← New search

2016 Toyota Corolla

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2016 Toyota Corolla do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 129.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Compare all Corolla years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

All reported categories

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

139 reports with mileage · 75 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 65 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Seat Belts. Review the 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

66 crash reports1 fire reports43 injury reports

Exterior Lighting complaints

10 reports
Clear category filter
1,000 miles · Jun 27, 2019
Exterior LightingFuel/propulsion SystemStructure

CARPLAY APP INSTALLED WITHOUT MY CONSENT

NHTSA ODI #11222926

15 miles · Jan 26, 2019
Electrical SystemExterior LightingStructureCrash

ESTABA ENTRANDO EN LA TERMINAL DEL AEROPUERTO DE FORT LAUDERDALE Y EL CARRO DEL OTRO CONDUCTOR MARCA JEEP DEL 2013 CON LA PLACA IITN27 ME IMPACTO POR EL FRENTE LA LADO DERECHO DANDOME EL FENDER DERECHO, EL FOCO Y ARRANCO EL BOMPER COMPLETO. NOTA. ESTE CHOFER ESCEDIA EL LIMITE DE VELOCIDAD.

NHTSA ODI #11172315

36,294 miles · Sep 17, 2018
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Exterior LightingSteering

NOTED OVER HEAD LIGHT BY THE BACK SEAT MAKING A ELECTRICAL STATIC NOISE WHILE THE CAR WAS RUNNING ON A CITY STREET AND WAS ABOUT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN SUDDENLY THE ENGINE DIED, STEERING WHEEL BECAME STIFFED NOT ABLE TO MANUEVER, EPS LIGHT CAME OUT BATTERY WAS FULLY CHARGE FOR SOME REASON STILL DRAINING THE POWER DOWN TO 9.6 V…

Read full complaint

NOTED OVER HEAD LIGHT BY THE BACK SEAT MAKING A ELECTRICAL STATIC NOISE WHILE THE CAR WAS RUNNING ON A CITY STREET AND WAS ABOUT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN SUDDENLY THE ENGINE DIED, STEERING WHEEL BECAME STIFFED NOT ABLE TO MANUEVER, EPS LIGHT CAME OUT BATTERY WAS FULLY CHARGE FOR SOME REASON STILL DRAINING THE POWER DOWN TO 9.6 VOLTS FROM 12VOLTS. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PHOTO PER MY MECHANIC SAME PROBLEM FROM TOYOTA YARIS 2005. THIS PART IS CALLED THE ELECTRIC POWER ACTUATOR FOR ELECTRIC POWER STEERING. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM WHICH ON THE BOARD (GREEN COLOR)HAS MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE EPS OR STEERING WHEEL BECOMING STIFF AND BATTERY TO DRAINED. WHEN CAR IS RUNNING AND ACCIDENTALLY RUN OVER SOMETHING LIKE HUMP OR ANY DEBRIS THE MALFUNCTION WILL START. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENNED TO ME WHEN I WAS ABOUT TO TURN RIGHT THERES A HUMP.THIS PART COST A LOT AND HOPEFULLY TOYOTA WILL ENLIGHTHEN WITH THIS PROBLEM. I JUST WANT TO HELP AND LET OTHERS BE AWARE. I JUST CURRENTLY BOUGHT MY TOYOTA COROLLA LAST MARCH 2016 AND I DONT THINK I DESERVE TO PAY THE COST OF THIS MALFUCTION WHICH TOYOTA MADE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD FOR YOUR HELP. JUST IMAGINE IF THIS THING HAPPEN TO YOU OR TO YOUR FAMILY. THANK YOU

NHTSA ODI #11130018

300 miles · Jan 30, 2017
Exterior Lighting

PROJECTOR LIGHTS CAUSE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BLACK CURTAIN PAINTED ACROSS THE UPPER HALF OF MY WINDSHIELD AND I CANNOT SEE STREET SIGNS. THIS CURTAIN ALSO BOUNCES WHEN GOING UP AND DOWN ANY SLOPE IN THE ROAD AND WHILE GOING DOWN SLOPE THE LIGHT APPEARS TO BE DRIVEN DOWN INTO THE ROAD SURFACE.

NHTSA ODI #10948435

40 miles · Dec 16, 2016
Exterior Lighting

WHEN DRIVING THIS MODEL, WHICH I OWN, I BELIEVE THE LED LIGHTING MAKES THESE CARS UNSAFE AT NIGHT. WHAT I WILL CALL THE LED HORIZON WHICH FLUCTUATES GREATLY ON HILLY OR UNEVEN ROADS, CAUSES LOSS OF NEEDED VISION. FLUCTUATION IN PAVEMENT REDUCES FORWARD VISION TO AS LITTLE AS A CAR LENGTH GOING DOWNHILL & PUTS IT INTO THE CLOUDS …

Read full complaint

WHEN DRIVING THIS MODEL, WHICH I OWN, I BELIEVE THE LED LIGHTING MAKES THESE CARS UNSAFE AT NIGHT. WHAT I WILL CALL THE LED HORIZON WHICH FLUCTUATES GREATLY ON HILLY OR UNEVEN ROADS, CAUSES LOSS OF NEEDED VISION. FLUCTUATION IN PAVEMENT REDUCES FORWARD VISION TO AS LITTLE AS A CAR LENGTH GOING DOWNHILL & PUTS IT INTO THE CLOUDS GOING UPHILL. & EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN ON SLIGHTLY UNEVEN ROADS. THE HORIZON IS CAUSED BY TOTAL LACK OF LIGHT - LED LIGHTS DON'T SHADE OR REFLECT GRADUALLY TO DARKNESS, BUT HAVE THAT SUDDEN CUT OFF RESULTING IN A TUNNEL VISION EFFECT. I HAVE TO LIVE WITH & DRIVE IN FOOTHILLS AT NIGHT. I COMPLAINED BY PHONE & EMAIL TO MANUFACTURER. I BROUGHT UP POSSIBLE REWIRING, DIFFERENT BULBS, ANYTHING AT 5000 MILE SERVICE & THAT I'D GLADLY PAY FOR SOME LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT. DEALER HELP SAID "NO ONE ELSE HAS COMPLAINED" & THERE IS NOTHING ALLOWED NOR AVAILABLE TO HELP IMPROVE LIGHTING. MANUFACTURER SAID THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF ANY PROBLEMS. I CITED 2015 COROLLA COMMENTS ON THIS SITE & LATER EMAILED THEM THE IIHS STUDY. SINCE TOYOTA OBVIOUSLY HAS THE PRIUS V LIGHTING FIGURED OUT & THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE I STRONGLY BELIEVE ALL CARS WITH LED NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP TO SAFE STANDARDS. THIS DOESN'T MEAN JUST TOYOTAS, BUT OTHER BRANDS AFFECTED. THE LITTLE CAR IS OUTDRIVING HEADLIGHTS AT 30 MPH. THAT & MAKING ALL NEWER CARS SO LOW THEY SINK INTO WATER PUDDLES TOO EASILY ARE SAFETY PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED INDUSTRY WIDE. I'LL GIVE THE DATE OF 1ST DRIVE, BUT OF COURSE IT IS ONGOING. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10935848

10,000 miles · Dec 10, 2016
Exterior Lighting

2016 TOYOTA COROLLA DEFECT. THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ON/OFF SWITCH IS ON THE SAME CONTROL AS THE HEADLIGHTS. THE DLRS TURNS ON BEFORE REACHING THE LOW BEAM SETTING AS YOU TWIST THE CONTROL. THE DLRS ARE ALMOST AS BRIGHT AS THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS AND UTILIZE THE SAME BULB AT A LOWER WATTAGE. THEY CAN BE MISTAKEN FOR YOUR HEADL…

Read full complaint

2016 TOYOTA COROLLA DEFECT. THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ON/OFF SWITCH IS ON THE SAME CONTROL AS THE HEADLIGHTS. THE DLRS TURNS ON BEFORE REACHING THE LOW BEAM SETTING AS YOU TWIST THE CONTROL. THE DLRS ARE ALMOST AS BRIGHT AS THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS AND UTILIZE THE SAME BULB AT A LOWER WATTAGE. THEY CAN BE MISTAKEN FOR YOUR HEADLIGHTS AT NIGHT AND YOU WILL BE DRIVING AROUND WITH NO TAILLIGHTS BECAUSE THE TAILLIGHTS ARE NOT ON WHEN THE SWITCH IS ON THE DLR SETTING. I GOT PULLED OVER BY A COP BECAUSE I HAD NO TAIL LIGHTS ONE NIGHT. THE DEALER HAS NO SOLUTION FOR THIS PROBLEM. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL THIS INCOMPETENT DESIGN KILLS SOMEONE. TOYOTA SHOULD FIRE THE ENGINEER BEHIND THIS AND ORDER A RECALL AND AT THE VERY LEAST REWIRE THE DLR SWITCH TO INCLUDE TAILLIGHTS AND BOOST THE WATTAGE ON THE DLR TO LOW BEAM POWER. IT AMAZES ME THAT THIS DEFECT WOULD PASS THRU A COMPANY LIKE TOYOTA AND MAKE IT TO THE MARKET. THIS WAS A MISTAKE ON MY PART AND I WAS ALREADY AWARE OF IT AND HAD ALREADY BROUGHT EVERY DRIVER IN MY HOUSE OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY TO SHOW THEM THIS DANGEROUS CONDITION. IF A CONSCIENTIOUS PERSON LIKE ME CAN MAKE THIS MISTAKE, ANYONE CAN.

NHTSA ODI #10934397

100 miles · Jun 10, 2016
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS DID NOT ILLUMINATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED, BUT THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE WAS UNDETERMINED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100.

NHTSA ODI #10873720

30,000 miles · Jun 4, 2016
Exterior Lighting

I WAS BLINDED BY THE HEADLIGHTS OF A TOYOTA COROLLA. IT ALMOST LED TO AN ACCIDENT WITH A PEDESTRIAN. PLEASE LOOK INTO ALL 2015+ TOYOTA COROLLAS WITH THE HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE LIGHTS SEEM TO BE AIMED HIGHER THAN NORMAL OR HAVE IMPROPER LENSES. WHEN APPROACHING THEY BLIND ONCOMING DRIVERS. THESE ECONOMY CARS ARE VERY COMMON AND…

Read full complaint

I WAS BLINDED BY THE HEADLIGHTS OF A TOYOTA COROLLA. IT ALMOST LED TO AN ACCIDENT WITH A PEDESTRIAN. PLEASE LOOK INTO ALL 2015+ TOYOTA COROLLAS WITH THE HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE LIGHTS SEEM TO BE AIMED HIGHER THAN NORMAL OR HAVE IMPROPER LENSES. WHEN APPROACHING THEY BLIND ONCOMING DRIVERS. THESE ECONOMY CARS ARE VERY COMMON AND PROBLEM IS BECOMING WORSE AS TOYOTA DID NOT RECALL THEM.

NHTSA ODI #10872534

Mileage unknown · Mar 31, 2016
Exterior Lighting

IN THE LAST 5 DAYS, I HAVE SEEN AT LEAST 4 TOYOTA COROLLA'S WITH LED HEADLIGHTS ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT WITHOUT THEIR TAILLIGHTS ON. I BELIEVE THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE LED HEADLIGHT OPTION RUNS ALL DAY LONG, SO PEOPLE ASSUME THEIR LIGHTS ARE AUTOMATIC? THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AS SOMEONE ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT CANNOT SEE …

Read full complaint

IN THE LAST 5 DAYS, I HAVE SEEN AT LEAST 4 TOYOTA COROLLA'S WITH LED HEADLIGHTS ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT WITHOUT THEIR TAILLIGHTS ON. I BELIEVE THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE LED HEADLIGHT OPTION RUNS ALL DAY LONG, SO PEOPLE ASSUME THEIR LIGHTS ARE AUTOMATIC? THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AS SOMEONE ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT CANNOT SEE THESE TOYOTA COROLLA'S IN FRONT OF THEM WHEN THE TAILLIGHTS ARE OFF. IN TOTAL, I HAVE PROBABLY SEEN AT LEAST 40+ COROLLA'S WITHOUT THEIR LIGHTS ACTUALLY TURNED ON, BUT THE HEADLIGHTS ALWAYS SHINE. I TRY TO FLASH MY LIGHTS AT THE DRIVERS TO SIGNAL THE PROBLEM, BUT FEW REALIZE THE ISSUE SINCE THEY ARE UNAWARE THEIR LIGHTS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATED.

NHTSA ODI #10852703

250 miles · Mar 8, 2016
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE LED HEADLIGHTS WERE ACTIVATED BUT THE LOW BEAMS FAILED TO ILLUMINATE ADEQUATE LIGHTING ON THE ROAD AHEAD, WHICH DISTORTED THE VISIBILITY. THE HIGH BEAM HEADLIGHTS WERE ENGAGED IN ORDER TO VIEW THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGN…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE LED HEADLIGHTS WERE ACTIVATED BUT THE LOW BEAMS FAILED TO ILLUMINATE ADEQUATE LIGHTING ON THE ROAD AHEAD, WHICH DISTORTED THE VISIBILITY. THE HIGH BEAM HEADLIGHTS WERE ENGAGED IN ORDER TO VIEW THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 250. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #10840452

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