NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
29 reportsClear category filter18,000 miles · Oct 19, 2016
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
I WAS DRIVING MY CAR ON A CROWDED CITY STREET. IT WAS RUSH HOUR AND THE TRAFFIC WAS SORT OF STOP AND GO. AFTER A STOP, I ACCELERATED MY CAR TO ABOUT 25 M/H FOLLOWING THE CAR BEFORE ME, THEN I NOTICED MY CAR WAS GOING FASTER THAN I INTENDED AND APPROACHING THE CAR AHEAD. I APPLIED THE BRAKES IN A NORMAL MANNER, HOWEVER, THE CAR D…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY CAR ON A CROWDED CITY STREET. IT WAS RUSH HOUR AND THE TRAFFIC WAS SORT OF STOP AND GO. AFTER A STOP, I ACCELERATED MY CAR TO ABOUT 25 M/H FOLLOWING THE CAR BEFORE ME, THEN I NOTICED MY CAR WAS GOING FASTER THAN I INTENDED AND APPROACHING THE CAR AHEAD. I APPLIED THE BRAKES IN A NORMAL MANNER, HOWEVER, THE CAR DID NOT SLOW DOWN AND CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. FEELING SOMETHING WAS WRONG, I SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES, BUT IT WAS NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO STOP BEFORE REAR-ENDING THE CAR. EVEN AFTER THE CRASH AND STOP, MY CAR'S ENGINE WAS CONTINUING REVVING UP UNTIL I TURNED OFF THE ENGINE BY TURNING THE KEY. I HAD A DASH CAM ON MY COROLLA AND THE ACCIDENT WAS RECORDED WITH CLEAR MOVIE AND SOUND.
NHTSA ODI #10917407
24,000 miles · Jun 19, 2016
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
ON 6/19/2016 DRIVING HOME FROM RUNNING ERRANDS, I STOPPED AT AT RED LIGHT BUT WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, THE CAR DIDN'T BUDGE EVEN THOUGH I WAS TAPPING AND PRESSING THE PEDAL. AFTER ABOUT 7-8 SECONDS, THE CAR FINALLY RESPONDED AND STARTED SLOWLY ROLLING TO NORMAL SPEED. ON THE SAME TRIP AND THE LAST INTERSECTION, THE CAR DID T…
Read full complaint
ON 6/19/2016 DRIVING HOME FROM RUNNING ERRANDS, I STOPPED AT AT RED LIGHT BUT WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, THE CAR DIDN'T BUDGE EVEN THOUGH I WAS TAPPING AND PRESSING THE PEDAL. AFTER ABOUT 7-8 SECONDS, THE CAR FINALLY RESPONDED AND STARTED SLOWLY ROLLING TO NORMAL SPEED. ON THE SAME TRIP AND THE LAST INTERSECTION, THE CAR DID THIS AGAIN BUT AT A STOP SIGN. THE GAS PEDAL WAS DEAD WHEN COMING OUT OF A COMPLETE STOP. IT TOOK ANOTHER 7-8 SECONDS FOR THE ENGINE/TRANSMISSION TO RECOGNIZE IT WAS TIME TO ROLL. LUCKILY THERE WAS NO CROSS TRAFFIC BECAUSE I COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN HIT DUE TO CRUISING AT 5 MILES PER HOUR. I'M TAKING THE CAR TOMORROW TO THE DEALER. THE CAR CURRENTLY HAS 24,000 MILES ON IT AND THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS OCCURRED. THE FIRST TIME THIS HESITATION HAPPENED WAS IN 2015 AROUND THE 12,000 MILE MARK. THE CAR WAS AT STOP AND DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR A FEW SECONDS WHEN I HIT THE GAS PEDAL. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THE DEALER COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I TOLD THEM EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED AND WHY I TOOK IT. THIS TIME THEY SENT A SERVICE MANAGER WITH ME FOR A TEST DRIVE AND HE SAID IT FELT FINE. I WAS SENT HOME WITH THEIR ASSURANCE THAT THE CAR WAS FINE AND THAT IT WAS A FLUKE THAT THE ENGINE WAS ACTING UP BUT EVERYTHING WAS FINE. I'VE READ FORUMS WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED WITH OTHER COROLLAS AND CAMRYS. THIS IS DANGEROUS AND IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. I HOPE TOYOTA TAKES RESPONSIBILITIES WITH MY CAR AND OTHER CARS WITH THE SAME ISSUE. NHTSA, PLEASE DO SOMETHING BEFORE THIS TRANSMISSION/ACCELERATION ISSUE BECOMES A REAL SAFETY ISSUE. I HAVE VIDEO ON MY CELL PHONE OF THE CAR ACTING ERRATIC.
NHTSA ODI #10875137
16,000 miles · Apr 9, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control
WHEN I WAS DRIVING AT NIGHT WITH HEADLIGHTS ON, WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON, THE CAR ACCELERATED BY ITSELF UPTO THE SPEED OF 85 MPH EVEN THOUGH I SET CRUISE AT 65 MPH. I TRIED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES AND ALL THE TIME IT WENT UP TO 85 MPH AND STAYED THERE EVEN THOUGH I SET IT FOR LOWER SPEED. THIS SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING WHILE THE HEADLIGHT…
Read full complaint
WHEN I WAS DRIVING AT NIGHT WITH HEADLIGHTS ON, WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON, THE CAR ACCELERATED BY ITSELF UPTO THE SPEED OF 85 MPH EVEN THOUGH I SET CRUISE AT 65 MPH. I TRIED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES AND ALL THE TIME IT WENT UP TO 85 MPH AND STAYED THERE EVEN THOUGH I SET IT FOR LOWER SPEED. THIS SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING WHILE THE HEADLIGHTS ARE ON. I HAVE DROVE WITH CRUISE ON, IN THE DAYTIME AND IT WORKS FINE. SINCE THEN, I HAVE NEVER DROVE THIS WITH CRUISE ON AT NIGHT.
NHTSA ODI #10854570
300 miles · Nov 24, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
THE CAR SOMETIMES HAS A HESITATION PROBLEM FROM A DEAD STOP; ESPECIALLY WHEN MAKING A LEFT TURN. THIS CREATES A SCARY SITUATION DUE TO I NEVER KNOW WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN SO I HAVE TO WAIT QUITE AWHILE FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO SPREAD OUT MUCH FURTHER THEN NORMAL (ABOUT 50 CAR LENGTHS) SOMETIMES THIS IS NOT PRACTICAL SO I HAVE …
Read full complaint
THE CAR SOMETIMES HAS A HESITATION PROBLEM FROM A DEAD STOP; ESPECIALLY WHEN MAKING A LEFT TURN. THIS CREATES A SCARY SITUATION DUE TO I NEVER KNOW WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN SO I HAVE TO WAIT QUITE AWHILE FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO SPREAD OUT MUCH FURTHER THEN NORMAL (ABOUT 50 CAR LENGTHS) SOMETIMES THIS IS NOT PRACTICAL SO I HAVE TO CHANCE IT & HOPE NOT TO GET BROADSIDED. THE DEALERSHIP IS OF NO HELP & I DOUBT IF THEY HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN THE 2 TIMES I REPORTED IT. THIS PROBLEM HAS HAPPENED OVER 50 TIMES OVER THE LAST 21 MONTHS & STARTED IN MONTH # 1. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THAT TOYOTA HAD A NEW STYLE TRANSMISSION & THAT MIGHT BE THE PROBLEM BUT THAT IS DOUBTFUL BECAUSE THE ENGINE RPM'S DON'T COME UP. THE SYMPTOMS APPEAR TO BE A FUEL STARVING PROBLEM.
NHTSA ODI #10806406
12,300 miles · Nov 20, 2015
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO A CEMENT BRICK STRUCTURE WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE VEHICLE LANDED ON TOP OF THE CEMENT BRICK STRUCTURE, WHICH CAUSED THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE TO EXPLODE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE VEHICL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO A CEMENT BRICK STRUCTURE WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE VEHICLE LANDED ON TOP OF THE CEMENT BRICK STRUCTURE, WHICH CAUSED THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE TIRE TO EXPLODE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE CONTACT'S RESIDENCE WHERE IT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND THERE WERE NO INJURIES REPORTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 12,300. UPDATED 02/12/16*LJ *TR
NHTSA ODI #10795127
5,020 miles · Nov 3, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED RAPIDLY WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 5,020.
NHTSA ODI #10787977
Mileage unknown · Oct 2, 2015
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10779326
24,900 miles · Aug 27, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED UNINTENDED ACCELERATION WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 24,900. MA 10/14 *CN
NHTSA ODI #10759758
200,000 miles · May 8, 2015
Service BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AROUND A MALL PARKING LOT, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE VEHICLE VIOLENTLY ACCELERATED. THE BRAKES FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND IT CRASHED INTO A BOULDER. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED A FRACTURED STERNUM AND A FRACTURED BACK THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. A PO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AROUND A MALL PARKING LOT, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE VEHICLE VIOLENTLY ACCELERATED. THE BRAKES FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND IT CRASHED INTO A BOULDER. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED A FRACTURED STERNUM AND A FRACTURED BACK THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200,000.
NHTSA ODI #10715352
99 miles · Jan 7, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL-THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 20 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY EXCESSIVE FORCE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE …
Read full complaint
TL-THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 20 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY EXCESSIVE FORCE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 99. DJR
NHTSA ODI #10670751
Official recalls
2Jan 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.
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
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.