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 reports
Mileage unknown · Jun 7, 2024
Engine
Evap system light also comes on at lower temperatures, and sporadically at warmer temperatures. It used to happen only once every couple of weeks, but now it comes on (and eventually turns off again) every day. Throws the codes P0497 - Evaporative Emission System Low Purge Flow and P145C - Fuel Tank Pressure Sensor Range/Perf…
Read full complaint
Evap system light also comes on at lower temperatures, and sporadically at warmer temperatures. It used to happen only once every couple of weeks, but now it comes on (and eventually turns off again) every day. Throws the codes P0497 - Evaporative Emission System Low Purge Flow and P145C - Fuel Tank Pressure Sensor Range/Performance Problem. I've had my purge flow valve replaced, and not even two months later both errors have come back. My mechanic has looked at the car and cannot figure out what's going on, but lots of people online are having the same issue, which makes me think it's not just me.
NHTSA ODI #11593103
Mileage unknown · Jun 7, 2024
Air BagsElectrical System
The airbag light comes on sporadically - almost all of the time when it's cold, and then on/off when it is warmer. Throws the code B0001-13 - Open or Increased Resistance in Driver's Airbag Inflator. Brought it to the dealership and they told me that I needed to get the whole driver's side airbag replaced (to the tune of $1300 d…
Read full complaint
The airbag light comes on sporadically - almost all of the time when it's cold, and then on/off when it is warmer. Throws the code B0001-13 - Open or Increased Resistance in Driver's Airbag Inflator. Brought it to the dealership and they told me that I needed to get the whole driver's side airbag replaced (to the tune of $1300 dollars). With the plethora of recalls surrounding 2000s to 2010s Civics, I have a hard time believing this shouldn't be covered under some sort of recall, especially with the amount of other people online who have experienced the same issue.
NHTSA ODI #11593101
Mileage unknown · Apr 3, 2024
Forward Collision AvoidanceService BrakesSteering
Purchased November 2023 not even 1 week warning lamps, messages / adaptive cruise control, road departure mitigation, brake systems, failure lights alarming at the same time. Took to dealer cleared sensors. A matter of days alarms going off again. Call dealer they want to keep vehicle for diagnostic. When they did diagnostic it…
Read full complaint
Purchased November 2023 not even 1 week warning lamps, messages / adaptive cruise control, road departure mitigation, brake systems, failure lights alarming at the same time. Took to dealer cleared sensors. A matter of days alarms going off again. Call dealer they want to keep vehicle for diagnostic. When they did diagnostic it was another problem. They repair guy also mentioned not to apply E-brake. He said their is a possibility that it may completely lock. I will be taking vehicle to another dealership for 2nd opinion.
NHTSA ODI #11580990
Mileage unknown · Mar 26, 2024
Air Bags
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding a recurring issue with my vehicle's airbag system. Despite no physical damage to the vehicle and no apparent impact on the functionality of the airbag system, I am consistently receiving a "Check Airbag System" warning code. This message intermittently appears and disappears, cau…
Read full complaint
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding a recurring issue with my vehicle's airbag system. Despite no physical damage to the vehicle and no apparent impact on the functionality of the airbag system, I am consistently receiving a "Check Airbag System" warning code. This message intermittently appears and disappears, causing significant uncertainty and raising serious safety concerns. Given the critical role of airbags in ensuring passenger safety, any inconsistency or potential malfunction in the system poses a significant risk. Even though there have been no visible signs of damage or issues, the persistent appearance of this warning message suggests an underlying problem that demands immediate attention. As a conscientious vehicle owner, I place the highest priority on the safety of myself, passengers, and fellow road users. Consequently, I implore Honda, as the manufacturer, to conduct a thorough investigation and promptly address the recurring issue with my vehicle's airbag system. Ensuring that the airbag system operates reliably and consistently is paramount to safeguarding lives in the event of an accident. Regrettably, when I approached the Honda dealership for assistance, I was informed that I would be held accountable for the cost of diagnostics and potentially the repairs. This response is unacceptable. Honda should assume responsibility for resolving a safety concern of this magnitude. I urge Honda to reconsider their stance and take decisive action to rectify this matter without imposing financial burdens on their customers. By assuming accountability and prioritizing safety above all else, Honda can uphold its commitment to excellence and customer satisfaction. Thank you for your immediate attention to this pressing issue. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
NHTSA ODI #11579631
73,000 miles · Mar 4, 2024
Air Bags
The contact owns a 2013 Honda Civic. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the front driver's side air bag warning light illuminated. The contact stated that the vehicle was acquired and equipped with air bags. The contact stated that the failure occurred intermittently and now the warning light remained…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2013 Honda Civic. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the front driver's side air bag warning light illuminated. The contact stated that the vehicle was acquired and equipped with air bags. The contact stated that the failure occurred intermittently and now the warning light remained illuminated. The vehicle was scheduled for a service appointment in several days. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 73,000.
NHTSA ODI #11575402
Mileage unknown · Feb 4, 2024
Air BagsInjury
Amid sliding briefly on ice, the driver side front and rear curtain airbags of my 2013 Honda Civic deployed. No collision or impact occurred to trigger this and, correspondingly, no external damage to the vehicle was sustained. Post-airbag deployment, despite the unexpected bodily impact, sudden jolt, and visual obstruction caus…
Read full complaint
Amid sliding briefly on ice, the driver side front and rear curtain airbags of my 2013 Honda Civic deployed. No collision or impact occurred to trigger this and, correspondingly, no external damage to the vehicle was sustained. Post-airbag deployment, despite the unexpected bodily impact, sudden jolt, and visual obstruction caused by the airbags, I was able to maintain control of the vehicle and maneuver to a nearby parking lot. Upon visual inspection of the vehicle, I confirmed no evidence of collision. The following day, Honda ran full diagnostics on the vehicle. The dealership indicated tests would reveal certain codes triggered w/ airbag deployment (what caused them to deploy). Inspection results, however, revealed no codes found in the proprietary computer, nor other detectable evidence of any cause. I asked whether a defect was possible and was told this could neither be confirmed nor ruled out. Per the dealer's explanation, only the presence of improper codes could reveal this with absolute certainty. In essence, the only explanation I received was that no explanation could be found. Honda denied my request to put these details in writing. I was given only a vague summary of the damage and a list of costs required for repair, totaling to over $10,000 (invoice attached). Geico said damages caused by airbag deployment are not covered by any policy unless a collision is reported. If deployment occurs w/o collision but other valid causal factor(s) are detected by inspection, damages may be covered under collision; However, if no cause is determined and no collision has occurred, damages are not covered. I am now left with a vehicle that is extremely unsafe to drive, over $10,000 worth of damage that neither insurance nor manufacturer will cover, and a left-side rib injury obtained by airbag impact, w/ associated ER costs. Although I obtained only minor physical injuries from this incident, myself and/or others could have been seriously injured or killed.
NHTSA ODI #11569837
Mileage unknown · Jan 26, 2024
Air Bags
Passenger side curtain airbag deployed on its own as car slowed down approaching a stop sign. No accident occurred. Vehicle inspected by Honda dealership also reported no sign of accident occurring
NHTSA ODI #11567925
Mileage unknown · Dec 7, 2023
Air BagsCrash
Vehicle received large amounts of front end damage at approximately 45 mph and totalled with no air bag deployment
NHTSA ODI #11558973
Mileage unknown · Nov 27, 2023
StructureCrash
The assembly of the 2013 Honda civic ex was missing the rear bumper impact absorber. The component was not noticed until a collision removed the rear bumper from the car, exposing the interior of the assembly. The omission of the impact absorber in the bumper assembly from the manufacturer directly puts my safety at risk because…
Read full complaint
The assembly of the 2013 Honda civic ex was missing the rear bumper impact absorber. The component was not noticed until a collision removed the rear bumper from the car, exposing the interior of the assembly. The omission of the impact absorber in the bumper assembly from the manufacturer directly puts my safety at risk because this part is designed to absorb energy in a collision, and without the part I am more likely to be in a more serious accident. This problem was first noticed by the service shop who had confirmed that the part was missing from the assembly, and that it was a safety feature of the vehicle. The component had only been inspected by the independent service shop. There was no indication of the missing component before the accident
NHTSA ODI #11557130
Mileage unknown · Oct 26, 2023
Visibility/wiper
Wiper blade broke in an explosive fashion upon activating throwing plastic and metal components onto the drive way. Since this was in the drive way the components did not cause any harm to any other property but if this was the high way it is likely the components may have caused damage to other vehicles or motorcyclists. Wipe…
Read full complaint
Wiper blade broke in an explosive fashion upon activating throwing plastic and metal components onto the drive way. Since this was in the drive way the components did not cause any harm to any other property but if this was the high way it is likely the components may have caused damage to other vehicles or motorcyclists. Wiper blade was purchased new 3 weeks prior to incident on 10-03-2023 and failed on 10-26-2023, in this time frame the vehicle had not been used frequently as it was having multiple parts repaired so the part should not have much wear and tear. The wiper blade is saved and available to test, it broke into 7 separate pieces in an explosive fashion including 2 metal wires, blade backing broke into 2 pieces, component that holds blade to mechanism broke to two pieces and a single rubber blade. Mechanism that holds blade in place was left in a jagged state. Concern was that if blade was allowed to continue operating it may have caused damage to glass. There are no warnings and component has not been notified to manufacturer yet but I will look into contacting manufacturer after completing this report during their next business hours.
NHTSA ODI #11552117
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.