My window is constantly leaking water. I am not the original owner. I went to get the window repaired and the shops say it’s a recall. I never knew it was one. I now have a problem with wiring and I believe that the leaks have lead to this!
2015 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2015 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 29.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Range Rover Evoque 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
43 reports with mileage · 21 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 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 10 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Electrical System complaints
10 reportsIN NON DRIVING STATE SMARTKEY-KEYLESS VEHICLE MODULE- LOCKOUT-IMMIBILIZER KEYLESS ACESS/START RANDOMLY WILL NOT WORK,WILL SELF FIX IN A DAY OR NOT AT ALL SO RESET HAS TO BE PERFORMED, CAR IS ONLY ABLE TO BE STARTED WITH MANUAL KEY BLADE
DRIVER SIDE DOOR WON'T LOCK WITH REMOTE BUT THE ALARM WILL STILL SOUND IF THAT DOOR IS OPENED. EVEN THOUGH THAT DOOR IS NOT LOCKED. IT WILL ALSO UNLOCK WITH THE REMOTE. IT JUST WON'T LOCK WITH THE REMOTE.
DOOR LATCHES DO NOT LOCK.
ECO START/STOP IS NOT WORKING. THE REAR SEATS SINCE DAY 1 BEEN RATTLING. THE DEALER WRAPPED THE HOOK WITH SOMETHING TO MAKE IT TIGHT.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER EVOQUE. SOON AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ECO BUTTON WOULD NOT FUNCTION. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO LAND ROVER SAN ANTONIO (13660 I-10, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78249, 210-561-4900) AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE FAILURE WAS DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL SHORT. THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER EVOQUE. SOON AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ECO BUTTON WOULD NOT FUNCTION. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO LAND ROVER SAN ANTONIO (13660 I-10, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78249, 210-561-4900) AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE FAILURE WAS DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL SHORT. THE CONTACT WAS GIVEN A QUOTE OF $1,000 FOR THE REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 15,000.
THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING AND THE VEHICLE WAS IN PARK AND I EXITED THE VEHICLE. I WENT INSIDE AN ADJACENT BUILDING FOR APPROXIMATELY 1 MINUTE. I RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE AND OPENED THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE DOOR. I PICKED UP MY KEY FOB AND PRESSED THE IGNITION BUTTON TO TURN OFF THE ENGINE. WHEN THE ENGINE TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE B…
Read full complaint
THE ENGINE WAS RUNNING AND THE VEHICLE WAS IN PARK AND I EXITED THE VEHICLE. I WENT INSIDE AN ADJACENT BUILDING FOR APPROXIMATELY 1 MINUTE. I RETURNED TO THE VEHICLE AND OPENED THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE DOOR. I PICKED UP MY KEY FOB AND PRESSED THE IGNITION BUTTON TO TURN OFF THE ENGINE. WHEN THE ENGINE TURNED OFF THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ROLL AWAY AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR AND PINNED ME BETWEEN THE VEHICLE AND THE OPENED PASSENGER SIDE DOOR. MY HAND WAS PRESSED BETWEEN THE CAR DOOR AND A LIGHT POLE IN THE PARKING LOT. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER SAT IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND PRESSED THE ENGINE BUTTON AND THE GEAR SHIFTER EMERGED AND WAS IN THE PARK POSITION. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER THEN SHIFTED THE VEHICLE TO NEUTRAL AND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE. THE PARKING BRAKE CONTINUED TO ENGAGE AND THE TIRES WOULD NOT ROLL FREELY.
ON 9/22/2017 I PURCHASED A CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED(CPO) RANGE ROVER EVOQUE FROM DIMMITT LAND ROVER IN CLEARWATER. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE, I BROUGHT UP SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THE VEHICLE TO INCLUDE A MISSING FRONT PASSENGER WINDOW TINT, 3 BLOWN SPEAKERS ON THE FRONT PASSENGER DOOR, PART OF THE A PILLAR FALLING OFF WHILE DRIV…
Read full complaint
ON 9/22/2017 I PURCHASED A CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED(CPO) RANGE ROVER EVOQUE FROM DIMMITT LAND ROVER IN CLEARWATER. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE, I BROUGHT UP SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THE VEHICLE TO INCLUDE A MISSING FRONT PASSENGER WINDOW TINT, 3 BLOWN SPEAKERS ON THE FRONT PASSENGER DOOR, PART OF THE A PILLAR FALLING OFF WHILE DRIVING, PROBLEMS WITH THE ECO START/STOP NOT WORKING, AND A TIRE THAT SOUNDED LIKE A TRACTOR TRAILER. SINCE 9/22/2017 I HAVE BEEN TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT SOME 6 TIMES, THE MOST RECENT ON JUNE 8TH 2018 FOR ECO START/STOP ISSUE AND THE AGAIN THE TIRE NOISE. NEITHER ONE WAS ADDRESSED AT ALL. I ALSO BROUGHT THE VEHICLE IN FOR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE TWICE SINCE 9/22/2017 AND BOTH TIME THE MAINTENANCE REQUIRED A TIRE MANDATORY TIRE ROTATION AT 40,000 AND 50,000 MILES. ON NEITHER OCCASION WAS THE TIRE ROTATION DONE. I WAS FORCED TO CONDUCT THE TIRE ROTATION MYSELF ON 6/9/2018. I AM A DISABLED VETERAN WITH MULTIPLE MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND HAVE NO BUSINESS DOING LABOR WORK. THIS IS WHY I PAIED THEM TO DO THE WORK. THEY ALSO HAVE USED MY DISABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ME ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS GOING AS FAR AS USING PREDATORY TACTICS WITH MY DISABILITY TO TRY TO SELL ME OUT OF MY VEHICLE INSTEAD OF FIXING THE PROBLEM. (SEE ATTACHED)
TAKATA RECALL, ON THURSDAY , 7-7-16 I TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR ITS 40,000 MILE CHECK UP/OIL CHANGE/UPDATE. LAND ROVE/ NIELLO IN ROCKLIN, CA KEPT MY CAR DUE TO ADDITIONAL NEEDS SUCH AS ECO STOP MALFUNCTION. WHEN RETURNING THE RENTAL ON WEDNESDAY THE 13TH THE SERVICE MANAGER [XXX] HAD ME PAY AND SIGN MY 5 PAGE RECEIPT/ INSPECTION.…
Read full complaint
TAKATA RECALL, ON THURSDAY , 7-7-16 I TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR ITS 40,000 MILE CHECK UP/OIL CHANGE/UPDATE. LAND ROVE/ NIELLO IN ROCKLIN, CA KEPT MY CAR DUE TO ADDITIONAL NEEDS SUCH AS ECO STOP MALFUNCTION. WHEN RETURNING THE RENTAL ON WEDNESDAY THE 13TH THE SERVICE MANAGER [XXX] HAD ME PAY AND SIGN MY 5 PAGE RECEIPT/ INSPECTION. AT THIS TIME [XXX] MENTIONED THAT THE BRAKES WERE GETTING LOW AND NEEDED TO BE CHANGED FOR NEW BRAKES OR THE CALIBERS/ROTORS COULD DAMAGE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. THE DEALERSHIP HAD 3 WHOLE BUSINESS DAYS TO INFORM ME ABOUT BRAKE PADS BEING LOW BUT FAILED TO DO SO IN A TIMELY MANNER. THEN WHEN CHECKING OUT THEY TOLD ME I COULD HAVE THE BRAKES REPLACED IN MY HOMETOWN PROVIDING ME THE PARTS NUMBER. THE VERY NEXT MORNING I WAS DRIVING IN MOTION ESTIMATING 15 MPH. ON A 25 MPH STREET I LIVE ON, DEGARMO AND ESPLANADE. I TRIED TO PRESS THE BRAKES BUT NOTHING HAPPENED THE BRAKE WENT TO THE FLOOR. IMMEDIATELY I HAD LES SCHUAB TIRES MEASURE THE BRAKE/ROTORS/CALIBERS. THE TIRE CENTERS MEASUREMENTS DIFFERED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AT ROCKLIN. MANAGER FROM LES SHCUAB TOLD ME THESE PARTS HAPPEN OVER TIME NOT RESULTING FROM A SUDDEN CRASH. I COPIED THE MEASUREMENTS AND ASKED LAND ROVER ROCKLIN AND THE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF NORTH AMERICA TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN MEASUREMENTS SINCE IT CAUSED MY CRASH AND I PAID OUT OF WARRANTY FOR EVERYTHING WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED. THEY TURNED DOWN THE OFFER TO REVIEW MY PAPERWORK. SINCE THE CRASH THE SAFETY RECALL P091: OR (NHTSA) 16V- SINCE THE CRASH THE SAFETY RECALL P091(NHTSA16V-614 HAS CAME OUT AND THE DEALERSHIP FINALLY HAS CLAIMED TO DO UPDATES & FIX THE ISSUE I HAD TO GET AAA TO TOW ME DOWN AFTER THE ISSUE WORSENED ON VEHICLE. THEY HAVE BEEN IN MY OPINION NEGLIGENT, UNETHICAL, UN-PROFESSIONAL. BY REPORTING THIS I HOPE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING IN A WORSE CIRCUMSTANCE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
GEARBOX FAULT. I DRIVE A NEW RANGE ROVER EVOQUE, MODEL 2015. THE FIRST TIME I HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE WAS IN OCTOBER, 2014, ONLY A MONTH AFTER TAKING THE CAR OUT OF THE DEALERSHIP. WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE, IT SUDDENLY AND ABRUPTLY STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY ROAD. CARS BEHIND ME HAD TO STOP ABRUPTLY, ALMOST HIT…
Read full complaint
GEARBOX FAULT. I DRIVE A NEW RANGE ROVER EVOQUE, MODEL 2015. THE FIRST TIME I HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE WAS IN OCTOBER, 2014, ONLY A MONTH AFTER TAKING THE CAR OUT OF THE DEALERSHIP. WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE, IT SUDDENLY AND ABRUPTLY STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUSY ROAD. CARS BEHIND ME HAD TO STOP ABRUPTLY, ALMOST HITTING MY CAR AND PEDESTRIANS. MY VEHICLE ACCUSED A GEARBOX FAULT, AND THE GEARBOX WAS BLOCKED. I COULD NOT SHIFT GEARS, THE VEHICLE WAS STUCK FOR OVER HALF AN HOUR, AND I HAD TO RESTART THE CAR SEVERAL TIMES TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE IT AGAIN. MY CAR WAS THEN TAKEN TO LAND ROVER SERVICE FOR REPAIR. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO ME, HOWEVER, THE GEARBOX PROBLEM PERSISTED. THE SAME GEARBOX PROBLEM HAPPEN AGAIN TWO MORE TIMES IN JUNE, 2015. IN THE LAST TIMES I WAS INSIDE MY GARAGE. I GOT IN THE CAR AND STARTED THE VEHICLE, BUT I COULD NOT SHIFT GEARS. THE GEARBOX WAS BLOCKED AGAIN, ACCUSING THE GEARBOX FAULT, AND THE CAR WAS STUCK. THIS TIME IT HAD TO BE TOWED AWAY TO LAND ROVER SERVICE. IN THE LAST TIME LAND ROVER REPAIRED MY VEHICLE, A NEW SOFTWARE WAS INSTALLED. THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT THERE IS A RECALL IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EVOQUE MODEL. APPARENTLY, LAND ROVER USED FAULTY GEARBOXES, AND IS NOW OFFERING A SOFTWARE UPGRADE TO ALL VEHICLES OF THAT MODEL TO FIX THE FAULTY GEARBOXES. OVER 36,000 THOUSAND VEHICLES WERE RECALLED OUTSIDE THE U.S. FOR THE SOFTWARE UPGRADE, AFTER THE PROBLEM WAS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA. BUT I FOUND NO CONFIRMATION OF THE RECALL IN THE UNITED STATES. LAND ROVER DID NOT CONTACT US ABOUT THE RECALL BEFORE, AND WAS UNABLE TO ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT IT IS AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO THE GEARBOX FAULT PROBLEM WITH THE EVOQUE MODEL.
Official recalls
116V614000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission
Aug 23, 2016
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LCC (Land Rover) is recalling certain model year 2015 Discovery Sport manufactured September 17, 2014 through November 3, 2014 and 2014-2015 Range Rover Evoque vehicles manufactured July 15, 2013 through July 1, 2015. In the affected vehicles the transmission sensor clusters may have insufficient crimps in the transmission wire harness, and as a result, the transmission may unexpectedly shift to neutral.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the vehicle unexpectedly shifts to neutral, there is an increased risk of a crash.
Remedy: Land Rover will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the automatic transmission serial number and if required, will update the transmission software to prevent the transmission from shifting into neutral due to a faulty crimp, free of charge. The recall is expected to began October 14, 2016. Owners may contact Land Rover customer service at 1-800-637-6837. Land Rover's number for this recall is P091.
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
1EA21002 · 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.
Illustration