Home · 2024 Volvo XC40 Recharge · Complaints

What 14 owners told NHTSA about the 2024 Volvo XC40 Recharge

These are the actual owner complaints behind this car’s reliability verdict, filed with the federal government, unedited. They’re unverified reports, not confirmed defects: read them as leads for your pre-purchase inspection, not a diagnosis.

All (14)Crash / fire / injury (6)Backup camera & sensors (4)Brakes (4)Driver assistance (3)Electrical system (2)Engine (2)Airbags (1)Lights (1)Seat belts (1)Speed control (1)

6 of 14 complaints match · crash/fire/injury only · clear filters

Mar 11, 2026BrakesEngineDriver assistanceCrash1 injury

The contact owned a 2024 Volvo XC40. The contact stated that his wife was entering a parking lot at approximately 10 MPH when she heard the vehicle engine abnormally revving and the vehicle independently accelerated. The vehicle drove through the parking lot and crashed into a tree. The contact stated that the driver's and passenger front air bags deployed, and the front collision avoidance had not engaged. The contact stated that the vehicle crashed into the tree almost at the center of the front bumper and grill. The hood had been crushed, the grill cracked, and the bumper had been torn off. The contact stated that the police arrived on scene but did not write a report since no other vehicles were involved. The contact stated that his wife had scrapes and bruises on both arms and scrapes on her nose and forehead. The wife was not attended to by EMT, but later went to the ER for neck and back pain. The vehicle was towed to an impound lot and later declared a total loss by the contact's insurance provider. The contact had contacted the manufacturer, who sent a technician to download information from the vehicle computers. The contact stated that a summary was released by the manufacturer that indicated that the crash was a driver error. The failure mileage was approximately 8,000.

NHTSA ODI 11723648

Jan 14, 2026Backup camera & sensorsCrash

The contact owns a 2024 Volvo XC40. The contact stated while in reverse (R) and backing up at approximately 2 MPH, the vehicle rear view camera proximity warning lights had failed. The contact described the proximity warning as dots that show a visual progression of how close the rear bumper was to objects, yellow, orange, and red. The contact stated that the red dot signaled to stop the vehicle. The contact stated that the colored dots had been working as she was adjusting the vehicle to allow her to open the trunk, however when she had again shifted to reverse (R) to park the vehicle, the warning dots had disappeared from the display panel, and the contact crashed into some shelving located behind the vehicle. The contact stated that a shelf at the level of the rear windshield had shattered the windshield. The contact had not yet taken the vehicle to a glass shop or to a dealer. The contact stated that she had only called the dealer for information and was advised to bring the vehicle to the dealer's repair shop. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not informed of the failure. The contact reported that in 2025, she had had a recall, NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V282000 (Back Over Prevention), completed, but was not sure if the current failure was related. The failure mileage was approximately 12,000.

NHTSA ODI 11710865

Apr 17, 2025Driver assistanceCrash

Car suddenly accelerated/stuck accelerator in the parking lot hitting several vehicles. Issues: sudden acceleration AND the car did not apply the emergency braking system.

NHTSA ODI 11655323

Nov 20, 20241 injury

Trunk does not fully open when you less the open button. It partially opens maybe 75%. My husband and I have both hit our heads - my forehead was cut and now I have scar. This malfunction has happened 3-4 times. No pattern discernible.

NHTSA ODI 11626306

Sep 14, 2024Electrical systemBrakesCrash

My wife pulled into a neighbor's driveway and put the car in Park. The car stopped. She reached over to the passenger's seat to pick up an item and the car lurched forward, crashing into the closed garage door before she could stop it. There were no warning lights alerting her that this would happen. She later told me, though, there had been previous instances of the car "bucking" after she had put it into park. The incident clearly posed a safety risk to my wife and others. Had someone been standing in front of the car when this happened, they could have been seriously injured or killed. Had the car not stopped after hitting the garage door, my wife, too, could have been seriously injured or killed. Had this happened in an area such as a parking lot, others also might have been injured. Volvo advised me not to file a police report at this time. The vehicle was inspected at Wallace Volvo in Stuart, Florida, and would be available for additional inspection. Volvo claims to have found liquid on internal parts. The larger, and more important question, though, is how the vehicle’s design could have allowed that to happen. Facts clearly point to a design flaw. The vehicle design clearly allows liquid to reach the parts in question and create the problem we experienced. If Volvo had designed the vehicle with a “tight” interior – a design that would have protected internal parts and not left them vulnerable – no amount of liquid in any amount from any source under any circumstance would have ended up in the vehicle’s internal parts. In my claim to Volvo, I asked that they make repairs to assure that this never happens again. They conceded that they did perform "repairs" to the vehicle but called it a "one-time good will gesture." I also asked Volvo to pay for the body damage to my vehicle and the damage ($2,364) caused to my neighbor's garage door by the malfunctioning vehicle. Volvo has refused to compensate me for the damage caused by their malfunctioning vehicle.

NHTSA ODI 11614571

Apr 4, 2024Backup camera & sensorsDriver assistance1 injury

There have been several times when slowly backing up when monitoring the mirrors and backup camera that the car had a very violent stop. I wasn't going fast at all and was within two feet of objects that I'm very familiar with. My old car handled backing up fine and didn't stop so violently. The warning on the old car got quicker as I got closer. This Volvo does have an increasingly rapid beep too but as you monitor the space it jerks so hard before it's really close enough to hit. This week I was backing up in a parking lot with NOTHING around me. I was still going slowly but the backup camera picked up an asphalt strip in between two cement pads and jerked so hard I have had whiplash like symptoms right after and ever since. The car stopped so hard my neck snapped back and I hit my head on the headrest. This incident was the most violent but there have been others that are too harsh for the slow moving conditions and insignificance of the objects.

NHTSA ODI 11581246

Working with the data? Download all 14 complaints as CSV · fetched from NHTSA July 18, 2026

How to use these: a complaint is one owner’s report, filed voluntarily and published unverified. Patterns matter more than any single story. If several owners describe the same failure at similar mileage, put that system at the top of your pre-purchase inspection list. Back to the full 2024 Volvo XC40 Recharge verdict →