My car started to show a check engine light on around 103,000 miles. After getting a check engine light reading, the code was a misfire p0303 on cylinder 3. I took the car to a mechanic and was told the head gasket was blown and coolant was leaking into it.
2016 Ford Mustang
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Mustang years
Owner complaints for the 2016 Ford Mustang are substantially higher than the model-year median of 81.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mustang 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
204 reports with mileage · 171 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.
- Engine. Review the 75 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 72 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Back Over Prevention. Review the 52 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
75 reportsThe contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated while driving approximately 50 MPH, the check engine warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer, where it was diagnosed that there was a crack in the cylinder head and the contact was informed that the repair was not covered under warranty. The ve…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated while driving approximately 50 MPH, the check engine warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer, where it was diagnosed that there was a crack in the cylinder head and the contact was informed that the repair was not covered under warranty. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was contacted, but no assistance was provided. The failure mileage was approximately 82,000.
2016 Ford Mustang V6 This is EXTREMELY concerning as it's a SAFETY issue losing power features while the vehicle is in motion. While driving the car provides an error message with a wrench sign/icon stating the transmission is not in Park, then it proceeds to shut down the car leaving us without power steering. The car need sto…
Read full complaint
2016 Ford Mustang V6 This is EXTREMELY concerning as it's a SAFETY issue losing power features while the vehicle is in motion. While driving the car provides an error message with a wrench sign/icon stating the transmission is not in Park, then it proceeds to shut down the car leaving us without power steering. The car need stopped, move the transmission to Park, and start the engine. Doing this clears the warning and you are able to drive the car without any problem. The two incidents occurrences were about 1 or 2 months apart. Below link shows other people having the same issue [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
This specific car model is a 2016 Shelby GT350 tech package that I owned for at least 7 months. In this time period i had only put 7k mikes on it before it blew up. After doing tons of research there is a tons of class action law suits against Ford for these cars. The incident that occurred was while driving the vehicle caught f…
Read full complaint
This specific car model is a 2016 Shelby GT350 tech package that I owned for at least 7 months. In this time period i had only put 7k mikes on it before it blew up. After doing tons of research there is a tons of class action law suits against Ford for these cars. The incident that occurred was while driving the vehicle caught fire on the passenger side. Driving at the speed limit of 40 MPH no warning lights, Check engine lights or anything it just blew up. Up to this point all maitence was done properly and after doing some research it had the same issue report by multiple other Shelby owners of this year. This vehicle is not safe for the roads and if not properly investigated, it can cause someone to lose their life. I incurred a bruised head, burns and loss of hair from this accident. I’ve contacted Ford in regards to this issue and yet to have anything done. This vehicle should not be sold to the public with these known issues. There was recall sent out to fix this issue but my specific vin number was never contacted to fix it.
My check engine light came on it was cylinder 2 misfire. Sputtering and stalling in traffic. Slow to excelarate, started losing coolant and blowing white smoke on start up. Stuck in traffic. Then the turbo blew out. Replaced turbo, replaced spark plugs replaced edition coil. Still cylinder 2 misfire. Still a rough idle, Still di…
Read full complaint
My check engine light came on it was cylinder 2 misfire. Sputtering and stalling in traffic. Slow to excelarate, started losing coolant and blowing white smoke on start up. Stuck in traffic. Then the turbo blew out. Replaced turbo, replaced spark plugs replaced edition coil. Still cylinder 2 misfire. Still a rough idle, Still dies in traffic Still losing coolant, dies unexpectedly and then won't start. Replaced fuel pump about 3 years ago for it dying in the middle of sams club traffic lane. Currently issues with the other problems listed above. Have found out this is a common problem with these motors. I called Ford and was told it's because I have 112,000 miles on my car. I've never missed a service, never driven the car hard, never over heated it. I have taken excellent car of this vehicle. Currently waiting for another diagnostic test. We pay to much for these cars to be stuck in traffic and have the engines go out and so many problems with them. Yes this car can be inspected at any time. Ford needs to recall this engine and fix its mistake. This is not okay. And it's dangerous to continue to let people drive these vehicles.
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated while driving at various speeds, the brake pedal was depressed but the vehicle failed to stop. The contact stated that the emergency brake was engaged however, the vehicle crashed into the curb. The brake warning light was illuminated. The contact then stated that the driv…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated while driving at various speeds, the brake pedal was depressed but the vehicle failed to stop. The contact stated that the emergency brake was engaged however, the vehicle crashed into the curb. The brake warning light was illuminated. The contact then stated that the driver’s side seat belt failed to operate and was seized. As result, the contact sustained an injury to her neck and finger. No medical attention was needed. The air bags failed to deploy. No police report was filed. The vehicle was towed to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the master cylinder needed to be replaced. The vehicle cylinder was replaced but failed. The vehicle was towed to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the master cylinder needed to be replaced but diagnosed that nothing was wrong with the seatbelt. The manufacturer was notified of the failure however, the contact stated that they hung up the phone. The failure mileage was approximately 78,000. The consumer stated the vehicle was sold because of the ongoing problems.
What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? -The engine on my 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost is malfunctioning. My vehicle's RPM drop extremely low then rev high, then the car almosts cut off when I drive at low speeds, park, or stop at lights/stop signs. How was your safety or…
Read full complaint
What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? -The engine on my 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost is malfunctioning. My vehicle's RPM drop extremely low then rev high, then the car almosts cut off when I drive at low speeds, park, or stop at lights/stop signs. How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? -I stopped driving my car any further than 10-15 mile distances because I was afraid the car may cut off while I'm driving down the road in traffic. Has the problem been reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or independent service center? -I took my car to 3 different Ford dealerships, in Mississippi, North Carolina and Maryland. The first could not replicate the issue or find any issues, the second dealer whom I paid approximately $700 for repairs had my car for 3 weeks because they couldn't find the issue, so they replaced my spark plugs and an ignition coil and said it should be good. The third Ford dealership didn't diagnose it truly they just said it was leaking coolant so it had to be an internal coolant leak that has damaged my engine (causing a misfire), based on a Ford TSB that has apparently been out for a long time. Has the vehicle or component been inspected by the manufacturer, police, insurance representatives or others? -It was inspected by 3 different Ford dealerships. Were there any warning lamps, messages or other symptoms of the problem prior to the failure, and when did they first appear? -The first time I had this symptom was in the spring of 2021, but it was a one time thing and it went away. The next time I noticed the issue was around July of 2021 which is when I took it to the Ford dealership near me in Mississippi. The first time the check engine light came on was in April of 2022 when I arrived in Maryland after I took it to the repair shop in North Carolina. Note: I was in the process of moving from Mississippi to the DC area, otherwise I wouldn't have even driven it that far.
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated that after starting the vehicle, the check engine warning light was illuminated on the instrument panel. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where the mechanic discovered a misfire in cylinder #3. The coil and the spark plug in cylinder #3 were replaced; howev…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated that after starting the vehicle, the check engine warning light was illuminated on the instrument panel. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where the mechanic discovered a misfire in cylinder #3. The coil and the spark plug in cylinder #3 were replaced; however, the check engine warning light intermittently illuminated as the temperature gauge indicated that the engine was hot. The contact took the vehicle back to the mechanic where they discovered that the coolant level was low and recommended that the vehicle be taken to a dealer. The vehicle was taken to the dealer and the diagnostic test discovered that coolant had leaked into cylinder #3 and that the engine needed to be replaced. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and provided a case number. The contact was then referred to the NHTSA for assistance. The vehicle had yet to be repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 59,000.
Failure of Driver side Valve cover- leaking oil and valve cover bolts were completely loose. Both valve covers are prone to failure according to tsb 19-2309. Note: The engine block is designed to have 13 bolts to secure and seal valve covers to engine. Instead of using a 13 bolt valve cover, ford used 9 bolt valve covers for …
Read full complaint
Failure of Driver side Valve cover- leaking oil and valve cover bolts were completely loose. Both valve covers are prone to failure according to tsb 19-2309. Note: The engine block is designed to have 13 bolts to secure and seal valve covers to engine. Instead of using a 13 bolt valve cover, ford used 9 bolt valve covers for 3 consecutive years which deviates from the engine design. Safety concern- the discharge of combustible oil in and around engine bay and other engine components. engine components which are flammable and or susceptible to damage as a result from contact of leaking oil from failed valve covers and bolts. This failure could also result in catastrophic engine failure depending on when this failure occurs, if it goes unnoticed, and how bad it is. This problem has been confirmed by ford via tsb 19-2309 which instructs the removal of both valve covers, drilling 4 holes in each valve cover, replacing valve cover gasket’s, and adding 4 additional bolts to each valve cover upon complete re-assembly. This problem has been reproduced sufficient amounts for a TSB to be in place. An important NOTE with TSB 19-2309 is that it does not instruct the need to drill threaded holes into the engine block for 8 additional valve cover bolts because they are already present. The holes are simply covered up by the 9 bolt valve covers and go unused. Vehicle has been inspected by a Certified mechanic/ business outside of Ford dealership/company. No warning lights of any kind appeared. The issue was noticed on 4/9/2022 during a routine oil change and inspection. Car currently has 35,000 miles and is not being driven or started. Why is ford not willing to do the right thing by proactively recalling for this issue?
Purchased the car around 40k miles. Did all the maintenance required for 3-4 years with it now at 98k miles. On the evening near Christmas eve as i was at the red light making a right turn i heard clank from the bottom of my engine, then metal pieces were falling off to the ground. Smoke was coming out from the engine, with the …
Read full complaint
Purchased the car around 40k miles. Did all the maintenance required for 3-4 years with it now at 98k miles. On the evening near Christmas eve as i was at the red light making a right turn i heard clank from the bottom of my engine, then metal pieces were falling off to the ground. Smoke was coming out from the engine, with the oil pressure illuminating light on. I pulled over to see a trail of oil, while looking under I saw a big whole on the bottom of the engine block. Good thing it didn't happened when I was driving at a higher speed and I was by myself vs having my kids with me. Geico would not cover my blown engine, and ford knows this is a known issue referring to "Ecoboom" but i no longer have warranty with them. Car has been sitting at the shop pending 6500 to have the engine replaced. With covid times we are living in right now i dont know what else to do.
Official recalls
525V614000 · Seat Belts:pretensioner
Sep 12, 2025
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2017 Mustang vehicles. Water and road salt may corrode the front seat belt anchor pretensioner cables.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A corroded cable can break, preventing the seat belt from properly restraining an occupant, and increasing the risk of injury during a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace both front seat belt anchor pretensioner assemblies, as necessary. In addition, dealers will remove sections of the carpet and underlayment that contact the cables. Dealers will also inspect the A-pillar sealing patches, and as necessary, install A-pillar body plugs, and/or inspect and replace the front outboard seat bolts. Repairs will be performed free of charge. Interim letters, notifying owners of the safety risk, were mailed October 20, 2025. Additional letters will be sent once the final remedy is available, anticipated December 2026. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S92. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall became searchable on NHTSA.gov September 17, 2025.
25V572000 · Back Over Prevention: Sensing System: Camera
Sep 3, 2025
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2019 Lincoln MKC, Mustang, F-350 SD, F-250 SD, F-450 SD, 2015-2017 Lincoln Navigator, Expedition, 2015-2018 Edge, Transit Connect, 2016-2019 F-550 SD, Transit, 2017-2019 Econoline, and 2019 Ranger vehicles. The rearview camera may display a distorted, inverted, or blank image when the vehicle is in reverse.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rearview camera that displays an inverted, distorted, or blank image can reduce the driver’s view behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the rearview camera as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed January 13, 2026. Ford owners will receive letters in phases, beginning January 2026 and June 2026. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S89. This recall expands previous NHTSA recall number 25V270. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall will be searchable on NHTSA.gov beginning September 8, 2025.
22V082000 · Back Over Prevention: Sensing System: Camera
Feb 16, 2022
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2017 Mustang vehicles. The rearview camera wiring may be loose or damaged, which can result in a blank or distorted image.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rearview camera that displays a blank or distorted image can reduce the driver's rear view, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and repair the decklid wiring harness and/or replace the rearview camera, as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed December 23, 2022 and June 26, 2023. Remedy parts are expected to become available in the 4th Quarter of 2022. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 22S06.
16V779000 · Engine And Engine Cooling:cooling System:hoses/lines/piping/fittings
Oct 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2015-2017 Mustang vehicles manufactured February 24, 2015, to August 30, 2016. A hose may separate from the engine oil cooler tube assembly causing an oil leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A sudden loss of engine oil may cause engine failure, increasing the risk of a crash. Additionally, an oil leak, in the presence of an ignition source, increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the engine oil cooler tube assembly, free of charge. The recall began on March 23, 2017. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S40.
15V707000 · Child Seat:tether: Connector/clip; Seat Belts
Oct 26, 2015
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2016 Ford Mustang vehicles manufactured September 26, 2015, to October 1, 2015. The front and rear seat belts and child seat tether anchors may have been damaged in shipping from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant and may not adequately restrain the occupant in a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard numbers 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and 225, "Child restraint anchorage systems."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the restraint components do not function as intended, the occupants may not be properly restrained in the event of a crash, increasing their risk of injury.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front and rear seat belt assemblies and the child seat tether anchors, free of charge. The recall began on December 18, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15C13.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Child Seat:tether: Connector/clip
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2016 Ford Mustang vehicles manufactured September 26, 2015, to October 1, 2015. The front and rear seat belts and child seat tether anchors may have been damaged in shipping from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant and may not adequately restrain the occupant in a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard numbers 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and 225, "Child restraint anchorage systems."
Consequence: If the restraint components do not function as intended, the occupants may not be properly restrained in the event of a crash, increasing their risk of injury.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front and rear seat belt assemblies and the child seat tether anchors, free of charge. The recall began on December 18, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15C13.
Seat Belts
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2016 Ford Mustang vehicles manufactured September 26, 2015, to October 1, 2015. The front and rear seat belts and child seat tether anchors may have been damaged in shipping from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant and may not adequately restrain the occupant in a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard numbers 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and 225, "Child restraint anchorage systems."
Consequence: If the restraint components do not function as intended, the occupants may not be properly restrained in the event of a crash, increasing their risk of injury.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front and rear seat belt assemblies and the child seat tether anchors, free of charge. The recall began on December 18, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15C13.
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
1EA21002 · 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.
Illustration