2016 Subaru Outback Recalls, Ratings & Complaints

Incident: October 8, 2026 · Filed: November 2, 2026

I am submitting this complaint concerning a failure of the front exhaust assembly on my 2016 Subaru Outback 2.5L. the dealership diagnosed a leak at the exhaust bellows in the front exhaust assembly and recommended replacing the assembly. I proceeded with the repair at a cost exceeding $3,000. I subsequently learned of Subaru Service Campaign WUJ-95, which addresses cracking of the bellows in the front exhaust pipe, including the catalytic converter, on certain 2015–2016 Subaru Legacy and Outback 2.5L vehicles. Subaru has informed me that my vehicle's VIN is not included in the campaign. However, the component and type of failure described in the campaign appear relevant to the failure experienced by my vehicle. I contacted Subaru of America Customer Advocacy and requested an explanation of the technical distinction between the condition addressed by WUJ-95 and the failure diagnosed in my vehicle. Subaru declined to compare the conditions and denied my request for goodwill assistance or reimbursement. The company considers its review complete. I recognize that my vehicle's failure does not automatically establish that it qualifies for the existing campaign. However, I am concerned that a similar failure of the front exhaust bellows occurred in a vehicle of the same model year and engine type. I respectfully request that NHTSA review this report in conjunction with other complaints and available technical information to determine whether the failure warrants further examination, including whether it may affect emissions performance or present other safety concerns.

Incident: August 9, 2026 · Filed: August 20, 2026

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.

Incident: August 14, 2026 · Filed: August 18, 2026

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.

Incident: August 2, 2026 · Filed: August 10, 2026

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)

Incident: April 2, 2026 · Filed: July 20, 2026

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.

Incident: May 8, 2026 · Filed: July 1, 2026

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)

Incident: May 8, 2026 · Filed: June 15, 2026

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)

Incident: May 21, 2026 · Filed: June 9, 2026

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.

Incident: February 1, 2026 · Filed: June 1, 2026

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.

Incident: May 25, 2026 · Filed: May 28, 2026

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.