NHTSA Database
Complaints Analysis
A comprehensive analysis of Tesla-related complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, revealing patterns in safety concerns, technical issues, and warranty-related failures.
Complaint Analysis Areas
Complaint Distribution Analysis
Top Component Categories
Complaints by Model
Key Insights
Analysis of the 18,832 NHTSA complaints reveals several critical patterns:
- Forward Collision Systems represent the largest complaint category, with many owners reporting phantom braking incidents.
- Model 3 vehicles generate the highest volume of complaints despite being introduced after Model S/X.
- Nearly 25% of complaints involve crash incidents, suggesting significant safety concerns.
- There are multiple complaint spikes coinciding with major software releases and recall announcements.
- Complaints show a statistical clustering around warranty thresholds, particularly at 4-year and 8-year marks.
NHTSA Complaints Explorer
Explore the full NHTSA complaints database for Tesla vehicles. Use the search, filter, and sort capabilities to analyze specific aspects of the complaints. The table below contains 18,832 entries.
| ID | Model | Year | Component | Description | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading data... | |||||
Data Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) complaint database. Last updated: April 2024.
Complaint Trends Over Time
Year-over-Year Growth
Complaint submissions have shown a significant increase since 2020, with:
- 2020: 1,427 complaints
- 2021: 2,842 complaints (+99%)
- 2022: 5,783 complaints (+103%)
- 2023: 7,251 complaints (+25%)
Key Observations
- Highest monthly peak: December 2022
- Most rapid growth period: Q3 2021 - Q2 2022
- Seasonal pattern: Higher reports in winter months (potentially related to battery/range issues)
- Correlation observed with major FSD Beta releases and software updates
Severity Analysis
Crash Incidents
Reported accidents involving Tesla vehicles
System Failures
Critical system malfunctions reported
Safety Concerns
Potential safety risks reported (non-crash)
Severity Implications
The severity analysis reveals several concerning patterns:
- Nearly 25% of all complaints involve vehicle crashes or accidents, with 27% of those resulting in injuries.
- System failures account for the largest category (47.4% of all complaints), with software issues representing the majority.
- Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) features are implicated in more than half of all safety concern reports.
- The data shows a concerning trend where component failures often escalate to safety issues before being addressed.
- Multiple complaints document delayed service appointments for safety-critical issues, sometimes exceeding 4-6 weeks.
Comprehensive Failure Analysis by Component
Top 10 Component Failures
Failure Timing Relative to Warranty
Suspension Component Failures
Suspension failures represent a significant portion of complaints, with 1,368 reports recorded in the NHTSA database. Analysis shows several patterns:
- Control arms and fore/aft links are the most commonly reported failing components
- Failures frequently occur between 45,000-65,000 miles, often just outside warranty limits
- Multiple owners report technicians acknowledging design flaws during repairs
- Replacement parts often feature design improvements (aluminum to steel, stronger/thicker components)
- Suspension failures present significant safety concerns, including loss of vehicle control
Representative Quote (CMPLID 1885943):
"Control arm broke at 25mph. Tesla service center acknowledged this was a known safety issue with this particular part, but refused warranty coverage since the vehicle was outside the basic warranty period."
MCU/Touchscreen Failures
Media Control Unit (MCU) and touchscreen failures account for a significant percentage of complaints, particularly in pre-2018 Model S and Model X vehicles:
- eMMC memory chip wear-out is the primary cause, exacerbated by Tesla's excessive logging
- Failures typically occur after 3-5 years of use, often just after warranty expiration
- Safety implications include loss of backup camera, defrosters, turn signal indicators, and warning sounds
- Despite NHTSA recall 21V035, many owners report difficulties obtaining warranty coverage
- Replacement costs range from $1,500 to $3,000+, with Tesla often suggesting MCU2 upgrades at higher costs
Representative Quote (CMPLID 1673903):
"MCU failed, disabling defroster and critical safety systems. Paid $1,800 out of warranty. Service advisor admitted it was a known design flaw with the memory chip that affects virtually all vehicles of this generation."
Safety Restraint System Failures
Safety Restraint System (SRS) faults are particularly prevalent in Model 3 vehicles, with significant safety implications:
- Passenger occupancy sensor (OCS) failures and wiring harness issues are most common
- Problems often recur even after warranty repairs, suggesting underlying design issues
- Multiple Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) exist addressing these issues (SB-21-17-005, SB-23-20-002)
- Repairs frequently require expensive component replacements ($800-$2,000) when out of warranty
- Critical safety concern: airbags may not deploy correctly in the event of a collision
Representative Quote (CMPLID 2002570):
"Passenger restraint fault (RCM_a056) requires OCS filter, retrofit and airbag replacement ($1,768). Service confirmed this is a known issue with a specific TSB, but refused coverage as vehicle is out of warranty."
Warranty Pattern Analysis
Analysis of the NHTSA complaint database reveals concerning patterns in the timing of component failures relative to warranty coverage:
Timing Clusters
- Statistical analysis shows failure spikes at 48-54 months (4-year warranty threshold)
- Mileage-based failures cluster notably around 50,000-55,000 miles (basic warranty limit)
- A secondary spike occurs at 96-102 months (8-year extended warranty threshold)
- Complainants frequently use phrases like "just out of warranty" or "x weeks after warranty expired"
Warranty Denial Patterns
- Common denial reasons: "wear and tear," "outside influence," "environmental factors"
- Component classification disputes (e.g., PCS being excluded from battery warranty)
- Delays in service appointments that push repairs beyond warranty periods
- Inconsistent application of goodwill coverage for known issues
- Regional differences in warranty handling (e.g., recalls in China vs. U.S.)
Conclusion
The data shows statistically improbable clustering of major component failures around warranty thresholds, suggesting a potential mismatch between warranty terms and actual component durability. Safety-critical systems are frequently implicated, raising concerns beyond mere financial impact to owners.
Methodology
Our warranty pattern analysis methodology included:
- Scanning complaint descriptions for warranty-related keywords ("warranty", "out of warranty", "expired", "not covered", "denied", "recall", "TSB", etc.)
- Extracting relevant details: complaint ID, model, year, mileage at failure, date, component description, and warranty aspects
- Analyzing the extracted data for patterns, common components, recurring denial reasons, and timing relative to warranty periods
- Identifying statistical anomalies in failure timing distributions relative to warranty thresholds
- Compiling representative examples to illustrate the identified patterns across multiple vehicle systems
Explore Related Research
Discover our additional Tesla research covering patent analysis, battery history, and critical disclosure documentation.