviewed certain public statements, including those made during an April 2025 earnings call, in which Tesla stated that it had developed a breakthrough “direct photon-counting” capability that eliminates the degradation that the camera-based system experiences when glare is encountered. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI has discussed individual incidents and its initial findings with Tesla. Based on Tesla’s post-incident analysis, the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s FSD system fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants where the camera-based system performance degrades significantly. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the FSD system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired its visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. ODI is upgrading this investigation (PE24031) to Engineering Analysis (EA) 26002 to further evaluate this matter. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening a Recall Query to assess the remedy adequacy of Recall 23V838. On December 12, 2023, Tesla filed a Defect Information Report (Recall 23V838) applicable to all Tesla models produced and equipped with any version of its Autopilot system, which Tesla described as an SAE Level 2 (L2) Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). Autopilot is the simultaneous engagement of Tesla’s Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC) and Autosteer. In describing the safety defect, Tesla’s Defect Information Report (DIR) explained that “the prominence and scope of the system’s controls may be insufficient to prevent driver misuse,” and Tesla committed to the deployment of a multipart remedy aimed at improving system and engagement controls and reducing mode confusion. EA22002 (upgraded from PE21020) was opened to investigate whether Tesla’s Autopilot contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and involved extensive crash analysis, human factors analysis, vehicle evaluations, and assessment of vehicle control authority and driver engagement technologies. The work conducted in these investigations aligns with Tesla’s conclusion in its 23V838 recall filing. During EA22002, ODI identified at least 13 crashes involving one or more fatalities and many more involving serious injuries in which foreseeable driver misuse of the system played an apparent role. Tesla filed Recall 23V838 to address concerns regarding the Autopilot system investigated in EA22002. Following deployment of the remedy in Recall 23V838, ODI identified concerns due to post-remedy crash events and results from preliminary NHTSA tests of remedied vehicles. Also, Tesla has stated that a portion of the remedy both requires the owner to opt in and allows a driver to readily reverse it. Tesla has also deployed non-remedy updates to address issues that appear related to ODI’s concerns under EA22002. This investigation will consider why these updates were not a part of the recall or otherwise determined to remedy a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk. ODI is therefore opening this Recall Query investigation to further evaluate the adequacy of the remedy for recall 23V838.
On February 16, 2022, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE22002) to investigate reports of unexpected deceleration while driving with the adaptive cruise control system engaged in Model Year (MY) 2021 – 2022 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles manufactured by Tesla. The subject systems include Autopilot (all versions), Full Self-Driving (FSD) and Traffic Aware Cruise Control (TACC). These complaints have been colloquially referred to as “phantom braking”. ODI opened PE22002 to determine the scope and severity of the potential problem and to assess any resulting safety issues in the subject vehicles. The alleged defect is an unexpected and unrequested vehicle deceleration triggered by the subject system during subject system engagement. The alleged defect does not occur when the subject system is not in use and is separate and distinct from Automated Emergency Braking (AEB). During vehicle operation, AEB is actively monitoring in the subject vehicles regardless of subject system and its intervention is accompanied by audible and visual collision warnings. A Vehicle Owners Questionnaire (VOQ) trend originating in November 2021 prompted ODI to open PE22002. VOQ narratives reported unexpected brake activation while using TACC, Autopilot or FSD. The trend grew from 99 by the end of 2021 to 314 by February 16, 2022, when PE22002 was opened. ODI sent Information Request (IR) Letters to Tesla on May 4, 2022, and July 11, 2024, to request salient data to quantify vehicle production, field incidents, and the physical parameters of the phantom braking reports. ODI also requested information pertaining to Tesla’s internal assessments, problem resolutions, and their assessment of the alleged defect. Typically, the complaints to ODI and Tesla allege a 10-20 mph speed reduction at highway speeds over a 1-3 second time period.No collisions were identified. Drivers reported seeing no vehicles ahead in the travel lane that would have triggered the deceleration. Many complaints reported the conditions taking place on higher speed roadways in sunny conditions with shadows on the roadway. Complainants typically applied the accelerator to override the unexpected deceleration, and subject vehicles did not come to a complete stop or steer out of their travel lane. ODI analyzed data provided by Tesla in addition to consumer complaints submitted to ODI. Tesla’s complaint and field data exhibited some behavior that aligned with the transition from a radar-vision fusion system to vision-only in mid-2021. VOQ traffic coincided with public events such as Recall 21V846, the opening of PE22002, and several related media publications. In February and March of 2022, Tesla released firmware updates 2022.4.5.1 and 2022.4.5.17 respectively to target aspects of the subject system programming that affect unexpected deceleration. Incident traffic has dissipated substantially in the past years, with 45 incidents reported in 2024, 19 in 2025, and 3 since the beginning of 2026. The conditions reported, while concerning to the drivers, did not alter the vehicle’s lateral positioning in their lanes and did not cause significant loss in distance between the subject and following vehicle to lead to a collision. Complaint traffic to both NHTSA and Tesla reported the same conditions- vehicles traveling with the subject system engaged at higher speeds decelerating suddenly with no commensurate vehicle or obstacle ahead in the same lane. In view of these points, and a low demonstrated hazard to drivers, this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
Crash-test ratings
2024 Tesla Model 3 4 DR RWD NHTSA source
- Overall
- Not rated
- Frontal
- Not rated
- Side
- Not rated
- Rollover
- Not rated
2024 Tesla Model 3 4 DR AWD NHTSA source
- Overall
- Not rated
- Frontal
- Not rated
- Side
- Not rated
- Rollover
- Not rated
Fuel economy by trim
| Trim | Engine | Drivetrain | Transmission | City | Hwy | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 3 Long Range RWD | — | Rear-Wheel Drive | Automatic (A1) | 145 | 128 | 137 |
| Model 3 RWD | — | Rear-Wheel Drive | Automatic (A1) | 140 | 125 | 132 |
| Model 3 Long Range AWD | — | All-Wheel Drive | Automatic (A1) | 137 | 124 | 130 |
| Model 3 Long Range AWD-E | — | All-Wheel Drive | Automatic (A1) | 133 | 122 | 128 |
| Model 3 Performance AWD | — | All-Wheel Drive | Automatic (A1) | 117 | 107 | 112 |
EPA laboratory estimates by trim and engine. Actual mileage varies with driving, weather, load, and maintenance. EPA source.
Before you buy
Useful next checks
Federal records tell you about patterns. These checks can tell you more about the specific car in front of you.
These are affiliate links. TireKick may earn a fee if you use one.
Compare the year-by-year record
Open another year for its own evidence-gated decision. TireKick does not crown a best year from raw complaint totals.
2024 Tesla Model 3: frequently asked
What does the complaint record show for the 2024 Tesla Model 3?
Owners filed 201 NHTSA complaints about the 2024 Tesla Model 3. This is raw owner-reported complaint volume with no production or exposure normalization, so it is not a reliability score or a best/worst-year ranking.
What are the most common problems on the 2024 Tesla Model 3?
The most-reported problem areas are Unknown Or Other (25% of complaints) and steering (17%).
How many recalls does the 2024 Tesla Model 3 have?
4 recalls have been issued that affect the 2024 Tesla Model 3, covering components such as back over prevention. Check the VIN with NHTSA and ask a dealer to confirm remedy eligibility; federal no-charge requirements have an age limit, though manufacturers may offer more coverage.
What gas mileage does the 2024 Tesla Model 3 get?
The EPA rates the 2024 Tesla Model 3 between 112 and 137 mpg combined, depending on trim and drivetrain.