VTC actuator malfunction causing timing chain failure leading to engine failure dangerous if driving causing engine to fail on highway leading to dangerous situation paid to fix 10,000 miles later same issue with updated part installed. Problem confirmed by Honda
2014 Honda CR-V
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2014 Honda CR-V do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 400.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all CR-V years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
396 reports with mileage · 191 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 190 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 77 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 68 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
190 reportsThis make and model Honda with a 2.4L engine have several known defects which brings potential harm and high operational and repair costs to its owners. Honda is well aware of the engine problems but refuses to issue recalls to correct the problem. Two of the major problems are: 1. due to a design error, the engine burns exces…
Read full complaint
This make and model Honda with a 2.4L engine have several known defects which brings potential harm and high operational and repair costs to its owners. Honda is well aware of the engine problems but refuses to issue recalls to correct the problem. Two of the major problems are: 1. due to a design error, the engine burns excessive amounts of oil, and 2. Honda installed a defective VTC Actuator in this engine. Either problem can cause the engine to suddenly sieze/fail which could lead to serious injury or loss of life. I purchased a used 2014 Honda CR-V from a Honda dealer in 2022 with about 50,000 mi. After a short time owning the vehicle I realized that the engine was burning excessive oil (about 2 quarts every 2 to 3 weeks). When I discussed this issue with my local Honda dealer, they told me that according to a Honda Service Bulliten, my car was not losing oil at a rate that warranted repair. I've owned around 10 Hondas in my life and I've never had a car burn oil where I had to add ANY oil between oil changes. So, burning multiple quarts of oil a month is EXTREMELY UNUSUAL and should have been repaired by Honda! The 2nd problem, defective VTC Actuators, actually may be related to the 1st problem due to a constant fluctuation of the oil level, and lack of oil. The defective VTC Actuators lead to a stretched/worn Timing Chain which can cause engine failure at any time and any place. After experiencing a loud rattling coming from my engine on start-up for some time, I just had several dashboard lights come on. Running a scan on the vehicle it showed a P0341 code. I took my car to my local Honda Dealer where they informed my that I had to replace the stretched Timing Chain and failed/defective VTC Actuator at a cost of over $2600. I believe that fraud was committed by Honda from the day I purchased the vehicle as Honda was aware of both significant engine problems and did not inform us a unexpecting Buyers.
I own a 2014 Honda CR-V. Since around November 2022 I have repeatedly experienced an intermittent “bounce” or shudder when accelerating, especially around 20–25 mph and sometimes at higher speeds (around 45 mph and above). The vehicle feels like it briefly loses power or slips before catching again, and the check-engine light ha…
Read full complaint
I own a 2014 Honda CR-V. Since around November 2022 I have repeatedly experienced an intermittent “bounce” or shudder when accelerating, especially around 20–25 mph and sometimes at higher speeds (around 45 mph and above). The vehicle feels like it briefly loses power or slips before catching again, and the check-engine light has come on and off during this period. I took the vehicle to Stockton Honda (CA) multiple times and consistently reported this bounce/shudder on take-off. Each time, the focus was on brakes, rotors, tires, or other maintenance items. I was never told there might be an engine or timing-chain issue or that the vehicle could be unsafe to drive. The bounce/shudder never went away. I have also been involved in multiple low-speed collisions while taking off from a stop in the past few years, and I am concerned that this hesitation/loss of power may have contributed. In late 2025, Honda of Elk Grove performed a full diagnostic, retrieved a P031 code, and told me the most likely cause is a timing-chain problem. I was advised that the vehicle is not recommended to be driven until the timing chain is replaced because the engine could be severely damaged or fail while driving. The technician refused to take the car on the freeway due to safety concerns. I am submitting this complaint so NHTSA is aware that a possible timing-chain defect or failure in 2014 Honda CR-V vehicles can present as a bounce/shudder at low speeds during acceleration, with potential loss of power and increased risk of rear-end collisions, and that this condition may be missed or misdiagnosed by dealers for an extended period.
My 2014 CRV has 83,131 miles and I am a careful driver and like to keep my vehicle in top shape. The service done was replaced outer tie rod ends that were cracked and I could have lost control , replaced front lower control arms, replaced front struts, replaced rear sway bar bushings, reseal coolant passage housing , head gaske…
Read full complaint
My 2014 CRV has 83,131 miles and I am a careful driver and like to keep my vehicle in top shape. The service done was replaced outer tie rod ends that were cracked and I could have lost control , replaced front lower control arms, replaced front struts, replaced rear sway bar bushings, reseal coolant passage housing , head gaskets, my vehicle could have quit in traffic. The top of my CRV has paint faded and gone to a white powder look. There are things that a car with low miles driven carefully and taken very good car of should not be happening. There should be recalls because there are issues with timing chains and fuel system. I am scared to drive it anymore. I won't stay loyal to Honda now and I am very disappointed that they know these issues and haven't attempted to fix them.
The contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that upon starting the vehicle, there was an abnormal rattling sound coming from the engine compartment. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who diagnosed a failure with the VTC actuator, resulting in damages to the engine. The contact wa…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that upon starting the vehicle, there was an abnormal rattling sound coming from the engine compartment. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who diagnosed a failure with the VTC actuator, resulting in damages to the engine. The contact was informed that a partial rebuild of the engine was required. The vehicle was not repaired. After investigating the failure, the contact related the failure to Technical Service Bulletin: 16-012. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 58,000.
The contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while starting the vehicle there was an abnormal sound that was coming from the front of the vehicle. The vehicle was not taken to a dealer or independent mechanic to be diagnosed. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileag…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated while starting the vehicle there was an abnormal sound that was coming from the front of the vehicle. The vehicle was not taken to a dealer or independent mechanic to be diagnosed. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 38,000.
The contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated when the vehicle was started, there was a loud rattling sound coming from the vehicle. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or the dealer. The vehicle was scheduled for an upcoming diagnostic test. The contact stated that the failure had been …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated when the vehicle was started, there was a loud rattling sound coming from the vehicle. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or the dealer. The vehicle was scheduled for an upcoming diagnostic test. The contact stated that the failure had been occurring intermittently since 2014, however in 2020 the failure occurred, and the variable timing actuator (VTC)was replaced. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and a case was filed. The failure mileage was approximately 52,032.
Engine code p1009 VTC valve replacement no know place will replace due to zero tolerant engine and timing not in tune due too much damage by the pistons and valves
Rattles and shakes between 25 and 40 mph, bad actuator will cause timing failure. It only has 71,000 miles. Honda is well aware of this defect in this vehicle. When will they be held accountable to fix this issue? At 33k I was definitely taken for a ride! No engine warning light either!
Purchased our 2014 CR-V [XXX], used one owner, 55301 mileage. Very little driving the next three years due to the pandemic. Summer of 2023 we were driving from Buffalo to [XXX] , first 30 miles, severe hesitation, amber lights on, until reaching 70mph. Hesitation stopped but lights stayed on. By August the TPMS indicator, malfu…
Read full complaint
Purchased our 2014 CR-V [XXX], used one owner, 55301 mileage. Very little driving the next three years due to the pandemic. Summer of 2023 we were driving from Buffalo to [XXX] , first 30 miles, severe hesitation, amber lights on, until reaching 70mph. Hesitation stopped but lights stayed on. By August the TPMS indicator, malfunction indicator lamp and other lights came on, again. We reset according to the manual, but this was just the beginning of this process happening over and over again. During dealer testing Code PO 341 came up. Had it tested at another place before taking it to West Herr Honda and was told needed Timing chain replacement with VTC. This was done at a cost of $2232.06 with car mileage of 63159. We were sad and disappointed. Research shows that Honda is very much aware of over 500 plus recorded problems with the 2014 CR-V not to mention unreported problems. The model should be recalled before lives are lost. Car still hesitates but evidently due to a different problem. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Official recalls
123V858000 · 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.
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
2EA21002 · 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.
Illustration