← 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

What owners actually said

382 reports
106,467 miles · Jan 25, 2024
Structure

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle made an abnormally loud sound. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, who diagnosed that the swing arm bolt had fractured, and the sub-frame was severely corroded. The independent mechanic replaced the swinga…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle made an abnormally loud sound. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, who diagnosed that the swing arm bolt had fractured, and the sub-frame was severely corroded. The independent mechanic replaced the swingarm bolt; however, the failure recurred. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact stated that the front suspension stabilizer bar had previously been replaced. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and a case was opened. The failure mileage was 106,467.

NHTSA ODI #11567774

Mileage unknown · Sep 24, 2023
Structure

The drivers side door is the only key hole available to unlock or lock the car. This key hole is jammed at a diagonal angle and will not accept a key in any way. Thus, whatever state the car is currently in (locked in my case) is the state that it will stay. No professional has checked it out. It is easily inspectable. There wer…

Read full complaint

The drivers side door is the only key hole available to unlock or lock the car. This key hole is jammed at a diagonal angle and will not accept a key in any way. Thus, whatever state the car is currently in (locked in my case) is the state that it will stay. No professional has checked it out. It is easily inspectable. There were no warnings by the car that this would happen, however, within 24 hrs before the door lock was jammed, the car wouldn't stay locked and would unlock and release the trunk door on its own while unattended.

NHTSA ODI #11546252

105,000 miles · Jul 24, 2023
Air BagsCrashInjury

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while driving at 40 MPH, he was involved in an accident where he crashed into a truck, but the driver's air bag did not deploy. The contact stated that the fumes from the air bag burned his left hand, and he had to seek medical attention. The contact mentioned that his…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while driving at 40 MPH, he was involved in an accident where he crashed into a truck, but the driver's air bag did not deploy. The contact stated that the fumes from the air bag burned his left hand, and he had to seek medical attention. The contact mentioned that his injuries would have been severe had he not been wearing a protectant glove on his hand. The vehicle was towed to the towing lot. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 105,000.

NHTSA ODI #11534198

85,000 miles · Jun 26, 2023
Back Over Prevention

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while reversing, the rearview camera image was significantly blurry. There was no warning light illuminated. The contact stated that the failure had been reoccurring. The dealer and the manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed nor repaired…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while reversing, the rearview camera image was significantly blurry. There was no warning light illuminated. The contact stated that the failure had been reoccurring. The dealer and the manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed nor repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 85,000.

NHTSA ODI #11528985

Mileage unknown · Jun 23, 2023
Electrical System

My 2013 Honda crv LX locks keep locking and unlocking by itself replaced drivers side lock actuator still has the same problem replaced with OEM.

NHTSA ODI #11528544

Mileage unknown · Jun 20, 2023
Power Train

Car shudders when accelerating at 20-25 mph. I had gotten this looked at and fixed about 2-3 years ago per two recalls and it had resolved. Just recently I noticed it started up again.

NHTSA ODI #11527843

Mileage unknown · Apr 23, 2023
Electrical System

Electronic power steering intermittently fails, mostly on low speed turns. Local Honda dealership has had the car two weeks, can’t find any error codes upon investigation. Yet problem still happens.

NHTSA ODI #11518563

158,000 miles · Apr 12, 2023
StructureSuspension

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while driving approximately 50 MPH, the vehicle drove over a bump in the road and the steering wheel became unstable. The vehicle was driven to the local service center who diagnosed that the rear driver’s side lower control arm on the front suspension mount had separated fr…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2013 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while driving approximately 50 MPH, the vehicle drove over a bump in the road and the steering wheel became unstable. The vehicle was driven to the local service center who diagnosed that the rear driver’s side lower control arm on the front suspension mount had separated from the unibody frame due to corrosion. The contact was informed that the entire unibody frame needed to be replaced to repair the control arm. The vehicle was not yet repaired. The local dealer and manufacturer were notified of the failure, but no assistance was provided. The failure mileage was 158,000. The contact stated that they will no longer need this complaint. They contacted the dealership and they agreed to buy the vehicle and make the situation a fair settlement.

NHTSA ODI #11516735

Mileage unknown · Mar 6, 2023
Power Train

Powertrain problem as many others stated. I got the vehicle used after extensive research claiming how great it was & because I've owned an Accord for over 20 years with no problems. All I could find on line was rave reviews. When I took the vehicle for test drive it was in the middle of rush hour traffic so went on side roads…

Read full complaint

Powertrain problem as many others stated. I got the vehicle used after extensive research claiming how great it was & because I've owned an Accord for over 20 years with no problems. All I could find on line was rave reviews. When I took the vehicle for test drive it was in the middle of rush hour traffic so went on side roads. I could feel it shake but thought the roads were just not smooth. Within a few days the shaking got worse and brought it to the most reputable service station in the area. I was told it was a transmission judder. They ran a check and there was no recall on my vin # although they found that it was a known problem with Honda. They performed a TBS transmission flash update, hoping it might solve the problem. That was only 1/2 the repair required. Because it was a transmission problem, they recommended Honda do that. Honda also said the my vin wasn't supposed to have the problem and charged me for a triple flush of the transmission fluid because the way it's built, enough of the fluid can't be replaced in one flush. It's somewhat better now but I was told to keep paying attention because it's possible the converter will also need to be repaired. I'm so disappointed with Honda. I always trusted them and all the great reviews on line, but it wasn't until I was told to specifically google "Honda CRV transmission judder or shutter", that I found the flood of many owners that had the same problem. They know about the issue yet charged close to $500 for the flush, not counting the over $300 flash update by the service station also needed. Honda just claims some vin numbers don't qualify even though they have the issue, but they don't explain what determines that disqualification. Just "Sorry Mam, your vin isn't on the list. The car is not safe with that shake. It jumps when trying to slow down for a yellow light. You can feel it shake & hurts my injured back- the reason I got it in the 1st place.

NHTSA ODI #11510361

Mileage unknown · Feb 11, 2023
Unknown Or OtherCrash

On February 5, I was parking my vehicle in a parking lot space. The vehicle lurched forward and hit another parked car causing $925 in damages to that car. I put it into Park and then Reverse and it lurched backwards. I did not have any control over the car. I took it to the North Shore Honda dealer in Glen Head, NY and they wer…

Read full complaint

On February 5, I was parking my vehicle in a parking lot space. The vehicle lurched forward and hit another parked car causing $925 in damages to that car. I put it into Park and then Reverse and it lurched backwards. I did not have any control over the car. I took it to the North Shore Honda dealer in Glen Head, NY and they were unable to find anything wrong but I know there is a problem and I am very nervous driving the car. There were no warning lamps before or after the incident. I have read on the internet of other people experiencing uncontrolled acceleration of their vehicle.

NHTSA ODI #11506769

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