NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
11 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Feb 16, 2025
Service BrakesSteeringSuspension
I recently 6 weeks ago bought a used certified 2016 Toyota Corolla with 43,000 miles. I have been going back and forth with Toyota since the day after I bought it about the many mechanical issues that pose a major safety risk. The car shudders/vibrates when accelerating, knocks when backing up. And when making turns the car shif…
Read full complaint
I recently 6 weeks ago bought a used certified 2016 Toyota Corolla with 43,000 miles. I have been going back and forth with Toyota since the day after I bought it about the many mechanical issues that pose a major safety risk. The car shudders/vibrates when accelerating, knocks when backing up. And when making turns the car shifts hard side to side with a shudder and wobble in floor board of car. It feels as if you don’t have control of the vehicle when driving. It has lots of loose play in the front end and steering really the whole car. It also has a problem going up hill and jumping on fwy a major problem accelerating. They keep telling me car is working per design but this is a lie. I have taken it to 2 other mechanics who told me this car has major issues safety ones to take it back. Toyota fixed the control arms stating that might be what it is but the same problems remain. I am afraid to drive this vehicle and they refuse to figure out the problems and fix them. 2 days after buying it I told them take the car back it has too many mechanical issues they refused. I don’t know what to do I cannot continue driving this car like this and in the rain it could barely handle also. The car has a feeling of loss of control like the whole frame of car is loose. I need help and don’t know what else to do I’ve taken the car back to them about 15 times. They continue to lie and say nothing is wrong even though when I test drove it with the head mechanic. He admitted the car has major issues but told me he did not want to get involved and I would have to take it up with management. I traded in my 2011 suv that was in good working order to buy this smaller car so my daughter could also learn to drive. They should have never sold this vehicle with this many mechanical safety issues please help.
NHTSA ODI #11643020
Mileage unknown · Jun 26, 2024
Suspension
I own a 2016 Toyota Corolla with 35000 miles. My extended warranty expired in January 2024. In the the last few months my Toyota developed a “rattle” or noise, primarily on the right side at slow speeds and slow turns. I took the car to a well respected and nearby repair facility for an oil change and had them look at the noi…
Read full complaint
I own a 2016 Toyota Corolla with 35000 miles. My extended warranty expired in January 2024. In the the last few months my Toyota developed a “rattle” or noise, primarily on the right side at slow speeds and slow turns. I took the car to a well respected and nearby repair facility for an oil change and had them look at the noise. They found that the control arm bushings had stress cracks and the sway bar end links and mount bushings were leaking. I had the repairs done. The defective parts are documented with photos in the electronic version of the repair invoice. The noise came back in a day. The next step would be replacing the struts. The repair shop found no visible wear or damage to the struts. I already spent $2400 on repairs. The noise remains. The damage to the parts most likely started long before the warranty expired in January. I found a Technical Service Bulletin describing the repair for this noise issue. The repair described specifies replacing the control arms. I did that in the above described repair. There are many upset consumers complaining in Internet forums about the same problem in 2014-2019 Toyota Corolla’s. I contacted Toyota customer service by email. They told me there was nothing they could do about the problem since the warranty expired 5 years after purchasing the car. I told them I have an 8 year extended warranty. They insisted that there was no 8 year warranty. I offered to send them proof. I have the same problem as shown below. I replaced the control arms and stabilizer bar links. They appeared to be failing. There are many more pages on the internet with the same problem. I reported this to Toyota. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11596733
Mileage unknown · Jun 10, 2024
SteeringSuspension
A knocking noise is coming from the front of car. Noise correlates with car motion. Worn parts in suspension were replaced by Euro Car Doctor in Costa Mesa. One problem complies with Toyota Technical Service Bulletin. Noise continues. The electronic invoice has photos of worn parts. Euro Car Doctor documents concern. I do no…
Read full complaint
A knocking noise is coming from the front of car. Noise correlates with car motion. Worn parts in suspension were replaced by Euro Car Doctor in Costa Mesa. One problem complies with Toyota Technical Service Bulletin. Noise continues. The electronic invoice has photos of worn parts. Euro Car Doctor documents concern. I do not trust the local Toyota dealer service department to properly inspect the vehicle.
NHTSA ODI #11593343
Mileage unknown · Jan 10, 2023
SteeringSuspensionCrash
I was exiting a freeway offramp and as I was turning at a speed of approximately 35 mph, I had both hands on the steering wheel and full control, but the actual car wheels disengaged from the steering. The car went in a different direction than the steering wheel and hit a wall. I was able to reverse. But, as I kept driving, the…
Read full complaint
I was exiting a freeway offramp and as I was turning at a speed of approximately 35 mph, I had both hands on the steering wheel and full control, but the actual car wheels disengaged from the steering. The car went in a different direction than the steering wheel and hit a wall. I was able to reverse. But, as I kept driving, the steering wheel was not controlling the car wheels correctly. When I would turn the steering wheel, the car's wheels wouldn't obey.
NHTSA ODI #11501047
Mileage unknown · Mar 24, 2021
Suspension
BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT SUSPENSION CONTROL ARMS MAKES A SQUEAK NOISE. THIS CONDITION OCCURS WHEN DRIVING OVER SPEED BUMPS AND UNEVEN SURFACES. I SHOWED THIS TO TOYOTA SERVICE ON DECEMBER 2019 WHEN FIRST STARTED BUT THEY COULDN'T FIND THE PROBLEM. THEN SHOWED IT TO DIFFERENT TOYOTA SERVICES IN 2020, AND THEY COULDN'T FI…
Read full complaint
BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT SUSPENSION CONTROL ARMS MAKES A SQUEAK NOISE. THIS CONDITION OCCURS WHEN DRIVING OVER SPEED BUMPS AND UNEVEN SURFACES. I SHOWED THIS TO TOYOTA SERVICE ON DECEMBER 2019 WHEN FIRST STARTED BUT THEY COULDN'T FIND THE PROBLEM. THEN SHOWED IT TO DIFFERENT TOYOTA SERVICES IN 2020, AND THEY COULDN'T FIND IT EITHER. I THOUGHT IT WAS THE SUSPENSION SPRINGS, SO I REPLACED IT BUT STILL THE SQUEAKY NOISE WASN'T RESOLVED. RECENTLY I RESEARCHED THE PROBLEM AND SO MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVING THE SAME ISSUE AND I FOUND THE ATTACHED BULLETIN, BUT THE TOYOTA SERVICE WORKERS NEVER SEEN THIS AND TOYOTA NEVER INFORMED ME OF THE BULLETIN. PLEASE THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL AND NOT A BULLETIN. TO THIS DAY, THE SQUEAKY NOISE IS A LOT LOUDER THAN IN 2019. PLEASE HELP.
NHTSA ODI #11404723
Mileage unknown · Mar 24, 2021
Suspension
BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT SUSPENSION CONTROL ARMS MAKES A SQUEAK NOISE. THIS CONDITION OCCURS WHEN DRIVING OVER SPEED BUMPS AND UNEVEN SURFACES.
NHTSA ODI #11404717
19,000 miles · Sep 18, 2017
Air BagsSuspensionWheelsCrash
I WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT THAT WAS NOT MY FAULT I WAS IN A ROAD WHERE THE SPEED LIIMIT WAS 25-35 MPH. MOSTLY A STRAIGHT ROAD A FEW SLIGHT CURVES. A CAR CAME OVER INTO MY LANE AND CAUSED ME TO SWERVE OUT OF THE WAY TO AVOID HITTING THAT PERSON HEAD ON. I WENT INTO A DITCH FULL OF HUGE ROCKS. THE AIR BAGS NEVER DEPLOYED WHICH …
Read full complaint
I WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT THAT WAS NOT MY FAULT I WAS IN A ROAD WHERE THE SPEED LIIMIT WAS 25-35 MPH. MOSTLY A STRAIGHT ROAD A FEW SLIGHT CURVES. A CAR CAME OVER INTO MY LANE AND CAUSED ME TO SWERVE OUT OF THE WAY TO AVOID HITTING THAT PERSON HEAD ON. I WENT INTO A DITCH FULL OF HUGE ROCKS. THE AIR BAGS NEVER DEPLOYED WHICH IN MY OPINION TFHEY SHOULD HAD, BUT FROM WHAT I HEAR IT MAY HAVE CAUSED EVEN MORE DAMAGE. ANYWAYS I COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAR WHO SWERVED INTO MY LANE. MY CAR WAS DAMAGED IT HIT STRAIGHT FORWARD INTO THE HUGE ROCKS. I WAS PRETTY SORE BUT DID NOT GO TO THE ER. MY CAR HAD A PRETTY GOOD AMOUNT OF DAMAGE BUT LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT OUT OF THE DITCH. IT BUSTED UP THE FRONT OF MY CAR NEAR THE PASSENGER SIDED, AND CAUSED QUITE THE DAMAGE TO MY FRONT PASSENGER TIRE. NORMALLY MY 5 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WOULD HAD BEEN RIIDING ON THAT SIDE. LUCKILY SHE WASN'T THAT DAY.
NHTSA ODI #11023904
19,000 miles · Sep 17, 2017
Air BagsSuspensionWheelsCrash
I HAVE BEEN IN TWO ACCIDENTS WHERE BOTH TIMES I WAS RAN OFF THE ROAD INTO A DITCH. IN NEITHER ACCIDENT DID ANY OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOY BUT I DEFINITELY HIT HARD ENOUGH IN WHICH THEY SHOULD HAD. ONE TIME MY CHILD WAS IN THE BACK SEAT. I HIT A DITCH FILLED WITH HUGE ROCKS THE FIRST ACCIDENT WAS SETTLED AT OVER $1700 AND THE 2ND AC…
Read full complaint
I HAVE BEEN IN TWO ACCIDENTS WHERE BOTH TIMES I WAS RAN OFF THE ROAD INTO A DITCH. IN NEITHER ACCIDENT DID ANY OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOY BUT I DEFINITELY HIT HARD ENOUGH IN WHICH THEY SHOULD HAD. ONE TIME MY CHILD WAS IN THE BACK SEAT. I HIT A DITCH FILLED WITH HUGE ROCKS THE FIRST ACCIDENT WAS SETTLED AT OVER $1700 AND THE 2ND ACCIDENT IS STILL IN THE CLAIMS PORTION OF THE ACCIDENT, WHERE I WAS RAN OFF THE ROAD. THE AIR BAGS SHOULD HAD DEPLOYED BUT FROM THE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY IT MAY HAD CAUSED MORE DAMAGE, AND THATBIS VERY SCARY TO THINK ABOUT SEEING THAT MY 5 YEAR OLD WAS INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE ACCIDENTS. THE ACCIDENT WAS ON A ROAD WITH A SPEED LIMIT OF 35-40 MPH WITH NO STOP SIGNS OR STOP LIGHTS UNTIL THE END OF THE ESTIMATED 2 MILE ROAD.
NHTSA ODI #11023892
16,704 miles · Sep 6, 2017
SuspensionWheels
ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30TH 2017 AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00PM I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 459 NORTH IN THE FAR-RIGHT LANE AND HIT A LARGE POTHOLE ABOUT 150 YARDS BEFORE I-65 OVERPASS. AFTER SWERVING TO MAINTAIN CONTROL I PULLED OVER TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND CALLED TOYOTA CARE (ROADSERVICE). THE EVENT I EXPERIENCE CAUSED A BENT WHEEL…
Read full complaint
ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30TH 2017 AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00PM I WAS TRAVELING ON INTERSTATE 459 NORTH IN THE FAR-RIGHT LANE AND HIT A LARGE POTHOLE ABOUT 150 YARDS BEFORE I-65 OVERPASS. AFTER SWERVING TO MAINTAIN CONTROL I PULLED OVER TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND CALLED TOYOTA CARE (ROADSERVICE). THE EVENT I EXPERIENCE CAUSED A BENT WHEEL RIM AND FLAT TIRE. I AM REQUESTING A REIMBURSEMENT OF MY COST TO REPLACE MY WHEEL RIM AND TIRE. THE POTHOLES WERE FILLED BY THE TIME I WAS ABLE TO TAKE PICTURES ON SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 3RE 2017.
NHTSA ODI #11021839
3,500 miles · Aug 14, 2017
Air BagsService BrakesSuspensionCrashInjury
THE CAR WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT WITH ALL THE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED,DATE OF CRASH APR.16,2016 AT 10.25 PM.HSMV REPORT 385303651,I FEEL THE AIRBAGS DID NOT PROTECT ME PROPERLY,AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO AUCTION CLASS LAW SUITE.
NHTSA ODI #11015223
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.