CSR

Mitsubishi · NHTSA safety record

2013 Mitsubishi Outlander

Every safety complaint, recall and defect investigation the US government holds on this vehicle.

26

Complaints

3

Crashes

0

Fires

13

Injuries

0

Deaths

Owners of the 2013 Mitsubishi Outlander have filed 26 safety complaints with NHTSA between January 2013 and August 2025. The most complained-about system is visibility and the wipers, named in 6 of them (23%). The typical failure was reported at 61,400 miles, the median across the 20 complaints that gave an odometer reading.

NHTSA has issued 5 recalls covering this vehicle.

Recalls (5)

STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS

20V279000 · May 18, 2020

The defect
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA) is recalling certain 2008-2010 Lancer, 2009-2010 Lancer Sportback, 2008-2013 Outlander, and 2011-2016 Outlander Sport vehicles originally sold in, or ever registered in, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The front lower control arms may detach due to the front cross member corroding from salt water exposure such as from road salt use.
The risk
A detached front control arm can result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.
The remedy
MMNA will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the front cross members. Depending on the level of existing corrosion, either a sealing/anti-corrosion agent will be applied or the front cross member will be replaced with a new one. These repairs will be performed free of charge. The recall began August 7, 2020. Owners may contact MMNA customer service at 1-888-648-7820. MMNA's number for this recall is SR-20-003.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. · up to 141,200 vehicles across all model years covered

VISIBILITY:WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER:MOTOR

17V461000 · July 20, 2017

The defect
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA) is recalling certain 2007-2013 Outlander vehicles. In the affected vehicles, water may drop between the hood and the windshield and leak into the wiper motor breathing hole. The water may cause internal corrosion of the windshield wiper motor and the possible failure of the motor.
The risk
Failure of the wiper motor can cause a loss of visibility, increasing the risk of a crash.
The remedy
MMNA will notify owners, and dealers will replace the wiper motor, free of charge. The recall began July 28, 2017. Owners may contact MMNA customer service at 1-888-648-7820. MMNA's number for this recall is SR-17-003.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. · up to 100,082 vehicles across all model years covered

VISIBILITY:WINDSHIELD WIPER/WASHER:LINKAGES

16V791000 · October 31, 2016

The defect
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA) is recalling certain model year 2007-2013 Outlander vehicles manufactured September 8, 2006, to March 29, 2013. In the affected vehicles, water may enter between the hood and windshield and cause the front wiper link ball joint to corrode, possibly resulting in the wiper link separating and the wipers becoming inoperative.
The risk
Loss of wiper function can reduce visibility and increase the risk of a crash.
The remedy
MMNA will notify owners, and dealers will replace the rubber boot on the ball joint to prevent water intrusion. Additionally, they will inspect the wiper motor crank arm for excessive play, replacing it as necessary. These repairs will be done free of charge. The recall began on July 28, 2017. Owners may contact MMNA customer service at 1-888-648-7820. MMNA's number for this recall is SR-16-009.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. · up to 100,082 vehicles across all model years covered

SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER ARM

16V458000 · June 23, 2016

The defect
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA) is recalling certain model year 2002-2007 Lancer, 2004 Lancer Wagon, 2003-2006 Lancer Evolution, 2003-2006 Outlander and 2007-2013 Outlander V-6 vehicles originally sold in, or ever registered in, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. In the affected vehicles, the front lower control arms may detach due to the front cross member corroding from salt water exposure such as from road salt use.
The risk
A detached front control arm can result in the loss of control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
The remedy
MMNA will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the front cross members. Depending on the level of existing corrosion, either a sealing/anti-corrosion agent will be applied or the front cross member will be replaced with a new one that has a sealing/anti-corrosion agent applied to it. These repairs will be performed free of charge. The recall began January 2017. Owners may contact MMNA customer service at 1-888-648-7820. MMNA's number for this recall is SR-16-003.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. · up to 194,674 vehicles across all model years covered

STEERING:HYDRAULIC POWER ASSIST:HOSE, PIPING, AND CONNECTIONS

14V366000 · June 25, 2014

The defect
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (Mitsubishi) is recalling certain model year 2013 Outlander vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission. Additionally, Mitusbishi is recalling certain 2007-2012 Outlander vehicles that received replacement 6-speed automatic transmissions during servicing. The transmissions in these vehicles have insufficient clearance between the power steering pressure tube and the converter housing of the automatic transmission. As a result of the contact, the power steering pressure tube may develop a hole and leak power steering fluid.
The risk
A power steering fluid leak could result in a loss of steering assistance, increasing the risk of a crash.
The remedy
Mitsubishi will notify owners, and dealers will replace the power steering pressure tube and return tube, free of charge. The recall began in August 2014. Owners may contact Mitsubishi customer service at 1-888-648-7820. Mitsubishi's number for this recall is SR-14-006.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. · up to 203 vehicles across all model years covered

Defect investigations (1)

An investigation means NHTSA has decided a pattern is worth examining. A preliminary evaluation is often closed with no action; an engineering analysis is the stage that usually precedes a recall.

Electrical overstress

EA19001

Closed engineering analysis · opened April 19, 2019 · closed September 19, 2024 · led to recall 20V024

the air bags

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect.  During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment.  FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW.  These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes.  An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.   In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU.  This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation.  The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage.  There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation.  The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU.  If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC.  Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC.  All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled.  In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024.  With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

What owners report

Complaints naming each system. One complaint can name several, so these add up to more than 26.

VISIBILITY/WIPER 6 23%
ENGINE 5 19%
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 4 15%
POWER TRAIN 4 15%
UNKNOWN OR OTHER 4 15%
AIR BAGS 3 12%
SERVICE BRAKES 2 8%
EXTERIOR LIGHTING 1 4%
SEAT BELTS 1 4%
SEATS 1 4%
STEERING 1 4%
VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL 1 4%

When the complaints arrived

By the year NHTSA received them, which is not the year the failures happened. They peaked in 2017 at 7.

2013 2017 2025
2013 to 2025

In owners' own words

Quoted from NHTSA's complaint file. These are unverified accounts by the people who filed them, not findings of fault.

AIR BAGS

12 injured · crash · towed · 47,000 miles

STRUCK IN RIGHT FRONT QUARTER PANEL BY PICKUP TRUCK GOING 70MPH WHICH TOTALLED MY VEHICLE AND CAUSED INJURIES TO MYSELF AND GRANDSON BUT NO AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. DEPLOYMENT WOULD HAVE REDUCED OUR INJURIES.

NHTSA complaint 11005483. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

SERVICE BRAKES

1 injured · 70,000 miles

I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN AN ACTIVE STABILITY CONTROL SERVICE WARNING DISPLAYED ON THE DASHBOARD. IT WAS COUPLED WITH THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND IMMEDIATELY CAUSED MY CAR TO SEIZE UP MAKING ME MOMENTARILY LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. AS I REGAINED CONTROL THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO RESIST ANY ACCELERATION WHILE THE RPMS WOULD FREQUENTLY SPIKE. I ALSO LOST ANTI-LOCK BRAKE FUNCTIONALITY WITH NO DASHBOARD WARNING. THROUGH MY MECHANIC I LATER FOUND OUT THE CAR WAS FORCING ITSELF INTO "LIMP MODE" BECAUSE THE ENGINE AIR FLOW SENSOR WAS GIVING A FAULTY READING. ALL OF THIS PUT MY CAR INTO CONDITIONS FOR A CRASH HAD I NOT ACTED QUICKLY TO AVOID IT. IT ALSO CREATED A REPAIR BILL THAT WAS

NHTSA complaint 11395590, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

AIR BAGS

crash · towed · 96,000 miles

MY CAR WAS TOTALED A FEW DAYS AGO I WAS DRIVING HOME AND HIT A DEAR AT 55MPH AND MY AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY MY FRONT END WAS DESTROYED MY RADIATOR WAS DESTROYED ALONG WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE CAR AND THE CAR WAS CONSIDERED TOTALED. I WAS INFORMED MY AIR BAGS SHOULD OF DEPLOYED BUT THEY DID NOT

NHTSA complaint 11090823. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

AIR BAGS

crash · 32,000 miles

MY AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY, THE SEAT BELT DID NOT ENGAGE. THEREFORE I STRUCK THE STEERING WHEEL TWICE, AND WHIPPED MY NECK. *TR

NHTSA complaint 10633083. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
My vehicle shut off on a state route when I had the vehicle towed to the dealership I was informed it was the ecu. I found out a year after my vehicle was purchased, there was a technical service bulletin out in this part. I am not sure why there was not a recall sent when they knew this part could be defective and my life was put at risk by it shutting off on the highway. How is a vehicle safe when it just shuts off. This should have been a recall and not a bulletin. Please reconsider making this a recall. I would hate to see people lose their lives because of this.

NHTSA complaint 11683495. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
On Dec 8,2023 our mitsubishi outlander shut off while being driven. When this occurred multiple warning lights come on including, service engine immediately, engine overheating (which it was not) and multiple other lights. It was towed to the dealership where they told us the ECU is bad. Mitsubishi no longer makes the part. They have also told us this is the 3rd vehicle in the last month with the same issue. Car had no power/electrical /engine issues prior to this event. Mitsubishi is offering no solution to fix the issue. Luckily when the car shut down we were driving at a low speed in a neighborhood. If this had happened on the freeway it could have been very dangerous. We now have no

NHTSA complaint 11560529, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

POWER TRAIN
1) Transmission or power train 2) The vehicle may be inspected at request 3) The vehicle starts and may go for about a mile, and then it will buck and act like it's in neutral for all gears. I got stuck in the middle of an intersection turning left. I managed to get it back home, and then needed help pushing it into the driveway, where it sits. 4) I have seen several similar complaints for the years; 2012, and 2014 through 2021. 5) The vehicle has been worked on, and the valve body for the transmission was replaced about a month ago. 6) The warning message that popped up just before the issue was "Transmission service is required." It appeared on 9/27/2021, the day I was giving a ride to

NHTSA complaint 11434988, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

UNKNOWN OR OTHER
My catalytic converter just went in my vehicle. I was told by dealership that the warranty expired by months. I contacted Mitsubishi and a case was opened. I was called by them today and they wont make an exception even though my mieage is well under the 80000 miles (under by over 28,000 miles) When I asked to talk to a manager I was told no and no exception would be made. I just want them to pay for the defective part.

NHTSA complaint 11432371. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

POWER TRAIN

115,000 miles

AT 115,000 MILES, THE TRANSMISSION WENT OUT. MY SUV NO LONGER GOES ABOVE 30MPH WITHOUT THE RPMS WILDLY JUMPING. BOTH THE 2014 AND 2015 MODELS HAVE A RECALL FOR THIS VERY CVT ISSUE BUT THE 2013 DOES NOT.

NHTSA complaint 11350223. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

Compare

Other years of the Mitsubishi Outlander

Model year Complaints Recalls Deaths
2024 26 1
2023 45 2
2022 209 7
2020 31 3
2019 29 5
2018 55 6
2017 51 6
2016 142 8
2015 52 5
2014 45 4
2012 22 6
2011 58 8
2010 60 10

Other 2013 Mitsubishi models

Every Mitsubishi on this site — 45 vehicles, 119 recall campaigns and 0 open investigation s.

If this is your car and a dealer keeps failing to fix it, your state's lemon law may require the manufacturer to replace it or buy it back. What each state asks for , read from the statutes.

Where these numbers come from

A complaint is one owner's account and has not been verified by NHTSA or by us. A vehicle with more complaints is not necessarily worse: models that sold in larger numbers collect more of them. How this is counted.

Compiled and maintained by
Independent developer and analyst