← New search

2015 Toyota Corolla

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2015 Toyota Corolla do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 129.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

133 reports with mileage · 86 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 56 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 →
  • Power Train. Review the 30 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

60 crash reports1 fire reports42 injury reports

Engine complaints

17 reports
Clear category filter
25,697 miles · Oct 24, 2016
Engine

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED WITH THE AIR CONDITIONER ACTIVATED, THERE WAS A STRONG MOLD ODOR COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WERE THE AIR CONDITIONER CHARCOAL FILTER WAS REPLACED AND A CHEMICAL SPRAY WAS A…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED WITH THE AIR CONDITIONER ACTIVATED, THERE WAS A STRONG MOLD ODOR COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WERE THE AIR CONDITIONER CHARCOAL FILTER WAS REPLACED AND A CHEMICAL SPRAY WAS APPLIED TO DESTROY THE MOLD. AFTER THE REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED IN THE SPRING, THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DRIVEN AGAIN UNTIL THE SUMMER. WHILE ON A LONG ROAD TRIP, THE MOLD ODOR WAS DETECTED AGAIN AND THE CONTACT BECAME ILL. THE DEALER STATED THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED ACCORDING TO THE TOYOTA MANUFACTURER'S PROTOCOL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 25,697. UPDATED 01/10/2017*CT

NHTSA ODI #10918526

1,562 miles · Apr 20, 2016
EngineService BrakesSuspension

BOUGHT MAY 2015, WARM DAY, FIRM BRAKES. WET, COLD FALL MONTHS BRAKES BECAME SOFT W/ EXCESSIVE TRAVEL & ERRATIC DURING 40MPH & UNDER. TOOK TO DEALER SEPT 2015 AT 1,562 MILES. TECH PERFORMED ROAD TEST. COULDN'T DUPLICATE CONDITIONS. CHECKED FOR CODES. STATED 'FOUND NORMAL BRAKING CONDITIONS'. I STARTED DRIVING AGAIN & NOTICED DURI…

Read full complaint

BOUGHT MAY 2015, WARM DAY, FIRM BRAKES. WET, COLD FALL MONTHS BRAKES BECAME SOFT W/ EXCESSIVE TRAVEL & ERRATIC DURING 40MPH & UNDER. TOOK TO DEALER SEPT 2015 AT 1,562 MILES. TECH PERFORMED ROAD TEST. COULDN'T DUPLICATE CONDITIONS. CHECKED FOR CODES. STATED 'FOUND NORMAL BRAKING CONDITIONS'. I STARTED DRIVING AGAIN & NOTICED DURING WARM DAYS AROUND 70 DEG BRAKES CHANGED HARDNESS WITH A/C ON. MORE FIRM. DURING COLDER DAYS BRAKES WOULD GO WITHIN 2 INCHES OF FLOOR BEFORE WORKING. TOOK TO DEALER ON 'WALK-IN' BASIS WHEN CAR WAS ACTING UP. DROVE W/ TECH 1 HR TRIED TO GET HIM TO NOTICE DIFFERENCE IN BRAKES. TECH STATED BRAKES WERE ACTING 'NORMAL' & THAT I JUST WASN'T FAMILIAR W/ HOW THE SYSTEMS OPERATED. I INSISTED IT WASN'T NORMAL. TECH CONTACTED MANUFACTURER. THEY SAID REPLACE MASTER CYLINDER AND BLEED SYSTEM. RETURNED CAR & STATED 'DRIVING CORRECTLY NOW'. I STARTED DRIVING AGAIN & NOTICED WHISTLING SOUND COMING FROM ENGINE COMPT WHEN DRIVING UNDER 30MPH BETWEEN BDLGS W/ WINDOW DOWN. BRAKES GO ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR AT TIMES & THEY GRAB & THE CAR STOPS ABRUPTLY. ESPECIALLY IN STOP-&-GO TRAFFIC. TOOK TO DEALER MARCH 2016 AT 4,800 MILES. I SUGGESTED CHECKING ENTIRE VACUUM SYSTEM FOR LEAKS. TECH ONLY CHECKED LINE TO BRAKE BOOSTER. TECH MADE 'LITTLE' ADJUSTMENT TO E-BRAKE & REAR BRAKES. TECH STATED BRAKES 'FEELS SIMILAR TO NEW COROLLA' & NO WHISTLING SOUND. I CAN STILL HEAR WHISTLING SOUND & BRAKES STILL HAVE SAME ISSUES! I THINK IT'S A DESIGN FLAW RELATED TO THE ENTIRE VACUUM SYSTEM & SHOULD BE RECALLED! TOLD DEALER. TEST DROVE 2016 HONDA CIVIC W/ SIMILAR BRAKING SYSTEMS IT PERFORMED LIKE A NEW CAR SHOULD! OTHER ISSUES W/THIS COROLLA ARE THE SUSPENSION IS TOO 'LOOSE' WHEN TRAVELING ABOVE 55MPH & CHANGING LANES, THE ENGINE IS WAY TOO LOUD WHEN ACCEL & OFTEN KNOCKS DURING ACCEL & IDLING (CHANGED GAS STATIONS & CHECKED FUEL TYPE, STILL SAME PROBLEM), & HEADLIGHTS R 2 BRIGHT...

NHTSA ODI #10860456

1,562 miles · Apr 20, 2016
EngineService BrakesSuspension

BOUGHT MAY 2015, WARM DAY, FIRM BRAKES. WET, COLD FALL MONTHS BRAKES BECAME SOFT W/ EXCESSIVE TRAVEL & ERRATIC DURING 40MPH & UNDER. TOOK TO DEALER SEPT 2015 AT 1,562 MILES. TECH PERFORMED ROAD TEST. COULDN'T DUPLICATE CONTIONS. CHECKED FOR CODES. STATED 'FOUND NORMAL BRAKING CONITIONS'. I STARTED DRIVING AGAIN & NOTICED DURIN…

Read full complaint

BOUGHT MAY 2015, WARM DAY, FIRM BRAKES. WET, COLD FALL MONTHS BRAKES BECAME SOFT W/ EXCESSIVE TRAVEL & ERRATIC DURING 40MPH & UNDER. TOOK TO DEALER SEPT 2015 AT 1,562 MILES. TECH PERFORMED ROAD TEST. COULDN'T DUPLICATE CONTIONS. CHECKED FOR CODES. STATED 'FOUND NORMAL BRAKING CONITIONS'. I STARTED DRIVING AGAIN & NOTICED DURING WARM DAYS AROUND 70 DEG BRAKES CHANGED HARDNESS WITH A/C ON. MORE FIRM. DURING COLDER DAYS BRAKES WOULD GO WITHIN 2 INCHES OF FLOOR BEFORE WORKING. TOOK TO DEALER ON 'WALK IN' BASIS WHEN CAR WAS ACTING UP. DROVE W/ TECH 1 HR TRIED TO GET HIM TO NOTICE DIFFERENCE IN BRAKES. TECH STATED BRAKES WERE ACTING 'NORMAL' & THAT I JUST WASN'T FAMILIAR W/ HOW THE SYSTEMS OPERATED. I INSTISTED IT WASN'T NORMAL. TECH CONTACTED MANUFACTURER. THEY SAID REPLACE MASTER CYLINDER AND BLEED SYSTEM. RETURNED CAR & STATED 'DRIVING CORRECTLY NOW'. I STARTED DRIVING AGAIN & NOTICED WHISTELING SOUND COMING FROM ENGINE COMPT WHEN DRIVING UNDER 30MPH BETWEEN BDLGS W/ WINDOW DOWN. BRAKES GO ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR AT TIMES & THEY GRAB & STOP THE CAR ABRUPTLY. ESPECIALLY IN STOP-&-GO TRAFFIC. TOOK TO DEALER MARCH 2016 AT 4,800 MILES. I SUGGESTED CHECKING ENTIRE VACUUM SYSTEM FOR LEAKS. TECH ONLY CHECKED LINE TO BRAKE BOOSTER. TECH MADE 'LITTLE' ADJUSTMENT TO E-BRAKE & REAR BRAKES. TECH STATED BRAKES 'FEELS SIMILAR TO NEW COROLLA' & NO WHISTLING SOUND. I CAN STILL HEAR WHISTLING SOUND & BRAKES STILL HAVE SAME ISSUES! I THINK IT'S A DESIGN FLAW RELATED TO THE ENTIRE VACUUM SYSTEM & SHOULD BE RECALLED! TOLD DEALER. TEST DROVE 2016 HONDA CIVIC W/ SIMILAR BRAKING SYSTEMS IT PERFORMED LIKE A NEW CAR SHOULD! OTHER ISSUES W/THIS COROLLA ARE THE SUSPENSION IS TOO 'LOOSE' WHEN TRAVELING ABOVE 55MPH & CHANGING LANES, THE ENGINE IS WAY TO LOUD WHEN ACCEL & OFTEN KNOCKS DURING ACCEL & IDLING (CHANGED GAS STATIONS & CHECKED FUEL TYPE, STILL SAME PROBLEM), & HEADLIGHTS R 2 BRIGHT...

NHTSA ODI #10860453

12,211 miles · Dec 14, 2015
EngineExterior LightingPower Train

THE NEW TOYOTA COROLLA'S HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THEIR HEADLIGHT DESIGN. FIRST, THE DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS ON VEHICLES WITH THE XENON OR LED LIGHTS APPEARS TO BE THE SAME LIGHTS THAT RUN AT NIGHT WHEN YOU TURN ON THE SWITCH. THIS MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN ONCOMING LANES CONSTANTLY FLASH THEIR LIGHTS THINKING THE BRIGHT LIGHTS ARE ON …

Read full complaint

THE NEW TOYOTA COROLLA'S HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THEIR HEADLIGHT DESIGN. FIRST, THE DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS ON VEHICLES WITH THE XENON OR LED LIGHTS APPEARS TO BE THE SAME LIGHTS THAT RUN AT NIGHT WHEN YOU TURN ON THE SWITCH. THIS MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN ONCOMING LANES CONSTANTLY FLASH THEIR LIGHTS THINKING THE BRIGHT LIGHTS ARE ON DURING THE DAY BECAUSE IT IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT. I'VE ALSO NOTICED THAT A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WITH THIS SAME CAR DON'T REALIZE THEY HAVE TO MANUALLY TURN ON THEIR LIGHTS SINCE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS IS THE SAME AS WHEN THE SWITCH IS TURNED ON. PEOPLE MUST THINK THEY HAVE AUTOMATIC HEADLIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY FAIL TO TURN THEIR LIGHT SWITCH ON WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE NO REAR LIGHTS. I CAN SEE THIS CAUSING SO MANY ACCIDENTS, ESPECIALLY IN THE RAIN OR AT NIGHT. IT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. PEOPLE HAVE ALSO COMPLAINED TO ME THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE BRIGHT LIGHTS ARE ON WHEN THEY'RE NOT AND THE HEADLIGHTS ARE "BLINDINGLY BRIGHT", BUT HOW THE LIGHTS ARE AIMED OR DESIGNED, THEY DON'T CAST MUCH LIGHT ON THE ROAD AHEAD. IT SEEMS LIKE THE LIGHT IS JUST DIFFUSED IN ALL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS INSTEAD OF IN A BEAM LIKE NORMAL HEADLIGHTS. THERE IS A HUGE ISSUE WITH THESE NEW COROLLA MODELS' LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND TOYOTA NEEDS TO RETROFIT THEM IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS. IN ADDITION, THIS CAR BASICALLY HAS NO POWER WHICH MAKES IT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO PULL OUT IN TRAFFIC AS THE AWFUL CVT TRANSMISSION TAKES FOREVER TO RESPOND. ONCE THE ENGINE HAS FINALLY WOKEN UP FROM ITS SLEEP, IT OFFERS TERRIBLE RESPONSE AND IS EXTREMELY SLOW PICKING UP SPEED. THIS IS AN ISSUE WITH ALL COROLLA'S BECAUSE OF HOW HEAVY THE CAR IS FOR HOW LITTLE POWER TOYOTA GIVES IT. I ALSO HATE THE HUGE BLIND SPOTS CREATED BY THE AWKWARDLY SHAPED REAR END. I'M GLAD THIS IS JUST A RENTAL CAR, BUT I FEEL SO BAD FOR OWNERS OF THIS TYPE OF CAR.

NHTSA ODI #10810041

4,900 miles · Oct 2, 2015
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, BUT THE VEHICLE DID NOT MOVE AND THE ENGINE SEIZED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER, BUT THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DIAGNOSED OR DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE AP…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 45 MPH, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL, BUT THE VEHICLE DID NOT MOVE AND THE ENGINE SEIZED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER, BUT THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DIAGNOSED OR DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 4,900. UPDATED 1/21/16 *SS *TR

NHTSA ODI #10779291

980 miles · Sep 14, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE PARKING AT APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO A METAL BARRIER. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE APPR…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE PARKING AT APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO A METAL BARRIER. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 980. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #10763536

8,625 miles · Aug 30, 2015
EngineService BrakesUnknown Or OtherCrash

STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT WITH FOOT ON THE BRAKES. OUT OF NOWHERE THE CAR ACCELERATED FORWARD EXTREMELY FAST. FORCED TO HIT AN CAR IN FRONT OF ME WITHIN A CAR OR TWO, DISTANCE WISE. AFTER THE INCIDENT THE RPM GAUGE FLUCTUATES FROM LOW TO HIGH. IN ADDITION, ONCE GAS PEDAL IS PRESSED CAR SLOWS DOWN AND ECO ACTIVATES, THEN AFTER ABOUT…

Read full complaint

STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT WITH FOOT ON THE BRAKES. OUT OF NOWHERE THE CAR ACCELERATED FORWARD EXTREMELY FAST. FORCED TO HIT AN CAR IN FRONT OF ME WITHIN A CAR OR TWO, DISTANCE WISE. AFTER THE INCIDENT THE RPM GAUGE FLUCTUATES FROM LOW TO HIGH. IN ADDITION, ONCE GAS PEDAL IS PRESSED CAR SLOWS DOWN AND ECO ACTIVATES, THEN AFTER ABOUT 5 SECONDS CAR ACCELERATOR EXTREMELY FAST.

NHTSA ODI #10760217

Official recalls

1

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.

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