The fill cap for the transmission keeps coming out of my transmission on my 2014 honda civic LX ans there is transmission fluid everywhere.
2014 Honda Civic
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2014 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
175 reports with mileage · 116 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.
- Power Train. Review the 98 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 57 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. 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.
Power Train complaints
98 reportsThe contact owns a 2014 Honda Civic. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V574000 (Power Train). The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle lost motive power. The vehicle was towed to the dealer and diagnosed with continuously variable transmission (CVT) pulley shaft failu…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2014 Honda Civic. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V574000 (Power Train). The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle lost motive power. The vehicle was towed to the dealer and diagnosed with continuously variable transmission (CVT) pulley shaft failure. The contact was informed that the transmission needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired and remained at the dealer. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and declined the transmission replacement. The manufacturer informed the contact that he needed to pay out of pocket for the repair. The failure mileage was approximately 117,000.
Transmission cap popped off and fluid leaked out causing transmission to fail. Appears this is a common issue.
I have over 150,000 miles on this vehicle. I've followed all recommended maintenance minders as they come up and today I found that the CVT transmission fill plug had popped off, was laying on the transmission with fluid everywhere. I do not know how long the fill cap has been dislodged, but the fill cap should not dislodge on i…
Read full complaint
I have over 150,000 miles on this vehicle. I've followed all recommended maintenance minders as they come up and today I found that the CVT transmission fill plug had popped off, was laying on the transmission with fluid everywhere. I do not know how long the fill cap has been dislodged, but the fill cap should not dislodge on it's own which can lead to early transmission failure.
The CVT failed at 130k miles. All necessary maintenance was followed and the part failed with no warning. This caused the vehicle to breakdown on the highway.
Transmission filler cap (wine cork style) popped off as in other complaints causing a loss of fluid and the transmission failing. Car seems to be stuck in 2nd or 3rd gear and is no longer drivable. This poor design that has been complained about is causing an unnecessary financial hardship replacing the transmissions.
Started my car in neutral with the parking brake engaged. The car took off by itself up a curb over a hill and struck another vehicle. I managed to get back in the vehicle and applied the brakes but the brakes did not respond. And my car was serviced at Freeway Honda in Santa Ana three days prior to the accident. I reported the …
Read full complaint
Started my car in neutral with the parking brake engaged. The car took off by itself up a curb over a hill and struck another vehicle. I managed to get back in the vehicle and applied the brakes but the brakes did not respond. And my car was serviced at Freeway Honda in Santa Ana three days prior to the accident. I reported the problem with the brakes, they did a brake service, but they did not properly diagnose the issue and fix it. They told me they couldn’t find any problems and release the car back to me. Three days later it was in an accident and the brakes failed. Now freeway Honda has stated that they finally diagnosed the issue with the brakes, but they are refusing to fix it free of charge even though they have been deemed liable for the accident. My rear shocks were also damaged due to the impact of going up the curb and State Farm is investigating that to see if they will be paying for the repair and replacement of the shocks.
While driving especially accelerating from a stop front end of car started vibrating and jerking.Qualified mechanic inspected the drive train and concluded there was a damage to the pulley shaft that could not have been due to wear and Tear. Mechanic said issue was identical to Honda recall ju2 15v574000. I was advised to take v…
Read full complaint
While driving especially accelerating from a stop front end of car started vibrating and jerking.Qualified mechanic inspected the drive train and concluded there was a damage to the pulley shaft that could not have been due to wear and Tear. Mechanic said issue was identical to Honda recall ju2 15v574000. I was advised to take vehicle to Honda. On the way to Honda the transmission gave out in the middle of an intersection. Good samaritans helped push vehicle to near by parking lot. Vehicle was towed to Honda of Dartmouth, Ma
Car without notice started going under 20 mph and then under 2mph. Towed to Proctor Honda in Tallahassee FL for diagnosis and they said the transmission is inoperable and the internal components failed which is the exact same problem that is stated in the other 2014 Honda Civic recalls. They claim this VIN is not one of the re…
Read full complaint
Car without notice started going under 20 mph and then under 2mph. Towed to Proctor Honda in Tallahassee FL for diagnosis and they said the transmission is inoperable and the internal components failed which is the exact same problem that is stated in the other 2014 Honda Civic recalls. They claim this VIN is not one of the recalled VINS i believe it is.
I was sold a lemon in July 2015 from Victory Honda San Bruno.my VIN comes up as a 2014 Civic LX instead of EX-L.I never noticed the model difference until I had to look up recalls etc 'cause my pulley shaft stopped@ 94kmiles whilr on the freeway.Honda in Oakland&San bruno wanted $8k to fix it,ran my credit 4x for financing justt…
Read full complaint
I was sold a lemon in July 2015 from Victory Honda San Bruno.my VIN comes up as a 2014 Civic LX instead of EX-L.I never noticed the model difference until I had to look up recalls etc 'cause my pulley shaft stopped@ 94kmiles whilr on the freeway.Honda in Oakland&San bruno wanted $8k to fix it,ran my credit 4x for financing justtosay,not approved&my tranny cancels a $9k buyback/trade in.Honda of Oakland allowed a rep. to switch my car info w/someone else's, my last name, mileage, model, etc &allowed someone to pickup my car from them &didn't notify me for 4days,they also wanted$600 for tests, service AorB,trany flush(i didn't authorize)&my car(no previous engine problems)still doesnt drive.It has only been serviced at those 2 honda locations.I was NEVER notified&have these issues..PULLEY SHAFT#JU2,TIRE BEAD #JD8,now the AIRBAG RECALLS.On Nhtsa.gov/recalls,theres hundreds of owners w/my VIN #s minus the last 5-8 #s w/the same problems esp at 90k mile.my car is PAID OFF
Official recalls
215V574000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
Sep 15, 2015
Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain model year 2014-2015 Civic vehicles manufactured January 16, 2014, to November 6, 2014 and 2015 Fit vehicles manufactured March 12, 2014, to May 12, 2015. The software settings that control the transmission operation may result in damage to the transmission drive pulley shaft.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the transmission drive pulley shaft is damaged, it may break, and the vehicle may lose acceleration or the front wheels may lock up while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the transmission, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin October 30, 2015. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's numbers for this recall are JU2 (Civic) and JU3(Fit).
14V109000 · Tires:bead
Mar 10, 2014
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) is recalling certain model year 2014 Honda Civic LX vehicles manufactured November 26, 2013, through January 21, 2014. In the affected vehicles, during mounting of the tires, the tire bead may have gotten pinched between the assembly equipment and the steel wheel rims, resulting in damage to the tire.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: The tire damage could cause the tire to lose air, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will inspect and replace any damaged tire, free of charge. The recall began on April 15, 2014. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009. Honda's number for this recall is JD8.
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.
Illustration