← New search

2015 Honda Civic

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Civic years

Owner complaints for the 2015 Honda Civic are substantially higher than the model-year median of 183.5.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

200 reports with mileage · 180 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 176 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Air Bags. Review the 58 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 31 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

37 crash reports2 fire reports18 injury reports

Unknown Or Other complaints

58 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Nov 24, 2025
Unknown Or Other

The transmission blew, despite only having 90,000 miles

NHTSA ODI #11701329

Mileage unknown · Jul 11, 2025
Power TrainUnknown Or Other

Failed tramission.

NHTSA ODI #11672909

Mileage unknown · Feb 19, 2025
EngineUnknown Or Other

My husband and I purchased a 2015 Honda Civic 3 years ago. We have maintained proper maintenance and have the documentation on this. At 118,000 ish miles, my [XXX] son was merging onto the interstate at night just a day or so after a snowstorm. As he was merging the car unexpectedly began to lose power. He tried to compensat…

Read full complaint

My husband and I purchased a 2015 Honda Civic 3 years ago. We have maintained proper maintenance and have the documentation on this. At 118,000 ish miles, my [XXX] son was merging onto the interstate at night just a day or so after a snowstorm. As he was merging the car unexpectedly began to lose power. He tried to compensate by pushing the gas harder but realized her needed to pull over. The merge lane had construction cones and there was a bank of snow on the shoulder prohibiting him from getting over safely. He contacted the police he came out and he contacted a tow truck. He had to sit at the end of a merge lane for 45 minutes before a police officer could get there. We are fortunate he was not plowed by a semi or other vehicle. The car was towed to Richmond Car & Truck Center. After inspection, it was determined a new motor was needed. We paid to have that replaced only to be told after that it was still not operable. The transmission was out. The likely-hood of a motor and transmission going out was practically unheard of. The mechanic was even at a loss. I researched and found my son's make/model did have a recall on the transmission although, his was not part of that. We are thankful he is safe but I have never heard of a Honda losing a transmission/engine at 118,000 miles. We believe this is a transmission flaw. No warning light was ever illuminated and no issues of a problem ever existed until this incident. We have documentation. This has been reported to Honda but I have not received a response. I fear this may happen to someone else. What options do we have? INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #11643711

Mileage unknown · Feb 11, 2025
Unknown Or Other

When can I take the car in to get checked and where. it is making a zooming noise, kind of like an airplane

NHTSA ODI #11642076

Mileage unknown · Jan 27, 2025
EnginePower TrainUnknown Or Other

While I was driving on the highway I heard a rattling noise in the engine bay and every single light and system showed a malfunction on my dash. Then I was not able to accelerate and had to roll to a stop. This was extremely dangerous both for me and for the other vehicles on the highway because the speed limit was 55 MPH and be…

Read full complaint

While I was driving on the highway I heard a rattling noise in the engine bay and every single light and system showed a malfunction on my dash. Then I was not able to accelerate and had to roll to a stop. This was extremely dangerous both for me and for the other vehicles on the highway because the speed limit was 55 MPH and between not knowing why all of my system warning lights turned on I didn't even notice that I was not accelerating anymore for a few moments. The worst part was that the area in which I was driving had no shoulder and it was by a body of water. When I was relatively safe out of the way I called a tow truck to take me to a repair shop a block away from my residence in the event it was something minor. The first repair shop looked at it and stated it was an engine issue and I should take it to the dealer/repair shop we normally take it to. I then needed to get it towed again to the other shop and the problem was confirmed to be a catastrophic engine failure by the Honda dealer/repair shop which we always take our vehicle to for maintenance (literally got an oil change and filters replaced less than a month prior) and had to pay to get our engine replaced. The original engine is not available for inspection as we had to get it replaced. The vehicle was not inspected by the manufacturer because they stated there was no open recall on our vehicle even if there were other vehicles with the same year make and model with an open recall on an issue that could cause something like this.

NHTSA ODI #11638854

Mileage unknown · Jan 9, 2025
Unknown Or Other

While driving on the freeway the latch from the hood came lose causing the hood to fly open and smashed the front windshield

NHTSA ODI #11635044

Mileage unknown · Dec 12, 2024
Unknown Or Other

The transmission part that connects to the engine broke

NHTSA ODI #11630272

Mileage unknown · Jun 19, 2024
EnginePower TrainUnknown Or Other

Son driving vehicle. Vehicle suddenly loses power whire moving and not shifting gears.

NHTSA ODI #11595278

Mileage unknown · Oct 30, 2023
Power TrainUnknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control

After coming to a complete stop at a Stop Sign with the Honda Civil, my husband (he) started to accelerate, but he could only go up to about 20 mph in a 55-mile zone. Next, the car made a bump noise when his foot was on gas pedal. The car went about 100 feet before it started to slow down on a busy highway. The car was not goi…

Read full complaint

After coming to a complete stop at a Stop Sign with the Honda Civil, my husband (he) started to accelerate, but he could only go up to about 20 mph in a 55-mile zone. Next, the car made a bump noise when his foot was on gas pedal. The car went about 100 feet before it started to slow down on a busy highway. The car was not going the speed limit because it couldn't pick up speed. Multiple cars and trucks had to go around. Next, he had to pull over to the shoulder of the road because the car wouldn't pull no matter what gear it was placed in. The car stopped completely, and it had to be tolled home due to inability to move. Langdale Honda was called and asked about a possible recall on the transmission. They said that I would have to pay about $140 for an inspection for the problem.

NHTSA ODI #11552660

Mileage unknown · Jun 19, 2023
Unknown Or OtherCrash

The vehicle loses acceleration while driving slows it down making it dangerous on roads for crash and when it shifts gears it jerks the car

NHTSA ODI #11527680

Official recalls

1

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).

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