← 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

What owners actually said

269 reports
400 miles · Apr 5, 2014
Structure

SO I LEASED THE 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA S PLUS ON 2/23/14. APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 3 WEEKS LATER I WAS VACUUMING IT OUT, WHEN I LIFTED UP THE DRIVER SIDE CAR MAT IT HAD AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WATER UNDER THE MAT. SO I DRIED IT OUT, WHEN I VACUUMED IT OUT AGAIN A WEEK LATER THERE WAS WATER AGAIN UNDER THE DRIVER SIDE CAR MAT. AGAIN I DRIE…

Read full complaint

SO I LEASED THE 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA S PLUS ON 2/23/14. APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 3 WEEKS LATER I WAS VACUUMING IT OUT, WHEN I LIFTED UP THE DRIVER SIDE CAR MAT IT HAD AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WATER UNDER THE MAT. SO I DRIED IT OUT, WHEN I VACUUMED IT OUT AGAIN A WEEK LATER THERE WAS WATER AGAIN UNDER THE DRIVER SIDE CAR MAT. AGAIN I DRIED THE FLOOR AND I TOOK THE MATS OUT, LET THEM DRY OUT. THEN EVERY MORNING I WOULD CHECK AND WATER WAS UNDER MY DRIVER SIDE MAT. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP THEY THINK POSSIBLY A LEAK IN THE WINDSHIELD. I EXPLAINED TO THEM SEVERAL TIMES, I ROLL MY DRIVER SIDE WINDOW DOWN WHEN I GET IN MY CAR EVERY MORNING AND WATER LITERALLY POURS IN WHEN I START DRIVING. MY ARMS AND LEGS ARE WET EVERY MORNING, IT'S FROM THE MORNING DEW ON THE CAR, IT RUNS RIGHT IN. I HAVE TO KEEP A TOWEL IN MY DOOR COMPARTMENT SO I CAN WIPE THE WATER OFF, SO IT DOESN'T RUIN THE INTERIOR. THE DEALERSHIP HAS NOW HAD IT FOR 3 DAYS, FRI, SAT, SUN TO "DRY IT OUT" BECAUSE THEY PULLED BACK THE CARPETS AND WATER WAS UNDER IT. THEY SAY NONE OF THE TUBES ARE LEAKING AND ALL THE TUBES ARE UNDER THE PASSENGER SIDE ANYWAYS, EVERYTHING CHECKS OUT FINE. PERSONALLY I THINK ITS A DESIGN FLAW, WITH THE WINDOWS SEEING AS HOW THE 2014 IS A REDESIGN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10577631

492 miles · Mar 29, 2014
Tires

IN DEC 2013 THE LEASE END ON MY 2011 COROLLA WAS COMING DUE SO I PICKED UP A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA LE LEASE ON 12/4/2013. THIS VEHICLE HAD 8 MILES ON IT & WAS EQUIPPED WITH PROXES 4 PLUS 205/55/R16 TIRES ( I HAVE THE ID NUMBERS FROM EACH TIRE IF YOU NEED THEM). ON 2/26/14 THIS VEHICLE HAD 492 MILES ON IT & I NOTICED THE LEFT REAR …

Read full complaint

IN DEC 2013 THE LEASE END ON MY 2011 COROLLA WAS COMING DUE SO I PICKED UP A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA LE LEASE ON 12/4/2013. THIS VEHICLE HAD 8 MILES ON IT & WAS EQUIPPED WITH PROXES 4 PLUS 205/55/R16 TIRES ( I HAVE THE ID NUMBERS FROM EACH TIRE IF YOU NEED THEM). ON 2/26/14 THIS VEHICLE HAD 492 MILES ON IT & I NOTICED THE LEFT REAR TIRE HAD A LARGE ODD SHAPED CUT IN IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OUTSIDE TREAD AREA. I WENT TO SUNTOYOTA IN HOLIDAY FLA TOOK PICS OF THE TIRE DAMAGE & THE SERVICE REP [XXX] TOLD ME THEY DIDN'T HAVE A REPLACEMENT TIRE IN THEY WOULD HAVE TO ORDER ONE. I HAD PURCHASED ROAD HAZARD TIRE COVERAGE AT THE TIME I LEASED THE CAR & "ASSUMED" THIS ODD CUT CAME FROM ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA SO I WASN'T CONCERNED. I HAD TO LEAVE THIS 2014 COROLLA AT DEALERSHIP FOR A GAS TANK ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY SO I CALLED MY INSURANCE COMPANY PUT IN A CLAIM FOR THAT ISSUE & RENTED A CAR. ON 2/28/14 I WENT BACK TO SUNTOYOTA TO PICK UP MY CAR & WHEN I LOOKED AT THE REPLACEMENT TIRE I ASKED IF IT WAS 'NEW' & WAS TOLD YES IT WAS ALTHOUGH IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO ME IT WAS; I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS DEALER. [XXX] ALSO SAID THAT FIDELITY WARRANTY SERVICE WASN'T HAPPY ABOUT REPLACING A TIRE THAT ONLY HAD 492 MILES ON IT SO WE HAD WORDS OVER THAT. NOW ON APPROXIMATELY 3/26/14 I NOTICED THIS REPLACEMENT TIRE HAS WHAT LOOKS LIKE STRESS LINE CRACKS STRAIGHT ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE TIRE (TOOK PICS) IN 2 PLACES & CAR ONLY HAS 644 MILES ON IT. OBVIOUSLY I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS & MY SAFETY AS WELL AS THE SAFETY OF OTHERS RIDING NEAR ME SHOULD THIS TIRE COME APART. I HAVE LOOKED TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS TIRE BUT CANNOT FIND ANY RECENT ONES. I WILL ONCE AGAIN REPORT THIS ISSUE TO SE TOYOTA BUT I AM REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE NOT ONLY WITH THE TIRE BUT DEFINITELY WITH THIS DEALER & SERVICE DEPARTMENT BUT NEED TO PROTECT MY SAFETY IN THE EVENT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THESE TIRES. 2014 COROLLA'S ALSO HAVE "DESIGN FLAWS".. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.

NHTSA ODI #10575543

283 miles · Mar 24, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING MY COROLLA S PLUS 2014 ON EL CAMINO REAL, SAN MATEO, CA SOUTHBOUND JUST PAST HILLSDALE BLVD, WHEN THE ENGINE BECAME VERY NOISY. I LOOKED AT THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND FOUND THE FOLLOWINGS DATA: 1) RPM METER - 3500 2) SPEEDOMETER - 30MPH 3) LCD DISPLAY - ECO BAR GONE THE CAR BEHAVED THE SAME EVEN WHEN I TOOK MY…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING MY COROLLA S PLUS 2014 ON EL CAMINO REAL, SAN MATEO, CA SOUTHBOUND JUST PAST HILLSDALE BLVD, WHEN THE ENGINE BECAME VERY NOISY. I LOOKED AT THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND FOUND THE FOLLOWINGS DATA: 1) RPM METER - 3500 2) SPEEDOMETER - 30MPH 3) LCD DISPLAY - ECO BAR GONE THE CAR BEHAVED THE SAME EVEN WHEN I TOOK MY FOOT COMPLETELY OFF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. TRANSMISSION DEFECT AND/OR COMPUTER MALFUNCTION? LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO PULL MY CAR TO THE ROADSIDE AND BRAKED TO A STOP. I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF. AFTER 2-3 MINUTES, I STARTED THE ENGINE AND ALL RETURNED TO NORMAL. THE EXACT SAME HAPPENING OCCURRED TO ME JUST 2 DAYS LATER ON MARCH 19, 2014. IT COULD BE VERY SCARY IF THE ENGINE SUDDENLY REVS UP AND THE CAR SPEEDS UP AT THE SAME TIME. I WONDER IF OTHER OWNERS OF 2014 COROLLA HAVE SIMILAR EXPERIENCES. IF SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE INVESTIGATED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10574320

250 miles · Mar 13, 2014
Service BrakesCrashInjury

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH IN RAINY WEATHER, THE BRAKES FAILED WHEN APPLIED AND ABNORMALLY TRAVELED TO THE FLOORBOARD. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE CHEST, BACK AND LEFT SIDE OF THE BODY. THE …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH IN RAINY WEATHER, THE BRAKES FAILED WHEN APPLIED AND ABNORMALLY TRAVELED TO THE FLOORBOARD. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE CHEST, BACK AND LEFT SIDE OF THE BODY. THE FRONT SEAT PASSENGER SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE BACK, CHEST AND FINGER. THE REAR SEAT PASSENGER SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE BACK, CHEST AND RIBS. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND WAS NOT INSPECTED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE BRAKE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURE WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 250.

NHTSA ODI #10569152

Mileage unknown · Mar 11, 2014
StructureVisibility/wiper

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS AN EXTREME BLIND SPOT CREATED BY THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE REPLICATED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE AND VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10568607

3,300 miles · Feb 24, 2014
Power Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE ENGINE ROARED ABNORMALLY LOUD. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE ENGINE RPMS SUDDENLY INCREASED TO APPROXIMATELY 4000 AND WOULD NOT DECREASE UNTIL AFTER THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE CONTACT STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE ENGINE ROARED ABNORMALLY LOUD. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE ENGINE RPMS SUDDENLY INCREASED TO APPROXIMATELY 4000 AND WOULD NOT DECREASE UNTIL AFTER THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE CONTACT STOPPED THE VEHICLE AND AFTER THREE MINUTES, THE ENGINE RPMS DECREASED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 3300.

NHTSA ODI #10565598

4,450 miles · Jan 22, 2014
Power TrainSteering

AFTER BEING DRIVEN FOR LESS THAN 200 MILES OF BEING RECEIVED FROM DEALERSHIP FOR A DEFECTIVE CVT TRANSMISSION REPLACEMENT, DIFFICULTIES TO KEEP THE CAR GOING STRAIGHT SUDDENLY APPEARED, TRYING TO DO SO CAUSED IT TO PULL THE OPPOSITE DURING A SUBURBAN TRIP IN A HIGH SPEED WAY, SO HAD TO BE DRIVEN TO A SAFER PLACE, (GETTING WORSE …

Read full complaint

AFTER BEING DRIVEN FOR LESS THAN 200 MILES OF BEING RECEIVED FROM DEALERSHIP FOR A DEFECTIVE CVT TRANSMISSION REPLACEMENT, DIFFICULTIES TO KEEP THE CAR GOING STRAIGHT SUDDENLY APPEARED, TRYING TO DO SO CAUSED IT TO PULL THE OPPOSITE DURING A SUBURBAN TRIP IN A HIGH SPEED WAY, SO HAD TO BE DRIVEN TO A SAFER PLACE, (GETTING WORSE RAPIDLY), AND MAKING CLUNKING METALLIC NOISES ON THE FRONT END WHEN TURNING AT CORNERS AND BRAKING, AND A LOUD HUMMING NOISE WHEN BRAKING FROM HIGHWAY SPEED (APPEARED AT THE SAME TIME AND AS SUDDEN AS THE STEERING SITUATION) TO A FULL STOP OR FROM HIGHWAY SPEED TO A SUDDEN LOWER ONE DUE TO CONGESTION. ALL THIS HAPPENED TO APPEAR ON THIS LAST TRIP. HAD TO BE TOWED BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP. CONDITION SHOWED UP DURING A CONTINUOUS RAINY CONDITION, PERCEIVED LIKE A TOTAL LOSS OF FRONT END ALIGNMENT, PLUS THE NOISES. AS OF THE WRITING OF THIS MESSAGE, JUST A FEW HOURS HAVE PASSED AFTER THE INCIDENT HAPPENED, BUT BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS "COLLISION SITUATION " EXPERIENCED, DUE THE SPEED OF THE HIGHWAY IN WHICH THIS CONDITION SUDDENLY APPEARED (NOTHING WARNED ABOUT SOMETHING WRONG GOING BEFORE) IS THIS REPORT BEING SENT. MAYBE CAUSED BY OR RELATED TO THE PROCEDURE EXECUTED DURING THE PREVIOUS CVT TRANSMISSION REPLACEMENT, (MY OPINION) HAS NOT YET BEEN DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALERSHIP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10560915

4,450 miles · Jan 22, 2014
Power Train

CVT TRANSMISSION MAKING ERRATIC RATIO CORRECTIONS WHEN CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN AT LOW SPEED WHICH MADE THE CAR LITERALLY JUMP AT SOME SPEEDS (0-30 MPH) MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DRIVE FOR IN EX. A TRAFFIC JAM (STOP AND GO) AND LOOSE POWER WHEN CLIMBING FOR IN EX. PARKING PLACES THAT HAD RAMPS (0-5 MPH) DUE TO ERRATIC UPSHIFT RATIO …

Read full complaint

CVT TRANSMISSION MAKING ERRATIC RATIO CORRECTIONS WHEN CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN AT LOW SPEED WHICH MADE THE CAR LITERALLY JUMP AT SOME SPEEDS (0-30 MPH) MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DRIVE FOR IN EX. A TRAFFIC JAM (STOP AND GO) AND LOOSE POWER WHEN CLIMBING FOR IN EX. PARKING PLACES THAT HAD RAMPS (0-5 MPH) DUE TO ERRATIC UPSHIFT RATIO CORRECTIONS THAT FORCES PRESSING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE CAR CLIMBING THE RAMPS CAUSING ERRATIC JUMPS/SPEEDS/PULLS AND SOMETIMES THE ENGINE TO BACKFIRE WHEN CLIMBING. CAR ALSO HAD NOTICEABLE JUMPS WHEN BRAKING TO A FULL STOP CONDITION FROM ANY SPEED. TESTED BY DEALERSHIP, DIAGNOSED AND REPLACED THE CVT TRANSMISSION WITH A REMANUFACTURED UNIT, GOT IT BACK AFTER 4 DAYS. RIGHT AFTER DRIVING IT OUT OF THE DEALER WHO SUPPOSEDLY TOOK CARE OF THE 5K MILES MAINTENANCE AS WELL, MAINTENANCE REQUIRED SOON INDICATOR STARTED TO LIGHT EVERY TIME THE CAR IS STARTED. THIS CONDITION COULD INCREASE THE CHANCE OF AN ACCIDENT WHEN DRIVEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO ERRATIC/UNEXPECTED SPEED VARIATIONS. TRAC OFF & CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON BARELY FOR A DAY EVEN THOUGH THE MALFUNCTION WAS PRESENT AND WERE OFF WHEN THE CAR WAS LEFT FOR THE REPAIR IN THE DEALER, EVEN THOUGH THE CONDITION STARTED AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE AS AN INTERMITTENT SITUATION, GETTING WORSE AT DAYS, NOT PRESENT DURING NORMAL TO HARD ACCELERATION BUT HAD TO BE TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT DUE TO WORSENING OF THE DRIVABILITY, BUT THE GAUGES NEVER LIGHTED UP, BUT FOR A WHILE, THE DAY BEFORE IT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM THE ON BOAD DIAGNOSTICS SYSTEMS MAY NOT ALERT A DRIVER OF THE MALFUNCTION, EVEN THOUGH IS PRESENT, WHICH MAY BE CAUSING THOSE CARS BEING DRIVEN BY UNEXPERIENCED OWNERS/DRIVERS WITH THAT FAULT BEING PRESENT INCREASING CHANCES OF HAVING A ACCIDENT, FORTUNATELY AT LOW SPEEDS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10560914

9,400 miles · Jan 20, 2014
StructureVisibility

WELL I JUST BUY A TOYOTA COROLLA 2014 ON 10/14/2013 AND THE WINDSHIELD JUST CRACK THE CAR WAS ON MY DRIVE WAY THE CAR WAS PARK AND WHEN I WAS LIVING MY PLACE AND I GOT IN TO MY CAR I SAW A CRACK ON THE WINDSHIELD SO IM THINKING WHO DID THE HAPPEN FROM NO WHERE SO I WENT ON LINE I GOOGLE I FOUND ALL THIS COMPLAINS ABOUT TOYOTA…

Read full complaint

WELL I JUST BUY A TOYOTA COROLLA 2014 ON 10/14/2013 AND THE WINDSHIELD JUST CRACK THE CAR WAS ON MY DRIVE WAY THE CAR WAS PARK AND WHEN I WAS LIVING MY PLACE AND I GOT IN TO MY CAR I SAW A CRACK ON THE WINDSHIELD SO IM THINKING WHO DID THE HAPPEN FROM NO WHERE SO I WENT ON LINE I GOOGLE I FOUND ALL THIS COMPLAINS ABOUT TOYOTA WINDSHIELD CRACKING FOR NO REASON . I CALL THE DEALER AND TOLD THEM WHAT HAPPEN AND ASK THEM ABOUT THE PRICE AND THE WINDSHIELD ITS 900 AND THE INSTALLATION IS 300 . SO THINK THE WINDSHIELD IS A VERY POOR QUALITY BECAUSE IF ITS JUST NOT MY CAR AND THE WINDSHIELD CRACKS OVER AND OVER SOME THING IT'S WRONG WITH THE MATERIAL AND ITS NOT SAFE AT AND WHAT'S I THINK THEY SHOULD MAKE THE WINDSHIELD MORE SAFE. CAN YOU PLEASE FIN THIS . *TR

NHTSA ODI #10560666

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