IllustrationMY PREVIOUS COMPLAINT NUMBER CAN BE DISREGARDED: 10864804 THE PROBLEM IN THE 2013 CIVIC TURNED OUT TO BE THE WHEEL BEARING AND NOT THE TRANSMISSION AS I FIRST THOUGHT.
2013 Honda Civic
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2013 Honda Civic do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 183.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Civic 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
980–25K
3525–50K
2850–75K
2075–100K
9100–150K
3150K+
193 reports with mileage · 126 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 114 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 39 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 38 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
29 crash reports1 fire reports24 injury reports
What owners actually said
319 reportsMILEAGE CONSISTENTLY 20.8, FAR LOW THAN REPRESENTED WITH CONSERVATIVE DRIVING. DEALER TEST DRIVE 50 MPG. OTHER DEALER REPRESENTS ALL TEST DRIVES COME BACK 50 MPG. ALLEGING FRAUD BY HONDA ON TEST DRIVES (MAYBE SIMILAR TO VW EXHAUST TESTING). CALLED HONDA HQ, ONLY TOLD THEY WILL DOCUMENT COMPLAINT, BUT HAD TO INSIST TO GIVE VIN AG…
Read full complaint
MILEAGE CONSISTENTLY 20.8, FAR LOW THAN REPRESENTED WITH CONSERVATIVE DRIVING. DEALER TEST DRIVE 50 MPG. OTHER DEALER REPRESENTS ALL TEST DRIVES COME BACK 50 MPG. ALLEGING FRAUD BY HONDA ON TEST DRIVES (MAYBE SIMILAR TO VW EXHAUST TESTING). CALLED HONDA HQ, ONLY TOLD THEY WILL DOCUMENT COMPLAINT, BUT HAD TO INSIST TO GIVE VIN AGAIN AS CUSTOMER SERVICE PERSON CLAIMED ACCIDENTALLY DELETED WHEN I ASKED IF HE COULD ID WHO MAKE THE COMPLAINT. MY PREVIOUS HONDA, ACCORD V6 GOT BETTER MILEAGE. PURCHASED VEHICLE NEW APRIL 2014.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CIVIC. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE DRIVER SIDE AIR BAG LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE DEALER PERFORMED AN OIL CHANGE. THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CIVIC. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE DRIVER SIDE AIR BAG LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE DEALER PERFORMED AN OIL CHANGE. THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE CLOCK SPRING WAS INCORRECTLY REPLACED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THE TECHNICIAN REPLACED THE CLOCK SPRING, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS SCHEDULED FOR ANOTHER CHECK UP. THE CONTACT WAS NOT SURE WHETHER THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT ALSO NOTICED SOME RUSTING ON THE SUN ROOF, BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE DEALER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
TPMS INDICATOR LIGHT ON. TIRES INFLATED AT THE PROPER PRESSURE. I HAD SAME PROBLEM WITH MY 2011 HONDA CIVIC, DEALER WANTED TO CHARGE $112 PER TIRE TO CORRECT IT. THIS IS HIGHWAY ROBBERY NHTSA SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT. OTHERWISE CAR DRIVES FINE, IT IS JUST ONE MORE GIMMICK AUTO MANUFACTURERS INJECT W/FEDERAL BLESSING TO RIP-OFF CONSUM…
Read full complaint
TPMS INDICATOR LIGHT ON. TIRES INFLATED AT THE PROPER PRESSURE. I HAD SAME PROBLEM WITH MY 2011 HONDA CIVIC, DEALER WANTED TO CHARGE $112 PER TIRE TO CORRECT IT. THIS IS HIGHWAY ROBBERY NHTSA SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT. OTHERWISE CAR DRIVES FINE, IT IS JUST ONE MORE GIMMICK AUTO MANUFACTURERS INJECT W/FEDERAL BLESSING TO RIP-OFF CONSUMERS.
CVT - ISSUES WITH TRANSMISSION - MY CAR HAS NOT BEEN THE SAME RECENTLY AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE CV TRANSMISSION. WHEN I DRIVE AT HIGH SPEEDS (SUCH AS 50MPH OR MORE, THE CAR SEEMS TO BE STUCK IN A LOWER GEAR). THE CAR RUNS ROUGH AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A LOWER GEAR WHEN IT DRIVES. I BROUGHT THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP (AVENTURA HONDA…
Read full complaint
CVT - ISSUES WITH TRANSMISSION - MY CAR HAS NOT BEEN THE SAME RECENTLY AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE CV TRANSMISSION. WHEN I DRIVE AT HIGH SPEEDS (SUCH AS 50MPH OR MORE, THE CAR SEEMS TO BE STUCK IN A LOWER GEAR). THE CAR RUNS ROUGH AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A LOWER GEAR WHEN IT DRIVES. I BROUGHT THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP (AVENTURA HONDA IN FLORIDA) AND THEY SAW NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. THEY DID A TRANSMISSION FLUSH JUST TO BE SAFE AND I STILL HAVE THE SAME ISSUE. I SAW THAT HONDA HAD A RECALL ON THE CVT TRANSMISSION FOR THE 2014 AND 2015 HONDA CIVIC MODELS. I CAN ONLY BEGIN TO WONDER IF THE 2013 MODEL ALSO HAS DEFECTS. I HAVE ABOUT 47,000 MILES ON MY CAR AND I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER. PLEASE INVESTIGATE THE 2013 HONDA CIVIC MODEL FOR POSSIBLE DEFECTS IN THE CVT. I SPENT $149 FOR A FLUSH THAT DID NOTING TO ALLEVIATE THE NOISY AND ROUGH TRANSMISSION ISSUE AND HAD TO RENT A CAR FOR $65 WHILE I WAITED FOR THE SERVICE TO BE DONE.
MY 2013 HONDA CIVIC HESITATES WHEN I ATTEMPT TO ACCELERATE SUDDENLY. THIS IS DANGEROUS WHEN TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN IN FRONT OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC, OR MERGE AT A FREEWAY ENTRY AND ACCELERATE TO HIGHWAY SPEEDS. THE ELECTRONIC FUEL INJECTION, COMPUTER CONTROL OR THE ENGINE OR CV TRANSMISSION MAY BE THE CAUSE. I SUSPECT TH…
Read full complaint
MY 2013 HONDA CIVIC HESITATES WHEN I ATTEMPT TO ACCELERATE SUDDENLY. THIS IS DANGEROUS WHEN TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN IN FRONT OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC, OR MERGE AT A FREEWAY ENTRY AND ACCELERATE TO HIGHWAY SPEEDS. THE ELECTRONIC FUEL INJECTION, COMPUTER CONTROL OR THE ENGINE OR CV TRANSMISSION MAY BE THE CAUSE. I SUSPECT THE COMPUTER CONTROL, AS THE CAR IS EQUIPPED WITH "ECO MODE". BUT THE PROBLEM OCCURS WHETHER "ECO MODE" IS ON OR OFF. THIS HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY, BUT I WILL ONLY LIST THE MOST RECENT ISSUE BELOW.
ONLY 18 MONTHS OLD & HAD TO REPLACE THE MOTOR FOR THE WINDOW ON DRIVERS SIDE ~ WOULDN'T ROLL UP. ALL THE PARTS WERE SOLD OUT AND HAD TO GET ONE FROM HONDA DEALER IN PHX. APPARENTLY THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM AS THE TECH LOOKED IT UP & FOUND NUMEROUS ISSUES. THIS WAS AN EXPENSIVE REPAIR (ON A TIGHT BUDGET) BUT WAS ABLE TO MAKE PA…
Read full complaint
ONLY 18 MONTHS OLD & HAD TO REPLACE THE MOTOR FOR THE WINDOW ON DRIVERS SIDE ~ WOULDN'T ROLL UP. ALL THE PARTS WERE SOLD OUT AND HAD TO GET ONE FROM HONDA DEALER IN PHX. APPARENTLY THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM AS THE TECH LOOKED IT UP & FOUND NUMEROUS ISSUES. THIS WAS AN EXPENSIVE REPAIR (ON A TIGHT BUDGET) BUT WAS ABLE TO MAKE PAYMENTS. VERY DISAPPOINTED THERE WAS NO COMPENSATION FROM HONDA!
ALL 9TH GENERATION CIVICS ARE EQUIPED WITH STOCK UNDER POWERED HORNS. SAFTEY ISSUE, SINCE OTHER CARS WON'T HEAR IT TO AVOID A COLLISION. SOME DEALERS OFFER A HORN UPGRADE, BUT THE LABOR WOULD BE COSTLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BUMPER COVER HAS TO BE REMOVED AND RE INSTALLED.
DRIVER'S SEAT IS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. AFTER DRIVING ONLY A FEW MILES MY BACK AND LEGS BEGIN TO ACHE BECAUSE OF THE POOR SEAT CUSHION DESIGN, THE CONCAVE SEAT BACK WITHOUT ANY LUMBAR SUPPORT, AND THE FORWARD LEANING HEAD RESTRAINT THAT KEEPS ME FROM STRAIGHTENING MY BACK WHILE STILL MAINTAINING CONTACT WITH THE SEAT BACK. I'M TE…
Read full complaint
DRIVER'S SEAT IS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. AFTER DRIVING ONLY A FEW MILES MY BACK AND LEGS BEGIN TO ACHE BECAUSE OF THE POOR SEAT CUSHION DESIGN, THE CONCAVE SEAT BACK WITHOUT ANY LUMBAR SUPPORT, AND THE FORWARD LEANING HEAD RESTRAINT THAT KEEPS ME FROM STRAIGHTENING MY BACK WHILE STILL MAINTAINING CONTACT WITH THE SEAT BACK. I'M TEMPTED TO REMOVE THE HEAD RESTRAINT TO REDUCE THE PAIN SOMEWHAT. NO MANUFACTURER OR DEALERSHIP REPAIRS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BECAUSE HONDA APPARENTLY DOES NOT SEE THIS AS A PROBLEM THAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
YOU CAN HEAR FUEL SLOSHING AROUND IN FUEL TANK WHEN TANK IS FULL WHEN STOPPING, GOING FROM A STOP, GOING UP OR DOWN A DRIVEWAY VERY ANNOYING. HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE CAR WAS BRAND NEW
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
2EA21002 · 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.