← New search

1996 Nissan Sentra

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 1996 Nissan Sentra do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 116.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Sentra 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

Limited mileage data: 14 of 141 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.

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.

  • Air Bags. Review the 53 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Visibility. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

43 crash reports1 fire reports25 injury reports

What owners actually said

141 reports
Mileage unknown · Nov 27, 1996
Interior Lighting

WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT EXPERIENCES INTERMITTENT DASHLIGHTS FLICKERING, DLR CAN'T CORRECT PROBLEM. *AK

NHTSA ODI #805695

Mileage unknown · Nov 22, 1996
Wheels

LOOSE HUB CAPS FELL OFF.

NHTSA ODI #511640

Mileage unknown · Nov 18, 1996
SuspensionVehicle Speed Control

VEHICLE HESITATES TO ACCELERATE.

NHTSA ODI #511439

Mileage unknown · Nov 12, 1996
Power TrainCrash

VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN A FRIEND'S DRIVEWAY WHEN IT WAS SHIFTED BY SOMEONE IN REVERSE, VEHICLE MOVED OUT OF DRIVEWAY INTO A TREE. *AK

NHTSA ODI #511173

Mileage unknown · Nov 6, 1996
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash

CONSUMER STATES HE ATTEMPTED TO APPLY HIS BRAKES NOTICED THEY FELT SPONGY AND DID NOT STOP THE VEHICLE WHICH CAUSED HIM TO RUN INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER AUTOMOBILE. *AK

NHTSA ODI #804665

Mileage unknown · Oct 18, 1996
Air Bags

WHILE DRIVING, THE DRIVER'S AND PASSENGER'S SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED AFTER HAVING A FLAT TIRE. *AK

NHTSA ODI #803705

Mileage unknown · Oct 16, 1996
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrashInjury

CONSUMER STATES DUE TO THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE PEDAL IS TO CLOSE TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, WHEN ATTEMPTING TO DEPRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL CONSUMER ACCIDENTLY DEPRESS THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL CAUSING THE CONSUMER TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT/INJURIES. *AK

NHTSA ODI #801660

Mileage unknown · Oct 1, 1996
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

MOTHER GOT INTO VEHICLE, PLACED KEY INTO IGNITION, PLACED FOOT ON BRAKES, STARTED VEHICLE, SHIFTED INTO REVERSE, VEHICLE SHOT FORWARD THROUGH GARAGE DOOR. *AK

NHTSA ODI #802368

Mileage unknown · Sep 24, 1996
Air BagsCrashInjury

CONSUMER WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONTAL CRASH IN WHICH THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. *AK

NHTSA ODI #802853

Mileage unknown · Sep 11, 1996
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control

CONSUMER COMPLAINT REGARDING POSITIONING OF BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS.

NHTSA ODI #508545

Official recalls

3

00V063000 · Suspension:front:springs:coil Springs

Mar 2, 2000

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS MAY NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CORROSION RESISTANCE IN AREAS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF DE-ICING SALTS ARE APPLIED TO ROADS IN THE WINTER.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: IF A BROKEN SPRING COMES OUT OF THE LOWER SEAT, IT COULD CONTACT AND PUNCTURE THE TIRE.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT COIL SPRING.

98V093000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer:linkages

May 5, 1998

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. WATER CAN ENTER AND DISPLACE THE GREASE IN THE WIPER ARM LINKAGE BALL JOINT WHERE THE WIPER LINKAGE ATTACHES TO THE WIPER MOTOR LINKAGE.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THIS CAN RESULT IN GRADUAL WEAR OVER A PERIOD OF TIME INSIDE THE JOINT THAT COULD LEAD TO THE SEPARATION OF THE WIPER LINKAGE ASSEMBLY FROM THE WIPER MOTOR LINKAGE AT THE BALL JOINT. A LOSS OF WINDSHIELD WIPER FUNCTION CAN RESULT IN THIS SEPARATION OCCURS.

Remedy: TO PREVENT GREASE FROM BEING WASHED OUT OF THE JOINT, THE DEALERS WILL MODIFY BY ADDING A WATER DIVERSION SEAL THAT WILL PREVENT WATER FROM ENTERING THE WINDSHIELD WIPER LINKAGE BALL JOINT AREA.

98V008000 · Exterior Lighting:tail Lights

Jan 21, 1998

THESE VEHICLES DO NOT MEET THE ILLUMINATION REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT."

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: FOLLOWING VEHICLES MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT THE VEHICLE IN FRONT IS STOPPING, INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE CRASH.

Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH TWO NEW LIGHT BULBS FOR THE STOP/TAIL LAMPS WHICH ARE BRIGHTER THAN THE ORIGINAL BULBS. A LABEL WITH THE NEW BULB NUMBER WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED FOR INSERTION INTO THE OWNER'S MANUAL. IF AN OWNER SO DESIRES, A DEALERS CAN INSTALL THE LIGHT BULBS FOR THEM.

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

SQ99018 · Corrision Fatigue Of Front Coil Springs

Opened Jun 17, 1999 · No close date supplied

Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Suspension

NISSAN IS CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL IN CANADA OF 11,100 1994 THROUGH 1996 SENTRA 2 DOOR MODELS IN WHICH THE FRONT COIL SPRINGS ARE FRACTURING FROM CORROSION FATIGUE.NISSAN REPORTED THAT THE FAILURES OCCUR FROM A LOSS OF THE PROTECTIVE PAINT COATING ON THE SPRINGS AND EXPOSURE TO HEAVY ROAD SALT.CORROSION CAN CAUSE PITS TO FORM ON THE SPRING SURFACE, WHICH CAN RESULT IN FATIGUE FAILURE OF THE SPRING.A BROKEN SPRING COULDPUNCTURE THE AFFECTED TIRE, POSSIBLY CAUSING A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.THE CANADIAN RECALL NUMBER FOR THIS IS 99-069, DATED APRIL 28, 1999.THE PURPOSE OF THIS SQ IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFECT IDENTIFIED IN THE CANADIAN SAFETY RECALL SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN THE U.S. AS A SAFETY RECALL.