TireKick

Published generation acquisition guide

Rogue years to avoid—and the years we refuse to over-rank

This answer is generated only from the published Second generation guide. It names applicable issues, configuration caveats, remedies, exposure eligibility, and the claim receipts behind every year conclusion.

Year-by-year answer

2019
Buy with conditions

Proceed only after the named candidate-verification and record checks pass.

Applicable issues

  • False Automatic Emergency Braking investigation (high; mitigation only) · Inspect: Check the VIN for open NHTSA actions, then ask the inspector to test the named system and document the result.

Configuration: 4 reviewed 2019 configurations exist; the model-year authority does not guess which one a buyer has.

Exposure: No verified positive production denominator is present for 2019; normalized year comparison is refused. No configuration-specific denominator is available.

Open 2019 authority →
2017
Insufficient evidence

Insufficient evidence for a responsible candidate verdict.

Applicable issues

  • False Automatic Emergency Braking investigation (high; mitigation only) · Inspect: Check the VIN for open NHTSA actions, then ask the inspector to test the named system and document the result.

Configuration: 4 reviewed 2017 configurations exist; the model-year authority does not guess which one a buyer has.

Exposure: No verified positive production denominator is present for 2017; normalized year comparison is refused. No configuration-specific denominator is available.

Open 2017 authority →
2018
Insufficient evidence

Insufficient evidence for a responsible candidate verdict.

Applicable issues

  • False Automatic Emergency Braking investigation (high; mitigation only) · Inspect: Check the VIN for open NHTSA actions, then ask the inspector to test the named system and document the result.

Configuration: 4 reviewed 2018 configurations exist; the model-year authority does not guess which one a buyer has.

Exposure: No verified positive production denominator is present for 2018; normalized year comparison is refused. No configuration-specific denominator is available.

Open 2018 authority →
2020
Insufficient evidence

Insufficient evidence for a responsible candidate verdict.

Applicable issues

  • Electrical System:Ignition:Anti-Theft:Immobilizer/Proximity:Key/Sender safety campaign (high; verified remedy) · Inspect: Check the VIN for open NHTSA actions, then ask the inspector to test the named system and document the result.

Configuration: 3 reviewed 2020 configurations exist; the model-year authority does not guess which one a buyer has.

Exposure: No verified positive production denominator is present for 2020; normalized year comparison is refused. No configuration-specific denominator is available.

Open 2020 authority →

What you trade between adjacent years

Dossier receipts

clm_nissan-rogue-2017-investigation-investigation-dp19001-obs-31832017 Nissan RogueEvidence: Limited confidence

The official record describes a potential crash, fire, injury, or loss-of-control consequence.

“False Automatic Emergency Braking NHTSA received a letter from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) on March 21, 2019 alleging that the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system on Model Year (MY) 2017-2018 Nissan Rogue and Rogue Sport vehicles was engaging in cases where there was no obstruction in the path of the vehicle. The CAS petition additionally alleged that, based on Nissan's actions, the manufacturer was aware of the issue due to issuing a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) launching two Quality Actions, and initiation of a Customer Service Initiative in relation to it. CAS contended that Nissan's actions do not represent an adequate long-term solution to the problem, as the action is only available during the basic coverage period of the warranty. CAS also argued that the alleged failures are an unreasonable risk to safety and views Nissan's communications as not acknowledging the potential safety issue involved, instead treating the alleged problem as a performance update.The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 129 unique subject vehicle reports (for all submission dates) alleging a false positive triggering of AEB. Of these complaints, three were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system, and all three indicating related injuries.In response to ODI's April 15, 2019 Information Request letter, Nissan provided data indicating that it has received 750 unique subject vehicle complaints relating to false positive activation of the AEB system. Of these complaints, 12 were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system. Four complaints contained allegations of injuries, three of which were the result of a collision. These complaints included duplicates of complaints that ODI received. The injury allegations were limited to soft tissue type injuries such as whiplash and bruising.Based on its review of the information identified to date, ODI grants this petition and has opened preliminary evaluation PE19-010 in order to evaluate the cause, scope and frequency of AEB false positive activations, as well as to evaluate the suitability of the manufacturer's campaign to address the concern or improve performance of the AEB system. The complaints cited can be viewed at NHTSA.gov under the following ODI identification numbers: 11230875, 11230481, 11230361, 11229400, 11229302, 11229294, 11228994, 11223074, 11222925, 11222644, 11220499, 11218713, 11218608, 11217157, 11210334, 11210256, 11210148, 11209127, 11209032, 11207333, 11205931, 11205717, 11205661, 11205172, 11205124, 11205027, 11204803, 11204349, 11204324, 11196805, 11196561, 11196466, 11196091, 11195938, 11195574, 11194380, 11193989, 11192761, 11192283, 11192063, 11190855, 11190840, 11189976, 11187374, 11186903, 11185890, 11185883, 11185132, 11183406, 11180813, 11174713, 11173666, 11173302, 11172299, 11171331, 11170989, 11165434, 11164646, 11162898, 11162502, 11162396, 11161413, 11161230, 11155985, 11155209, 11155181, 11154181, 11153607, 11153334, 11151373, 11151028, 11142595, 11142557, 11142386, 11141775, 11141433, 11141387, 11141347, 11140604, 11139711, 11139226, 11133402, 11132376, 11130998, 11130662, 11129949, 11128704, 11124099, 11123564, 11123353, 11123321, 11122783, 11119475, 11119300, 11118604, 11115088, 11113479, 11113371, 11112371, 11111659, 11111057, 11110919, 11110689, 11104075, 11103844, 11103437, 11102715, 11102333, 11100117, 11099313, 11091006, 11089960, 11089798, 11089533, 11088815, 11088718, 11081072, 11079453, 11073644, 11072718, 11065505, 11061598, 11057739, 11056061, 11055766, 1104”
NHTSAinvestigationApr 2019Open source record
clm_nissan-rogue-2018-investigation-investigation-dp19001-obs-32182018 Nissan RogueEvidence: Limited confidence

The official record describes a potential crash, fire, injury, or loss-of-control consequence.

“False Automatic Emergency Braking NHTSA received a letter from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) on March 21, 2019 alleging that the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system on Model Year (MY) 2017-2018 Nissan Rogue and Rogue Sport vehicles was engaging in cases where there was no obstruction in the path of the vehicle. The CAS petition additionally alleged that, based on Nissan's actions, the manufacturer was aware of the issue due to issuing a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) launching two Quality Actions, and initiation of a Customer Service Initiative in relation to it. CAS contended that Nissan's actions do not represent an adequate long-term solution to the problem, as the action is only available during the basic coverage period of the warranty. CAS also argued that the alleged failures are an unreasonable risk to safety and views Nissan's communications as not acknowledging the potential safety issue involved, instead treating the alleged problem as a performance update.The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 129 unique subject vehicle reports (for all submission dates) alleging a false positive triggering of AEB. Of these complaints, three were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system, and all three indicating related injuries.In response to ODI's April 15, 2019 Information Request letter, Nissan provided data indicating that it has received 750 unique subject vehicle complaints relating to false positive activation of the AEB system. Of these complaints, 12 were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system. Four complaints contained allegations of injuries, three of which were the result of a collision. These complaints included duplicates of complaints that ODI received. The injury allegations were limited to soft tissue type injuries such as whiplash and bruising.Based on its review of the information identified to date, ODI grants this petition and has opened preliminary evaluation PE19-010 in order to evaluate the cause, scope and frequency of AEB false positive activations, as well as to evaluate the suitability of the manufacturer's campaign to address the concern or improve performance of the AEB system. The complaints cited can be viewed at NHTSA.gov under the following ODI identification numbers: 11230875, 11230481, 11230361, 11229400, 11229302, 11229294, 11228994, 11223074, 11222925, 11222644, 11220499, 11218713, 11218608, 11217157, 11210334, 11210256, 11210148, 11209127, 11209032, 11207333, 11205931, 11205717, 11205661, 11205172, 11205124, 11205027, 11204803, 11204349, 11204324, 11196805, 11196561, 11196466, 11196091, 11195938, 11195574, 11194380, 11193989, 11192761, 11192283, 11192063, 11190855, 11190840, 11189976, 11187374, 11186903, 11185890, 11185883, 11185132, 11183406, 11180813, 11174713, 11173666, 11173302, 11172299, 11171331, 11170989, 11165434, 11164646, 11162898, 11162502, 11162396, 11161413, 11161230, 11155985, 11155209, 11155181, 11154181, 11153607, 11153334, 11151373, 11151028, 11142595, 11142557, 11142386, 11141775, 11141433, 11141387, 11141347, 11140604, 11139711, 11139226, 11133402, 11132376, 11130998, 11130662, 11129949, 11128704, 11124099, 11123564, 11123353, 11123321, 11122783, 11119475, 11119300, 11118604, 11115088, 11113479, 11113371, 11112371, 11111659, 11111057, 11110919, 11110689, 11104075, 11103844, 11103437, 11102715, 11102333, 11100117, 11099313, 11091006, 11089960, 11089798, 11089533, 11088815, 11088718, 11081072, 11079453, 11073644, 11072718, 11065505, 11061598, 11057739, 11056061, 11055766, 1104”
NHTSAinvestigationApr 2019Open source record
clm_nissan-rogue-2019-investigation-investigation-pe19010-obs-32552019 Nissan RogueEvidence: Medium confidence

The official record describes a potential crash, fire, injury, or loss-of-control consequence.

“False Automatic Emergency Braking NHTSA received a defect petition (DP19-001) from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) on March 21, 2019 alleging that the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system on Model Year (MY) 2017-2018 Nissan Rogue and Rogue Sport vehicles was engaging in cases where there was no obstruction in the path of the vehicle. The CAS petition additionally alleges that, based on Nissan's actions, the manufacturer is aware of the issue due to issuing a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) launching two "Quality Actions," and initiating a "Customer Service Initiative" in relation to it. CAS contends that Nissan's actions do not represent an adequate long-term solution to the problem, as the action is only available during the basic coverage period of the warranty. CAS also argues that the alleged failures are an unreasonable risk to safety and views Nissan's communications as not acknowledging the potential safety issue involved, instead treating the alleged problem as a performance update.The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 129 unique subject vehicle reports (for all submission dates) alleging a false positive triggering of AEB. Of these complaints, three were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system, and all three indicating related injuries.In response to ODI's April 15, 2019 Information Request letter, Nissan provided data indicating that it has received 750 unique subject vehicle complaints relating to false positive activation of the AEB system. Of these complaints, 12 were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system. Four complaints contained allegations of injuries, three of which were the result of a collision. These complaints included duplicates of complaints that ODI received. The injury allegations were limited to soft tissue type injuries such as whiplash and bruising.Based on its review of the information identified to date, ODI has granted the petition and is opening this preliminary evaluation in order to evaluate the cause, scope and frequency of AEB false positive activations, as well as to evaluate the suitability of the manufacturer's campaign to address the concern or improve performance of the AEB system. The complaints cited can be viewed at NHTSA.gov under the following ODI identification numbers: 11230875, 11230481, 11230361, 11229400, 11229302, 11229294, 11228994, 11223074, 11222925, 11222644, 11220499, 11218713, 11218608, 11217157, 11210334, 11210256, 11210148, 11209127, 11209032, 11207333, 11205931, 11205717, 11205661, 11205172, 11205124, 11205027, 11204803, 11204349, 11204324, 11196805, 11196561, 11196466, 11196091, 11195938, 11195574, 11194380, 11193989, 11192761, 11192283, 11192063, 11190855, 11190840, 11189976, 11187374, 11186903, 11185890, 11185883, 11185132, 11183406, 11180813, 11174713, 11173666, 11173302, 11172299, 11171331, 11170989, 11165434, 11164646, 11162898, 11162502, 11162396, 11161413, 11161230, 11155985, 11155209, 11155181, 11154181, 11153607, 11153334, 11151373, 11151028, 11142595, 11142557, 11142386, 11141775, 11141433, 11141387, 11141347, 11140604, 11139711, 11139226, 11133402, 11132376, 11130998, 11130662, 11129949, 11128704, 11124099, 11123564, 11123353, 11123321, 11122783, 11119475, 11119300, 11118604, 11115088, 11113479, 11113371, 11112371, 11111659, 11111057, 11110919, 11110689, 11104075, 11103844, 11103437, 11102715, 11102333, 11100117, 11099313, 11091006, 11089960, 11089798, 11089533, 11088815, 11088718, 11081072, 11079453, 11073644, 11072718, 11065505, 11061598, 11057739, 11056061, 11055766, 11048349, 11035301, 11033225, and 10972343.”
NHTSAinvestigationSep 2019Open source record
clm_nissan-rogue-2020-recall-recall-23v093000-obs-32872020 Nissan RogueEvidence: Limited confidence

The official record describes a potential crash, fire, injury, or loss-of-control consequence.

“Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2014-2020 Rogue and 2017-2022 Rogue Sport vehicles equipped with a jackknife style ignition key. The jackknife key may collapse into a folded position while driving. Driver contact with a key in the collapsed position could inadvertently shut off the vehicle while driving, increasing the risk of a crash. Additionally, if the vehicle shuts off while driving, the air bags may not deploy in a crash as intended, increasing the risk of injury. Dealers will insert a spacer into the key slot of the jackknife key, free of charge. Interim notification letters notifying owners of the safety risk were mailed March 29, 2023. Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed August 30, 2023. Owners may contact Nissan's customer service at 1-800-867-7669. Nissan's number for this recall is R22C5.”
NHTSArecallOpen source record

Publication contract

Evidence: Limited confidence

Release rel_v4_cohort_20260726 · methodology m1-v4-authority-cohort. Raw complaint totals never choose an avoid year.