TL* THE CONTACT LEASED A 2015 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SIDE VIEW MIRRORS AND THE REAR WINDOWS OBSTRUCTED HER VISION WHILE DRIVING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 3,500. ...UPDATED 09/12/16 *BF *JS
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 reportsWE BOUGHT A BRAND NEW HONDA A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WE USUALLY DO NOT DRIVE IT MUCH SINCE IT IS FOR MY WIFE WHO TAKES THE BUS TO WORK. ONR DAY WR GOT A CHECK TIRE PRESSURE WARNING. SO I CHECKED TIRED AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE WITH THEM. THE WARNING WE WERE RECEIVING ACCORDING TO HONDA IS TPMS. AND IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING TO ALOT OF…
Read full complaint
WE BOUGHT A BRAND NEW HONDA A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WE USUALLY DO NOT DRIVE IT MUCH SINCE IT IS FOR MY WIFE WHO TAKES THE BUS TO WORK. ONR DAY WR GOT A CHECK TIRE PRESSURE WARNING. SO I CHECKED TIRED AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE WITH THEM. THE WARNING WE WERE RECEIVING ACCORDING TO HONDA IS TPMS. AND IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING TO ALOT OF THERE CARS. FIESTA AND FOREMOST THIS IS SUCH A SAFETY HAZARD. BECAUSE WHEN THE REAL DAY COMES WHEN I DO NEED AIR I WILL NEVER KNOW. IT IS ALSO SAD THAT HONDA WAD AWARE OF THIS AND NEGLECTED TO MENTION IT TO US. THE OTHER THIN IS MY OLD CAR HAD FOR 15 PLUS YE AS DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THESE HIGH TECH GADGETS,AND THESE NEW ONES I KEEP READING HAVE THIS ISSUE OR THAT. I'M STARTING TO BECOME EXTREMELY WORRY AND WONDER IF IT'S SAFE TO DRIVE. I AM CALLING THEM TODAY TO SET AN APPOINTMENT TO GT IT FIX
THE TPMS (TIRE PRESSURE MONITOR SYSTEM) WARNING LIGHT TURNS ON EVERY SO OFTEN FOR NO REASON. I BOUGHT A TIRE PRESSURE CHECKER AND WHEN IT TURNED ON I CHECKED ALL FOUR TIRES PER THE PSI RECOMMENDATION ON THE DOOR PANEL STICKER AND THEY WERE IN THAT RANGE. IT SEEMS TO ME THE SYSTEM IS FAULTY. IT COULD BE A SOFTWARE PROBLEM.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 HONDA CIVIC. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP THE VEHICLE, IT VEERED TO THE RIGHT AND ALL OF THE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND CRASHED INTO A POLE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 HONDA CIVIC. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP THE VEHICLE, IT VEERED TO THE RIGHT AND ALL OF THE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND CRASHED INTO A POLE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER, BUT THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE TIE ROD HAD FRACTURED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 12,000.
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).
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS ON, IN NEUTRAL OR WHILE DRIVING, THERE WAS AN EXTREMELY STRONG VIBRATION. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE WAS GETTING PROGRESSIVELY WORST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO MULTIPLE DEALERS, WHO WERE NOT ABLE TO REPLICATE AND DIAGNOSE THE FAILUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 HONDA CIVIC. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS ON, IN NEUTRAL OR WHILE DRIVING, THERE WAS AN EXTREMELY STRONG VIBRATION. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE WAS GETTING PROGRESSIVELY WORST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO MULTIPLE DEALERS, WHO WERE NOT ABLE TO REPLICATE AND DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND WAS TO SEND A REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM THEIR COMPANY TO INSPECT THE FAILURE BUT THE CONTACT RECEIVED NO FOLLOW UP AND WAS UNCERTAIN IF THE MANUFACTURER WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A PERMANENT REMEDY FOR THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 900. UPDATED 05/04/16*LJ *TR
STICKING DRIVE BY WIRE THROTTLE BODY SYSTEM , WHEN SHIFTING CLUTCH IS NOT RELEASING RIGHT OR TO THE VEHICLE SPECS ON THE VEHICLE AND ENGINE VIBRATION WHEN IDLING. WHEN STARTING TO DRIVE , VEHICLE ENGINE VIBRATION WHEN DRIVING ON NORMAL ROAD AN HIGHWAY TOO.
AFTER A SHORT DRIVE, I NOTICED A BULGE IN THE RIGHT REAR TIRE. THIS TIRE IS ORIGINAL TO THE VEHICLE AND HAS APPROXIMATELY 1700 MILES OF WEAR.
I FIRST PURCHASED A 2015 HONDA CIVIC AND STARTED HEARING THIS "GRINDING/CREAKY" WHEN I PUSHED DOWN ON MY BRAKES, COMING FROM MY REAR. DON'T GET ME WRONG, I AM ABLE TO USE MY BRAKES AS I WANTED, BUT WHEN I PUSHED DOWN ON THE BRAKES TO PUT IN GEAR OR JUST PUSHED DOWN A LITTLE TOO HARD, I WOULD HEAR THIS NOISE. ALSO I NOTICED, WHEN…
Read full complaint
I FIRST PURCHASED A 2015 HONDA CIVIC AND STARTED HEARING THIS "GRINDING/CREAKY" WHEN I PUSHED DOWN ON MY BRAKES, COMING FROM MY REAR. DON'T GET ME WRONG, I AM ABLE TO USE MY BRAKES AS I WANTED, BUT WHEN I PUSHED DOWN ON THE BRAKES TO PUT IN GEAR OR JUST PUSHED DOWN A LITTLE TOO HARD, I WOULD HEAR THIS NOISE. ALSO I NOTICED, WHENEVER I HAD A FULL TANK OF GAS (TOOK ME A WHILE TO FIGURE THIS OUT), I WOULD HEAR THIS "THUMPING" NOISE. IF I DO NOT HAVE GAS IN MY CAR, I DO NOT HEAR THE NOISE. I WENT BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP A TOTAL OF 3 TIMES. THE MECHANICS TOLD ME THESE WERE NOT NORMAL NOISES, THEY TRIED TO DIAGNOSE MY CAR, IF KEPT MY CAR THE LAST TIME FOR 5 DAYS BUT WAS UNABLE TO GET THE SOUND TO REALLY GO AWAY. I EVEN TIRED TO TAKE IT TO ANOTHER HONDA DEALERSHIP TO GET MY CAR LOOKED AT, BUT I WAS TOLD, "TO TAKE MY CAR BACK WHERE I BOUGHT IT FROM BECAUSE ITS CLEAR THERE IS A PROBLEM, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR TECHS NAME ON IT". I WAS SHOCKED. I WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DEALER AND THEY EVEN CALLED THE AMERICAN HONDA TECHNICIANS WHO WERE OF NO HELP. I WAS FED UP AND FELT UNSAFE IN MY CAR, SINCE I WAS BEING TOLD THESE WERE NOT "NORMAL" NOISES, I ASKED TO TRADE IN MY CAR (SAME EXACT YEAR/MODEL). DESPITE TEST DRIVING THE SECOND CAR (ON AN EMPTY GAS TANK), I DIDN'T HEAR ANY NOISES INITIALLY. BUT NOW ITS BEEN A FEW DAYS AND I HEAR THE EXACT SAME NOISES IN THIS CAR, AS I DID THE FIRST ONE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO. I JUST WANT A CAR THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY OF THESE NOISES. I JUST TRADED IN MY CAR TO RECEIVE THIS ONE I AM CURRENTLY DRIVING ON 2/5/16. I HAVE YET TO GO BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP TO LET THEM KNOW OF THESE NOISES ON THE 2ND CAR, BECAUSE I FEAR BEING JERKED AROUND AGAIN. I REACHED OUT TO CORPORATE AND RECEIVED A CASE MANAGER NAMED ROBIN WHO HAS YET TO GET BACK TO ME AND NEVER RETURNS PHONE CALLS. I AM DESPERATE TO FIND OUT THESE NOISES.
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION ON 01/27/2016 WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS ABOUT TO MAKE RIGHT TURN ON AN INTERSECTION WITH THE RIGHT TRAFFIC LIGHT ON. SUDDENLY IT ACCELERATED AT ABOUT 60MILES AND HOUR. ALL MY EFFORT TO STOP IT BY APPLYING THE BREAKS FAILED TEMPORARILY. THE ODOMETER READING ON THE CAR IS ABOUT 13,400 MILES. NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED…
Read full complaint
UNINTENDED ACCELERATION ON 01/27/2016 WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS ABOUT TO MAKE RIGHT TURN ON AN INTERSECTION WITH THE RIGHT TRAFFIC LIGHT ON. SUDDENLY IT ACCELERATED AT ABOUT 60MILES AND HOUR. ALL MY EFFORT TO STOP IT BY APPLYING THE BREAKS FAILED TEMPORARILY. THE ODOMETER READING ON THE CAR IS ABOUT 13,400 MILES. NO ACCIDENT OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY PARKED AND NOT TO BE DRIVEN UNTIL HONDA CORPORATION TELLS ME WHAT TO DO. I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER CARS I HAVE OWNED OR DRIVEN OVER THE PAST 22 YEARS.
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