Check a VIN

2024 Tesla Model Y electrical problems

63 complaints (19% of all complaints for this car). Typical mileage when it fails: 16,011. 13 crashes reported.

owner complaints
63
of this car's complaints
19%
typical mileage
16,011
crashes
13
recalls
1

Which part fails

  • ADAS: autonomous/self driving
    7
  • ADAS: autonomous/self driving: software
    1
  • ADAS
    1

At what mileage

Complaints by mileage at the time of the problem.

0k-25k
25k-50k
50k-75k
75k-100k
100k-125k
125k-150k
150k-175k
175k-200k
200k+

Tesla Model Y electrical problems in other years

2020202120222023202420252026

Specific symptoms reported on the 2024 Tesla Model Y electrical

Phrases found in the owners' own descriptions, so one complaint can mention several symptoms.

Backup camera 44Battery drain 8Screen failure 5

Related recalls

Electrical system: instrument cluster/panelReported January 30, 2024 · 2,193,869 vehicles affected
What is wrong
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2012-2023 Model S, 2016-2024 Model X, 2017-2023 Model 3, 2019-2024 Model Y, and 2024 Cybertruck vehicles. An incorrect font size is displayed on the instrument panel for the Brake, Park, and Antilock Brake System (ABS) warning lights. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 105, "Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems" and 135, "Light Vehicle Brake Systems."
Risk
Warning lights with a smaller font size can make critical safety information on the instrument panel difficult to read, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy
Tesla began releasing an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1‑877‑798‑3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-00-003.

Recall number 24V051000 · Recall details

Related investigations

FSD Collisions in Reduced Roadway Visibility ConditionsOpened March 18, 2026, still open

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening this Engineering Analysis to evaluate Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) degradation detection system. The focus of this investigation will be to assess the system’s ability, when encountering reduced roadway visibility conditions, to detect degradation and alert the driver with sufficient time to respond. ODI will evaluate the performance of FSD in degraded roadway conditions and the updates or modifications by Tesla to the degradation detection system, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of the updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI discussed individual incidents and its initial findings during the PE phase of its investigation with Tesla. As part of those discussions, Tesla’s post-incident analysis indicated that the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s degradation detection system, both as originally deployed and later updated, fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired camera visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. In upgrading PE24031 to an Engineering Analysis (EA), ODI will gather further information on the updated degradation detection system, including the status of updating vehicles and scope of compatible vehicles, the system’s visibility degradation detection capability, and alerts or warnings to the driver. Lastly, ODI will conduct analysis on six recent potentially related incidents. These incidents can be found at under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-11937, 13781-13211, 13781-13569, 13781-13633, 13781-13693, 13781-13788. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.

EA26002

Traffic safety violations while Full Self Driving ("FSD") is engagedOpened October 7, 2025, still open

The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) is opening this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to assess the scope, frequency, and potential safety consequences of FSD executing driving maneuvers that constitute traffic safety violations. This investigation concerns versions of FSD that Tesla has labeled as "FSD (Supervised)" and "FSD (Beta)." Tesla characterizes FSD as an SAE Level 2 partial automation system requiring a fully attentive driver who is engaged in the driving task at all times. Level 2 partial automation systems are designed to support and assist the driver in performing certain aspects of the driving task, requiring a driver to supervise and intervene as necessary. The driver remains fully responsible at all times for driving the vehicle, including complying with applicable traffic laws. ODI’s investigation will therefore focus, in particular, on whether certain driving inputs within the control authority of FSD forestall the driver’s supervision when they are unexpectedly performed. ODI has identified a number of incidents in which the inputs to the dynamic driving task commanded by FSD induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws. Although reports of this nature span a variety of behaviors, the reports appear to most commonly involve two types of scenarios. The first type of scenario involves a vehicle operating with FSD proceeding into an intersection in violation of a red traffic signal. The second type of scenario involves FSD commanding a lane change into an opposing lane of traffic. With respect to the first type of scenario, ODI has identified 18 complaints and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating at an intersection with FSD engaged, failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface. Some complainants also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal. ODI has identified six Standing General Order ("SGO") reports in which a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection. Of these incidents, four crashes resulted in one or more reported injuries. At least some of the incidents appeared to involve FSD proceeding into the intersection after coming to a complete stop. ODI's pre-investigative work, including coordination with the Maryland Transportation Authority and State Police, indicated that the problem may be repeatable, given that multiple subject incidents occurred at the same intersection in Joppa, Maryland. the federal safety agency understands that Tesla has since taken action to address the issue at this intersection. With respect to the second type of scenario, ODI has identified 2 SGO reports, 18 complaints, and 2 media reports alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, entered opposing lanes of travel during or following a turn, crossed double-yellow lane markings while proceeding straight, or attempted to turn onto a road in the wrong direction despite the presence of wrong-way road signs. Likewise, ODI has identified 4 SGO reports, 6 complaints, and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, proceeded straight through an intersection in a turn-only lane or executed a turn at an intersection in a through lane despite the presence of lane markings or signals. Complaints also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior. Some complaints alleged that more than one of these failures occurred and, as such, the numbers are not cumulative. Some of the reported incidents appeared to involve FSD executing a lane change into an opposing lane of travel with little notice to a driver or opportunity to intervene. ODI’s review will assess whether there was prior warning or adequate time for the driver to respond to the unexpected behavior or to safely supervise the automated driving task. This review will assess any warnings to the driver about the system's impending behavior; the time given to drivers to respond; the capability of FSD to detect, display to the driver, and respond appropriately to traffic signals; and the capability of FSD to detect and respond to lane markings and wrong-way signage. the federal safety agency's review will also consider any updates or modifications to the system(s) that may affect the performance of FSD with respect to obeying traffic safety laws and signals. This assessment will focus, in particular, on the types of traffic safety violations described above, as most reports identified thus far have centered around those behaviors. While the behaviors under investigation appear to occur most frequently at intersections, the federal safety agency’s investigation will encompass any other types of situations in which this behavior may arise, such as when traveling adjacent to a lane of opposing traffic or when approaching railroad crossings. If other evidence received during this investigation involve other types of traffic safety violations, those may be considered as part of this assessment as well. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to The SGO reports cited in this Resume are listed below by report ID and are available for download at 13781-8739-1, 13781-8995-1, 13781-9623-1, 13781-10333-1, 13781-10872-1, 13781-10930-1, 13781-10939-1, 13781-10941-1, 13781-11069-1, 13781-11305-1, 13781-11579-1 Media reported allegations included as a separate attachment.

PE25012

Compliance with Standing General Order 2021-01 Reporting RequirementsOpened August 20, 2025, still open

The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) has identified numerous incident reports submitted by Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) in response to Standing General Order 2021-01 (the “SGO”), in which the reported crashes occurred several months or more before the dates of the reports. The majority of these reports involved crashes in which the Standing General Order in place at the time required a report to be submitted within one or five days of Tesla receiving notice of the crash. When the reports were submitted, Tesla submitted them in one of two ways. Many of the reports were submitted as part of a single batch, while others were submitted on a rolling basis. Preliminary engagement between ODI and Tesla on the issue indicates that the timing of the reports was due to an issue with Tesla’s data collection, which, according to Tesla, has now been fixed. the federal safety agency is opening this Audit Query, a standard process for reviewing compliance with legal requirements, to evaluate the cause of the potential delays in reporting, the scope of any such delays, and the mitigations that Tesla has developed to address them. As part of this review, the federal safety agency will assess whether any reports of prior incidents remain outstanding and whether the reports that were submitted include all of the required and available data. The SGO reports cited in the Opening Resume, can be found at under the following SGO 2021-01 report IDs: 13781-11020-1 13781-10844-1 13781-10843-1 13781-10530-1 13781-10160-1 13781-10159-1 13781-10157-1 13781-10146-1 13781-10122-1 13781-10098-1 13781-10097-1 13781-10096-1 13781-10095-1 13781-10094-1 13781-10093-1 13781-10023-1 13781-10022-1 13781-10021-1 13781-10020-1 13781-10017-1 13781-10016-1 13781-10015-1 13781-10014-1 13781-10013-1 13781-10012-1 13781-6047-1 13781-9930-1 13781-9917-1 13781-9928-1 13781-9925-1 13781-9924-1 13781-9923-1 13781-9922-1 13781-9835-1 13781-9834-1 13781-9833-1 13781-9832-1 13781-9831-1 13781-9830-1 13781-9829-1 13781-9827-1 13781-9818-1 13781-9780-1 13781-9779-1 13781-9778-1 13781-9777-1 13781-9775-1 13781-9774-1 13781-9773-1 13781-9772-1 13781-9771-1 13781-9770-1 13781-9728-1 13781-9688-1 13781-9715-1 13781-9714-1 13781-9713-1 13781-9712-1 13781-9711-1 13781-9710-1 13781-9709-1 13781-9696-1 13781-9695-1 13781-9694-1 13781-9693-1 13781-9692-1 13781-9691-1 13781-9690-1 13781-9687-1 13781-9686-1 13781-9342-1 13781-9319-1 13781-9019-1 13781-8910-1 13781-8732-1 13781-8712-1 13781-8310-1 13781-7897-1 13781-7895-1 13781-7835-1 13781-7798-1 13781-7797-1 13781-7758-1 13781-7757-1 13781-7756-1 13781-7755-1 13781-7667-1 13781-7399-1 13781-7398-1 13781-7397-1 13781-7396-1 13781-7395-1 13781-7394-1 13781-7393-1 13781-7389-1 13781-7388-1 13781-7387-1 13781-7386-1 13781-7385-1 13781-7383-1 13781-7187-1 13781-7186-1 13781-7185-1 13781-7184-1 13781-7181-1 13781-7023-1 13781-6399-1 13781-6389-1 13781-6388-1 13781-6387-1 13781-6386-1 13781-6379-1 13781-6378-1 13781-6377-1 13781-6375-1 13781-6214-1 13781-6172-1 13781-6155-1 13781-6154-1 13781-6122-1 13781-6120-1 13781-6118-1 13781-5800-1

AQ25002

Actually Smart Summon sessions resulting in low-speed impacts.Opened January 6, 2025, closed April 3, 2026

On January 6, 2025, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation 24003 (PE24033) to investigate Actually Smart Summon (Summon) sessions resulting in crashes during active sessions. According to Tesla, Summon is a short-distance SAE Level 2 system, controlled by the user from a cell phone within a certain distance and intended for use in parking lots and on private property. ODI analyzed complaint data provided by Tesla as well as complaints submitted to ODI from consumers to identify Summon incidents resulting in crashes. ODI's analysis indicates that almost all Summon reported crashes involved minor property damage claims with no reported incidents involving a vulnerable road user, injury, fatality, or major property damage as indicated by an air bag deployment or vehicle tow away. Out of millions of Summon sessions, a fraction of 1% resulted in an incident. Almost all those incidents took place where, typically early in a Summon session, the system or person using the app failed to fully detect or respond appropriately to vehicle surroundings resulting in minor impacts. Incidents took place when app users did not have a complete 360-degree view of the surroundings in the app to assess situational awareness. This limited the app user’s ability to determine whether an impact was imminent during initial vehicle maneuvers such as reversing in close proximity to an obstacle or a curb. ODI found that the impacts most often occurred with parking gates, adjacently parked vehicles, and short parking bollards. During this investigation, ODI identified two Summon crashes related to camera blockages. In both crashes, Summon attempted to navigate a snowy parking lot with snow partially or fully obstructing the forward-facing cameras. Summon did not detect the camera blockage and the vehicles collided with unoccupied parked vehicles while navigating the parking lot. App users in both instances did not command a vehicle stop or pause despite the obstructed camera visible in the camera stream in the app. On January 15, 2025, Tesla released Over-the-Air (OTA) Software (SW) Update Action numbers 578998 and 579185 for vehicles in service to implement a camera blockage detection condition. Both OTAs improve camera blockage detection mechanisms. Additionally, on January 20, 2025, and January 30, 2025, Tesla identified additional system requirements associated with camera visibility checks and released OTA SW-578752 and SW-580322, respectively. These firmware updates reduce false negative camera blockage detections due to snow or condensation. In its investigation, ODI identified one Summon incident where the vehicle did not yield for a gate arm blocking a garage exit lane and the app user did not command a vehicle stop or pause, resulting in an impact. On February 6, 2025, Tesla deployed OTA SW-578839 to improve vehicle reaction to dynamic gates. This OTA update upgraded vehicle perception systems through a high-fidelity occupancy determination network, which uses data from vehicle sensory systems to improve reconstruction of field objects with high accuracy. On November 20, 2025, Tesla further improved vehicle performance by adding object detections from a separate neural network through OTA SW-580514. Owners of the affected vehicles received all six OTA SW updates. Tesla also released these SW updates to production vehicles. See online public file for detailed descriptions of all six OTA SW updates. Due to low incident occurrence and low incident severity, this preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. For additional information regarding this investigation, see the complete online public file.

PE24033

FSD Collisions in Reduced Roadway Visibility ConditionsOpened October 17, 2024, closed March 18, 2026

On October 17, 2024, the federal safety agency’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE24031) of Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) to assess: the ability of the FSD system to detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions; whether any other FSD crashes had occurred under degraded roadway visibility conditions that are similar in nature to the four SGO-reported crashes identified in the opening document, and if so, the contributing circumstances for each of those crashes; and any updates or modifications by Tesla to the FSD system that may affect the performance of FSD in degraded roadway visibility conditions, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of any such updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. During this phase of the investigation, ODI reviewed the materials provided by Tesla detailing any actions taken, or changes, modifications, and updates made that may relate to the alleged defect. ODI reviewed information related to Tesla’s transition to a vision-only perception system, and its deployment of the strategy in vehicles. ODI’s findings include information on limitations of the vision-only perception system and updates made in response to known subject crashes. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. ODI reviewed certain public statements, including those made during an April 2025 earnings call, in which Tesla stated that it had developed a breakthrough “direct photon-counting” capability that eliminates the degradation that the camera-based system experiences when glare is encountered. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI has discussed individual incidents and its initial findings with Tesla. Based on Tesla’s post-incident analysis, the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s FSD system fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants where the camera-based system performance degrades significantly. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the FSD system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired its visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. ODI is upgrading this investigation (PE24031) to Engineering Analysis (EA) 26002 to further evaluate this matter. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.

PE24031

Recall 23V838 Remedy EffectivenessOpened April 25, 2024, still open

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening a Recall Query to assess the remedy adequacy of Recall 23V838. On December 12, 2023, Tesla filed a Defect Information Report (Recall 23V838) applicable to all Tesla models produced and equipped with any version of its Autopilot system, which Tesla described as an SAE Level 2 (L2) Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). Autopilot is the simultaneous engagement of Tesla’s Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC) and Autosteer. In describing the safety defect, Tesla’s Defect Information Report (DIR) explained that “the prominence and scope of the system’s controls may be insufficient to prevent driver misuse,” and Tesla committed to the deployment of a multipart remedy aimed at improving system and engagement controls and reducing mode confusion. EA22002 (upgraded from PE21020) was opened to investigate whether Tesla’s Autopilot contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and involved extensive crash analysis, human factors analysis, vehicle evaluations, and assessment of vehicle control authority and driver engagement technologies. The work conducted in these investigations aligns with Tesla’s conclusion in its 23V838 recall filing. During EA22002, ODI identified at least 13 crashes involving one or more fatalities and many more involving serious injuries in which foreseeable driver misuse of the system played an apparent role. Tesla filed Recall 23V838 to address concerns regarding the Autopilot system investigated in EA22002. Following deployment of the remedy in Recall 23V838, ODI identified concerns due to post-remedy crash events and results from preliminary the federal safety agency tests of remedied vehicles. Also, Tesla has stated that a portion of the remedy both requires the owner to opt in and allows a driver to readily reverse it. Tesla has also deployed non-remedy updates to address issues that appear related to ODI’s concerns under EA22002. This investigation will consider why these updates were not a part of the recall or otherwise determined to remedy a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk. ODI is therefore opening this Recall Query investigation to further evaluate the adequacy of the remedy for recall 23V838.

RQ24009

What 2024 Tesla Model Y owners say

Most recent owner complaints, unedited.

Filed Oct 27, 2026 · Electrical · ID

Safety Critical Bug: While driving on surface streets, FSD indicated (via initiating a right turn signal) it was going to make a right turn into a parking lot that was not specified on its current navigation path. I disengaged FSD. After disengaging FSD, the turn signal software remained in an active right-turn state. Physical turn signal stalk inputs (both light taps and full pushes in either direction) failed to override or cancel the signal. Vehicle continued signaling a right turn, and the signal could not be manually cancelled. Only after about a minute of driving straight, did the signal self-cancel.

Filed Oct 12, 2026 · Body, Electrical · NC · crash

Subject: Formal Safety Complaint – Tesla FSD Failure and Missing Video Evidence Vehicle: 2024 Tesla Model Y Long Range VIN: [XXX] FSD Version: FSD (Supervised) v14.3.10 Incident Date: October 9, 2026 Location: [XXX] I am filing a formal safety complaint regarding a suspected failure of Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system. On XXX, my wife activated FSD while our Tesla Model Y was parked in a parking lot. The vehicle began reversing and collided with another stationary vehicle behind it. Although the other vehicle showed no visible damage, our Tesla suffered significant deformation to its trunk and rear body panels, with estimated repairs of $5,000–$15,000. My primary concern is that FSD apparently failed to detect or respond appropriately to a stationary vehicle directly behind it. Such a failure could have caused serious injuries if a pedestrian or child had been present. Additionally, I requested my vehicle data from Tesla, but the "Video Recording" section was empty. I am concerned about the missing footage and the availability of critical evidence needed to determine what happened. I respectfully request the federal safety agency to: Investigate the suspected FSD object-detection and reversing safety failure. Request preservation and review of relevant Tesla camera recordings, FSD logs, vehicle telemetry, and collision data, if available. Examine why no video footage was included in my Tesla data download. Determine whether similar incidents indicate a broader public safety concern. This incident has caused substantial financial damage, inconvenience, and emotional stress. I believe an independent investigation is necessary to protect other Tesla owners and the public. Sincerely, [XXX] [XXX] [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Sep 29, 2026 · Electrical · NC

On September 26, 2026, my 2024 Tesla Model Y (53,000 miles) suffered a total electrical failure. The vehicle became completely unresponsive — it would not power on or enter Drive mode — and my family was locked outside with no way to access the vehicle. Tesla Service Mode diagnostics (run September 29) showed: HVP LV Power Test FAIL with "Contactor power failure detected" — the high-voltage battery contactors would not close. Also present: drive-unit graceful power-off alert (DI_a063), BMS error, and charge-port communication loss (CP_a060). Tesla has issued campaign bulletin SB-24-16-005 (September 2024) acknowledging that a defective component inside the High Voltage Controller on 2023-2024 Model 3/Y "may prevent the vehicle from entering into drive mode, or may cause a graceful poweroff." Tesla classified this as non-safety-related. However, a sudden total loss of vehicle power — which other owners report occurring at highway speeds — creates crash risk, and inoperable doors create an entrapment and access hazard, especially for families with small children. I request the federal safety agency investigate whether this defect warrants a safety recall.

Filed Sep 29, 2026 · Electrical · NC

On September 26, 2026, my 2024 Tesla Model Y (53,000 miles) suffered a total electrical failure. The vehicle became completely unresponsive — it would not power on or enter Drive mode — and my family was locked outside with no way to access the vehicle. Tesla Service Mode diagnostics (run September 29) showed: HVP LV Power Test FAIL with "Contactor power failure detected" — the high-voltage battery contactors would not close. Also present: drive-unit graceful power-off alert (DI_a063), BMS error, and charge-port communication loss (CP_a060). Tesla has issued campaign bulletin SB-24-16-005 (September 2024) acknowledging that a defective component inside the High Voltage Controller on 2023-2024 Model 3/Y "may prevent the vehicle from entering into drive mode, or may cause a graceful poweroff." Tesla classified this as non-safety-related. However, a sudden total loss of vehicle power — which other owners report occurring at highway speeds — creates crash risk, and inoperable doors create an entrapment and access hazard, especially for families with small children. I request the federal safety agency investigate whether this defect warrants a safety recall.

Filed Sep 24, 2026 · Electrical, Lights · AZ

It has been towed to Tesla 5 times in the last 6 months. The car will all of a sudden do ALL of the following. Hood pops open Tailgate starts to go up and down The car lights start to flash - all of them The heater goes on 100 percent The seat and steering wheel warmers are activated The horn blows constantly The windows go up and down The stereo goes on full blast I cannot stop any of these things from happening. Tesla has had the car 5 times and said it is all repaired but it comes back every time. I cant trust driving the car anymore

Filed Jul 28, 2026 · Electrical · 19,891 miles · MD · crash

The contact owns a 2024 Tesla Model Y. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed on the I-95 N to 175 W exit ramp, while approaching a traffic light in slow-moving traffic with the self-driving feature engaged, the vehicle failed to slow down as expected. To avoid a crash with the vehicle ahead, the contact veered to the right, leaving the roadway and traveling onto a slope and into the grass, where the vehicle struck a tree branch. There were no warning lights illuminated. A Police report was filed. There were no reported injuries or air bag deployment. The insurance company was notified of the issue. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the issue, and a case was opened. The failure mileage was approximately 19,891.

Filed Jul 22, 2026 · Electrical, Steering · MA

SAFETY DEFECT REPORT: Sudden Power Loss & Falsified Records 1. INCIDENT & 5-HR TOWING (XXX): On XXX at ~16:30, while executing a low-speed (<10 mph) left turn in Cambridge, MA, the vehicle had a sudden, total high-voltage failure mid-turn, losing all motive power and power steering without warning or error codes. Photos/videos were taken on-scene confirming ZERO physical impact or undercarriage collision. The dead vehicle stopped directly in the active lane, completely blocking traffic. With zero power, the driver and several helpful bystanders had to use extreme physical effort to manually push the dead car out of the road. AAA arrived at 18:00 but could NOT tow because total power loss completely locked all 4 wheels/brakes (no Tow Mode). AAA dispatched a 2nd specialized flatbed with dollies (arrived 21:00). Driver was stranded on-site for over 5 hours. Car reached Tesla Dedham Service at 22:00. On XXX at 10:00 AM, driver reported the driving power loss in person at Dedham, handed over key, and got a loaner. 2. WRITTEN NOTICE (XXX): On XXX, explicit written notice was sent to Tesla Service Manager Taso, re-confirming the exact mid-driving power loss hazard. 3. TESLA DIAGNOSIS & REPAIRS: Invoice #XXX confirms a severe high-voltage failure: "A hardware overcurrent event caused small high voltage battery brick imbalance and rear inverter failure." Tesla replaced Rear Drive Unit Inverter (3DU) and Pyrotechnic Battery Disconnect (Pyrofuse). 4. FALSIFICATION OF SAFETY ISSUE: Despite 5-hr towing from wheel lock-up, XXX in-person report, and XXX written notice detailing mid-turn power loss, Tesla falsely recorded on invoice: "customer states: vehicle will not charge." This is deliberate falsification and deceptive practice by Tesla to downplay a critical road hazard into a benign charging issue. I request the federal safety agency to investigate this high-voltage overcurrent/inverter failure pattern and Tesla's practice of altering safe INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Jul 15, 2026 · Body, Electrical · TX

On July 10, 2026, my 2024 Tesla Model Y (approx. 22,440 miles) lost all power (main/12V battery) while parked next to a Supercharger stall on Level 3 of the Harrah's Ak-Chin Casino parking garage, Maricopa, AZ. Ambient temperature was approximately 110F. My dog and cat were inside the vehicle. With the vehicle powered off, the key card, Tesla app, and interior door releases did not function, leaving no way to open the doors from outside or inside. Unable to find or access a working manual door release in time, we broke the rear quarter glass and damaged a door to physically extract the pets before they suffered heat-related harm. Maricopa Police Department and Ak-Chin Fire Department responded to the scene. This represents a serious safety defect: a loss of vehicle power should not eliminate all means of entry/egress, particularly when children or pets could be trapped in extreme heat. The vehicle, damaged door, and glass are available for inspection. Photos of the incident are available.

Filed May 22, 2026 · Electrical · SC

Component or system that failed: The GPS navigation system and cellular connectivity module in my 2024 Tesla Model Y (VIN: [XXX] ) have intermittently lost signal and become completely nonfunctional multiple times over the past month. Tesla's service documentation indicates this affects the vehicle's connectivity hardware or managing software. The vehicle is available for inspection upon request. Safety risk: Loss of GPS navigation while driving creates a safety hazard when traveling unfamiliar routes, in low-visibility conditions, or during emergencies. Loss of cellular connectivity simultaneously disables Tesla's roadside assistance and the vehicle's calling capability. The vehicle acknowledges this risk by displaying a yellow caution alert reading "Poor GPS location accuracy — Additional attention may be required" on the primary touchscreen while in motion, with no advance warning before the failure occurs. Reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or service center: Yes. On May 22, 2026, Tesla Service Columbia-Two Notch Rd, 6301 Two Notch Road, Columbia, SC 29223, confirmed this as a known issue. The service advisor stated Tesla is aware of the defect but has no repair available and instructed me to submit in-car bug reports each time it occurs. Inspected by manufacturer or others: Yes, by Tesla's service center on May 22, 2026. No independent, police, or insurance inspection has been performed. Warning lamps or prior symptoms: A yellow triangle caution icon with the message "Poor GPS location accuracy — Additional attention may be required" appears on the primary touchscreen during each failure, but only after GPS has already degraded — no advance warning is given. This has occurred four times since April 2026, with each event lasting between 15 seconds and over one minute. UNKNOWN as to specific trigger conditions. Photographic documentation has been retained. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Apr 2, 2026 · Electrical · FL · fire · 2 injuries

On December 2, 2025, my Tesla was charging in the garage of my residence in [XXX] , when a fire appears to have originated in or around the vehicle area. Before the fire, I smelled smoke/burning and also heard popping sounds. The fire spread rapidly and resulted in the destruction of my home, creating an immediate and severe risk to the safety of all occupants and anyone nearby. This incident exposed those present to danger from flames, smoke inhalation, toxic fumes, and structural collapse, and it caused emergency evacuation and displacement. The fire department identified the garage or vehicle area as the origin. The exact component or system that failed is unknown at this time, but the circumstances indicate a possible failure involving the vehicle, charging system, battery system, or related electrical components. I am not aware of any prior battery, charging, or electrical warning messages before the incident. Emergency responders and insurance representatives were involved after the fire. I previously attempted to notify Tesla of this incident, but I did not receive a response. Because this event involved a catastrophic fire and total residential loss, I believe it should be reviewed as a serious vehicle safety matter and that all relevant vehicle data, charging data, components, and related evidence should be preserved for inspection. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Questions about the 2024 Tesla Model Y electrical

Does the 2024 Tesla Model Y have electrical problems?

Owners have filed 63 complaints about the electrical of the 2024 Tesla Model Y, 19% of all its complaints.

At what mileage do 2024 Tesla Model Y electrical problems start?

The typical (median) mileage in owner complaints is 16,011 miles.

Was there a recall on the 2024 Tesla Model Y electrical?

Yes, 1 recall: 24V051000. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.

What year does the Tesla Model Y have the most electrical problems?

The Tesla Model Y model years with the most electrical complaints are 2021 (155 complaints), 2023 (128 complaints) and 2022 (121 complaints).

Other 2024 Tesla Model Y problems

Driver assistance 177Acceleration 37Brakes 27Steering 25Body 17Lights 13Suspension 12Visibility 10Airbags 9Wheels 9Engine 8Seat belts 7Transmission 7Fuel system 5Locks 4Seats 4Tires 2

VIN decoder

See the problems and recalls for an exact car

Buying a used 2024 Tesla Model Y?

Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.

Check its history