The magnetic chest clip comes apart with minimal effort. Just pressure from my fingers on back the clip fails. I’m concerned if the clip fails just by a small amount of pressure from my fingers it will fail during a crash.
The worst 2017 Nissan Rogue problems
Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.
Problems by type
Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.
- Transmission123
- Brakes114
- Driver assistance88
- Electrical75
- Airbags72
- Engine70
- Acceleration41
- Seats28
- Body24
- Steering24
- Fuel system18
- Visibility13
- Seat belts11
- Suspension11
- Lights8
- Wheels6
- Locks1
- Tires1
Specific symptoms reported on the 2017 Nissan Rogue
Stalling 48CVT failure 45Check engine light 35Transmission failure 32Jerking 31Airbag light 21No deployment 20Hesitation 17Grinding brakes 14Phantom braking 13Fire or smoke 12Sunroof shattered 12Slipping 11ABS 10Loss of power 9Water leak 9Adaptive cruise 7Collision warning 7Won't shift 7Sudden acceleration 7Won't start 7Engine failure 6Headlights 6Seat belt 6Door locks 5Key fob 5Overheating 5
Trouble codes owners of the 2017 Nissan Rogue mention
P0776 6C1111 2P1715 2
Recalls 5
Electrical system: ignition: anti-theft: immobilizer/proximity: key/sender
- What is wrong
- Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2014-2020 Rogue and 2017-2022 Rogue Sport vehicles equipped with a jackknife style ignition key. The jackknife key may collapse into a folded position while driving.
- Risk
- Driver contact with a key in the collapsed position could inadvertently shut off the vehicle while driving, increasing the risk of a crash. Additionally, if the vehicle shuts off while driving, the air bags may not deploy in a crash as intended, increasing the risk of injury.
- Remedy
- Dealers will insert a spacer into the key slot of the jackknife key, free of charge. Interim notification letters notifying owners of the safety risk were mailed March 29, 2023. Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed August 30, 2023. Owners may contact Nissan's customer service at 1‑800‑867‑7669. Nissan's number for this recall is R22C5.
Recall number 23V093000 · Recall details
Electrical system: wiring
- What is wrong
- Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2017 Rogue vehicles. Water may leak into and corrode the dash side harness connector.
- Risk
- A corroded dash side harness connector increases the risk of a fire.
- Remedy
- Dealers will apply grease and repair any corroded connector as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed January 20, 2023. Owners may contact Nissan's customer service at 1‑800‑867‑7669. Nissan's number for this recall is PC934.
Recall number 22V875000 · Recall details
Engine and engine cooling: engine: engine control module (ecu/ECM)
- What is wrong
- Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2017-2019 Rogue Hybrid vehicles. Contact with the Electronic Control Module (ECM) bracket may damage the engine harness, causing a blown fuse.
- Risk
- A blown fuse may cause an engine stall, increasing the risk of a crash.
- Remedy
- Dealers will install a harness protector cover, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed December 16, 2021. Owners may contact Nissan customer service at 1‑800‑867‑7669. Nissan's number for this recall is R21B6.
Recall number 21V839000 · Recall details
Seats
- What is wrong
- Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2016-2017 Nissan Rogue vehicles. The recliner joints on the lower seat frame for the rear seats may have improper welds. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) number 207, "Seating Systems," and 210, "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages."
- Risk
- The insufficient welds can increase the risk of injury to the occupants in the event of a crash.
- Remedy
- Nissan will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the seat frames and replace any defective lower seat frames, free of charge. The recall began December 6, 2017. Owners may contact Nissan customer service at 1‑800‑647‑7261.
Recall number 17V663000 · Recall details
Air bags: sensor: occupant classification
- What is wrong
- Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain model year 2016-2017 Nissan Maxima, 2013-2016 Nissan Altima, NV200, LEAF, Sentra, and Pathfinder, 2014-2016 Nissan NV200 Taxi, Infiniti QX60, QX60 Hybrid, and Q50 Hybrid, 2014-2017 Nissan Rogue and Infiniti Q50, 2015-2016 Nissan Murano, Murano Hybrid, and Chevrolet City Express, 2014-2015 Nissan Pathfinder Hybrid, and 2013 Infiniti JX35 vehicles. In these vehicles, the front seat passenger Occupant Classification System (OCS) may incorrectly classify an adult passenger as a child or classify the seat as empty despite it being occupied. As a result, the passenger frontal air bag may be turned off and not deploy in the event of a crash.
- Risk
- If the passenger frontal air bag does not deploy as intended in the event of a crash, the passenger is at an increased risk of injury.
- Remedy
- Nissan will notify their owners. Chevrolet City Express owners will be notified by General Motors. Dealers will reprogram the Air Bag Control Unit (ACU) and OCS Electronic Control Unit (ECU) in Altima, Maxima, Murano, Rogue, and Sentra vehicles, and replace the OCS ECU in LEAF, NV200, NV200 Taxi, Pathfinder, Infiniti Q50, JX35, and QX60 and Chevrolet City Express vehicles, free of charge. Interim notices were sent to owners on May 31, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Nissan customer service at 1‑800‑867‑7669, Infiniti customer service at 1‑888‑833‑3216 or Chevrolet customer service at 1‑800‑222‑1020.
Recall number 16V244000 · Recall details
See all 5 recalls for the 2017 Nissan Rogue
Defect investigations
False Automatic Emergency Braking
the federal safety agency received a defect petition (DP19-001) from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) on March 21, 2019 alleging that the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system on Model Year (MY) 2017-2018 Nissan Rogue and Rogue Sport vehicles was engaging in cases where there was no obstruction in the path of the vehicle. The CAS petition additionally alleges that, based on Nissan's actions, the manufacturer is aware of the issue due to issuing a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) launching two "Quality Actions," and initiating a "Customer Service Initiative" in relation to it. CAS contends that Nissan's actions do not represent an adequate long-term solution to the problem, as the action is only available during the basic coverage period of the warranty. CAS also argues that the alleged failures are an unreasonable risk to safety and views Nissan's communications as not acknowledging the potential safety issue involved, instead treating the alleged problem as a performance update.The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 129 unique subject vehicle reports (for all submission dates) alleging a false positive triggering of AEB. Of these complaints, three were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system, and all three indicating related injuries.In response to ODI's April 15, 2019 Information Request letter, Nissan provided data indicating that it has received 750 unique subject vehicle complaints relating to false positive activation of the AEB system. Of these complaints, 12 were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system. Four complaints contained allegations of injuries, three of which were the result of a collision. These complaints included duplicates of complaints that ODI received. The injury allegations were limited to soft tissue type injuries such as whiplash and bruising.Based on its review of the information identified to date, ODI has granted the petition and is opening this preliminary evaluation in order to evaluate the cause, scope and frequency of AEB false positive activations, as well as to evaluate the suitability of the manufacturer's campaign to address the concern or improve performance of the AEB system. The complaints cited can be viewed at under the following ODI identification numbers: 11230875, 11230481, 11230361, 11229400, 11229302, 11229294, 11228994, 11223074, 11222925, 11222644, 11220499, 11218713, 11218608, 11217157, 11210334, 11210256, 11210148, 11209127, 11209032, 11207333, 11205931, 11205717, 11205661, 11205172, 11205124, 11205027, 11204803, 11204349, 11204324, 11196805, 11196561, 11196466, 11196091, 11195938, 11195574, 11194380, 11193989, 11192761, 11192283, 11192063, 11190855, 11190840, 11189976, 11187374, 11186903, 11185890, 11185883, 11185132, 11183406, 11180813, 11174713, 11173666, 11173302, 11172299, 11171331, 11170989, 11165434, 11164646, 11162898, 11162502, 11162396, 11161413, 11161230, 11155985, 11155209, 11155181, 11154181, 11153607, 11153334, 11151373, 11151028, 11142595, 11142557, 11142386, 11141775, 11141433, 11141387, 11141347, 11140604, 11139711, 11139226, 11133402, 11132376, 11130998, 11130662, 11129949, 11128704, 11124099, 11123564, 11123353, 11123321, 11122783, 11119475, 11119300, 11118604, 11115088, 11113479, 11113371, 11112371, 11111659, 11111057, 11110919, 11110689, 11104075, 11103844, 11103437, 11102715, 11102333, 11100117, 11099313, 11091006, 11089960, 11089798, 11089533, 11088815, 11088718, 11081072, 11079453, 11073644, 11072718, 11065505, 11061598, 11057739, 11056061, 11055766, 11048349, 11035301, 11033225, and 10972343.
PE19010
False Automatic Emergency Braking
the federal safety agency received a letter from the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) on March 21, 2019 alleging that the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system on Model Year (MY) 2017-2018 Nissan Rogue and Rogue Sport vehicles was engaging in cases where there was no obstruction in the path of the vehicle. The CAS petition additionally alleged that, based on Nissan's actions, the manufacturer was aware of the issue due to issuing a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) launching two Quality Actions, and initiation of a Customer Service Initiative in relation to it. CAS contended that Nissan's actions do not represent an adequate long-term solution to the problem, as the action is only available during the basic coverage period of the warranty. CAS also argued that the alleged failures are an unreasonable risk to safety and views Nissan's communications as not acknowledging the potential safety issue involved, instead treating the alleged problem as a performance update.The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 129 unique subject vehicle reports (for all submission dates) alleging a false positive triggering of AEB. Of these complaints, three were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system, and all three indicating related injuries.In response to ODI's April 15, 2019 Information Request letter, Nissan provided data indicating that it has received 750 unique subject vehicle complaints relating to false positive activation of the AEB system. Of these complaints, 12 were identified that contained allegations of a collision resulting from the activation of the system. Four complaints contained allegations of injuries, three of which were the result of a collision. These complaints included duplicates of complaints that ODI received. The injury allegations were limited to soft tissue type injuries such as whiplash and bruising.Based on its review of the information identified to date, ODI grants this petition and has opened preliminary evaluation PE19-010 in order to evaluate the cause, scope and frequency of AEB false positive activations, as well as to evaluate the suitability of the manufacturer's campaign to address the concern or improve performance of the AEB system. The complaints cited can be viewed at under the following ODI identification numbers: 11230875, 11230481, 11230361, 11229400, 11229302, 11229294, 11228994, 11223074, 11222925, 11222644, 11220499, 11218713, 11218608, 11217157, 11210334, 11210256, 11210148, 11209127, 11209032, 11207333, 11205931, 11205717, 11205661, 11205172, 11205124, 11205027, 11204803, 11204349, 11204324, 11196805, 11196561, 11196466, 11196091, 11195938, 11195574, 11194380, 11193989, 11192761, 11192283, 11192063, 11190855, 11190840, 11189976, 11187374, 11186903, 11185890, 11185883, 11185132, 11183406, 11180813, 11174713, 11173666, 11173302, 11172299, 11171331, 11170989, 11165434, 11164646, 11162898, 11162502, 11162396, 11161413, 11161230, 11155985, 11155209, 11155181, 11154181, 11153607, 11153334, 11151373, 11151028, 11142595, 11142557, 11142386, 11141775, 11141433, 11141387, 11141347, 11140604, 11139711, 11139226, 11133402, 11132376, 11130998, 11130662, 11129949, 11128704, 11124099, 11123564, 11123353, 11123321, 11122783, 11119475, 11119300, 11118604, 11115088, 11113479, 11113371, 11112371, 11111659, 11111057, 11110919, 11110689, 11104075, 11103844, 11103437, 11102715, 11102333, 11100117, 11099313, 11091006, 11089960, 11089798, 11089533, 11088815, 11088718, 11081072, 11079453, 11073644, 11072718, 11065505, 11061598, 11057739, 11056061, 11055766, 1104
DP19001
Technical service bulletins for the 2017 Nissan Rogue 264
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- Wiring harness repair information
- Certification label and VIN plate replacement service information
- Intelligent cruise control inoperative and AEB/feb warning light on or radar obstruction message displayed...
- Automatic emergency braking warning light blinking applied systems
- False activation of AEB, feb, or FCW if you confirm
- Lane camera aiming vehicle reference values not in esm service information
- DTC B00A0-00 stored
- CVT/TCM calibration data “write” procedure
- CAN communication codes – diagnostic tips and guidelines
- CAN communication – network diagnostic flow chart
2017 Nissan Rogue fuel economy
Official EPA estimates in miles per gallon (MPGe for electric). Ranges cover trims that share the same engine.
| Engine | Drive | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0L 4‑cyl Hybrid | FWD | 33 | 35 | 34 |
| 2.0L 4‑cyl Hybrid | AWD | 31 | 34 | 33 |
| 2.5L 4‑cyl | FWD | 26 | 33 | 29 |
| 2.0L 4‑cyl | FWD | 26 | 31 | 28 |
| 2.5L 4‑cyl | AWD | 25 | 32 | 27 |
| 2.0L 4‑cyl | AWD | 26 | 30 | 27 |
What 2017 Nissan Rogue owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
The contact owns a 2017 Nissan Rogue. The contact stated that upon starting the vehicle, the SRS warning light illuminated. Online research indicated that the supplemental restraint system was disabled. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where it was diagnosed and determined that the front driver's side door harness had failed and needed to be replaced. The contact associated the failure with the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 22V875000 (Electrical System). The manufacturer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that the vehicle was previously repaired under the recall. The contact stated that the recall remedy had failed to prevent the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 149,220.
The contact owns a 2017 Nissan Rogue. The contact stated that while driving at approximately 15 MPH, there was a burning odor inside the vehicle. Moments later, smoke and flames were seen coming from under the driver's side dashboard. The vehicle was immediately parked, and the contact used a t-shirt to extinguish the flame. After extinguishing the flame, the contact discovered that the vehicle would not restart. The manufacturer and local dealer were notified of the failure. The contact stated that the windows had previously failed to roll up and stuck open. T The failure mileage was 99,000.
2017 Nissan Rogue AWD – CVT transmission failure at approximately 57,000 miles. Vehicle is currently undriveable. Diagnostic testing identified P0776 / Pressure Control Solenoid "B." Two independent mechanics have determined that the CVT requires complete replacement. Nissan has previously extended CVT warranty coverage and entered into class-action settlements involving CVT failures in 2014–2018 Rogue vehicles. Requesting that the federal safety agency record this premature CVT failure for consideration of a potential defect trend.
I was adjusting the seat up and it felt like something broke loose and wentkind of sideways, and then the airbag light went on and freaked me out and about wrecked my car. I took it in to get it looked at and apparently the seat breaking loose caused the airbag to come unplugged and they said the rail and frame need replaced. The car doesn’t even have 80,000 miles on it and this is apparently a big problem with these seat frames and rails breaking loose, but yet my car is not part of the recall. It needs to be part of the recall. I think Nissan should help pay for the cost of this stuff. This is a serious safety issue and most people don’t have an extratwo grand to throw down to keep their car safe when it is poor manufacturing.
I am reporting a severe safety hazard regarding unresolved secondary electrical component damage caused directly by the Recall PC934 factory defect on my 2017 Nissan Rogue SL AWD. The vehicle experienced severe moisture entry, heavy rust on the driver-side floorboard, a complete loss of Electronic Power Steering, an inoperable electronic trunk, and a massive parasitic battery drain with visible terminal corrosion. The dealership performed the physical PC934 wiring harness connector swap but left the vehicle completely undrivable with zero power steering assist, claiming the secondary component damage is my out-of-pocket responsibility. Nissan Corporate is actively denying recall assistance for the exact short-circuit failures detailed in their federal recall documentation, posing an immediate physical threat to drivers. My case number on the case is 57100798
My vehicle is suffering from severe brake safety failures directly caused by federal recall R22A6 (ABS Actuator Thermal Damage). Under heavy stop-and-go conditions in a parking lot, the vehicle's ABS, Slip, and Brake warning lights all illuminated simultaneously, creating an immediate safety hazard on public roads.The problem and specific components have been verified via multiple diagnostic scans. Prior to the recall service, an OBD-II scan at Autozone revealed active codes C1111 (ABS Pump Motor Failure) and C1130, which perfectly match the thermal/electrical failure path of recall R22A6. The defective components are available for inspection upon request.However, Alhambra Nissan dealership merely completed the paperwork for the recall campaign but refused to remedy the actual collateral damage to the ABS pump motor, demanding an additional $240 diagnostic fee instead. Furthermore, immediately after their service, a new code P0113 (Intake Air Temperature Sensor Circuit High) appeared, proving the dealership technician damaged or left an engine sensor unplugged during the recall work. Contacted the dealer for the new code, they insist to do the diagnostic for that issue. Both the dealer and Nissan North America Corporate have ignored my formal safety inquiries and gone completely silent, forcing me to operate an unsafe vehicle.
while going about 30 mph, It was as if someone had slammed the brakes on and brought me to complete stop.
My transmission has been slipping and sticking for years. My USB port hasn't worked in years and the connection as well, the light on the radio doesn't work.
Component: Suspension: Front: Control Arm: Left Lower Arm Description: While operating the vehicle at approximately 5 mph, the left (drivers' side) front lower control arm suffered a catastrophic structural material failure, snapping completely into two parts by the ball joint without warning. The structural failure caused the front wheel assembly to collapse outward, ripping the axle out of the transmission and immediately severing steering control and braking. The vehicle immediately pulled to the left and came to a complete stop. The sudden loss of vehicular control created an immediate, severe safety hazard on a public roadway. Considering that 10 minutes prior, the vehicle was traveling at interstate highway speeds; lives were possibly saved by the failure at the point in time it did fail. The left fender was also damaged and blocked, exiting from the driver's side door. There was also damage to the struts as well as damage to the stabilizer bars on the struts. The axle was also disengaged from the transmission as well. Inspection of the failed component reveals a complete cross-sectional fracture of the metal housing, which represents a severe structural manufacturing or metallurgical defect. The failed component and photographic evidence have been preserved for engineering analysis. The AAA Service Center confirmed the issue in the repair invoice and a secondary email from the service center elaborated on the issue. No other representatives have inspected the component since the incident. There were no issues prior to the failure, but the vehicle had to be previously towed on 06/02/2026 due to a battery fuse assembly that was preventing the vehicle immobilizer from disengaging. The tow required skids since the front wheels were locked in place and there was no way to disable them. The tow was provided by AAA on 6/1/26 to my local Nissan Dealership. On 6/2/26 a diagnostic and a multipoint inspection was completed and the fuse assembly was replaced.
Compare the 2017 Nissan Rogue
Rogue vs Ford EscapeRogue vs Honda CR-VRogue vs Jeep CherokeeRogue vs Toyota RAV4Rogue vs Chevrolet EquinoxRogue vs Subaru ForesterRogue vs Hyundai TucsonRogue vs Kia Sportage
Other model years
199920072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Questions about the 2017 Nissan Rogue
Is the 2017 Nissan Rogue reliable?
Owners have filed 602 complaints about the 2017 Nissan Rogue, 1.7 times a typical Rogue model year.
What is the 2017 Nissan Rogue year score?
The 2017 Nissan Rogue scores 50 out of 100 (below average). The score compares it with the other model years of the Nissan Rogue: 75 is a typical year, 50 means twice the usual complaints, and serious complaints and recalls lower it.
What is the most common problem with the 2017 Nissan Rogue?
Transmission and drivetrain, with 123 complaints, typically around 56,773 miles. Next is brakes (114).
How many recalls does the 2017 Nissan Rogue have?
5 recalls, covering electrical system, engine and engine cooling and seats.
What year does the Nissan Rogue have bad transmission?
The Nissan Rogue model years with the most transmission complaints are 2013 (314 complaints), 2011 (189 complaints) and 2016 (176 complaints).
What gas mileage does the 2017 Nissan Rogue get?
Official estimates for the 2017 Nissan Rogue range from 27 to 34 mpg combined. The most efficient version (2.0L 4-cyl hybrid, FWD) gets 33 city and 35 highway.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2017 Nissan Rogue?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history