2024 Honda Prologue Clicking Noise on Turns: California Lemon Law

A 2024 Honda Prologue clicking noise when turning led to five dealer presentations for clunking or clicking in a Southern California lease case. The first four ended without an axle repair; at the fifth, the dealer verified the noise and replaced both axles. Under California Lemon Law, visits labeled “normal” or “could not duplicate” may still count as repair opportunities. Whether this record supports a buyback or replacement depends on the defect, its impact, the repair history, and applicable notice requirements.

The 2024 Honda Prologue EX AWD was leased new in April 2025 with 11 miles on the odometer. Its dealer records also document intermittent charging, judder, and warning-light complaints. The case evidence is anonymized, and no outcome is disclosed.

Has a Honda dealer called your clicking or clunking noise “normal”? You do not need to wait for another breakdown to ask about your rights. Request a free case review or call (888) 536-6628. Even one serious safety event can warrant review, although it does not automatically establish a Lemon Law claim.

2024 Honda Prologue repair history: six dealer visits

This case study comes from a matter the firm handled in 2026. The dates and mileages below are drawn from the dealer repair-order summary; names, vehicle identifiers, and financial details are omitted. There were six dealer visits overall, but five presentations of the clicking/clunking complaint. The June charging-related visit is not counted as a clicking-noise presentation based on the summarized record.

1. May 2025 — 1,834 miles. The owner reported clunking/clicking on both left and right turns. The dealer wrote, “Play in axles — normal characteristic per TechLine.” No axle repair was performed.
2. May 2025 — 2,444 miles. The owner said the clunking was louder and also reported A/C cycling, judder at roughly 70 mph, a brake-system warning, and a stiff turn-signal stalk. The dealer found no trouble codes, could not duplicate the concerns, and called the condition “normal.”
3. June 2025 — 3,137 miles. The owner reported a failure to connect and charge using a 240-volt cable, along with judder, a brake warning, and A/C concerns. The dealer charged the vehicle with its own cable but could not duplicate the reported problems. The summarized order does not identify a clicking-noise complaint at this visit.
4. December 2025 — 10,785 miles. The owner again reported the charging problem, clunking, and judder. The dealer could not duplicate the charging fault and described the clunking as a “known issue under investigation.”
5. April 2026 — 15,967 miles. The owner reported worsening clunking. The dealer performed a recall software update and again wrote that the noise was a “known issue under investigation; repair not available.”
6. July 2026 — 22,411 miles. The clunking continued on turns. On a test drive, the dealer verified the noise, pinpointed it to the axles, and replaced both axles. The repair order also records a rearview-camera replacement under a Honda campaign.

The clicking-noise presentations were at 1,834, 2,444, 10,785, 15,967, and 22,411 miles. The first four occurred within 18 months of delivery and before 18,000 miles; the fifth occurred beyond 18,000 miles. The July replacement documents repair work, but the available summary does not independently establish whether the noise permanently stopped.

Does “normal characteristic” or “could not duplicate” count as a repair attempt?

Yes, a documented visit can count as a repair opportunity even when the dealer performs no repair. California jury instruction CACI 3202 states that each time a vehicle is given to the manufacturer or its authorized facility for repair counts as an opportunity, even if no repair work is performed. Under Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, a manufacturer does not avoid an opportunity merely because its dealer cannot locate the problem.

The distinction matters in this file. At 1,834 miles, the dealer characterized axle play as normal. Months later, it recorded the condition as under investigation, with no repair available. At 22,411 miles, it traced the same reported noise to the axles and replaced both. That sequence supports an argument that the earlier presentations involved a warranty nonconformity, not merely an ordinary sound. The owner must still establish substantial impairment of use, value, or safety; axle replacement alone does not decide that legal question.

Honda's own Tech Line article ATS30070, dated December 19, 2025, applies to 2024–2026 Prologues. It discusses a clinking or ratcheting noise when turning, directs dealers to inspect axles and repair damage when found, and instructs them not to attempt repairs if no damage is found while Honda investigates. This document is available in NHTSA's bulletin archive; it does not, by itself, establish the cause of the noise in this vehicle.

A separate proposed class-action complaint, Custer v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01330 (E.D. Pa., filed March 2, 2026), alleges irregularities in front drive-axle joints in 2024–2026 Prologues. Those allegations have not been established as findings in this case study. California consumers need not wait for the proposed class action to seek an individual assessment.

Can this Prologue qualify for California's Lemon Law presumption?

California's rebuttable Lemon Law presumption, in Civil Code § 1793.22(b), addresses repair opportunities within 18 months of delivery or 18,000 odometer miles, whichever comes first. It may apply where:

1. The same substantially impairing defect likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if driven was presented for repair at least twice, with the required direct manufacturer notice;
2. The same substantially impairing defect was presented for repair at least four times, with the required direct manufacturer notice; or
3. The vehicle was out of service for repair of qualifying nonconformities for more than 30 cumulative calendar days, subject to statutory extensions.

Direct notice to the manufacturer for the two- and four-attempt routes is required when the warranty or owner's manual properly disclosed that requirement. The record summarized here does not establish whether this lessee separately notified Honda or what the warranty booklet disclosed. Those facts must be checked before claiming the presumption applies.

The four clicking-noise presentations at 1,834, 2,444, 10,785, and 15,967 miles fall within both limits and may support the four-attempt presumption if the remaining conditions are satisfied. The July visit at 22,411 miles is outside the mileage window, but still matters to the separate question whether Honda had a reasonable number of repair opportunities under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2). The presumption is rebuttable; it is not the only path to a claim.

There is also a distinct arbitration rule. The California Department of Consumer Affairs lists Honda/Acura in its state-certified dispute settlement program. Under Civil Code § 1793.22(c), timely and adequate written notice of a qualifying program can require initial resort to that process before asserting the presumption. It does not prevent someone from seeking a legal case review now, and an ordinary reasonable-attempt claim must be evaluated on its own terms.

Multiple visits, no clear repair? Save every repair order, including technician notes and mileage, and request a free Honda Prologue case review. Call (888) 536-6628 to have the chronology and notice requirements assessed.

Does replacing both axles at the last visit eliminate a claim?

Not necessarily. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2) requires repurchase or replacement when a covered nonconformity is not repaired after a reasonable number of opportunities. In Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, the court described the manufacturer's affirmative duty once that threshold is reached; a consumer need not first demand a buyback to trigger the underlying statutory duty. Whether it had arisen before the July axle replacement depends on the evidence. A later repair does not automatically resolve that historical question.

The repair history also bears on willfulness. Under Civil Code § 1794(c), a willful failure to comply can support a civil penalty of up to twice actual damages. Here, the progression from “normal” to “known issue under investigation” to axle replacement could be relevant. But the penalty is not automatic. Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174 explains that a good-faith, reasonable belief that the repurchase obligation had not arisen can defeat willfulness, while ignoring reasonably available repair information can weigh the other way. Civil Code § 1794(e) provides a separate civil-penalty route, limited where a manufacturer maintains a qualified dispute-resolution process that substantially complies with the statute; that limitation does not itself decide a potential § 1794(c) willfulness claim.

What about the charging, brake-warning, and judder complaints?

Charging: At 3,137 and 10,785 miles, the owner complained that a 240-volt charging cable would not connect or charge the Prologue. The dealer could charge with its own cable and could not duplicate the reported failure. These visits remain relevant repair opportunities if the evidence establishes a covered charging nonconformity. Dealer nonduplication does not, by itself, require an owner to wait for a confirmed diagnosis before requesting review.

Judder and brake warning: At 2,444 and 3,137 miles, the owner reported judder and a brake-system warning; judder was reported again at 10,785 miles. A recurring brake warning with highway-speed judder raises a potentially significant safety issue. The special two-attempt presumption requires proof that the same nonconformity was likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The repair-order summary alone does not establish that severity or a shared cause. A single serious event nevertheless warrants prompt safety attention and may justify a legal review.

Which Honda Prologue recalls appear in the records?

NHTSA recall 26V-112: Honda recalled certain 2024 Prologues because software faults could blank the instrument display or rearview-camera image. The remedy is a software update; the April 2026 repair order records an update. See the NHTSA recall acknowledgment for 26V-112.

NHTSA recall 26V-306: Honda recalled certain 2024–2025 Prologues for rearview-camera images that could be distorted or blank. Honda's remedy calls for camera replacement; the July 2026 order records replacement under a Honda camera campaign. The record does not independently match that campaign to 26V-306 or establish that this vehicle experienced the recalled image defect. See the NHTSA recall acknowledgment for 26V-306.

Neither recall addresses the axle clicking. A recall alone does not establish a Lemon Law claim, and a recall service visit is not automatically a repair opportunity for a condition the owner never experienced. Owners should address open safety recalls promptly and check applicability by VIN through NHTSA's recall lookup; seeking legal advice does not replace safety repairs.

What could a California Lemon Law repurchase cover on a lease?

Under Civil Code §§ 1793.2(d)(2) and 1795.4, new-vehicle lessees can seek statutory remedies, including qualifying amounts paid or payable under the lease, applicable collateral charges, and supported incidental expenses; the disposition of the lease and outstanding obligations affects the actual accounting. In a qualifying action, reasonable attorney's fees and costs may also be recoverable under Civil Code § 1794(d).

A manufacturer may claim a statutory mileage-use deduction based on the price measure applicable to the vehicle and miles driven before the first repair presentation for the nonconformity, divided by 120,000. The first documented clicking-noise presentation here occurred at 1,834 miles, making that figure important to any calculation. Exact restitution and offset amounts cannot be determined from this anonymized summary.

2026 procedure: As checked against the California Department of Consumer Affairs' opt-in list on October 27, 2026, American Honda Motor Co. was not listed as electing the separate procedures in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 871.20–871.30. That is distinct from Honda's participation in the certified dispute settlement program. The special CCP § 871.24 pre-suit demand rules for electing manufacturers therefore do not appear to govern this Honda claim on the current list, but the election and the applicable warranty-notice or dispute-resolution requirements should be checked when proceeding. A written, documented notice or repurchase demand to Honda can remain important independently of those special rules and may inform a willfulness analysis under Kwan.

Frequently asked questions

Is a clicking or clunking noise on turns a Lemon Law defect?

It can be if it is a covered nonconformity that substantially impairs use, value, or safety. This dealer ultimately traced the noise to the axles and replaced both, but the circumstances and extent of impairment must still be evaluated.

Does a visit count if the dealer says “could not duplicate”?

It can. Under CACI 3202 and Oregel, an authorized repair visit for the defect can count as an opportunity even if no work is done. Keep the repair order documenting what you reported.

Can I seek a review after only one serious incident?

Yes. One serious incident may merit prompt case assessment and safety attention; it does not automatically establish a repurchase claim. A lawyer can evaluate the defect, warranty, repair history, and any necessary next steps without requiring you to wait for another failure.

What if the dealer finally replaced the axles?

A later axle replacement does not automatically extinguish a claim based on earlier unsuccessful repair opportunities. Whether a statutory duty to repurchase or replace had arisen depends on the full record.

Does the rearview-camera recall count as another clicking-noise attempt?

No. The camera recall addresses a different condition. Its service visit should not be added to the clicking-noise count merely because both were addressed during the July appointment.

Is the Honda Prologue axle class action already decided?

No ruling on the axle-defect allegations was established by the court records reviewed for this article. The proposed Custer class action was filed March 2, 2026. You need not await its resolution to explore a California individual claim.

Do I need to send Honda a notice before contacting a Lemon Law attorney?

No. Seeking a case review is not conditioned on first sending a demand. However, direct manufacturer notice may be necessary to rely on the statutory presumption, and particular dispute-resolution procedures can apply. Preserve communications and obtain advice on the requirements for your vehicle.

Next steps for a Honda Prologue owner

1. Protect safety. Have concerning brake, steering, driveline, or charging symptoms checked promptly and address applicable safety recalls. If the vehicle is unsafe to drive, do not continue driving it.
2. Keep the evidence. Save every complete repair order, warranty and lease documents, manufacturer communications, and a short log describing the conditions, including when they occur.
3. Get the record reviewed. An assessment can distinguish dealer visits, manufacturer notice, the presumption, and other Lemon Law remedies without requiring you to wait for another breakdown or the outcome of a class action.

Have a Honda Prologue clicking noise or another unresolved warranty issue? Request a free California Lemon Law case review or call (888) 536-6628. The repair orders are the starting point; no result is guaranteed.

This anonymized case study explains general California law and does not disclose the outcome of a client's matter. Whether relief is available depends on the underlying evidence and applicable law.