The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while making a left turn, several warning lights illuminated on the instrument panel, and the steering wheel became significantly unsteady, causing a partial loss of vehicle control. Because the incident occurred within walking distance of the residence, the contact use…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while making a left turn, several warning lights illuminated on the instrument panel, and the steering wheel became significantly unsteady, causing a partial loss of vehicle control. Because the incident occurred within walking distance of the residence, the contact used a toy hauler to tow the vehicle to the residence. An inspection revealed that the rear passenger-side trailing arm had completely detached from the vehicle and punctured the subframe. Upon investigating the failure, the contact discovered that prior Honda models had experienced identical failures resulting from severe subframe corrosion. The manufacturer was notified of the failure but denied any assistance. The contact was referred to the NHTSA Vehicle Safety Hotline to report the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 210,000.
NHTSA ODI #11748453
Mileage unknown · Jun 26, 2026
StructureSuspension
I was driving and the rear tire and suspension broke looked it's completely rotted out
NHTSA ODI #11746790
Mileage unknown · Jun 17, 2026
Structure
The drivers side (left front door latch) is inoperative. This was a recall from Aug 2012. The latch was replaced in 2012. Yes it is available for inspection. The door opens while driving and had to be tied shut to drive home and Honda dealership. Was told by Honda Corporate to drive to the nearest Dealership and repairs would …
Read full complaint
The drivers side (left front door latch) is inoperative. This was a recall from Aug 2012. The latch was replaced in 2012. Yes it is available for inspection. The door opens while driving and had to be tied shut to drive home and Honda dealership. Was told by Honda Corporate to drive to the nearest Dealership and repairs would be made under Safety Recall Notice from 2012, once they diagnose it as broken. Gerald Honda of Mattson diagnosed the problem and ordered the part on 6/16/26. They made an appointment for 6/17/2026 at 9:00am for the repair. The door open warning light intermittently blinks off/on for the two front doors, and dings. There were no warning lights prior to 6/16/26.
NHTSA ODI #11744847
Mileage unknown · Nov 14, 2025
StructureSuspension
During the installation of the rear frame bracket (recommended from the 2011 recall), it was determined the vehicle is unsafe. The frame brace recall not designed for the 2012 CRV would not fit the vehicle. Notified customer of the condition of the left control arm. Not safe for the road. Recommended not to drive this vehicle.
NHTSA ODI #11699499
Mileage unknown · Nov 7, 2025
StructureSuspension
Rear wheel subframe broke off, separated from the chassis
NHTSA ODI #11698252
Mileage unknown · Jun 17, 2025
Power TrainStructureSuspension
Complete rear tire assembly came loose from the unibody frame from rust. Not a drop of rust on the body of the car.Thank god we weren’t on the highway. they told me it was unfixable.Thank you Honda.And the recall stopped at 2011? Honda obviously doesn’t care about safety and human life.
NHTSA ODI #11667412
230,000 miles · Apr 30, 2025
Structure
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his wife was driving 55 MPH, the suspension failed, and the vehicle started veering back and forth uncontrollably between two lanes. The contact's wife was able to pull over to the side of the road. The vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic, where it was di…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his wife was driving 55 MPH, the suspension failed, and the vehicle started veering back and forth uncontrollably between two lanes. The contact's wife was able to pull over to the side of the road. The vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic, where it was diagnosed that that the rear driver's side trailing arm had detached from the frame due to severe corrosion. The vehicle was not repaired. The dealer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that the VIN was not included in a related recall. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that a goodwill assistance could be considered after the dealer had diagnosed the vehicle. The failure mileage was approximately 230,000.
NHTSA ODI #11657924
Mileage unknown · Feb 23, 2025
StructureSuspension
*Background information: Vehicle was purchased in 2012 from Williams Honda in Elmira, N.Y. I purchased this vehicle from my aunt on [XXX], with 48,301 miles and vehicle has been registered and driven in Florida since 2019. Vehicle’s VIN and sticker is 04/2012 just four months after current recall. American Honda Case Number [XXX…
Read full complaint
*Background information: Vehicle was purchased in 2012 from Williams Honda in Elmira, N.Y. I purchased this vehicle from my aunt on [XXX], with 48,301 miles and vehicle has been registered and driven in Florida since 2019. Vehicle’s VIN and sticker is 04/2012 just four months after current recall. American Honda Case Number [XXX]. *Friday, [XXX], while I was driving through a neighborhood the trailing arm became unattached without warning. (See photos attached). *Monday, [XXX] vehicle was towed to Brandon Honda in Brandon, Florida for a diagnostic. I was informed the vehicle was a total loss and to contact American Honda (See attached photos from Brandon Honda). *Tuesday, [XXX] American Honda sent me an email stating that the safety recall for Honda CRV Rear Frame Brace Honda Campaign Number UE3 was VIN specific and did not match my vehicle’s VIN number and closed my case (See attached email). *November 2024 – January 2025 constant phone calls and emails to Brandon Honda and American Honda and completely stonewalling me. Constant contact with Brandon Honda’s service manager Jen who supposedly report issue to American Honda. I requested the service manager’s report, but they refuse to provide me the refusal from American Honda. I have yet to receive a work order for the diagnostic from November 2024 from Brandon Honda and my vehicle is still at the service center today. *Sunday, [XXX] I requested a review of my case with American Honda. This vehicle has a manufactured date of April 2012 only fours months after the UE3 recall with possible parts linked to this recall. My vehicle exhibits the same exact issues as the UE3 recall with the driver side rear trailing arm becoming unattached from the body without notice. American Honda has not responded yet with my request to review the case filed back in November. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11644356
175,000 miles · Feb 14, 2025
StructureSuspension
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his wife was driving 20 MPH, the vehicle began to wobble after driving over a puddle. The contact's wife pulled over and discovered that the rear driver’s side tire had sunken into the rear axle. The contact had the vehicle towed to the residence and discovered th…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his wife was driving 20 MPH, the vehicle began to wobble after driving over a puddle. The contact's wife pulled over and discovered that the rear driver’s side tire had sunken into the rear axle. The contact had the vehicle towed to the residence and discovered that a portion of the sub frame where the failure had occurred was corroded. The contact called the dealer, and the failure was acknowledged; however, the vehicle was not under recall. The contact was provided an estimate for a diagnostic test and was referred to the manufacturer for additional assistance. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and the contact was provided the same information as the dealer. The manufacturer referred the contact to the NHTSA Hotline to report the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 175,000.
NHTSA ODI #11642719
Mileage unknown · Nov 18, 2024
StructureUnknown Or Other
Spare tire wheel well fills with water during heavy rain. Today I sucked out at least 2-3 gallons. Water goes 1/2 to 3/4 up the spare tire. Due to moisture Jack has rusted, headliner coming down and tire is slimy. 2020 Honda said problem was fixed but every time we have a hard rain it fills with water. Research has shown man…
Read full complaint
Spare tire wheel well fills with water during heavy rain. Today I sucked out at least 2-3 gallons. Water goes 1/2 to 3/4 up the spare tire. Due to moisture Jack has rusted, headliner coming down and tire is slimy. 2020 Honda said problem was fixed but every time we have a hard rain it fills with water. Research has shown many people have same issue and have been unable to find source of leaks. If I get a flat don’t know if Jack will work or in spare is ok. Headliner is going to cause issues too.
Honda is recalling certain model year 2012-2013 CR-V, Odyssey, and model year 2013 Acura RDX vehicles. During sub-freezing temperatures, the brake-shift interlock blocking mechanism may become slow and allow the gear selector to be moved from the Park position without pressing the brake pedal. As such, these vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, "Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the gear selector is moved from the park position without pressing the brake pedal it can allow the vehicle to roll away, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners and instruct them to take their vehicle to a Honda or Acura dealer. The dealer will install an updated brake shift interlock blocking mechanism free of charge. The recall began on May 13, 2013. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009. Honda's campaign recall numbers are S96, S97, and S98.
Honda is recalling certain model year 2012 CR-V, equipped with the LX trim level and manufactured from August 30, 2012, to August 31, 2012. These vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, "Certification." The incorrect values for Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, Gross Axle Weight Rating front and rear, tire size, and rim size were specified on the safety certification label.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A misprinted label could lead to improper vehicle loading. Improper loading could result in a tire failure, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will apply the corrective label free of charge. The safety recall began on November 14, 2012. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009.
Honda is recalling certain model year 2012 Honda CR-V and model year 2013 Acura ILX vehicles. If the manual or power door lock is activated while an interior front door handle is being operated by an occupant, the cable connecting the interior door handle to the door latch mechanism may become loose and move out of position. There is a possibility that the cable can move far enough out of position to prevent the door from properly latching.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the door is not fully latched, the door may open while driving or in a crash, increasing the risk of personal injury to the vehicle occupants.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front door latch assemblies in the affected vehicles, free of charge. Additionally, the interior front door handles in certain Honda CR-Vs will also be replaced, free of charge. The safety recall is expected to begin on, or about, August 16, 2012. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-800-999-1009.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3
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.
EQ12002 · Autoliv Air Bag Propellant Mixture
Opened Feb 14, 2012 · Closed May 8, 2012
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:side/window
The summary for this investigation, labeled EQ12-002 Autoliv Closing Resume, can be found attached separately to this resume.This EQ is closed.