2012 KIA Forte problems

AIR BAGS

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.

NHTSA complaint #11760319 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SERVICE BRAKES

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.

NHTSA complaint #11747944 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

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.

NHTSA complaint #11745725 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

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.

NHTSA complaint #11745725 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ENGINE

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.

NHTSA complaint #11745725 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

AIR BAGS

There is a class action lawsuit concerning the airbag control unit not functioning properly leading to safety issues during a crash. The case is called ZF-TRW Airbag Control Unit Product Liabilty Litigation. Case number XXX My Kia Forte was on the list of recalled vehicles. I have been having electrical problems with my car and this may be the answer I have been looking for !! INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA complaint #11742145 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING

The contact owns a 2012 Kia Forte. The contact stated that upon starting the vehicle, the vehicle made an abnormal knocking sound, and there was a burning oil odor coming from the vehicle. The check engine warning light was illuminated. The contact related the failure to NHTSA Campaign Number: 20V750000 (ENGINE); however, the contact was unable to schedule an appointment because the dealer was unreachable. The manufacturer was not contacted. The failure mileage was approximately 142,000.

NHTSA complaint #11731572 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ENGINE

While driving, the engine suddenly shut off without warning. The vehicle lost power in traffic, creating a safety risk. There were no warning signs before the failure. The oil level was properly maintained and oil changes were performed regularly. The dealership diagnosed the vehicle and stated that the engine needs to be replaced. The exact mechanical cause was not clearly explained to me.

NHTSA complaint #11721956 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ENGINE

Back in July my car started jerking, stalling, and smoking. There was a recall 20v750 open for engine fires. The dealership check it out and said everything looked good. They installed a knock sensor related to the problem. Last week my car did it again leaving me stalled on the interstate at night. There is now a P1326 code for the knock sensor which confirms that there was a issue. However I'm being told that due to my mileage the warranty had expired and there isn't anything they can do.

NHTSA complaint #11697284 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

The contact owns a 2012 Kia Forte. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was a strong fuel odor coming from the vehicle, followed by a loss of motive power. The malfunction indicator light and ABS warning light were illuminated. The contact was able to restart the vehicle; however, the failure recurred. The vehicle was towed to the residence. The dealer was contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 100,000. The VIN was not available.

NHTSA complaint #11694846 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ENGINE

The contact owns a 2012 Kia Forte. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was a strong fuel odor coming from the vehicle, followed by a loss of motive power. The malfunction indicator light and ABS warning light were illuminated. The contact was able to restart the vehicle; however, the failure recurred. The vehicle was towed to the residence. The dealer was contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 100,000. The VIN was not available.

NHTSA complaint #11694846 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

The contact owns a 2012 Kia Forte. The contact stated that the brake lights failed to illuminate, and while inspecting the lights in the rear of the vehicle, the contact became aware that the socket where the brake light bulb was located was melting from the light overheating. The vehicle was taken to the dealer did not diagnose the cause of failure. The brake lights were not repaired. It was confirmed that the VIN was included in NHTSA Campaign Numbers: 18V363000 (Air Bags) and 23V652000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic). The dealer stated that NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V652000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic); recall might have contributed to the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 174,000.

NHTSA complaint #11694456 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

Every two months I have to change the bulb for the break lights. It burns out fast. Not only is it burning out fast but its melting and takes several days for pry the melted material out. Also smells like something is going to catch fire with this. This started over a year ago but I didnt know i can report it to be investigated as a recall.

NHTSA complaint #11693939 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SERVICE BRAKES

Every two months I have to change the bulb for the break lights. It burns out fast. Not only is it burning out fast but its melting and takes several days for pry the melted material out. Also smells like something is going to catch fire with this. This started over a year ago but I didnt know i can report it to be investigated as a recall.

NHTSA complaint #11693939 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ENGINE

The contact owns a 2012 Kia Forte. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the engine suddenly seized, with several unknown warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was not able to restart. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with engine failure. The contact was informed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 69,000.

NHTSA complaint #11687569 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

In forte koups installed with a factory wing allows for water to collect in taillights causeing a no start issue for my vehicle

NHTSA complaint #11684597 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

Kia denied repair and replacement of components damaged by a known safety recall (Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit) on my 2012 Kia Forte Coupe, VIN# [XXX] . There was also a recall on the “Knock Sensor”, but I was unaware of the recall and paid for the repair out of pocket. Specifically, I was seeking repair or replacement of the starter and battery, as well as any other component that I wasn’t aware of, which was compromised as a direct result of the defective HECU system covered under the recall. They denied the repair because they said that the warranty was voided because the car had a salvage title, but the request to repair was not a warranty issue. The recall involves the HECU potentially causing electrical shorts and engine compartment fires, which can damage surrounding electrical components — including the battery and starter. These are not wear-and-tear items in this case, but parts affected by the consequences of a manufacturer-recognized safety defect. The internal electrical short circuit condition of the HECU fuse caused an overcurrent, which resulted in the wire from the solenoid cable of the starter burning and damaging the starter. As well as the wire of the negative battery terminal, which also resulted in the battery being damaged. I even left the battery and the starter on the floor of the car to show proof that these occurrences happened due to the defect of the HECU fused because when I purchased a new battery and starter the overcurrent of the HECU caused white smoke to appear and was about to catch fire and burn out the replacement parts as well. Kia has declined to perform these recall-related repairs, citing that the vehicle holds a salvage title, which was issued due to hail damage only. I respectfully contended that the cosmetic damage had no connection to the mechanical or electrical condition of the vehicle and in no way contributed to the failure of the battery or starter. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA complaint #11673392 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ENGINE

Kia denied repair and replacement of components damaged by a known safety recall (Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit) on my 2012 Kia Forte Coupe, VIN# [XXX] . There was also a recall on the “Knock Sensor”, but I was unaware of the recall and paid for the repair out of pocket. Specifically, I was seeking repair or replacement of the starter and battery, as well as any other component that I wasn’t aware of, which was compromised as a direct result of the defective HECU system covered under the recall. They denied the repair because they said that the warranty was voided because the car had a salvage title, but the request to repair was not a warranty issue. The recall involves the HECU potentially causing electrical shorts and engine compartment fires, which can damage surrounding electrical components — including the battery and starter. These are not wear-and-tear items in this case, but parts affected by the consequences of a manufacturer-recognized safety defect. The internal electrical short circuit condition of the HECU fuse caused an overcurrent, which resulted in the wire from the solenoid cable of the starter burning and damaging the starter. As well as the wire of the negative battery terminal, which also resulted in the battery being damaged. I even left the battery and the starter on the floor of the car to show proof that these occurrences happened due to the defect of the HECU fused because when I purchased a new battery and starter the overcurrent of the HECU caused white smoke to appear and was about to catch fire and burn out the replacement parts as well. Kia has declined to perform these recall-related repairs, citing that the vehicle holds a salvage title, which was issued due to hail damage only. I respectfully contended that the cosmetic damage had no connection to the mechanical or electrical condition of the vehicle and in no way contributed to the failure of the battery or starter. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA complaint #11673392 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.