← 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

Unknown Or Other complaints

24 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Sep 11, 2026
Unknown Or OtherVisibility/wiper

The defrost no longer works. When I put on defrost it doesn't blow out of the defrost causing me not to be able to see out of my windshield. I have found other people online with this same issue. My heat and air conditioner work fine.

NHTSA ODI #11763664

Mileage unknown · Jun 26, 2026
Unknown Or Other

The factory-applied Super White (paint code 040) paint on my vehicle has peeled down to bare metal on multiple exterior body panels. The peeling is not the result of any collision damage, scratches, or external trauma — it is consistent with the known factory paint adhesion defect that Toyota itself acknowledged through Customer…

Read full complaint

The factory-applied Super White (paint code 040) paint on my vehicle has peeled down to bare metal on multiple exterior body panels. The peeling is not the result of any collision damage, scratches, or external trauma — it is consistent with the known factory paint adhesion defect that Toyota itself acknowledged through Customer Support Program ZKG, which covered this exact vehicle model, year, and paint color. Toyota's own program documentation states the defect occurs when sunlight degrades adhesion between the factory paint primer coat and the base metal electrodeposition layer. With paint peeled to bare metal, the affected panels are now exposed to moisture and the elements, creating a risk of structural rust and corrosion over time. I purchased this vehicle used in 2023 and was never notified of the Customer Support Program. By the time I discovered the program existed, the coverage had expired. Toyota has declined to provide any assistance. Toyota acknowledged this as a manufacturing defect affecting approximately 1.74 million vehicles under Program ZKG. Owners of 2016 Corollas who purchased their vehicles used were not adequately notified, and coverage has now lapsed for recently expired vehicles despite the defect being identical to those Toyota previously covered. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate whether Toyota's Customer Support Program ZKG adequately covered all affected vehicles and owners, and whether an expanded or extended remedy is warranted.

NHTSA ODI #11746704

Mileage unknown · Apr 21, 2025
StructureUnknown Or Other

At about 40000 miles on about [XXX] I noticed my paint starting to peel and fade from my roof as time passed it went to my hood and trunk faded and clear coat peeling I took my car to Toyota in Brownsville Tx and there was no recall on paint defect on roof but the associate told me they had 2 Toyota Corollas being fix on recall…

Read full complaint

At about 40000 miles on about [XXX] I noticed my paint starting to peel and fade from my roof as time passed it went to my hood and trunk faded and clear coat peeling I took my car to Toyota in Brownsville Tx and there was no recall on paint defect on roof but the associate told me they had 2 Toyota Corollas being fix on recall for same defect as my Red toyota Corolla but those cars are white I don’t understand why my red car with same defect wouldn’t fall under recall I have seen my self a green and blue Corolla on the streets with same issue I have paid my car clear I’m [XXX] can’t afford to paint and car has plenty of years for me but paint is look bad thank u 🙏 hope for a repose or help INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #11655945

Mileage unknown · Aug 27, 2024
Unknown Or Other

There are no incidents but it is requiring me to fill this out.

NHTSA ODI #11611058

Mileage unknown · Dec 7, 2023
Unknown Or Other

The car is at very good condition

NHTSA ODI #11559014

Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2023
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other

Toyota has installed several parts on my 2016 corolla that were previous years' parts. In previous complaints, the tires (under 11,000 miles) started to dry rot. When filing the warranty repair, the dealerships and Toyota tried to claim that it was normal. After deep investigation, it was found that the tires were actually ov…

Read full complaint

Toyota has installed several parts on my 2016 corolla that were previous years' parts. In previous complaints, the tires (under 11,000 miles) started to dry rot. When filing the warranty repair, the dealerships and Toyota tried to claim that it was normal. After deep investigation, it was found that the tires were actually over a YEAR older than the release of the vehicle. The tire warranty started when they were sold to Toyota, not when the car was purchased. They did the same thing on Air intake components for the Air filter system for the car. This is the 3rd issue. Since I purchased the lease in 2016. The car constantly had a check engine light. Typically, it was suggested it was a "gas cap pressure check failure". But at all of the routine inspections and services. Dealerships never did anything but clear the code and keep going. I recently went back in to do a "smoke check" as I was getting tired of the code constantly pulling the check engine light. Now, supposedly, it's the Charcol canister. Ironically enough, Toyota had a recall on those items in 2015. I'm suspecting that this part if from that recall part, as it's been an issue (within service notes) to be checked since 2016 and was never suggested or further deep dive into the issue was never done. Now that the warranty is over, I'm supposed to pay another $800+ for the service parts and labor. Which Toyota should be liable for, as I KEPT taking the care to the dealership for warranty service, yet these checks were never done. When the service is underway, I would suggest sending this part to the NHTSA to investigate the old recalled parts are in fact being installed on newer vehicles. As this would be the 3rd item that was from other older models that mysteriously appeared on my 2016 model corolla.

NHTSA ODI #11536170

Mileage unknown · Jun 19, 2023
Air BagsElectrical SystemUnknown Or OtherFire

We discovered that there was an explosion of some sort inside the car on the passenger side, which seems to have potentially involve the air bag system and/or electrical around the system, but this is not entirely known. The car was parked at the time and had not been driven for approximately 65 hours. It appears there was a f…

Read full complaint

We discovered that there was an explosion of some sort inside the car on the passenger side, which seems to have potentially involve the air bag system and/or electrical around the system, but this is not entirely known. The car was parked at the time and had not been driven for approximately 65 hours. It appears there was a fire but we did not witness. The dash is melted leaving a gaping hole, what appears to be portions of the air bag are partially disintegrated and stuck to the ceiling, the ceiling is charred, the sun visor is melted and distorted, and hanging down, underneath the dash is also melted, and the smell in the car is absolutely stifling. The windshield is shattered in one spot, with additional cracks stemming from that point of contact. The windshield is damaged from the impact from inside the car and is pushing out. The car was locked, there is no evidence of forced entry or attempted forced entry. It has never been in a collision. The car was parked three feet away from our motorhome in the confines of our RV spot at an asphalt campground. The safety of all in the area was at risk, and furthermore, since this explosion was unprovoked, if we had been in the car at the time, it's unimaginable as to what sort of bodily damage the passengers, especially the passenger seat occupant, would have incurred. I do not believe the problem can be reproduced, but the car has yet to be inspected. I am currently awaiting insurance to take the car via tow truck to inspect it. There were no warnings, messages, or other symptoms.

NHTSA ODI #11527728

Mileage unknown · Oct 18, 2021
Unknown Or OtherCrash

Unknown

NHTSA ODI #11437107

60,000 miles · Jan 23, 2020
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other

WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON A STREET, MY CAR STARTED TO STALL, AND DIE, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES. IT JUST HAPPENED TODAY, I WAS DRIVING ON THE STREET, AND THE ENGINE JUST STOPPED, AND CAR STOPPED RUNNING, I HAD TO PULL OVER AND MAKE SURE IT WAS IN DRIVE, AND START IT UP AGAIN. I ALMOST GOT HIT BY ANOTHER CAR, BECAUSE THE ENGINE STOP…

Read full complaint

WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON A STREET, MY CAR STARTED TO STALL, AND DIE, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES. IT JUST HAPPENED TODAY, I WAS DRIVING ON THE STREET, AND THE ENGINE JUST STOPPED, AND CAR STOPPED RUNNING, I HAD TO PULL OVER AND MAKE SURE IT WAS IN DRIVE, AND START IT UP AGAIN. I ALMOST GOT HIT BY ANOTHER CAR, BECAUSE THE ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING. ANOTHER TIME I WAS DRIVING ON THE STREET ABOUT TO GET ON THE FREEWAY, AND THE CAR STALLED, DIED. I CHECKED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS IN DRIVE, ADJUSTED IT AND THEN KEPT GOING. I CALLED THE DEALER TODAY, AND WILL TAKE MY CAR THERE IN MESA, AZ ON SATURDAY TO BE CHECKED. IT SEEMED THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THIS SAME PROBLEM, BUT WITH TOYOTA TACOMAS. I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MY SAFETY! I'M DRIVING, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR JUST STOPS RUNNING AND DIES. THE CAR SHUTS OFF WITHOUT WARNING, AND THERE ARE NO LIGHTS OR MESSAGES INSIDE MY CAR, TO LET ME KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. MY CAR IS ONLY A 2016, WHICH I PURCHASED NEW. I ONLY HAVE A LITTLE OVER 60,000 MILES. THE PROBLEM IS UNKNOWN TO ME.

NHTSA ODI #11301493

Mileage unknown · Apr 11, 2019
Power TrainUnknown Or Other

THE AIR CONDITIONER COMPRESSOR AFTER DIAGNOSTICS WERE DONE IS SHOWN TO BE FAILING ALREADY AND IT LOOKS LIKE OTHERS HAVE HAD SIMILAR ISSUES. THE COMPRESSOR JUST SHUTS ITSELF OFF AND STRAIGHT HOT AIR BEGINS BLOWING, WHICH IS NOT FUN OR SAFE. IT HAPPENED SUDDENLY IN DEAD HEAT AND DOES NOT GIVE ANY WARNING SIGNS BEFORE GOING OUT. *…

Read full complaint

THE AIR CONDITIONER COMPRESSOR AFTER DIAGNOSTICS WERE DONE IS SHOWN TO BE FAILING ALREADY AND IT LOOKS LIKE OTHERS HAVE HAD SIMILAR ISSUES. THE COMPRESSOR JUST SHUTS ITSELF OFF AND STRAIGHT HOT AIR BEGINS BLOWING, WHICH IS NOT FUN OR SAFE. IT HAPPENED SUDDENLY IN DEAD HEAT AND DOES NOT GIVE ANY WARNING SIGNS BEFORE GOING OUT. *DT CONSUMER WAS INFORMED BY THE SECOND DIAGNOSTIC, THAT INSIDE THE COMPRESSOR LITERALLY CAME APART, WHICH RESULTS IN TRASH IN THE SYSTEM MEANING SPECIFIC HOSES AND CONDENSER ALL MUST BE REPLACED. TOYOTA REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT AS A FACTORY FAULT, THOUGH I'VE SEEN WHERE MORE THAN ONE COROLLA HAS HAD THIS OCCUR. VIN IS INVALID.*JB

NHTSA ODI #11195703

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