← New search

2012 Honda Civic

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Civic years

Owner complaints for the 2012 Honda Civic are substantially higher than the model-year median of 183.5.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

321 reports with mileage · 133 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.

  • Air Bags. Review the 149 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Steering. Review the 74 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 59 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

55 crash reports5 fire reports28 injury reports

Service Brakes complaints

34 reports
Clear category filter
13,000 miles · Feb 5, 2013
Air BagsElectrical SystemService BrakesCrash

I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AND WAS MAKING A TURN FROM COMING OFF A STOP LIGHT AND THE CARS IN FRONT OF ME WERE STOPPED TO MERGE ONTO THE HIGHWAY, I WENT TO PRESS THE BRAKE AND MY FOOT WENT TO THE FLOOR AND THE BRAKES NEVER KICKED IN. I SWERVED TO TRY AND MISS THE SUV IN FRONT OF ME BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO MISS THE SUV AND REAR END…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK AND WAS MAKING A TURN FROM COMING OFF A STOP LIGHT AND THE CARS IN FRONT OF ME WERE STOPPED TO MERGE ONTO THE HIGHWAY, I WENT TO PRESS THE BRAKE AND MY FOOT WENT TO THE FLOOR AND THE BRAKES NEVER KICKED IN. I SWERVED TO TRY AND MISS THE SUV IN FRONT OF ME BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO MISS THE SUV AND REAR ENDED HIM. I GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND DID NOT NOTICE ANY ICE OR ANY FLUID ON THE ROAD THAT WOULD CAUSE ME TO LOOSE TRACTION. I HIT MOSTLY ON THE PASSENGER SIDE WHICH SAVED THE AIR BAGS FROM GOING OFF, HAD I HIT FRONT ON I AM POSITIVE THE AIR BAGS WOULD HAVE GONE OFF AS UPON IMPACT THE SCREENS ON THE INSIDE OF THE CAR TURNED RED AND READ "CHECK AIRBAGS" AND THEN MY CAR SHUT OFF AND HAZARD LIGHTS TURNED ON. THIS ACCIDENT HAPPENED 2/1 AND AM WAITING TO GET AN ESTIMATE FROM MY INSURANCE COMPANY AS TO THE TOTAL DAMAGE AMOUNT IF MY CAR WILL BE TOTALED OUT OR NOT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10496475

18,000 miles · Oct 2, 2012
Service BrakesStructureCrash

WE HAD THE HONDA CIVIC ALMOST 6 MONTHS,ALL THE DRIVING LIKE 99% HAS BEEN FWY DRIVING-ANYWAY,HAPPENED TO BE IN LA FOR AN APPT AND HAD A GOOD 40 FT BETWEEN ME AND THE CAR INFRONT OF ME.. CAR INFRONT APPLIED BRAKE SO DID I , I JUST KEPT GOING- BRAKE WENT TO FLOOR.. I WAS TOTALLY STUNNED.- HAPPENED SO FAST, I HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT…

Read full complaint

WE HAD THE HONDA CIVIC ALMOST 6 MONTHS,ALL THE DRIVING LIKE 99% HAS BEEN FWY DRIVING-ANYWAY,HAPPENED TO BE IN LA FOR AN APPT AND HAD A GOOD 40 FT BETWEEN ME AND THE CAR INFRONT OF ME.. CAR INFRONT APPLIED BRAKE SO DID I , I JUST KEPT GOING- BRAKE WENT TO FLOOR.. I WAS TOTALLY STUNNED.- HAPPENED SO FAST, I HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO HIT CAR INFRONT.. IT KIND OF FELT LIKE SLIDING- IT WAS A SUNNY DAY, DRY OUTSIDE, NOTHING TO SLIDE ON BUT THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO DESCRIBE NOTHING TO STOP ME BUT THE OTHER CAR.. IF I WENT LEFT TO AVOID CAR, I WOULD VE BEEN HIT BY ONCOMING TRAFFIC SO STUNNED THE BRAKES WERE NOT THERE..SO I REAR ENDED THE CAR THAT STOPPED US.. SHE HAD A LAREDO CHEROKEE- AFTER THE IMPACT WE WONDERED WHY THE AIR BAGS DIDN'T COME OUT, IT WAS PRETTY DIRECT.. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT HER CAR WAS HIGHER SO THE SENSORS DIDN'T GO OFF?? CAR IS AT BODY SHOP FOR LAST TWO WEEKS.. I TOLD OUR INSURANCE, I TOLD THE BODY SHOP, I TOLD THE HUBBY AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT ASKED THAT I PUSHED THE BRAKE IN AND NOT A [XXX] THING HAPPENED.. I TALKED TO THE SERVICE GUYS AT THE HONDA THAT IT HAS SEEN FOR REGULAR MAINTENANCE GOING BY COMPUTER MENU THINGY.. I VE BEEN EARLY OR ON TIME GETTING IT SERVICED.. THEY SAID "THE BRAKES ARE SUPPOSE TO WORK THAT WAY" REALLY? I'D BE DEVASTATED IF THERE WAS AN ANIMAL, A PERSON, INFRONT OF ME I WOULD HAVE HIT THEM AND GONE OVER THEM.. I VE NEVER EVER HAD A CAR RESPOND THAT WAY.. AFTER THE HIT, I MOVED TO THE SIDE.. AUTOMATICALLY USED E BRAKE. I THEN DROVE IT A MILE FURTHER AT A CRAWL TO A PARKING GARAGE TO MAKE CALLS.. I DROVE AT A SNAILS PACE.. YOU COULD'VE WALKED NEXT TO US.. 2 HRS LATER, I DROVE IT TWO MORE MILES AT THE SAME SPEED TO BODY SHOP.. I HAVE ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT IT.. THEY HAVEN'T YET.. THE CAR IS IN PIECES AS THEY FIX BUT THEY PROMISED TOO. THE GUY WAS SURPRISED WE WEREN'T INJURED.. I DON'T WANT TO DRIVE IT AGAIN.. *TR INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10478391

17,500 miles · Jul 26, 2012
Power TrainService BrakesCrash

MY WIFE CAME TO A STOP AT OUR SECURITY GATE, USED THE REMOTE FOR THE GATE BUT IT WOULDN'T OPEN. SHE BACKED UP ABOUT 15 FEET TO TURN AROUND. WHEN SHE PUT THE CAR IN DRIVE, IT LURCHED FORWARD BACK TOWARDS THE GATE AND WOULDN'T STOP WHEN SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES. IT DIDN'T SPEED UP AND IT WOULDN'T STOP. THE CAR WAS MAKING A GRINDING …

Read full complaint

MY WIFE CAME TO A STOP AT OUR SECURITY GATE, USED THE REMOTE FOR THE GATE BUT IT WOULDN'T OPEN. SHE BACKED UP ABOUT 15 FEET TO TURN AROUND. WHEN SHE PUT THE CAR IN DRIVE, IT LURCHED FORWARD BACK TOWARDS THE GATE AND WOULDN'T STOP WHEN SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES. IT DIDN'T SPEED UP AND IT WOULDN'T STOP. THE CAR WAS MAKING A GRINDING NOISE AS IT MOVED ALONG. SHE WAS JAMMING ON THE BRAKES AND IT STILL WENT RIGHT THROUGH THE CLOSED GATE, PUSHING IT OPEN AS IT WENT. IT KEPT GOING FOR ANOTHER 40-50 FEET UNTIL SHE THOUGHT TO PULL ON THE EMERGENCY BRAKE. THE CAR STOPPED. SHE TURNED THE CAR OFF AND GOT OUT, BADLY SHAKEN BUT NOT INJURED. AFTER CALMING DOWN, SHE GOT BACK IN THE CAR TO SEE IF IT WOULD START. IT DID. SHE DROVE IT TWO MORE BLOCKS TO OUR HOUSE. SHE HASN'T DRIVEN IT SINCE. SHE'S TERRIFIED IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10467881

17,000 miles · Jul 9, 2012
Service Brakes

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED SHE HEARD A GRINDING NOISE WHILE BRAKING. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO THE DEALER FOR AN INSPECTION AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE BRAKE PADS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE CONTACT THEN ATTEMPTED TO FORCEFULLY APPLY THE BRAKES AND THE FAILURE RECUR…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED SHE HEARD A GRINDING NOISE WHILE BRAKING. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO THE DEALER FOR AN INSPECTION AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE BRAKE PADS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE CONTACT THEN ATTEMPTED TO FORCEFULLY APPLY THE BRAKES AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 17,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #10464774

Official recalls

3

12V548000 · Steering:column

Nov 21, 2012

Honda is recalling certain model year 2012 Civic passenger vehicles, manufactured from October 26, 2012, through October 30, 2012. These vehicles were assembled with the incorrect steering column assembly.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: The steering column may not have proper energy absorbing characteristics, which could increase the risk of injury during a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will inspect and replace the steering column, as necessary, free of charge. The safety recall began on December 10, 2012. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009.

12V256000 · Power Train:driveline:driveshaft

Jun 4, 2012

HONDA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2012 HONDA CIVIC VEHICLES. DURING ASSEMBLY, THE PROCESS REQUIRED TO SEAT THE DRIVER’S SIDE DRIVESHAFT AND SET THE RETAINING CLIP WAS NOT COMPLETED. AS A RESULT, THE DRIVESHAFT MAY SEPARATE.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THE VEHICLE WILL HAVE A LOSS OF DRIVE POWER AND MAY ROLL AWAY IF THE PARKING BRAKE HAS NOT BEEN SET WHEN THE GEAR SELECTOR HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE “PARK” POSITION, INCREASING THE RISK OF CRASH OR PEDESTRIAN INJURY.

Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the driver's side driveshaft and install a new driveshaft as needed, free of charge. The safety recall began on June 21. 2012. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-800-999-1009.

11V288000 · Fuel System, Other:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings

May 18, 2011

HONDA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2012 CIVIC 2-DOOR AND 4-DOOR VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM APRIL 21, 2011, THROUGH MAY 2, 2011. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT AN O-RING, WHICH SEALS A CONNECTION IN THE FUEL FEED LINE, IS MISALIGNED. IF THE O-RING IS MISALIGNED, A SMALL FUEL LEAK MAY OCCUR.

Consequence & remedy

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

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FUEL FEED LINE ASSEMBLY FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT HONDA AT 1-800-999-1009.

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

2

EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture

Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied

Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

EA19001 · Electrical Overstress

Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect.  During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment.  FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW.  These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes.  An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.   In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU.  This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation.  The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage.  There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation.  The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU.  If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC.  Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC.  All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled.  In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024.  With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Honda Civic problems