Millions of Cars Recalled Over Danger of Bursting Into Flames. But They're Not EVs. (msn.com) 72
The Washington Post shares this tip for car buyers.
Electric vehicles "are not driving the recent growth in recalls warning that vehicles could erupt into flames at any time, even when parked and turned off." A Washington Post analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall notices found that conventional gas and diesel vehicles made up the vast majority of vehicles covered by the "park outside" label since 2021.
Last week, The Post wrote about an alarming surge in these so-called "park outside" recalls... A total of an estimated 3.4 million vehicles currently have outstanding recalls of this kind, according to vehicle history provider CarFax. Safety experts say the surge in "park outside" recalls appears to be caused by other changes to modern gas and electric vehicles, such as the additional technology in everything from transmissions to seat warmers.... [It's a messy mix of things that "doesn't lend itself to simple description of what's happening," says Sean Kane, president of auto safety-analysis firm Safety Research and Strategies. "But it boils down to growing electronic systems and the number of components."]
They're known as "key-off fires," said Frank Borris, a former NHTSA investigator who now works as a safety consultant. "The engine is off," he said, "but the circuits are still hot and they stay hot all the time." Earlier this year, Kia needed to recall 463,000 Tellurides because of the risk that the front power-seat switch could overheat and ignite the seat. That was the second time Kia had issued a recall for that one defect. The first recall, in 2024, didn't fully address the problem. More than 66,000 Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators from the 2021 model year were recalled due to circuit boards in the battery junction box that could short out. At least 16 fires were blamed on the problem, which often ignited when the vehicles were parked and turned off.
NHTSA has issued 93 "park outside" recalls since 2021, according to a Post analysis. Nearly half — 44 recalls — covered vehicles exclusively with conventional internal-combustion engines, while 38 recalls were just for EVs or hybrids. So the number of campaigns were nearly equally divided between gas and electric or hybrid vehicles. But gas vehicles pull away when comparing the size of the recalls. Gas-only campaigns covered a combined 4.6 million vehicles with "park outside" recalls over the past five years, compared to only about 662,000 vehicles that were EVs or hybrids...
Other countries have provided limited looks at the EV fire issue, such as an United Kingdom government review of data from Norway finding that gas and diesel vehicles had a fire incidence rate that was four times higher than EVs from 2016 to 2021.
Just in 2026, U.S. authorities have announced 17 new "park outside" recalls covering 1.7 million vehicles, according to the article.
Electric vehicles "are not driving the recent growth in recalls warning that vehicles could erupt into flames at any time, even when parked and turned off." A Washington Post analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall notices found that conventional gas and diesel vehicles made up the vast majority of vehicles covered by the "park outside" label since 2021.
Last week, The Post wrote about an alarming surge in these so-called "park outside" recalls... A total of an estimated 3.4 million vehicles currently have outstanding recalls of this kind, according to vehicle history provider CarFax. Safety experts say the surge in "park outside" recalls appears to be caused by other changes to modern gas and electric vehicles, such as the additional technology in everything from transmissions to seat warmers.... [It's a messy mix of things that "doesn't lend itself to simple description of what's happening," says Sean Kane, president of auto safety-analysis firm Safety Research and Strategies. "But it boils down to growing electronic systems and the number of components."]
They're known as "key-off fires," said Frank Borris, a former NHTSA investigator who now works as a safety consultant. "The engine is off," he said, "but the circuits are still hot and they stay hot all the time." Earlier this year, Kia needed to recall 463,000 Tellurides because of the risk that the front power-seat switch could overheat and ignite the seat. That was the second time Kia had issued a recall for that one defect. The first recall, in 2024, didn't fully address the problem. More than 66,000 Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators from the 2021 model year were recalled due to circuit boards in the battery junction box that could short out. At least 16 fires were blamed on the problem, which often ignited when the vehicles were parked and turned off.
NHTSA has issued 93 "park outside" recalls since 2021, according to a Post analysis. Nearly half — 44 recalls — covered vehicles exclusively with conventional internal-combustion engines, while 38 recalls were just for EVs or hybrids. So the number of campaigns were nearly equally divided between gas and electric or hybrid vehicles. But gas vehicles pull away when comparing the size of the recalls. Gas-only campaigns covered a combined 4.6 million vehicles with "park outside" recalls over the past five years, compared to only about 662,000 vehicles that were EVs or hybrids...
Other countries have provided limited looks at the EV fire issue, such as an United Kingdom government review of data from Norway finding that gas and diesel vehicles had a fire incidence rate that was four times higher than EVs from 2016 to 2021.
Just in 2026, U.S. authorities have announced 17 new "park outside" recalls covering 1.7 million vehicles, according to the article.
Just numbers, or some culture? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can at least imagine that there's a difference in mindset between "this is a 12v lead acid starter battery; it'll put out a solid few tens of amps for the starter motor assuming it is working correctly; but its energy density is kind of trash and we mostly prefer not to dump additional systems onto it, especially when that exposes them to the slightly gross output of the alternator" and "This battery has been designed to fully provide for all energy requirements of a vehicle; if you displease it it will probably kill you and then burn vigorously for a day or two. A foundational assumption of all systems that need energy is that they'll be connected back to it in one way or another because there aren't other energy sources here."
Not like electric vehicle designers couldn't/don't make mistakes, and certainly some of their mistakes burn with the really exciting commitment of a large light metal fire; but the engineering culture around an ICE vehicle seems much more likely to produce a string of individually reasonable, collectively dangerous, "c'mon, it's just one little 12v system" requests that get bolted onto a fairly antique battery without too much broader thought; while analogous feature demands in a fully electric vehicle will either be judged high energy enough to potentially get brought into the high voltage wiring(which, barring gross negligence across the design is treated like it can and will kill you) or totaled in to some low voltage system budget that will be handled by a DC-DC converter designed with actual care because going from 600v to 12v isn't something you do as casually as just slapping another 12v requirement in parallel with the other stuff on the 12v battery and calling it good.
Re:Just numbers, or some culture? (Score:5, Interesting)
The 12V batteries in EVs are much smaller because they don't need to provide cranking amps. They are just there to run the 12V systems, and are topped by by a DC-DC converter from the traction battery.
Of course they can often still provide quite a bit of current for things like heating/heated seats/window defog.
The traction battery is only connected to the DC-DC converter, the charger, and the motors. And there are cut-off for all of them. The motors aren't connected when you are parked, and the charger is only connected when charging/doing vehicle to load.
The switch thing sounds more like the switch gets stuck engaged and doesn't cut out at the limit of the seat's movement, causing the motor to overheat. But generally speaking EVs catch fire less than fossils. There is no hot engine full of flammable liquid and explosions, for a start. When you park over leaves, there is nothing hot enough to ignite them on the underside of the car. Nothing needs active cooling to avoid catching fire - the traction battery cooling is to make it last longer and charge faster, if it fails it's not going to ignite and the BMS will limit power when it gets too warm.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it’s fairer to say that OEMs *can* use smaller “starter” batteries for EVs than for ICE, and that some, but not all, do. Tesla does. But Polestar, for example, still uses a 70aH in the Polestar 2. Prob decided it was easier not to re-engineer that system, although it’s obviously a waste
Re: (Score:3)
There's a few misunderstandings in your post.
Firstly there's not a few 10s of amps from the 12V battery. They are capable of 100s to 1000s depending on engine size. The energy density also isn't trash at all, the battery is quite massive. For a fun experiment you can build a welder out of an old car battery.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with your foundational assumption. There's nothing different there between 12V and EVs traction batteries.
There's no difference between engineering culture between
Re: Just numbers, or some culture? (Score:2)
There's nothing "antique" about the 12V battery. In fact they are present in EVs as well,
News Teslas have lithium ion 12 batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes ... 12V batteries. What's the "news" part here? Some car companies use lithium, some use lead acid. They are all smaller than standard car batteries, and all EVs are dependent on them.
Re: (Score:2)
"There's nothing "antique" about the 12V battery. In fact they are present in EVs as well, and they are still [STILL] lead acid batteries."
Except for the ones that are not. Take the correction and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
You think I was talking about battery chemistry, which I wasn't, the topic under discussion is 12V electrical systems.
Also modern starter batteries have designs less than about 15 years old, they are nothing like SLAs that your granddaddy used, which would be completely destroyed within a month of use in a modern car thanks to stop start requirements (go look up the differences).
I'm happy to accept corrections, when you provide them on topic, and when they are corrections, rather than just ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
You think I was talking about battery chemistry, which I wasn't, the topic under discussion is 12V electrical systems.
Let me quote your post back to you:
There's nothing "antique" about the 12V battery. In fact they are present in EVs as well, and they are still lead acid batteries.
Re:Just numbers, or some culture? (Score:5, Informative)
The "car battery" is actually a specially designed lead-acid battery. It's called ISL - Ignition, Starting, Lighting and is a battery designed for those loads. Basically to be able to provide initial lighting and ignition and starting current. Once the engine is started the alternator takes over. ISL batteries are terrible for deep cycle use - they should not be discharged deeply or they will degrade very quickly.
Most of the capacity of the battery is there to give it decent "engine off" battery life without degrading severely while in storage. So even though it may be 70-100AH, the car must still shut down to enter a low current state of about 10mA max draw. Modern cars generally have several low power states - one entered when you turn off the engine and remove the key - this mode most of the stuff turns off but stays alive. After an hour or so, then they will enter a deeper power saving state. This allows for short stops where everything doesn't need to initialize because they were still running, but then once parked for a longer time enter low power state so the battery can last several months and still start the engine.
The consumption of starting an engine even in the deep of winter is generally about 1-2% charge.
EVs which don't have to provide high currents still need a 12V system with significant capacity. But instead of needing an ISL battery, they can use a deep cycle battery, which cannot provide as much current (but you only need to power a contactor to enable the traction battery) but can provide power and be discharged fully without degradation. The reason you need a big battery still is the 12V systems still draw power and you need again, a long battery life since the battery cannot be charged unless the traction battery contactor is enabled.
The EV traction battery contactor is enabled only when the car is "running" or charging. If you're just put it into accessory only mode it's drawing 12V power from that but the traction battery isn't enabled. When you charge an EV, the charger also enables the DC-DC converter so the 12V battery gets charged too.
Re: (Score:2)
An ICE could be likened to the Hindenberg. It has a whopping tank of explosive fluid in the boot (trunk) which is almost synonymous with trying to fly on hydrogen instead of helium. There is no denying that a Li fire is horrendous but it does need starting and that is quite hard but petrol can be ignited with just a fag (cigarette).
Let's get back to basics: A fire needs three things - combustible material, ignition and oxygen.
The horrid thing about a Li fire is that it provides its own oxygen once it is r
Re: (Score:3)
The summary and article are, more or less, bullshit.
Basically they're making it sound like these cars are catching fire because ICE cars have some special fault that makes them vulnerable in a way BEs don't. But... turns out all the examples are of the electrical systems of those cars catching fire. Not the engines. The very first example is about the front seat catching fire because the power seat switch on it is poorly designed.
These are all faults that could just as easily be in a BE vehicle. If Kia had
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen many examples of ICE vehicles catching fire. It is absolutely not true that they are "electrical systems of the cars catching fire." ICE cars catching fire are simply so commonplace that they don't even make the papers, unless some celebrity like Jay Leno [nbcnews.com] is burned.
https://normantaylor.com/blog/... [normantaylor.com]
https://thedailyautomotive.com... [thedailyautomotive.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that there are actual ICE-specific failure modes that can cause a fire in a car that’s parked and switched off. It’s also true that the article got itself muddled by not talking about any of those!
There have been several recalls for this kind of failure mode:
* Ford Bronco Sport / Escape (2024): Ford recalled about 42,650 2022–23 vehicles because a fuel injector could crack and leak fuel into the engine compartment. NHTSA explicitly says the fuel could reach hot engine or exhaust co
Re: Just numbers, or some culture? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an inherent risk. It can be engineered out to a degree, but it requires a program of PPM to actively manage the risk, because seals can corrode, fittings can come loose, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the whole point is, yes there have been instances due to poor engineering but it can also be made very safe.
ICE cars are way down the learning curve. At this point, if they catch fire, it's because yes, ICE cars sometimes catch fire. It's no longer realistic to use the excuse that oh, it's a new technology, they will engineer out the bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're misunderstanding the point: there's a lot of FUD about BE vehicles in north america, not least of which is that battery fires are common, and they may burst into flames at any point. There have been some high-profile examples of badly designed or built cars killing people or lighting on fire, etc. As one would expect, the number of ICE vehicles that this happens to is greater because they're still a larger proportion of all vehicles. But also, as a proportion of their type, more ICE vehicles
Re: Just numbers, or some culture? (Score:1)
The summary and article are, more or less, bullshit.
Is this your first time here on /.?
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
It could certainly just be a numbers game
FWIW, here are numbers:
Gasoline-powered cars: 1530 fires per 100,000 sold
Hybrid cars: 3475 fires per 100,000 sold
Electric cars: 25 fires per 100,000 sold
Source: https://www.kbb.com/car-news/s... [kbb.com]
An interesting aside: The delivery trucks used by the US Postal Service for the last 40 years are crazy fire-prone. I learned this recently because my brother is a mail carrier and a few weeks ago he was out delivering when he saw wisps of white smoke from under the hood. He pulled over and jumped out to
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 2024 Telly; last year I received a letter extending my 10 year/100K mile warranty to 15 year/150K warranty for issues related to oil burning as part of a settlement. I'm very low in my mileage (20K).
In honor of Dolly Parton (Score:3, Funny)
Dolly Parton playing Miss Mona in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you're correct for high speed crashes. There's a big problem with low speed crashes potentially writing off your car/truck. Everything custom plastic that costs a fortune to replace. Cameras and other sensors that cost a fortune to replace and calibrate. A shopping cart can hit your vehicle and cause thousands of dollars of damage, whereas with an old car, would need some touch up paint or maybe a new (used) lens, which often were used for years making used ones commonly available.
There's also the inc
Re: (Score:2)
Those old cars didn’t crumple and fared better. The meat sacks inside made of 70% water are a different story.
What if s/ware was held to the same standard (Score:2)
and s/ware vendors had to provide patches/... for free. Declaring a short product lifetime would not be allowed. Would we have better quality s/ware, written secure by design ?
Re: (Score:3)
and s/ware vendors had to provide patches/... for free.
i'm all in.
actually, in my country there was a debate many years ago about software developers having to join a professional association like e.g. architects and engineers do, which means certification, regulation and liability. it makes sense, at some point we started calling it "software engineering" then why not actually treat it as engineering? engineering mistakes have consequences. alas, it lead to nowhere.
Declaring a short product lifetime would not be allowed.
this makes no sense. it's an entirely different issue, plus you simply can't force anyone to pr
Re: (Score:2)
Declaring a short product lifetime would not be allowed.
this makes no sense. it's an entirely different issue, plus you simply can't force anyone to provide unlimited support.
My point was to stop a vendor saying that the product lifetime is 3 months and thus using this as a get out from having to provide updates over a reasonable period. Quite how long is another debate.
Also: this need not apply to all s/ware and all bugs equally. Some which, for example, can lead to a security failure exploitable from a remote location if more important than a local cosmetic issue. Deciding a classification is a bigger can of worms than it seems at first sight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oops ...
Re: What if s/ware was held to the same standard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are held to the same standard. Where software has the capability to burn down your house or kill you it's usually subject to some kind of vendor provided redress - usually recall. There have been plenty of software related recalls over the years, but no one gives a shit if your laptop bluescreens while you're posting on slashdot.
Of course (Score:2)
"they're not EVs" (Score:3)
They're Pintos!
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, at least we still have enough readers on this site to have at least one person who meets that criteria. I guess that's something.
"But they're not EVs" (Score:2)
Millions of Cars Recalled Over Danger of Bursting Into Flames. But They're Not EVs
EVs receive more media attention, but ICE cars have a much higher probability of bursting into flames.
Source: Dispelling the common myths around electric vehicles [autotrader...blog.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. EVs would not even have gotten allowed on the streets if they were anywhere as dangerous as ICE cars with regards to fires. But some people only read the sensationalist headlines and think they have truth.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs receive more media attention, but ICE cars have a much higher probability of bursting into flames.
I've always found this type of grading on a curve logic a bit strange. Yes it sucks but at least it doesn't suck that bad. Most EV batteries suffer from self propagating thermal runaway that can be triggered by any number of failures such as under or over charging, punctures..etc. There is no reason for either the industry nor consumers to continue to tolerate this when safer chemistries are readily available.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking through your history I can't seem to find any mention of you calling for ICE cars to be banned.
Care to point out where you've done this?
That whoooooshing sound you hear is you missing the point entirely. Neither is anyone calling for anything to be banned. What I'm calling for is people not to tolerate stupid sources of risk when it is easily avoided. This notion because x is safer than y therefore x gets a pass is an inherently stupid way to reason about acceptable risk.
If flying on a commercial airliner is safer than driving nobody would accept the persistence of trivially avoidable manufacturing defects that will cause random airliner
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm calling for is people not to tolerate stupid sources of risk when it is easily avoided.
So: ICE car then.
This notion because x is safer than y therefore x gets a pass is an inherently stupid way to reason about acceptable risk.
X was and remains ubiquitous. Y is a safer version of X that is substantially safer than X. And yet you're attacking Y not X.
Airliners are not safer version of cars. Cars are already one of the most wildly dangerous things people do day to day regardless of logic. But in this
Multiple entertainment centers and screens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heated seats too! :-) Maybe BMW can pivot to the Firestarter-as-a-service (FaaS) business.
Re: (Score:2)
Heated seats too! :-) Maybe BMW can pivot to the Firestarter-as-a-service (FaaS) business.
More like return to offering a fire starting service, they used to include a cigarette lighter in all vehicle. I think that was more convenient. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding EVs, they have the same electronics ICE vehicles do, plus a battery.
The fire risk is hence greater with EVs. Any talk about the "vast majority" of recalls being ICE vehicles should instead calculate the ratio of recalls per category
Electronics are not necessarily required. You're discounting the many recalls for ICE vehicles that resulted from leaked fuel or other flammable liquids combined with hot exhaust manifolds or other ignition sources.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not discounting that - I just have a gut feel. I am saying that any talk about the "vast majority" of recalls being ICE vehicles should instead calculate the *ratio* of recalled versus non-recalled for each category (ICE or electric).
Re: (Score:2)
Electronics are exceptionally unlikely to cause vehicle fires. Who told you that nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
ICEs have a tank of flammable fuel in the boot.
My dad was an ATO some years ago. He messed around with explosives whilst avoiding blowing himself up. I attended several demos of cars with cotton reel sized devices attached to their rear wheel wells. I recall seeing the bonnet of a Merc reaching at least 100 feet, whilst the rest of the car burned furiously.
An ICE does not have that tank of 50+ litres of explosive fluid built in. Its probably never occurred to you that it is not really a good idea to hav
Re: (Score:2)
I'm lazy so I put your claim to AI
It answered:
--
Why a Cigarette Won't Ignite a Gas Tank
1. Not enough heat:A smoldering cigarette simply does not produce enough heat or energy to ignite gasoline vapors under normal conditions.
2. It gets extinguished: If you dropped a cigarette down the fuel filler neck, it would simply hiss and go out the moment it hit the liquid gasoline. Liquid fuel actually acts as a coolant and smothers the ember
3. Lack of oxygen: The inside of a car’s gas tank is full of rich fuel
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding EVs, they have the same electronics ICE vehicles do, plus a battery.
Plus a battery and minus all the flammable fuel you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Long ago when very few people had EVs some bloke saw me plugging mine in for a free charge (those were the days) and asked if I was worried about it catching fire. Mate, you drive around with a tank full of flammable liquid in a car powered by explosions.
Re: (Score:2)
"drive around with a tank full of flammable liquid in a car powered by explosions." Hahah - nice picture. Small explosions, but explosions nonetheless
Re: (Score:2)
Flammable engine oil too, which has a tendency to leak out of older vehicles onto hot exhausts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, minus that big gas tank. That tank's gotten harder to ignite over the last few decades. :-) Hopefully, similar progress happens with batteries over the next few years
Funny that (Score:2)
EVs have always been less dangerous than ICEs. But a regular car bursting into flames is not news and certain especially dumb parts of the population cannot understand probabilities anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs have always been less dangerous than ICEs. But a regular car bursting into flames is not news and certain especially dumb parts of the population cannot understand probabilities anyways.
Exactly. But it is simple prejudice going on as well. People who think that whatever technology allowed should be teh tech when they grew up often hate EV's, and when one catches fire, they go on a rant See, SEE, SEEEE! This EVs should be banned because they burn up! I told the boys down at the Legion that this would happen! My 1955 Chevy didn't burn because they know hoe to make cars using gas, just like God intended! But will those lee burls listen to me? No. Serves them right, ya now?
Remove the computers! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Get rid of the 3,494 sensors, computer control garbage and it would make vehicle more affordable in two ways. One, less expensive to purchase and two, less expensive TO REPAIR!
You can always get a model T. They still have some on Facebook Marketplace, and not too bad a price.
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of the 3,494 sensors, computer control garbage and it would make vehicle more affordable in two ways. One, less expensive to purchase and two, less expensive TO REPAIR!
You can always get a model T. They still have some on Facebook Marketplace, and not too bad a price.
Wow - tough crowd. Really think about it. The model T not only has minimal parts, but not even an oil or Water pump. Not even a starter motor to go bad. It's like the ultimate old school machine. And repair? Easy peasy. Most things can be done in your garage, and there are professionals to do the tougher fixes.
Second times a charm? (Score:2)
My 2024 Telly goes back next week for the second time to "fix" this seat cable problem.
They should have to pay me for my wasted time.
Yawn (Score:2)
A quick Google search tells me of the 291 million vehicles in the US, EV's make up approximately
two ( 2 ) percent of all vehicles on the road.
Meaning the remaining 98% are either ICE or hybrids of some sort.
Considering those numbers, it isn't very surprising that a majority of recalls are going to fall into the ICE camp.
a thought (Score:2)
Use a switch and some relays (Score:2)
What is needed is some relays in series with the car's electrical systems and a switch or switches to control the relays.
When you park the car, use the switches to de-energise the relays and thus electrically isolate the car's electronic systems ( this will also handily stop the engine ).
When you want to use the car again, use the switches to enable the relays and thus power the car's electronic systems.
Pepperidge Farm Remembers (Score:2)
As if this doesn't happen ever to ICE vehicles. Mother in law had two cars burn up, I had one. This was back in teh mid 70's.
Yes, carrying tanks of flammable, deflagrating fluids that are just one step short of being actually explosive, yes, they burn up all the time. But that's not news. There is stasis with blinders that makes some people hate EV's and only see adverse outcomes n EV's, not IC vehicles.