NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes complaints
36 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Aug 25, 2026
Forward Collision AvoidanceService BrakesCrash
On XXX, I had an accident where I rear-ended a vehicle stopped at an intersection, when I simultaneously pressed my brake and accelerator pedal due to a hazardous brake pedal/accelerator pedal positioning. Only one week prior I had described/argued the exact accident scenario with the service mgr of First Texas Honda Svc Ctr ([X…
Read full complaint
On XXX, I had an accident where I rear-ended a vehicle stopped at an intersection, when I simultaneously pressed my brake and accelerator pedal due to a hazardous brake pedal/accelerator pedal positioning. Only one week prior I had described/argued the exact accident scenario with the service mgr of First Texas Honda Svc Ctr ([XXX]) after taking my CR-V in for brake evaluation/servicing. He said nothing’s wrong with my brake pedal. I’ve owned my car for 10 yrs and have experienced these situations numerous (<20+X) times, as one of two scenarios: In a slow stop and an emergency stop, WHERE THE BRAKE PEDAL DOES NOT STOP AT A REASONABLE DISTANCE ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. The 1st scenario involves slow braking at low speeds (<25mph) where I’m simply slowing/flowing with traffic, as was the case with the accident I’m reporting. Here, I’m using a simple toe-heel pivot to move from accelerator to cover the brake. With a steady slow pressure, the brake pedal sinks to the level of the accelerator without fully stopping the vehicle. At that point, the brake pedal sinks below the accelerator pedal, resulting in my foot pressing both the brake and accelerator simultaneously, causing my CR-V to surge forward. Of course, I can’t physically see how low the brake pedal has dipped, and I’m relying solely on the car’s response (movement) when suddenly the accelerator engages. While I take full responsibility, I believe the brake pedal is more the problem than me/my foot. In the Emergency braking episodes, the scenario begins with a quick response braking requiring steady braking pressure (not fast/abrupt); then traffic stops abruptly, requiring a hard, urgent braking to stop completely—but the already depressed brake pedal sinks to the floorboard rather than delivering a hard deceleration before the pedal bottoms out. It’s a panic moment that triggers an emergency evasive maneuver into to an adjacent lane. The CR-V’s brake pedal creates dangerous incidents. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATIO
NHTSA ODI #11759504
Mileage unknown · Aug 16, 2025
Forward Collision AvoidanceService Brakes
On 8/14, As I was pulling away from a gas pump and into a parking space (going 5 mph or less), the automatic braking system alarms went off, and the brakes applied, causing the car to seize up completely. My foot was already on the brake and I was at least 5 feet away from the barrier at the end of the parking spot. In additi…
Read full complaint
On 8/14, As I was pulling away from a gas pump and into a parking space (going 5 mph or less), the automatic braking system alarms went off, and the brakes applied, causing the car to seize up completely. My foot was already on the brake and I was at least 5 feet away from the barrier at the end of the parking spot. In addition to this experience, the emergency braking alarms tend to go off in unexpected/unneeded situations, such as when I'm coasting to a red light with my foot already on the brake. And it does NOT go off in other situations where I would expect it, such as when a car stops short in front of me. These situations happen approximately once every two months or so. The automatic/emergency braking is unreliable, unpredictable and when it engages unnecessarily, could be dangerous.
NHTSA ODI #11681041
137,000 miles · Jul 29, 2025
Service BrakesCrash
The contact owns a 2015 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his son was driving 45 MPH in the rain, the son rear ended the vehicle in front. The contact's vehicle was in the middle lane and the vehicle in front was stopped at the traffic light. The contact stated that the brake pedal was depressed but failed to stop the ve…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2015 Honda CR-V. The contact stated that while his son was driving 45 MPH in the rain, the son rear ended the vehicle in front. The contact's vehicle was in the middle lane and the vehicle in front was stopped at the traffic light. The contact stated that the brake pedal was depressed but failed to stop the vehicle immediately. The air bags did not deploy. The contact's son, and the contact, who was a passenger, were not injured. A police report was filed. The insurance company was contacted. However, the contact was informed that the vehicle could not be repaired and referred the contact to take the vehicle to the dealer. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the right side brakes and rotor had frozen and failed. The contact was informed that the brakes, exhaust and muffler had a leak. The vehicle was repaired. The contact stated that in March the vehicle had maintenance work and no leaks were found. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 137,000.
NHTSA ODI #11677105
Mileage unknown · Oct 6, 2022
Service BrakesCrash
My daughter recently experienced a braking system failure in our 2015 Honda CR-V EX while backing down a steep driveway. She has reversed the car down the same driveway many times in the past without incident. This time, she was unable to stop the vehicle, despite pushing on the brake pedal as hard as she could. The brake ped…
Read full complaint
My daughter recently experienced a braking system failure in our 2015 Honda CR-V EX while backing down a steep driveway. She has reversed the car down the same driveway many times in the past without incident. This time, she was unable to stop the vehicle, despite pushing on the brake pedal as hard as she could. The brake pedal was very firm while she was pushing on it, even though the car remained running throughout the incident. Fortunately, nobody was injured and the car stopped after jumping a curb and hitting a dirt embankment. She was able to use the rear-view camera to navigate the CR-V down the driveway and across the road to its final stopping point, narrowly avoiding hitting an oncoming car. Upon inspection, our local Honda dealership could not find any problems with the braking system. The pedal is no longer hard to push and the brakes are working normally again. Given the symptoms and the information my dealership provided, I requested a replacement of the brake booster. However, no cause for the failure was identified and the dealership did not provide any repair recommendation since the problem is not reproducible. Here's brief answers to the specific questions presented on the NHTSA vehicle complaint form: - What component or system failed or malfunctioned? Brakes - Is it available for inspection upon request? Yes - How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? My daughter was unable to stop the vehicle with the brakes and almost hit an oncoming car. - Has the problem been reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or independent service center? No - Has the vehicle or component been inspected by the manufacturer, police, insurance representatives or others? It has only been inspected by our local Honda dealership. They were unable to find any problems with the braking system. - Were there any warning lamps, messages or other symptoms of the problem prior to the failure? No
NHTSA ODI #11488173
44,000 miles · Oct 22, 2020
Service BrakesCrash
BRAKE PEDDLE DEPRESSES SO FAR THAT THE GAS PEDDLE CAN ALSO BE DEPRESSED WHILE PUSHING HARD ON THE BRAKE PEDDLE. MY WIFE DOES NOT USUALLY DRIVE THIS CAN. WHEN MY WIFE TRIED TO STOP IN THE DRIVEWAY WHEN BRINGING ME HOME FROM THE HOSPITAL SHE APPLIED THE THE BRAKES FAIRLY HARD AND WHEN THE CAR DID NOT STOP SHE PRESSED EVEN HARDER A…
Read full complaint
BRAKE PEDDLE DEPRESSES SO FAR THAT THE GAS PEDDLE CAN ALSO BE DEPRESSED WHILE PUSHING HARD ON THE BRAKE PEDDLE. MY WIFE DOES NOT USUALLY DRIVE THIS CAN. WHEN MY WIFE TRIED TO STOP IN THE DRIVEWAY WHEN BRINGING ME HOME FROM THE HOSPITAL SHE APPLIED THE THE BRAKES FAIRLY HARD AND WHEN THE CAR DID NOT STOP SHE PRESSED EVEN HARDER AND THE ENGINE SPEED UP RESULTING IN HER HITTING THE BACK OF HER CHEVY TRAIL BLAZER. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE GEOMETRY OF THE BRAKE PEDDLE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE GAS PEDDLE, I HAVE NEVER DRIVEN A CAR WITH THE BRAKE PEDDLE BEING LOCATED TO CLOSE TO THE GAS PEDDLE..I WOULD ALSO PUT PART IS NOT MOST OF TH BLAIME ON THE FACT THAT THE BRAKE PEDDLE DEPRESSES TOO FAR AS IF THE SYSTEM WAS NOT BLED PROPERLY WHEN THE CAR WAS PRODUCED, AND THAT AIR WAS LEFT IN THE SYSTEM. THE CAR WAS LIKE THIS SINCE I PICKED IT UP AND THE BRAKE SYSTEM HAS NEVER BEEN WORKED ON BY ANYONE. I MENTIONED THIS TO THE DEALER, AND THEY COULD NOT BE BOTHERED TO BLEED THE BRAKES. TIHIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE IF SOMEONE WALKED BETWEEN THE TWO CARS SERIOUS INJURIES WOULD HAVE RESULTED.
NHTSA ODI #11365834
110,000 miles · Dec 23, 2019
Power TrainService BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrashFire
2015 HONDA CR-V SUV WAS TRAVELING HIGHWAY SPEED (55MPH) IN ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL MODE. WEATHER AT THE TIME OF IMPACT WAS 50F. ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL FAILED TO DETECT VEHICLE IN FRONT AND ACCELERATION OCCURRED RESULTING IN IMPACT.
NHTSA ODI #11291003
26,500 miles · May 27, 2019
Service Brakes
REPLACED PARKING BRAKE SHOES THAT WERE DOWN TO BARE METAL AND ADJUSTED SAME. BRAKE CABLES HAVE STRETCHED AND WILL NOT HOLD VEHICLE ON EVEN A GENTLE SLOPE WHEN FULLY ENGAGED BY FOOT PETAL PRESSED ALL THE WAY TO FLOOR. HONDA ELIMINATED ANY PARKING BRAKE ADJUSTMENT ON THIS MODEL? THIS IS A VERY COMMON AND VERY DANGEROUS CONDITIO…
Read full complaint
REPLACED PARKING BRAKE SHOES THAT WERE DOWN TO BARE METAL AND ADJUSTED SAME. BRAKE CABLES HAVE STRETCHED AND WILL NOT HOLD VEHICLE ON EVEN A GENTLE SLOPE WHEN FULLY ENGAGED BY FOOT PETAL PRESSED ALL THE WAY TO FLOOR. HONDA ELIMINATED ANY PARKING BRAKE ADJUSTMENT ON THIS MODEL? THIS IS A VERY COMMON AND VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION THAT HONDA SAYS CAN NOT HAPPEN. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STAND BEHIND A HONDA CRV WITH FLOOR ACTIVATED PARKING BRAKE AS THE CAR WILL ROLL OVER YOU AN A HILL IN NEUTRAL GUARANTIED! NO HOPE TO USE AS AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY BRAKE AT ALL AS IT WILL NOT SLOW DOWN THE VEHICLE APPRECIABLY WHEN MOVING IN NEUTRAL. HONDA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SELL THIS VEHICLE IN THE USA AS THIS CABLE STRETCHING IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT LETHAL DANGER TO ALL. MAKE THEM FIX THIS NON-ADJUSTABLE PARKING BRAKE CABLE OR TAKE THE VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD. TIGHTENING THE BRAKE SHOES TO THE BRAKE DRUM ONLY HEATS UP THE BRAKE SHOES AND TEARS OFF THE VERY THIN PARKING BRAKE SHOE PADS. NO COMMON SENSE WENT INTO THE DECISION TO ELIMINATE THE ADJUSTMENT CAPABILITY OF THIS BRAKE CABLE PARKING BRAKE SYSTEM AT ALL. SITUATION IS VERY DANGEROUS TO ALLOW HONDA TO NOT RECALL THIS PARKING BRAKE NON-ADJUSTABLE CABLE SYSTEM AND REPLACE SAME WITH AN ADJUSTABLE PARKING BRAKE CABLE SYSTEM. VERY EASY FIX BY MANUFACTURING A NEW FLOOR PARKING BRAKE PETAL WITH INCORPORATED CABLE ADJUSTMENT SCREWS. PEOPLE WILL BE INJURED AND PEOPLE WILL DIE IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN EFFECTIVELY UNADDRESSED BY HONDA MOTOR COMPANY.
NHTSA ODI #11210212
43,800 miles · Apr 16, 2019
Service BrakesSteeringUnknown Or Other
IN PURCHASING A USED CRV 2015 FROM A HONDA DEALER IN SHINGLE SPRINGS, CA I HAVE FOUND LESS THAN HONEST INFORMATION REGARDING THE TIRES AND ALIGNMENT. I DID PURCHASE THE HONDA CARE ., I HAVE SINCE ( TODAY) BROUGHT THE VEHICLE, WHEN DRIVING THERE IS A NOTICEABLE PULL THE RIGHT. TO ANOTHER DEALERSHIP IN HOPES OF FINDING OUT T…
Read full complaint
IN PURCHASING A USED CRV 2015 FROM A HONDA DEALER IN SHINGLE SPRINGS, CA I HAVE FOUND LESS THAN HONEST INFORMATION REGARDING THE TIRES AND ALIGNMENT. I DID PURCHASE THE HONDA CARE ., I HAVE SINCE ( TODAY) BROUGHT THE VEHICLE, WHEN DRIVING THERE IS A NOTICEABLE PULL THE RIGHT. TO ANOTHER DEALERSHIP IN HOPES OF FINDING OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE STEERING, TIRES BRAKES ETC.
NHTSA ODI #11196723
44,000 miles · Dec 4, 2018
Service Brakes
THE REAR LEFT BRAKE ON THE CAR IS MALFUNCTIONING. THE CAR IS LESS THAN THREE YEARS OLD AND HAS AVERAGE MILES, APPROXIMATELY 44,000. AROUND A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, 11.27.18 THE REAR BRAKE STARTING TO MAKE A RUBBING SOUND SIMILAR TO A LOW PAD. WITHIN TWO DAYS THE SOUND WENT FROM A LOW RUBBING/SQUEAKING SOUND TO A METAL ON METAL …
Read full complaint
THE REAR LEFT BRAKE ON THE CAR IS MALFUNCTIONING. THE CAR IS LESS THAN THREE YEARS OLD AND HAS AVERAGE MILES, APPROXIMATELY 44,000. AROUND A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, 11.27.18 THE REAR BRAKE STARTING TO MAKE A RUBBING SOUND SIMILAR TO A LOW PAD. WITHIN TWO DAYS THE SOUND WENT FROM A LOW RUBBING/SQUEAKING SOUND TO A METAL ON METAL GRINDING SOUND. WHEN THE BRAKE IS DEPRESSED THEN RELEASED YOU CAN STILL HEAR THE SOUND OF THE WORN OUT INTERIOR REAR LEFT PAD RUBBING AGAINST THE ROTOR. THE CALIPER IS NOT RELEASING ALL THE WAY AND IS MALFUNCTIONING. IT TAKES A GOOD 10 SECONDS UNTIL THE CALIPER FULLY RELEASES FROM THE ROTOR AND FOR THE GRINDING SOUND TO DISAPPEAR. THE PADS THEMSELVES ON THE REST OF THE CAR ARE APPROXIMATELY 75% FULL. THE CAR WAS SERVICED FOR AN OIL CHANGE ON 10.22.18 AND WE WERE TOLD THE BRAKES ARE GREAT AND EVERYTHING WAS WORKING PERFECTLY. THE REST OF THE PADS ARE STILL IN GREAT SHAPE EXCEPT FOR THE REAR LEFT INTERIOR PAD. THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE BRAKE IS APPLIED UNTIL THE CAR COMES TO A STOP. IF BRAKING OCCURS DURING DRIVING TO SLOW DOWN BUT TO CONTINUE DRIVING THE SOUND OCCURS AND CONTINUES AFTER THE PEDAL HAS BEEN RELEASED FOR ABOUT 5-10 SECONDS. SOME TIMES RELEASING THE PEDAL WHILE DRIVING DOES NOT FULLY RELEASE THE CALIPER, IT HAS TO BE USED AGAIN UNTIL IT FULLY RELEASES.
NHTSA ODI #11155838
47,000 miles · Oct 3, 2018
Power TrainService Brakes
I JUST BOUGHT A 2015 HONDA CR-V 4 DAYS AGO. I WAS SO HAPPY TO GET SOMETHING NEWER AND TO BE RID OF MY OTHER PROBLEM CAR. SINCE HAVING THIS CAR IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN VIBRATING WHEN IDLE AND PUSHING DOWN THE BREAK PEDAL WHILE IN DRIVE LIKE SITTING AT A LIGHT ETC. I WAS TOLD BY DEALER THAT'S IT'S NORMAL BUT IT DEFINITELY IS NOT …
Read full complaint
I JUST BOUGHT A 2015 HONDA CR-V 4 DAYS AGO. I WAS SO HAPPY TO GET SOMETHING NEWER AND TO BE RID OF MY OTHER PROBLEM CAR. SINCE HAVING THIS CAR IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN VIBRATING WHEN IDLE AND PUSHING DOWN THE BREAK PEDAL WHILE IN DRIVE LIKE SITTING AT A LIGHT ETC. I WAS TOLD BY DEALER THAT'S IT'S NORMAL BUT IT DEFINITELY IS NOT NORMAL AND UNBELIEVABLY UNCOMFORTABLE AND DISTRACTING WHILE TRYING TO FOCUS ON DRIVING. IT'S EMBARRASSING THAT ANYONE IN THE CAR ALSO COMMENTS AND THIS WAS SUPPOSE TO BE A NEWER CAR THAT I WAS HAPPY ABOUT AND PROUD OF. I HAVE SINCE SEEN REVIEWS ONLINE OF SO MANY OF THE SAME COMPLAINTS. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS AND VERY SCARY THAT HONDA HAS NOT ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE IN A FEW YEARS. WHAT A HORRIBLE COMPANY TO NOT FIX AN OBVIOUS ISSUE THAT THEY'VE EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND TO JUST LET CUSTOMERS LIVE WITH SOMETHING MESSED UP. HONDA BETTER STEP UP AND FIX THIS ISSUE FOR THOSE AFFECTED INSTEAD OF BEING COWARDS AND AVOIDING IT! WHETHER IT'S A RECALL OR WHATEVER, IT IS WAY PAST DUE FOR CUSTOMERS WITH THESE VEHICLES TO BE HAPPY AND LISTENED TOO! ROBIN
NHTSA ODI #11133203
Official recalls
3Dec 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.
May 4, 2017
Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain 2015-2016 Honda CR-V vehicles that recently received a replacement engine. The replacement engine may have been built with the wrong pistons, potentially affecting the engine's performance.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: The reduced performance may result in an engine stall, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the engines and replace the incorrect components, as necessary, free of charge. The recall began June 20, 2017. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's number for this recall is KF6.
Mar 2, 2015
American Honda Motor Co. (Honda) is recalling certain model year 2014 Accord L4 vehicles manufactured July 29, 2014, to July 31, 2014, 2015 Accord L4 vehicles manufactured August 14, 2014, to January 30, 2015, and 2015 CR-V vehicles manufactured September 9, 2014, to February 6, 2015. The affected vehicles may have been assembled with improperly torqued connecting rod bolts, which can cause the engine to lose power or leak oil.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Loss of engine power may result in a vehicle stall, increasing the risk of a crash. If the engine leaks oil in the proximity of hot engine or exhaust components, there is an increased risk of a fire.
Remedy: Honda will notify owners, and dealers will replace the engine short block, free of charge. The recall began on March 27, 2015. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's number for this recall is JP2 (for Accord models) and JP3 (for CR-V models).
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.