2016 Subaru Outback

Odometer Fraud. The contact purchased a 2016 Subaru Outback. The contact stated that after purchasing the vehicle, it was discovered that there was a mileage discrepancy. The vehicle was a private sale, but the contact discovered the seller was associated with a car dealer. At the time of purchase, the vehicle mileage was 87,059. After obtaining a Carfax report, the contact became aware that the mileage was 207,000.

The car accelerates on its own at times. I am not pressing the gas or going down a hill. It is flat road, sometimes even pulling into my driveway. There is also feeling like I am being bumped from the back and moving when I am idle. I am strict about oil changes and have it fully inspected when I take it every 3 months as I am a single mom and cannot afford for my children and I to be hurt in an accident or be without a car.

UNKNOWN When pulling into a parking space at the [XXX] diner my 2016 OUTBACK suddenly accelerated while I was ready to shift from drive to park. It was as if I put the gas peddle to the floor. There was a car about 6feet in front of me which I hit. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

There is a crack in the exhaust manifold and the exhaust smell is entering the cabin affecting driver and passengers' health. The problem has been confirmed by a Subaru dealer and an independent mechanic. There were no warning lights, I was made aware after routine maintenance by an independent mechanic. The same part has failed in multiple Subaru models: Recall WUJ-95 (SOA says my car is not covered in the recall/campaign due to my car's production date being 24 days after the "Affected Production Dates") . Additionally, Subaru of America extended the exhaust pipe warranty on the same part on other models, as late as 2018, so the part continued to be in use and problematic. Subaru of America says replacing the part is not covered by a recall for my car, however I feel strongly that it SOA should replace the part due to the proximity of my production date and the continued issues with the part across multiple models.

The reporting citizen was driving legally on [XXX] going forward towards the parking lot next to the round about when an uncrewed, autonomous commercial vehicle operated by Waymo suffered a catastrophic software/hardware failure. The 6,000-pound driverless robot taxi aggressively pursued and chased the citizen’s vehicle in reverse for that full city block despite honking the horn and then holding it down the entire time as the killing 6,000 lbs robot car kept reversing towards the citizens car instead of going forward, forcing the citizen out into a perpendicular intersecting road onto [XXX] The citizen safely evaded a severe collision solely through high-speed defensive driving, reversing, and holding down the horn to warn surrounding motorists of the out-of-control vehicle. The autonomous system failed to stop, recognize the citizen's vehicle, or register the horn. Upon reviewing the internal vehicle data and footage, Waymo’s corporate office confirmed to the citizen on several calls after the [XXX] reporting that this specific vehicle "went rogue." Waymo admitted the failure was severe enough that they immediately pulled the specific vehicle out of operational service. I have several case #s from Waymo of each call admitting fault. These 6000 lbs killing car robots are NOT SAFE and should not be allowed on public roads where real humans are driving! I can’t sleep since [XXX] due to the nightmares of these killing car robots trying to kill me. I must factor in extra time to go anywhere as I cannot have these killing car robots near me and they are everywhere in my area. I visibly shake and sweat involuntarily whenever I see one of these even from very far away or even think about them—which is pretty much always now since [XXX]. Because Waymo deployed a malfunctioning 6,000-pound autonomous vehicle that aggressively chased a resident on public streets, this is an immediate Public Safety Hazard and Reckless Endangerment issue caused by Waymo. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

While driving the 2016 Subaru Outback, the vehicle experienced a sudden, catastrophic failure of the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). The transmission completely failed, resulting in an immediate and dangerous loss of propulsion while operating the vehicle. This created an immediate safety hazard for myself, my toddler and other drivers on the road, as the vehicle could no longer maintain speed or accelerate safely to clear traffic. A certified repair facility diagnosed the issue as a complete internal mechanical failure of the transmission, requiring a total replacement at an estimated cost of roughly $11,000. This generation of Subaru CVTs has a well-documented history of premature, catastrophic mechanical failure, which Subaru of America has previously acknowledged via past warranty extensions. The sudden loss of power caused by this engineering defect poses a severe and ongoing safety risk to consumers. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

SUBJECT: Formal Safety Defect Complaint: 2016 Subaru Outback – Manufacturing Nondisclosure of Latent "Day 1" Design Flaw Causing Ignition Key Entrapment, Uncommanded Steering Column Lockout, and Severe Family Safety Risk I am writing to formally report a severe, unaddressed safety defect and a deceptive corporate practice by Subaru of America, Inc. affecting my 2016 Subaru Outback. This vehicle suffers from a "Day 1" latent engineering flaw that causes the physical ignition key to become permanently trapped in the ignition cylinder, triggering an uncommanded, rigid locking of the steering column assembly. Subaru has possessed documented knowledge of this failure for years, cataloging it under Technical Service Bulletin TSB 16-112-18R. Rather than fulfilling its statutory obligation to issue a comprehensive federal safety recall, Subaru deployed a voluntary, time-bound 8-year warranty extension. Subaru conveniently did not notify me of this warranty extension. By doing so, the manufacturer unconscionably ignored this defect, placing its customers at direct peril. They capitalized on asymmetric information to shift both the financial burden and the severe physical safety risks of a known factory flaw onto my family, the moment an arbitrary time threshold expired. My family and I have been at active, continuous risk in this vehicle since the day we purchased it due to an engineering error that was present when the car rolled off the assembly line. The root cause of this failure is a fundamental engineering defect within the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) shifter assembly, specifically, the premature degradation of the electrical contacts within the select lever park-range switch.

Vehicle: 2016 Subaru Outback Recall Number: WUJ95 – Front Exhaust Pipe Bellows Crack I incurred repair expenses to address a condition that was later covered by Subaru Recall WUJ95. At the time of the repair, I was unaware that the vehicle was subject to this recall because I never received any recall notification from Subaru. The affected component was the front exhaust pipe bellows assembly covered by Recall WUJ95. The repair was completed by an independent repair facility. The condition involved a cracked exhaust bellows assembly. The failure of this component allowed exhaust gases to escape from the exhaust system into the cabin and is the condition identified by Subaru in Recall WUJ95. The issue was diagnosed and repaired by an independent repair facility. The repair addressed the same component and condition that was subsequently identified by Subaru as part of Recall WUJ95. After learning of the recall, I contacted Subaru of America seeking reimbursement because the repair was completed after the recall had been issued. Subaru denied reimbursement and stated that repairs performed at third-party facilities are not eligible. During the reimbursement review process, I requested documentation showing when and how recall notification was sent to me, including the address used, mailing date, and method of notification. Subaru declined to provide this information. Subaru also declined to provide the specific guidelines relied upon in denying reimbursement. My concern is that I never received recall notification before obtaining the repair, which prevented me from having the recall performed through an authorized Subaru retailer. I am requesting that NHTSA review whether recall notification requirements were properly satisfied in this case and whether vehicle owners are being provided sufficient information to verify recall notification when reimbursement requests are denied.

On 05/08/2026 the brakes failed while in a queue at a drive-up restaurant. The car was steered away to a flat part of the parking lot. After a restart the brakes returned to operation and the car was taken to the dealership where the brake line were flushed and the brake fluid replaced. On 05/25/2026 the brakes failed after backing out of an inclined parking space in a parking garage. The car came to a stop when it backed into a concrete wall. The car was towed to the dealer. The dealer inspected inspected the car and reported that the brakes were working as they should.

Parasitic battery drain due to a faulty DCM module. I've purchase 3 batteries in the past 16 months. I now have to keep a trickle charger on my car at night to ensure my battery is not dead in the morning. Unable to park overnight without charger due to fear of another dead battery.

The DCM (Data Communication Module), also referred to as the Starlink telematics module, has failed. This failure is causing a continuous parasitic battery drain, which rapidly depletes the vehicle’s battery even after charging or replacement. The component remains installed in the vehicle and is available for inspection upon request. The failure has resulted in repeated battery drain and loss of vehicle operability. I have experienced a dead battery approximately 4–6 times between September 2025 and present, and the condition has worsened to the point where the vehicle cannot remain running or operable without the battery dying within approximately 5 minutes. This creates a safety risk because the vehicle can become inoperable without warning, increasing the likelihood of being stranded in unsafe conditions or unable to use the vehicle in an emergency. Yes, the issue has been diagnosed and confirmed by a Subaru dealership, which identified the DCM module as failed and requiring replacement. The failure is consistent with a parasitic battery drain caused by the DCM. The vehicle has been inspected by an authorized Subaru dealership.I have also contacted Subaru of America and opened a case requesting assistance with the repair. The primary symptom was repeated battery drain and failure to start beginning around September 2025. The issue progressed over time, with multiple instances of a dead battery, and has now worsened to the point where the battery drains within minutes, preventing normal vehicle operation. There were no consistent warning lights directly identifying the DCM as the cause prior to diagnosis.

leak in cam carrier gasket caused large ammounts of smoke to fill engine bay and enter cabin air system. Struggled to breath and vision to an extent was obstructed. when car was parked, smoke continued to fill the engine bay. problem was confirmed by an independent technitian, with the vehicle undergoing a complete inspection about a year ago from the dealership of purchase. no warning lamps turned on until enough oil had seeped from the leak in the liquid silicon gasket, at which point the low oil warning light had turned on.