2011 Audi Q5

1) The rear structural subframe (crossmember) has completely rotted, perforated, and failed due to severe corrosion. The factory-installed plastic underbody rock shields trapped road salt and water, causing the frame to rust from the inside out. The corrosion has spread, completely fusing and compromising the rear suspension mounting points and the rear differential brackets. The vehicle is fully available for physical inspection upon request. 2) My safety and the safety of others on the road was severely put at risk because the structural integrity of the rear suspension is completely compromised. The rusted metal anchors could snap under driving loads, causing a catastrophic rear suspension collapse, loss of vehicle control, or a high-speed wheel separation on the highway. 3) Yes. The structural failure was independently confirmed by two independent automotive service centers and an authorized Audi dealership service center (Audi Dallas). 4) Yes. An authorized Audi dealership representing the manufacturer physically inspected the vehicle on the lift during a goodwill evaluation. They confirmed the extensive structural damage and issued an official diagnostic repair quote of $20,873.78 to completely rebuild the failed rear subframe, effectively totaling the vehicle. 5) No. There were absolutely no dashboard warning lamps, electronic messages, or obvious driving symptoms prior to the inspection. Because the factory plastic underbody shields completely hidden the metal frame from view, the structural rot developed entirely out of sight until the vehicle was placed on a mechanical lift.

During an inspection of my 2011 Audi Q5 at Audi Burlington, severe corrosion was discovered on the rear subframe, which supports rear suspension components. The corrosion was substantially worse than normal surface rust and may compromise the structural integrity of the subframe and suspension mounting points. The condition was not readily visible during ordinary vehicle use because portions of the subframe are covered. The vehicle has been operated in the northeastern United States, where road salt is used. I was advised that the rear subframe requires replacement at an estimated cost of approximately $5,884. I am concerned that continued deterioration could result in separation or movement of a suspension mounting point and a loss of vehicle control. Audi has not issued a recall or offered to cover the repair. I am aware of similar reports involving Audi Q5 rear subframe corrosion and request that NHTSA investigate whether the design permits moisture, salt and debris to remain against the subframe and cause premature structural corrosion.

The contact's wife owns a 2011 Audi Q5. The contact stated that after he parked the vehicle in his garage, he smelled a fuel odor outside of the vehicle. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the flange had cracked and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The dealer was notified of the failure and advise the contact to call the manufacturer. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and the contact was informed that the recall was previously performed under the NHTSA Campaign Number: 18V818000 (Fuel System, Gasoline) but no further assistance was provided. The failure mileage was approximately 127,000. The contact stated that the dealership was able to resolve the issue.

Audi offered a warranty extension for intake manifold & fuel injectors in certain 2008-2011 Model Year Audi Vehicles with 2.0 TFSI Engine. Audi rejected our claim for a faulty fuel injector in our 2011 car citing that “vehicle does not have the extended warranty for fuel injectors and the information that was submitted was only for 2.0 TFSI Engine's with the Engine code of CBFA & CCTA. The engine in your vehicle is a 3.2 FSI with the Engine code CALB. So this warranty extension would not be applicable to your vehicle.” Our Audi dealership diagnosed our car with the same fuel injector issue listed by Audi in this warranty extension as well as stating that this is a very common issue with our make, model and year. Our Audi is a 2011 model, less than 120,000 miles, and less than 10 years when the malfunction indicator lamp appeared. Their letter does not stand to prove that a faulty fuel injector was not placed in our car that was built in 2011, the same year that they installed faulty fuel injectors in their 2.0 TFSI engines. Audi dealership diagnosed our car as suffering from misfire conditions that in turn cause the malfunction indicator lamp to appear. The dealership indicates that this is a common issue with Audis during our production year. This is the same issue that Audi listed in their warranty extension letter to consumers with 2.0 TFSI engines. Our car meets all the requirements in Audi’s warranty extension letter (2011 model, less than 120,000 miles, and less than 10 years when the malfunction indicator lamp appeared) except that our car is a 3.2 FSI vs 2.0 TFSI. Audi is not able show that they did not install a faulty fuel injector into our car. Fuel injector problems in cars with mileage under 100,000 miles and less than 10 years of age is very uncommon. This plus Audi’s history of installing faulty fuel injectors into cars built in our year lead us to believe that Audi also installed a faulty fuel injector into our car.

During a routine inspection my mechanic noticed the subframe of my 2011 Audi Q5 was rusted through in numerous spots. It seemed odd that a vehicle bought new and garaged since it was purchased had such extensive rust. Pictures of the rusted subframe were taken and shown to the local Audi dealer. The dealer then asked to bring the vehicle in so they could take their own pictures. Contacted Audi NA and spoke with rep about problem. The phone call ended abruptly when the Audi NA rep refused to file a claim and hung up on me.