The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while driving approximately 35 MPH, there was an abnormal sound coming from underneath the vehicle. The contact stated no warning light was illuminated. The contact had taken the vehicle to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the 4-WD axle had severe corrosion and nee…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while driving approximately 35 MPH, there was an abnormal sound coming from underneath the vehicle. The contact stated no warning light was illuminated. The contact had taken the vehicle to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the 4-WD axle had severe corrosion and needed to be replaced. The contact removed the axle, and the axle was not replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The contact stated that there was also an abnormal sound coming from the muffler. The contact took the vehicle to an independent mechanic who determined that the muffler had severe corrosion and needed to be replaced, however, the mechanic advised that the rear frame and rear trailing arm were also severely corroded but could not be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact stated that he researched online and related the failure to NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V228000 (Structure). The manufacturer was informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 144,000.
NHTSA ODI #11593987
91,393 miles · Jun 7, 2024
Structure
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken for a routine oil change, and the dealer informed her that the rear driver’s side sub frame was rusted. The contact was advised not to drive the vehicle due to the failure. The contact stated that the dealer made her aware that there was a recall f…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken for a routine oil change, and the dealer informed her that the rear driver’s side sub frame was rusted. The contact was advised not to drive the vehicle due to the failure. The contact stated that the dealer made her aware that there was a recall for the failure; however, neither the VIN nor the model year was included in the recall. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact related the failure to NHTSA Campaign Number: 23V228000 (Structure). The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and a case was opened. The failure mileage was 91,393.
NHTSA ODI #11593061
Mileage unknown · Jan 4, 2023
Structure
On November 2, 2022 the control arm mount for the rear driver side wheel of our 2012 Honda CR-V failed while the car was in use; as a result, the car was no longer drivable. The car was towed to an authorized Honda service center and the condition was assessed as follows: oThe frame rail had deteriorated/rusted to the point wher…
Read full complaint
On November 2, 2022 the control arm mount for the rear driver side wheel of our 2012 Honda CR-V failed while the car was in use; as a result, the car was no longer drivable. The car was towed to an authorized Honda service center and the condition was assessed as follows: oThe frame rail had deteriorated/rusted to the point where part of it was completely gone. oA new control arm could not be installed because there was no frame rail to which the control arm could be mounted until/unless the frame rail was replaced. oPreliminary repair estimate was $8,352 although the service center indicated that repair costs could be significantly higher than that. In doing some checking we found that Honda Canada had a recall on older CR-Vs for a rusting problem that could result in a rear suspension control arm separating from the vehicle. This structural failure sounded identical to our issue. The recall applied to geographical areas with heavy winter road salt usage ... which describes many parts of the US ... but Honda USA did not issue such a recall. In the Canadian recall, vehicles were being bought back from the owners since the repair costs exceeded the vehicle value. We opened a case with Honda and, after their review, we were given a $500 loyalty card on future Honda sales or service. They would not do anything else for us even though the blue book value on our car was over $10,000 at the time of the incident. The car was salvaged out and we received $850 for it. Our incident happened while traveling at 30 mph. Had it happened at highway speeds we believe it could have resulted in significant injury or death.
NHTSA ODI #11500220
Mileage unknown · Jun 30, 2021
Structure
Paint is chipped and fading
NHTSA ODI #11422923
120,000 miles · May 5, 2021
EngineStructureSuspensionCrash
ON APRIL 25, 2021 I WAS GENTLY PULLING INTO MY DRIVEWAY AND I APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE CAR ACCELERATED. I CONTINUE TO APPLY THE BRAKE AND THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP. I CRASHED INTO MY FRONT PORCH. THE FRONT WHEELS WENT OVER THE EDGE OF THE PORCH AND THE CAR STOPPED. THERE IS ABOUT A 7 FOOT DROP OFF, THANKFULLY THE WHOLE CAR DIDN…
Read full complaint
ON APRIL 25, 2021 I WAS GENTLY PULLING INTO MY DRIVEWAY AND I APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE CAR ACCELERATED. I CONTINUE TO APPLY THE BRAKE AND THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP. I CRASHED INTO MY FRONT PORCH. THE FRONT WHEELS WENT OVER THE EDGE OF THE PORCH AND THE CAR STOPPED. THERE IS ABOUT A 7 FOOT DROP OFF, THANKFULLY THE WHOLE CAR DIDN'T GO OFF THE PORCH. I KNOCKED ALL THE SUPPORTS FOR THE PORCH AND THE ROOF WAS ON THE TOP OF MY CAR. I DO BELIEVE IF I WERE PRESSING THE ACCELERATOR BY MISTAKE THE CAR WOULD'VE CONTINUED OFF THE PORCH. BOUGHT THE CAR IN DECEMBER 2020 ONLY HAD IT SIX MONTHS. I WAS CERTAIN I HAD STEPPED ON THE BRAKES SO I GOOGLED AND FOUND OTHER PEOPLE WITH 2012S IN 2011'S HAD EXPERIENCED THIS PROBLEM. I HAVE NO POLICE REPORT BUT THE POLICE DID COME OUT BECAUSE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD CALLED THEM. THEY MAY HAVE AN INCIDENT REPORT. THANKFULLY THE CAR STOPPED BEFORE WENT OFF THE PORCH OR I COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERELY HURT.
NHTSA ODI #11415288
Mileage unknown · Apr 12, 2021
Structure
THE PAINT ON THE HOOD AND UPPER ROOF FADED VERY VERY QUICKLY. THERE ARE SPOTS THAT CANNOT BE BUFFED OUT. I HAVE OWNED MANY CARS NEVER HAD THIS PROBLEM BEFORE. I'VE HAD HONDAS BEFORE. THIS IS BLACK PAINT AND HAVE HEARD 2012 AND 2013 WAS A VERY BAD YEAR FOR BLACK PAINT ON HONDAS THIS IS A 2012 CRV. I TAKE GOOD CARE OF MY CARS I WA…
Read full complaint
THE PAINT ON THE HOOD AND UPPER ROOF FADED VERY VERY QUICKLY. THERE ARE SPOTS THAT CANNOT BE BUFFED OUT. I HAVE OWNED MANY CARS NEVER HAD THIS PROBLEM BEFORE. I'VE HAD HONDAS BEFORE. THIS IS BLACK PAINT AND HAVE HEARD 2012 AND 2013 WAS A VERY BAD YEAR FOR BLACK PAINT ON HONDAS THIS IS A 2012 CRV. I TAKE GOOD CARE OF MY CARS I WAX THEM AND CLEAN THEM REGULARLY THIS WAS VERY DISAPPOINTING. EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CAR IS WORKING WONDERFULLY NO PROBLEMS.
NHTSA ODI #11407702
70,000 miles · Aug 27, 2019
Air BagsStructureCrash
SOMEONE NEEDS TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE AT THE SALVAGE YARD. THE PHONE IS 925.370.3900 THE STOCK NUMBER IS 4363519
NHTSA ODI #11246716
1,500 miles · Oct 23, 2018
Structure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ROOF WAS LEAKING AND MILDEW WAS PRESENT ON THE CEILING OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TEAM HONDA (6363 SIEGEN LN, BATON ROUGE, LA 70809, (225) 298-4100) AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS; HOWEVER, THEY COULD CLEAN THE LINER FOR TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ROOF WAS LEAKING AND MILDEW WAS PRESENT ON THE CEILING OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TEAM HONDA (6363 SIEGEN LN, BATON ROUGE, LA 70809, (225) 298-4100) AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS; HOWEVER, THEY COULD CLEAN THE LINER FOR THE ROOF AND PERFORM A WATER TEST. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,500.
NHTSA ODI #11142150
106,000 miles · Jan 19, 2018
Air BagsEngineStructureCrashInjury
WE HAD A DIRECT DEER HIT ON I81 NORTH IN GRANTVILLE PA. THE DIRECT HIT WAS TAKEN ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AT 65 MPH IN HIGHWAY DRIVING. THE AIRBAG ONLY DEPLOYED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE NOT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE. THIS SEEMED VERY ODD TO US. EITHER BOTH AIR BAGS SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED OR NEITHER AIRBAG SHOULD HAVE DEPL…
Read full complaint
WE HAD A DIRECT DEER HIT ON I81 NORTH IN GRANTVILLE PA. THE DIRECT HIT WAS TAKEN ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AT 65 MPH IN HIGHWAY DRIVING. THE AIRBAG ONLY DEPLOYED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE NOT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE. THIS SEEMED VERY ODD TO US. EITHER BOTH AIR BAGS SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED OR NEITHER AIRBAG SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED IN THIS ACCIDENT. PICTURES ARE ATTACHED. I REPORTED THIS TO AMERICAN HONDA, BUT THEY REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE IT AND I HAD TO BEG THEM FOR AN EMAIL ADDRESS TO SEND THE PICTURES TO. GIVEN THEIR ATTITUDE, I FELT I NEEDED TO REPORT THIS ACCIDENT TO NHTSA. MY CAR WAS TOTALED BY NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURER'S INSURANCE CO.
NHTSA ODI #11063805
Mileage unknown · May 11, 2017
Structure
OUR HONDA CRV HAS A ROOF LEAK (BY THE ANTENNA) THAT HAS DAMAGED THE INSIDE HEADLINER THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TOTALLY REPLACED. THE LEAK IS PROBABLY CAUSING MILDEW GROW IN THE HEADLINER AND POSSIBLE ROOF CORROSION AS WELL. THIS MAKES US VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BREATHING AND HEALTH ISSUES IN GENERAL WHEN USING THE VEHICLE. WE ARE TOLD …
Read full complaint
OUR HONDA CRV HAS A ROOF LEAK (BY THE ANTENNA) THAT HAS DAMAGED THE INSIDE HEADLINER THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TOTALLY REPLACED. THE LEAK IS PROBABLY CAUSING MILDEW GROW IN THE HEADLINER AND POSSIBLE ROOF CORROSION AS WELL. THIS MAKES US VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BREATHING AND HEALTH ISSUES IN GENERAL WHEN USING THE VEHICLE. WE ARE TOLD THIS APPEARS TO BE A MANUFACTURING / ASSEMBLY DEFECT AND HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE (YEARS), BUT WE JUST DISCOVERED IT IN APRIL 2017. UPDATED 08/23/17*LJ *CN
Honda is recalling certain model year 2012-2013 CR-V, Odyssey, and model year 2013 Acura RDX vehicles. During sub-freezing temperatures, the brake-shift interlock blocking mechanism may become slow and allow the gear selector to be moved from the Park position without pressing the brake pedal. As such, these vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, "Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the gear selector is moved from the park position without pressing the brake pedal it can allow the vehicle to roll away, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners and instruct them to take their vehicle to a Honda or Acura dealer. The dealer will install an updated brake shift interlock blocking mechanism free of charge. The recall began on May 13, 2013. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009. Honda's campaign recall numbers are S96, S97, and S98.
Honda is recalling certain model year 2012 CR-V, equipped with the LX trim level and manufactured from August 30, 2012, to August 31, 2012. These vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, "Certification." The incorrect values for Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, Gross Axle Weight Rating front and rear, tire size, and rim size were specified on the safety certification label.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A misprinted label could lead to improper vehicle loading. Improper loading could result in a tire failure, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will apply the corrective label free of charge. The safety recall began on November 14, 2012. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009.
Honda is recalling certain model year 2012 Honda CR-V and model year 2013 Acura ILX vehicles. If the manual or power door lock is activated while an interior front door handle is being operated by an occupant, the cable connecting the interior door handle to the door latch mechanism may become loose and move out of position. There is a possibility that the cable can move far enough out of position to prevent the door from properly latching.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the door is not fully latched, the door may open while driving or in a crash, increasing the risk of personal injury to the vehicle occupants.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front door latch assemblies in the affected vehicles, free of charge. Additionally, the interior front door handles in certain Honda CR-Vs will also be replaced, free of charge. The safety recall is expected to begin on, or about, August 16, 2012. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-800-999-1009.
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
3
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.
EQ12002 · Autoliv Air Bag Propellant Mixture
Opened Feb 14, 2012 · Closed May 8, 2012
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:side/window
The summary for this investigation, labeled EQ12-002 Autoliv Closing Resume, can be found attached separately to this resume.This EQ is closed.