← New search

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 →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

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 reports
Mileage unknown · Jun 29, 2014
Seats

I OWN A 2013 HONDA. I JUST FOUND THIS NHTSA WEBSITE TO REGISTER COMPLAINTS. WHEN I SIT IN A CAR, I SIT CORRECTLY, WITH THE SEAT FAIRLY UPRIGHT AND MY SHOULDERS AGAINST THE SEAT BACK. WHEN I DO THIS IN THE 2013 HONDA, AND ALL NEW CARS I HAVE SAT IN, MY HEAD IS FORCED FORWARD AND DOWN IN A VERY UNNATURAL, UNCOMFORTABLE…

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2013 HONDA. I JUST FOUND THIS NHTSA WEBSITE TO REGISTER COMPLAINTS. WHEN I SIT IN A CAR, I SIT CORRECTLY, WITH THE SEAT FAIRLY UPRIGHT AND MY SHOULDERS AGAINST THE SEAT BACK. WHEN I DO THIS IN THE 2013 HONDA, AND ALL NEW CARS I HAVE SAT IN, MY HEAD IS FORCED FORWARD AND DOWN IN A VERY UNNATURAL, UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION. THE ONLY WAY I CAN LOOK AT THE ROD IS TO LIFT MY SHOULDERS OFF THE SEAT BACK, AND THEN MY ENTIRE UPPER BODY WEIGHT IS SUPPORTED BY MY NECK. THE PROBLEM IS THE HEADREST IS AT LEAST 1 INCH TOO FAR FORWARD. MY WIFE CANNOT SIT IN THE CAR FOR MORE THAT 30 MINUTES WITHOUT GETTING A HEADACHE. MY WIFE IS A PHYSIOTHERAPIST WITH 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE. HER COMMENT IS THAT THE HEADRESTS ARE FORCING US TO SIT IN ERGONOMICALLY INCORRECT POSITIONS. OLDER CARS HAD VERTICAL HEADRESTS THAT DID NOT CAUSE THIS PROBLEM. I UNDERSTAND THE NEW HEADREST POSITIONS ARE DUE TO NHTSA REGULATIONS PHASED IN 2009 TO PREVENT WHIPLASH. THE ONLY WAY I CAN DRIVE MY CAR NOW IS TO PULL THE HEADREST OUT AND PUT THEM IN BACKWARDS. THIS OBVIOUSLY RESULTS IN LESS WHIPLASH PROTECTION THAN EVEN THE OLD VERTICAL HEADRESTS FROM A WEB SEARCH, I HAVE FOUND THAT MANY OTHER CAR OWNERS ARE BEING FORCED TO DO THE SAME THING. NOW IN MANY NEW CARS YOU CANNOT REMOVE THE HEADREST TO TURN IT AROUND. BECAUSE OF THIS NHTSA RULING I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUY A NEW CAR, AND THE CAR I DRIVE IS NOT SAFE IN THE CASE OF A REAR END COLLISION. (NOTE: I LIVE IN CANADA BUT AM AFFECTED BY THIS NHTSA RULING. THE ZIP CODE AND PHONE NUMBER BELOW ARE NOT VALID, AS ONLY US INFORMATION IS ALLOWED IN THESE FIELDS). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10606747

2,566 miles · Jun 16, 2014
Steering

2013 CIVIC LX. ON 8/2/2013 WHILE SLOWING DOWN TO STOP AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, MY POWER STEERING FROZE AND I WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE CAR. INDICATOR LIGHT READ CHECK POWER STEERING SYSTEM. TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP (HONDA NORTH, DANVERS, MA) WHERE THEY REPLACED THE ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING CONTROL UNIT. I HAD BEEN DRIVING TH…

Read full complaint

2013 CIVIC LX. ON 8/2/2013 WHILE SLOWING DOWN TO STOP AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, MY POWER STEERING FROZE AND I WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE CAR. INDICATOR LIGHT READ CHECK POWER STEERING SYSTEM. TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP (HONDA NORTH, DANVERS, MA) WHERE THEY REPLACED THE ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING CONTROL UNIT. I HAD BEEN DRIVING THE CAR FOR LESS THAN 4 MONTHS AND IT HAD 2,586 MILEAGE. ON 6/14/2014 WHILE STARTING TO DRIVE THROUGH AN INTERSECTION, MY POWER STEERING FROZE AGAIN. I WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 5 - 10 MPH, AND WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE CAR. INDICATOR LIGHT READ CHECK POWER STEERING SYSTEM. I HAVE HAD THE CAR 14 MONTHS, AND IT HAS 5,786 MILEAGE. LET ME RESTATE THAT: THIS CAR HAS LESS THAN 5,800 MILES AND THE POWER STEERING SYSTEM HAS FAILED TWICE. IN BOTH OF THESE CASES, THE CAR WAS MOVING VERY SLOWLY, BUT IF I HAD BEEN MOVING AT A RAPID RATE OF SPEED AND LOST CONTROL, I COULDN'T BEEN KILLED. IT IS BY SHEER LUCK THAT I WASN'T HIT DURING THE MOST RECENT EPISODE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10598426

Mileage unknown · Jun 12, 2014
Steering

2013 HONDA CIVIC. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE POWER STEERING. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE DRIVING, THE POWER STEERING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE POWER STEERING WENT OUT COMPLETELY, AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE. WHEN HER HUSBAND ARRIVED, THE POWER STEERING WAS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. AS HER HUSBAND WAS…

Read full complaint

2013 HONDA CIVIC. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE POWER STEERING. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE DRIVING, THE POWER STEERING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE POWER STEERING WENT OUT COMPLETELY, AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE. WHEN HER HUSBAND ARRIVED, THE POWER STEERING WAS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. AS HER HUSBAND WAS DRIVING, TO THE DEALER, THE POWER STEERING WENT OUT AGAIN. WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE DEALER, THE POWER STEERING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AGAIN. THE DEALER ACKNOWLEDGED THERE WAS A PROBLEM. THE DEALER HAD THE VEHICLE FOR SIX DAYS, WHERE THEY REPLACED THE RACK AND PINION. THE DEALER ASSURED THE CONSUMER, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM. HOWEVER, THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCED POWER STEERING FAILURE AGAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER. HOWEVER, AN INSPECTION DID NOT REVEAL ANY PROBLEMS. THE DEALER CALLED THE CONSUMER BACK AND STATED THEY BELIEVED THEY FOUND THE PROBLEM. THEY INDICATED THE WIRING GOING TO THE POWER STEERING SYSTEM SHORTED OUT. THE DEALER STATED THE FACTORY HAD NOT SOLDERED THE WIRES TOGETHER AND THE WIRING PUNCTURED THROUGH THE SKIN AND SHORTED OUT CAUSING THE POWER STEERING TO OUT. THE DEALER RE-WIRED AND RE-SOLDERED THE CONNECTION. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10596147

11,000 miles · Jun 2, 2014
Service Brakes

I'VE BEEN DRIVING FOR 35 YEAR AND HAVE REPLACED BRAKES AND ROTORS NUMEROUS TIMES. I'VE NEVER HAD TO REPLACE BRAKE PADS ON A 18 MONTH OLD CAR. WITHOUT WARNING THEY WORE PREMATURELY DOWN TO THE METAL. AFTER SEARCHING FOR SIMILAR COMPLAINTS, I FOUND A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FROM 2010 WITH THE ACCORD. HONDA LOST BUT THEY HAVEN'T F…

Read full complaint

I'VE BEEN DRIVING FOR 35 YEAR AND HAVE REPLACED BRAKES AND ROTORS NUMEROUS TIMES. I'VE NEVER HAD TO REPLACE BRAKE PADS ON A 18 MONTH OLD CAR. WITHOUT WARNING THEY WORE PREMATURELY DOWN TO THE METAL. AFTER SEARCHING FOR SIMILAR COMPLAINTS, I FOUND A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FROM 2010 WITH THE ACCORD. HONDA LOST BUT THEY HAVEN'T FIXED THE ISSUE WITH THE CIVIC. THERE ARE COUNTLESS COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER HONDA OWNERS. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT FROM TWO DEALERS REFUSE TO ADMIT TO THE PROBLEM AND REFERRED ME TO CORPORATE. NO MORE HONDAS FOR ME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10595681

22,000 miles · May 27, 2014
Seat BeltsInjury

AUTISTIC CHILD REMOVED SEATBELT TO EXIT CAR, CHILD SOMEHOW BECAME TANGLED IN SEATBELT. BELT STARTED RETRACTING. COULD NOT REMOVE CHILD FROM BELT AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS. SEAT BELT WOULD NOT RELEASE AND CONTINUED TO DIG ITSELF FARTHER INTO CHILD'S TORSO. LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD TO BE CALLED TO CUT CHILD OUT OF THE SEATBELT. *T…

Read full complaint

AUTISTIC CHILD REMOVED SEATBELT TO EXIT CAR, CHILD SOMEHOW BECAME TANGLED IN SEATBELT. BELT STARTED RETRACTING. COULD NOT REMOVE CHILD FROM BELT AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS. SEAT BELT WOULD NOT RELEASE AND CONTINUED TO DIG ITSELF FARTHER INTO CHILD'S TORSO. LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD TO BE CALLED TO CUT CHILD OUT OF THE SEATBELT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10594445

300 miles · May 25, 2014
SeatsInjury

THE HEAD RESTRAINTS ON THIS MODEL OF CIVIC ( AND OTHER 2012-2014 ), POSSIBLY OTHER MODELS SUCH AS THE ACCORD ARE ANGLED SO FORWARD TO PREVENT WHIPLASH, TO THE ORDER OF -150MM. THESE PUSH THE HEAD OF THE DRIVER WAY FORWARD, FORCING INTO A POSTURE WHERE THE HEAD IS BENT FORWARD. TO AVOID THIS THE SEAT HAS TO BE RECLINED BACK, WHE…

Read full complaint

THE HEAD RESTRAINTS ON THIS MODEL OF CIVIC ( AND OTHER 2012-2014 ), POSSIBLY OTHER MODELS SUCH AS THE ACCORD ARE ANGLED SO FORWARD TO PREVENT WHIPLASH, TO THE ORDER OF -150MM. THESE PUSH THE HEAD OF THE DRIVER WAY FORWARD, FORCING INTO A POSTURE WHERE THE HEAD IS BENT FORWARD. TO AVOID THIS THE SEAT HAS TO BE RECLINED BACK, WHERE IN BACK HAS NO SUPPORT AND THE DRIVER IS BENT LIKE A "C" TRYING TO REACH THE STEERING. THIS HAS CAUSED SERVE BACK PROBLEMS, AND ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS WITH THE BACK, NECK AND SHOULDER. THIS IS A WELL KNOWN PROBLEM AND REPORTED BY MULTIPLE CUSTOMERS, YET HONDA DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS OR PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE OR SOLUTION. HONDA HAS MADE THIS TO LOOK THEIR SAFETY NUMBERS GOOD , TO COMPENSATE FOR OTHER WEEK AREAS , WHERE THE OVERALL SAFETY RATING INCREASES. HONDA'S ASIAN MODELS OF THE VERY SAME CARS, DON'T HAVE SUCH FORWARD FORCING HEAD RESTS. THIS VEHICLE IS NOT DRIVABLE FOR MORE THAN 30 MINUTES AT A STRETCH AND IT TAKES DAYS TO RECOVER ONCE THE PAIN SETS IN. TOOK THE CAR BACK THE DEALER, THEY SUGGESTED REMOVING THE HEADREST ALL TOGETHER OR TURNING IS BACK, WHERE THE DISTANCE IS AROUND +150MM, WHICH IS NOT GOOD IN PREVENTING A WHIPLASH AT ALL. THIS PROBLEM HAS CAUSED HEALTH ISSUES, MULTIPLE DOCTOR VISITS, TIME LOST AND ASSOCIATED COSTS WITH THE DOCTORS VISITS AND TESTS. SAFETY IS GOOD, BUT THIS HAS GONE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, TO PROTECT FROM WHIPLASH IS GOOD, BUT THIS DESIGN IS INDUCING PROBLEMS WITHOUT ANY ACCIDENTS. IT TAKES DAYS TO RECOVER ONCE THE PAIN SETS IN. URGE, SOMEONE PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS AND FORCE THE MANUFACTURERS TO ADDRESS THE WHIPLASH SAFETY IN A RIGHT WAY, INSTEAD OF CUTTING CORNERS AND TAKING THE EASY WAY OUT, THERE BY AFFECTING THE HEALTH OF THE CONSUMERS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10593945

Mileage unknown · May 20, 2014
Fuel/propulsion System

THIS PROBLEM WAS NOT EVIDENT DURING THE PRE-PURCHASE TEST DRIVE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE DID NOT HAVE THE GAS TANK FULL. HOWEVER, UPON DRIVING THE VEHICLE OFF THE DEALER LOT POST PURCHASE, AND DURING THE ENTIRE SUBSEQUENT OWNERSHIP PERIOD, THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED RELATIVELY LOUD THUD / KNOCKING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR/FUEL TANK AREA…

Read full complaint

THIS PROBLEM WAS NOT EVIDENT DURING THE PRE-PURCHASE TEST DRIVE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE DID NOT HAVE THE GAS TANK FULL. HOWEVER, UPON DRIVING THE VEHICLE OFF THE DEALER LOT POST PURCHASE, AND DURING THE ENTIRE SUBSEQUENT OWNERSHIP PERIOD, THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED RELATIVELY LOUD THUD / KNOCKING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR/FUEL TANK AREA UPON STOPPING IN URBAN DRIVING CONDITIONS WITH GAS TANK FULL TO HALF EMPTY. THE SOUND WAS OF A SLOSHING LIQUID IN A CONTAINER (FUEL?), EVIDENT IN LOW SPEED BRAKING AND/OR GOING OVER SPEED BUMPS. THIS IS VERY ANNOYING AND COMPLETELY RUINED MY OWNERSHIP EXPERIENCE WITH HONDA. I NEVER EXPERIENCED ANYTHING LIKE THIS WITH SIMILAR MODELS MADE BY COMPETITION (NISSAN SENTRA AND MAZDA3) AND OWNED BY ME PRIOR TO BUYING 2013 HONDA CIVIC. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND AND, MOST LIKELY, WOULD NOT PURCHASE HONDA VEHICLES MYSELF. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10592927

100 miles · May 20, 2014
Fuel System, Gasoline

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS ABLE TO HEAR A THUMPING SOUND IN THE GASOLINE TANK. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 10…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS ABLE TO HEAR A THUMPING SOUND IN THE GASOLINE TANK. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 10,800.

NHTSA ODI #10592824

5 miles · May 19, 2014
Electrical System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VOLUME OF THE HORN WAS ABNORMALLY LOW. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THE FACTORY HORN WAS PERFORMING AS DESIGNED. THE DEALER RECOMMENDED THAT THE CONTACT TRY PURCHASING AN AFTERMARKET HORN FROM AN AUTO PARTS RETAILER. THE MANUFACTU…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VOLUME OF THE HORN WAS ABNORMALLY LOW. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THE FACTORY HORN WAS PERFORMING AS DESIGNED. THE DEALER RECOMMENDED THAT THE CONTACT TRY PURCHASING AN AFTERMARKET HORN FROM AN AUTO PARTS RETAILER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 5.

NHTSA ODI #10592438

11,000 miles · May 12, 2014
EngineStructureVehicle Speed ControlCrash

THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU ABOUT A SEVERE MALFUNCTION THAT CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. I WAS TRAUMATIZED BY A SUDDEN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WITH MY 2013 HONDA CIVIC. LUCKILY NO ONE GOT HURT IN THIS EVENT, BUT I?M HOPING THAT THIS FACT WILL NOT REDUCE THE ATTENTION FROM THIS SEVERE MALFUNCTION. FOLLOWING IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF TH…

Read full complaint

THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU ABOUT A SEVERE MALFUNCTION THAT CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. I WAS TRAUMATIZED BY A SUDDEN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WITH MY 2013 HONDA CIVIC. LUCKILY NO ONE GOT HURT IN THIS EVENT, BUT I?M HOPING THAT THIS FACT WILL NOT REDUCE THE ATTENTION FROM THIS SEVERE MALFUNCTION. FOLLOWING IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE EVENT THAT HAPPENED ON MAY 10, 2014 AT 6:30PM: I WAS DRIVING SLOWLY, UNDER 5 MILES PER HOUR, APPROACHING A PARKING NEAR THE SIDEWAYS. THERE WAS ONE CAR ALREADY PARKED, AND I WAS GOING TO PARK BEHIND IT. I WAS ABOUT TO COMPLETE MY PARKING, AND MY LEG WAS GENTLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (I WAS ALMOST AT A COMPLETE HALT). SUDDENLY, THE CAR MADE A VERY LOUD NOISE AS IF SOMEONE PRESSED ON THE GAS ALL THE WAY (IT WAS AN AWFUL NOISE), AND THEN IT SHOT ITSELF FORWARD AT A CRAZY SPEED. AS THE CAR DROVE ITSELF INTO THE PARKED CAR IN FRONT, I PULLED THE HANDBRAKE AND PRESSED HARDER ON THE BREAKS IN THE SPLIT SECOND THAT I HAD TO REALIZE SOMETHING IS WRONG. SINCE I WAS AT A VERY LOW SPEED, THE IMPACT DIDN'T DEPLOY THE AIRBAGS. THE PARKED CAR IN FRONT OF ME STOPPED THE CAR FROM GOING FORWARD UNCONTROLLABLY. ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN A MATTER OF SECONDS. AT THIS POINT THE CARS ENGINE DECREASED THE RPM BACK TO NORMAL, AND THE CAR STOPPED PUSHING ITSELF FORWARD, THOUGH AT THAT POINT I ALREADY DEPLOYED THE HAND BRAKE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10587718

Official recalls

0

No 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

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