← New search

2014 Toyota Corolla

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Corolla years

Owner complaints for the 2014 Toyota Corolla are substantially higher than the model-year median of 129.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

180 reports with mileage · 89 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.

  • Air Bags. Review the 69 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 52 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

64 crash reports3 fire reports37 injury reports

Engine complaints

18 reports
Clear category filter
24,000 miles · Jun 19, 2016
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

ON 6/19/2016 DRIVING HOME FROM RUNNING ERRANDS, I STOPPED AT AT RED LIGHT BUT WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, THE CAR DIDN'T BUDGE EVEN THOUGH I WAS TAPPING AND PRESSING THE PEDAL. AFTER ABOUT 7-8 SECONDS, THE CAR FINALLY RESPONDED AND STARTED SLOWLY ROLLING TO NORMAL SPEED. ON THE SAME TRIP AND THE LAST INTERSECTION, THE CAR DID T…

Read full complaint

ON 6/19/2016 DRIVING HOME FROM RUNNING ERRANDS, I STOPPED AT AT RED LIGHT BUT WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, THE CAR DIDN'T BUDGE EVEN THOUGH I WAS TAPPING AND PRESSING THE PEDAL. AFTER ABOUT 7-8 SECONDS, THE CAR FINALLY RESPONDED AND STARTED SLOWLY ROLLING TO NORMAL SPEED. ON THE SAME TRIP AND THE LAST INTERSECTION, THE CAR DID THIS AGAIN BUT AT A STOP SIGN. THE GAS PEDAL WAS DEAD WHEN COMING OUT OF A COMPLETE STOP. IT TOOK ANOTHER 7-8 SECONDS FOR THE ENGINE/TRANSMISSION TO RECOGNIZE IT WAS TIME TO ROLL. LUCKILY THERE WAS NO CROSS TRAFFIC BECAUSE I COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN HIT DUE TO CRUISING AT 5 MILES PER HOUR. I'M TAKING THE CAR TOMORROW TO THE DEALER. THE CAR CURRENTLY HAS 24,000 MILES ON IT AND THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS HAS OCCURRED. THE FIRST TIME THIS HESITATION HAPPENED WAS IN 2015 AROUND THE 12,000 MILE MARK. THE CAR WAS AT STOP AND DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR A FEW SECONDS WHEN I HIT THE GAS PEDAL. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THE DEALER COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I TOLD THEM EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED AND WHY I TOOK IT. THIS TIME THEY SENT A SERVICE MANAGER WITH ME FOR A TEST DRIVE AND HE SAID IT FELT FINE. I WAS SENT HOME WITH THEIR ASSURANCE THAT THE CAR WAS FINE AND THAT IT WAS A FLUKE THAT THE ENGINE WAS ACTING UP BUT EVERYTHING WAS FINE. I'VE READ FORUMS WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED WITH OTHER COROLLAS AND CAMRYS. THIS IS DANGEROUS AND IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. I HOPE TOYOTA TAKES RESPONSIBILITIES WITH MY CAR AND OTHER CARS WITH THE SAME ISSUE. NHTSA, PLEASE DO SOMETHING BEFORE THIS TRANSMISSION/ACCELERATION ISSUE BECOMES A REAL SAFETY ISSUE. I HAVE VIDEO ON MY CELL PHONE OF THE CAR ACTING ERRATIC.

NHTSA ODI #10875137

15,678 miles · Oct 19, 2015
Engine

I HAVE ATTEMPTED FOR THE LAST 14 MONTHS TO GET A NOISE FIXED WHEN MY CAR STARTS UP. I HAVE MADE 10 REPAIR EFFORTS WITH TOYOTA AND TOYOTA CORPORATE. I HAVE FILED LEMON LAW ON MY CAR AND TOYOTA HAS SENT ME LETTERS TWICE STATING THEY HAVE REVIEWED MY REPAIR ORDERS, INSPECTED THE CAR, AND IT IS WORKING AS DESIGNED. WHILE THE LETTERS…

Read full complaint

I HAVE ATTEMPTED FOR THE LAST 14 MONTHS TO GET A NOISE FIXED WHEN MY CAR STARTS UP. I HAVE MADE 10 REPAIR EFFORTS WITH TOYOTA AND TOYOTA CORPORATE. I HAVE FILED LEMON LAW ON MY CAR AND TOYOTA HAS SENT ME LETTERS TWICE STATING THEY HAVE REVIEWED MY REPAIR ORDERS, INSPECTED THE CAR, AND IT IS WORKING AS DESIGNED. WHILE THE LETTERS ARE BEING SENT TO ME I HAVE OPEN APPOINTMENTS TO GET THE CAR REPAIRED FOR THIS ISSUE. I CALLED THE TOYOTA FIELD REP AND HE STATED THAT MY CASE IS CLOSED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CAR. THE NOISE HAPPENS WHEN STARTING THE CAR AFTER IT HAS BEEN SITTING FOR AT LEAST 20 MINUTES. IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING IS BROKEN INSIDE THE ENGINE. ON THE LAST TRIP TO THE DEALERSHIP TOYOTA REPLACED THE STARTER ON MY CAR AND IT DID NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE. I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE ENGINE ITSELF IN MY CAR SINCE THE STARTER HAS BEEN REPLACED. I AM AFRAID MY CAR IS GOING TO STALL OUT ON ME WHILE DRIVING CAUSING ME TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT. I HAVE RECORDED SOUNDS OF THE NOISE OCCURRING AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THEM WHEN I AM CONTACTED.

NHTSA ODI #10783511

27,500 miles · May 6, 2015
Electrical SystemEngine

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO ACCELERATE, THE ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO DECELERATE. THE CONTACT HAD TO GENTLY DEPRESS THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE SPEED; HOWEVER, WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED WITH FORC…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH AND ATTEMPTING TO ACCELERATE, THE ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO DECELERATE. THE CONTACT HAD TO GENTLY DEPRESS THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE SPEED; HOWEVER, WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED WITH FORCE, THE VEHICLE'S SPEED DECREASED. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ECM SOFTWARE NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. THE SOFTWARE WAS UPDATED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 27,500.

NHTSA ODI #10714946

4,500 miles · Jan 23, 2015
Engine

PULLED LEFT INTO PARKING AREA, CAR ACCELERATED VERY FAST, WENT OVER 4-6" BERM. I HIT THE BRAKE, CAR STOPPED. BACKED DOWN OFF BERM, DIDN'T DO DAMAGE. TOOK CAR TO TOYOTA, REPORT DONE AND AN ANALYSIS. DETERMINED "UNINTENDED ACCELERATION...PEDAL MISAPPLICATION" . NOT CONVINCED THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED ESPECIALLY AFTER READING OTHER SI…

Read full complaint

PULLED LEFT INTO PARKING AREA, CAR ACCELERATED VERY FAST, WENT OVER 4-6" BERM. I HIT THE BRAKE, CAR STOPPED. BACKED DOWN OFF BERM, DIDN'T DO DAMAGE. TOOK CAR TO TOYOTA, REPORT DONE AND AN ANALYSIS. DETERMINED "UNINTENDED ACCELERATION...PEDAL MISAPPLICATION" . NOT CONVINCED THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED ESPECIALLY AFTER READING OTHER SIMILAR COMPLAINTS. FEEL THERE IS A DEFECT IN CAR, FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10678647

34,000 miles · Jan 23, 2015
Air BagsEngineStructureCrash

THIS AM I HIT A DEER ON THE WAY TO WORK HEAD ON AT 65-67 MPH AND NOT ONE AIR BAG DEPLOYED!!! THE ENTIRE FRONT END CRUMPLED TO THE WINDSHIELD AREA AND THE RADIATOR AND PARTS TORN LOSE TO THE TOP OF ENGINE AND NOT ONE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. EVERYONE AT THE WRECK COULD NOT BELIEVE IT AND NOW I AM TERRIFIED OF THE CAR IF DIRECT CONTACT A…

Read full complaint

THIS AM I HIT A DEER ON THE WAY TO WORK HEAD ON AT 65-67 MPH AND NOT ONE AIR BAG DEPLOYED!!! THE ENTIRE FRONT END CRUMPLED TO THE WINDSHIELD AREA AND THE RADIATOR AND PARTS TORN LOSE TO THE TOP OF ENGINE AND NOT ONE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. EVERYONE AT THE WRECK COULD NOT BELIEVE IT AND NOW I AM TERRIFIED OF THE CAR IF DIRECT CONTACT AT THAT SPEED DOES NOT OPEN THE SAFETY EQUIPMENT WHAT WILL? THIS CAR IS NOT SAFE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10678631

Mileage unknown · Dec 3, 2014
Engine

MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I ALSO NOTICE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SLOW DOWN, THE CAR WOULD ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE WOULD SEEM TO STALL ALMOST LIKE A DEAD SPOT. THEN WHEN DEPRESSING THE GAS PEDAL SEVERAL TIMES THE ENGINE WOULD CATCH AND JUMP FORWARD. ALMOST HITTING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF US. THIS CAR ACCELERATES AT TIMES WHEN BRAKI…

Read full complaint

MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I ALSO NOTICE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SLOW DOWN, THE CAR WOULD ACCELERATE. THE ENGINE WOULD SEEM TO STALL ALMOST LIKE A DEAD SPOT. THEN WHEN DEPRESSING THE GAS PEDAL SEVERAL TIMES THE ENGINE WOULD CATCH AND JUMP FORWARD. ALMOST HITTING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF US. THIS CAR ACCELERATES AT TIMES WHEN BRAKING AND HESITATES WHEN PRESSING ON THE GAS. I ALSO NOTICED WHEN I WAS STOPPED AT A LIGHT, THE CAR MOVED BACKWARDS AFTER TAKING MY FEET OFF THE BRAKES. IT COULD'VE HIT THE CAR IN BACK OF US. I ASKED THE SALE LADY, IF THIS CAR WAS APART OF THE RECALL AND SHE TOLD ME THAT IF IT WAS THE DEALERSHIP WOULD HAVE TO FIX IT BEFORE THEY SOLD IT. I HAD THE CAR FOR LESS THAN 2 WEEKS. I HOPE THIS CAR DOESN'T CAUSE MY FAMILY AND SOMEONE ELSE'S FAMILY HARM. BIG SAFETY ISSUE! BIG SAFETY ISSUE! *JS

NHTSA ODI #10662075

950 miles · Nov 27, 2014
EngineService BrakesCrash

I WAS PULLING INTO MY DRIVEWAY AT 1 MILE PER HOUR AND I PUT MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE TO STOP MY CAR AND IT WOULDN'T STOP! THE ENGINE REVVED UP AND MY CAR WENT THROUGH MY FENCE INTO MY BACKYARD. I TRIED IN VAIN TO STOP MY CAR, I KEPT PRESSING DOWN ON MY BRAKE, (5 TIMES) WITH NO SUCCESS. I FINALLY PUT MY AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION INTO …

Read full complaint

I WAS PULLING INTO MY DRIVEWAY AT 1 MILE PER HOUR AND I PUT MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE TO STOP MY CAR AND IT WOULDN'T STOP! THE ENGINE REVVED UP AND MY CAR WENT THROUGH MY FENCE INTO MY BACKYARD. I TRIED IN VAIN TO STOP MY CAR, I KEPT PRESSING DOWN ON MY BRAKE, (5 TIMES) WITH NO SUCCESS. I FINALLY PUT MY AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION INTO PARK AND IT FINALLY CAME TO A STOP. I WAS EXTREMELY SHAKEN UP SINCE I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO DIE! I CHECKED MY CAR FOR DAMAGES, I NOTICED THAT MY PASSENGER SIDE VIEW MIRROR WAS DAMAGED AND THERE WAS OTHER DAMAGE UNDER MY CAR. MY CAR IS ONLY 3 MONTHS OLD AND HAS 950 MILES ON IT. I HAVE BEEN DRIVING FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED ANYTHING LIKE THIS. THIS HAPPENED ON NOVEMBER 27, 2014, THANKSGIVING DAY AT 10:00 AM. THE WEATHER CONDITIONS WERE CLOUDY WITH A TEMPERATURE OF 34 DEGREES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10661152

283 miles · Mar 24, 2014
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING MY COROLLA S PLUS 2014 ON EL CAMINO REAL, SAN MATEO, CA SOUTHBOUND JUST PAST HILLSDALE BLVD, WHEN THE ENGINE BECAME VERY NOISY. I LOOKED AT THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND FOUND THE FOLLOWINGS DATA: 1) RPM METER - 3500 2) SPEEDOMETER - 30MPH 3) LCD DISPLAY - ECO BAR GONE THE CAR BEHAVED THE SAME EVEN WHEN I TOOK MY…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING MY COROLLA S PLUS 2014 ON EL CAMINO REAL, SAN MATEO, CA SOUTHBOUND JUST PAST HILLSDALE BLVD, WHEN THE ENGINE BECAME VERY NOISY. I LOOKED AT THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND FOUND THE FOLLOWINGS DATA: 1) RPM METER - 3500 2) SPEEDOMETER - 30MPH 3) LCD DISPLAY - ECO BAR GONE THE CAR BEHAVED THE SAME EVEN WHEN I TOOK MY FOOT COMPLETELY OFF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. TRANSMISSION DEFECT AND/OR COMPUTER MALFUNCTION? LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO PULL MY CAR TO THE ROADSIDE AND BRAKED TO A STOP. I TURNED THE ENGINE OFF. AFTER 2-3 MINUTES, I STARTED THE ENGINE AND ALL RETURNED TO NORMAL. THE EXACT SAME HAPPENING OCCURRED TO ME JUST 2 DAYS LATER ON MARCH 19, 2014. IT COULD BE VERY SCARY IF THE ENGINE SUDDENLY REVS UP AND THE CAR SPEEDS UP AT THE SAME TIME. I WONDER IF OTHER OWNERS OF 2014 COROLLA HAVE SIMILAR EXPERIENCES. IF SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE INVESTIGATED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10574320

Official recalls

2

20V024000 · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module

Jan 17, 2020

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain 2011-2019 Corolla, 2011-2013 Matrix, 2012-2018 Avalon, and 2013-2018 Avalon Hybrid vehicles. During certain crashes, the air bag electronic control unit (ECU) may malfunction, possibly disabling the deployment of the air bags and/or seat belt pretensioners.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: In the event of a crash, air bags and/or seat belt pretensioners that do not deploy as intended may increase the risk of injury.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the ECU and install a noise filter between the air bag control module and its wire harness, as necessary, free of charge. Owners were notified of the safety risk beginning March 2, 2020. A second letter notifying owners of the remedy repair will be mailed between March 16, 2020 and June 27, 2020. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371. Toyota's numbers for this recall are 20TB03, 20TA03 and 20TA05.

13V505000 · Visibility:windshield Wiper/washer:switch/wiring

Oct 17, 2013

Toyota Motor Engineering & manufacturing North America, Inc. (Toyota) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 Camry and Camry HV, model year 2013 Avalon and Avalon HV and model year 2014 Corolla vehicles. In the affected vehicles, the windshield wiper switch assembly may short circuit. As such, these vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, No. 104, "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems."

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A short circuit could cause inoperative windshield wipers, reducing driver visibility and increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the wiper switch assembly, free of charge. The recall began on November 8, 2013. Owners may contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331.

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

2

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.

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.

Go deeper into Toyota Corolla problems