HEATER/DEFROSTER ON DRIVER'S SIDE NOT PUTTING OUT WARM AIR. WINDOWS NOT BEING DEFROSTED - SAFETY ISSUE. HONDA HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THIS PROBLEM AND ISSUED A SERVICE BULLETIN 14-063 BUT REFUSED TO CORRECT WITH CHARGING SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS. THIS SHOULD BE FIXED NO-CHARGE AS IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE.
2012 Honda CR-V
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2012 Honda CR-V do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 400.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all CR-V 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
279 reports with mileage · 124 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.
- Engine. Review the 89 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 68 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 48 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Visibility/wiper complaints
23 reportsIT IS WELL DOCUMENTED BY HONDA THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH HEATER CORES ON THESE CARS. HEATER WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME PLUGGED AND NOT WORK. HEAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY COOLER ON DRIVERS SIDE VENTS THAN PASSENGER SIDE. MY COMPLAINT IS WITHOUT HEAT TO DEFROST WINDSHIELD IN WINTER CONDITIONS IT WILL BECOME A VISIBILITY ISSUE DUE TO NOT…
Read full complaint
IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED BY HONDA THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH HEATER CORES ON THESE CARS. HEATER WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME PLUGGED AND NOT WORK. HEAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY COOLER ON DRIVERS SIDE VENTS THAN PASSENGER SIDE. MY COMPLAINT IS WITHOUT HEAT TO DEFROST WINDSHIELD IN WINTER CONDITIONS IT WILL BECOME A VISIBILITY ISSUE DUE TO NOT HAVING THE ABILITY TO DEFROST THE WINDSHIELD. AND POTENTIALLY CAUSE A CRASH. HONDA IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THIS ISSUE, YET IS CHARGING CUSTOMERS THAT ARE OUT OF WARRANTY TO RECTIFY THE ISSUE. I HAVE 46K MILES ON MY CAR AND AM HAVING HEATER CORE ISSUES? I NOTICED THE ISSUE EARLY ON AND IT HAS GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE. HAD I OF KNOWN WHAT IT WAS I WOULD HAVE HAD IT FIXED UNDER WARRANTY. HONDA TSB NUMBER IS 14-063. TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL FROM PASSENGER SIDE TO DRIVER SIDE IN MY CAR IS 40+ DEGREES.
THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED TWICE, IN EARLY 2014 AND EARLY 2015. DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY IN A SNOWSTORM, THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS WORK FINE FOR A WHILE, AND THEN RATHER SUDDENLY THE WINDSHIELD ICES UP TO A POINT THAT VISIBILITY IS EXTREMELY POOR. THE WIPERS THEMSELVES FAIL, AND NO AMOUNT OF DEFROSTING/HEAT DIRECTED AT THE WINDSHIELD WILL …
Read full complaint
THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED TWICE, IN EARLY 2014 AND EARLY 2015. DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY IN A SNOWSTORM, THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS WORK FINE FOR A WHILE, AND THEN RATHER SUDDENLY THE WINDSHIELD ICES UP TO A POINT THAT VISIBILITY IS EXTREMELY POOR. THE WIPERS THEMSELVES FAIL, AND NO AMOUNT OF DEFROSTING/HEAT DIRECTED AT THE WINDSHIELD WILL HELP. THE ONLY THING THAT HELPS IS PULLING OFF THE HIGHWAY AND MANUALLY DE-ICING THEM. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, OF COURSE, IS THAT ONE IS NOT ALWAYS IN THE POSITION TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS, AND CERTAINLY NOT IMMEDIATELY ONCE THE PROBLEM STARTS. THE FIRST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS IN AWFUL TRAFFIC IN A SNOWSTORM WITH MY TWO DAUGHTERS IN THE CAR. THERE WERE ACCIDENTS ALL ALONG OUR ROUTE, SO EVEN WITH VISIBILITY THE DRIVING WAS HAIRY. THERE WAS NOWHERE TO PULL OVER FOR A LONG PERIOD IN ORDER TO FIX THE PROBLEM. IT WAS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE WORST AND MOST FRIGHTENING DRIVING EXPERIENCE I'VE EVER HAD. AFTER THAT EXPERIENCE, I PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BRAND NEW WIPERS. THEY WORK GREAT IN THE RAIN, AND I WAS HOPEFUL ABOUT THEIR PERFORMANCE IN SNOW. BUT THEN I ENCOUNTERED THE PROBLEM AGAIN THE FOLLOWING WINTER. HAPPILY, ON THE SECOND OCCASION I WAS ABLE TO PULL OFF THE HIGHWAY RELATIVELY SOON AFTER THE PROBLEM STARTED. MY GUESS IS THAT IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE SHAPE OF THE WINDSHIELD, OR WITH THE DEPTH OF THE WELL AT THE BASE OF THE WINDSHIELD.
I. HEADLIGHTS ARE TERRIBLE. I ONLY DRIVE OCCASIONALLY AT NIGHT. THE HIGH BEAM POINTS TOO HIGH AND THE LOW BEAM TOO LOW. I ASKED REP IN SERVICE DEPT. AT DON JACOBS, LEXINGTON, KY AND HE ADVISED THE HEADLIGHTS ARE SET AT FACTORY. THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO ADJUST THEM. I DON'T THINK HE EVEN MADE OUT A REPORT. BUT TH…
Read full complaint
I. HEADLIGHTS ARE TERRIBLE. I ONLY DRIVE OCCASIONALLY AT NIGHT. THE HIGH BEAM POINTS TOO HIGH AND THE LOW BEAM TOO LOW. I ASKED REP IN SERVICE DEPT. AT DON JACOBS, LEXINGTON, KY AND HE ADVISED THE HEADLIGHTS ARE SET AT FACTORY. THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO ADJUST THEM. I DON'T THINK HE EVEN MADE OUT A REPORT. BUT THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, HONDA SHOULD HAVE A "FIX" FOR THIS PROBLEM. 2. BATTERY. LOCAL TEMPS HAVE BEEN -/+ ZERO OUTSIDE. MY HONDA IS PARKED IN GARAGE AND TEMPS IN THIS COLD WEATHER IN MY GARAGE IS 34 DEGREES, AVERAGE.. MY HONDA "GROANS" WHEN STARTING, BUT SO FAR HAS MANAGED TO GET STARTED. I HAVE NOT MENTIONED THIS TO DON JACOBS AS I DIDN'T THINK THEY WOULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THEY WOULD PROBABLY SAY "IT WAS SET AT FACTORY".
I AM WRITING TO SEE THE ISSUE I AM FACING WITH MY CAR IS A SAFETY CONCERN OR NOT. I CONTACTED HONDA AND THEY INDICATED ALL OF THEIR HONDA CRV 2012 MODELS ARE DESIGNED THE SAME WAY TO PROTECT THE INTERIOR ELECTRIC MECHANISM OF THE CAR. I HAVE A VISIBILITY PROBLEM WHEN IT IS RAINING OR THERE IS MOISTURE ON THE SIDE WINDOWS (ALL FO…
Read full complaint
I AM WRITING TO SEE THE ISSUE I AM FACING WITH MY CAR IS A SAFETY CONCERN OR NOT. I CONTACTED HONDA AND THEY INDICATED ALL OF THEIR HONDA CRV 2012 MODELS ARE DESIGNED THE SAME WAY TO PROTECT THE INTERIOR ELECTRIC MECHANISM OF THE CAR. I HAVE A VISIBILITY PROBLEM WHEN IT IS RAINING OR THERE IS MOISTURE ON THE SIDE WINDOWS (ALL FOUR SIDES INCLUDING DRIVER SIDE) OF MY HONDA CRV. SO WHEN IT RAINS OR THERE IS MOISTURE ON THE SIDE WINDOW WHILE THE CAR WAS SITTING THEIR OVERNIGHT, I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY TO WIPE OFF ANY WATER DROPLETS OR MOISTURE BY SLIDING MY SIDE WINDOW DOWN. I HAVE TESTED MANY OTHER CARS. ALL OF THEM SQUEEZES OFF THE WATER ON THE WINDOW BY JUST SLIDING THE WINDOW. MY HONDA CRV DOESN'T ALLOW ME TO DO THAT. I BROUGHT THIS TO ATTENTION BACK IN 2012 TO HONDA. I WAS ADVISED TO ALWAYS TO PROPERLY WIPE OFF MY WINDOWS WITH A CLEAN CLOTH BEFORE DRIVING. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE I HAVE CLEAR VISIBILITY BEFORE STARTING TO DRIVE. I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 2011. MY QUESTION WAS WHAT IF IT RAINING HEAVY AND I AM DRIVING. THERE IS AN URGENT NEED TO SEE CARS BEHIND ME USING MY SIDE-VIEW MIRROR. I SLIDE MY WINDOW TO HAVE A CLEAR VISIBILITY AND CLOSE MY WINDOW BACK AGAIN. AGAIN THEIR A NEED TO DO SO? SHOULD I KEEP DOING THESE OVER AND OVER? *TR
THE WINDSHIELD SPRAYER ON THE HONDA CR-V 2012 FREEZES UNDER 30 DEGREES AND DOES NOT WORK TO CLEAN THE WINDSHIELD. I CAN NOT DRIVE MY CR -V IN THE SNOW BECAUSE VISIBILITY COULD BE ZERO AND I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CLEAR THE SNOW FROM MY CAR. I JUST CAN NOT SEE OUT MY WINDSHIELD.YOU WOULD THINK HONDA WOULD HAVE A BETTER DESIGN FOR T…
Read full complaint
THE WINDSHIELD SPRAYER ON THE HONDA CR-V 2012 FREEZES UNDER 30 DEGREES AND DOES NOT WORK TO CLEAN THE WINDSHIELD. I CAN NOT DRIVE MY CR -V IN THE SNOW BECAUSE VISIBILITY COULD BE ZERO AND I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CLEAR THE SNOW FROM MY CAR. I JUST CAN NOT SEE OUT MY WINDSHIELD.YOU WOULD THINK HONDA WOULD HAVE A BETTER DESIGN FOR THERE NEW CR-V. IN THE SNOW STORM, I HAD TO OPEN MY DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW AND DRIVE HOME LOOKING OUT THAT WINDOW TO GET HOME SAFELY. I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT IN 2014 WE CAN NOT HAVE A CAR WHOSE WINDSHIELD SPRAYER WORKED PROPERLY IN THE SNOW!!!THAT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. *TR
WINDSHIELD SPRAYER FREEZES AT ANY TEMP UNDER 30 DEGREES. EITHER THERE IS A FLAW IN THE DESIGN OF THE SPRAY OR THE SLOPE OF THE HOOD WHICH ALLOWS THE SPRAYERS TO FREEZE TEMPS UNDER 30 DEGREES. THIS MAKE DRIVING IN SNOW WEATHER VERY DANGEROUS. I HAVE SEEN MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS ONLINE. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH, THE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER BLADE PULLED RAIN INTO THE CONTACT'S FIELD OF VISION, DECREASING HER VISIBILITY OF THE ROADWAY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENTIRE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER NEEDED …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING 65 MPH, THE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER BLADE PULLED RAIN INTO THE CONTACT'S FIELD OF VISION, DECREASING HER VISIBILITY OF THE ROADWAY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENTIRE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE WINDSHIELD WIPER WAS REPLACED BUT DID NOT RECTIFY THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATELY FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,200 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 18,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER BLADE FAILED WHICH CAUSED WATER TO ACCUMULATE AND OBSTRUCTED THE DRIVERS VIEW. THE FAILURE WAS RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT HOW THE WINDSHIELD WAS DESIGNED. THE VEHICLE WAS NO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER BLADE FAILED WHICH CAUSED WATER TO ACCUMULATE AND OBSTRUCTED THE DRIVERS VIEW. THE FAILURE WAS RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT HOW THE WINDSHIELD WAS DESIGNED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 3,000. UPDATED 10/16/12 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE PASSENGER SIDE BLADE THROWS WATER TO THE DRIVER'S SIDE IMPAIRING THE DRIVER'S VISION. THIS OCCURS WHEN THE WIPERS ARE ON MEDIUM OR HIGH SPEED. WHEN ON LOW THE WIPERS LEAVE STREAKS ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE. UPDATED 11/09/2012 *JS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUN VISOR ONLY COVERED TWO-THIRDS OF THE SIDE WINDOW, LEAVING A LARGE PORTION OF THE WINDOW UNBLOCKED AND MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO SEE AS THE SUN GLARED THROUGH THE WINDOW WHILE DRIVING. THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WERE BOTH NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE BUT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUN VISOR ONLY COVERED TWO-THIRDS OF THE SIDE WINDOW, LEAVING A LARGE PORTION OF THE WINDOW UNBLOCKED AND MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO SEE AS THE SUN GLARED THROUGH THE WINDOW WHILE DRIVING. THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WERE BOTH NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE BUT NEITHER OFFERED ANY ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 400.
Official recalls
313V143000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission
Apr 15, 2013
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.
12V501000 · Equipment:other:labels
Oct 16, 2012
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.
12V338000 · Latches/locks/linkages:doors:latch
Jul 19, 2012
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
3EA21002 · 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.
Illustration