!['The Pedal [Could] Shift Out of Position:' Honda Recalls a Quarter-Million Cars Over Faulty Brake Pedals](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.motor1.com%2Fimages%2Fmgl%2F40Zv31%2Fs1%2F2023-honda-pilot-trailsport-exterior-front-quarter.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
'The Pedal [Could] Shift Out of Position:' Honda Recalls a Quarter-Million Cars Over Faulty Brake Pedals
has issued a recall for 259,033 vehicles in the United States. The cars may have a brake pedal assembly with an improperly staked pivot pin, which could allow the pedal to shift laterally out of position. If this happens, it could compromise the driver's braking ability and cause a crash.
The recall affects the 2023-2025
Honda Pilot
, 2023-2025
Acura MDX
, and the 2021-2025
Acura TLX
. The Pilot makes up most of the recalled cars—184,243 vehicles. Honda estimates that one percent of the affected models have the defect.
Honda received its first report of a vehicle experiencing brake pedal movement in April 2024. It received a second report in December 2024 and began investigating the parts inventory from the supplier in February 2025 before determining, earlier this month, to issue a voluntary recall.
Honda discovered that when the supplier relocated production from the United States to Mexico, it increased staffing and production to offset any supply shortages. However, the staff failed to perform the staking process due to insufficient training, resulting in brake pedals with unstaked pins.
In the
Safety Recall Report
, Honda states it's not aware of any reported injuries or deaths related to this issue. However, it is aware of three related warranty claims. The company will begin notifying affected customers by the end of July, instructing owners to take their vehicles to a dealer for an inspection. Service technicians will replace the assembly if necessary.
Here Are More Recalls To Check Out:
Ford Recalls Another One Million Vehicles
Volvo Recalls Nearly 500,000 Cars Over a Simple Software Glitch
Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily.
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
Source:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Share this Story
X
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Consumer Advocates Urge Court to End Marital-Status Discrimination in Auto Insurance; Data Proves Overcharges
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 20, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Basing auto insurance premiums on whether a motorist is unmarried, divorced or widowed is a violation of the state's civil rights laws and Proposition 103, and neither the insurance companies nor the Insurance Commissioner has the authority to do so, Consumer Watchdog has told the California Court of Appeal in San Francisco. Insurance reform Proposition 103 requires insurance companies to obey California's Unruh Civil Rights Act; Unruh explicitly bars discrimination based on a person's marital status. Proposition 103 allows consumers to sue to stop such discrimination, Consumer Watchdog explained in a "friend of the court" brief in a case brought by motorists challenging the use of marital status to set premiums. Switch Auto Insurance and Save Today! The Insurance Savings You Expect Affordable Auto Insurance, Customized for You Great Rates and Award-Winning Service Proposition 103 requires auto insurance premiums be based primarily upon three factors: a motorist's driving record, the number of miles driven annually, and their years of driving. Other optional rating factors can be approved by the commissioner – if they are lawful. In the case – Ison v. Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance Company – Commissioner Lara, joined by Farmers Insurance company, argued that Proposition 103 authorizes him to approve such surcharges. In addition, Farmers argues that drivers have no right to challenge the surcharges in court. "The Insurance Commissioner has no power to grant insurance companies a 'get out of jail free card' from California's civil rights laws," said Harvey Rosenfield, the author of Proposition 103 and the founder of Consumer Watchdog. The brief underscores that: The Commissioner's Approval of Surcharges Against Drivers Who are Unmarried Directly Conflicts with Proposition 103 The voters passed Prop. 103 because they noted the previous insurance laws "inadequately protect[ed] consumers and allow[ed] insurance companies to charge … arbitrary rates." The voters applied the state's civil rights laws to insurance companies "to protect consumers from arbitrary insurance rates and practices." The Commissioner's decision to allow insurance companies to engage in a form of discrimination that California's civil rights law explicitly prohibits turns Proposition 103's principles of fairness upside down. Civil Rights Protections Bind the Commissioner as Well as Insurers Proposition 103 expressly applies the Unruh Civil Rights Act and other consumer laws to insurance. The Commissioner cannot nullify those protections by administrative fiat. Judicial Oversight Is Essential to Prevent Abuse Proposition 103 ensures consumers can sue when the Commissioner authorizes unlawful rating factors. This safeguard exists precisely because voters anticipated the risk of regulatory capture and political pressure. William Pletcher, head of litigation at Consumer Watchdog, explained: "The Commissioner is effectively asking the Court to allow him to violate Californians' civil rights — a power no government official can lawfully claim. Once a government official claims unilateral authority to decide when civil rights apply — and who is protected from discrimination and who is not — you're on a very slippery slope. The Court should make clear that no official is above the law." Discriminatory Marital Status Overcharges – Sometimes over $100 per Policy– Documented by Consumer Federation of America A separate amicus brief filed in the case by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) documented the impact of using marital status as a rating factor on sample motorists' premiums. For four major insurance companies, sample drivers who were single or divorced paid between $71 and $108 more for a six-month policy. Three major companies also penalize widows with higher premiums than married drivers. CFA also examined the impact of the marital status rating factor by race, and found that: "When insurers charge higher premiums to unmarried Californians, Black drivers face surcharges 70% of the time, while fewer than half of white drivers pay more because of their marital status. Native Americans pay the surcharge nearly 60% of the time, and Latino Californians are penalized due to marital status 58% of the time." Background Proposition 103, approved by voters in 1988, rolled back insurance rates, required prior approval of future increases, and prohibited unfair discrimination. It expressly subjected insurance to California's civil rights and consumer protection laws and gave consumers the right to enforce those laws in court. The case before the Court of Appeal — Ison v. Commissioner of Insurance — challenges the Commissioner's approval of marital-status rating factors in auto insurance. The Alameda Superior Court ruled that the Insurance Commissioner had the power to authorize the use of marital status; the consumers appealed. The case is: Ison v. Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance Company (A170267), before the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three. Read Consumer Watchdog's brief. Read Consumer Federation of America's brief. Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit, non-partisan public-interest organization dedicated to protecting consumers and promoting government accountability. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Consumer Watchdog Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2026 Toyota bZ Pricing Starts More than $2000 Below 2025 Version
Toyota announced pricing for the 2026 lineup, which cuts $2170 off the base price of last year's car. The 2026 lineup starts at $36,350 for the base trim and extends up to $46,750 for the Limited AWD trim at the top of the range. Toyota reworked the bZ for 2026, with changes highlighted by increased power and significantly improved range. Maybe customers thought "bZ4X" had too many syllables, and that led to Toyota chopping off the latter two—but, whatever the reason, Toyota has opted to rename its electric crossover to simply "bZ" for the 2026 model year. And the automaker went with a smaller price to go along with the shorter name—at least for the bottom half of the lineup. For the base trim, the 2026 bZ cuts $2170 off the price when compared with the 2025 model. That brings the starting price for the front-drive XLE to $36,350 when it's equipped with the standard battery. Upgrading from the standard 57.7-kWh pack to the XLE Plus with its 74.7-kWh pack increases that figure by $3000, while adding AWD tacks on another $2000, bringing the XLE AWD to $41,350. Unfortunately, the Limited models don't offer the same olive branch as the XLEs. At the upper end of the lineup, the front-drive Limited trim nets a $44,750 starting price, making it $1500 more than the 2025 equivalent. Adding AWD means coughing up an additional $2000, bringing the Limited AWD to $46,750. Along with changing the name, Toyota made a whole slew of changes to the bZ. All the trims come equipped with an onboard NACS charging port, giving access to Tesla's Supercharger network. Thanks to updated batteries and new electric motors, range and power are up for nearly every trim as well. The front-drive XLE Plus gets the largest rating of the bZ lineup at 314 miles, while the base XLE is forced to contend with a smaller battery and earns the worst estimate of the bunch at 236 miles. You Might Also Like Car and Driver's 10 Best Cars through the Decades How to Buy or Lease a New Car Lightning Lap Legends: Chevrolet Camaro vs. Ford Mustang!
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
eBay Launches Free Returns for Vehicle Parts & Accessories
The new offering lets buyers return a part or accessory for any reason, at no cost. SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug. 20, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, eBay, the marketplace with more than 700 million parts and accessories (P&A), announces free returns for qualifying P&A purchases. This lets everyone – from occasional DIYers to seasoned mechanics – shop with confidence, knowing they can return an item for any reason, at no cost. "Buying a vehicle part online can feel like guesswork, but free returns let buyers purchase a part and easily send it back if it's not right," said Neil Sethi, Director of U.S. Commercial Operations, Parts & Accessories at eBay. "We're removing extra costs and uncertainty, so shoppers can tackle their vehicle projects with assurance, every time." Building on eBay Guaranteed Fit, which protects buyers against fitment issues, free returns provide even greater buyer protection across a range of P&A categories. If a return is necessary, simply print a free shipping label and send the item back for a refund. Other experience improvements include: Flexible Returns: Most parts and accessories can be returned within 30 days after delivery at no cost. Convenient Shipping: Shoppers can access free return labels and schedule pickups or drop-offs. Fast Refunds: Accelerated refund processing for peace of mind, including the option to receive an eBay credit to quickly resume shopping. Learn more about the offering here. Shop parts, accessories and vehicles at For more on the latest offerings, follow @ebaymotors on Instagram, and @ebay on YouTube and Facebook. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE eBay Inc. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
