4 distinct campaigns affect this selection. Announcement dates below are different from vehicle model years. A campaign may cover multiple years.
09V177000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic
Reported: 2009-05-26 (May 26, 2009) · Model years: 2008
QINGQI IS RECALLING 738 MY 2008 ZAP XEBRA MOTORCYCLES MANUFACTURED BETWEEN JANUARY AND DECEMBER 2008. THESE MOTORCYCLES DO NOT CONFORM TO THE STOPPING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 122, "MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS."
Consequence: THESE MOTORCYCLES REQUIRE LONGER DISTANCES TO STOP THAN THE STANDARD ALLOWS. EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCES MAY RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: QINGQI WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND ZAP DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE THE BRAKE ROTORS, PADS, MASTER CYLINDERS, AND FRONT TIRE IF NECESSARY FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT ZAP TOLL-FREE AT 1-800-251-4555.
NHTSA campaign record ↗09V385000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Foundation Components:Master Cylinder
Reported: 2009-10-02 (October 2, 2009) · Model years: 2008
QINGQI IS RECALLING 738 MY 2008 ZAP XEBRA MOTORCYCLES MANUFACTURED BETWEEN JANUARY AND DECEMBER 2008. THESE MOTORCYCLES DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 122, "MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS." THEY DO NOT HAVE A SEPARATE BRAKE FLUID RESERVOIR FOR THE FRONT AND REAR BRAKES.
Consequence: WITHOUT A SEPARATE RESERVOIR FOR EACH BRAKE, HAVING ITS OWN COVER, SEAL, AND COVER RETENTION DEVICE, FLUID FOR ONE BRAKE CIRCUIT MAY MOVE TO THE OTHER. IF THIS HAPPENS, BOTH RESERVOIRS COULD LOOSE FLUID AS A RESULT OF A FLUID LEAK IN ONE BRAKE CIRCUIT AND COMPROMISE THE STOPPING ABILITY OF BOTH BRAKES.
Remedy: ZAP WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND REPAIR OR REPLACE THE MASTER CYLINDER FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON JANUARY 29, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT ZAP TOLL-FREE AT 1-800-251-4555.
Reported: 2012-05-21 (May 21, 2012) · Model years: 2008
QINGQI GROUP MOTORCYCLE CO, LTD, THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED AGENT, ZAP USA, IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2008 ZAP XEBRA ALL ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES MANUFACTURED FROM JANUARY 1, 2008, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008. THESE VEHICLES FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE BRAKING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 122, "MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS."
Consequence: THESE VEHICLES TAKE LONGER DISTANCES TO STOP, INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: ZAP, THE DESIGNATED AGENT OF QINGQI GROUP MOTORCYCLE CO, LTD, WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND ZAP DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE VEHICLES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 8, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT ZAP AT 1-707-525-8658.
NHTSA campaign record ↗12V363000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Foundation Components:Master Cylinder
Reported: 2012-07-27 (July 27, 2012) · Model years: 2008
QingQi Group Motorcycle Co. Ltd., through its designated agent ZAP, is recalling all model year 2008 ZAP Xebra motorcycles manufactured from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. These motorcycles do not conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle Brake Systems." The motorcycles were produced without a separate brake fluid reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal, and cover retention device.
Consequence: Without a separate reservoir for each brake, having its own cover, seal, and cover retention device, fluid for one brake circuit may move to the other. If this happens, both reservoirs could lose fluid as a result of a fluid leak in one brake circuit and compromise the stopping ability of the braking system, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: ZAP will notify owners and ZAP will install or send each owner a remedy kit to bring the vehicles into compliance. ZAP has not provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact ZAP Customer Service at 1-800-251-4555.
Inspect model-year patterns, reported mileage, monthly activity and the evidence behind each signal.
Data completeness
44 unique complaints in this selection. Analysis snapshot: 2026-10-01.
43.2%Usable mileage19 / 44 records
100.0%Valid incident date44 / 44 records
100.0%Valid filing date44 / 44 records
100.0%Ordered incident and filing dates44 / 44 records
Missing, zero and invalid mileage is excluded. Dates after the snapshot are excluded. Examples are limited selections, not a representative sample.
Problems by model year
Model-wide comparison of the eight most reported components across the model. Cells show counts and shares within each model year. Open a cell for source examples.
Component complaint heatmap
Component
2008
Service Brakes
3375.0%ODI 10482019
I HAVE BEEN SENT A RECALL NOTICE AND HAVE TRIED TO CONTACT EVERYONE WHO HAS AN EXTENSION. I HAVE SPOKEN TO A MIKE RINGSTAND ONLY TO BE DISCONNECTED. THEN WHEN I CALLED BACK HE DID NOT ANSWER. I HAVE ALSO TRIED TO EMAIL HIM BUT TO NO AVAIL. THE CAR HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FROM THE TIME OF PURCHASE. I WOULD LIKE RESTITUTION. PLEASE ADVISE. *TR
PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ALL 2008 MODEL YEAR XEBRA VEHICLES FOR FMVSS NO. 122 MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS; THIS PETITION RELATES TO NHTSA CAMPAIGN NO. 09V-385000 ONLY. SECOND RECALL # 09V177000.
HTTP://WWW-ODI.NHTSA.DOT.GOV/RECALLS/RESULTS.CFM?RCL_ID=09V177000&SEARCHTYPE=QUICKSEARCH&SUMMARY=TRUE&REFURL=RSS COMPANY STILL ADVERTISING THESE VEHICLES ON CRAIGLIST & EBAY FOR SALE WITHOUT ADEQUATE DISCLOSURE ABOUT THE PROBLEM. IS THIS LEGAL? HTTP://SFBAY.CRAIGSLIST.ORG/NBY/BAR/1344519387.HTML. *TR
MY COMPLAINT IS WITH THE UTTER DISREGARD THAT THE ZAP CORPORATION HAS TREATED ISSUES AFFECTING THIS LITTLE VEHICLE; COMMUNICATION FROM THEM ABOUT THE BRAKING PROBLEMS AND NHTSA DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MINIMAL WITH THE LAST COMMUNICATION I RECEIVED BEING OCTOBER 8, 2012 TELLING ME TO NOT DRIVE IT AND THAT A SOLUTION WAS COMING BY DECEMBER 31, 2012 (OR ABOUT). I HEARD NOTHING ELSE UNTIL I HAPPENED UPON A YAHOOGROUP DISCUSSION SAYING THESE WERE BEING RECALLED AND THAT THE OWNERS SHOULD INCUR NO EXPENSE. AND THAT ZAP WILL NEED TO TAKE THEM…
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Foundation Components:Master Cylinder
24.5%ODI 10292808
PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ALL 2008 MODEL YEAR XEBRA VEHICLES FOR FMVSS NO. 122 MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS; THIS PETITION RELATES TO NHTSA CAMPAIGN NO. 09V-385000 ONLY. SECOND RECALL # 09V177000.
THERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A DESIGN FLAW IN THE NEWER SUNL VIP MOTOR SCOOTERS. THE ORIENTATION OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END, THE LENGTH OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END AND THE LONG DISTANCE FROM THE THROTTLE CABLE MOUNT TO THE THROTTLE CAM (ALLOWING SLACK IN THE METAL BRAIDED THROTTLE CABLE) ALL CONTRIBUTE TO ALLOW THE END OF THE CAM RETRACTION SPRING TO SNARE THE THROTTLE CABLE, HOLDING THE THROTTLE OPEN DURING OPERATION. THESE SCOOTERS DO NOT HAVE A WAY OF DISENGAGING THE DRIVE DUE TO THE USE OF A CENTRIFUGAL C…
THERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A DESIGN FLAW IN THE NEWER SUNL VIP MOTOR SCOOTERS. THE ORIENTATION OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END, THE LENGTH OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END AND THE LONG DISTANCE FROM THE THROTTLE CABLE MOUNT TO THE THROTTLE CAM (ALLOWING SLACK IN THE METAL BRAIDED THROTTLE CABLE) ALL CONTRIBUTE TO ALLOW THE END OF THE CAM RETRACTION SPRING TO SNARE THE THROTTLE CABLE, HOLDING THE THROTTLE OPEN DURING OPERATION. THESE SCOOTERS DO NOT HAVE A WAY OF DISENGAGING THE DRIVE DUE TO THE USE OF A CENTRIFUGAL C…
DRIVING ACROSS THE CENTER LANE OF A FIVE LANE HIGHWAY, I WAS HIT BY A CAR TRAVELING IN THE CENTER LANE. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP QUICK ENOUGH TO AVOID BEING HIT AND I BELIEVE THE BIGGEST REASON FOR THE COLLISION WAS BECAUSE THE BRAKES ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR THE VEHICLE. I FILED A SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT AND WAS AWARDED A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT; THE JUDGE FOUND ME 40% AT FAULT AND THE OTHER DRIVER 60%. *TR
Darker cells indicate a larger share of submitted complaints. Components overlap. This measures complaint composition, not failure probability.
Failure mileage by component
Median and middle 50% of usable owner-reported mileages. Ranges require at least five records.
Component failure mileage distribution
Component
Mileage range (25th–75th percentile)
Median
Usable records
Examples
Service Brakes
1,478–5,062 mi
4,331 mi
15
ODI 10507525 · 9,500 mi
IN OCTOBER OF 2012 I RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM ZAP ABOUT THE RECALLS DUE TO THE BRAKES ON THIS VEHICLE. THAT WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY NOTICE THAT I HAVE EVER RECEIVED EVEN THOUGH I HAVE OWNED THE VEHICLE SINCE 2008. THE NOTICE SAID THAT ZAP WOULD COMMUNICATE AGAIN BY DECEMBER 31, 2012. I HAVE YET TO HEAR FROM ZAP. SINCE JANUARY 1, 2013 I HAVE TRIED TO CONTACT ZAP AND HAD NO RESPONSE. I AM SURE THAT THERE ARE NOT MANY OF THESE VEHICLES OUT THERE TO GENERATE MANY COMPLAINTS BUT SURELY THE COMPLETE LACK OF ACTION FROM ZAP SHOULD GENERATE SOME SO…
DRIVING ACROSS THE CENTER LANE OF A FIVE LANE HIGHWAY, I WAS HIT BY A CAR TRAVELING IN THE CENTER LANE. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP QUICK ENOUGH TO AVOID BEING HIT AND I BELIEVE THE BIGGEST REASON FOR THE COLLISION WAS BECAUSE THE BRAKES ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR THE VEHICLE. I FILED A SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT AND WAS AWARDED A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT; THE JUDGE FOUND ME 40% AT FAULT AND THE OTHER DRIVER 60%. *TR
A BRASS FITTING IN THE BRAKE LINE SHEARED APART WHILE I WAS DRIVING, CAUSING ALL THE BRAKE FLUID TO DRAIN OUT. THIS LEFT ME WITHOUT ANY BRAKES DUE TO THE SINGLE RESERVOIR ISSUE. FORTUNATELY, TRAFFIC WAS LIGHT AND I WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITHOUT CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. SEVERAL OTHER TIMES I'VE BARELY AVOIDED ACCIDENTS WHEN EMERGENCY BRAKING WAS REQUIRED DUE TO THE POOR BRAKING RESPONSE. ZAP HAS BEEN FLOUTING THE RECALL NOTICE FOR YEARS AND IT'S NOT RIGHT. I'VE NOW HEARD THAT ZAP IS TRYING TO GET OUT OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY …
LIKE MANY OTHERS WHOSE COMPLAINTS I HAVE SEEN ON THIS WEBSITE, I AM A VICTIM OF ZAP'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE RECALL OF ITS 2008 XEBRAS. I RECEIVED ALL THE NOTICES, AND FOLLOWED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER OF NOT DRIVING THE VEHICLE. I EVEN HAD TO PASS ON TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO SELL THE VEHICLE, KNOWING THAT IT WAS UNSAFE. I SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK ON 8/28/13, PER THE FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS SENT BY ZAP. THE CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT I RECEIVED FROM THE USPS CONFIRMS THAT ZAP RECEIVED SAID PAPERWORK ON 8…
THIS VEHICLE WAS PART OF A FORCED RECALL BY NHTSA. ZAP WAS SUPPOSED TO BUY BACK THESE VEHICLES AND HAUL THEM OFF TO BE DESTROYED BY DECEMBER 31, 2013. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. THE LAST COMMUNICATION FROM ZAP THAT I RECEIVED WAS A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 11, 2013, WHERE THEY INFORMED ME THAT MY REFUND REQUEST FORM HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND APPROVED. ZAP HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ANY PHONE CALLS OR EMAILS SENT TO THEM. BECAUSE OF THIS RECALL, I CAN NO LONGER INSURE OR REGISTER THIS VEHICLE, SO IT IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. I KNOW I AM NOT ALONE IN THIS SIT…
LIKE MANY OTHERS WHOSE COMPLAINTS I HAVE SEEN ON THIS WEBSITE, I AM A VICTIM OF ZAP'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE RECALL OF ITS 2008 XEBRAS. I RECEIVED ALL THE NOTICES, AND FOLLOWED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER OF NOT DRIVING THE VEHICLE. I EVEN HAD TO PASS ON TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO SELL THE VEHICLE, KNOWING THAT IT WAS UNSAFE. I SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK ON 8/28/13, PER THE FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS SENT BY ZAP. THE CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT I RECEIVED FROM THE USPS CONFIRMS THAT ZAP RECEIVED SAID PAPERWORK ON 8…
MY XEBRA WAS DESTROYED WHEN IT CAUGHT FIRE. THE FIRE STARTED IN THE CENTER AREA OF THE VEHICLE AND HAD TO BE EXTINGUISHED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. ALTHOUGH THIS MODEL IS CURRENTLY IN A RECALL BUY BACK PROGRAM, IT WOULD STILL BE WORTH INVESTIGATING THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF THE FIRE IN CASE IT'S A PROBLEM THAT MIGHT AFFECT PREVIOUS XEBRA MODELS. ALSO, GIVEN ZAP'S HISTORY, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THE BUY BACK PROCESS IS INDEFINITELY "DELAYED" AND THEREFORE THE CURRENT MODEL WILL STILL BE ON THE ROAD FOR SOME TIME (NOT DUE TO XEBRA QUALITY, …
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Foundation Components:Master Cylinder
Too few reports for a range
5,123 mi
1 (sparse)
ODI 10556391 · 5,123 mi
ON JULY 24TH, 2013, I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V363000. I SUBMITTED THE REQUESTED PAPERWORK AND ON OCT 11TH, 2013 RECEIVED A NOTICE CONFIRMING THAT ZAP HAS RECEIVED THE REFUND REQUEST FORM AND DETERMINED THE REFUND REQUEST IS COMPLETE AND I AM ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, AS THE DECEMBER 31ST DEADLINE IS COMING SOON, I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT ZAP CUSTOMER SERVICE AT [phone removed] IS NO LONGER ANSWERING THEIR PHONES. I AM SIMPLY CHECKING IF THE RECALL CLAIMS ARE STILL BEING HONORED. *TR
THERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A DESIGN FLAW IN THE NEWER SUNL VIP MOTOR SCOOTERS. THE ORIENTATION OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END, THE LENGTH OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END AND THE LONG DISTANCE FROM THE THROTTLE CABLE MOUNT TO THE THROTTLE CAM (ALLOWING SLACK IN THE METAL BRAIDED THROTTLE CABLE) ALL CONTRIBUTE TO ALLOW THE END OF THE CAM RETRACTION SPRING TO SNARE THE THROTTLE CABLE, HOLDING THE THROTTLE OPEN DURING OPERATION. THESE SCOOTERS DO NOT HAVE A WAY OF DISENGAGING THE DRIVE DUE TO THE USE OF A CENTRIFUGAL C…
THERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A DESIGN FLAW IN THE NEWER SUNL VIP MOTOR SCOOTERS. THE ORIENTATION OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END, THE LENGTH OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END AND THE LONG DISTANCE FROM THE THROTTLE CABLE MOUNT TO THE THROTTLE CAM (ALLOWING SLACK IN THE METAL BRAIDED THROTTLE CABLE) ALL CONTRIBUTE TO ALLOW THE END OF THE CAM RETRACTION SPRING TO SNARE THE THROTTLE CABLE, HOLDING THE THROTTLE OPEN DURING OPERATION. THESE SCOOTERS DO NOT HAVE A WAY OF DISENGAGING THE DRIVE DUE TO THE USE OF A CENTRIFUGAL C…
DRIVING ACROSS THE CENTER LANE OF A FIVE LANE HIGHWAY, I WAS HIT BY A CAR TRAVELING IN THE CENTER LANE. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP QUICK ENOUGH TO AVOID BEING HIT AND I BELIEVE THE BIGGEST REASON FOR THE COLLISION WAS BECAUSE THE BRAKES ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR THE VEHICLE. I FILED A SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT AND WAS AWARDED A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT; THE JUDGE FOUND ME 40% AT FAULT AND THE OTHER DRIVER 60%. *TR
Explore monthly filing activity alongside recall announcements. Up to ten years of monthly history is available.
Solid line: filed complaints. Dashed amber lines: recall announcement dates for this vehicle selection; markers include all recall components. The latest month is partial. Temporal proximity does not establish causation.
Monthly counts, recall campaigns and complaint examples
Monthly complaint and recall timeline
Month
Complaints
Campaigns announced
Examples
2024-11
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2024-12
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-01
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-02
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-03
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-04
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-05
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-06
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-07
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-08
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-09
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-10
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-11
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2025-12
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-01
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-02
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-03
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-04
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-05
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-06
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-07
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-08
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-09
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
2026-10 (partial)
0
None
No examples available for this selection.
Emerging complaint spikes
Complete months in the latest six months with at least 10 complaints, at least twice the preceding 12-month average, and at least three square-root deviations above that average.
This is a descriptive screening rule, not a statistical defect finding. Publicity and reporting changes can increase submissions.
No complete months meet the spike thresholds for this selection.
Equal-age model-year comparison
Model-wide cumulative reports during the first three or five calendar years, starting with the model year (age 0). Only fully elapsed windows are compared.
2008: 4 complaints
Equal observation windows
Model year
Through age 0
Through age 1
Through age 2
2008
0
3
4
Date coverage across each selected cohort
Date basis for all complaints in selected model years
Year
Incident dates used
Filing date fallbacks
Excluded dates
2008
43
0
1
Incident date is preferred when valid and no later than filing; otherwise filing date is used. Model year approximates age. Equal observation time does not adjust for sales, distance driven or reporting delays. One complaint linked to multiple model years can appear in each cohort.
Components reported together
Each cell counts unique complaints naming both components. Open a nonzero cell for examples.
Component co-occurrence matrix
Component
Service Brakes
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
Unknown Or Other
Electrical System
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Foundation Components:Master Cylinder
Fuel System, Gasoline
Power Train:Driveline
Structure:Body
Service Brakes
—
0
0
1ODI 10525282
MY COMPLAINT IS WITH THE UTTER DISREGARD THAT THE ZAP CORPORATION HAS TREATED ISSUES AFFECTING THIS LITTLE VEHICLE; COMMUNICATION FROM THEM ABOUT THE BRAKING PROBLEMS AND NHTSA DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MINIMAL WITH THE LAST COMMUNICATION I RECEIVED BEING OCTOBER 8, 2012 TELLING ME TO NOT DRIVE IT AND THAT A SOLUTION WAS COMING BY DECEMBER 31, 2012 (OR ABOUT). I HEARD NOTHING ELSE UNTIL I HAPPENED UPON A YAHOOGROUP DISCUSSION SAYING THESE WERE BEING RECALLED AND THAT THE OWNERS SHOULD INCUR NO EXPENSE. AND THAT ZAP WILL NEED TO TAKE THEM…
ON JULY 24TH, 2013, I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V363000. I SUBMITTED THE REQUESTED PAPERWORK AND ON OCT 11TH, 2013 RECEIVED A NOTICE CONFIRMING THAT ZAP HAS RECEIVED THE REFUND REQUEST FORM AND DETERMINED THE REFUND REQUEST IS COMPLETE AND I AM ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, AS THE DECEMBER 31ST DEADLINE IS COMING SOON, I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT ZAP CUSTOMER SERVICE AT [phone removed] IS NO LONGER ANSWERING THEIR PHONES. I AM SIMPLY CHECKING IF THE RECALL CLAIMS ARE STILL BEING HONORED. *TR
DRIVING ACROSS THE CENTER LANE OF A FIVE LANE HIGHWAY, I WAS HIT BY A CAR TRAVELING IN THE CENTER LANE. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP QUICK ENOUGH TO AVOID BEING HIT AND I BELIEVE THE BIGGEST REASON FOR THE COLLISION WAS BECAUSE THE BRAKES ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR THE VEHICLE. I FILED A SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT AND WAS AWARDED A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT; THE JUDGE FOUND ME 40% AT FAULT AND THE OTHER DRIVER 60%. *TR
LIKE MANY OTHERS WHOSE COMPLAINTS I HAVE SEEN ON THIS WEBSITE, I AM A VICTIM OF ZAP'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE RECALL OF ITS 2008 XEBRAS. I RECEIVED ALL THE NOTICES, AND FOLLOWED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER OF NOT DRIVING THE VEHICLE. I EVEN HAD TO PASS ON TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO SELL THE VEHICLE, KNOWING THAT IT WAS UNSAFE. I SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK ON 8/28/13, PER THE FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS SENT BY ZAP. THE CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT I RECEIVED FROM THE USPS CONFIRMS THAT ZAP RECEIVED SAID PAPERWORK ON 8…
PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ALL 2008 MODEL YEAR XEBRA VEHICLES FOR FMVSS NO. 122 MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS; THIS PETITION RELATES TO NHTSA CAMPAIGN NO. 09V-385000 ONLY. SECOND RECALL # 09V177000.
LIKE MANY OTHERS WHOSE COMPLAINTS I HAVE SEEN ON THIS WEBSITE, I AM A VICTIM OF ZAP'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE RECALL OF ITS 2008 XEBRAS. I RECEIVED ALL THE NOTICES, AND FOLLOWED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER OF NOT DRIVING THE VEHICLE. I EVEN HAD TO PASS ON TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO SELL THE VEHICLE, KNOWING THAT IT WAS UNSAFE. I SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK ON 8/28/13, PER THE FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS SENT BY ZAP. THE CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT I RECEIVED FROM THE USPS CONFIRMS THAT ZAP RECEIVED SAID PAPERWORK ON 8…
MY COMPLAINT IS WITH THE UTTER DISREGARD THAT THE ZAP CORPORATION HAS TREATED ISSUES AFFECTING THIS LITTLE VEHICLE; COMMUNICATION FROM THEM ABOUT THE BRAKING PROBLEMS AND NHTSA DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MINIMAL WITH THE LAST COMMUNICATION I RECEIVED BEING OCTOBER 8, 2012 TELLING ME TO NOT DRIVE IT AND THAT A SOLUTION WAS COMING BY DECEMBER 31, 2012 (OR ABOUT). I HEARD NOTHING ELSE UNTIL I HAPPENED UPON A YAHOOGROUP DISCUSSION SAYING THESE WERE BEING RECALLED AND THAT THE OWNERS SHOULD INCUR NO EXPENSE. AND THAT ZAP WILL NEED TO TAKE THEM…
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Foundation Components:Master Cylinder
1ODI 10556391 · 5,123 mi
ON JULY 24TH, 2013, I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V363000. I SUBMITTED THE REQUESTED PAPERWORK AND ON OCT 11TH, 2013 RECEIVED A NOTICE CONFIRMING THAT ZAP HAS RECEIVED THE REFUND REQUEST FORM AND DETERMINED THE REFUND REQUEST IS COMPLETE AND I AM ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, AS THE DECEMBER 31ST DEADLINE IS COMING SOON, I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT ZAP CUSTOMER SERVICE AT [phone removed] IS NO LONGER ANSWERING THEIR PHONES. I AM SIMPLY CHECKING IF THE RECALL CLAIMS ARE STILL BEING HONORED. *TR
PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ALL 2008 MODEL YEAR XEBRA VEHICLES FOR FMVSS NO. 122 MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SYSTEMS; THIS PETITION RELATES TO NHTSA CAMPAIGN NO. 09V-385000 ONLY. SECOND RECALL # 09V177000.
THERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A DESIGN FLAW IN THE NEWER SUNL VIP MOTOR SCOOTERS. THE ORIENTATION OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END, THE LENGTH OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END AND THE LONG DISTANCE FROM THE THROTTLE CABLE MOUNT TO THE THROTTLE CAM (ALLOWING SLACK IN THE METAL BRAIDED THROTTLE CABLE) ALL CONTRIBUTE TO ALLOW THE END OF THE CAM RETRACTION SPRING TO SNARE THE THROTTLE CABLE, HOLDING THE THROTTLE OPEN DURING OPERATION. THESE SCOOTERS DO NOT HAVE A WAY OF DISENGAGING THE DRIVE DUE TO THE USE OF A CENTRIFUGAL C…
THERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A DESIGN FLAW IN THE NEWER SUNL VIP MOTOR SCOOTERS. THE ORIENTATION OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END, THE LENGTH OF THE THROTTLE CAM RETRACTION SPRING END AND THE LONG DISTANCE FROM THE THROTTLE CABLE MOUNT TO THE THROTTLE CAM (ALLOWING SLACK IN THE METAL BRAIDED THROTTLE CABLE) ALL CONTRIBUTE TO ALLOW THE END OF THE CAM RETRACTION SPRING TO SNARE THE THROTTLE CABLE, HOLDING THE THROTTLE OPEN DURING OPERATION. THESE SCOOTERS DO NOT HAVE A WAY OF DISENGAGING THE DRIVE DUE TO THE USE OF A CENTRIFUGAL C…
DRIVING ACROSS THE CENTER LANE OF A FIVE LANE HIGHWAY, I WAS HIT BY A CAR TRAVELING IN THE CENTER LANE. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP QUICK ENOUGH TO AVOID BEING HIT AND I BELIEVE THE BIGGEST REASON FOR THE COLLISION WAS BECAUSE THE BRAKES ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR THE VEHICLE. I FILED A SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT AND WAS AWARDED A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT; THE JUDGE FOUND ME 40% AT FAULT AND THE OTHER DRIVER 60%. *TR
Co-reporting does not establish that one component caused another concern.
Recurring narrative patterns
Specific keyword mentions beyond broad component labels. Matching includes negations and comparisons and does not confirm a diagnosis.
1 patterns with matching reports.
Brake response concerns
1 mentions · 2.3% of complaints
Median mileage: 1,905 mi (1 usable records).
ODI 10579086 · 1,905 mi
THIS VEHICLE IS ALREADY RECALLED, MY VEHICLE SUFFERED A COMPLETE LOSS OR BRAKE SYSTEMS AND FORTUNATELY WAS ABLE TO BE STEERED TO AN UPHILL AREA BEFORE HITTING A SMALL RETAINING WALL. ZAP PROVIDED DOT RECALL NOTICE FOR BRAKE FAILURES TO STOP, AND RULES FOR RECALL. I HAVE FOLLOWED THESE RULES WHICH WERE DRAWN OUT FROM LATE 2012 UNTIL DECEMBER 2013. IN DECEMBER 2013 ZAP INFORMED ME I WOULD BE PAID FOR THE VEHICLE AND IT WOULD BE PICKED UP AND REMOVED IN Q1. THE VEHICLE IS STILL SITTING AT MY HOME IN OHIO. NO ONE FROM ZAP IS RESPONSIVE.…