My steering computer is bad. The steering wheel goes the opposite way. I’ve taken it to the dealership and they’re saying that the computer software and the whole computer needs to be replaced and affects how the way the car steers and is aligned.
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Civic years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
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.
What owners actually said
380 reportsTransmission drive belt snapped while driving. Took it to Honda dealer to diagnose, they found it to be the drive belt that snapped in the cvt transmission. There was a recall involving the same year make and model (2015 honda civic) however my car wasn't part of the recall even though this is a known problem with cars excluded …
Read full complaint
Transmission drive belt snapped while driving. Took it to Honda dealer to diagnose, they found it to be the drive belt that snapped in the cvt transmission. There was a recall involving the same year make and model (2015 honda civic) however my car wasn't part of the recall even though this is a known problem with cars excluded from this recall. Cars included in the recall recieved software updates to decrease the tension to the belt, which can cause it to snap under stress. My car wasn't included in this software update and I believe that is a mistake. Honda denied us coverage because we weren't "loyal enough" despite driving mostly only Honda vehicles for my entire life. As for safety concern I was nearly stopped when it snapped so I was able to pull over, so it wasn't a safety concern in my instance atleast. Dealer took pictures of the transmission fluid pan and found metal debris from the metal drive belt that snapped. I just wonder if my car was included in this recall for the software update if it would still be driving today. There were no lights or signs of warning it just snapped unexpectedly. I have always changed the cvt fluid with Honda genuine fluid and don't believe maintenence to be a problem. More the fact that this should have been included in a recall this was a very bad year for Honda and the cvt transmission from what I am now realizing from research
No warning lights or symptoms prior to issue. Driving on the highway and vehicle suddenly started revving like it was in neutral, failing to accelerate, then died on the side of the highway.
Odometer Fraud. The contact purchased a 2015 Honda Civic. The contact discovered a mileage discrepancy after purchasing the vehicle. The vehicle was a private sale. At the time of the purchase, the mileage was approximately 76,000. It was later discovered that the mileage on the title was 193,000. The contact became aware of fra…
Read full complaint
Odometer Fraud. The contact purchased a 2015 Honda Civic. The contact discovered a mileage discrepancy after purchasing the vehicle. The vehicle was a private sale. At the time of the purchase, the mileage was approximately 76,000. It was later discovered that the mileage on the title was 193,000. The contact became aware of fraud after receiving a letter from the State that their records indicated that the mileage was 193,000 when the vehicle was registered in Kentucky. The vehicle was registered in Kentucky in February 2025.
The transmission blew, despite only having 90,000 miles
What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? Answer: The transmission is slipping or malfunctioning when driving the car, specifically when accelerating. Yes, it is available for inspection upon request. How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? Answer: When t…
Read full complaint
What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? Answer: The transmission is slipping or malfunctioning when driving the car, specifically when accelerating. Yes, it is available for inspection upon request. How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? Answer: When the transmission slips or malfunctions, the acceleration of the car doesn't act as it should. For example, when waiting to join a flow of vehicle traffic, or when waiting to cross a busy intersection, the delay in acceleration or the slipping of the transmission is increasing the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or causing my vehicle to block other vehicles. Has the problem been reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or independent service center? Answer: Yes. Has the vehicle or component been inspected by the manufacturer, police, insurance representatives or others? Answer: No. Were there any warning lamps, messages or other symptoms of the problem prior to the failure, and when did they first appear? Answer: No. Additional information: I spoke with Honda in 2023 to see if there was a recall related to my CVT transmission. They took my information, but advised there was no recall. I had a similar conversation with them in 2024 because it seemed to be getting worse, but there still was no recall. Now in 2025, it still feels like it's getting worse and making it feel unsafe to drive the car.
The contact owns a 2015 Honda Civic. The contact stated that while driving at 70 MPH, the vehicle suddenly came to a stop. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to exceed 35 MPH, and the contact pulled over. There were no warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was towed to a transmission center, and it was determined that …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2015 Honda Civic. The contact stated that while driving at 70 MPH, the vehicle suddenly came to a stop. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to exceed 35 MPH, and the contact pulled over. There were no warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was towed to a transmission center, and it was determined that the failure was linked to the CVT and pulley system. The local dealer was not contacted. The manufacturer was not contacted. The failure mileage was approximately 130,000.
I was in a car accident, I rear ended a vehicle. The other vehicle was stopped, I did not break at all and ran into them. My airbags did not deploy & there was substantial damage to my vehicle (deemed totaled by insurance assessor). My safety was put at risk as I sustained whiplash (whiplash resulted in neck pain day(s) followin…
Read full complaint
I was in a car accident, I rear ended a vehicle. The other vehicle was stopped, I did not break at all and ran into them. My airbags did not deploy & there was substantial damage to my vehicle (deemed totaled by insurance assessor). My safety was put at risk as I sustained whiplash (whiplash resulted in neck pain day(s) following and bruising on my upper legs. When the assessor reached out to me, he stated that the air bags should have deployed and seemed to be a malfunction.
Exact problem was recalled for same year for 143,000 vehicles but my VIN was not in the recall. I was diving and vehicle made a loud noise and all the sudden stopped accelerating. It was like my car was in neutral. Put my car in park when I stopped and car started rolling backwards like it wasn’t in park. It finally went into …
Read full complaint
Exact problem was recalled for same year for 143,000 vehicles but my VIN was not in the recall. I was diving and vehicle made a loud noise and all the sudden stopped accelerating. It was like my car was in neutral. Put my car in park when I stopped and car started rolling backwards like it wasn’t in park. It finally went into park and I shut car off and restarted tried putting in drive again. It made a loud grinding noise and would not go in drive still acted like in neutral. Had to have car towed from scene. Looked up transmission issues and saw there was a recall for this exact issue.
The salespeople are very unprofessional and don’t take the wellbeing and safety of their customers or the surrounding public seriously. My husband and I went to Stark to test drive a couple of their cars. The first car that we test drove the Honda Civic should have been properly repaired first before ever being placed on the lot…
Read full complaint
The salespeople are very unprofessional and don’t take the wellbeing and safety of their customers or the surrounding public seriously. My husband and I went to Stark to test drive a couple of their cars. The first car that we test drove the Honda Civic should have been properly repaired first before ever being placed on the lot. To even get the parking brake lowered, my husband had to disassemble the plastic manifold, second the car was lowered to the point where it scraped the road whenever we were turning on an incline, finally there was some mechanical issue with the gear shift where we weren’t able to reverse. When we got back from the test drive the salesperson explained to us that they knew of this issue and that there’s a trick to it. This trick wasn’t mentioned to us at the start of the test drive, nor did the salesperson go with us to explain it to us on the road. This is very dangerous, what if there was an emergency and we needed to reverse. Not knowing this trick not only puts our lives in danger but also all the other drivers in the area. I’m not a car person, but even I know that a car should be able to go forwards and backwards.
Official recalls
115V574000 · 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
2EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
EA19001 · Electrical Overstress
Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Illustration