IllustrationThe brakes on the vehicle jerk alot when going under 15, causing everyone in the vehicle to get jerked forward multiple times and are touchy resulting in almost being in an accident. Airbag sensor for front passenger also no longer works and Nissan refuses to repair any defect
2012 Nissan Leaf
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2012 Nissan Leaf do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 55.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Leaf 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
290–25K
725–50K
550–75K
175–100K
0100–150K
0150K+
42 reports with mileage · 15 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 22 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 15 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
6 crash reports0 fire reports3 injury reports
Service Brakes complaints
22 reportsWhen applying the brakes at low speed the brakes grab suddenly causing the car to lurch to a stop. The problem is intermittent, and therefore difficult to predict, but occurs frequently. This behavior is an ongoing hazard to the driver and passengers while also increasing the risk of a rear end collision if someone is following …
Read full complaint
When applying the brakes at low speed the brakes grab suddenly causing the car to lurch to a stop. The problem is intermittent, and therefore difficult to predict, but occurs frequently. This behavior is an ongoing hazard to the driver and passengers while also increasing the risk of a rear end collision if someone is following too closely.
As I am approaching a stop, and the car is under ~15mph, and I touch the brakes, the will grab strongly and slam the car to a stop; people in the car lurch forward, and the driver behind me is surprised by the sudden stop and has to slam on their brakes. I notice there are 2 campaigns for this issue, one just before my VIN, and…
Read full complaint
As I am approaching a stop, and the car is under ~15mph, and I touch the brakes, the will grab strongly and slam the car to a stop; people in the car lurch forward, and the driver behind me is surprised by the sudden stop and has to slam on their brakes. I notice there are 2 campaigns for this issue, one just before my VIN, and one after my VIN, but it looks to be the same problem. It is dangerously strong and difficult to control.
ON 3/3/20 I RETURNED TO ALLIED PARK AND FLY LOT IN SAN JUAN. MY CAR COULD NOT BE DRIVEN FROM THE LOT, IT HAD SUDDEN FAILURE OF BRAKES. CAR WAS TOWED TO ADRIEL NISSAN IN TOA BAJA, MAR4, WHERE IT REMAINS, UNREPAIRED AS OF TODAY. THE DEALER HAS NOT CONTACTED ME SINCE 3/13, WHEN IT CLOSED, UNDER ISLAND COVID 19 SHUTDOWN. SUDDEN FAIL…
Read full complaint
ON 3/3/20 I RETURNED TO ALLIED PARK AND FLY LOT IN SAN JUAN. MY CAR COULD NOT BE DRIVEN FROM THE LOT, IT HAD SUDDEN FAILURE OF BRAKES. CAR WAS TOWED TO ADRIEL NISSAN IN TOA BAJA, MAR4, WHERE IT REMAINS, UNREPAIRED AS OF TODAY. THE DEALER HAS NOT CONTACTED ME SINCE 3/13, WHEN IT CLOSED, UNDER ISLAND COVID 19 SHUTDOWN. SUDDEN FAILURE OF ABS BRAKE SHOULD NOT OCCUR ON A CAR WITH ONLY 42,000 MILES! I FEEL NISSAN SHOULD COVER ABS REPAIR COSTS.
BRAKES GRAB AND LURCH THE CAR TO A STOP. THIS OCCURS ESPECIALLY AT LOW SPEEDS IN STOP-AND-GO TRAFFIC AND THUS IS DANGEROUS. A DRIVER FOLLOWING CLOSE BEHIND WILL BE SURPRISED BY THE VERY RAPID DECELERATION. IT HAPPENS OFTEN, ALWAYS AT SPEEDS BELOW ABOUT 10 - 15 MPH, BUT NOT EVERY TIME I BRAKE, AND IT IS UNPREDICTABLE. THE PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
BRAKES GRAB AND LURCH THE CAR TO A STOP. THIS OCCURS ESPECIALLY AT LOW SPEEDS IN STOP-AND-GO TRAFFIC AND THUS IS DANGEROUS. A DRIVER FOLLOWING CLOSE BEHIND WILL BE SURPRISED BY THE VERY RAPID DECELERATION. IT HAPPENS OFTEN, ALWAYS AT SPEEDS BELOW ABOUT 10 - 15 MPH, BUT NOT EVERY TIME I BRAKE, AND IT IS UNPREDICTABLE. THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED ON BLOGS. I HAVE INFORMED MY NISSAN SERVICE DEPARTMENT ON MANY OCCASIONS. ABOUT 6 YEARS AGO NISSAN RELEASED A FIRMWARE PATCH, WHICH WAS INSTALLED IN MY CAR. THAT DID NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT ACKNOWLEDGES THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROBLEM BUT DOESN'T HAVE A SOLUTION. IT'S ALMOST CERTAINLY A SOFTWARE/FIRMWARE ISSUE.
THIS IS AN ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE. WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES AT SLOW SPEEDS THE VEHICLE PULSATES. THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH THE REGENERATIVE BRAKING SYSTEM SINCE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN WHEN THE VEHICLE IS FULLY CHARGED AND NOT REGENERATING THROUGH THE BRAKING SYSTEM.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2012 NISSAN LEAF. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO SLOW DOWN AS EXPECTED. THE CONTACT FULLY DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THE ABS FAILED TO ACTIVATE AND THE VEHICLE STILL FAILED TO SLOW DOWN AS EXPECTED. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO THE REAR …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2012 NISSAN LEAF. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO SLOW DOWN AS EXPECTED. THE CONTACT FULLY DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THE ABS FAILED TO ACTIVATE AND THE VEHICLE STILL FAILED TO SLOW DOWN AS EXPECTED. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. THE CONTACT AND THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER VEHICLE SUFFERED MINOR BACK PAIN, BUT NO MEDICAL ATTENTION WAS REQUIRED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER AND THE CONTACT'S INSURANCE COMPANY CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE, ALTHOUGH THE CONTACT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM ABOUT SIMILAR BRAKE ISSUES. THE MANUFACTURER ATTEMPTED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH NHTSA. THE CONTACT HAD NOT SPOKEN TO A NISSAN DEALER, BUT NOTIFIED ANOTHER DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 72,264.
I HAVE OBSERVED THE TRANSIENT GRABBY BRAKE SYNDROME IN MY LEAF DURING COLD WEATHER MONTHS IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS. I COMPLAINED TO MY NISSAN DEALERSHIPS SERVICE DEPARTMENT A COUPLE TIMES ABOUT IT, BUT THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE REPLICATED AT THE TIME. I ALSO NOTICED ON THE ENERGY SCREEN THAT THE REGENERATIVE BRAKING WAS CYCLING…
Read full complaint
I HAVE OBSERVED THE TRANSIENT GRABBY BRAKE SYNDROME IN MY LEAF DURING COLD WEATHER MONTHS IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS. I COMPLAINED TO MY NISSAN DEALERSHIPS SERVICE DEPARTMENT A COUPLE TIMES ABOUT IT, BUT THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE REPLICATED AT THE TIME. I ALSO NOTICED ON THE ENERGY SCREEN THAT THE REGENERATIVE BRAKING WAS CYCLING BETWEEN 10 AND 20 % COINCIDENT WITH THESE BRAKE INTENSITY PULSATIONS. IT ONLY HAPPENS WHEN I AM LIGHTLY BRAKING WITH VERY STEADY LIGHT PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. I SUSPECT A POSSIBLE CAUSE TO BE THE SENSOR THAT DETERMINES BRAKE PEDAL POSITION FOR THE REGEN BRAKING MAY BE DEFECTIVE OR NON-LINEAR AT SOME PORTION OF THE TRAVEL, OR THE REGEN BRAKING PROGRAM MAY HAVE A PROBLEM, OR THE HYDRAULIC BRAKING SYSTEM HAS A FAULTY COMPONENT AND THE REGEN SYSTEM IS JUST RESPONDING TO THE CYCLING BETWEEN HARD AND LIGHT BRAKING. IN ANY EVENT THIS PROBLEM MAY BE FEEDING OTHER BRAKING PROBLEMS THAT I HAVE READ ABOUT HERE, SO SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY NISSAN TO FIND A FIX SO AS TO PREVENT INJURIES OR FATALITIES.
THE BRAKES ON THIS CAR OFTEN BECOME GRABBY, ESPECIALLY IN EITHER COLD OR WET WEATHER. IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO MODULATE THE BRAKES SMOOTHLY AND THE AMOUNT OF BRAKING ACTION IS NOT LINEAR WITH PEDAL PRESSURE. THIS WILL CHANGE DURING A SINGLE TRIP WHERE THE BRAKES WILL START OUT GRABBY BUT THEN GET BETTER. SOMETIMES THE BRAKES …
Read full complaint
THE BRAKES ON THIS CAR OFTEN BECOME GRABBY, ESPECIALLY IN EITHER COLD OR WET WEATHER. IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO MODULATE THE BRAKES SMOOTHLY AND THE AMOUNT OF BRAKING ACTION IS NOT LINEAR WITH PEDAL PRESSURE. THIS WILL CHANGE DURING A SINGLE TRIP WHERE THE BRAKES WILL START OUT GRABBY BUT THEN GET BETTER. SOMETIMES THE BRAKES ARE NORMAL AT THE START OF A TRIP AND THEN GET GRABBY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIP. I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED A MODULATION IN BRAKING WHEN HOLDING THE BRAKE PEDAL WITH STEADY PRESSURE AS I'M SLOWING FOR TRAFFIC. THIS MODULATION IS ABOUT ONE CYCLE PER SECOND AND FEELS LIKE I AM PUMPING THE BRAKES BUT I'M NOT. THE WORST PART OF THIS IS IT OFTEN HAPPENS DURING A COLD MORNING WITH SNOW AND ICE ON THE ROAD, SO THE BRAKES JAM ON WITH VERY LITTLE PEDAL PRESSURE CAUSING THE CAR TO SKID UNEXPECTEDLY. I CAN SOMETIMES GET THE BRAKES WORKING PROPERLY BE PRESSING HARD ON THE BRAKE PEDAL AT A STOP, WHICH SEEMS TO FREE WHATEVER IS STICKING IN THE BRAKE SYSTEM (THE PROPORTIONING VALVE PERHAPS?). I HAVE TAKEN THE CAR TO THE NISSAN DEALER SEVERAL TIMES AND THEY SAY NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THE BRAKES. I HAVE EVEN DONE THIS DURING A SNOWSTORM WHEN IT WAS PARTICULARLY BAD, AND AGAIN, THE DEALER SAYS THE BRAKES ARE FINE. THIS HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE CAR WAS NEW AND REALLY HASN'T CHANGED OVER THE 50,000 MILES I'VE DRIVEN THE CAR. NISSAN NEEDS TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AND GET IT FIXED BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT IN A CRASH CAUSED BY GRABBY BRAKES.
THE CAR CONTINUES TO BRAKE EVEN AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS NO LONGER PRESSED. THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE ABS KICKS IN. I HAD TO SLAM ON THE BRAKES AFTER SOMEONE PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF ME. I DID NOT WANT TO COMPLETELY STOP AS I COULD HAVE BEEN REAR ENDED BUT THE CAR CONTINUED TO APPLY FULL BRAKES EVEN WHEN I NO LONGER WANTED TO STOP AND…
Read full complaint
THE CAR CONTINUES TO BRAKE EVEN AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL IS NO LONGER PRESSED. THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE ABS KICKS IN. I HAD TO SLAM ON THE BRAKES AFTER SOMEONE PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF ME. I DID NOT WANT TO COMPLETELY STOP AS I COULD HAVE BEEN REAR ENDED BUT THE CAR CONTINUED TO APPLY FULL BRAKES EVEN WHEN I NO LONGER WANTED TO STOP AND NO LONGER PRESSED THE BRAKE. THIS HAS HAPPENED 4 TIMES TOTAL, ALWAYS WHEN I HAD TO BRAKE VERY HARD TO AVOID A COLLISION. VERY LUCKY I HAVE NOT BEEN REAR ENDED AFTER ANY OF THESE INCIDENTS, ONE PERSON DROVE OFF THE ROAD TO AVOID ME AFTER THE CAR DECIDED TO STOP FULLY.
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
3DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds
Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System
NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.
PE19015 · Front Occupant Classification System Mat
Opened Oct 9, 2019 · Closed Jun 1, 2020
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags; Air Bags:frontal; Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Additional source detail variants (3)
Air Bags:frontal
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Air Bags
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
DP19002 · Front Occupant Classification System Mat
Opened Aug 16, 2019 · Closed Oct 16, 2019
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
A defect petition (see DP19-002) was received July 23, 2019 alleging that the occupant classification system (OCS) sensor (mat) in model year (MY) 2011 Nissan Leaf vehicles is defective and affects the proper deployment of the passenger front air bag. The petitioner provided a list of potentially related NHTSA reports and noted a Nissan recall involving later MY Leaf vehicles with OCS defect. NHTSA is granting the petition and opening a preliminary evaluation in response, please see PE19-015.Since receiving the defect petition, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has determined that the MY 2011 and 2012 Leaf share a common OCS design, both using the same sensor mat for passenger presence sensing. Starting in MY 2013, Leaf OCS was changed to a design using a different sensing system, one that did not use the mat present in prior model year, Nissan Leaf. While MY 2013-2016 Leaf vehicles were recalled for an OCS defect under recall 16V-244, a recall influenced by ODI investigation EA15-004, earlier MY Leaf vehicles were not included because they were not affected by the particular defect involved in that recall.ODI identified and reviewed 13 vehicle owner questionnaire (VOQ) reports in its database, one of which is a duplicate, involving MY 2011 and 2012 Leaf vehicles that allege a problem with the OCS. The VOQs indicate that an OCS warning light illuminated at which point the vehicle was diagnosed and it was determined the sensor mat was the cause of the OCS problem. Most of the VOQs also noted the high cost of repair, which apparently involves replacement of the passenger front seat, according to complainants. None of the VOQs allege a problem with the performance of the passenger air bag, an injury, or a fatality due to the failure of the OCS.During the evaluation of this petition, ODI did not request information from Nissan regarding the complaint data in its possession, and accordingly the manufacturer complaint counts shown above are marked as not applicable. ODI will request this information during the upcoming investigation.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (VOQ) numbers: 11234415, 11207486, 11196006, 11193208, 11180021, 11176324, 11172159, 11152569, 11123812, 11103556 (duplicate of 11180021), 11102456, 11101830, 11052546.