← New search

2010 Lexus Hs

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Hs years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

All reported categories

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

44 reports with mileage · 26 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Service Brakes. Review the 20 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes, Electric. Review the 6 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

5 crash reports0 fire reports3 injury reports

Suspension complaints

6 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Jan 23, 2026
Suspension

The rear suspension lateral links (Rear Control Arm No. 1) have failed to remain adjustable because they were permanently encapsulated in epoxy by the dealer during the official Lexus Safety Recall for rear suspension arm corrosion. This component is currently installed on the vehicle and available for inspection upon request. T…

Read full complaint

The rear suspension lateral links (Rear Control Arm No. 1) have failed to remain adjustable because they were permanently encapsulated in epoxy by the dealer during the official Lexus Safety Recall for rear suspension arm corrosion. This component is currently installed on the vehicle and available for inspection upon request. This "locked" state has caused a severe misalignment resulting in premature tire failure, with the current set of tires showing significant inner tread wear and reaching the end of their life far sooner than their expected mileage rating. This creates an immediate hazard of a sudden highway blowout, compromised braking stability, and emergency handling instability that endangers both the occupants and other drivers. Furthermore, the constant lateral drag puts undue stress on other suspension components and reduces fuel efficiency. This problem was first confirmed by an independent service center (Brakes Plus) and subsequently verified by a Lexus dealership technician on January 24, 2026, who acknowledged the parts are non-adjustable due to the manufacturer's recall remedy but refused to replace them under the program. The manufacturer's refusal to replace these locked parts forces the continued operation of an unsafe vehicle.

NHTSA ODI #11713019

Mileage unknown · Jul 18, 2023
Suspension

SAFETY RECALL GLK REAR LOWER SUSPENSION ARM No.1 CERTAIN 2010 MODEL YEAR HS250h was done previously in 2016 and epoxy was put on the lower control arms rendering the suspension not being able to be aligned by conventional means. The car is now out of alignment in the rear and cannot be adjusted due to the epoxy. Dealership sta…

Read full complaint

SAFETY RECALL GLK REAR LOWER SUSPENSION ARM No.1 CERTAIN 2010 MODEL YEAR HS250h was done previously in 2016 and epoxy was put on the lower control arms rendering the suspension not being able to be aligned by conventional means. The car is now out of alignment in the rear and cannot be adjusted due to the epoxy. Dealership states that once a recall is done it cannot be redone for free and it would be out of pocket. This service can only be done at certified dealership. The car pulls to the right and it swings, sways and drifts into corners and feels very unstable.

NHTSA ODI #11532935

Mileage unknown · Jul 3, 2023
Suspension

Taking left turn, heard a loud sound and complete loss of control of vehicle. Currently being inspected by Lexus dealership, although car was initially towed to dealership service center from which is was purchased. They mentioned lower control arm of rear suspension bolt was lost/missing and rear struts were shot and vehicle is…

Read full complaint

Taking left turn, heard a loud sound and complete loss of control of vehicle. Currently being inspected by Lexus dealership, although car was initially towed to dealership service center from which is was purchased. They mentioned lower control arm of rear suspension bolt was lost/missing and rear struts were shot and vehicle is unsafe to drive. I then paid for a second tow from dealership to Lexus dealership. No warning lights were lit except after total loss of control.

NHTSA ODI #11530215

Mileage unknown · Jul 28, 2022
Suspension

The previous recall on this issue is not completely resolved. The rear suspension on this model of Lexus was simply epoxied in place permanently. The recall "resolution" approved by NHTSA and implemented by Lexus does not allow for the common maintenance on the vehicle - namely, alignment. Therefore, inordinate and substantial t…

Read full complaint

The previous recall on this issue is not completely resolved. The rear suspension on this model of Lexus was simply epoxied in place permanently. The recall "resolution" approved by NHTSA and implemented by Lexus does not allow for the common maintenance on the vehicle - namely, alignment. Therefore, inordinate and substantial tire wear occurs due to the inability to align the wheels. The only way to “align” the tires is to buy completely new suspension parts (approximately $900) which will then be permanently epoxied in place again. Instead of the normal alignment ($100) again in an expected maintenance period, the Lexus dealer requires entire replacement again. This recall was NOT repaired. This recall was permanently and unsafely epoxied in place without the possibility of alignment needed for safety. It is unsafe to drive a car that cannot be aligned properly. Tire failure is a real and present danger. My tires were excessively worn and could have blown out.

NHTSA ODI #11476309

Mileage unknown · Apr 23, 2022
Suspension

Recall for Rear Suspension arms. There was a recall on my car which was processed in Aug 2016 at 89k miles by previous owner. I purchased the car in Dec 2021-Jan 2022 at around 93-94k miles. This means the car was almost not used by previous owner for 5 years as the recall wasn't performed well Also, the label for "safety recall…

Read full complaint

Recall for Rear Suspension arms. There was a recall on my car which was processed in Aug 2016 at 89k miles by previous owner. I purchased the car in Dec 2021-Jan 2022 at around 93-94k miles. This means the car was almost not used by previous owner for 5 years as the recall wasn't performed well Also, the label for "safety recall" is still on the entire rear suspension arms which proves the point. When i called the dealership, they mentioned they never ever leave the stickers ON after the recall is processed which is contradictory to the repairs done. This is a serious safety issue and Lexus is liable to fix this recall but they are asking me to pay for it. I do not have any extra money to keep spending just because of the recalls not processed correctly. It goes with the brand Lexus which i trusted to buy. Recall is not done correctly which is a FACT. After driving for few months and just around 3-4 k miles the new tires are completely destroyed. This is when my wife was doing on freeway this happened which is very scary and serious safety concern. Attaching the pictures and certificate of recall repairs, if you can help in this regards.

NHTSA ODI #11461860

Mileage unknown · Jan 5, 2017
Suspension

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 LEXUS HS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V596000 (SUSPENSION); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 LEXUS HS. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V596000 (SUSPENSION); HOWEVER, THE PART TO DO THE RECALL REPAIR WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. PARTS DISTRIBUTION DISCONNECT.

NHTSA ODI #10939901

Official recalls

3

13V235000 · Service Brakes

Jun 5, 2013

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2010 Prius vehicles manufactured March 31, 2009, through October 9, 2009; and model year 2010 Lexus HS250h vehicles manufactured June 19, 2009, through October 9, 2009. Nitrogen gas from a component of the brake booster pump assembly could leak into the brake fluid.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: As nitrogen is released into the brake fluid, the brake pedal may have reduced hydraulic pressure. Under certain circumstances, this condition could affect stopping distance and increase the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the affected brake booster pump assemblies. The recall began on August 7, 2013. Owners may contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331.

10V285000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage

Jun 25, 2010

TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 HS250h LEXUS VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301, "FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY." WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS ROTATED FOLLOWING A CRASH TEST AS REQUIRED, THE AMOUNT OF FUEL LEAKAGE EXCEEDED THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: FUEL LEAKAGE, IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.

Remedy: TOYOTA WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE AFFECTED VEHICLES BY INSTALLING A NEWLY DESIGNED PROTECTOR COMPONENT FOR THE FUEL FILLER INLET PIPE FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 9, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987.

10V039000 · Service Brakes, Air:antilock:control Unit/module

Feb 9, 2010

TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2010 TOYOTA PRIUS AND LEXUS HS250H PASSENGER VEHICLES. CUSTOMERS HAVE EXPERIENCED INCONSISTENT BRAKE FEEL AFTER ABS ACTUATION DURING SLOW AND STEADY APPLICATION OF THE BRAKES ON ROUGH OR SLICK ROAD SURFACES. STOPPING DISTANCES MAY BE INCREASED COMPARED WITH A CUSTOMER'S EXPECTATION FOR A GIVEN PEDAL FORCE.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: VEHICLE STOPPING DISTANCES MAY INCREASE RELATIVE TO A CUSTOMER'S EXPECTATION INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REWRITE THE PROGRAMMING OF THE ABS CONTROL UNIT FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MARCH 3, 2010, AND IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN LATE MARCH 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331 AND LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

1

DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds

Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System

NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.