IllustrationI stepped on brakes and airbags opened up on my steering wheels made me hit
2013 Honda Civic
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2013 Honda Civic do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 183.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Civic 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
980–25K
3525–50K
2850–75K
2075–100K
9100–150K
3150K+
193 reports with mileage · 126 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 114 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 39 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 38 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
29 crash reports1 fire reports24 injury reports
Structure complaints
23 reportsThe assembly of the 2013 Honda civic ex was missing the rear bumper impact absorber. The component was not noticed until a collision removed the rear bumper from the car, exposing the interior of the assembly. The omission of the impact absorber in the bumper assembly from the manufacturer directly puts my safety at risk because…
Read full complaint
The assembly of the 2013 Honda civic ex was missing the rear bumper impact absorber. The component was not noticed until a collision removed the rear bumper from the car, exposing the interior of the assembly. The omission of the impact absorber in the bumper assembly from the manufacturer directly puts my safety at risk because this part is designed to absorb energy in a collision, and without the part I am more likely to be in a more serious accident. This problem was first noticed by the service shop who had confirmed that the part was missing from the assembly, and that it was a safety feature of the vehicle. The component had only been inspected by the independent service shop. There was no indication of the missing component before the accident
I have sever paint issues and the blades wipers thet go bad faster
Paint pealing/chipping near edges of both driver and passenger side window.
The paint on my civic began to peel after a few years. Honda did repaint some of the panels for free but others were not fixed. It has continued to peel on many other panels. I went to get an estimate on selling my car from a dealer yesterday and was told that the peeling paint was causing over a $1000 in lost resale value.
CLOUDINESS IN PAINT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. TODAY, A HUGE PIECE OF PAINT TORE OFF MY TRUNK LID AT THE CAR WASH.
MY 2013 HONDA CIVIC SEDAN WITH LESS THAN 54,000 MILES ON IT, HAS THE PAINT PEELING PROBLEM AS OUTLINED IN HONDA'S TSB #14-034 WHEREAS THIS MODEL YEAR IS GRANTED A 7 YEAR EXTENSION ON ITS PAINT. HOWEVER, HONDA HAS PUT IN SOME ESCAPE WINDOWS TO GET OUT OF THIS, THE MAIN ONE BEING WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ROLLED THE CAR OFF OF THE DEALERS…
Read full complaint
MY 2013 HONDA CIVIC SEDAN WITH LESS THAN 54,000 MILES ON IT, HAS THE PAINT PEELING PROBLEM AS OUTLINED IN HONDA'S TSB #14-034 WHEREAS THIS MODEL YEAR IS GRANTED A 7 YEAR EXTENSION ON ITS PAINT. HOWEVER, HONDA HAS PUT IN SOME ESCAPE WINDOWS TO GET OUT OF THIS, THE MAIN ONE BEING WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ROLLED THE CAR OFF OF THE DEALERSHIP'S LOT. AFTER TAKING MY CIVIC IN TO HAVE THE PAINT REPAIRED, THEIR DPSM (A FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE), WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BE FIXED AT THEIR COST. I AM ALMOST 60 YEARS OLD NOW, AND FOR OVER 20 YEARS, I WAS A PROFESSIONAL AND CERTIFIED MECHANIC, AND SERVICE MANAGER AS WELL. I HAD ALSO WORKED ALMOST 6 YEARS IN THE ONLY MERCEDES-BENZ FACTORY LOCATED IN THE U.S. BETWEEN 1980-1990 WHEN IT CLOSED HERE IN OUR AREA OF VIRGINIA. WITH SUCH LOW MILEAGE, AND THIS OBVIOUS FACTORY PAINT DEFECT, ONE WOULD THINK THAT A COMPANY SUCH AS HONDA, WOULD HONOR THE QUALITY STANDARD OF THEIR PRODUCTS. NOT THE CASE AT ALL HERE. AFTER GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THEIR FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE AT AMERICAN HONDA ON THE TELEPHONE JUST NOW, THEY ARE ONLY WILLING TO COVER ABOUT $850 OF A $3100.00 PAINT JOB. BEING A FORMER MECHANIC AND SERVICE MANAGER WHO HAS WORKED FOR YEARS WITH TSB'S AND SAFETY RECALLS, THIS TRULY ASTOUNDS ME HERE. SWITCHING OVER TO TOYOTAS NOW AFTER 43 YEARS OF BEING A FAITHFUL HONDA CUSTOMER. AS A PROFESSIONAL MECHANIC, I WOULD STAY CLEAR OF THESE HONDA VEHICLES DUE TO THIS ISSUE, AND IT GOES ACROSS THEIR MANY PRODUCT LINES OVER MANY YEARS TOO. MECHANICALLY FOR THE MOST PART, HONDAS ARE GREAT VEHICLES. BUT IT IS SHAMEFUL TO SEE THEM RUNNING AROUND HERE ONLY A FEW YEARS PAST NEW, WITH THEIR PAINT JOBS PEELING OFF. THEY NEED TO HONOR THESE REPAIRS. THERE IS ONLY RIGHT AND WRONG IN LIFE, NEVER AN IN-BETWEEN. STAY AWAY FROM HONDAS.
PEELING PAINT ON MY 2013 HONDA CIVIC LX. AMERICAN HONDA REFUSES TO COVER COST OF PAINTING EXCEPT FOR $1,500 OF THE DEALERSHIP'S $6,000 ESTIMATE. THE PEELING STARTED ON THE ROOF AND IS SPREADING ALL OVER MY CAR.
THE CAR BODY EXTERIOR IS SHOWING SIGNIFICANT PAINT PROBLEMS ON THE ROOF AND THE BACK TRUNK DOOR. THE PAINT IS CHALKING AND PAINT ON THE FRONT IS CRACKED.
THE PROBLEM BEGAN IN 2016 AS A FEW PATCHES OF SLIGHT DISCOLORATION, WHERE THE PAINT APPEARED LIGHTER OR DULLER THAN THE SURROUNDING AREA. EVENTUALLY THE CLEAR COAT STARTED TO PULL BACK FROM THE CAR AND CHIP THE PAINT. THIS CONTINUED TO GROW INTO A FULL-FLEDGED PEEL-A-THON. THE AFFECTED AREAS ARE THE HOOD, FENDERS, AROUND THE GA…
Read full complaint
THE PROBLEM BEGAN IN 2016 AS A FEW PATCHES OF SLIGHT DISCOLORATION, WHERE THE PAINT APPEARED LIGHTER OR DULLER THAN THE SURROUNDING AREA. EVENTUALLY THE CLEAR COAT STARTED TO PULL BACK FROM THE CAR AND CHIP THE PAINT. THIS CONTINUED TO GROW INTO A FULL-FLEDGED PEEL-A-THON. THE AFFECTED AREAS ARE THE HOOD, FENDERS, AROUND THE GAS TANK, THE TRUNK AND THE ROOF. THE PEELING IS NOTICEABLE, GROWING, AND NOT A FUNCTION OF NEGLECT OR ABUSE. IT'S LIKE THE PAINT WAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED OR THERE IS SOME MANUFACTURER ERROR THAT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM.
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
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.