2017 GENESIS G90 — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data

November 2, 2025 at 12:19 PM, I received a call from the owner, Jose, who accused me of “assault” against his employee Toni—despite the fact that I have never been physically near Toni. I’ve only been calling to follow up on the unresolved safety issues: no fluids, bad brakes (which they claimed to have repaired), and rear tires with no tread at all. When they repaired the brakes, I would have gladly purchased new tires had I been informed.

On November 3rd at 8:23 PM, I found myself stranded on the side of the highway once again—this time due to exposed tread and a large bubble on the tire. It’s deeply troubling that a vehicle was sold in such unsafe condition. This raises serious questions about the seller’s standards and accountability.

November 5, 2023 at 12:33pm third flat tire and the spare blew out into pieces after one day.

On November 8, 2025 at 11:30am, the second bald tire completely blew out while I was driving on 595. This was not just an inconvenience—it was a life‑threatening situation. I could have been killed. The fact that this dealership allowed such unsafe tires to be sold or installed shows a complete disregard for customer safety.This is absolutely unacceptable. Their negligence puts lives at risk. Avoid this dealership at all costs

November 29, 7:57pm
supposedly changed the brakes and the rear brakes are grinding another safety issue

November 30 6:54pm
before leaving McMahon I’d asked to check the fluids.  Then when they supposedly charge brakes to check the fluids again.  Guess what they never checked all the fluids were gone.

December 2, 11:34am McMahon was supposed to fix the brakes well, surprise they did not fix the brakes putting me and my family’s life in danger. FLORIDA STATUE legalclarity....

Exceptions Under FDUTPA

• The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) prohibits dealers from engaging in deceptive or unfair conduct—even in “as is” salesIf the dealer falsely claimed the car was inspected

November 2, 2025 at 12:19 PM, I received a call from the owner, Jose, who accused me of “assault” against his employee Toni—despite the fact that I have never been physically near Toni. I’ve only been calling to follow up on the unresolved safety issues: no fluids, bad brakes (which they claimed to have repaired), and rear tires with no tread at all. When they repaired the brakes, I would have gladly purchased new tires had I been informed.

On November 3rd at 8:23 PM, I found myself stranded on the side of the highway once again—this time due to exposed tread and a large bubble on the tire. It’s deeply troubling that a vehicle was sold in such unsafe condition. This raises serious questions about the seller’s standards and accountability.

November 5, 2023 at 12:33pm third flat tire and the spare blew out into pieces after one day.

On November 8, 2025 at 11:30am, the second bald tire completely blew out while I was driving on 595. This was not just an inconvenience—it was a life‑threatening situation. I could have been killed. The fact that this dealership allowed such unsafe tires to be sold or installed shows a complete disregard for customer safety.This is absolutely unacceptable. Their negligence puts lives at risk. Avoid this dealership at all costs

November 29, 7:57pm
supposedly changed the brakes and the rear brakes are grinding another safety issue

November 30 6:54pm
before leaving McMahon I’d asked to check the fluids.  Then when they supposedly charge brakes to check the fluids again.  Guess what they never checked all the fluids were gone.

December 2, 11:34am McMahon was supposed to fix the brakes well, surprise they did not fix the brakes putting me and my family’s life in danger. FLORIDA STATUE legalclarity....

Exceptions Under FDUTPA

• The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) prohibits dealers from engaging in deceptive or unfair conduct—even in “as is” salesIf the dealer falsely claimed the car was inspected

* Recall Campaign Number : [018G, 019G] I. Statement of Complaint This complaint concerns a failure in a critical safety-related component that was previously addressed under a mandatory manufacturer recall, and the subsequent refusal by the authorized dealership to provide a second no-charge repair for the same repeated failure. II. Chronology of Events * Original Recall Repair: Approximately thirteen (13) months ago, 8/30/2024 the vehicle was taken to Anaheim Hyundai to address a safety recall concerning the oil feed pipe. The prescribed remedy, a replacement of the oil feed pipe, was completed at no cost under the recall campaign. * Second Failure (Current Event): On or about 10/6/2025, while the vehicle’s engine was running, I observed smoke rising from the engine compartment. The vehicle was immediately taken to a local independent mechanic who diagnosed the issue as a burst oil feed pipe—the identical component subject to the prior recall. * Attempted Repair at Anaheim Hyundai (Denial): The vehicle was then towed back to Anaheim Hyundai. The service department acknowledged that the component failure was the same issue addressed in the previous recall. However, the dealership has now refused to perform the repair under the recall process, citing a specific 12-month policy set by Hyundai Motor America regarding the warranty on recall remedies, which has now expired. III. Request for Intervention The failure of the previously installed recall remedy (the oil feed pipe) exposes the vehicle to the original safety risk, including potential engine failure and fire hazards, and the manufacturer’s refusal to re-remedy the defect effectively negates the purpose of the mandatory recall. I request that NHTSA investigate this matter and compel Hyundai Motor America to: * Honor the original safety recall and provide a permanent, effective remedy at no charge to the consumer. * Clarify the consumer's right regarding the warranty on recall remedies, fails after install

* Recall Campaign Number : [018G, 019G] I. Statement of Complaint This complaint concerns a failure in a critical safety-related component that was previously addressed under a mandatory manufacturer recall, and the subsequent refusal by the authorized dealership to provide a second no-charge repair for the same repeated failure. II. Chronology of Events * Original Recall Repair: Approximately thirteen (13) months ago, 8/30/2024 the vehicle was taken to Anaheim Hyundai to address a safety recall concerning the oil feed pipe. The prescribed remedy, a replacement of the oil feed pipe, was completed at no cost under the recall campaign. * Second Failure (Current Event): On or about 10/6/2025, while the vehicle’s engine was running, I observed smoke rising from the engine compartment. The vehicle was immediately taken to a local independent mechanic who diagnosed the issue as a burst oil feed pipe—the identical component subject to the prior recall. * Attempted Repair at Anaheim Hyundai (Denial): The vehicle was then towed back to Anaheim Hyundai. The service department acknowledged that the component failure was the same issue addressed in the previous recall. However, the dealership has now refused to perform the repair under the recall process, citing a specific 12-month policy set by Hyundai Motor America regarding the warranty on recall remedies, which has now expired. III. Request for Intervention The failure of the previously installed recall remedy (the oil feed pipe) exposes the vehicle to the original safety risk, including potential engine failure and fire hazards, and the manufacturer’s refusal to re-remedy the defect effectively negates the purpose of the mandatory recall. I request that NHTSA investigate this matter and compel Hyundai Motor America to: * Honor the original safety recall and provide a permanent, effective remedy at no charge to the consumer. * Clarify the consumer's right regarding the warranty on recall remedies, fails after install

The contact owns a 2017 Genesis G90. The contact stated that while driving at 50 MPH, the check engine warning light illuminated. The driver immediately pulled over. The vehicle was towed to the local dealer, where it was diagnosed, and it was determined that four crankshaft position sensors and the valve cover gasket needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure recurred. The contact called the local dealer and was informed that the failure might be related to the timing chain. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 100,000.