TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS WERE EQUIPPED WITH AN OUTER SHIELD THAT CAUSED THE LIGHT BEAMS TO PRODUCE DIM VISIBILITY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 11,000.
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Corolla 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
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.
What owners actually said
269 reportsI PUT THE CAR IN REVERSE TO PARK. SUDDENLY, THE CAR JUMPED INTO DRIVE, WENT FORWARD AND HIT A PARKED CAR. *TR
BOUGHT A NEW CAR IN APRIL 2014 FROM TOYOTA DEALER (TOYOTA OF MCKINNEY). SINCE THEN HAVING PROBLEM WITH REAR WINDSHIELD. IN THE NIGHT DRIVING THERE IS A REFRACTION OF LIGHTS FROM THE CARS COMING FROM BEHIND. DEALER IS NOT READY TO FIX THIS ISSUE SAYING ITS A DESIGN FLAW FROM TOYOTA. WHEN CONTACTED TOYOTA THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTING T…
Read full complaint
BOUGHT A NEW CAR IN APRIL 2014 FROM TOYOTA DEALER (TOYOTA OF MCKINNEY). SINCE THEN HAVING PROBLEM WITH REAR WINDSHIELD. IN THE NIGHT DRIVING THERE IS A REFRACTION OF LIGHTS FROM THE CARS COMING FROM BEHIND. DEALER IS NOT READY TO FIX THIS ISSUE SAYING ITS A DESIGN FLAW FROM TOYOTA. WHEN CONTACTED TOYOTA THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTING THE ISSUE SAYING ITS USER PREFERENCE. ITS REALLY ANNOYING TO DRIVE IN NIGHTS ALSO ITS A SAFETY ISSUE WHEN VISIBILITY IS DISTURBED AFFECTING TO SEE CARS COMING BEHIND. THIS ISSUE IS IN ALL COROLLA 2014 MODELS AND EVEN IN CAMRY. NOT SURE HOW THEY CAN NEGLECT THIS ISSUE. WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE CORRECT CONTACTS AND HELP TO FILE COMPLAIN AGAINST TOYOTA. THANKS IN ADVANCE. *TR
I WAS DRIVING IN A NORMAL LOCAL ROAD CONDITION IN A SUNDAY AFTERNOON. I WAS AWARE A 6" CRACK ON THE DRIVE-SIDE WINDSHIELD. IT STARTED FROM THE EDGE. NEXT MORNING WHEN I DROVE TO WORK, IT GREW TO ABOUT 2' LONG. IT SCARED ME AND I TOOK IMMEDIATELY ACTION AND FIXED IT NEXT DAY (TUESDAY). *TR
HELLO, I DRIVE 100 MILE EVERY DAY FROM PITTSBURGH, CA TO HAYWARD, CA FOR SCHOOL. I RECENTLY PURCHASED A 2014 COROLLA LE, BECAUSE I WANTED A RELIABLE CAR FOR MY DAILY COMMUTE. I HAVE NOTICED AT SPEEDS OVER 60 MPH, MY CAR SEEMS TO BE BLOWN AROUND BY WIND AND THERE IS NO WIND GUST STRONG ENOUGH TO DO THAT. I HAVE VISITED THE DEALE…
Read full complaint
HELLO, I DRIVE 100 MILE EVERY DAY FROM PITTSBURGH, CA TO HAYWARD, CA FOR SCHOOL. I RECENTLY PURCHASED A 2014 COROLLA LE, BECAUSE I WANTED A RELIABLE CAR FOR MY DAILY COMMUTE. I HAVE NOTICED AT SPEEDS OVER 60 MPH, MY CAR SEEMS TO BE BLOWN AROUND BY WIND AND THERE IS NO WIND GUST STRONG ENOUGH TO DO THAT. I HAVE VISITED THE DEALERSHIP (DUBLIN TOYOTA) TWICE IN OTHER TO FIND OUT THE PROBLEM, THEY SAID EVERYTHING IS UP TO SPEC. THEY HAVE DONE ALIGNMENT AND EVEN ADJUSTED THE TIRE PRESSURE, YET THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENT ON THE STEERING OR HANDLING OF THE CAR. THE CAR WAVES ON THE FREEWAY AND IT IS A STRUGGLE TO KEEP IT IN ONE LANE. I REALLY FEEL UNSAFE IN THE CAR AND I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING INCLUDING LOADING UP MY CAR WITH WEIGHT IN ORDER TO MAKE HEAVIER. I KNOW SOMETHING IS EITHER WRONG WITH THE REAR SUSPENSION AND AXLE OR THE POWER STEERING IS SIMPLY BAD. PLEASE FIND OUT WHY THIS IS THIS WAY FROM TOYOTA, BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL SAFE DRIVING THE CAR ON THE FREEWAY. I NOTICED THIS PROBLEM STARTING THE DAY I BROUGHT THE CAR. *TR
ON MAY 6, 2014, MY WIFE [XXX] AND I WERE DRIVING HOME TO WLLISTON, VERMONT FROM ARLINGTON, VERMONT. WE WERE DRIVING NORTH AT APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH IN OUR 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA LE. AT THE BLINKING LIGHT INTERSECTION OF DORSET STREET AND CHEESE FACTORY ROAD, WE MADE A RIGHT HAND TURN AND DROVE EAST. IT WAS A VERY DARK NIGHT AND I …
Read full complaint
ON MAY 6, 2014, MY WIFE [XXX] AND I WERE DRIVING HOME TO WLLISTON, VERMONT FROM ARLINGTON, VERMONT. WE WERE DRIVING NORTH AT APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH IN OUR 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA LE. AT THE BLINKING LIGHT INTERSECTION OF DORSET STREET AND CHEESE FACTORY ROAD, WE MADE A RIGHT HAND TURN AND DROVE EAST. IT WAS A VERY DARK NIGHT AND I MIS-JUDGED THE DISTANCE TO THE END OF CHEESE FACTORY ROAD, WHERE YOU COULD EITHER TURN LEFT OR RIGHT. AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHEESE FACTORY ROAD AND HINESBURG ROAD, THERE ARE NO BLINKING LIGHTS OR REFLECTORS, AND, IN THE DARKNESS, I MISSED THE STOP SIGN, WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AND CRASHED INTO A DITCH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. UPON IMPACT, MY AIR BAGS DEPLOYED, AND I FELT ONLY A SHARP PAIN IN MY LOWER BACK. IMMEDIATELY GETTING OUT OF THE CAR, I MOVED TO THE PASSENGER SIDE TO FIND MY WIFE OUT OF THE CAR ON HER HANDS AND KNEES, CRYING OUT THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO BREATHE. IN THE HOSPITAL [XXX] WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A CRACKED STERNUM, AN L 1 COMPRESSION FRACTURE IN HER BACK, 3 BROKEN RIBS AND A BROKEN LEFT WRIST. SHE SPENT 9 DAYS IN ICU. IT HAS ONLY BEEN IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS THAT MY WIFE AND I HAVE HAD AN IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THE ACCIDENT. [XXX] SAYS THAT HER SEAT BELT DID NOT HOLD HER BACK, AND THAT HER CHEST HIT THE DASH BEFORE HER AIR BAG DEPLOYED; YET, AT IMPACT SHE WAS ABLE TO SEE THAT MY AIR BAG HAD DEPLOYED BEFORE HERS. THIS WOULD PROBABLY ACCOUNT FOR THE SEVERITY OF HER INJURIES AND FOR THE RELATIVELY MINOR INJURIES FOR MINE. WE ARE NOW AWARE THAT THE 2013 TOYOTA COROLLA HAD AIRBAG ISSUES AND WONDER IF OUR 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA MIGHT HAVE SIMILAR PROBLEMS. WE HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD BY MEDICAL PERSONNEL THAT TREMENDOUS FORCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CRACK A STERNUM, THE KIND OF FORCE THAT WOULD COME FROM HITTING THE DASH BOARD. FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE FILING A CLAIM. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
MYSELF AND MY SISTER WERE GOING FROM EAST BOSTON TO I93 VIA THE SUMNER TUNNEL ONTO ROUTE 93 TO THE ROCKINGHAM MALL AND I WAS DRIVING 55MPH AT OR AROUND ANDOVER/ NORTH ANDOVER IN THE MIDDLE LANE AND SUDDENLY THE CAR STARTED VEERING TO THE LEFT AND THEN TO THE RIGHT FOR ABOUT 1-2 MINUTES. I HAD BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL AND I HAD A…
Read full complaint
MYSELF AND MY SISTER WERE GOING FROM EAST BOSTON TO I93 VIA THE SUMNER TUNNEL ONTO ROUTE 93 TO THE ROCKINGHAM MALL AND I WAS DRIVING 55MPH AT OR AROUND ANDOVER/ NORTH ANDOVER IN THE MIDDLE LANE AND SUDDENLY THE CAR STARTED VEERING TO THE LEFT AND THEN TO THE RIGHT FOR ABOUT 1-2 MINUTES. I HAD BOTH HANDS ON THE WHEEL AND I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO STEERING AT ALL, NO POWER, NO REGULAR, NOTHING! THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO AND ALL THE CARS AROUND ME WHERE PASSING ME AND GOING INTO DIFFERENT LANES AND THEY ALL STAYED AS FAR AWAY FROM ME AS POSSIBLE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT CAME BACK AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED. I LEASED IT AT ATLANTIC TOYOTA AND I CALLED AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH THE HEAD OF THE SERVICE DEPT. AND I WAS TOLD EVERYONE HAD GONE HOME FOR MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND AND CALL BACK TUESDAY MORNING, AND THEN I ASKED TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF THE DEALERSHIP AND I GOT NO ANSWER AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO LEAVE A MESSAGE OR ANYTHING, THE ONLY PERSON I SPOKE TO WAS THE RECEPTIONIST AND SHE COULDN'T GIVE ME ANY ANSWERS OR ANYONE TO CALL, SHE WASN'T AT ALL INTERESTED WHEN I TOLD HER MY SISTER AND I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED, ALL SHE COULD SAY WAS CALL BACK AFTER THE MEMORIAL WEEKEND AND I WAS FURIOUS AND SHE HUNG UP. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE PARKING, HE NOTICED WHITE SMOKE WAS EMITTING FROM THE REAR OF THE WINDOW. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CONTACTED AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN VERIFIED THAT A WIRING HARNESS WAS BURNING BY THE PASSENGER SIDE TAIL LI…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE PARKING, HE NOTICED WHITE SMOKE WAS EMITTING FROM THE REAR OF THE WINDOW. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CONTACTED AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN VERIFIED THAT A WIRING HARNESS WAS BURNING BY THE PASSENGER SIDE TAIL LIGHT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE WHO DECIDED TO SEND OUT AN ENGINEER TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE. THE ENGINEER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT CAUSED THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 1,007.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER CLOSING THE DRIVER'S DOOR, THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE IMPLODED AND SHATTERED GLASS INTO THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER BUT WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURE WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 458 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER CLOSING THE DRIVER'S DOOR, THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE IMPLODED AND SHATTERED GLASS INTO THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER BUT WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURE WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 458 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 500.
TL- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER THEN STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE …
Read full complaint
TL- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LOST ACCELERATION POWER THEN STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 2,000. MH
Official recalls
220V024000 · 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
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.
Illustration