Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
760–25K
3625–50K
1450–75K
2675–100K
15100–150K
8150K+
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
What owners actually said
291 reports
9,000 miles · Aug 29, 2014
Air Bags
WHILE DRIVING ALONG AT NORMAL SPEEDS, MY VEHICLE ALERTED ME THAT THE AIRBAG SYSTEM NEEDED TO BE CHECKED. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AND AN APPOINTMENT WAS MADE FOR ME TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN FOR INSPECTION. I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO FIND…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ALONG AT NORMAL SPEEDS, MY VEHICLE ALERTED ME THAT THE AIRBAG SYSTEM NEEDED TO BE CHECKED. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AND AN APPOINTMENT WAS MADE FOR ME TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN FOR INSPECTION. I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM. THE SRS LIGHT WAS RESET AND I WAS ADVISED TO CONTACT THE DEALERSHIP IF THE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. I DID NOT MAKE IT HOME BEFORE THE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. I AGAIN CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS ADVISED THAT I WOULD NEED TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN AND LEAVE IT ALL DAY FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT IS CAUSING THE LIGHT TO COME ON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10629503
3,500 miles · Jul 24, 2014
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
HAD TO APPLY BRAKE WITH LEFT FOOT AND THEN APPLY GAS PEDDLE WITH RIGHT FOOT FOR IMMEDIATE ACCELERATION TO AVOID ACCIDENT. UPON APPLYING BRAKE AND THEN THE GAS CAR BOGGED AS IF TO STALL ALMOST CAUSING ANOTHER ACCIDENT. THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE INITIAL INCIDENT. I TOOK CAR TO FOX HONDA, MICHIGAN (DEALER WHERE CAR WAS …
Read full complaint
HAD TO APPLY BRAKE WITH LEFT FOOT AND THEN APPLY GAS PEDDLE WITH RIGHT FOOT FOR IMMEDIATE ACCELERATION TO AVOID ACCIDENT. UPON APPLYING BRAKE AND THEN THE GAS CAR BOGGED AS IF TO STALL ALMOST CAUSING ANOTHER ACCIDENT. THIS HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE INITIAL INCIDENT. I TOOK CAR TO FOX HONDA, MICHIGAN (DEALER WHERE CAR WAS LEASED FROM) AND THEY INDICATED THAT I SHOULDN'T BREAK WITH LEFT AND THEN GIVE IT GAS WITH RIGHT. UNFORTUNATELY THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN ONE SCENARIO WHERE THIS WAS NEEDED TO BE DONE AND IN EACH CASE IT BOGGED TO POINT OF STALL BEFORE ACCELERATING. DEALERSHIP SAID THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10615956
200 miles · Jul 17, 2014
Electronic Stability Control (esc)
THE VEHICLE STABILITY ASSIST (WHICH ALSO AFFECTS THE TRACTION) DOES NOT WORK. THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO COME ON EACH TIME YOU START THE CAR. IT CAN ONLY BE TURNED OFF MANUALLY. MY CAR SHOWS THE SYSTEM IS OFF AT ALL TIMES. I AM UNABLE TO TURN IT ON MANUALLY. THE OWNER'S MANUAL SAYS THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN WITH THE S…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE STABILITY ASSIST (WHICH ALSO AFFECTS THE TRACTION) DOES NOT WORK. THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO COME ON EACH TIME YOU START THE CAR. IT CAN ONLY BE TURNED OFF MANUALLY. MY CAR SHOWS THE SYSTEM IS OFF AT ALL TIMES. I AM UNABLE TO TURN IT ON MANUALLY. THE OWNER'S MANUAL SAYS THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN WITH THE SYSTEM OFF. HONDA SAYS THEY ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, BUT CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE ANY WAY TO FIX IT. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUE. THE OIL LIFE SCREEN HAS ALSO DISAPPEARED FROM THE INFORMATION SCREEN IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. AGAIN, HONDA HAS NO SOLUTION. THIS IS THE SAME VEHICLE REFERENCED IN COMPLAINT #10598540. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10611338
600 miles · Jun 16, 2014
Tires
THE CAR WAS TWO WEEKS OLD WHEN THE TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEM WARNING LIGHT CAME ON WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE TIRE PRESSURE. THE CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SERVICE SHOP ON 3 OCCASIONS FOR A TOTAL OF SIX AND ONE HALF DAYS AND THE PROBLEM IS NOT RESOLVED. AS OF 6/4/14, HONDA INDICATES THAT TH…
Read full complaint
THE CAR WAS TWO WEEKS OLD WHEN THE TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEM WARNING LIGHT CAME ON WHILE TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE TIRE PRESSURE. THE CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SERVICE SHOP ON 3 OCCASIONS FOR A TOTAL OF SIX AND ONE HALF DAYS AND THE PROBLEM IS NOT RESOLVED. AS OF 6/4/14, HONDA INDICATES THAT THE COMPUTER IS NOT READING THE TIRE PRESSURE CORRECTLY AND THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO FIX IT.THEY SAY MAY HAVE A SOLUTION SOMETIME IN JULY 2014. THE WARNING LIGHT CONTINUES TO COME ON AT RANDOM INTERVALS AND VARIOUS SPEEDS, MAKING THE WARNING SYSTEM USELESS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10598540
275 miles · Jun 11, 2014
Exterior Lighting
SORRY -- THIS IS TO DELETE MY COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 9. NOTHING'S WRONG AFTER ALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10597540
275 miles · Jun 9, 2014
Exterior Lighting
WHEN I STARTED THE CAR AT DUSK AND TRIED TO PUT THE NIGHT-TIME HEADLIGHTS ON, ALL THE INTERIOR LIGHTING WENT OFF. WHEN I SWITCHED TO DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS, THE INTERIOR LIGHTS WENT BACK ON. TESTED A FEW TIMES, AND EVERY TIME THE NIGHT-TIME HEADLIGHTS WIPED OUT THE INTERIOR LIGHTS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10597272
1,700 miles · May 30, 2014
Tires
I WAS TURNING INTO DRIVEWAY RIGHT FRONT TIRE BARLEY HIT CURB, TIRE WENT FLAT, CALLED AUTO CLUB THEY CHANGED TO SPARE, WENT TO TIRE STORE, THEY SAID TIRE WAS NOT REPAIRABLE. I BOUGHT NEW REPLACEMENT TIRE ,DIFFERENT BRAND. VERY POOR QUALITY OE TIRES, TIRES SHOULD NOT FAIL THAT EASILY. ONLY 1700 MILES ON NEW CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10595205
165 miles · Apr 21, 2014
Air BagsCrashInjury
I, [XXX], ATTEST THAT THE EVENT DESCRIBED BELOW IS THE TRUTH OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ACCIDENT ON 03/30/2014. SIDE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOYED. ON SUNDAY MARCH 30, 2014 I HIT VERY BY ANOTHER CAR THAT RAN THE RED LIGHT. THE GALANT WAS GOING AT A SPEED OF 55 MPH WHEN IT HIT ME, THE FORCE WAS GREAT THAT THE CARS THEN SMACKED TOGETHER…
Read full complaint
I, [XXX], ATTEST THAT THE EVENT DESCRIBED BELOW IS THE TRUTH OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ACCIDENT ON 03/30/2014. SIDE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOYED. ON SUNDAY MARCH 30, 2014 I HIT VERY BY ANOTHER CAR THAT RAN THE RED LIGHT. THE GALANT WAS GOING AT A SPEED OF 55 MPH WHEN IT HIT ME, THE FORCE WAS GREAT THAT THE CARS THEN SMACKED TOGETHER AND SPRANG OUT AGAIN. I NOTICE THAT THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY; SIDE OR EVEN FRONT. I CALLED MY PARENTS. THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL ARRIVED. FIVE MINUTES LATER MY PARENTS ARRIVED. THE JSO AND FHP THEN IGNORED ME FOR 20 MINUTES, WHILE THEY TALKED WITH THE OTHER DRIVER. DAMAGE WAS FRONT DRIVER SIDE WHEEL WAS BENT SLIGHTLY IN-WARD AT AN ANGLE, AXLE ROD AND STRUT SHOT, WHEEL WELL HAD DE-WELDED FROM THE MAIN BODY. CRUMPLED AROUND THE DRIVER SIDE WHEEL, DRIVER SIDE DOORS WHERE NOT DENTED BUT A SLIGHT WARP WAS IN THE DOORS SO THEY DID NOT COMPLETE TOP CLOSURE. REAR DRIVER SIDE LAMP AND BUMPER CRACKED/DETACHED. IN THE INTERIOR, THE CENTER CONSOLE WHERE THE GEAR SHIFT WAS HAD POPPED THE PLASTIC. MY VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO PEARL COLLISION CENTER, WHO ESTIMATED THAT THEY COULD FIX THE DAMAGE. WHEN I QUESTIONED THIS, THE REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT THE CAR WAS NOT TOTALED DUE TO DAMAGE WAS DEEMED 30% OF THE ACTUAL COST OF THE VEHICLE VALUE. I QUESTIONED WHY THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY AND IF THEY WOULD BE CHECKED. I WAS HIT PRETTY HARD AND WHY HAVE AIR BAGS FOR SAFETY IF THEY DON''T WORK. I ALSO QUESTIONED THE TRANSMISSION AND ENGINE. STATE FARM WOULD NOT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR WOULD AMERICA HONDA ABOUT THOROUGHLY CHECKING THE AIR BAGS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10584077
12 miles · Apr 13, 2014
Equipment Adaptive/mobilityInjury
I LEASED A NEW HONDA CIVIC AND I CAN NOT DRIVE IT WITHOUT EXCRUCIATING PAIN IN MY NECK. THE HEADRESTS SHOVE MY HEAD FORWARD AND I CAN NOT FIND A COMFORTABLE POSITION. I AM HEARTBROKEN, ANGRY AND IN PAIN. AFTER MY FIRST 30 MINUTE DRIVE IN THIS CAR, I RESEARCHED ONLINE THIS ISSUE AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WITH THE S…
Read full complaint
I LEASED A NEW HONDA CIVIC AND I CAN NOT DRIVE IT WITHOUT EXCRUCIATING PAIN IN MY NECK. THE HEADRESTS SHOVE MY HEAD FORWARD AND I CAN NOT FIND A COMFORTABLE POSITION. I AM HEARTBROKEN, ANGRY AND IN PAIN. AFTER MY FIRST 30 MINUTE DRIVE IN THIS CAR, I RESEARCHED ONLINE THIS ISSUE AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WITH THE SAME PROBLEM DUE TO THE NEW HEAD RESTRAINT REGULATIONS. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED A 3 YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT IF I HAD KNOWN THAT I WAS AGREEING TO PAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THREE YEARS OF PAIN. I'VE TRIED ADJUSTING THE SEAT HEIGHT, ADJUSTING THE TILT OF THE SEAT AND THE HEADREST HEIGHT IN EVERY COMBINATION I CAN THINK OF AND ALL I CAN ACHIEVE IS A BARELY TOLERABLE DRIVING POSITION WHERE I CAN BARELY SEE OVER THE DASHBOARD AND THE HEADREST IS RAISED HIGH ENOUGH THAT IT DOESN'T TOUCH MY HEAD - NOR PROTECT IT AS DESIGNED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS MAINLY AN ISSUE WITH PASSIVE HEADRESTS AND THAT THE ACTIVE HEADRESTS ARE A BETTER DESIGN THAT STAY OUT OF THE DRIVER'S SPACE. MY ONLY OPTION WILL BE TO REVERSE THE HEADREST FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND HOPE MY CAR ISN'T REAR ENDED. ALTHOUGH HAVING MY NEW CAR TOTALED WOULD BE A BLESSING BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO FIND A VEHICLE TO DRIVE THAT DOESN'T HURT ME PHYSICALLY. I SEE THAT THESE FORWARD TILTING HEADREST COMPLAINTS ONLINE GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2008 WHEN THE NEW REGULATIONS CAME OUT THAT FORCED CAR MANUFACTURERS TO PRODUCE VEHICLES THAT TORTURE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR. I WOULD HAVE GLADLY PAID $200 OR $300 MORE FOR AN ACTIVE RESTRAINT SYSTEM THAT STAYED OUT OF MY WAY. THE NHTSA SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR THEIR DISGUSTING CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO SUFFER EVERY DAY DUE TO THESE GOVERNMENT-REQUIRED HEADRESTS FORCING THEIR NECKS AND SPINES INTO UNNATURAL AND PAINFUL POSITIONS. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10579403
1,500 miles · Feb 21, 2014
Visibility/wiper
WINDSHIELD WIPERS HAVE A DESIGN FLAW. THE RUBBER BLADE FLOATS BACK INTO A HOUSING, IN FREEZING CONDITIONS, ICE BUILDS UP IN THE HOUSING, THE RUBBER PART GETS STUCK IN THE HOUSING AND LOSES CONTACT WITH THE WINDSHIELD. CAN HAPPEN SUDDENLY, WITHOUT WARNING. THIS SEVERELY IMPAIRS VISIBILITY AND CREATES A DANGEROUS DRIVING SITUATIO…
Read full complaint
WINDSHIELD WIPERS HAVE A DESIGN FLAW. THE RUBBER BLADE FLOATS BACK INTO A HOUSING, IN FREEZING CONDITIONS, ICE BUILDS UP IN THE HOUSING, THE RUBBER PART GETS STUCK IN THE HOUSING AND LOSES CONTACT WITH THE WINDSHIELD. CAN HAPPEN SUDDENLY, WITHOUT WARNING. THIS SEVERELY IMPAIRS VISIBILITY AND CREATES A DANGEROUS DRIVING SITUATION. LIVED IN MICHIGAN MY WHOLE LIFE, THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND ANY NORMAL WIPER PROBLEMS IN THE WINTER. WENT TO HONDA SERVICE CENTER, THEY DECLINED TO HELP. *TR
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).
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.