I PURCHASED THIS CAR IN MARCH 2013. I LIVE IN A VERY RURAL AREA WITH NO STREET LIGHTS, ETC. IT IS PITCH BLACK AT NIGHT. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I HAVE NOT DRIVEN THIS CAR AFTER DARK UNTIL JUST RECENTLY. WHEN DRIVING I COULD HARDLY SEE MUCH IN FRONT OF ME AT ALL. THE LOW BEAMS ARE MOST INADEQUATE AND THE HIGH BEAMS ARE USELESS. THE …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED THIS CAR IN MARCH 2013. I LIVE IN A VERY RURAL AREA WITH NO STREET LIGHTS, ETC. IT IS PITCH BLACK AT NIGHT. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I HAVE NOT DRIVEN THIS CAR AFTER DARK UNTIL JUST RECENTLY. WHEN DRIVING I COULD HARDLY SEE MUCH IN FRONT OF ME AT ALL. THE LOW BEAMS ARE MOST INADEQUATE AND THE HIGH BEAMS ARE USELESS. THE ROAD IF FRONT OF THE CAR WAS BARELY LIT UP AT ALL. IT WAS A VERY SCARY SITUATION, HAS NEVER HAPPENED WITH ANY OTHER CAR I HAVE OWNED. I WENT AROUND A CURVE AND ALMOST DROVE OFF THE ROAD. AND IT WAS A CLEAR NIGHT, NO RAIN, FOG ETC. I PAID OVER $30,000.00 FOR THIS CAR AND AM AFRAID TO DRIVE IT AT NIGHT!! AS SAFETY CONSCIOUS AS HONDA IS, I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS SITUATION IS ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. IT CERTAINLY ISN'T FOR ME. PLEASE, CAN YOU TELL ME IF THERE IS A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM ( CHANGING BULBS, ETC). I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FEEDBACK TO HELP RESOLVE THIS DANGEROUS SITUATION. THERE REALLY SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR THIS SAFETY ISSUE. THIS IS A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10546088
3,700 miles · Sep 26, 2013
Exterior Lighting
ENGAGING THE HONDA CR-V HIGH-BEAMS ON A DARK ROAD DRASTICALLY DIMINISHES VISIBILITY IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE AND OUT ABOUT 25 FEET. WHILE THE HIGH-BEAMS ILLUMINATE STREET SIGNS AND TREE TOPS A GREAT DISTANCE AHEAD OF THE VEHICLE, CLOSE-IN LIGHTING IS DANGEROUSLY LACKING MAKING FOR UNSAFE DRIVING CONDITIONS. WHEN TH…
Read full complaint
ENGAGING THE HONDA CR-V HIGH-BEAMS ON A DARK ROAD DRASTICALLY DIMINISHES VISIBILITY IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE AND OUT ABOUT 25 FEET. WHILE THE HIGH-BEAMS ILLUMINATE STREET SIGNS AND TREE TOPS A GREAT DISTANCE AHEAD OF THE VEHICLE, CLOSE-IN LIGHTING IS DANGEROUSLY LACKING MAKING FOR UNSAFE DRIVING CONDITIONS. WHEN THE HIGH-BEAMS GO ON, THE LOW-BEAMS GO OFF AND THERE IS ALMOST NO ILLUMINATION CLOSE IN. OTHER 2012 / 2013 CR-V OWNERS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS ON VARIOUS INTERNET WEBSITES INCLUDING WWW.CRVOWNERSCLUB.COM AND WWW.EDMUNDS.COM. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO FIX FROM THE DEALER OR HONDA AT THIS TIME. *JS
NHTSA ODI #10545443
2,000 miles · Sep 16, 2013
Exterior Lighting
LOW BEAMS & FOG LIGHTS WORK WELL . BUT THE HIGH BEAMS ARE AWFUL // USING HIGH BEAMS WE HAVE A 30 TO 40 YARD FIELD OF DARKNESS IN FRONT OF US .COULD NOT SEE IF ANYTHING OR ANYONE RAN IN FRONT OF THE CAR . VERY DANGEROUS. DEALER SAYS THE LIGHTS ARE WORKING NORMALLY NOTHING CAN BE DONE. HONDA SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS DANGEROU…
Read full complaint
LOW BEAMS & FOG LIGHTS WORK WELL . BUT THE HIGH BEAMS ARE AWFUL // USING HIGH BEAMS WE HAVE A 30 TO 40 YARD FIELD OF DARKNESS IN FRONT OF US .COULD NOT SEE IF ANYTHING OR ANYONE RAN IN FRONT OF THE CAR . VERY DANGEROUS. DEALER SAYS THE LIGHTS ARE WORKING NORMALLY NOTHING CAN BE DONE. HONDA SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS SITUATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10543863
1,266 miles · Aug 24, 2013
Exterior Lighting
THE BRIGHT LIGHTS ARE AIMED AT TREE TOPS AND CANT BE ADJUSTED. YOU CANT SEE THE ROAD SURFACE WHEN LIGHTS ARE ON HIGH BEAM. ALSO NEED TO HAVE RUNNING LIGHT ON WHEN USING LOW BEAMS. BAD LIGHTS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537096
9,075 miles · Aug 3, 2013
Electrical SystemExterior LightingStructure
WHEN ENTERING A HIGHWAY ON-RAMP IN MAKING THE TURN ALL DOORS WERE SUDDENLY UNLOCKED AND THE FRONT COURTESY LIGHTS IN THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT CAME ON. THIS HAS NOW HAPPENED ABOUT 10 TIMES WHEN CORNERING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10533419
200 miles · Jul 19, 2013
Exterior Lighting
THE HEADLIGHTS ARE ATROCIOUS, ESPECIALLY ON HIGH BEAM. THERE ARE DARK SPOTS ALL OVER THE ROAD, IN THE CENTER OF THE ROAD, AND THE ROAD CANNOT BE CLEARLY SEEN. IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD. I LIVE IN UTAH AND TRAVELING AT NIGHT, THE HIGH BEAM HEADLIGHTS ARE SO BAD I COULD NOT SEE A DEER OR OTHER WILDLIFE IF IT WERE DIRECTLY IN FRONT …
Read full complaint
THE HEADLIGHTS ARE ATROCIOUS, ESPECIALLY ON HIGH BEAM. THERE ARE DARK SPOTS ALL OVER THE ROAD, IN THE CENTER OF THE ROAD, AND THE ROAD CANNOT BE CLEARLY SEEN. IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD. I LIVE IN UTAH AND TRAVELING AT NIGHT, THE HIGH BEAM HEADLIGHTS ARE SO BAD I COULD NOT SEE A DEER OR OTHER WILDLIFE IF IT WERE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME ON THE ROAD. THE LOW BEAMS ARE ALMOST JUST AS BAD. THE ROAD IS NOT ILLUMINATED IN A SAFE MANNER. THIS IS A UNIVERSAL COMPLAINT (ESPECIALLY ON THE INTERNET) AND I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE NHTSA HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THIS. UNLESS ON A WELL-LIT STREET, THE HEADLIGHTS ARE USELESS. THE CR-V SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY RECALLED AND HONDA SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION ASAP. MOREOVER, WHY DO THE CR-VS SOLD IN EUROPE HAVE PROJECTOR-TYPE HEADLIGHTS AND THOSE SOLD IN THE US ARE THE WORST HEADLIGHTS EVER. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10525856
120 miles · Jul 11, 2013
Exterior Lighting
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS WERE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH TO SEE WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR AN INSPECTION. THE FAILURE WAS NOT REPORTED TO THE MANUFACTURER. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 120. THE CONSUMER STATED THE LOW BEAMS W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS WERE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH TO SEE WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR AN INSPECTION. THE FAILURE WAS NOT REPORTED TO THE MANUFACTURER. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 120. THE CONSUMER STATED THE LOW BEAMS WERE INADEQUATE TO DRIVE SAFELY AT NIGHT. THE HIGH BEAMS MUST BE USED TO SEE THE ROAD IN NORMAL NIGHT DRIVING CONDITIONS. UPDATED 07/30/13
NHTSA ODI #10524379
Mileage unknown · Jun 20, 2013
Exterior Lighting
CPSC: I1360050A. 2013 HONDA CRV. CONSUMER STATED THAT THERE WAS PROBLEMS WITH THE HEADLIGHTS. *LN THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN THE HEADLIGHTS WERE SWITCHED FROM HIGH TO LOW BEAMS, MOST OF THE GROUND ILLUMINATION WAS LOST, ESPECIALLY ON A DARK ROAD, WHEN LIGHT WAS NEEDED THE MOST.
NHTSA ODI #10521343
Mileage unknown · Jun 7, 2013
Exterior Lighting
I PURCHASED A NEW HONDA 2013 CRV. I DID TEST DRIVE THE CAR DURING THE DAY. I WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT AT NIGHT IN ORDER TO DRIVE SAFELY I HAVE TO USE MY HIGH BEAMS 8 OUT OF TEN TIMES. IF I HAVE THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING SET TO AUTO THE HIGH BEAMS COME ON AUTOMATICALLY. I HAVE RARELY IF EVER USED THE HIGH BEAMS ON MY OLDER CAR TH…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A NEW HONDA 2013 CRV. I DID TEST DRIVE THE CAR DURING THE DAY. I WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT AT NIGHT IN ORDER TO DRIVE SAFELY I HAVE TO USE MY HIGH BEAMS 8 OUT OF TEN TIMES. IF I HAVE THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING SET TO AUTO THE HIGH BEAMS COME ON AUTOMATICALLY. I HAVE RARELY IF EVER USED THE HIGH BEAMS ON MY OLDER CAR THAT I TRADED IN. HONDA NEEDS TO FIX THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON THE CRV. I CAN NOT CONTINUALLY DRIVE WITH MY HIGH BEAMS ON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515603
Mileage unknown · Jun 4, 2013
Exterior Lighting
MY WIFE HAS A 2013 HONDA CRV AND IS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE HEADLIGHTS. WHEN SHE GOES FROM LOW TO HIGH BEAMS YOU LOOSE MOST OF THE FOREGROUND ILLUMINATION. ON A DARK ROAD, WHEN YOU NEED AS MUCH LIGHT AS POSSIBLE, THIS CREATES A VERY SCARY EFFECT. THERE IS WITHOUT QUESTION A SAFETY FLAW WITH THE HEADLIGHT SYSTEM. I BROUGHT THE …
Read full complaint
MY WIFE HAS A 2013 HONDA CRV AND IS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE HEADLIGHTS. WHEN SHE GOES FROM LOW TO HIGH BEAMS YOU LOOSE MOST OF THE FOREGROUND ILLUMINATION. ON A DARK ROAD, WHEN YOU NEED AS MUCH LIGHT AS POSSIBLE, THIS CREATES A VERY SCARY EFFECT. THERE IS WITHOUT QUESTION A SAFETY FLAW WITH THE HEADLIGHT SYSTEM. I BROUGHT THE CAR BACK TO THE DEALER BUT THEY COULDN'T HELP. I HAD THEM DOCUMENT ON THE SLIP THAT CUSTOMER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH HEADLIGHT SYSTEM. IN MY OPINION, IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. I CALLED HONDA CORPORATE LAST WEEK AND WAS PROVIDED WITH A CASE NUMBER AND SOMEONE IS SUPPOSED TO CALL ME BACK. WITH ALL THE CHATTER ON THE INTERNET REGARDING THIS ISSUE, I'M SURE THEY ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. HOPEFULLY, THEY WILL INDICATE EXACTLY WHEN THIS DANGEROUS FLAW IN THE 2013 HONDA CRV WILL BE PROPERLY CORRECTED. AS OF TODAY, HONDA HAS NOT RESPONDED. *TR
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.
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.