EVERY TIME I DRIVE MY CAR NO MATTER WHAT THE WEATHER CONDITION IS THIS LIGHT COMES ON NONSTOP
2018 Nissan Altima
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2018 Nissan Altima do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 231.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Altima 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
110 reports with mileage · 115 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.
- Service Brakes. Review the 48 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 37 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 36 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
225 reportsI BOUGHT MY 2018 NISSAN ALTIMA SR MIDNIGHT EDITION AROUND OCTOBER 2018. WHEN I REACHED ABOUT 8,500 MILES THE CARS FRONT RADAR SENSOR WENT OFF, AND MY ALTIMA WOULD SAY FRONT RADAR UNAVAILABLE DUE TO OBSTRUCTION, AND THIS WOULD GO ON AND OFF THE WHOLE WEEK. I CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME TO COME AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. …
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT MY 2018 NISSAN ALTIMA SR MIDNIGHT EDITION AROUND OCTOBER 2018. WHEN I REACHED ABOUT 8,500 MILES THE CARS FRONT RADAR SENSOR WENT OFF, AND MY ALTIMA WOULD SAY FRONT RADAR UNAVAILABLE DUE TO OBSTRUCTION, AND THIS WOULD GO ON AND OFF THE WHOLE WEEK. I CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME TO COME AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. THAT WEEK I WENT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY TOLD ME THAT IT'S COVER BY WARRANTY AND THAT THE FRONT RADAR SENSOR NEEDS TO BE RECALIBRATED. WAITED THE WHOLE DAY FOR THEM TO FIX IT. WHEN I LEFT THE DEALERSHIP 10 MILES OUT THE FRONT RADAR WENT OFF AGAIN, AND I WAS FUMING THAT MY NEW CAR IS DOING THIS. I CALLED BACK AND TOLD THE THAT THE SENSOR IS DOING THE SAME THING AGAIN. THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY WILL ORDER AND NEW SENSOR FOR YOU AND WILL FIX IT WHEN THE PART ARRIVES. TWO WEEKS LATER THE DEALERSHIP NEVER CALLED OR EMILED ME. I CALL THEM UP AND THEY SAID THAT THE PART IS HERE AND TO BRING THE CAR IN ANYTIME. SO I GO IN TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY CHANGED THE PART. DAY 1 WAS GOOD NO ISSUES. DAY 2 WAS GOOD NO ISSUES. DAY 3 THE CARS ABS SYSTEM KICKS IN AND BRINGS MY CAR TO A FULL STOP FOR NO REASON WHAT SO EVER. THERE WAS NO CAR IN FRONT OF ME, NO PEDESTRIANS NOTHING. THE WEATHER WAS A CLEAR SUNNY DAY AND I DRIVING IN MANHATTAN WITH A CLIENT IN MY CAR GOING 25 MPH. THE WHOLE CAR WAS SHAKING I HEARD THE TIRE SKID AND THE WHOLE CAR WAS SHAKING, I GOT SOO SCARED. THE CAR BEHIND ME ALMOST HIT ME AND THE GUY COMES OUT HIS CAR ARGUING WITH ME ON WHY I STOPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON. I TOLD HIM IT WASN'T ME THE CAR STOPED ON IT'S OWN, BUT HE DIDN'T BELIEVE ME AND GAVE ME A COUPLE CUSS WORDS. I WAS IN RAGE, AND SCARED AT THE SAME TIME. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP AGAIN AND TOLD THEM THE ISSUES, THEY TOLD ME COME IN AND WE'LL LOOK AT IT FOR YOU. IM SO ANGRY BECAUSE I COULD HAVE BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT FORM THE SAME THING THAT IS SUPPOSED TO PREVENT AN ACCIDENT.
THE AEB (AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING) SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS CONTINUOUSLY. I GET A WARNING (FRONT SENORS UNAVAILABLE DUE TO OBSTRUCTION) BUT THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION. THIS SHUTS OFF THE SAFETY SYSTEM THAT WAS DESIGNED TO SENSE AND STOP THE VEHICLE IN AN EMERGENCY. MANY, MANY OTHER NISSAN OWNERS ARE HAVING THIS SAME ISSUE AND NISS…
Read full complaint
THE AEB (AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING) SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS CONTINUOUSLY. I GET A WARNING (FRONT SENORS UNAVAILABLE DUE TO OBSTRUCTION) BUT THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION. THIS SHUTS OFF THE SAFETY SYSTEM THAT WAS DESIGNED TO SENSE AND STOP THE VEHICLE IN AN EMERGENCY. MANY, MANY OTHER NISSAN OWNERS ARE HAVING THIS SAME ISSUE AND NISSAN IS FAILING TO DO A RECALL AND FIX IT. JUST AS THE SYSTEM ALERTED ME WHILE DRIVING YESTERDAY, IT THEN QUICKLY SHUT OFF SAYING THERE WAS AN OBSTRUCTION. IT WAS NOT ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS AND NOTHING WAS COVERING THE FRONT OF THE CAR. I STOPPED IN TIME. I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT THIS WEEK WITH THE NISSAN DEALER, BUT WITH THIS BEING A MARKETED AS A SAFETY FEATURE, AND INCLUDED AS PART OF THE SAFETY RATINGS SYSTEMS BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT SHOULD BE A RECALL BY NISSAN. I PURCHASED THE CAR BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY SYSTEM AND RATINGS.
RADAR OBSTRUCTION WARNING KEEPS POPPING UP ON SCREEN.AFRAID THAT THIS WOULD MAKE THE CAR STOP AND GET REAR ENDED.THIS IS HAPPENING WHILE DRIVING..
DURING RANDOM DRIVING THE FORWARD COLLISION SENSOR COMES ON STATING THAT FORWARD COLLISION IS UNAVAILABLE. SOMETIMES THE SENSOR WILL GO OFF 1-2 TIMES OR UP TO 6 TIMES IN ONE DAY. THIS SENSOR CONTROLS THE (AEB) AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING. NISSAN HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ISSUE IN SEVERAL CARS BUT NO RECALL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THIS VEHI…
Read full complaint
DURING RANDOM DRIVING THE FORWARD COLLISION SENSOR COMES ON STATING THAT FORWARD COLLISION IS UNAVAILABLE. SOMETIMES THE SENSOR WILL GO OFF 1-2 TIMES OR UP TO 6 TIMES IN ONE DAY. THIS SENSOR CONTROLS THE (AEB) AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING. NISSAN HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ISSUE IN SEVERAL CARS BUT NO RECALL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THIS VEHICLE IS MY WORK VEHICLE AND MY PERSONAL NISSAN PATHFINDER HAS ALREADY HAD THE PART REPLACED WITH LESS THAN 10,000 MILES. CURRENTLY MY VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY AND THEY WANT $1700.00 FOR REPAIR OF FAULTY SAFETY PARTS. I'VE BEEN DRIVING IN PERFECTLY SUNNY DAYS, ON BUMPY BACK ALLEY, JUST DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAYS AND THE SENSOR GOES OFF. I BELIEVE THAT THIS ISSUE IS MORE WIDESPREAD THAN THEY ACKNOWLEDGE. OUR FLEET OF COMPANY CARS ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE ROGUE, ALTIMA.
THE FRONT END OBSTRUCTION LIGHT AND WARNING SOUND COME ON EVERYTIME I DRIVE MY VEHICLE, THEN GO OFF AND COME BACK ON. I CAN BE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED AND WITH NOTHING AROUND ME. SOMETIMES IT CAUSES MY CAR TO SLOW DOWN.
DRIVING ALONG INTERSTATE SLOWED DOWN FOR TRAFFIC LIGHT AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, VEHICLE WOULD NOT GO EVEN IF THE ACCELERATOR WAS ON THE FLOOR COULD NOT GET ABOVE 40MPH AND RPM WERE BETWEEN 4&5 WAS ALMOST REARENDED BY OTHER TRAFFIC. HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES ON THE HIGHWAY. ALSO WHEN DRIVING THROUGH SLOW TRAFFIC…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ALONG INTERSTATE SLOWED DOWN FOR TRAFFIC LIGHT AND WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS TO ACCELERATE, VEHICLE WOULD NOT GO EVEN IF THE ACCELERATOR WAS ON THE FLOOR COULD NOT GET ABOVE 40MPH AND RPM WERE BETWEEN 4&5 WAS ALMOST REARENDED BY OTHER TRAFFIC. HAPPENED TWO MORE TIMES ON THE HIGHWAY. ALSO WHEN DRIVING THROUGH SLOW TRAFFIC FEELS AS IF TRANSMISSION IS JERKING AND POWER IS LOST.
WAS TRAVELING OVER SNOWY MOUNTAIN PASS. MY MILEAGE WAS 65 WITH HEAVY TRAFFIC. THE FORQARD CRASH WARNING SYSTEM FAILED AND SAID UNAVAILABLE THEN REPORTED I HAD BEEN IN A FRONT END COLLISION. WHICH WASNT TRUE AS I WAS STILL TRAVELING THEN THE CAR KEPT AUTOMATICALLY APPLYING BREAKS. THIS COULD OF CAUSED A SEVERE CRASH HAD THE ROADS…
Read full complaint
WAS TRAVELING OVER SNOWY MOUNTAIN PASS. MY MILEAGE WAS 65 WITH HEAVY TRAFFIC. THE FORQARD CRASH WARNING SYSTEM FAILED AND SAID UNAVAILABLE THEN REPORTED I HAD BEEN IN A FRONT END COLLISION. WHICH WASNT TRUE AS I WAS STILL TRAVELING THEN THE CAR KEPT AUTOMATICALLY APPLYING BREAKS. THIS COULD OF CAUSED A SEVERE CRASH HAD THE ROADS BEEN ICY AS IT COULD OF PUT ME IN A SPIN CAUSING A SERIOUS CRASH.
THE AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING LIGHT ARBITRARILY COMES ON AND STAYS ON. I CAN BE AT A FULL STOP AND THE LIGHT COMES. SEE THE ATTACHED PICTURE. I CAN BE DRIVING AND THE LIGHT COMES AND STAYS ON. FOR THE MOST PART THIS HAPPENS IN JUST ABOUT ANY DRIVING CONDITIONS
WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PROCEED AFTER A STOP SIGN WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON DASH INCLUDING THE BATTERY LIGHT. I PUT ON MY HAZARD LIGHTS. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS THE CAR MADE NO ACCELERATION NOISE AND DID NOT MOVE. THE CAR WAS IN DRIVE. I MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT THE LIGHTS REMAINED AND THE CAR DID NOT MOVE. I HAD A FUL…
Read full complaint
WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PROCEED AFTER A STOP SIGN WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON DASH INCLUDING THE BATTERY LIGHT. I PUT ON MY HAZARD LIGHTS. WHEN I PRESSED THE GAS THE CAR MADE NO ACCELERATION NOISE AND DID NOT MOVE. THE CAR WAS IN DRIVE. I MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT THE LIGHTS REMAINED AND THE CAR DID NOT MOVE. I HAD A FULL TANK IF GAS AND A RECENT OIL CHANGE. I THEN PUT THE CAR IN PARK, AND USED MY PUSH BUTTON TO TURN OFF THE CAR. I WAITED A FEW SECONDS AND RESTARTED THE CAR. IT DID START AND I WAS ABLE TO ACCELERATE NORMALLY. I WAS ON A SIDE STREET AND HAD BEEN DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 2 MINUTES.
Official recalls
220V315000 · Latches/locks/linkages:hood:latch
May 28, 2020
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain model year 2013-2018 Nissan Altima vehicles. If the primary hood latch is inadvertently released, there is an increased likelihood that the secondary hood latch may corrode over time.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Corrosion to the secondary latch may cause it to bind and remain in the unlatched position when the hood is closed. If the primary latch is inadvertently released again and the secondary latch is not engaged, the hood could unexpectedly open while driving, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Nissan will notify owners, and dealers will install a stronger release spring in the hood release lever, a warning label near the secondary hood latch, and an Owners Manual addendum card with instructions on how to lubricate and maintain the secondary hood latch mechanism, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed June 30, 2021. Owners may contact Nissan customer service at 1-800-867-7669. Note: Recall 16V-029 remains open for any unremedied 2013-2015 Altimas and this recall applies to all vehicles covered by 16V-029 even if those repairs have already been performed.
19V654000 · Back Over Prevention: Sensing System: Camera
Sep 12, 2019
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2019 Nissan Altima, Armada, Frontier, Kicks, Leaf, Maxima, Murano, NV, NV200, Pathfinder, Rogue, Rogue Sport, Sentra, Titan, Titan Diesel, Versa Note and Versa Sedan vehicles, as well as Infiniti Q50, Q60, QX30 and QX80 vehicles. Additionally included are 2019 Nissan GT-R and Taxi and Infiniti QX50, QX60, Q70, Q70L vehicles. The back-up camera and display settings can be adjusted such that the rear view image is no longer visible and the system will retain that setting the next time the vehicle is placed in reverse. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 111, "Rear Visibility."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: The lack of an image in the back-up camera display increases the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Nissan will notify owners in phases, having dealers update the back-up camera settings software, free of charge. The recall began November 11, 2019 and all affected VINs should be activated. Owners may contact Nissan customer service at 1-800-867-7669 or INFINITI customer service at 1-800-662-6200.
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
4AQ22003 · Hertz/vehicles Rented With Open Recalls
Opened Dec 16, 2022 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Latches/locks/linkages:hood:latch
NHTSA is opening this audit query to investigate whether The Hertz Corporation (Hertz) has complied with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The Safety Act requires, among other things, that a rental company shall not rent a vehicle subject to a safety recall unless the recall remedy has been performed. 49 U.S.C. § 30120(i).NHTSA is in receipt of information that indicates Hertz rented vehicles to customers without having performed required recall repairs. Accordingly, we are opening this audit query to seek additional information concerning this issue.
EA21002 · 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.
EA19002 · Rear Suspension Control Arm Failure
Opened Jul 29, 2019 · Closed Jun 16, 2025
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:rear
On July 29, 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened EA19002 to investigate instances of alleged rear lower control arm failures in 2013-2018 Nissan Altima and 2016-2018 Nissan Maxima vehicles. At the time the investigation was opened ODI had 91 consumer complaints alleging rear lower control arm failures in the subject vehicles.ODI was concerned about these complaints because many of them alleged an increased steering effort or loss of vehicle control.At the time these complaints were received, ODI was also aware of a proactive service campaign addressing 2013 Nissan Altima in salt-belt states for a similar concern. Since opening the investigation, ODI has confirmed, based on consumer complaints, warranty data, and testing conducted by Nissan and ODI, that owners of the subject vehicles are experiencing a corroded bushing at one of three mounting points of the control arm to the rear subframe.ODI has also confirmed that drivers become aware of the problem because of sound and abnormal vibrations. In addition, the failure mileage is typically over 113,000 miles at the time of failure.In conjunction with Nissan and VRTC, ODI participated in testing to assess the potential safety consequence of a bushing failure.It was found the Vehicle Dynamic Control system allows the driver to maintain vehicle control in the event of a bushing failure.With between 7 to 13 years of field exposure, ODI is aware of only one low speed crash allegation describing minor contact with another vehicle’s trailer hitch. Nissan acknowledges that a crack can develop in affected control arms due to stress loading from normal use and that salts commonly used for roadway snow and ice treatment may result in corrosion that exacerbates the progression of the crack.Nissan implemented a design change in January of 2018 to improve the durability of the lower control arm.Affected vehicles have either been repaired with the countermeasure part under a customer satisfaction campaign or been provided a warranty extension from 3 years/36,000 miles to 10 year/unlimited mileage. Through testing and analysis of the information obtained to date, ODI has not identified a defect representing an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety involving corrosion of the subject rear lower control arm at this time.With a declining trend of reports and Nissan’s actions to implement a countermeasure and extended warranty coverage, further investigation of the issue does not appear to be warranted at this time.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov. A detailed discussion of the investigation and related complaint numbers can be viewed in the attached closing report.
PE18013 · Rear Suspension Control Arm Failure
Opened Dec 1, 2018 · Closed Aug 21, 2019
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:rear
PE18-013 was opened on December 1, 2018, with 4 complaints to ODI alleging incidents of the lower control arm fracturing at a connection point to the vehicle chassis due to corrosion. ODI has received an additional 87 complaints since the PE was opened. During PE18-013, Nissan indicated model years 2013-2018 shared a common rear lower control arm design. Nissan provided complaint and warranty data regarding 48 incidents of the subject failure. The majority of the complaints are from vehicles registered in salt belt states. There have been no crashes, injuries, or fatalities confirmed as of this date. Nissan advised that it has conducted testing to assess safety risk. Nissan states that due to low incident rate, high detectability, and low risk of adverse vehicle dynamics, it does not believe the subject lower control arm failure poses an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This preliminary evaluation has been upgraded to Engineering Analysis (EA) 19-002. During the EA, ODI will continue to collect and analyze complaint and field data in its efforts to fully assess the scope and frequency of the alleged defect. More importantly, ODI will also seek additional information and data regarding the potential safety consequences of rear lower control arm failure, both from evidence collected from field failures and through more rigorous and comprehensive vehicle testing to be conducted by either Nissan and/or NHTSA.The ODI reports (VOQs) cited above can be viewed at NHTSA.gov under the following reference numbers: 11234334, 11234232, 11234189, 11233771, 11233234, 11232381, 11231589, 11230323, 11230184, 11229023, 11229003, 11228730, 11228651, 11228631, 11228625, 11223086, 11222602, 11222427, 11222303, 11221802, 11219943, 11217980, 11217542, 11217505, 11217290, 11210699, 11209647, 11208580, 11208274, 11207545, 11206310, 11205711, 11205461, 11203864, 11203005, 11195416, 11193545, 11193020, 11192269, 11192066, 11191270, 11191207, 11191185, 11191042, 11190360, 11190323, 11187334, 11187157, 11186747, 11186195, 11185664, 11185632, 11185589, 11183799, 11183295, 11183198, 11182705,11182528, 11182265, 11182137, 11182088, 11181373, 11181223, 11181155, 11181009, 11180126, 11176565, 11176261, 11176135, 11175821, 11172604, 11172200, 11172065, 11170019, 11169930, 11165194, 11163833, 11163489, 11162559, 11162195, 11161956, 11161497, 11161117, 11157323, 11157234, 11156772, 11141169, 11139516, 11129476, 11122829, 11114374.
Illustration