TPMS WARNING LIGHT CAME ON BUT TIRES WERE ALL INFLATED TO SPECIFICATION. OVER 20 TIMES THE TPMS LIGHT CAME ON FROM 12/22/13 TO 6/1/2015.
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.
Wheels complaints
47 reportsI HAVE A 2014 HONDA CRV THAT HAD A DEFECTIVE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT WHEEL THAT BECAME UNUSABLE WHEN IT WOULD NO LONGER HOLD AIR AND HAD TO BE REPLACED.
THIS IS THE MOST UNCOMFORTABLE CAR I HAVE EVER DRIVEN. THE FRONT SEAT CANNOT BE ADJUSTED TO MY COMFORT....IT DOES NOT STAY UP...I NEED TO SIT HIGH AND IT IS IMPOSSBLE TO MAKE IT STAY UP BECAUSE OF WHERE THE LEVER TO ADJUST IT IS. I REALLY DO NOT LIKE THE CAR AT ALL, BUT THE MOST ANNOYING THING IS NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE OVER TH…
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE MOST UNCOMFORTABLE CAR I HAVE EVER DRIVEN. THE FRONT SEAT CANNOT BE ADJUSTED TO MY COMFORT....IT DOES NOT STAY UP...I NEED TO SIT HIGH AND IT IS IMPOSSBLE TO MAKE IT STAY UP BECAUSE OF WHERE THE LEVER TO ADJUST IT IS. I REALLY DO NOT LIKE THE CAR AT ALL, BUT THE MOST ANNOYING THING IS NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE OVER THE STEERING WHEEL. I HAVE HAVE BEEN BACK TO MY DEALERSHIP AND THEY JUST BLEW IT OFF...NOT THIER PROBLEM...I WOULD THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE. IT IS ROUGH RIDING WHICH I THINK IS BECAUSE OF THE TIRES ON THE CAR WHICH I CANNOT AFFORD TO REPLACE...I HAVE 16,000 UNHAPPY MILES ON THE CAR. THE CAR WAS PUCHAED NEW IN 2013...IT IS A 2014.
I WILL ALWAYS READ THIS SIGHT BEFORE BUYING ANOTHER CAR. I HAVE HAD CRV 2014 18 MONTHS AND BEGAN PROBLEMS AFTER 2 WEEKS. TPMS LIGHT KEEPS COMING ON EVERY FEW WEEKS. LOW BEAM LIGHTS ARE BAD AND HIGH BEAMS ARE RIDICULOUSLY TOO FAR AHEAD AND CAN'T SEE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. THE HEAD REST LEANS SO FAR FORWARD ITS UNCOMFORTABLE A…
Read full complaint
I WILL ALWAYS READ THIS SIGHT BEFORE BUYING ANOTHER CAR. I HAVE HAD CRV 2014 18 MONTHS AND BEGAN PROBLEMS AFTER 2 WEEKS. TPMS LIGHT KEEPS COMING ON EVERY FEW WEEKS. LOW BEAM LIGHTS ARE BAD AND HIGH BEAMS ARE RIDICULOUSLY TOO FAR AHEAD AND CAN'T SEE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. THE HEAD REST LEANS SO FAR FORWARD ITS UNCOMFORTABLE AND AWKWARD. MY ENGINE MAKES A TERRIBLE GRINDING SOUND WHEN STARTING THE CAR. AFTER READING ALL THE OTHER COMPLAINTS, I CONSIDER MYSELF FORTUNATE I HAVEN'T HAD ACCELERATION UPON APPLYING THE BRAKES OR NO THROTTLE WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE. I WILL BE CAUTIOUS OF THOSE PROBLEMS NOW SINCE I'VE HAD SO MANY OF THE OTHERS LISTED HERE.
DURING A 3500 MILE TRIP THE TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING WARNING LIGHT (TPMS) CAME ON AT LEAST 6 TIMES. EACH TIME I STOPPED AND NONE OF THE TIRES WERE LOW. I RESET THE SYSTEM AND CONTINUED TO DRIVE. EVENTUALLY, THE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I REPEATED THE SAME, STOP AND CHECK PROCEDURE, EACH TIME THERE WASN'T ANY VARIATION IN THE T…
Read full complaint
DURING A 3500 MILE TRIP THE TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING WARNING LIGHT (TPMS) CAME ON AT LEAST 6 TIMES. EACH TIME I STOPPED AND NONE OF THE TIRES WERE LOW. I RESET THE SYSTEM AND CONTINUED TO DRIVE. EVENTUALLY, THE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I REPEATED THE SAME, STOP AND CHECK PROCEDURE, EACH TIME THERE WASN'T ANY VARIATION IN THE TIRE PRESSURE. I HAVE HAD TPMS ON OTHER VEHICLES AND NEVER HAVE I HAD A FALSE READING. THE HONDA SYSTEM IS A BASIC SYSTEM AT BEST AND FROM READING OTHER COMPLAINTS, HAS BEEN PLAGUED WITH PROBLEMS. THEIR SYSTEM IS MORE OF AN ANNOYANCE THAN BENEFIT. I WAS TOLD THE 2014'S HAD UPDATED SOFTWARE WHICH DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK. HONDA NEEDS TO DESIGN A SUITABLE FIX FOR A KNOWN PROBLEM. *TR
THE TPWL COMES ON AT VARIOUS TIMES & IS NOT A RELIABLE WAY TO MONITOR TIRE PRESSURE. EVERY TIME THE LIGHT COMES ON, I CHECK THE PRESSURES & THEY ARE ALL AT 32 PSI. THE LIGHT IS USELESS! THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES & NOW I IGNORE THE LIGHT. *TR
THE TPM WENT ON INDICATING LOW TIRE PRESSURE. DEALER CHECK: ALL TIRES OK, RESET TPM. THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES SINCE, IT'S BACK ON AS THIS DATA IS BEING ENTERED. A SEARCH ON-LINE INDICATES THAT MANY 2014 OWNERS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM (ONE WEB SITE: HTTP://WWW.CARPROBLEMZOO.COM/HONDA/CR-V/2014/2014-HONDA-CR-V-TIRE-PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
THE TPM WENT ON INDICATING LOW TIRE PRESSURE. DEALER CHECK: ALL TIRES OK, RESET TPM. THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES SINCE, IT'S BACK ON AS THIS DATA IS BEING ENTERED. A SEARCH ON-LINE INDICATES THAT MANY 2014 OWNERS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM (ONE WEB SITE: HTTP://WWW.CARPROBLEMZOO.COM/HONDA/CR-V/2014/2014-HONDA-CR-V-TIRE-PROBLEMS.PHP) . THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE OWNERS CAN'T TRUST THE TPM SYSTEM: IS A TIRE GOING FLAT, OR IS THE TPM MALFUNCTIONING AGAIN. THIS IS ONLY FOR 2014 (AND NEWER?) YEARS WHEN HONDA WENT TO A NEW SYSTEM THAT MONITORS THE ROTATIONAL SPEED OF WHEELS RATHER THAN ACTUAL TIRE PRESSURE. THANKS *TR
THE LOW TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD A MECHANIC MAKE SURE ALL TIRES WERE 32 PSI AND RESET THE LIGHT. IT CAME BACK ON 30 MINUTES LATER. PULLED IN THE NEAREST HONDA DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE DEPT. TOLD ME THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH 2014'S THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX. GOT HOME AND GOOGLED IT-FORUMS SAY IT IS A GLITCH IN THE ANTI-…
Read full complaint
THE LOW TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT CAME ON. I HAD A MECHANIC MAKE SURE ALL TIRES WERE 32 PSI AND RESET THE LIGHT. IT CAME BACK ON 30 MINUTES LATER. PULLED IN THE NEAREST HONDA DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE DEPT. TOLD ME THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH 2014'S THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX. GOT HOME AND GOOGLED IT-FORUMS SAY IT IS A GLITCH IN THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SOFTWARE. NOW CAN I TRUST MY ANTI-LOCK BRAKES?? MY CAR IS ONE DAY OLD!!!! VERY FRUSTRATING. *TR
THE TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEM (TPMS) LIGHT HAS COME ON THREE TIMES WHEN THE TIRES ARE PROPERLY INFLATED. HONDA HAS NOT PROVIDED A FIX FOR THIS KNOWN SAFETY ISSUE WITH THIS VEHICLE. *TR
I HAVE HAD CONSTANT ISSUES WITH THE TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING (TPMS) SYSTEM ON MY NEW CRV. THE LIGHT ILLUMINATES RANDOMLY WHEN MY TIRE PRESSURE IS FINE. IT SOMETIMES DOES NOT ILLUMINATE WHEN MY TIRE PRESSURE IS NOT FINE. IT HAS BEEN IN FOR REPAIRS 6 OR 7 TIMES AND THERE IS NO FIX IDENTIFIED YET. I AM LEFT NOT KNOWING WHETHER MY T…
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD CONSTANT ISSUES WITH THE TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING (TPMS) SYSTEM ON MY NEW CRV. THE LIGHT ILLUMINATES RANDOMLY WHEN MY TIRE PRESSURE IS FINE. IT SOMETIMES DOES NOT ILLUMINATE WHEN MY TIRE PRESSURE IS NOT FINE. IT HAS BEEN IN FOR REPAIRS 6 OR 7 TIMES AND THERE IS NO FIX IDENTIFIED YET. I AM LEFT NOT KNOWING WHETHER MY TIRES ARE PROPERLY INFLATED OR NOT. HONDA IS AWARE OF THE SAFETY ISSUE BUT NOT ABLE TO CORRECT (OR WILLING TO REFUND). *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