IllustrationPASSENGER SEAT AIRBAG SENSOR FAILED. SAME ISSUE AS OTHER COMPLAINTANTS. VEHICLE STATIONARY. THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE AS AN EXISTING RECALL FOR LATER YEAR MODELS. WHEN IS THIS RECALL GOING TO BE EXTENDED TO EARLIER YEARS? THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND NISSAN IS TRYING TO CHARGE OVER $2K TO FIX.
2011 Nissan Leaf
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2011 Nissan Leaf do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 55.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Leaf 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
350–25K
2125–50K
1250–75K
575–100K
3100–150K
0150K+
76 reports with mileage · 19 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.
- Air Bags. Review the 35 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
5 crash reports0 fire reports3 injury reports
Air Bags complaints
35 reportsTHE LIGHT FOR MY SENSOR FOR MY PASSENGER AIRBAG (OCS SENSOR) IS ON ALL THE TIME AND FLASHING RED WITH OR WITHOUT A PASSENGER IN THE PASSENGER SEAT. SEEMS A BIG SAFETY ISSUE AS I WAS TOLD ALL AIR BAGS ARE DISABLED WHEN THE LIGHT IS FLASHING. COST INVOLVES REPLACING PASSENGER SEAT TOO AND TOTAL WOULD BE $4,800. THIS IS A 2011 N…
Read full complaint
THE LIGHT FOR MY SENSOR FOR MY PASSENGER AIRBAG (OCS SENSOR) IS ON ALL THE TIME AND FLASHING RED WITH OR WITHOUT A PASSENGER IN THE PASSENGER SEAT. SEEMS A BIG SAFETY ISSUE AS I WAS TOLD ALL AIR BAGS ARE DISABLED WHEN THE LIGHT IS FLASHING. COST INVOLVES REPLACING PASSENGER SEAT TOO AND TOTAL WOULD BE $4,800. THIS IS A 2011 NISSAN LEAF WITH 78,000 MILES AND ALL 12 BARS OF RANGE STILL REMAINING (ONE REPLACEMENT BATTERY TWO YEARS AGO). I HAVE NOT HAD IT REPAIRED DUE TO COST AND IT IS NOT PART OF A RECALL OF THE SAME PROBLEM IN 2013+ LEAFS. NO 2011 RECALL FOR THIS SAFETY PROBLEM!
WHILE DRIVING AND MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN, THE AIR BAG LIGHT CAME ON. TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. A CHECK OF THE DIAGNOSTIC CODES SHOWED THAT THE PASSENGER OCCUPANCY SENSOR FAILED. THEY RESET THE CODE AND IT CLEARED FOR 2 WEEKS, THEN RE-APPEARED. WAS INFORMED THAT REPAIRS TO REPLACE THE PASSENGER OCCUPANCY SENSOR WAS $2700…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AND MAKING A RIGHT HAND TURN, THE AIR BAG LIGHT CAME ON. TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. A CHECK OF THE DIAGNOSTIC CODES SHOWED THAT THE PASSENGER OCCUPANCY SENSOR FAILED. THEY RESET THE CODE AND IT CLEARED FOR 2 WEEKS, THEN RE-APPEARED. WAS INFORMED THAT REPAIRS TO REPLACE THE PASSENGER OCCUPANCY SENSOR WAS $2700 + LABOR. THIS SAME PART WAS RECALLED IN 2013+, BUT NOT RECALLED ON 2011/2012. THE REPAIR IS VERY EXPENSIVE BECAUSE NISSAN WILL NOT SELL JUST THE AIRBAG SENSOR--YOU MUST PURCHASE AN ENTIRE SEAT.
THE LIGHT FOR MY SENSOR FOR MY PASSENGER AIRBAG (OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OCS SENSOR) IS ON ALL THE TIME AND FLASHING, EVEN WHEN THERE IS AN ADULT PASSENGER SITTING IN THE CAR. AFTER A SEARCH ONLINE, I FOUND THAT NISSAN LEAFS FROM 2013 TO 2018 HAVE BEEN RECALLED FOR THAT OCS PART, BUT MY 2011 NISSAN LEAF HAS NOT. ONLINE, M…
Read full complaint
THE LIGHT FOR MY SENSOR FOR MY PASSENGER AIRBAG (OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OCS SENSOR) IS ON ALL THE TIME AND FLASHING, EVEN WHEN THERE IS AN ADULT PASSENGER SITTING IN THE CAR. AFTER A SEARCH ONLINE, I FOUND THAT NISSAN LEAFS FROM 2013 TO 2018 HAVE BEEN RECALLED FOR THAT OCS PART, BUT MY 2011 NISSAN LEAF HAS NOT. ONLINE, MANY OTHER OWNERS OF MY SAME YEAR NISSAN HAVE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. MY DEALER TOLD ME, IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE SENSOR, SINCE IT IS OUTSIDE THE WARRANTY, IT WILL REQUIRE REPLACING THE ENTIRE PASSENGER SEAT, WHICH IS UPWARDS OF $2700, NOT INCLUDING LABOR. I CALLED NISSAN, WHO TOLD ME THAT IT IS TOO FAR OUT OF THE WARRANTY, AND THEY CANNOT HELP ME. THE CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENT TRIED TO GET ME A COURTESY REIMBURSEMENT, BUT HE WAS UNABLE TO CONVINCE THE HIGHER-UPS, AND ALSO COULDN'T EVEN CONVINCE THEM TO REIMBURSE THE AMOUNT I HAD TO PAY TO HAVE THE DEALER CONFIRM WHAT I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT THE DEFECTIVE PART (ANOTHER $145). I AM NOW FORCED TO RIDE WITHOUT AIRBAGS FOR MY FRONT PASSENGER. IT SEEMS UNCONSCIONABLE FOR NISSAN TO ALLOW A SENSOR (A PART INTEGRAL TO THE SAFETY OF THE VEHICLE AND NOT AFFECTED BY NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR OF THE CAR) TO NOT BE PART OF A RECALL, ESPECIALLY WHEN SO MANY OTHER VEHICLES (NISSAN AND OTHERWISE) HAVE THE EXACT SAME ISSUE. I CAN ONLY ASSUME IT'S BECAUSE THE SENSOR IS TOO DIFFICULT TO REPLACE CHEAPLY. THEY LIKELY FIGURED OUT THE PROBLEM WITHIN THE FIRST FEW YEARS OF THE CAR'S MANUFACTURE AND CHANGED THE LOCATION OF THE SENSOR - HENCE THE REASON THEY WOULD AGREE TO REPLACE THOSE IN LATER MODELS AND NOT THEIR EARLIEST MODELS.
PASSENGER AIRBAG SYSTEM DISABLED BY OCCUPANT SENSOR FAILURE. THIS HAPPENED ON STARTUP. DTC B1018 AIR BAG OCCUPANT SENS [UNIT FAIL] I WANT MODEL YEAR 2011 NISSAN LEAF TO BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING RECALL FOR MODELS 2013 NISSAN LEAF.
OCCUPANT SENSOR FAILURE IS PREVENTING THE PASSENGER AIR BAG FROM DEPLOYING. THE CODE IS REPORTED AS A B1013. AS THIS MODEL WAS DESIGNED WITH A SENSOR WITHIN THE SEAT, THE OFFICIAL ACTION IS TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE SEAT, FOR AN ESTIMATE OF $3133.51. THIS IS HIGHLY COST PROHIBITIVE FOR A SAFETY FEATURE THAT SHOULD NOT PREVENT AN …
Read full complaint
OCCUPANT SENSOR FAILURE IS PREVENTING THE PASSENGER AIR BAG FROM DEPLOYING. THE CODE IS REPORTED AS A B1013. AS THIS MODEL WAS DESIGNED WITH A SENSOR WITHIN THE SEAT, THE OFFICIAL ACTION IS TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE SEAT, FOR AN ESTIMATE OF $3133.51. THIS IS HIGHLY COST PROHIBITIVE FOR A SAFETY FEATURE THAT SHOULD NOT PREVENT AN AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT.
THE AIRBAG LIGHT IS ALWAYS ON AND INDICATES THE AIRBAGS ARE OFF AS I UNDERSTAND IT. WENT TO NISSAN AND THEY SAID IT WOULD COST $5,000.00 TO REPAIR AND REFUSED TO CORRECT THIS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE! WE ARE STUNNED AND HAVE NOT USED THE CAR FOR A LONG TIME NOW, TERRIFIED THAT WE MIGHT BE SERIOUSLY HURT OR KILLED...HELP!! DATE IT HA…
Read full complaint
THE AIRBAG LIGHT IS ALWAYS ON AND INDICATES THE AIRBAGS ARE OFF AS I UNDERSTAND IT. WENT TO NISSAN AND THEY SAID IT WOULD COST $5,000.00 TO REPAIR AND REFUSED TO CORRECT THIS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE! WE ARE STUNNED AND HAVE NOT USED THE CAR FOR A LONG TIME NOW, TERRIFIED THAT WE MIGHT BE SERIOUSLY HURT OR KILLED...HELP!! DATE IT HAPPENED I DO NOT RECALL BUT PUT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO....
WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE STRAIGHT AT AROUND 35 MPH, THE AIRBAG LIGHT CAME ON. SUBSEQUENT DIAGNOSIS SHOWED A B1018 CODE THROWN BY THE LEAF, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE PASSENGER OCCUPANCY SENSOR HAS FAILED. THE CODE WAS RESET AND STAYED OFF, BUT AGAIN ABOUT 5 DAYS LATER, THE SAME ISSUE OCCURRED. THIS TIME, THE CODE WOULD NOT R…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE STRAIGHT AT AROUND 35 MPH, THE AIRBAG LIGHT CAME ON. SUBSEQUENT DIAGNOSIS SHOWED A B1018 CODE THROWN BY THE LEAF, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE PASSENGER OCCUPANCY SENSOR HAS FAILED. THE CODE WAS RESET AND STAYED OFF, BUT AGAIN ABOUT 5 DAYS LATER, THE SAME ISSUE OCCURRED. THIS TIME, THE CODE WOULD NOT RESET. I WAS QUOTED $2700 IN PARTS AND $300 LABOR BY THE DEALERSHIP TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM, WHICH WAS UNECONOMICAL AND MORE THAN HALF THE VALUE OF THE CAR. THE CAR ONLY HAS 53,000 MILES AND IS ONLY 7 YEARS OLD. I CONTACTED NISSAN CUSTOMER AFFAIRS AND THEY WOULD NOT HELP WITH THE PRICE OF THE REPAIR AT ALL. I WAS INFORMED BY THE DEALERSHIP THAT NOT REPAIRING THE SENSOR WOULD RESULT IN ALL AIRBAGS BEING DISABLED, SINCE THE LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED. IT SEEMS LIKE A BIG SAFETY ISSUE THAT IF THE PASSENGER OCCUPANCY SENSOR FAILS, ALL AIRBAGS ARE DISABLED. WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE DRIVING THE CAR AND CANNOT AFFORD A $3000 REPAIR TO A $5500 CAR. THIS SAME PART IS RECALLED ON 2013-2015 LEAFS AS WELL AS MILLIONS OF OTHER NISSAN CARS. IF THIS IS A COMMON FAILURE, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE RECALLED ON THE 2011-2012 LEAF AS WELL.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 NISSAN LEAF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AIR BAG INDICATOR ILLUMINATED, WHICH WAS A SAFETY CONCERN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE AIR BAG SEAT SENSOR WAS FAULTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 NISSAN LEAF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AIR BAG INDICATOR ILLUMINATED, WHICH WAS A SAFETY CONCERN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE AIR BAG SEAT SENSOR WAS FAULTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND OPENED CASE NUMBER: 31686373. THE MANUFACTURER REFERRED THE CONTACT TO THE LOCAL DEALER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 38,000.
PASSENGER AIR BAG SEAT PRESSURE SENSOR FAIL. PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF LIGHT ILLUMINATE WHEN FRONT PASSENGER OCCUPIED THE SEAT ALSO FLASHING AIRBAG LIGHT ON THE DASH BOARD. ERROR CODE B1018. DEALER WANTS WHOLE SEAT REPLACEMENT COST $3000. NO NISSAN WARRANTY OR RECALL ON 2011 NISSAN LEAF.
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
3DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds
Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System
NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.
PE19015 · Front Occupant Classification System Mat
Opened Oct 9, 2019 · Closed Jun 1, 2020
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags; Air Bags:frontal; Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Additional source detail variants (3)
Air Bags:frontal
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Air Bags
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
DP19002 · Front Occupant Classification System Mat
Opened Aug 16, 2019 · Closed Oct 16, 2019
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
A defect petition (see DP19-002) was received July 23, 2019 alleging that the occupant classification system (OCS) sensor (mat) in model year (MY) 2011 Nissan Leaf vehicles is defective and affects the proper deployment of the passenger front air bag. The petitioner provided a list of potentially related NHTSA reports and noted a Nissan recall involving later MY Leaf vehicles with OCS defect. NHTSA is granting the petition and opening a preliminary evaluation in response, please see PE19-015.Since receiving the defect petition, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has determined that the MY 2011 and 2012 Leaf share a common OCS design, both using the same sensor mat for passenger presence sensing. Starting in MY 2013, Leaf OCS was changed to a design using a different sensing system, one that did not use the mat present in prior model year, Nissan Leaf. While MY 2013-2016 Leaf vehicles were recalled for an OCS defect under recall 16V-244, a recall influenced by ODI investigation EA15-004, earlier MY Leaf vehicles were not included because they were not affected by the particular defect involved in that recall.ODI identified and reviewed 13 vehicle owner questionnaire (VOQ) reports in its database, one of which is a duplicate, involving MY 2011 and 2012 Leaf vehicles that allege a problem with the OCS. The VOQs indicate that an OCS warning light illuminated at which point the vehicle was diagnosed and it was determined the sensor mat was the cause of the OCS problem. Most of the VOQs also noted the high cost of repair, which apparently involves replacement of the passenger front seat, according to complainants. None of the VOQs allege a problem with the performance of the passenger air bag, an injury, or a fatality due to the failure of the OCS.During the evaluation of this petition, ODI did not request information from Nissan regarding the complaint data in its possession, and accordingly the manufacturer complaint counts shown above are marked as not applicable. ODI will request this information during the upcoming investigation.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (VOQ) numbers: 11234415, 11207486, 11196006, 11193208, 11180021, 11176324, 11172159, 11152569, 11123812, 11103556 (duplicate of 11180021), 11102456, 11101830, 11052546.