I was driving home from work and as I took off from a standstill, I accelerated and my car began to reach 4000-5000 RPM immediately but my speedometer read 4-6 mph. I made it to through the intersection and drove until I reached a safe parking lot. It began puttering through the parking lot, almost jerking, but sounded like I w…
Read full complaint
I was driving home from work and as I took off from a standstill, I accelerated and my car began to reach 4000-5000 RPM immediately but my speedometer read 4-6 mph. I made it to through the intersection and drove until I reached a safe parking lot. It began puttering through the parking lot, almost jerking, but sounded like I was accelerating at top speeds. Then, it stopped completely. I had it towed to a mechanic that I trust and it turns out that my transmission plug/cap was missing entirely, and all my transmission fluid leaked out without any notice, warning light, or message. I had driven without the cap for days likely before the car began to fail. I was alone and driving in the dark when it occurred which made me panic even more trying to get out of the road in rush hour traffic. After the tow truck began to drive away, I found this puddle of transmission fluid on the concrete. After the mechanic inspected and diagnosed all the damages/failures, he informed me that my entire transmission needs to be replaced along with other affected parts including a pump, new transmission cap, and transmission fluid. I found several other complaints reported to NHTSA about others having the same transmission failure and missing transmission cap/plug. This is my daily driver to/from work as well as transportation for me to take my parents to doctors appointments. Now, not only am I without a mode of transportation to work/medical appointments, but I am having to replace or rebuild the transmission. I was quoted $5366 for a new transmission…WITHOUT labor, replacement cap, new fluid. All for a $25 cap that popped off…NHTSA or Honda need to address this issue and find a solution. I could have been injured trying to navigate to a safe place while my car was stalling and sputtering.
NHTSA ODI #11493736
Mileage unknown · Nov 1, 2022
Fuel/propulsion System
Unknown Fumes have been seeping into the vehicle causing driver to be lethargic, and hallucinogenic and a terrible smell to seep into the car.
NHTSA ODI #11491832
Mileage unknown · Aug 5, 2020
Fuel/propulsion System
I HAVE 89000 MILES ON THIS VEHICLE OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS MY JUNE CONSUMPTION HAS DECREASED 12-25 MILES PER GALLON. UNDER SIMILAR DRIVING CONDITIONS MY MILEAGE DROPPED FROM AVG OF 50MPG TO 42 MPG. HONDA DEALER INFORMED ME THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM DRIVING CONDITIONS ARE DAILY 8-10 STOP & GO AND HIGHWAY DR…
Read full complaint
I HAVE 89000 MILES ON THIS VEHICLE OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS MY JUNE CONSUMPTION HAS DECREASED 12-25 MILES PER GALLON. UNDER SIMILAR DRIVING CONDITIONS MY MILEAGE DROPPED FROM AVG OF 50MPG TO 42 MPG. HONDA DEALER INFORMED ME THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM DRIVING CONDITIONS ARE DAILY 8-10 STOP & GO AND HIGHWAY DRIVING AT SNAGGED OF 45 MPG
NHTSA ODI #11343493
28,000 miles · Dec 15, 2019
Fuel/propulsion System
VEHICLE STALL DAILY AFTER A STOP. I RETURNED IT TO THE HONDA DEALER WHO TOLD ME , "THAT WAS NORMAL!" I UNDERSTAND THE 2016 THRU 2019 MODELS WERE RECALLED FOR THIS PROBLEM BUT MY 2015 STALLS DAILY WHEN STARTING FROM A STOP! WHAT DO I DO NEXT???
NHTSA ODI #11289111
28,500 miles · Aug 4, 2019
Fuel/propulsion System
MY VEHICLE STALLS SEVERAL TIMES A DAY WHEN STARTING FROM A STOPPED POSITION.
NHTSA ODI #11241637
20,600 miles · Jan 4, 2019
Fuel/propulsion System
CAR ENTERED A PARKING SPOT WITH THE CLUCH PLACED IN PARK. SUDDENLY THE CAR ABRUPTLY STARTED WENT OVER THE CURB WAS STOPPED BY A CAR PARKED OPPOSITE SIDE. ABOUT 15 MIN. LATER THE LIGHTS WENT ON. THERE WAS NO MOVEMENT WHEN PLACED IN PARK.
NHTSA ODI #11165205
20,600 miles · Jan 4, 2019
Fuel/propulsion System
CAR ENTERED A PARKING SPOT WITH THE CLUCH PLACED IN PARK. SUDDENLY THE CAR ABRUPTLY WENT OVER THE CURB WAS STOPPED BY A CAR PARKED OPPOSITE SIDE. ABOUT 15 MIN. LATER THE LIGHTS WENT ON. THERE WAS NO MOVEMENT WHEN PLACED IN PARK.
NHTSA ODI #11165204
8,500 miles · Aug 2, 2016
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemSteeringCrashFire
MY DAUGHTER (17 YEARS OLD) WAS DRIVING AT 35 MILES IN LEONA VALLEY CA ON LAST FRIDAY 2015 HER HONDA CIVIC (7,000 MILES ON ODOMETER). HER CAR LOW-PRESSURE AIR LIGHT CAME ON AND THEN CAR STARTED TO SWERVE VIOLENTLY LEFT TO RIGHT. WITHIN FEW MINUTES THE CAR BRAKES STOPPED FUNCTIONING (ACCORDING TO HER, IT FELT SHE WAS PUSHING ON …
Read full complaint
MY DAUGHTER (17 YEARS OLD) WAS DRIVING AT 35 MILES IN LEONA VALLEY CA ON LAST FRIDAY 2015 HER HONDA CIVIC (7,000 MILES ON ODOMETER). HER CAR LOW-PRESSURE AIR LIGHT CAME ON AND THEN CAR STARTED TO SWERVE VIOLENTLY LEFT TO RIGHT. WITHIN FEW MINUTES THE CAR BRAKES STOPPED FUNCTIONING (ACCORDING TO HER, IT FELT SHE WAS PUSHING ON AIR WHEN SHE PRESSED THE BRAKE PADDLE) AND THEN THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED. THE CAR ENDED UP ON ITS SIDE AND CAUGHT FIRE. IT STARTED A BRUSH FIRE (25 ACRES) HERE IN CA. WHEN MY DAUGHTER AND HER TWO FRIENDS TRIED TO GET OUT THE DOOR, THE OTHER DOOR WON'T OPEN. THEY HAD TO JUMP OUT OF THE SUN ROOF. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHAT CAUSED THE FIRE AND WHY DID THE CAR'S BRAKES AND STEERING WHEEL LOCKED? WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO FIND OUT WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ROOT CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT?
NHTSA ODI #10892410
14,000 miles · May 18, 2016
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other
I REPORTED DURING THE LAST OIL CHANGE THAT THE CAR WAS STALLING SPECIFICALLY WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE BETWEEN 10 MPH & 30 MPH. THE CAR STALLS, AND HAS EVEN COMPLETELY STOPPED FOR A FULL 60 SECONDS WHILE TRYING TO CHANGE LANES IN TRAFFIC EVEN THOUGH THE GAS PEDAL WAS COMPLETED DEPRESSED. THIS ALMOST CAUSED ME TO HAVE AN ACCIDEN…
Read full complaint
I REPORTED DURING THE LAST OIL CHANGE THAT THE CAR WAS STALLING SPECIFICALLY WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE BETWEEN 10 MPH & 30 MPH. THE CAR STALLS, AND HAS EVEN COMPLETELY STOPPED FOR A FULL 60 SECONDS WHILE TRYING TO CHANGE LANES IN TRAFFIC EVEN THOUGH THE GAS PEDAL WAS COMPLETED DEPRESSED. THIS ALMOST CAUSED ME TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT. THE TECH SAID IT WAS DUE TO THE ECON BUTTON AND THE ENGINE TRYING TO CONSERVE ENERGY. I WAS TOLD TO NOT USE THE ECON BUTTON (ALTHOUGH THIS IS SUPPOSE TO SAVE ME MONEY ON GAS AND FUEL EFFICIENCY AND PART OF THE ALLURE OF THE VEHICLE.) DESPITE THAT I HAVE HAD THE ECON BUTTON OFF AND THE CAR CONTINUES TO STALL AND NOT ACCELERATE PROPERLY. AGAIN THIS IS USUALLY BETWEEN 10 MPG TO 30 MPH. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A TRANSMISSION PROBLEM OR PART OF THE PISTOL PIN SNAP RING PROBLEM OR EVEN POSSIBLY A FUEL INJECTOR PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM APPEARS TO BE GETTING WORSE AND OCCURRING MORE FREQUENTLY. MY HUSBAND HAS THE SAME TYPE AND YEAR VEHICLE AND HIS DOES NOT BEHAVE THE SAME WAY. HIS ACCELERATION APPEARS TO BE FINE AND DOES NOT STALL AS MINE DOES. ALSO THE TIRE PRESSURE GAUGE HAS COME ON TWICE FOR NO APPARENT REASON. ONCE WAS 8-15-15 DURING A 4 HOUR ROAD TRIP WHICH OCCURRED AFTER WE ARRIVED. THE 2ND TIME WAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER I RETURNED HOME FROM MY LAST OIL CHANGE IN 4-2016. THIS IS THE (3RD) REPORTED PROBLEM WITH THIS VEHICLE. PROBLEM (1) WAS THE STAINED HEADLINER (6/2015)WHICH WAS REPLACED AND HAS NOT HAD ANY FURTHER ISSUES (2) WAS THE CENTER CONSOLE PIN COMING LOOSE AND POPPING UP (4-2016) WHICH HAS CURRENTLY REMAINED INTACT AND NOW THE ACCELERATION IS GETTING WORSE. (CONTINUOUSLY).
NHTSA ODI #10865714
9,100 miles · Sep 24, 2015
Fuel/propulsion System
9/22/2015 APPROXIMATELY AROUND 3:30PM I WENT TO START MY CAR TO LEAVE MY HOME TO DO AN ERRAND. I SMELL GASOLINE. I DID NOT THINK ANYTHING ABOUT THE SMELL. I PROCEED TO DRIVING TO MY DESTINATION. I WAS ABOUT MILE FROM MY HOME, ANOTHER CAR PULLED UP BESIDE ME AND HONKED HORN INFORMED ME THAT CAR WAS LEAKING GAS. I PULLED OVER TO …
Read full complaint
9/22/2015 APPROXIMATELY AROUND 3:30PM I WENT TO START MY CAR TO LEAVE MY HOME TO DO AN ERRAND. I SMELL GASOLINE. I DID NOT THINK ANYTHING ABOUT THE SMELL. I PROCEED TO DRIVING TO MY DESTINATION. I WAS ABOUT MILE FROM MY HOME, ANOTHER CAR PULLED UP BESIDE ME AND HONKED HORN INFORMED ME THAT CAR WAS LEAKING GAS. I PULLED OVER TO CHECK AND SAW CAR WAS LEAKING CAR. I OPEN GAS DOOR TO SEE IF GAS CAP WAS OFF CHAMBERS. IT WAS NOT. I TURN CAR AROUND AND PROCEED BACK HOME. WHILE HEADING BACK HOME OTHER CARS HONKED AT ME AND INFORMED ME OF LEAKAGE. AFTER I GOT I HAD MY HUSBAND TO CHECK THE CAR. THE WHEN TURNED THE IGNITION OFF THE CAR STOP LEAKING FUEL. WHEN TURNED BACK ON IT START LEAKING AGAIN. HE SAW THE LEAKAGE FROM THE FUEL LINE. I CALLED DEALERSHIP (CREST HONDA) AND INFORMED THEM OF THE PROBLEM. I HAD MY CAR TOW TO DEALERSHIP. 9/23/15 RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE DEALERSHIP STATING THAT A RODENT HAD EATEN THROUGH MY FUEL LINE. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY ISSUES WITH FUEL SYSTEM BEFORE 9/22/15. I HAVE BEEN DRIVING THE CAR DAILY. I HAD JUST DRIVEN THE CAR ON 9/21/15 DOING ERRANDS AND THERE WERE NOT ANY SIGNS OF SMELLING GAS OR FUEL LEAKAGE. I DO NOT BELIEVE A RODENT COULD HAVE EATEN THROUGH MY FUEL OVERNIGHT. THERE WERE 3 OTHER CARS SITTING IN MY DRIVEWAY OVERNIGHT. I HAVE BEEN AT MY RESIDENCE FOR 20 YEARS NEVER HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH A CAR OF A RODENT EATING THROUGH A FUEL LINE OR ANY OTHER ITEMS ON THE OUTSIDE OF MY HOME. I PURCHASED CAR BRAND NEW 2/2015 ONLY OWNER.
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).
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.