Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
730–25K
3525–50K
3150–75K
1775–100K
14100–150K
10150K+
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
What owners actually said
269 reports
Mileage unknown · Jun 29, 2016
StructureUnknown Or Other
WHEN I PULL MY CAR INTO A PARKING SPOT WITH A CEMENT PARKING BUMP STOPPER, THE CAR HANGS UP ON IT CAUSING SOME SCRATCHES ON THE UNDERSIDE- TOYOTA HAS SAID THERE IS NO DESIGN FLAW BUT I DISAGREE. IF I DO NOT PULL IN ALL THE WAY, I RISK SOMEONE HITTING THE BACK OF THE CAR BECAUSE I WILL BE STICKING OUT TOO FAR. A SECOND PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
WHEN I PULL MY CAR INTO A PARKING SPOT WITH A CEMENT PARKING BUMP STOPPER, THE CAR HANGS UP ON IT CAUSING SOME SCRATCHES ON THE UNDERSIDE- TOYOTA HAS SAID THERE IS NO DESIGN FLAW BUT I DISAGREE. IF I DO NOT PULL IN ALL THE WAY, I RISK SOMEONE HITTING THE BACK OF THE CAR BECAUSE I WILL BE STICKING OUT TOO FAR. A SECOND PROBLEM IS THE AC. I LIVE IN FLORIDA AND WHEN I GET INTO THE CAR IT IS OFTEN OVER 100 DEGREES.. I HAVE TO DRIVE FOR A FEW MINUTES WITH HOT AIR BLOWING ON ME BEFORE THE COOL AIR KICKS IN. THIS MAKES ME SWEAT AND VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. TOYOTA SAYS THAT IS JUST THE DESIGN OF THE CAR. I NEVER HAD THAT PROBLEM WITH MY TWO RAV4'S. I AM ALSO WONDERING IF A HAVE THE AIRBAGS THAT ARE RECALLED. NO NOTICE YET.
NHTSA ODI #10881486
27,000 miles · Jun 22, 2016
Air BagsCrash
TAKATA INFLATORS (POSSIBLE) THE CAR WAS IN AN ACCIDENT. MY WIFE REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE AND THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT OF FRONT END DAMAGE. SHE WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE EXACT SPEED. SHE WAS DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 95 IN WEST HAVEN CT IN CLEAR WEATHER BUT FAIRLY HEAVY TRAFFIC. THE THINKS THE SPEED WAS BETWEEN 25 TO 35 MPH. THE…
Read full complaint
TAKATA INFLATORS (POSSIBLE) THE CAR WAS IN AN ACCIDENT. MY WIFE REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE AND THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT OF FRONT END DAMAGE. SHE WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE EXACT SPEED. SHE WAS DRIVING ON INTERSTATE 95 IN WEST HAVEN CT IN CLEAR WEATHER BUT FAIRLY HEAVY TRAFFIC. THE THINKS THE SPEED WAS BETWEEN 25 TO 35 MPH. THE DAMAGE IT THE FRONT END WAS ENOUGH TO DECLARE THE CAR A TOTAL LOSS. THE DAMAGE WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE ENGINE BLOCK. MOST OF THE AIRBAGS DID DEPLOY. THE DRIVERS SIDE STEERING WHEEL AND KNEE AIRBAGS DEPLOY, HOWEVER, THEY DID NOT INFLATE. THE SIDE AIRBAGS AND CURTAIN AIRBAGS DEPLOYED BUT ONLY SOME INFLATED OR PARTIAL INFLATED. I SPOKE TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AND THEY SAID IT WAS STRANGE. SO I REPORTED IT TO TOYOTA AND THEY ARE GOING TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE. DURING MY INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH TOYOTA CORPORATE OFFICE THEY TOO SAID IT DOES NOT SEEM CORRECT. THEY ARE GOING TO INSPECT THE CARE WITH A WEEK. I AM NOT SURE WHAT TO MAKE OF THEIR INSPECTION AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE FAIR. LUCKILY NO ONE WAS HURT IN THE ACCIDENT. BUT I DO THINK THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. THE CAR IS CURRENTLY AT A BODY-SHOP BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL BE TAKING POSSESSION FOR SALVAGE.
NHTSA ODI #10876008
Mileage unknown · Jun 21, 2016
Air Bags
MY AIRBAGS ARE NO LONGER WORKING IN MY 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA AND WANT SOME SANDERS. I HAVE LAST THAN 60K MILES ON THIS CAR. THE DEALERSHIP IS TELLING ME MY VIN NUMBER IS ON THE LIST WITH WWW.NHTSA.GOV AS WELL AS THE DEALERSHIP. THERE ARE OTHER WEBSITE THAT INDICATES THEIR PROBLEMS WITH TOYOTA VEHICLE WITH THE AIRBAG FRONTAL SENSOR…
Read full complaint
MY AIRBAGS ARE NO LONGER WORKING IN MY 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA AND WANT SOME SANDERS. I HAVE LAST THAN 60K MILES ON THIS CAR. THE DEALERSHIP IS TELLING ME MY VIN NUMBER IS ON THE LIST WITH WWW.NHTSA.GOV AS WELL AS THE DEALERSHIP. THERE ARE OTHER WEBSITE THAT INDICATES THEIR PROBLEMS WITH TOYOTA VEHICLE WITH THE AIRBAG FRONTAL SENSOR CONTROL MODULE. FIX THIS COMPLAINT FOR ME, BECAUSE IF I'M IN ACCIDENT WIG NO AIRBAGS I'M DIED.
NHTSA ODI #10875738
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
Mileage unknown · May 25, 2016
Unknown Or Other
TRIED TO CALL THIS # 1-800-331-4331. CANNOT GET THROUGH. YOU HAVE TO ANSWER A SURVEY ABOUT THE REP THAT YOU HAVENT SPOKEN TO. VERY FRUSTRATING.
NHTSA ODI #10870869
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
500 miles · Mar 28, 2016
Exterior Lighting
HEADLIGHT IS ONE ASSEMBLY AND COST SO MUCH TO REPLACE THAT'S WHY WHEN THE BULBS GETS BURNT OUT OWNERS WILL JUST WAIT UNTIL THE OTHER ONE GETS BURNT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY NOT LIKE OTHER CARS THAT YOU CAN REPLACE THE BULBS FOR LESS THAN $5.00 BUT WITH THIS CAR IT IS LIKE $250 TO REPLACE A B…
Read full complaint
HEADLIGHT IS ONE ASSEMBLY AND COST SO MUCH TO REPLACE THAT'S WHY WHEN THE BULBS GETS BURNT OUT OWNERS WILL JUST WAIT UNTIL THE OTHER ONE GETS BURNT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY NOT LIKE OTHER CARS THAT YOU CAN REPLACE THE BULBS FOR LESS THAN $5.00 BUT WITH THIS CAR IT IS LIKE $250 TO REPLACE A BURNT HEADLIGHT. PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THIS COROLLA'S ARE TAKING THEIR RISK SPECIALLY AT NIGHT DRIVING WITHOUT SUFFICIENT LIGHTS BECAUSE IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE. PLEASE CHECK ON THIS, THANKS.
NHTSA ODI #10852074
33,000 miles · Mar 23, 2016
SteeringCrashInjury
CAR WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND CAME TO A TURN AND THE STEERING WHEEL WOULD NOT MOVE. THE ROAD STRAIGHTENED STILL UNABLE TO MOVE STEERING WHEEL AND JERKED IT AFTER VEERING INTO OTHER LANE WHICH UNLOCKED STEERING WHEEL CAUSING AN OVER CORRECTION AND TOTAL LOSS OF THE VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10851264
13,494 miles · Feb 9, 2016
Air BagsCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING NORTH ON A PARKWAY AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, ANOTHER VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED BRUISING FROM THE SEAT BELT RETRACTING TIGHTLY, PAINS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING NORTH ON A PARKWAY AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, ANOTHER VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED BRUISING FROM THE SEAT BELT RETRACTING TIGHTLY, PAINS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE NECK, AND LEFT SHOULDER BLADE PAINS THAT PROCEEDED TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE NECK AND SHOULDER. THE CONTACT RECEIVED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND TOWED. THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE HOW THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE AIR BAG FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 13,494. ......UPDATED 04/01/16 *BF
NHTSA ODI #10825161
29,300 miles · Jan 26, 2016
Air BagsService BrakesCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE BRAKES SEIZED. THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE BRAKES SEIZED. THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 29,300.
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.
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.