NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
219 reports21,000 miles · Jul 27, 2016
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA EQUIPPED WITH TOYO PROXES 4 PLUS TIRES, SIZE: P205/55R/R16. WHILE APPROACHING A STOP AT A LOW SPEED, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ROTORS AND BRAKE PADS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA EQUIPPED WITH TOYO PROXES 4 PLUS TIRES, SIZE: P205/55R/R16. WHILE APPROACHING A STOP AT A LOW SPEED, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ROTORS AND BRAKE PADS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ROTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AGAIN. IN ADDITION, THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THERE WAS THREAD SEPARATION ON ALL TIRES AND THAT THE TIRES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE ROTORS WERE REPLACED, BUT THE TIRES WERE NOT. THE TIRE AND VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS WERE NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE TIRE AND VEHICLE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 21,000.
NHTSA ODI #10889064
Mileage unknown · Jul 7, 2016
Fuel System, Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO FUEL PUMP CONTINUALLY RUNS AFTER ENGINE IS SHUT OFF. CONSUMER HAS ANOTHER VEHICLE CORRESPONDENCE IN ARTEMIS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE FUEL PUMP WOULD ONLY SHUT OFF, WHEN THE IGNITION SWITCH WAS CYCLED; NOT TURNING ON THE ENGINE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10883223
Mileage unknown · Jun 5, 2016
SuspensionUnknown Or Other
SUSPENSIONS NO GOOD THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT ABOUT THE SUSPENSIONS IS BECAUSE THE CAR SHAKES WHEN I GO IN AND OUT THE CAR HE CAN FEEL IT AND BOUNCES,.... WHEN I TURN ON THE AC SINCE DAY ONE I BOUGHT THE CAR THE CAR ONLY HAS 13000 MILES ON IT THE CAR SHAKES REAL BAD WHEN THE COMPRESSOR TURNS OFF AND TO HAVE THE CAR COOL ALREADY …
Read full complaint
SUSPENSIONS NO GOOD THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT ABOUT THE SUSPENSIONS IS BECAUSE THE CAR SHAKES WHEN I GO IN AND OUT THE CAR HE CAN FEEL IT AND BOUNCES,.... WHEN I TURN ON THE AC SINCE DAY ONE I BOUGHT THE CAR THE CAR ONLY HAS 13000 MILES ON IT THE CAR SHAKES REAL BAD WHEN THE COMPRESSOR TURNS OFF AND TO HAVE THE CAR COOL ALREADY INSIDE THE CAR DON'T SHAKE BUT I SOON AS I CAN PUT THEM BACK ON THE CAR SHAKE LIKE IF IT'S GOING TO BREAK DOWN WHEN IT COMES ON AND OFF COOL THE CAR INSIDE OUT SHAKES AND THEN STOP RIGHT AWAY BUT AS SOON AS THE CAR IS HOT INSIDE AND IT TAKES TIME FOR IT TO COOL DOWN THE CAR SHAKES WITH THE AC ON AC OFF IT DON'T SHAKE IT ALL 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA LE.....I HAVE TAKING THE CAR TO THE DEALER SO MAY TIME ALL READYI HAVE ASKED FRIENDS WITH THE SAME CAR THEY SAME THE S SAME THING THAT THE SHOCKS AND I'M GOOD AND THE CAR VIBRATES WHEN THE AC IS ON THAT THEY ALSO HAVE TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE DEALER DOES NOTHING
NHTSA ODI #10872630
15,000 miles · Apr 25, 2016
Service Brakes
BRAKES OVERHEAT AFTER DRIVING FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND AFTER THEY HEAT CAR NEEDS MORE DISTANCE TO BE ABLE TO STOP AND WAS ALMOST IN AN ACCIDENT (BRAKE PADS GET DEFORMED FROM HEAT)
NHTSA ODI #10861286
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
Mileage unknown · Apr 16, 2016
Exterior Lighting
THE MAIN FRONT LED LOW-BEAM IS A PROBLEM ON ALL TRIMS OF THIS CURRENT GENERATION. IT IS TOO BRIGHT AND BLINDS ONCOMING DRIVERS, THERE IS ALSO A HARD CUTOFF LINE IN WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOVE IT. THEY ALSO POORLY LIGHT THE ROAD. THE BEAM GOES EVERYWHERE BUT THE ROAD. IT SEEMS THEY ARE INCORRECTLY AIMED. THERE IS ALSO A TA…
Read full complaint
THE MAIN FRONT LED LOW-BEAM IS A PROBLEM ON ALL TRIMS OF THIS CURRENT GENERATION. IT IS TOO BRIGHT AND BLINDS ONCOMING DRIVERS, THERE IS ALSO A HARD CUTOFF LINE IN WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOVE IT. THEY ALSO POORLY LIGHT THE ROAD. THE BEAM GOES EVERYWHERE BUT THE ROAD. IT SEEMS THEY ARE INCORRECTLY AIMED. THERE IS ALSO A TAIL-LIGHT PROBLEM THAT AFFECTS THE HIGHER-END TRIMS OF THIS GENERATION. THERE IS A DRL OPTION, WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE, THAT TURNS ON THE FRONT LOW-BEAM, YOU CAN SEE THAT YOUR FRONT HEADLIGHTS ARE ON, BUT YOU DON'T REALIZE YOUR TAIL-LIGHTS AREN'T ON AND THAT YOU HAVE TO TURN THE STOCK AGAIN TO TURN THEM ON. THERE IS NO INDICATOR ON THE DASH THAT SIGNIFIES ANY SORT OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS ON BESIDES THE HIGH-BEAM. I'VE SEEN MULTIPLE COROLLA DRIVERS ON THE ROAD WITH ONLY DRLS ON AT NIGHT. THE LOWER END TRIMS DON'T SUFFER THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE DASH AT NIGHT WITHOUT TURNING ON THE TAILLIGHTS, THE HIGHER END TRIMS HAVE AN ALWAYS LIT DASH. THIS CREATES A HAZARD IN WHICH THE COROLLA IN FRONT OF YOU IS UNLIT IN THE REAR AND ALLOWS A REAR-END COLLISION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM.
NHTSA ODI #10859913
11,000 miles · Apr 7, 2016
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BECAME STUCK TO THE FLOORBOARD. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BECAME STUCK TO THE FLOORBOARD. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE CONTACT'S RESIDENCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A COLLISION CENTER TO BE REPAIRED FOR THE BODY DAMAGE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 11,000.
NHTSA ODI #10854027
6,500 miles · Feb 17, 2016
Unknown Or Other
PLASTIC INTERIOR PIECE BELOW PASSENGER SIDE GLOVE COMPARTMENT FALLS OUT REPEATEDLY UPON BEING TOUCHED, EVEN LIGHTLY, WHETHER THE CAR IS MOVING, STATIONARY, ON OR OFF. EVEN AFTER BEING PUT BACK INTO PLACE AT TOYOTA DEALERSHIP, STILL FALLS OUT EVERY TIME, EXPOSING WIRING.
NHTSA ODI #10836729
35 miles · Jan 26, 2016
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING DOWN AN INCLINE, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL INCREASE OF ENGINE RPMS AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS WORKING UP TO SPECIFICATIONS. THE MANUF…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING DOWN AN INCLINE, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL INCREASE OF ENGINE RPMS AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE WITHOUT WARNING. THE FAILURE RECURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS WORKING UP TO SPECIFICATIONS. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35. UPDATED 03/15/16*LJ *CN
NHTSA ODI #10822210
NHTSA investigations
2EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
EA19001 · Electrical Overstress
Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.