← 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

Structure complaints

32 reports
Clear category filter
45,700 miles · Feb 21, 2018
StructureSuspension

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, A RATTLING NOISE WAS HEARD ALL AROUND THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO JAY WOLFE TOYOTA OF WEST COUNTY (14700 MANCHESTER RD, BALLWIN, MO 63011, (844) 334-0213) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE WITH THE FRAME, DOOR, AND DASHBOARD THAT NE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, A RATTLING NOISE WAS HEARD ALL AROUND THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO JAY WOLFE TOYOTA OF WEST COUNTY (14700 MANCHESTER RD, BALLWIN, MO 63011, (844) 334-0213) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE WITH THE FRAME, DOOR, AND DASHBOARD THAT NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED; HOWEVER, THE CONTACT WAS UNAWARE OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 45,700.

NHTSA ODI #11074089

43,000 miles · Jan 29, 2018
StructureCrash

PRIMERO ME PEGARON EN LA PUERTA ISQUIERDA Y DESPUES LE CAYO UN ARBOL ADELANTE Y ATRAS MI NOMBRE ES [XXX] MI NUMERO ES [XXX]. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #11065780

Mileage unknown · Nov 30, 2017
Electrical SystemStructureVisibility/wiper

I WANT TO REPORT THAT I FOUND A LOOSE BOLT POKING OUT OF THE DRAIN HOLE ON THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR OF OUR 2015 TOYTOTA COROLLA. IT WAS ORIENTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ONLY THE THREADED END WAS POKING OUT THE HOLE AND HELD INSIDE THE DOOR BY THE BOLT HEAD. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND AS A COURTESY THEY REMOVED THE DOOR PANEL AND DET…

Read full complaint

I WANT TO REPORT THAT I FOUND A LOOSE BOLT POKING OUT OF THE DRAIN HOLE ON THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR OF OUR 2015 TOYTOTA COROLLA. IT WAS ORIENTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ONLY THE THREADED END WAS POKING OUT THE HOLE AND HELD INSIDE THE DOOR BY THE BOLT HEAD. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND AS A COURTESY THEY REMOVED THE DOOR PANEL AND DETERMINED IT HAD COME FROM ONE OF THE WINDOW PARTS (REGULATOR OR MOTOR). THEY REINSTALLED AND TIGHTENED THE BOLT. I READ ON THE INTERNET THIS WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH PREVIOUS TOYOTAS AND CREATED SAFETY CONCERNS. THIS MAY BE A CONTINUED PROBLEM WITH TOYOTAS. IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A VERY SMALL CHANCE THAT THE BOLT ACTUALLY LANDED IN A FASHION TO PARTIALLY STICK OUT OF THE DRAIN HOLE SO I WAS ABLE TO SPOT THIS, SO I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER IF OTHER WINDOW BOLTS IN THE CAR HAVE, OR WILL, COME LOOSE AND FALL INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE DOORS WITHOUT DETECTION. THIS MAY ALSO BE THE CASE WITH MANY OTHER COROLLAS SOLD. BOLTS THAT BECOME LOOSE AND FALL OFF OF WINDOW PARTS COULD LEAD TO INADVERTENT AND DANGEROUS FAILURE OF WINDOWS ON THE ROAD. I SUGGEST YOU INVESTIGATE THIS POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE.

NHTSA ODI #11051602

12,000 miles · Aug 30, 2017
Air BagsStructureCrashInjury

THIS CAR WAS REAR ENDED 17 MONTHS AGO AND NONE OF THE 8 AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. I GOT A HERNIATED DISC AND A BROKEN RIB. THE OTHER DRIVER INSURANCE PAID FOR THE $12,000 REPAIRS ON MY CAR AND SOME OF MY MEDICAL EXPENSES BUT NOW HERE I AM WITH AN INJURY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. THIS CAR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE AIRBAG LAWSUIT AND I SHO…

Read full complaint

THIS CAR WAS REAR ENDED 17 MONTHS AGO AND NONE OF THE 8 AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. I GOT A HERNIATED DISC AND A BROKEN RIB. THE OTHER DRIVER INSURANCE PAID FOR THE $12,000 REPAIRS ON MY CAR AND SOME OF MY MEDICAL EXPENSES BUT NOW HERE I AM WITH AN INJURY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. THIS CAR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE AIRBAG LAWSUIT AND I SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR MY INJURIES.

NHTSA ODI #11020566

26,000 miles · Apr 27, 2017
Air BagsElectronic Stability Control (esc)StructureCrashInjury

MY DAUGHTER WAS ON A 2 LANE STRETCH OF I-15 HIGHWAY SOUTHBOUND, APPROX 7 MILES NORTH OF LASVEGAS NV. SHE WAS IN THE LEFT LANE SLOWLY CREEPING BY A 18 WHEEL RIG W/TRAILER. SHE WAS DOING 74 WITH CRUISE CONTROL AND WITNESSES SAY THE RIG MUST HAVE BEEN DOING 73MPH. HE VIOLENTLY TURNED INTO HER LANE CAUSING HER TO DO EVASIVE MANEUV…

Read full complaint

MY DAUGHTER WAS ON A 2 LANE STRETCH OF I-15 HIGHWAY SOUTHBOUND, APPROX 7 MILES NORTH OF LASVEGAS NV. SHE WAS IN THE LEFT LANE SLOWLY CREEPING BY A 18 WHEEL RIG W/TRAILER. SHE WAS DOING 74 WITH CRUISE CONTROL AND WITNESSES SAY THE RIG MUST HAVE BEEN DOING 73MPH. HE VIOLENTLY TURNED INTO HER LANE CAUSING HER TO DO EVASIVE MANEUVER LEFT AND BRAKE HARD SKIDDING INTO THE SOFT SHOULDER THEN SPINNING CLOCKWISE CROSSING TO THE RIGHT SIDE HITTING A SMALL SHOULDER ELEVATION CHANGE WITH BOTH DRIVERS SIDE WHEELS, CAUSING A DOUBLE ROLL OVER AND A CARTWHEEL LANDING ON THE TRUNK, THEN COMING TO A REST ON THE ROOF. NOT A SINGLE AIR BAG DEPLOYED! SHE SUFFERED MULTIPLE BLUNT HITS TO THE HEAD FROM HITTING AGAINST THE DOOR, SHE HAS A CONCUSSION WITH SPRAINED SHOULDER AND ANKLES. GRANTED SHE SHOULD BE IN MUCH WORSE CONDITION BUT WE ARE GRATEFUL SHE HAD HER BLANKETS AND HER DOGS BEDS THAT FLEW FROM THE BACK SEAT TO THE FRONT HELPING TO KEEP HER PADDED FROM EVEN MORE TRAUMA. I FEEL THAT A SIDE CURTAIN AND STEERING BAG SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED. IS THIS A FLUKE THAT TOYOTA ENGINEERS MISSED? BECAUSE NO PARTICULAR CORNER WAS IMPACTED? THE ROLLOVER IMPACTS WERE AT THE WHEELS, JUST ABOVE BOTH BUMPERS AND THE ENTIRE ROOF AREA.

NHTSA ODI #10981087

Mileage unknown · Dec 1, 2016
Electronic Stability Control (esc)SteeringStructureCrash

JERKING FRONT PRIOR PERHAPS TWICE ON THE DAY IN QUESTION I REVERSED TO GO IN A FRIEND HOUSE AND THE CAR WENT A FULL HALF CIRCLE AND END IN THE NEIGHBOR HOSE NEXT DOOR. MY CAR ENDED IN TO HER FENCE WHERE A SWING WAS THERE. DUE THE DEFECTIVE HER PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE FIX AS SOON AS POSSIBLE HAD THE CAR TOWED TO DICK DYER KILLIAN…

Read full complaint

JERKING FRONT PRIOR PERHAPS TWICE ON THE DAY IN QUESTION I REVERSED TO GO IN A FRIEND HOUSE AND THE CAR WENT A FULL HALF CIRCLE AND END IN THE NEIGHBOR HOSE NEXT DOOR. MY CAR ENDED IN TO HER FENCE WHERE A SWING WAS THERE. DUE THE DEFECTIVE HER PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE FIX AS SOON AS POSSIBLE HAD THE CAR TOWED TO DICK DYER KILLIAN ROAD TODAY. I HAVE WITNESSES TO VERIFY HOW THE CAR DID A HALF MOON.

NHTSA ODI #10929028

4,100 miles · Jan 15, 2016
Structure

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHROME FINISH ON THE DASHBOARD CREATED A GLARE IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR THAT DISTRACTED THE CONTACT FROM DRIVING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE GLARE WAS PRESENT REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT UNLESS THE WINDOWS WERE DOWN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHROME FINISH ON THE DASHBOARD CREATED A GLARE IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR THAT DISTRACTED THE CONTACT FROM DRIVING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE GLARE WAS PRESENT REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT UNLESS THE WINDOWS WERE DOWN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED THAT WAY AND COULD NOT BE CHANGED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 4,100. UPDATED 03/09/16*LJ UPDATED 03/16/16*JB

NHTSA ODI #10820491

17,000 miles · Oct 15, 2015
Electrical SystemExterior LightingStructureCrashInjury

ON THE FREEWAY DRIVING AND EIGHTEEN WHEELER CAME OVER ON MY CAR AND HIT AND DRAGGED MY UNTIL MY DETACHED FROM THE TRUCK SPIN AROUND AND THE BACK OF MY CAR SLAMMED INTO THE MEDIAN WALL. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY....UPDATED 10/29/15*BF

NHTSA ODI #10782267

22,700 miles · Aug 8, 2015
StructureInjury

I RENTED THIS CAR (TOYOTA COROLLA 2015) AND WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH ALL THE DETAILS. MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH MANY CARS OVER THE YEARS NEVER BROUGHT ME AN AWARENESS THAT THE TRUNK LID COULD POTENTIALLY DAMAGE MY HEAD, NECK, OR BACK IN A SEVERE AND POSSIBLY LONG LASTING WAY. I NATURALLY OPENED THE TRUNK LID, BENT IN TO PULL OUT…

Read full complaint

I RENTED THIS CAR (TOYOTA COROLLA 2015) AND WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH ALL THE DETAILS. MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH MANY CARS OVER THE YEARS NEVER BROUGHT ME AN AWARENESS THAT THE TRUNK LID COULD POTENTIALLY DAMAGE MY HEAD, NECK, OR BACK IN A SEVERE AND POSSIBLY LONG LASTING WAY. I NATURALLY OPENED THE TRUNK LID, BENT IN TO PULL OUT MY BAG, AND WHAM! THE LID SLAMS DOWN ON ME.ONE OF THE MOST DAMAGING PARTS IS THE LATCH WHICH PROTRUDES PAST THE TRUNK'S EDGE AND FORMS A TRIANGLE SHAPE. THIS IS WHAT CONCENTRATED THE BLOW DIRECTLY INTO MY SPINE. I HAVE SEEN COMPLAINTS OF THIS SAME PROBLEM, "TRUNK LID WONT STAY IN UPRIGHT POSITION" DATING BACK TO 2009. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN FIXED YEARS AGO BEFORE IT WAS ABLE TO INJURE ME? AND HOW MANY UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO BE INJURED IN THE FUTURE? THIS IS WHY I AM TAKING THE TIME TO EXPRESS MY ANGER, FRUSTRATION, AND DISGUST. PLEASE I AM CALLING THIS OUT, DO SOMETHING! TOYOTA DESERVES A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT!

NHTSA ODI #10747185

190 miles · Jun 11, 2015
Air BagsStructureWheelsCrashInjury

I WAS DRIVING BRAND NEW VEHICLE ONLY 2 HOURS OLD . I WAS IN EXTREME RIGHT LANE WHEN TRACTOR TRAILER FROM MIDDLE LANE ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE LANES ,INTO MY LANE SEVERELY IMPACTING DRIVERS SIDE OF VEHICLE NO SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED AND TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF ME CAME TO A SUDDEN UNEXPECTED SLOW DOWN AND I IMPACTED VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME A…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING BRAND NEW VEHICLE ONLY 2 HOURS OLD . I WAS IN EXTREME RIGHT LANE WHEN TRACTOR TRAILER FROM MIDDLE LANE ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE LANES ,INTO MY LANE SEVERELY IMPACTING DRIVERS SIDE OF VEHICLE NO SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED AND TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF ME CAME TO A SUDDEN UNEXPECTED SLOW DOWN AND I IMPACTED VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME AND AGAIN NO AIR BAGS DEPLOYED ALSO WHEN TRACTOR TRAILER HIT ME I IMMEDIATELY HIT BRAKES AND BOTH FRONT TIRES EXPLODED. NO SAFETY ITEMS IN CAR DEPLOYED CAUSING ME TO HAVE MULTIPLE INJURIES

NHTSA ODI #10724853

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