2025 Volvo XC90 Reliability Report

The contact owns a 2025 Volvo XC90. The contact stated that while driving through a construction zone at an undisclosed speed, the lane-keeping assist malfunctioned, causing the vehicle to become erratic, which required the contact to forcefully engage the steering wheel to regain control of the vehicle. There was no warning light illuminated. The dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 18,000.

The original OEM tires on a 2025 Volvo XC90 (purchased new in March 2025) failed prematurely due to what appears to be a manufacturing defect. Tire size: [e.g. 275/45R20]. Brand: [e.g. Pirelli Scorpion]. DOT: 193 7B594P 1924 (manufactured week 19 of 2024). The vehicle's original tires were removed in November 2025 for winter tire installation, at which point the odometer showed 6,808 miles. The tires were stored indoors in bags and never used again until April 2026, when a professional tire shop (Discount Tire) refused to remount them on the vehicle citing unsafe condition. The tires exhibit severe sidewall bulging, starburst cracking indicating internal structural failure, and at least one tire shows a deep gash with internal steel cords exposed. Three of the four original tires are affected. The fourth original tire was replaced in June 2025 after it failed during normal highway driving - the cause was attributed to a road hazard at the time but is now believed to be the same underlying defect. The replacement tire (a different unit purchased separately) shows no defects whatsoever. The safety risk is significant: three tires with structural sidewall failure were on an active vehicle for the first 6,808 miles of its life, including at highway speeds. One tire experienced an in-service failure. The remaining three deteriorated to the point a professional installer deemed them unsafe to mount. The failed tires are available for inspection. The problem has been confirmed by an independent tire service center (Discount Tire) who refused to install due to safety concerns. The manufacturer has not yet inspected the tires. There were no warning lamps or prior symptoms before the June 2025 in-service failure, and no visible signs of the sidewall damage were observed until the tires were removed from storage in April 2026.

I am filing this complaint regarding misleading and inconsistent safety labeling on the Nuna REVV convertible car seat. The car seat’s physical sticker, the Nuna website product page, and the user manual all contain conflicting information about the height and weight limits for different installation configurations (vehicle belt vs. lower anchor, rear-facing vs. forward-facing). Specifically: • The website listed rear-facing use with vehicle belt as 5–30 lbs with a height range of 18–34 inches, and lower anchor belt as 5–30 lbs. The sticker on the seat displayed the height limit only for certain configurations, suggesting height was not a factor for others. • After I raised the discrepancy, Nuna’s own customer service team initially told me the sticker was correct and the lower anchor configuration had different limits. They later reversed course after consulting their CPST team, confirming that the rear-facing maximum is 30 lbs OR 34 inches for ALL installation methods — contradicting what both the sticker and website indicated. • This means both the NHTSA-approved sticker on the seat and the website contained incorrect or misleading information at the time of purchase. My [XXX] son ([XXX]) has been using this seat rear-facing based on the published specifications, but is actually over the height limit. This is a serious safety concern. Car seat labels are NHTSA-regulated and are the primary resource parents use to determine safe use. Conflicting information between the label, manual, and website creates a situation where children may be used outside the seat’s tested parameters without their parents’ knowledge. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the labeling on the Nuna REVV to determine whether it meets federal safety labeling standards and whether a corrective action or recall is warranted. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Two major incidents occurred: 1)My fiance and I were driving on the highway with our four children at a speed of >50 MPH. There were no cars around us (front or sides) and no debris in the road, and the automatic emergency braking system engaged and brought the car to an abrupt stop in the middle of the highway. It happened a second time shortly thereafter at a speed around 30 MPH, again without any obstructions. I'm happy to provide the car for inspection upon request unless the manufacturer takes responsibility for this very serious malfunction and grants us a manufacturer buy-back. Stopping abruptly for no reason on the highway could have caused someone to rear-end us at a high speed and could have caused a very serious or fatal crash. I have spoken to the dealer multiple times (and I filed a complaint with Volvo Customer Care several weeks ago) and they say they'll try to "fix" it, but it's not a problem that we can ever risk having happen again. It is being inspected at the dealership now. There was no warning that this would occur. 2) There is a feature called "auto hold" whereby the driver can take their foot off the brake while sitting at a stop light and the car doesn't move again until the driver puts their foot on the accelerator. I was sitting at a stop light, using the auto hold feature, and even though I didn't put my foot on the accelerator, auto hold disengaged and the car started moving and hit the person in front of me. The malfunction of both the "auto hold" feature and the crash avoidance feature caused me to get in an auto accident. The dealer has the car and they're waiting for Volvo Customer Care to give them instructions about what to do. There were no warnings (like what normally would happen if the car is approaching something it thinks it might hit).

I am filing this report regarding a serious and potentially dangerous issue with my 2025 Volvo XC90 (VIN: [XXX]), purchased new on [XXX]. On [XXX], with only 4,516 miles, I experienced a sudden and unexplained drop in tire pressure while driving. I pulled over safely, replaced the flat with a temporary tire, and took it to a local tire shop. The technician informed me that the rear passenger-side rim had a severe internal crack on the inside barrel, causing an air leak. There was no visible damage to the tire, no pothole impact, no curb hit—only a clean break in the rim, which suggests a possible structural or manufacturing defect. I immediately brought the car to the original dealership (Volvo Cars Clear Lake in Friendswood, TX), where Service Advisor Jared Black dismissed my concern and refused to cover the repair under warranty, claiming the rim must have hit a rock. I disagreed and requested documentation of this finding, but Mr. Black initially refused to provide the inspection report. After persistent arguing and a 5-hour wait at the service center, I was finally given a report showing a $2,338.99 wheel replacement recommendation, not covered by warranty. I bought a Volvo for its safety reputation, but this rim cracked under normal driving conditions and low mileage. A failure like this at highway speeds could have been catastrophic. I believe this warrants an official safety investigation to determine whether other 2025 Volvo XC90 rims may be at risk of similar failure. Please investigate. I have documentation available and am willing to provide additional information. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)