Kia America, Inc. (Kia) is recalling certain 2010-2019 Borrego, 2014-2016 Cadenza, 2010-2013 Forte, Forte Koup, Sportage, 2015-2018 K900, 2011-2015 Optima, 2011-2013 Optima Hybrid, Soul, 2012-2017 Rio, 2011-2014 Sorento, and 2010-2011 Rondo vehicles. The Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit (HECU) may experience an electrical short, which can result in an engine compartment fire while parked or driving.
Kia Motors America (Kia) is recalling certain 2012-2013 Sorento, 2012-2015 Forte and Forte Koup, 2011-2013 Optima Hybrid, 2014-2015 Soul, and 2012 Sportage vehicles. An engine compartment fire can occur while driving.
Kia Motors America (Kia) is recalling certain 2010-2013 Kia Forte, Forte Koup, 2011-2013 Kia Optima and 2011-2012 Kia Optima Hybrid and Sedona vehicles. In the event of a crash, the air bag control unit (ACU) may short circuit, preventing the frontal air bags and seat belt pretensioners from deploying.
Kia Motors America (Kia) is recalling certain 2012-2014 Forte and Forte Koup vehicles. The brake pedal stopper pad can deteriorate allowing the brake light switch plunger to remain extended when the brake pedal is released. This will allow the brake lights to remain illuminated continuously. It can also allow the shift lever to be moved without depressing the brake pedal, or activate the engine management brake pedal override feature.
VEHICLE & INCIDENT DETAILS * Vehicle: 2012 Kia Forte Hatchback * VIN: KNAFU5A26C5641380 * Incident Date: August 21, 2026 * Relevant Recalls: NHTSA Campaign 23V652000 (Recall SC284) & NHTSA Campaign 20V750000 (Recall SC200) * Kia Corporate Case Number: 26367714 * Dealership: AllStar Kia San Bernardino, CA COMPLAINT DESCRIPTION I am filing a formal safety complaint regarding a severe vehicle fire incident involving a vehicle subject to active fire safety recalls, and subsequent corporate misconduct that threatens the integrity of the federal safety recall evidence. On August 21, 2026, my 2012 Kia Forte Hatchback suffered an engine compartment fire while parked. The fire originated in the center engine area, which directly aligns with the failure footprints outlined in federal fire safety recalls SC200 (20V-750) and SC284 (23V-652). I personally extinguished the fire, and the vehicle is a total loss. Following the incident, Kia America opened corporate product liability case #26367714, and the vehicle was towed to AllStar Kia San Bernardino for formal review. Kia America and its local dealership are now engaging in coercive tactics that actively obstruct a proper safety investigation. The dealership is pressuring me to sign a standard mechanical "repair order". I have explicitly refused to sign this order because it authorizes local mechanics to dismantle, alter, or touch the vehicle, which would compromise or permanently destroy critical fire evidence before a qualified corporate product liability review takes place. I have formally provided Kia Corporate with a conditional authorization allowing ONLY a certified Kia Corporate Fire Investigator to inspect the vehicle on-site. In response, Kia Corporate sent an email explicitly threatening that if I do not provide an unconditional signature on the dealership's repair order, they will refuse to proceed with the safety investigation and will force a flatbed to tow the fire-damaged vehicle back to my pri
Airbag light came on August 21, 2026. I tried several steps to troubleshoot with no resolution. I took it to the local Kia dealership for further inspection. I was terrified to drive the vehicle because of the airbag failure. I explained to the technician that I had read that there was an warranty extension for the exact clock spring failure. I met the qualification (2011-2016 /unlimited mileage) but I was required to pay $493.05 for this repair.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
The contact owns a 2012 Kia Forte. The contact stated that while the vehicle was parked, the contact noticed an abnormal sound for approximately five minutes, and the check engine warning light illuminated. The contact then became aware of a fire underneath the vehicle. The contact opened the hood and extinguished the fire using water and dirt. The vehicle was unoccupied. The contact stated that the vehicle had just been parked, and the engine was off prior to the failure. The dealer was made aware of the failure but provided no assistance. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V652000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic). The manufacturer was made aware of the failure but provided no assistance. The contact was advised to tow the vehicle to the dealer for a diagnostic test. The failure mileage was approximately 135,000.
My vehicle is a 2012 Kia Forte EX. The vehicle experienced a corrosion-related brake line failure that affected braking performance and created a safety concern. The brake pedal became soft/sank, and the vehicle had unsafe braking behavior, requiring repair at a Kia dealership. The failed component was a brake line, which is a safety-critical part of the braking system. The repair was completed at customer expense after Kia declined goodwill or reimbursement assistance. Kia Customer Care case number: 2622663. My concern is that this does not appear to be ordinary wear only. This vehicle had prior Kia underbody corrosion campaign history under SC141, titled “Application of Additional Anti-Corrosion Material.” Kia confirmed to me that SC141 involved applying additional anti-corrosion/undercoating/cavity wax material to certain underbody components to help protect against corrosion. Kia also confirmed that SC141 was completed on my vehicle before the brake-line repair. Kia’s position is that SC141 did not cover brake lines or brake replacement, and that brake-line corrosion is normal maintenance/customer-pay because the vehicle is out of warranty. I understand Kia’s warranty position, but my complaint is about the safety issue and possible design-related corrosion vulnerability. The failed brake line appears to be routed in an underbody area exposed to corrosion risk, possibly near hardware, brackets, covers, or areas where salt/water can collect. In my view, this may represent a corrosion-trap design issue involving the routing/location of a safety-critical brake line, rather than simple routine maintenance. I am filing this complaint because corrosion-related brake line failure can result in reduced braking ability or loss of braking, and I believe this issue should be documented and reviewed for potential safety-defect trends involving this vehicle/platform.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
Vehicle: 2012 Kia Forte Recall: NHTSA 23V-652 (Kia SC284) – HECU/ABS fuse recall My vehicle underwent this safety recall in 2025. The dealership replaced the HECU fuse. Immediately upon leaving the dealership after the recall repair, the same warning lights returned. I contacted the dealership immediately before fully leaving the area to report the issue. I also contacted Kia Corporate after the warning condition returned. Kia was aware the warning lights returned immediately after recall completion. I was advised if the vehicle later entered limp mode again, to contact Kia roadside assistance for towing support per prior guidance. The warning condition was not resolved by the recall repair. The brake warning light remained present, additional warning indicators later appeared, and the vehicle ultimately entered limp mode in January 2026, resulting in loss of reliable transportation and safety concerns. Due to this condition, I was forced to rely on a rental vehicle for an extended period at significant personal cost totaling several thousand dollars. I'm a single parent with a child requiring ongoing medical appointments, making reliable transportation essential. Kia only approved a limited "goodwill payment" of $191.40 for an earlier rental period, while refusing reimbursement for the substantially larger rental costs incurred after the recall failure and progression to limp mode. When the vehicle entered limp mode, I had to arrange towing because Kia assistance was not available as they closed out the recall. Kia is now requiring out-of-pocket diagnostic payment before determining whether the issue is related to Recall 23V-652, despite the warning condition returning immediately after recall repair and later progressing to limp mode consistent with the original failure symptoms. I am reporting a potentially ineffective recall remedy and unresolved recurrence of the safety condition addressed under Recall 23V-652.
No injuries · No fire · No crash