← New search

2014 Honda Civic

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2014 Honda Civic do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 183.5.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

175 reports with mileage · 116 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.

  • Power Train. Review the 98 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Air Bags. Review the 57 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. 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.

30 crash reports4 fire reports19 injury reports

Power Train complaints

98 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Sep 3, 2021
EnginePower Train

The plug for the automatic transmission fluid pops off and allows for all contaminates and water to enter transmission unknowingly. This was noticed at 94k miles on ours and on forums is a highly reoccurring item that needs to be addressed by Honda before transmissions begin failing from a "popping" plug that falls out while dri…

Read full complaint

The plug for the automatic transmission fluid pops off and allows for all contaminates and water to enter transmission unknowingly. This was noticed at 94k miles on ours and on forums is a highly reoccurring item that needs to be addressed by Honda before transmissions begin failing from a "popping" plug that falls out while driving unbeknownst to the driver.

NHTSA ODI #11431599

167,000 miles · May 7, 2021
Power Train

I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK ON THE FREEWAY AND WHEN I GOT OFF THE FREEWAY I STOPPED AT THE STOP LIGHT WHEN IT TURNED GREEN I STARTED TO PUSH THE GAS PEDAL AND THE CAR STARTED JERKING BACK AND FORTH LIKE IT WANTED TO STALL I PUSHED ON THE GAS A LITTLE MORE AND IT CONTINUED TO JERK AT EACH STOP LIGHT WHEN I ACCELERATED. NO WARNIN…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM WORK ON THE FREEWAY AND WHEN I GOT OFF THE FREEWAY I STOPPED AT THE STOP LIGHT WHEN IT TURNED GREEN I STARTED TO PUSH THE GAS PEDAL AND THE CAR STARTED JERKING BACK AND FORTH LIKE IT WANTED TO STALL I PUSHED ON THE GAS A LITTLE MORE AND IT CONTINUED TO JERK AT EACH STOP LIGHT WHEN I ACCELERATED. NO WARNING LIGHT CAME ON NO CODES AND IT JUST HAPPENED SUDDENLY WITH OUT WARNING . I PARKED IT AND TOOK IT TO THE SHOP THE FOLLOWING MORNING

NHTSA ODI #11415552

128,000 miles · Apr 29, 2021
Power Train

I WAS DRIVING MY CAR ON THE CITY STREETS WHEN THE CVT TRANSMISSION STARTED TO MAKE THE CAR ACT ERRATIC STOP AND GO STOP AND GO. I HAD TO PUT THE TRANSMISSION IN NEUTRAL SO THAT I COULD CONTROL IT AND MOVE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I WAS SO GLAD I WASN'T ON THE FREEWAY WHEN THIS HAPPENED. I PURCHASE THE CAR USED IN APRIL OF 2015. …

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING MY CAR ON THE CITY STREETS WHEN THE CVT TRANSMISSION STARTED TO MAKE THE CAR ACT ERRATIC STOP AND GO STOP AND GO. I HAD TO PUT THE TRANSMISSION IN NEUTRAL SO THAT I COULD CONTROL IT AND MOVE TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I WAS SO GLAD I WASN'T ON THE FREEWAY WHEN THIS HAPPENED. I PURCHASE THE CAR USED IN APRIL OF 2015. I ALWAYS HAD THE CAR SERVICE AT THE DEALERSHIP WHEN SERVICE WAS DUE. AND TWO YEARS AGO I HAD TO REPLACE THE TRANSMISSION BECAUSE IT COMPLETELY SHUTDOWN AFTER GETTING OFF THE FREEWAY. AT THAT TIME THE CAR HAD WENT OVER 100K MILES SO I HAD TO PAY $2000 TO REPLACE IT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE I'M GOING TO BE PAYING $2000 AGAIN. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE CTV TRANSMISSION, UNTIL A FEW DAYS AGO WHEN I WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF ANY ONE ELSE HAD THIS PROBLEM. BECAUSE I PURCHASE THE CAR USED I WANTED TO SEE IF THE RECALL WAS TAKEN CARE OF, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT A SOFTWARE UPDATE IS THE COMPLETE FIX FOR THIS PROBLEM. SO MANY PEOPLE ARE STILL HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION. SOME WITH LOW MILEAGE LIKE MY SECOND TRANSMISSION AND MOST OF THEM FAIL AROUND 100K. I KNOW NOTHING LAST FOR EVER, AND I WILL PAY $2000 FOR A NEW TRANSMISSION IF I CAN BE SURE THAT IT WILL NOT JUST ALL OUT OF THE BLUE LOCKUP OR BRAKE PART OF THE DRIVE TRAIN AND PUT MY LIFE IN DANGER

NHTSA ODI #11414524

75,000 miles · Apr 5, 2021
Power Train

DRIVING ON 95 NORTH AROUND 4PM MONDAY 03/29/2021 WHEN TRANSMISSION FAILED. THERE WERE NO LOUD NOISES, NO SERVICE WARNINGS OR LIGHTS. CAR HAS ABOUT 75,000 MILES AND THE TRANSMISSION WAS LAST SERVICED IN 2018 AT 60,000 MILES. THE CAR HAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE RECORDS. THE RECALL (NHTSA ID: 15V574000) WAS PERFORMED IN 2016 WHICH WAS …

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON 95 NORTH AROUND 4PM MONDAY 03/29/2021 WHEN TRANSMISSION FAILED. THERE WERE NO LOUD NOISES, NO SERVICE WARNINGS OR LIGHTS. CAR HAS ABOUT 75,000 MILES AND THE TRANSMISSION WAS LAST SERVICED IN 2018 AT 60,000 MILES. THE CAR HAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE RECORDS. THE RECALL (NHTSA ID: 15V574000) WAS PERFORMED IN 2016 WHICH WAS A SOFTWARE UPDATE DUE TO A MECHANICAL TRANSMISSION PROBLEM.

NHTSA ODI #11406511

82,000 miles · Mar 7, 2021
Power Train

TRANSMISSION FILL PLUG POPPED OUT OF ITS POSITION ON TOP OF THE TRANSMISSION FILL PORT. CAUSING LEAKING TRANS FLUID AND NOW TRANSMISSION FAILED.

NHTSA ODI #11399633

Mileage unknown · Mar 3, 2021
Power Train

TRANSMISSION FILL PLUG POPPING OUT OF ITS POSITION ON TOP OF THE TRANSMISSION FILL PORT. CAUSING LEAKING TRANS FLUID AND POSSIBLE TRANSMISSION FAILURE. DEALERSHIP HAS CHECKED THIS ISSUE 1 TIME AND STATES THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED. LESS THAN 3 DAYS LATER THE SAME ISSUE OCCURRED.

NHTSA ODI #11399012

127,000 miles · Jan 21, 2021
Power Train

ON JANUARY 17,2021, I WAS DRIVING ON A 2 LANE ROAD GOING APPROXIMATELY 75 MPH (THE SPEED LIMIT) AND ALL OF A SUDDEN ALL OF MY CARS WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON AND THE CAR STARTED DECELERATING. WHEN I PUSHED ON THE ACCELERATOR, THE CAR REVED BUT DIDN'T PICK UP SPEED. I PULLED OVER OFF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF AND THEN BACK ON.…

Read full complaint

ON JANUARY 17,2021, I WAS DRIVING ON A 2 LANE ROAD GOING APPROXIMATELY 75 MPH (THE SPEED LIMIT) AND ALL OF A SUDDEN ALL OF MY CARS WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON AND THE CAR STARTED DECELERATING. WHEN I PUSHED ON THE ACCELERATOR, THE CAR REVED BUT DIDN'T PICK UP SPEED. I PULLED OVER OFF THE ROAD AND TURNED THE CAR OFF AND THEN BACK ON. THE CAR WOULD START BUT NOTHING HAPPENS WHEN I PRESSED ON THE ACCELERATOR. I HAD MY CAR TOWED TO A HONDA DEALERSHIP AN HOUR AWAY AND THEY SAID IT'S GOING TO BE $6000 TO REPLACE THE TRANSMISSION. THEY SAID MY SPECIFIC CAR HAD NO RECALLS ON IT AND THAT SOMETIMES THINGS JUST BREAK. THE MECHANIC NOTED THAT MY CAR IS IN EXCELLENT SHAPE OTHERWISE.

NHTSA ODI #11389223

150,000 miles · Oct 14, 2020
Power Train

WHILE I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY INTERSTATE WITH NUMEROUS CARS AROUND ME, MY CAR GAVE A SMALL JERK. AFTER THIS, MY CAR MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT HAD NO POWER. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS, NO POWER BEHIND IT. I WAS COASTING AND SLOWING DOWN. AFTER ALMOST GETTING RUN OVER BY THE VEHICLE BEHIND ME, I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF T…

Read full complaint

WHILE I WAS DRIVING DOWN A BUSY INTERSTATE WITH NUMEROUS CARS AROUND ME, MY CAR GAVE A SMALL JERK. AFTER THIS, MY CAR MOTOR WAS STILL RUNNING, BUT HAD NO POWER. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS, NO POWER BEHIND IT. I WAS COASTING AND SLOWING DOWN. AFTER ALMOST GETTING RUN OVER BY THE VEHICLE BEHIND ME, I WAS ABLE TO COAST TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SIMILAR COMPLAINTS WITH THE TRANSMISSION FOR THIS YEAR MODEL.

NHTSA ODI #11364379

90,000 miles · Sep 3, 2020
Power TrainUnknown Or Other

I BOUGHT THE CAR BRAND NEW IN EARLY 2015. NEVER HAD SO MUCH AS A SLIP IN THE TRANSMISSION. GOT A RECALL NOTICE IN 2015 ABOUT A SENSOR FOR MAKING THE "CHECK TIRE PRESSURE" LIGHT STAY ON WHEN STARTING THE CAR. HONDA TELLS ME THEY FIXED THIS IN DECEMBER 2015. ON AUGUST 27, 2020, WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD ON A VERY DANGEROUS HIG…

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT THE CAR BRAND NEW IN EARLY 2015. NEVER HAD SO MUCH AS A SLIP IN THE TRANSMISSION. GOT A RECALL NOTICE IN 2015 ABOUT A SENSOR FOR MAKING THE "CHECK TIRE PRESSURE" LIGHT STAY ON WHEN STARTING THE CAR. HONDA TELLS ME THEY FIXED THIS IN DECEMBER 2015. ON AUGUST 27, 2020, WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD ON A VERY DANGEROUS HIGHWAY, THE TRANSMISSION JUST STOPPED. NO NOISE, NO POP, NO STUTTER. THE CAR STARTED DECELERATING AND EVERY ERROR MESSAGE KNOWN TO MAN CAME ON THE SCREEN. CHECK POWER STEERING, CHECK TMP SYSTEM, CHECK ENGINE, CHECK TRANSMISSION, ETC. I WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER, BARELY GETTING ACROSS THE LINE AND HAVING TO SIT AND PRAY FOR HALF AN HOUR THAT THE HUGE CARS BARRELING TOWARD ME WOULD NOT HIT ME. GOT IT TOWED TO KING HONDA. A TECHNICIAN CALLED FIVE DAYS LATER AND SAID THE TRANSMISSION IS SHOT. I CAN EITHER PAY $6000 FOR A TRANSMISSION FROM HONDA, OR I CAN PAY $2000 FOR A USED TRANSMISSION. HE SAID THE DRIVE SHAFT PULLEY BROKE. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE RECALL NUMBER 15V574000 THAT SAYS THE SOFTWARE SETTINGS THAT CONTROL THE TRANSMISSION OPERATION MAY RESULT IN DAMAGE TO THE TRANSMISSION DRIVE PULLEY SHAFT. HE SAID THERE WAS NO RECALL ON MY CAR. HE SAID HE'D TALK TO HIS MANAGER AND CALL ME BACK. HE LEFT A MESSAGE SAYING THE TRANSMISSION HAS COME APART ON THE INSIDE AND I WOULD NEED A NEW ONE. IN THE MEANTIME, I'D CALLED THE DEALER WHERE I PURCHASED THE CAR. THE MAN TOLD ME IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED. I ASKED ABOUT THE RECALL. HE SAID IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. MY HUSBAND CALLED AND THE MAN LISTENED TO HIM AND AGREED THAT THESE THINGS DON'T "JUST HAPPEN" TO A HONDA THAT IS LESS THAN 100,000 MILES WITH NO NOTICE, NO PROBLEMS, NO NOISE. HE AGREED TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE CAR AND SAID IF THE DRIVE SHAFT PULLEY IS IN FACT BROKEN, IT WOULD BE RELATED TO THE RECALL. WE TOWED IT TONIGHT AND WILL WAIT TO SEE WHAT THEY SAY.

NHTSA ODI #11352900

41,000 miles · Jul 6, 2020
Power Train

STARTER CLUTCH SHUDDER/JUDDER STARTED BEFORE 41K MILES. THIS IS A LONG TERM (DECADES) KNOWN DESIGN ISSUE WITH HONDA CIVIC HYBRIDS. THIS CAN IMPAIR ABILITY OF VEHICLE TO START IN TRAFFIC FROM A FULL STOP AND/OR PREVENT VEHICLE FROM BEING ABLE TO TRAVEL UP HILLS. DEALER RECOMMENDS $380 'BURNISHING' PROCEDURE AS A 'FIRST STEP'. …

Read full complaint

STARTER CLUTCH SHUDDER/JUDDER STARTED BEFORE 41K MILES. THIS IS A LONG TERM (DECADES) KNOWN DESIGN ISSUE WITH HONDA CIVIC HYBRIDS. THIS CAN IMPAIR ABILITY OF VEHICLE TO START IN TRAFFIC FROM A FULL STOP AND/OR PREVENT VEHICLE FROM BEING ABLE TO TRAVEL UP HILLS. DEALER RECOMMENDS $380 'BURNISHING' PROCEDURE AS A 'FIRST STEP'. STARTER CLUTCH REPLACEMENT IS THE NEXT STEP (>= $2000). VEHICLE JUST LEFT WARRANTY IN DECEMBER 2019.

NHTSA ODI #11337711

Official recalls

2

15V574000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

Sep 15, 2015

Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain model year 2014-2015 Civic vehicles manufactured January 16, 2014, to November 6, 2014 and 2015 Fit vehicles manufactured March 12, 2014, to May 12, 2015. The software settings that control the transmission operation may result in damage to the transmission drive pulley shaft.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If the transmission drive pulley shaft is damaged, it may break, and the vehicle may lose acceleration or the front wheels may lock up while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the transmission, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin October 30, 2015. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's numbers for this recall are JU2 (Civic) and JU3(Fit).

14V109000 · Tires:bead

Mar 10, 2014

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) is recalling certain model year 2014 Honda Civic LX vehicles manufactured November 26, 2013, through January 21, 2014. In the affected vehicles, during mounting of the tires, the tire bead may have gotten pinched between the assembly equipment and the steel wheel rims, resulting in damage to the tire.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: The tire damage could cause the tire to lose air, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will inspect and replace any damaged tire, free of charge. The recall began on April 15, 2014. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009. Honda's number for this recall is JD8.

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 Honda Civic problems