← New search

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 →

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.

22 crash reports0 fire reports11 injury reports

Wheels complaints

5 reports
Clear category filter
30,000 miles · Jun 7, 2018
Power TrainSteeringWheels

WHEN SPEEDS OF 65+ MPH ARE REACHED THE 2013 HONDA CR-V STEERING WHEEL VIBRATES AND SHAKES VIOLENTLY WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGH SPEEDS ON THE HIGHWAY. THIS MAKES THE RIDE VERY SCARY AND SEEM UNCONTROLLABLE AT TIMES. AS I HAVE READ ON MANY FORUMS, THIS IS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE WITH THESE VEHICLES. THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT…

Read full complaint

WHEN SPEEDS OF 65+ MPH ARE REACHED THE 2013 HONDA CR-V STEERING WHEEL VIBRATES AND SHAKES VIOLENTLY WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGH SPEEDS ON THE HIGHWAY. THIS MAKES THE RIDE VERY SCARY AND SEEM UNCONTROLLABLE AT TIMES. AS I HAVE READ ON MANY FORUMS, THIS IS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE WITH THESE VEHICLES. THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT HAD AN ANSWER TO WHY THIS IS HAPPENING AND TOLD ME "THAT THIS IS A COMMON THING WITH CR-V'S". HONDA EVEN PUT OUT A VIDEO BASICALLY STATING THAT THEY FIXED THIS PROBLEM WITH THEIR NEW LINE OF CR V'S IN 2017. I BELIEVE IT'S AN UNBALANCED DRIVE SHAFT, DUE TO FACT THAT THE TIRES HAVE BEEN BALANCED 3 TIMES, 2 ALIGNMENTS IN A 3 MONTH PERIOD AND A FRIEND OF MINE HAD THE SAME ISSUE AND THAT'S WHAT FIXED HIS ALONG WITH OTHER PEOPLE ON HONDA FORUMS STATING THE SAME ISSUES A STATED ABOVE AND REPAIR METHODS. I HOPE SOMEONE CAN GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THESE VERY COMMON ISSUES.

NHTSA ODI #11100465

84,000 miles · May 28, 2018
SteeringWheels

THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW. THE CAR CONTINUALLY CHEWS UP TIRES ON THE REAR END OF THE CAR. FOR EXAMPLE, WE PURCHASED A BRAND NEW SET OF TIRES IN JULY OF 2017, AND ALREADY THEY ARE CUPPED/CHOPPED. I HAD THE CAR INTO OUR LOCAL ALIGNMENT SHOP AS WE ARE PREPARING FOR A TRIP, AND LESS THAN 10,000…

Read full complaint

THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW. THE CAR CONTINUALLY CHEWS UP TIRES ON THE REAR END OF THE CAR. FOR EXAMPLE, WE PURCHASED A BRAND NEW SET OF TIRES IN JULY OF 2017, AND ALREADY THEY ARE CUPPED/CHOPPED. I HAD THE CAR INTO OUR LOCAL ALIGNMENT SHOP AS WE ARE PREPARING FOR A TRIP, AND LESS THAN 10,000 MILES LATER ARE SO OUT OF BALANCE THAT THEY ARE SHOWING SIGNS AND MAKING NOISE TO THE POINT OF I QUESTIONED WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I SUGGESTED THAT THEY DO A FOUR WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND WAS TOLD THAT THE CAMBER IS WAY OUT OF ADJUSTMENT AND THAT I NEEDED A CAMBER BOLT KIT. THE CAR ONLY HAS 84,000 MILES AND HAS BEEN WELL CARED FOR AND NO ACCIDENTS. HERE IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE. THE CAR COMES STOCK WITH REAR CONTROL ARMS THAT ARE NON ADJUSTABLE. THERE IS NO WAY TO CONTROL CAMBER ON THE REAR WHEELS. THERE ARE ADJUSTABLE ONES THAT CAN BE PURCHASED, BUT THAT COSTS CONSUMERS A TON OF MONEY. $500 OR SO TOTAL THAT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY WARRANTY. THE OBVIOUS DANGER IS EXCESSIVE WEAR ON TIRES THAT POTENTIALLY COULD CAUSE BAD STEERING, BRAKING, AND/OR CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. AS FAR AS MY EXPERIENCE, I HAVE HAD TO BE EXTREMELY VIGILANT ABOUT MAKING SURE MY TIRES ARE NOT IN BAD SHAPE 100% OF THE TIME. THE DEALER HAS BASICALLY WALKED AWAY FROM IT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT I PURCHASED AN EXTENDED WARRANTY WHICH IS STILL IN EFFECT. I MY OPINION, THE HONDA CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE A RECALL THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE BY REPLACING THE STOCK NONADJUSTABLE CONTROL ARM WITH AN ADJUSTABLE ONE. THIS COULD SAVE THEM A TON OF ISSUES DOWN THE ROAD AND MAKE THEIR CARS MUCH SAFER.

NHTSA ODI #11098291

18,720 miles · Aug 8, 2015
StructureSuspensionWheels

I GOT INTO MY CAR AND BECAUSE THE WEATHER WAS NICE, I TURNED OFF THE AIR CONDITIONER AND LOWERED THE BACK WINDOWS. I ENTERED THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, AND WHEN MY SPEED REACHED 40 MPH, A LOUD ROAR CAME FROM THE BACK OF THE CAR AND THE BACK STARTED SHAKING AND VIBRATING. I WAS SCARED AND PULLED OFF THE ROAD. I THOUGHT THE SUSPENS…

Read full complaint

I GOT INTO MY CAR AND BECAUSE THE WEATHER WAS NICE, I TURNED OFF THE AIR CONDITIONER AND LOWERED THE BACK WINDOWS. I ENTERED THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, AND WHEN MY SPEED REACHED 40 MPH, A LOUD ROAR CAME FROM THE BACK OF THE CAR AND THE BACK STARTED SHAKING AND VIBRATING. I WAS SCARED AND PULLED OFF THE ROAD. I THOUGHT THE SUSPENSION OR THE WHEELS/TIRES HAD FAILED. I MADE A VISUAL INSPECTION AND COULD SEE NO PROBLEM. A HONDA DEALER WAS NEAR, SO I SLOWLY DROVE TO THEIR SERVICE BAY. WHEN I TOLD MY PROBLEM TO A WOMAN AT THE SERVICE DESK SHE IMMEDIATELY TOLD ME THAT IT WAS A COMPRESSION PROBLEM THAT ALL OF THESE VEHICLES HAD WHEN THE BACK WINDOWS WERE DOWN. I ASKED IF THE SALESPERSONS WERE SUPPOSED TO TELL THE CUSTOMER ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND SHE SAID NO.

NHTSA ODI #10747225

80,000 miles · May 29, 2015
Wheels

THE WELDS ON THE STEEL RIMS ARE DEFECTIVE. THEY CORRODE PRE MATURELY ARE CAUSE TIRE PRESSURE TO DROP. THIS VEHICLE WAS BOUGHT NEW AND IS LESS THEN TWO YEARS OLD. HONDA REFUSES TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY . IT'S NOT A WARRANTY ISSUE IT'S A DEFECTIVE PART THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AND FIXED BY HONDA . THIS VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE …

Read full complaint

THE WELDS ON THE STEEL RIMS ARE DEFECTIVE. THEY CORRODE PRE MATURELY ARE CAUSE TIRE PRESSURE TO DROP. THIS VEHICLE WAS BOUGHT NEW AND IS LESS THEN TWO YEARS OLD. HONDA REFUSES TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY . IT'S NOT A WARRANTY ISSUE IT'S A DEFECTIVE PART THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AND FIXED BY HONDA . THIS VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE AS AT ANY TIME THIS DEFECTIVE WELD CAN BECOME WORSE AND CAUSE THE RIM TO COLLAPSE AND TIRE TO BLOW. WOULD YOU WANT TO DRIVE THIS AT HIGH SPEEDS? HONDA IS AN ARROGANT COMPANY THAT NEEDS TO BE HUMBLED AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS PROBLEMS. ALSO, ON THIS VEHICLE THE COMPASS DOES NOT FUNCTION. YOU'LL BE DRIVING EAST AND THE COMPASS SAYS SW. AGAIN HONDA SAYS NOT THERE PROBLEM. LASTLY, THE DIGITAL MPG GAUGE IS MISLEADING AND HIGHLY INACCURATE. IT OVERESTIMATES THE REAL MPG AND MISLEADS CUSTOMERS TO BELIEVE THERE GETTING BETTER MILEAGE. FRAUD!

NHTSA ODI #10722170

9,500 miles · Sep 14, 2013
TiresWheels

WHILE DRIVING, I THOUGHT THE ENGINE WAS REVVING DUE TO THE SOUND THAT I WAS HEARING. I WENT FOR AN OIL CHANGE, AT 10,000 MILES, AND MENTIONED THE NOISE TO THE ADVISER. I TOLD HIM THE SOUND STARTED AT ABOUT 9500 MILES AND APPEARED TO BE GETTING LOUDER AT 10,000 MILES. I WAS TOLD IT WASN'T ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ENGINE, TRANSMISS…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING, I THOUGHT THE ENGINE WAS REVVING DUE TO THE SOUND THAT I WAS HEARING. I WENT FOR AN OIL CHANGE, AT 10,000 MILES, AND MENTIONED THE NOISE TO THE ADVISER. I TOLD HIM THE SOUND STARTED AT ABOUT 9500 MILES AND APPEARED TO BE GETTING LOUDER AT 10,000 MILES. I WAS TOLD IT WASN'T ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ENGINE, TRANSMISSION OR ANY OTHER COMPONENTS OTHER THAN A WHEEL BEARING ON THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE. NO ONE LOOKED AT THE AREA TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS INDEED THE WHEEL BEARING. MY TIRES WERE ROTATED ALONG WITH THE OIL CHANGE. I WAS TOLD MY TIRES WERE FINE AND WEARING EVENLY. NOTHING WAS CHECKED OR DONE TO SPECIFICALLY SEE OR KNOW IT WAS/IS A WHEEL BEARING. I HAD TO REMIND THE ADVISER ABOUT THE NOISE I HAD BEEN HEARING. MY CAR WAS TEST DRIVEN BY THE FOREMAN TO HEAR THE NOISE. HE DROVE IT ON THE HIGHWAY, I WAS IN THE CAR. HE STARTED SWERVING THE CAR. HE THEN STATED IT WAS DEFINITELY A WHEEL BEARING. MY VEHICLE IS UNDER WARRANTY AND WHEN I MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE OTHER BEARINGS GOING, HE SAID UNLIKELY BUT WOULD CHECK THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL BEARING. THE PART WASN'T IN STOCK AND HAS TO BE ORDERED AND I HAD TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR 09/17/2013 TO HAVE THEM CHECK/REPAIR THE WHEEL BEARING(S). SEEMS ODD FOR THE WHEEL BEARINGS TO GO AFTER ONLY ABOUT 9500 MILES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10543632

Official recalls

2

23V858000 · 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

2

EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture

Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied

Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

EA19001 · Electrical Overstress

Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect.  During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment.  FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW.  These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes.  An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.   In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU.  This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation.  The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage.  There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation.  The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU.  If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC.  Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC.  All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled.  In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024.  With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Honda CR-V problems