NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
26 reportsClear category filter188,100 miles · Oct 24, 2025
Suspension
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the contact became aware of an abnormally loud sound coming from the rear of the vehicle. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was driven to the shoulder of the road. The contact stated that while performing an inspectio…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the contact became aware of an abnormally loud sound coming from the rear of the vehicle. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was driven to the shoulder of the road. The contact stated that while performing an inspection of the vehicle, the contact became aware of severe corrosion on the forward mount of the rear trailing arm mounts on the driver’s and passenger’s sides. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where it was confirmed that the forward mount of the rear trailing arm mounts on the driver’s and passenger’s sides was severely corroded. In addition, the contact was informed that the corrosion was so severe that the vehicle was not repairable. The contact referenced an unknown recall; however, the VIN was not included. The contact was informed that the VIN was one month off from being included in the recall. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was filed. The contact was advised to contact the NHTSA Hotline to report the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 188,100.
NHTSA ODI #11695496
228,000 miles · Sep 19, 2025
Suspension
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. While the contact's daughter was driving at an undisclosed speed, the rear control arm detached. The vehicle was driven to the shoulder of the road. The vehicle was towed to the contact's residence. The dealer was made aware of the failure but provided no assistance. The manufacturer was made …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. While the contact's daughter was driving at an undisclosed speed, the rear control arm detached. The vehicle was driven to the shoulder of the road. The vehicle was towed to the contact's residence. The dealer was made aware of the failure but provided no assistance. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was filed. The contact referenced an unknown recall with a similar failure description; however, the VIN was not included. The failure mileage was approximately 228,000.
NHTSA ODI #11688329
Mileage unknown · Sep 14, 2025
Suspension
TPMS warning light was on and then entire Dash lit up while steering was crooked on the column. Driving while incident occurred did not cause accident. disabled vehicle due to the same manufactured defects in the 2007 through 2011 Honda CRV models that have a recall on them my vehicle was manufactured August 2012 past cutoff da…
Read full complaint
TPMS warning light was on and then entire Dash lit up while steering was crooked on the column. Driving while incident occurred did not cause accident. disabled vehicle due to the same manufactured defects in the 2007 through 2011 Honda CRV models that have a recall on them my vehicle was manufactured August 2012 past cutoff date for the gen 3 model. Submitting this request for repair unable to drive the vehicle and it's current condition. This all due to the same manufacturer defect found on the rear control arm gen 3 body type and suspension of the 2007 through 2011 models same gen 3 should be repaired and accepted as a recall having exact same issue because it's the exact same type of model car.
NHTSA ODI #11687152
Mileage unknown · Aug 22, 2025
Suspension
Was driving my 2012 Honda CRV home from the store when the AWD light came on. By the time I got it home another light came on EPS. When I got out I noticed the drivers side rear tire looked tilted. Upon further inspection I could see that the control arm had fallen down along with the whole trailing arm from rust. After investig…
Read full complaint
Was driving my 2012 Honda CRV home from the store when the AWD light came on. By the time I got it home another light came on EPS. When I got out I noticed the drivers side rear tire looked tilted. Upon further inspection I could see that the control arm had fallen down along with the whole trailing arm from rust. After investigating I learned that there was a recall for this exact thing but only for 2007-2011 models. I called Honda and they told me to get it to a Honda dealership for diagnosis report so I haf it towed there. They said that if ut were the same issue as the recall that they could make an exception after a case manager reviewed everything. The Honda dealership documented that the rust on the underrails of the frame were critical for the overall integrity and safety of the car and that the control arms were rusted and broken through. When I sent everything to Honda, they said that since my vin was not part of the recall there was nothing they would do for me. There are many more complaints regarding this exact issue for the 2012 models and something needs done before lives are lost. My daughter and I were leaving for a trip the next morning and had I not decided to take my car to the store the night before we would have been on the interstate when the trailing arm and control arm broke and fell which would have been catastrophic while driving at interstate speed, from what I understand. I have only had my 2012 Honda CRV for 3 months and it only has 120k miles on it. These models need a recall ASAP as they are extremely dangerous!
NHTSA ODI #11682370
Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2025
Suspension
The car was being driven and the rear wheel and hub assembly all came off. Luckily, the car was being driven at a slow speed at the time. The problem turned out to be that the rear frame was all completely rusted out and where it was connected it all pulled out. After doing some research, there was a recall on the previous ye…
Read full complaint
The car was being driven and the rear wheel and hub assembly all came off. Luckily, the car was being driven at a slow speed at the time. The problem turned out to be that the rear frame was all completely rusted out and where it was connected it all pulled out. After doing some research, there was a recall on the previous years for the exact same thing. Evidently, the problem still was not taken care of. If the car would have been a few months older it would have been covered under the recall. The car was taken to the dealership and had the factory rep look at it but they refused to do anything.
NHTSA ODI #11677950
Mileage unknown · Jun 17, 2025
Power TrainStructureSuspension
Complete rear tire assembly came loose from the unibody frame from rust. Not a drop of rust on the body of the car.Thank god we weren’t on the highway. they told me it was unfixable.Thank you Honda.And the recall stopped at 2011? Honda obviously doesn’t care about safety and human life.
NHTSA ODI #11667412
160,000 miles · May 15, 2025
Suspension
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact called on behalf of her son. The contact stated that while her son was driving at an undisclosed speed and exiting a parking lot, the rear axle on the vehicle snapped. There was no warning light illuminated. The contact’s son pulled over, and the vehicle was towed to an independent…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact called on behalf of her son. The contact stated that while her son was driving at an undisclosed speed and exiting a parking lot, the rear axle on the vehicle snapped. There was no warning light illuminated. The contact’s son pulled over, and the vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic, where the vehicle was declared a total loss. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 160,000.
NHTSA ODI #11661331
Mileage unknown · May 15, 2025
SuspensionWheels
On Monday, April 21, I was traveling down a long hill (2 lanes up, 1 downhill) when my vehicle went into an uncontrolled, broadside skid into 2 lanes of oncoming traffic. I continued to skid back to the right side of the road, back to the left, and finally back to the right where I got it pulled onto the berm. Upon examination…
Read full complaint
On Monday, April 21, I was traveling down a long hill (2 lanes up, 1 downhill) when my vehicle went into an uncontrolled, broadside skid into 2 lanes of oncoming traffic. I continued to skid back to the right side of the road, back to the left, and finally back to the right where I got it pulled onto the berm. Upon examination, my right rear tire was tilted outward at approximately 30 degrees. The wheel was totally locked up. I called a towing company as the vehicle was completely unable to be driven. A state police officer showed up, apparently called by a passerby, for traffic control and assess the safety of the situation. The car was hauled via tilt-bed truck to my local auto repair shop. One of the mechanics there told me his wife had the same vehicle, only a year older, that he been recalled due to this being and issue for 2011. I called Honda customer care and was informed that the recall was not in effect for 2012 model year. Customer care advised me to have the car taken to a Honda dealership, which was done, again via tilt-bed. Both my local shop and the dealer said the damage was irreparable. Customer care said the case would be assigned to one of their agents, but nothing has happened since April 24, the day they were initially notified.
NHTSA ODI #11661208
Mileage unknown · Feb 23, 2025
StructureSuspension
*Background information: Vehicle was purchased in 2012 from Williams Honda in Elmira, N.Y. I purchased this vehicle from my aunt on [XXX], with 48,301 miles and vehicle has been registered and driven in Florida since 2019. Vehicle’s VIN and sticker is 04/2012 just four months after current recall. American Honda Case Number [XXX…
Read full complaint
*Background information: Vehicle was purchased in 2012 from Williams Honda in Elmira, N.Y. I purchased this vehicle from my aunt on [XXX], with 48,301 miles and vehicle has been registered and driven in Florida since 2019. Vehicle’s VIN and sticker is 04/2012 just four months after current recall. American Honda Case Number [XXX]. *Friday, [XXX], while I was driving through a neighborhood the trailing arm became unattached without warning. (See photos attached). *Monday, [XXX] vehicle was towed to Brandon Honda in Brandon, Florida for a diagnostic. I was informed the vehicle was a total loss and to contact American Honda (See attached photos from Brandon Honda). *Tuesday, [XXX] American Honda sent me an email stating that the safety recall for Honda CRV Rear Frame Brace Honda Campaign Number UE3 was VIN specific and did not match my vehicle’s VIN number and closed my case (See attached email). *November 2024 – January 2025 constant phone calls and emails to Brandon Honda and American Honda and completely stonewalling me. Constant contact with Brandon Honda’s service manager Jen who supposedly report issue to American Honda. I requested the service manager’s report, but they refuse to provide me the refusal from American Honda. I have yet to receive a work order for the diagnostic from November 2024 from Brandon Honda and my vehicle is still at the service center today. *Sunday, [XXX] I requested a review of my case with American Honda. This vehicle has a manufactured date of April 2012 only fours months after the UE3 recall with possible parts linked to this recall. My vehicle exhibits the same exact issues as the UE3 recall with the driver side rear trailing arm becoming unattached from the body without notice. American Honda has not responded yet with my request to review the case filed back in November. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11644356
175,000 miles · Feb 14, 2025
StructureSuspension
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his wife was driving 20 MPH, the vehicle began to wobble after driving over a puddle. The contact's wife pulled over and discovered that the rear driver’s side tire had sunken into the rear axle. The contact had the vehicle towed to the residence and discovered th…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2012 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his wife was driving 20 MPH, the vehicle began to wobble after driving over a puddle. The contact's wife pulled over and discovered that the rear driver’s side tire had sunken into the rear axle. The contact had the vehicle towed to the residence and discovered that a portion of the sub frame where the failure had occurred was corroded. The contact called the dealer, and the failure was acknowledged; however, the vehicle was not under recall. The contact was provided an estimate for a diagnostic test and was referred to the manufacturer for additional assistance. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and the contact was provided the same information as the dealer. The manufacturer referred the contact to the NHTSA Hotline to report the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 175,000.
NHTSA ODI #11642719
Official recalls
3Apr 15, 2013
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.
Oct 16, 2012
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.
Jul 19, 2012
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
3EA21002 · 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.