← New search

2013 Honda CR-V

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2013 Honda CR-V do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 400.5.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

259 reports with mileage · 123 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.

  • Engine. Review the 97 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 95 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 38 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

22 crash reports0 fire reports11 injury reports

Exterior Lighting complaints

32 reports
Clear category filter
10 miles · Apr 27, 2014
Exterior Lighting

BRAND NEW 2013 HONDA CRV. WORST HEADLIGHTS EVER ON ANY CAR I HAVE OWNED. NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY IS HORRIBLE. WENT BACK TO DEALER AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED PROBLEM BUT CLAIMED INABILITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. CONTACTED HONDA IN CALIFORNIA SEVERAL TIMES AND THEY ASSIGNED A CASE NUMBER. REPLACED THE STOCK BULBS WITH HIGHER INTENSITY ON…

Read full complaint

BRAND NEW 2013 HONDA CRV. WORST HEADLIGHTS EVER ON ANY CAR I HAVE OWNED. NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY IS HORRIBLE. WENT BACK TO DEALER AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED PROBLEM BUT CLAIMED INABILITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. CONTACTED HONDA IN CALIFORNIA SEVERAL TIMES AND THEY ASSIGNED A CASE NUMBER. REPLACED THE STOCK BULBS WITH HIGHER INTENSITY ONES AND ACHIEVED MARGINAL IMPROVEMENT. ONLY A QUESTION OF TIME BEFORE PEOPLE START DYING BECAUSE OF THIS HORRIBLE HONDA DESIGN. PLEASE MAKE HONDA RECALL THESE DEFECTIVE CARS AND FIX THEM. DEALER TOLD ME I SHOULD HAVE TEST DROVE CAR AFTER DARK SO THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT IT. OTHER DEALER TOLD ME HONDA SELLS 300,000 OF THESE CARS A YEAR SOME OF THEM ARE BOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE. INTERNET IS LOADED WITH CRV OWNERS LIKE ME WITH THE SAME COMPLAINT. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS. GO GET ONE OF THESE CARS AND DRIVE IT. COME DRIVE MINE IF YOU WANT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10585136

2,200 miles · Feb 3, 2014
Exterior Lighting

THE HEADLIGHTS ON THIS VEHICLE DO NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE ILLUMINATION. WE RESIDE IN A RURAL SUBURBAN AREA AND THE HEADLIGHTS DO NOT GIVE OFF SUFFICIENT ILLUMINATION TO PROPERLY SEE THE ROAD CONDITIONS. WE ARE REVIEWING/CONSIDERING AFTERMARKET LIGHTING TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10562626

7,000 miles · Feb 2, 2014
Exterior Lighting

AS THE DAYS BECAME SHORTER, I WAS DRIVING AFTER DARK AND NOTICED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS ARE DANGEROUSLY INADEQUATE. THE LOW BEAMS ONLY PROJECT ABOUT 10 FEET IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE (EVEN WITH THE DRIVING LIGHTS ON) AND THE HIGH BEAMS ARE VERY DIM AND OFFER VERY LITTLE LIGHT IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. WHEN TURNING, THE…

Read full complaint

AS THE DAYS BECAME SHORTER, I WAS DRIVING AFTER DARK AND NOTICED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS ARE DANGEROUSLY INADEQUATE. THE LOW BEAMS ONLY PROJECT ABOUT 10 FEET IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE (EVEN WITH THE DRIVING LIGHTS ON) AND THE HIGH BEAMS ARE VERY DIM AND OFFER VERY LITTLE LIGHT IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. WHEN TURNING, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LIGHT TO SAFELY SEE THE SIDE ROAD IF THERE ARE NO STREET LIGHTS. IN RURAL AREAS, THE DIM LIGHTS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE WILDLIFE SUCH AS DEER SOON ENOUGH TO SAFELY AVOID THEM. MY CRV HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE DEALER TWICE AND THEY WERE ABLE TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO TRY TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THE DEALER HAS TOLD ME THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT POOR LIGHTING FOR MANY YEARS AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. I HAVE PURCHASED HIGH OUTPUT BULBS AND THE IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN MINIMAL. I HAVE CALLED HONDA AND ASKED HOW I COULD OBTAIN THE BETTER HEADLIGHTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN EUROPE AND BEEN TOLD THAT I CANNOT. I HAVE ASKED IF DRIVING LIGHTS COULD BE LEFT ON WITH THE HIGH BEAMS AND TOLD NO. THE DEALER OFFERED TO INSTALL POST-MARKET NON-HONDA HEADLIGHTS FOR ME BUT HONDA TOLD ME THAT I WOULD VOID MY WARRANTY. HONDA CUSTOMER SERVICE TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY HEADLIGHT COMPLAINTS HOWEVER MANY COMPLAINTS ARE READILY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET. SHE TOOK DOWN MY INFORMATION AND ENTERED IT INTO A COMPUTER AND I HAVE HEARD NOTHING BACK - THAT WAS A MONTH AGO. SOMETHING NEEDS DONE ABOUT THESE HEADLIGHTS - SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE SERIOUSLY INJURED AND OBVIOUSLY HONDA DOES NOT CARE. THIS SHOULD BE A SIMPLE FIX AS I KNOW THEY HAVE BETTER HEADLIGHTS FOR THIS VEHICLE IN THE EUROPEAN MARKET. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10562555

150 miles · Dec 26, 2013
Exterior Lighting

HI BEAMS ARE VERY INEFFECTIVE AND DANGEROUS. THEY SHINE TOO HIGH AND LIGHT UP THE TREES BUT NOT THE ROAD AHEAD. LIVE IN A VERY RURAL AREA WITH MANY DEER AND THIS IS OF CONCERN. IF THE DEALER LOWERS THE BEAM THEN THAT MAKES THE LOW BEAMS WORSE WHERE THEY WERE OK. SO ADJUSTING THE HEIGHT OF THE HI BEAM IS NOT THE SOLUTION AS IT TH…

Read full complaint

HI BEAMS ARE VERY INEFFECTIVE AND DANGEROUS. THEY SHINE TOO HIGH AND LIGHT UP THE TREES BUT NOT THE ROAD AHEAD. LIVE IN A VERY RURAL AREA WITH MANY DEER AND THIS IS OF CONCERN. IF THE DEALER LOWERS THE BEAM THEN THAT MAKES THE LOW BEAMS WORSE WHERE THEY WERE OK. SO ADJUSTING THE HEIGHT OF THE HI BEAM IS NOT THE SOLUTION AS IT THEN MAKES THE LOW BEAM TOO LOW. IT'S MORE A DESIGN FLAW WITH THE REFLECTORS I BELIEVE. ONLY REALLY NOTICED THE ISSUE ONCE WE CHANGED DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME AND I STARTED DRIVING MORE AT NIGHT ON RURAL ROADS. WHICH NOW BEING WINTER IS MORE AND MORE COMMON FOR ME SO IT IS A CONCERN WHEN HAVING TO USE THE HI BEAMS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10557354

5,200 miles · Dec 17, 2013
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

THE HIGH BEAM HEADLIGHTS ON THIS VEHICLE AND MY DAUGHTER'S SIMILAR CAR ARE A DEFECTIVE DESIGN. THERE ARE MANY COMPLAINTS ALREADY REGARDING THIS. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN SEE DECENTLY IS WITH A COMBINATION OF LOW BEAMS AND DRIVING LIGHTS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10556434

Mileage unknown · Dec 15, 2013
Exterior Lighting

WHEN HIGH BEAMS ARE ON, THE LOW BEAMS GO OFF MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE FOR 25 TO 30 FEET. IF A CHILD OR A DOG WERE TO RUN IN FRONT OF THE AUTO I WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH REACTION TIME TO AVOID HITTING THEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10556121

100 miles · Dec 5, 2013
Exterior Lighting

THE HEADLIGHTS ON FULL BEAM ARE HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE AND ARE A SERIOUS DANGER TO DRIVERS WHO LIVE IN RURAL AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NO STREET LIGHTS. THE HONDA DEALER TRIED REPLACING BULBS BUT ALL TO NO AVAIL AND HONDA DENIES THERE IS A PROBLEM. I HAVE BEEN WRESTLING WITH THIS PROBLEM SINCE I PURCHASED THE CAR IN FEBRUARY, 2013 FR…

Read full complaint

THE HEADLIGHTS ON FULL BEAM ARE HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE AND ARE A SERIOUS DANGER TO DRIVERS WHO LIVE IN RURAL AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NO STREET LIGHTS. THE HONDA DEALER TRIED REPLACING BULBS BUT ALL TO NO AVAIL AND HONDA DENIES THERE IS A PROBLEM. I HAVE BEEN WRESTLING WITH THIS PROBLEM SINCE I PURCHASED THE CAR IN FEBRUARY, 2013 FROM ZIMBRICK HONDA IN MADISON, WISCONSIN. THE DEALER HAS TRIED TO HELP BUT IS UNABLE TO FIX. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10554878

Mileage unknown · Oct 31, 2013
Exterior Lighting

THE HEADLIGHTS ON THE 2013 HONDA CRV ARE GROSSLY INADEQUATE. THERE IS VERY LITTLE LIGHT ON THE ROAD WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE ON HIGH BEAM. THE LIGHT IS VERY NARROW AND THE ROAD EDGE IS POORLY ILLUMINATED TO THE POINT THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE OUR DRIVEWAY WHEN RETURNING HOME AFTER DARK. MY WIFE IS AFRAID TO DRIVE THIS VEHICLE AFT…

Read full complaint

THE HEADLIGHTS ON THE 2013 HONDA CRV ARE GROSSLY INADEQUATE. THERE IS VERY LITTLE LIGHT ON THE ROAD WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE ON HIGH BEAM. THE LIGHT IS VERY NARROW AND THE ROAD EDGE IS POORLY ILLUMINATED TO THE POINT THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE OUR DRIVEWAY WHEN RETURNING HOME AFTER DARK. MY WIFE IS AFRAID TO DRIVE THIS VEHICLE AFTER DARK. WE HAVE NEVER OWNED A CAR WITH SUCH POOR HEADLIGHTS. THE HONDA DEALERSHIP SAYS THERE IS NO RECALL AND THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO. AT MY INSISTENCE, A BRIGHTER BULB WAS INSTALLED AND THAT IMPROVED THINGS ONLY SLIGHTLY. THIS IS OUR THIRD CRV AND OUR PREVIOUS MODELS (2004, 2006) DID NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IN MY OPINION THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10550331

750 miles · Oct 28, 2013
Exterior Lighting

WHEN I TURNED ON BRIGHT LIGHTS WHILE DRIVING HOME ON A DARK COUNTRY ROAD, I COULD NOT SEE ADEQUATELY. THE ROAD IS ABSOLUTELY DARK IN FRONT OF CAR, AND THE RATHER DIM LIGHT IS INSTEAD FOCUSED FAR AHEAD IN THE TREES. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS TO SWITCH TO DIM LIGHTS WHICH LIGHT ROAD IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF CAR (AND ARE -BRIGHTER" …

Read full complaint

WHEN I TURNED ON BRIGHT LIGHTS WHILE DRIVING HOME ON A DARK COUNTRY ROAD, I COULD NOT SEE ADEQUATELY. THE ROAD IS ABSOLUTELY DARK IN FRONT OF CAR, AND THE RATHER DIM LIGHT IS INSTEAD FOCUSED FAR AHEAD IN THE TREES. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS TO SWITCH TO DIM LIGHTS WHICH LIGHT ROAD IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF CAR (AND ARE -BRIGHTER" THAN THE "BRIGHT" LIGHTS), BUT DO NOT LIGHT FAR ENOUGH AHEAD TO BE ABLE TO AVOID HITTING ANYTHING (LIKE DEER) ENTERING THE ROAD IN FRONT. I'VE NEVER HAD LIGHTS THIS BAD ON ANY VEHICLE I'VE EVER OWNED. THEY ARE QUITE DANGEROUS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10549773

Mileage unknown · Oct 1, 2013
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THE HEADLIGHTS PROVIDED INADEQUATE LIGHTING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHENEVER THE LOW OR HIGH BEAM HEAD LAMPS WERE ENGAGED, THEY WOULD DISTORT THE NIGHT VISION OF THE ROADWAY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND THEY INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE HEADLIGHTS COULD HAVE POSS…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THE HEADLIGHTS PROVIDED INADEQUATE LIGHTING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHENEVER THE LOW OR HIGH BEAM HEAD LAMPS WERE ENGAGED, THEY WOULD DISTORT THE NIGHT VISION OF THE ROADWAY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND THEY INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE HEADLIGHTS COULD HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN A DESIGN FLAW. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100. UPDATED 11/13/13*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE HEADLIGHTS APPEARED TO BE DISMANTLED. THE HEADLIGHTS WERE CHECKED AND THEIR ALIGNMENT WAS ADJUSTED. THE CONSUMER PURCHASE A PAIR OF BRIGHTEST HALOGEN BULBS AND NOT THE LOW BEAM LIGHTING IS ADEQUATE. HOWEVER, THE HIGH BEAM ARE STILL BAD, AS THERE IS NO ILLUMINATION ON THE ROAD DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE FOR AT LEAST 100 FEET, YET DOWN THE ROAD IS FINE.

NHTSA ODI #10546362

Official recalls

2

23V858000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Dec 18, 2023

Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain 2013-2023 Honda Accord, Civic Coupe, Civic Sedan, Civic Hatchback, Civic Type R, CR-V, HR-V, Ridgeline, Odyssey, Acura ILX, MDX, MDX Hybrid, RDX, RLX, TLX, 2019-2022 Honda Insight, Passport, 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid, 2018-2019 Honda Clarity PHEV, Fit, and 2015-2020 Honda Accord Hybrid, Pilot, Acura NSX vehicles. The fuel pump inside the fuel tank may fail.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Fuel pump failure can cause an engine stall while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Dealers will replace the fuel pump module, free of charge. Owner letters were mailed September 6, 2024. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's numbers for this recall are KGC and KGD. This recall is an expansion of NHTSA recall numbers 21V-215 and 20V-314.

13V143000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

Apr 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.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

2

EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture

Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied

Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

EA19001 · Electrical Overstress

Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect.  During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment.  FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW.  These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes.  An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.   In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU.  This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation.  The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage.  There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation.  The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU.  If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC.  Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC.  All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled.  In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024.  With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Honda CR-V problems