NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
36 reportsClear category filter410,000 miles · Sep 15, 2017
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
I WAS PULLING INTO MY PARKING SPACE AT WORK AT ABOUT 5 MILES AN HOUR. I APPLIED THE BRAKE AND SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED INTO THE BRICK WALL OF THE BUILDING ABOUT 10 FEET AWAY. FRONT END DAMAGE TO THE CAR AND DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING. THIS IS THE 2ND TIME I HAVE HAD SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE FIRST TIME I WAS PRE…
Read full complaint
I WAS PULLING INTO MY PARKING SPACE AT WORK AT ABOUT 5 MILES AN HOUR. I APPLIED THE BRAKE AND SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED INTO THE BRICK WALL OF THE BUILDING ABOUT 10 FEET AWAY. FRONT END DAMAGE TO THE CAR AND DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING. THIS IS THE 2ND TIME I HAVE HAD SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE FIRST TIME I WAS PREPARING TO PULL INTO A PARKING SPACE BUT I WAS FURTHER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. I STOMPED ON THE BRAKES REPEATEDLY AND WAS ABLE TO STOP JUST BEFORE HITTING ANYTHING.
NHTSA ODI #11023585
Mileage unknown · Sep 7, 2017
Power TrainUnknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control
CAR HESITATES AND THEN MAY SURGE ON ACCELERATION, ESPECIALLY FROM FULL STOP, ROLLING STOP, OR LOW SPEED, AS IN HIGHWAY MERGING. I SUSPECT THE TRANSMISSION. IT IS INTERMITTENT, AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES/WEEK FROM 2014-2017. HONDA WON'T ADDRESS IT BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY CAN'T REPLICATE IT.
NHTSA ODI #11022145
22,000 miles · Mar 5, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control
MY CAR WAS ON A FREEWAY GOING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH DRIVING IN ECONOMY MODE. I WAS ON MY BLUETOOTH AND I HAD NOT CHANGED LANES. SOMETIME DURING THIS 2 MINUTE PHONE CALL I HAD ACCELERATED AS I HAD TRAFFIC ENTERING FROM MY RIGHT AND FELT THE CAR SHIFT INTO A HIGHER GEAR. I ENDED MY PHONE CALL ABRUPTLY AS MY CAR WAS ACTING UP AND…
Read full complaint
MY CAR WAS ON A FREEWAY GOING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH DRIVING IN ECONOMY MODE. I WAS ON MY BLUETOOTH AND I HAD NOT CHANGED LANES. SOMETIME DURING THIS 2 MINUTE PHONE CALL I HAD ACCELERATED AS I HAD TRAFFIC ENTERING FROM MY RIGHT AND FELT THE CAR SHIFT INTO A HIGHER GEAR. I ENDED MY PHONE CALL ABRUPTLY AS MY CAR WAS ACTING UP AND NOT RUNNING SMOOTHLY. IT MAY HAVE BEEN HESITATING. I REALIZED MY CAR JUST KEPT ACCELERATING AND OUT OF MY CONTROL. I PUT MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND IT WOULD SLOW THE CAR, BUT IT DIDN'T SLOW THE ENGINE MOTOR. I WOULD ALTERNATE PUTTING MY FOOT ON THE BREAK AND TAPPING THE ACCELERATOR AND BACK TO BRAKE PEDAL AGAIN. THERE WAS NO GIVE ON THE ACCELERATOR--LIKE IT WAS STUCK TO THE FLOOR. AFTER ABOUT 3 OR 4 OF THESE ATTEMPTS TO GAIN CONTROL, I HAD CONTROL OF THE ACCELERATOR AGAIN AND EXITED AT THE NEXT EXIT. WHEN THE CAR WAS STILL MOVING AND I WAS OFF THE FREEWAY, I REACHED DOWN TO MAKE SURE MY FLOOR MAT WAS IN PLACE AND IT WAS. I THEN DROVE IT TO THE NEAREST HONDA DEALER AND LEFT IT THERE. SINCE IT IS THE WEEKEND THEY WON'T BE LOOKING AT IT UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
NHTSA ODI #10840058
15,000 miles · Mar 3, 2016
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN THE VEHICLE JERKED AFTER A COMPLETE STOP AND DURING ACCELERATION THE VEHICLE HESITATED THEN JERKED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT VEHICLE'S ALARM ACTIVATED AND FAILED TO DEACTIVATE. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN THE VEHICLE JERKED AFTER A COMPLETE STOP AND DURING ACCELERATION THE VEHICLE HESITATED THEN JERKED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT VEHICLE'S ALARM ACTIVATED AND FAILED TO DEACTIVATE. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ALARM MODULE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE TECHNICIAN COULD NOT DETERMINE THE FAILURE OF THE VEHICLE JERKING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 15,000. UPDATED 04/20/16*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE TRANSMISSION WAS REPLACED IN MARCH 2016. UPDATED 03/22/17.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10839655
9,300 miles · Oct 27, 2015
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TURNING AT APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD AND CRASHED HEAD ON INTO A LAMP POST WHILE TURNING. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TURNING AT APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD AND CRASHED HEAD ON INTO A LAMP POST WHILE TURNING. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED EXTENSIVE FRONT DRIVER SIDE DAMAGE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 9,300.
NHTSA ODI #10786349
Mileage unknown · Oct 3, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING FROM VEGAS TODAY 10/3 AFTERNOON TO LOS ANGELES. I WAS ON CRUISE FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS AT LEAST. KEPT IT AROUND 70-71 BASED ON THE SPEED LIMIT. THERE WAS ONE POINT WHEN THE VEHICLE INCREASED THE SPEED AUTOMATICALLY TO 80-82 IN CRUISE. I WAS NOT INCREASING THE VALUE NOR MY LEG WAS ON THE ACCELERATOR. IT WAS SURP…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING FROM VEGAS TODAY 10/3 AFTERNOON TO LOS ANGELES. I WAS ON CRUISE FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS AT LEAST. KEPT IT AROUND 70-71 BASED ON THE SPEED LIMIT. THERE WAS ONE POINT WHEN THE VEHICLE INCREASED THE SPEED AUTOMATICALLY TO 80-82 IN CRUISE. I WAS NOT INCREASING THE VALUE NOR MY LEG WAS ON THE ACCELERATOR. IT WAS SURPRISING AND SCARY. LUCKILY THE ROADS WERE FREE. ELSE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A REAR END OR SOME OTHER THING. I HAD TO STEP ON BRAKE TO REMOVE THE VEHICLE FROM CRUISE. I AM A FAN OF HONDA AND HAD AN ACCORD 2006- 2008 AND THEN A CRV 2008 TILL 2014 AND FINALLY A 2014 CRV. OTHER OLD ONES DID NOT HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM. THIS ONE SCARED ME OUT OF MY SKIN.
NHTSA ODI #10779536
12,042 miles · Sep 9, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AND POWERED ON WITH A CHILD THE REAR SEAT, THE CONTACT RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE TO TURN IT OFF WHEN SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT HAD TO JUMP INSIDE THE VEHICLE IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO STOP IT. THE VEHICLE WAS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AND POWERED ON WITH A CHILD THE REAR SEAT, THE CONTACT RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE TO TURN IT OFF WHEN SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT HAD TO JUMP INSIDE THE VEHICLE IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO STOP IT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 12,042.
NHTSA ODI #10762477
12,000 miles · Aug 28, 2015
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT SIDESWIPED ANOTHER VEHICLE AND CRASHED HEAD ON INTO A LAMP POST. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED NECK AND SHOULDER INJURIES THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED EXTEN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CONTACT SIDESWIPED ANOTHER VEHICLE AND CRASHED HEAD ON INTO A LAMP POST. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED NECK AND SHOULDER INJURIES THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED EXTENSIVE FRONT END DAMAGE. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 12,000.
NHTSA ODI #10760001
25,300 miles · Aug 7, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE AND THEN THE VEHICLE HAD A SUDDEN UNINTENDED INCREASE IN ACCELERATION TO 45 MPH OR HIGHER. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY FORCE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE AND THEN THE VEHICLE HAD A SUDDEN UNINTENDED INCREASE IN ACCELERATION TO 45 MPH OR HIGHER. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY FORCE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHO WAS NOT ABLE TO REPLICATE THE FAILURE AFTER KEEPING THE VEHICLE FOR TWO DAYS. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 25,300.
NHTSA ODI #10747081
150,000 miles · Jul 8, 2015
Service BrakesStructureVehicle Speed ControlCrash
I ENTERED A PARKING LOT TO TAKE MY GRANDGIRLS TO A WILDLIFE REFUGE EXHIBIT. DROVE DOWN DRIVEWAY, TURNED LEFT OFF OF DRIVEWAY TO PARK CAR FACING WEST WHICH WOULD BE FACING ANOTHER CAR FACING EAST. TURN WAS IMMEDIATE, SO BRAKES WERE APPLIED. CAR DID NOT SLOW DOWN OR STOP . . . RATHER, IT ACCELERATED WITH A LURCH! I WAS LAYING …
Read full complaint
I ENTERED A PARKING LOT TO TAKE MY GRANDGIRLS TO A WILDLIFE REFUGE EXHIBIT. DROVE DOWN DRIVEWAY, TURNED LEFT OFF OF DRIVEWAY TO PARK CAR FACING WEST WHICH WOULD BE FACING ANOTHER CAR FACING EAST. TURN WAS IMMEDIATE, SO BRAKES WERE APPLIED. CAR DID NOT SLOW DOWN OR STOP . . . RATHER, IT ACCELERATED WITH A LURCH! I WAS LAYING ON THE BRAKES; THEY DID NOT ENGAGE UNTIL FRONTAL CONTACT PUSHED FACING CAR OUT OF MY WAY, AND I WAS ABLE TO THROW CAR INTO PARK. NO ACTION WHEN ENGAGING EMERGENCY BRAKES. OF COURSE, DOCUMENTED AS AN "AT-FAULT" ACCIDENT BY MY INSURANCE COMPANY. (MAY I PERSONALLY MENTION THAT I HAVE BEEN DRIVING 48 YEARS AND HAVE NEVER HAD AN "AT-FAULT" ACCIDENT - HAVEN'T EVEN HIT A GARBAGE CAN!) RETURNED CAR TO HONDA DEALERSHIP TO CHECK OUT BRAKING/ACCELERATION. THE RESPONSE FROM THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE WAS, (AND I DIRECTLY QUOTE), "WE COULDN'T FIND A PROBLEM, BUT, WHEN YOU EXPERIENCE THIS PROBLEM AGAIN, PLEASE HAVE IT TOWED TO OUR DEALERSHIP!" I HAVE OWNED 14 SUBSEQUENT HONDAS, BUT WILL NEVER OWN ANOTHER! THAT CRV TOOK ITS OWN FREE WILL AS I TRIED MY BEST TO CONTROL IT - NOTHING DOING! UPDATED 10/07/15*LJ UPDATED 11/08/2017*CN
NHTSA ODI #10732764
Official recalls
1Dec 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.