DRIVERS SEAT BELT DOES NOT RECOIL, FRAYED WHERE USED DEALER WILL NOT REAIR UNDER WARRENTY
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.
Seat Belts complaints
10 reportsThe contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while her boyfriend was driving through a construction zone at 55 MPH, an aggressive driver hit the front passenger side of the vehicle and drove off. The air bags did not deploy upon impact and the seat belts did secure the driver as needed. The contact's boyfriend su…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2014 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while her boyfriend was driving through a construction zone at 55 MPH, an aggressive driver hit the front passenger side of the vehicle and drove off. The air bags did not deploy upon impact and the seat belts did secure the driver as needed. The contact's boyfriend sustained bruises on the neck, lower back, and left arm; the contact's boyfriend had yet to seek medical attention. The whereabouts of the other driver were unknown. The vehicle was towed to an impound lot. The dealer nor the manufacturer had yet to be notified of the failure. The vehicle was totaled due to the accident. The failure mileage was approximately 110,000. The contact did not attempt to file a complaint online.
PASSENGER IN FRONT SEAT WHEN REAR ENDED AT ABOUT 25 TO 30 MPH. SEAT BELT DID NOT LOCK WHICH ALLOWED ME TO FLY FORWARD AND HIT DASH BOARD OR FRONT PILLAR
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, ON FEBRUARY 16TH OR 17TH I STRUGGLED TO PUT MY SEATBELT ON. THIS WAS THE FIRST I HAD SEEN OF ANY ISSUES WITH MY SEATBELT. AS I INVESTIGATED FOR THAT I COULD SEE THAT BOTH THE SEATBELTS IN THE BACK HAD BEEN AFFECTED AND SO HAD THE PASSENGER SEAT BELT. I BOOKED AN APPOINTMENT WITH HONDA DEALERSHIP SCOTT ROBI…
Read full complaint
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, ON FEBRUARY 16TH OR 17TH I STRUGGLED TO PUT MY SEATBELT ON. THIS WAS THE FIRST I HAD SEEN OF ANY ISSUES WITH MY SEATBELT. AS I INVESTIGATED FOR THAT I COULD SEE THAT BOTH THE SEATBELTS IN THE BACK HAD BEEN AFFECTED AND SO HAD THE PASSENGER SEAT BELT. I BOOKED AN APPOINTMENT WITH HONDA DEALERSHIP SCOTT ROBINSON IN TORRANCE AND WAS MET BY A VERY HOSTILE MEMBER OF STUFF WHO TOOK A LOOK AROUND MY CAR (NO TESTING OR INVESTIGATIONS) AND THEN QUOTED $1387 FOR PARTS AND $800 FOR LABOR. THE EMPLOYEE PROCEEDED, WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY INVESTIGATIONS, THAT EITHER MY SON (REFERRING TO AUTISTIC BEHAVIORS) OR THE DOG DAMAGED MY SEATBELTS. I TOLD HIM NOT TO EQUATE AUTISM WITH VANDALISM, MY SON IS AUTISTIC BUT HE IS NOT A SAVAGE ALSO I CHALLENGE ANY HUMAN TO CHEW THROUGH SEATBELTS. THE EMPLOYEE THEN PROCEEDED TO CLAIM HE KNEW ALL ABOUT AUTISM AND COULD CRITICIZE AS HE PLEASED. I UNDERSTAND SCOTT ROBINSON ARE A PRIVATE DEALERSHIP BUT I WILL SAY THE BEHAVIOR OF THEIR STAFF IS APPALLING. I DECIDED IT WOULD BE BEST I TAKE MY CAR AND LEAVE AS I FELT THAT THE LACK OF INVESTIGATION AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A WARRANTY ON THE SEATBELTS TOPPED WITH INSULTING MY DISABLED SON WAS ENOUGH FOR ME TO BE THERE ANYMORE. I HOPE HONDA WILL HELP ME WITH THIS AND INVESTIGATE THE BELT FEED AS IT SEEMS THAT THE ISSUE IS INTERNAL RATHER THAN EXTERNAL. SOMETHING INSIDE THE BELT FEED IS CATCHING OR GRAZING THAT IS HAS WORN THE BELT DOWN INTO FRAYING.
I WAS DRIVING 45 MILES A HOUR DOWN A STREET . I HIT MY BRAKES AND THEY DID NOT WORK AND MY SEATBELT LOCKED AND I HIT A CAR HEAD ON . I HIT HIS DRIVER DOORS FRONT AND BACK. MY AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY
AIRBAG NOT BLEW OUT DURING ACCENT SEAT BELT BROKE
LIGHT COME ON SEAT BEAT
I GOT INTO A HEAD ON COLLISION AND THE PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT CAME OFF OF THE FRAME, SO IF NOT FOR THE AIR BAG THE PASSENGER WOULD HAVE GONE RIGHT INTO THE WINDOW.
HAPPENED A FEW WEEKS AFTER VEHICLE PURCHASE, TIRE PRESSURE WARNING LIGHT WOULD COME ON ALL OF A SUDDEN. I RESET IT PER THE OWNERS MANUAL AND WOULD HAPPEN A FEW MORE TIMES AND HAVE BEEN FINE UNTIL THE MOST RECENT BASIC SERVICE AT HONDA OF SERRAMONTE. LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I RESET IT, SO FAR IT'S BEEN FINE. HAPPENED EARLY TH…
Read full complaint
HAPPENED A FEW WEEKS AFTER VEHICLE PURCHASE, TIRE PRESSURE WARNING LIGHT WOULD COME ON ALL OF A SUDDEN. I RESET IT PER THE OWNERS MANUAL AND WOULD HAPPEN A FEW MORE TIMES AND HAVE BEEN FINE UNTIL THE MOST RECENT BASIC SERVICE AT HONDA OF SERRAMONTE. LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I RESET IT, SO FAR IT'S BEEN FINE. HAPPENED EARLY THIS YEAR, A GRINDING NOISE COULD BE HEARD ALMOST EVERY MORNING WHILE STARTING THE CAR. DOES NOT HAPPEN LATER ON IN THE DAY. TOOK VEHICLE TO HONDA OF SERRAMONTE AND LEFT VEHICLE THERE SO THEY COULD TEST IT IN THE MORNING. NEXT DAY IN THE AFTERNOON I WENT TO PICK UP MY VEHICLE, SERVICE REP WAI WONG WHO ASSISTED ME SAID TECHNICIAN DID NOT HEAR THE SOUND. SHE TOLD ME THERE ARE A FEW CASES OF THIS PROBLEM SO FAR. I ASKED HER FOR A SERVICE REPORT FOR MY RECORDS, SHE SAID IT IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE NO WORK WAS PERFORMED ON MY VEHICLE. SO I ASKED IF THE GRINDING NOISE WOULD DAMAGE THE ENGINE, SHE PROMISED VERY CONFIDENTLY THAT SHE IS POSITIVE THE ENGINE WOULD NOT BE DAMAGED BY THE GRINDING NOISE. IT HAS STILL BEEN MAKING THIS GRINDING NOISE FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE MORNINGS ONLY. ALSO, WITH A PASSENGER SITTING IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT, THE AIRBAG OFF LIGHT WOULD TURN ON FROM TIME TO TIME. I'VE CHECKED ONLINE FOR ANY RECALLS RELATED TO THE ABOVE THREE ISSUES I AM HAVING WITH MY VEHICLE, BUT SO FAR NONE TO DATE.
THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT NEEDS A GADGET TO PREVENT THE BELT FROM INJURING THE DRIVER'S THROAT. THESE GADGETS ( I TESTED SEVERAL) TWIST THE BELT SO THAT THE BELT IS PROBABLY LESS EFFECTIVE IN RESTRAINING THE DRIVER. *TR
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