2013 HONDA CR-V. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE HESITATES WHEN GEAR SHIFTS INTO DRIVE, RESPONDS NORMALLY AFTER SEVERAL SECONDS, DEALERSHIP UNABLE TO DUPLICATE ISSUE. *SMD
2013 Honda CR-V
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2013 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
259 reports with mileage · 123 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 97 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 95 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
95 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD SHAKE AND RATTLE WHILE AT A STOP LIGHT AND IN THE DRIVE/REVERSE POSITION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT DETERMINED AND IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FUNCTIONING AS DESIGNED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED O…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD SHAKE AND RATTLE WHILE AT A STOP LIGHT AND IN THE DRIVE/REVERSE POSITION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT DETERMINED AND IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FUNCTIONING AS DESIGNED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 27,000.
FROM A STOP. I SPEED UP TO ABOUT 30 MPH AND FEEL A DRAG AND SHIMMY AT THAT SPEED, THEN IT GOES AWAY. THE PROBLEM ONLY OCCURS AT 30 MPH, I HAVE WATCHED YOU-TUBE FOR POSSIBLE TROUBLES.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE GEAR SHIFTED FROM DRIVE TO NEUTRAL WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. THE CONTACT DROVE HOME AND LATER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE GEAR SHIFTED FROM DRIVE TO NEUTRAL WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, TURNED OFF AND RESTARTED. THE CONTACT DROVE HOME AND LATER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO ANOTHER LOCAL DEALER, BUT THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES, BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,787.
A LOUD GRINDING NOISE LASTING A FEW SECONDS AFTER INITIAL START UP AFTER CAR HAS BEEN SITTING, I.E., A 'COLD START.' MY HONDA 2013 CRV-EX-L HAS HAD THIS PROBLEM FROM DAY ONE, BRAND NEW! IT'S INTERMITTENT BUT HAPPENS USUALLY ON A COLD START. AFTER QUITE A FEW VISITS TO DEALER THEY ACT PERPLEXED AND NEVER CAN DUPLICATE THE COND…
Read full complaint
A LOUD GRINDING NOISE LASTING A FEW SECONDS AFTER INITIAL START UP AFTER CAR HAS BEEN SITTING, I.E., A 'COLD START.' MY HONDA 2013 CRV-EX-L HAS HAD THIS PROBLEM FROM DAY ONE, BRAND NEW! IT'S INTERMITTENT BUT HAPPENS USUALLY ON A COLD START. AFTER QUITE A FEW VISITS TO DEALER THEY ACT PERPLEXED AND NEVER CAN DUPLICATE THE CONDITION! IT ACTUALLY IS THE VTC (VARIABLE TIMING CONTROL). HONDA HAS HAD THIS PROBLEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS ON VARIOUS MODELS OF THEIR VEHICLES, HAS NEVER FIXED THE PROBLEM NOR CONTACTED AFFECTED BUYERS BUT HAS CONTINUED TO BUILD AND SELL THESE VEHICLES WITH A KNOWN DEFECT WITH NO FIX! THEIR ENGINEERS ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, BUT OF COURSE THE SAME ENGINEERS SAY IT CAUSES "NO DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE!" SHAME ON HONDA, IT ONLY RUINED THEIR REPUTATION! PEOPLE STARE AT YOU AND ASK "WHAT IS THAT NOISE?" WHEN YOU EXPLAIN, IT PUTS HONDA AND THEIR VEHICLES IN A POOR POSITION I.E., LOSS OF REPUTATION AND SALES. I DID INTENSIVE INVESTIGATION ON MY OWN, JUST 'GOOGLE THE PROBLEM, AND YOU WILL BE TAKEN TO 'YOU TUBE' AND MANY OTHER SITES SHOWING THE PROBLEM. TAKE TO THE DEALER A VIDEO AND A COPY OF THE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON THIS AND OTHER SITES! YOU MUST PROVE THE PROBLEM EXISTS!! I CALLED HONDA AMERICA 2 DAYS AGO TO COMPLAIN AND FOUND OUT HONDA JUST THIS YEAR, 2016, FINALLY CAME OUT WITH A 'FIX!' IT IS FOR THE VTC (VARIABLE TIMING CONTROL) . MY CAR FINALLY IS AT THE DEALER BEING REPAIRED. HONDA KNEW ALL ALONG OF THIS PROBLEM AT LEAST FROM 2012 THROUGH 2014 AND EVEN EARLIER MODELS! A RECALL SHOULD BE MANDATED TO MAKE THE REPAIR!! AGAIN SHAME ON HONDA, I PERSONALLY WILL NEVER BUY A HONDA AUTOMOBILE AGAIN. THE FRUSTRATION, EMBARRASSMENT, TIME RUNNING BACK AND FORTH TO THE DEALER, ETC. HAS WORN ME OUT!! REMEMBER THEIR IS NOW A BULLETIN TO HONDA DEALERS WITH A 'FIX.' BUT THEY MUST DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM! BE SURE TO TAKE A VIDEO WITH SOUND!!
VIBRATION DURING ACCELERATION AT OR ABOVE 1500RPM
MY MECHANIC FROM FOUR STARS AUTO CARE, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH MY CR-V 2013 TIMING CAMSHAFT WHICH IS CAUSING THE GRINDING SOUND WHEN I START THE CAR (THE MECHANIC SAYS THAT THE OIL HAS DRAINED FROM THE CAMSHAFT AND IS NOT LUBRICATED ' WHICH CAUSED THE GRINDING SOUND). USUALLY, THIS HAPPENS I…
Read full complaint
MY MECHANIC FROM FOUR STARS AUTO CARE, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH MY CR-V 2013 TIMING CAMSHAFT WHICH IS CAUSING THE GRINDING SOUND WHEN I START THE CAR (THE MECHANIC SAYS THAT THE OIL HAS DRAINED FROM THE CAMSHAFT AND IS NOT LUBRICATED ' WHICH CAUSED THE GRINDING SOUND). USUALLY, THIS HAPPENS IF THE ENGINE HAS NOT BEEN STARTED FOR MORE THAN 3 OR 4 HOURS. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE VTC ACTUATOR IN THE CAR THAT IS MAKING A GRINDING SOUND. I JUST SPOKE TO A LADY 'NICOLE' FROM HONDA CITY, 3859 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, LEVITTOWN, NY 11756 WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE VTC ACTUATOR IN THE 2013 CR-VS BUT DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER WHEN HONDA WILL HAVE THE VTC REPLACEMENT. SHE SAID, 'HONDA IS WORKING ON A NEW VTC, BUT DOES NOT KNOW WHEN THEY WILL HAVE THEM AVAILABLE.' SHE ALSO SAID THAT, THEY STOPPED REPLACING THE CURRENT VTC MODEL AND THERE IS A DEFECT.' ALL I WANT TO KNOW IF THEY WILL STILL REPLACE THIS WHEN MY CAR GOES OUT OF WARRANTY IN A FEW THOUSAND MILES? I ALSO WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS A LONG TERM EFFECT OF THE GRINDING NOISE TO THE CAMSHAFT OR THE ENGINE AND ALSO THE PASSERBY'S WHO LOOKED AT MY CR-V AFTER I START MY CAR. I AM GOING TO CONTACT HONDA DIRECTLY' I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWERS AND THE SERVICE. I WILL DEFINITELY NOT PURCHASE ANOTHER HONDA IF THERE IS SATISFACTION TO THIS SOLUTION.
PREVIOUSLY REPORTED KNOWN HONDA PROBLEM WITH VTC ACTUATOR AT COLD START UP. NOTIFIED DEALER AND AMERICAN HONDA. APPEARS HONDA IS DRAGGING THEIR FEET REGARDING A RESOLUTION. AS THIS CAN AFFECT THE LONG TERM RELIABILITY OF THE POWER TRAIN THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
WE TRADED IN A 2005 HONDA CRV FOR A 2013 HONDA CRV. THE 2005 WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A TRANSMISSION PROBLEM AT 70,000 MILES. THE 2013 STARTED WITH THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS THE 2005 AFTER OWNING IT FOR 1 1/2 YEARS. THE CAR WOULD SHAKE AND VIBRATE BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND GEAR. I DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM THE SAME WAYS I DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM I…
Read full complaint
WE TRADED IN A 2005 HONDA CRV FOR A 2013 HONDA CRV. THE 2005 WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A TRANSMISSION PROBLEM AT 70,000 MILES. THE 2013 STARTED WITH THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS THE 2005 AFTER OWNING IT FOR 1 1/2 YEARS. THE CAR WOULD SHAKE AND VIBRATE BETWEEN 1ST AND 2ND GEAR. I DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM THE SAME WAYS I DESCRIBED THE PROBLEM IN THE 2005 CRV. WE TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THEY TOLD US IT WOULD HAVE TO GET WORSE. LAST MONTH IT GOT WORSE: IT WOULD HAPPEN SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY. THE SHAKING WAS SO VIOLENT FOR UP TO 10 SECONDS THAT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE DRIVING IT. THE CAR WAS AT THE DEALERSHIP FOR THREE WEEKS AND WAS FINALLY DIAGNOSED WITH A TORQUE CONVERSION DEFECT. TODAY I FOUND OUT THAT HONDA MOTOR COMPANY HAS KNOWN ABOUT THE SHAKING PROBLEM GOING BACK TO 2002. THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT SAID THEY HAVE NOT ISSUED ANY BULLETINS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SAFETY ISSUE. THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEY HAD A YOU TUBE VIDEO ABOUT IT. IT APPEARS NOW THAT THE 2005 CRV WE TRADED IN ACTUALLY HAD A TORQUE CONVERSION PROBLEM, NOT A BAD TRANSMISSION. I PAID AND EXTRA $18,000 FOR A CAR THAT I DIDN'T NEED. AT WHAT POINT DOES HONDA MOTORS INFORM THE CONSUMERS AND DEALERS ABOUT THIS ISSUE? WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT THIS WITHHOLDING OF CRUCIAL INFORMATION? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. *TR
WE WERE DRIVING ON I-81, HAD TO SLOW DOWN IN LEFT LANE FOR TRAFFIC. ACCELERATOR FAILED WHEN WE TRIED TO RESUME SPEED. "ECON" MODE ON. NOT SURE HOW MUCH WE HAD SLOWED BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO RETURN TO HIGHWAY SPEED. IT WAS 3 - 5 SECONDS OR MORE BEFORE ACCELERATOR "UNLOCKED." SAME RESPONSE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS OCCURRED A TOTAL …
Read full complaint
WE WERE DRIVING ON I-81, HAD TO SLOW DOWN IN LEFT LANE FOR TRAFFIC. ACCELERATOR FAILED WHEN WE TRIED TO RESUME SPEED. "ECON" MODE ON. NOT SURE HOW MUCH WE HAD SLOWED BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO RETURN TO HIGHWAY SPEED. IT WAS 3 - 5 SECONDS OR MORE BEFORE ACCELERATOR "UNLOCKED." SAME RESPONSE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS OCCURRED A TOTAL OF 13 TIMES. DIFFERENT SPEEDS, SLOW CITY ROADS OR INTERSTATES, GOING STRAIGHT OR IN A TURN, ALWAYS UNEXPECTED, MOSTLY WITHIN A MONTH'S TIME BUT SOMETIMES AFTER A MUCH LONGER INTERVAL. WEATHER ALWAYS GOOD. LAST EVENT WAS ON APRIL 25, 2015 (LAST WEEK) WITH MILEAGE AT 7,000. HAVE NOT USED ECON MODE SINCE JUNE 11, 2014. DEALER HAS FAILED TO FIND ANY MALFUNCTIONING PARTS OR SYSTEMS DURING THE 4 SEPARATE TIMES WE BROUGHT IN THE CAR TO BE CHECKED FOR THIS PROBLEM. WE HAVE TALKED TO AMERICAN HONDA, GIVEN THEM A DETAILED DIARY OF EACH ACCELERATION FAILURE EVENT, AND THEY HAVE GIVEN US A CASE NUMBER. WE WORRY THAT OUR SAFETY AND THAT OF OTHERS MAY COMPROMISED BECAUSE OF THIS LOSS OF CONTROL WHEN WE NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY, AND WE HAVE ALREADY HAD DRIVERS AROUND US REACT IN DANGEROUS WAYS, NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY WE HADN'T PICKED UP SPEED. *TR
Official recalls
223V858000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
Dec 18, 2023
Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain 2013-2023 Honda Accord, Civic Coupe, Civic Sedan, Civic Hatchback, Civic Type R, CR-V, HR-V, Ridgeline, Odyssey, Acura ILX, MDX, MDX Hybrid, RDX, RLX, TLX, 2019-2022 Honda Insight, Passport, 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid, 2018-2019 Honda Clarity PHEV, Fit, and 2015-2020 Honda Accord Hybrid, Pilot, Acura NSX vehicles. The fuel pump inside the fuel tank may fail.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Fuel pump failure can cause an engine stall while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will replace the fuel pump module, free of charge. Owner letters were mailed September 6, 2024. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's numbers for this recall are KGC and KGD. This recall is an expansion of NHTSA recall numbers 21V-215 and 20V-314.
13V143000 · 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.
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