{"source":"NHTSA vehicle owner complaint","officialApiUrl":"https://api.nhtsa.gov/complaints/odinumber?odinumber=11764582","retrievedAt":"2026-11-05T06:58:26.705Z","count":1,"results":[{"odiNumber":11764582,"manufacturer":"Subaru of America, Inc.","crash":false,"fire":false,"numberOfInjuries":0,"numberOfDeaths":0,"dateOfIncident":"01/01/2022","dateComplaintFiled":"09/15/2026","vin":"4S4BTGUD5N3","components":"ELECTRICAL SYSTEM","summary":"In September 2026, after a jump start, my vehicle's battery emitted a strong sulfur/rotten-egg odor, indicating overheating and overcharging. I was advised to shut it off immediately. The vehicle is now undrivable and parked, and I am concerned it presents a fire risk. This is the latest failure of a chronic electrical defect documented in the dealer's own repair orders since early ownership:  •⁠  ⁠March 16, 2023 (4,985 mi): vehicle needed a jump start. Dealer tested the battery, said it passed, and blamed my driving habits. •⁠  ⁠May 16, 2023 (5,503 mi): vehicle again needed a boost. Battery failed the dealer's test and was replaced under warranty; dealer cited Subaru bulletin 07-213-22R. •⁠  ⁠August 4-8, 2025 (15,188 mi): vehicle again needed a boost. Battery failed the dealer's DCA8000 test (low CCA) and was replaced a second time. A dark-current draw test found the Telematics Data Communication Module (DCM) causing a parasitic draw (code B2A0C); the DCM was replaced. When I arrived to collect the vehicle after being told it was repaired, it would not start in the dealer's own shop. Subaru paid for the DCM repair as one-time goodwill while stating it was not covered by warranty.  These repair orders understate the frequency: throughout ownership the vehicle needed a jump start roughly 80-90% of the times I used it, even the day after being driven, and I used roadside assistance several times. I believe this matches the known parasitic battery drain defect on 2021-2022 Subaru vehicles (control modules, including the DCM, failing to enter low-power sleep mode), the subject of pending class action litigation (Taylor v. Subaru of America, No. 2:26-cv-4935) and Subaru technical service bulletins. My dealer replaced the implicated module, the problem recurred, and the vehicle has now had an overcharging event that left it undrivable.","products":[{"type":"Vehicle","productYear":"2022","productMake":"SUBARU","productModel":"OUTBACK","manufacturer":"Subaru of America, Inc."}]}]}