← New search

2014 Toyota Corolla

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Corolla years

Owner complaints for the 2014 Toyota Corolla are substantially higher than the model-year median of 129.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

180 reports with mileage · 89 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 69 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 52 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

64 crash reports3 fire reports37 injury reports

Suspension complaints

5 reports
Clear category filter
160,000 miles · Feb 9, 2023
Suspension

The contact's girlfriend owns a 2014 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while his girlfriend was driving 25 MPH,  the passenger's side tire detached. The vehicle was towed to the dealer; however, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximat…

Read full complaint

The contact's girlfriend owns a 2014 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while his girlfriend was driving 25 MPH,  the passenger's side tire detached. The vehicle was towed to the dealer; however, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 160,000.

NHTSA ODI #11506355

53,000 miles · Oct 29, 2018
Service BrakesSuspensionUnknown Or OtherCrash

TAKATA RECALL, WHEN DRIVING TO CRESTLINE CA. THE TRACTION CONTROL LOCK UP THE FRONT LEFT WHEEL AT 60 MPH AND MADE ME HIT THE INSIDE GUARDRAIL AGAIN THE WHEEL LOCKED UP AT 50 MPH AND AGAIN AT 45 MPH I HAD TO DRIVE AT 20 MPH THIS HAPPEN WHEN DRIVING ON A ROAD GOING UP HILL ON LEFT HAND CURVES, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT FLICKER EA…

Read full complaint

TAKATA RECALL, WHEN DRIVING TO CRESTLINE CA. THE TRACTION CONTROL LOCK UP THE FRONT LEFT WHEEL AT 60 MPH AND MADE ME HIT THE INSIDE GUARDRAIL AGAIN THE WHEEL LOCKED UP AT 50 MPH AND AGAIN AT 45 MPH I HAD TO DRIVE AT 20 MPH THIS HAPPEN WHEN DRIVING ON A ROAD GOING UP HILL ON LEFT HAND CURVES, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT FLICKER EACH TIME THE WHEEL LOCKED UP I WAS NOT ABLE TO DISENGAGE THE TRACTION CONTROL. WHEN I REACHED A SHELL STATION A PERSON TOLL ME IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE LOW TIRE PRESSURE, I CHECKED TIRE PRESSURE ON EACH TIRE 21, 23, 24, 26 WAS THE READING ON THE TIRES, MY TIRE LOW PRESSURE LIGHT NEVER CAME ON. I FILLED THE THE TIRES AND SEEM TO FIX THE TRACTION CONTROL AND THE WHEEL LOCKING UP. THAN TWO WEEKS LATER I WAS PARKING AT UCI HOSPITAL PARKING STRUCTURE PULLING IN A PARKING SPOT THE BRAKES WENT TOTALLY OUT CAUSING ME TO HIT THE PARKING STRUCTURE, THE BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR (ALL THE WAY DOWN). I WAS DOING LESS THAN 5 MPH AND THE AIR BAGS DIDN'T GO OFF ALSO AGAIN NO LIGHTS ON THE DASH AND ANY INDICATION THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG.

NHTSA ODI #11143779

55 miles · Aug 30, 2018
SteeringSuspensionVehicle Speed Control

'TAKATA RECALL' WHEN DRIVING USUALLY ON HIGHWAYS ABOVE 40 MPH CAR SHIFTS TO THE RIGHT UNABLE TO COMPLETELY KEEP CONTROL OF STEERING WHEEL WHEN THERE'S ANY KIND OF WIND OUTSIDE. COMPLETE ALIGNMENT HAD BEEN DONE PASSES WITH ALL GREEN 4 NEW TIRES HAVE BEEN PUT ON AS WELL AND NO CHANGE VEHICLE AS NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. …

Read full complaint

'TAKATA RECALL' WHEN DRIVING USUALLY ON HIGHWAYS ABOVE 40 MPH CAR SHIFTS TO THE RIGHT UNABLE TO COMPLETELY KEEP CONTROL OF STEERING WHEEL WHEN THERE'S ANY KIND OF WIND OUTSIDE. COMPLETE ALIGNMENT HAD BEEN DONE PASSES WITH ALL GREEN 4 NEW TIRES HAVE BEEN PUT ON AS WELL AND NO CHANGE VEHICLE AS NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #11123391

11,800 miles · Jun 18, 2015
SteeringSuspension

WHILE MAKING A 90 DEGREE TURN FROM THE ROADWAY INTO A PARKING SPACE I HEARD A LOUD SNAPPING, BANGING NOISE FROM THE RIGHT FRONT OF MY VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE CAME TO AN ABRUPT STOP. I TURNED THE IGNITION OFF AND CHECKED THE FRONT SIDE OF MY VEHICLE AND WAS ALARMED TO FIND THAT MY RIGHT FRONT WHEEL WAS POINTED IN THE OPPOSITE DIR…

Read full complaint

WHILE MAKING A 90 DEGREE TURN FROM THE ROADWAY INTO A PARKING SPACE I HEARD A LOUD SNAPPING, BANGING NOISE FROM THE RIGHT FRONT OF MY VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE CAME TO AN ABRUPT STOP. I TURNED THE IGNITION OFF AND CHECKED THE FRONT SIDE OF MY VEHICLE AND WAS ALARMED TO FIND THAT MY RIGHT FRONT WHEEL WAS POINTED IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF MY LEFT FRONT WHEEL AND UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION FOUND WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SNAPPED TIE ROD END OR LOWER CONTROL ARM. THE FOLLOWING MORNING I HAD A TOW TRUCK HAUL THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER THAT I ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER WAS ABLE TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE WHEEL IN ORDER TO GET THE VEHICLE ON THE TRUCK. THE DRIVER COMMENTED " YOU ARE SOME FORTUNATE THAT YOU WEREN'T TRAVELING ANY FASTER YOU WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR STEERING!" THE DEALER LET ME KNOW THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDS AN INNER AND OUTER TIE ROD, SWAY BAR LINK, A STRUT ASSEMBLY AND A NEW AXLE!! THE DEALER FURTHER WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE PARTS ARE ALL UNDER WARRANTY SO YOU ARE ALL SET!! I ASKED, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A VEHICLE WITH ONLY 11,800 MILES COULD HAVE HAD SUCH A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. THE ANSWER, WE ARE NOT SURE AT THIS POINT THE PARTS WILL BE SHIPPED BACK TO THE FACTORY.

NHTSA ODI #10725936

11,000 miles · Oct 5, 2014
SuspensionVehicle Speed ControlWheelsCrashInjury

I WAS PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE & SLOWING DOWN. I TURNED LEFT INTO THE SPACE AND, OF COURSE, HAD MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND MY CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED ON IT'S OWN. I KEPT PUSHING ON THE BRAKE BUT IT KEPT GOING. THE HIGHER THAN USUAL CURB AT THE SHOPPING CENTER, I SUPPOSE, IS WHAT STOPPED THE CAR, THOUGH MY FOOT REPEATEDLY K…

Read full complaint

I WAS PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE & SLOWING DOWN. I TURNED LEFT INTO THE SPACE AND, OF COURSE, HAD MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND MY CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED ON IT'S OWN. I KEPT PUSHING ON THE BRAKE BUT IT KEPT GOING. THE HIGHER THAN USUAL CURB AT THE SHOPPING CENTER, I SUPPOSE, IS WHAT STOPPED THE CAR, THOUGH MY FOOT REPEATEDLY KEPT PUSHING THE BRAKE. I TRIED TO DRIVE IT HOME BUT IT WAS NOT WORKING. WE HAD IT TOWED TO TOYOTA IN ROCKWALL. THEY HAD SOMEONE LOOK AT IT. THE PERSON THAT LOOKED AT IT CALLED MY HOME TO GET MY STORY BUT ASKED MY HUSBAND WHAT TOOK PLACE. I DIDN'T GET THE MESSAGE TILL THE NEXT DAY. WHEN I WAS GETTING READY TO CALL HIM BACK, MY HUSBAND TOLD ME THAT HE CALLED AND SAID HE DID NOT NEED TO TALK TO ME. HOW CAN YOU LEGITIMATELY TELL ME WHAT I SAY HAPPENED DID NOT HAPPEN WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED TO ME. I WAS THE ONLY ONE IN THE CAR, NOT MY HUSBAND. THEY CHECKED OUT THE "BLACK BOX" I SUPPOSE AND SENT ME A VERY NICE LETTER BASICALLY TELLING ME WHAT I TOLD MY HUSBAND HAPPENED, DID NOT HAPPEN. I DO NOT LIE. I WAS THERE AND I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE WAY THAT THIS WAS HANDLED. I FELT LIKE HOW COULD I EVEN FIGHT THIS, TOYOTA IS A BIG CORPORATION. I AM JUST ONE PERSON WHO HAD AN INCIDENT WITH ONE OF THEIR VEHICLES. IT WOULD BE MY WORD AGAINST THEIRS. I APPRECIATE NHTSA TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR MY SIDE OF WHAT HAPPENED. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE FANS OF TOYOTA VEHICLES. I HAVE SEVERAL CAMRYS AND MY HUSBAND PRESENTLY DRIVES A PRIUS AND A TUNDRA SO AGAIN, WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE WAY THAT THIS WAS HANDLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10641569

Official recalls

2

20V024000 · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module

Jan 17, 2020

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain 2011-2019 Corolla, 2011-2013 Matrix, 2012-2018 Avalon, and 2013-2018 Avalon Hybrid vehicles. During certain crashes, the air bag electronic control unit (ECU) may malfunction, possibly disabling the deployment of the air bags and/or seat belt pretensioners.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: In the event of a crash, air bags and/or seat belt pretensioners that do not deploy as intended may increase the risk of injury.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the ECU and install a noise filter between the air bag control module and its wire harness, as necessary, free of charge. Owners were notified of the safety risk beginning March 2, 2020. A second letter notifying owners of the remedy repair will be mailed between March 16, 2020 and June 27, 2020. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371. Toyota's numbers for this recall are 20TB03, 20TA03 and 20TA05.

13V505000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer:switch/wiring

Oct 17, 2013

Toyota Motor Engineering & manufacturing North America, Inc. (Toyota) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 Camry and Camry HV, model year 2013 Avalon and Avalon HV and model year 2014 Corolla vehicles. In the affected vehicles, the windshield wiper switch assembly may short circuit. As such, these vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, No. 104, "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems."

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A short circuit could cause inoperative windshield wipers, reducing driver visibility and increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the wiper switch assembly, free of charge. The recall began on November 8, 2013. Owners may contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331.

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 Toyota Corolla problems