NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes complaints
16 reportsClear category filter38,000 miles · Jul 22, 2019
Service Brakes
PURCHASED CAR USED (7000 MILES) FROM TOYOTA DEALER IN ACTON, MA. TOOK IN FOR CHECKUP EVERY 5000 MILES UNTIL 35,000 MILES. AT 38,000 MILES, TOOK OFF FRONT WHEELS TO CHECK BRAKES AND FOUND THAT THE INSIDE OF BOTH ROTORS WERE TERRIFICALLY GROOVED AND THE PADS THE SAME, WHILE THE OUTSIDE OF THE ROTORS WAS GOOD AND THE OUTSIDE PADS…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED CAR USED (7000 MILES) FROM TOYOTA DEALER IN ACTON, MA. TOOK IN FOR CHECKUP EVERY 5000 MILES UNTIL 35,000 MILES. AT 38,000 MILES, TOOK OFF FRONT WHEELS TO CHECK BRAKES AND FOUND THAT THE INSIDE OF BOTH ROTORS WERE TERRIFICALLY GROOVED AND THE PADS THE SAME, WHILE THE OUTSIDE OF THE ROTORS WAS GOOD AND THE OUTSIDE PADS HARDLY USED. THE BRAKE CALIPERS ON BOTH SIDES WERE FROZEN. I REPLACED EVERYTHING AND SHOWED THE DEALERSHIP MY PICTURES. THEY SAID THEY WOULD TALK TO THEIR STAFF AND OFFERED NO HELP, SO I PAID FOR EVERYTHING. THIS WAS UNSAFE AND OBVIOUSLY MISSED MULTIPLE TIMES ON THE "160-POINT INSPECTION"! IT LOOKED LIKE A PROBLEM FROM WHEN THE CAR WAS NEW AND FIRST USED AS A RENTAL BY THE DEALER. THE BRAKES MADE LITTLE EXTRA SOUND(BUT THE SCRAPING WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT) AND THE BRAKES STOPPED THE CAR OKAY WITH JUST A LITTLE EXTRA PRESSURE---I THOUGHT IT WAS NORMAL FOR THIS CAR.
NHTSA ODI #11233746
53,000 miles · Oct 29, 2018
Service BrakesSuspensionUnknown Or OtherCrash
TAKATA RECALL, WHEN DRIVING TO CRESTLINE CA. THE TRACTION CONTROL LOCK UP THE FRONT LEFT WHEEL AT 60 MPH AND MADE ME HIT THE INSIDE GUARDRAIL AGAIN THE WHEEL LOCKED UP AT 50 MPH AND AGAIN AT 45 MPH I HAD TO DRIVE AT 20 MPH THIS HAPPEN WHEN DRIVING ON A ROAD GOING UP HILL ON LEFT HAND CURVES, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT FLICKER EA…
Read full complaint
TAKATA RECALL, WHEN DRIVING TO CRESTLINE CA. THE TRACTION CONTROL LOCK UP THE FRONT LEFT WHEEL AT 60 MPH AND MADE ME HIT THE INSIDE GUARDRAIL AGAIN THE WHEEL LOCKED UP AT 50 MPH AND AGAIN AT 45 MPH I HAD TO DRIVE AT 20 MPH THIS HAPPEN WHEN DRIVING ON A ROAD GOING UP HILL ON LEFT HAND CURVES, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT FLICKER EACH TIME THE WHEEL LOCKED UP I WAS NOT ABLE TO DISENGAGE THE TRACTION CONTROL. WHEN I REACHED A SHELL STATION A PERSON TOLL ME IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE LOW TIRE PRESSURE, I CHECKED TIRE PRESSURE ON EACH TIRE 21, 23, 24, 26 WAS THE READING ON THE TIRES, MY TIRE LOW PRESSURE LIGHT NEVER CAME ON. I FILLED THE THE TIRES AND SEEM TO FIX THE TRACTION CONTROL AND THE WHEEL LOCKING UP. THAN TWO WEEKS LATER I WAS PARKING AT UCI HOSPITAL PARKING STRUCTURE PULLING IN A PARKING SPOT THE BRAKES WENT TOTALLY OUT CAUSING ME TO HIT THE PARKING STRUCTURE, THE BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR (ALL THE WAY DOWN). I WAS DOING LESS THAN 5 MPH AND THE AIR BAGS DIDN'T GO OFF ALSO AGAIN NO LIGHTS ON THE DASH AND ANY INDICATION THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG.
NHTSA ODI #11143779
15,500 miles · Aug 7, 2018
Air BagsElectrical SystemService Brakes
THE MAINTENANCE LIGHT STAYS ON AND WON'T RESET AFTER THE 15000 MILE OIL CHANGE. AFTER 16000 MILES THE HORN STOPPED WORKING. AT 16900 MILES ON 08/07/2018 THE DRIVER AIRBAG LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON, AND THE STEERING WHEEL COVER WHERE THE AIRBAG IS IS LOOSE. THE BRAKES AND ALIGNMENT HAVE BEEN CHECKED AND ARE GOOD, BUT SOMETIMES …
Read full complaint
THE MAINTENANCE LIGHT STAYS ON AND WON'T RESET AFTER THE 15000 MILE OIL CHANGE. AFTER 16000 MILES THE HORN STOPPED WORKING. AT 16900 MILES ON 08/07/2018 THE DRIVER AIRBAG LIGHT CAME ON AND STAYED ON, AND THE STEERING WHEEL COVER WHERE THE AIRBAG IS IS LOOSE. THE BRAKES AND ALIGNMENT HAVE BEEN CHECKED AND ARE GOOD, BUT SOMETIMES THE WHEELS LOCK AND THE CAR DOESN'T BRAKE WELL, AS IF THE ANTILOCK SYSTEM STOPPED WORKING.
NHTSA ODI #11118406
64,000 miles · Jun 2, 2018
Service Brakes
I WAS PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE IN CHESTERTOWN (MARYLAND) AT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND TRIED TO BRAKE AND THE CAR DID NOT COME TO A STOP UNTIL IT WENT UP ON THE SIDEWALK.
NHTSA ODI #11099307
Mileage unknown · Feb 14, 2018
Air BagsService BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING LESS THAN 30 MPH FROM A CUL-DE-SAC, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED INDEPENDENTLY. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS STUCK AND WOULD NOT RELEASE. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A TREE. NONE OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED WITH FORCE, BUT FAILED TO STOP…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING LESS THAN 30 MPH FROM A CUL-DE-SAC, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED INDEPENDENTLY. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS STUCK AND WOULD NOT RELEASE. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A TREE. NONE OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED WITH FORCE, BUT FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED BACK AND NECK PAIN. THE PASSENGER SUSTAINED CHEST PAINS. BOTH OCCUPANTS RECEIVED MEDICAL TREATMENT. THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE CRASH AND WAS TO TOW THE VEHICLE TO INSPECT THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE CRASH. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE MANUFACTURER ISSUED 32 TSBS FOR THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND TWO FOR THE BRAKE SYSTEM. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. *TT *TR
NHTSA ODI #11072854
5,000 miles · Aug 8, 2017
EngineFuel System, GasolineService Brakes
MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AT LEAST 12 TIMES SINCE PURCHASED. IT HAS ALREADY HAD A REAR SEAL LEAK, BACK BRAKES AND FRONT BRAKE WORK AND REAR BRAKES REPLACED. THE TIMING CHAIN CABLE WAS LEAKING OIL AND THEY REPLACED IT. IT HAS NOT RAN THE SAME SINCE. IT CONTINUES TO HESITATE TO ALMOST STALLING OUT DURING T…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AT LEAST 12 TIMES SINCE PURCHASED. IT HAS ALREADY HAD A REAR SEAL LEAK, BACK BRAKES AND FRONT BRAKE WORK AND REAR BRAKES REPLACED. THE TIMING CHAIN CABLE WAS LEAKING OIL AND THEY REPLACED IT. IT HAS NOT RAN THE SAME SINCE. IT CONTINUES TO HESITATE TO ALMOST STALLING OUT DURING TAKEOFF AT RED LIGHTS AND INTERSECTIONS. IT'S ACCELERATION IS TERRIBLE EVEN FOR A 4 CYLINDER. WE HAVE BEEN COOPERATIVE FOR THE 3 YEARS WITH TOYOTA, BUT NOW THAT THE WARRANTY IS VOID DUE TO THE 3 YEARS, AND NOT THE MILEAGE, WE NO LONGER RECEIVE SUCH A HELPFUL CONVERSATION WITH ANY OF THE MANAGERS THERE. THE CAR IS STILL UNDER 25,000 MILES, AND HAS BEEN A TOTAL LEMON TO US. WE'VE EXHAUSTED ALL HOPES OF THEM FIXING THE REAL PROBLEM SINCE THEY CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT THEY COULDN'T FIND ANY SUCH PROBLEM IN THE ACCELERATION ISSUES AND STALLING IN THE INTERSECTIONS. WE WILL NEVER AGAIN PURCHASE A TOYOTA VEHICLE EVER AGAIN. WE HAVE PURCHASED MANY TOYOTA'S IN THE PAST, WHICH PROMPTED US TO BUY ANOTHER. BUT AFTER THIS CAR, AND POOR MECHANICS AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT, WE WILL REFRAIN FROM ANOTHER TOYOTA, EVER. IF YOU CAN RESOLVE OUR ISSUE BY EITHER AN EQUIVALENT EXCHANGE OF ANOTHER VEHICLE, OR FIX THE REAL REASON IT'S NOT RUNNING PROPERLY, AND FRANKLY NEVER HAS, I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY HELP THAT CAN BE GIVEN ON MY BEHALF. THANK YOU, [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #11013815
48,000 miles · May 11, 2017
Service Brakes
BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH FAILED; NO BRAKE LIGHTS. THE PROBLEM WAS INTERMITTENT, OCCURRING WHILE BOTH STATIONARY AND IN MOTION.
NHTSA ODI #10984818
58,800 miles · Feb 2, 2017
Service BrakesCrash
I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN 2 CAR ACCIDENTS WHERE I REAR ENDED BOTH CARS DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE. ONE OF THOSE WAS TODAY. IN BOTH SITUATIONS, WE WERE AT A RED LIGHT AND THE CAR BEFORE ME ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE LIGHT CHANGED AND SUDDENLY STOPPED. I ALSO ACCELERATED NOT EVEN REACHING 10 MPH AND I HAD TO JAM THE BREAKS. I WAS AT A REASON…
Read full complaint
I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN 2 CAR ACCIDENTS WHERE I REAR ENDED BOTH CARS DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE. ONE OF THOSE WAS TODAY. IN BOTH SITUATIONS, WE WERE AT A RED LIGHT AND THE CAR BEFORE ME ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE LIGHT CHANGED AND SUDDENLY STOPPED. I ALSO ACCELERATED NOT EVEN REACHING 10 MPH AND I HAD TO JAM THE BREAKS. I WAS AT A REASONABLE DISTANCE WHERE WITH PROPER BREAKS I WOULD HAVE STOPPED SOON ENOUGH AND NOT HIT THE CAR, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN BOTH CASES MY BRAKE PEDAL SANK IN A LITTLE FURTHER AND VIBRATED. THE CAR CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD AND HIT THE CAR. BECAUSE IT WAS A SUDDEN STOP, TIRES WOULD HAVE SCREECHED BECAUSE OF THE JAMMING OF THE BREAKS, BUT THAT REALLY DIDN'T HAPPEN AND THE CAR JUST KEPT GOING.
NHTSA ODI #10949074
18,000 miles · Jun 29, 2016
Electrical SystemService BrakesStructureCrash
I WAS PARKED IN THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF AMHERST AVE AND SANTA MONICA BLVD IN LOS ANGELES. I WAS EXITING DRIVING UP THE VERY NARROW EXIT RAMP. 1.THE ONE WAY EXIT TO THE LOT CURVES AND IS VERY NARROW. AS I NAVIGATED THE NARROW EXIT, I FELT THAT I WAS ALMOST TOUCHING THE WALL ON THE RIGHT SIDE. 2.I…
Read full complaint
I WAS PARKED IN THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF AMHERST AVE AND SANTA MONICA BLVD IN LOS ANGELES. I WAS EXITING DRIVING UP THE VERY NARROW EXIT RAMP. 1.THE ONE WAY EXIT TO THE LOT CURVES AND IS VERY NARROW. AS I NAVIGATED THE NARROW EXIT, I FELT THAT I WAS ALMOST TOUCHING THE WALL ON THE RIGHT SIDE. 2.I APPLIED THE BRAKES AND PUT THE CAR IN REVERSE IN ORDER TO GET AWAY FROM THE WALL. HOWEVER, THE BRAKES DID NOT RESPOND AND THE CAR ROLLED BACKWARDS AROUND THE BEND, HITTING THE WALL BEHIND ME. THE CAR CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. 3.APPLYING THE BRAKES HAD NO IMPACT ON THE CAR NEITHER DECELERATING NOR ACCELERATING. THIS SHOWS THAT THE BRAKES DEFINITELY DID NOT WORK. 4.WITH MY FOOT ON THE BRAKES, I PUT THE CAR IN DRIVE. AT NO TIME DID I PRESS THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. I WOULD HAVE HEARD THE ENGINE. THE INSTANT I SHIFTED TO DRIVE, THE CAR LUNGED FORWARD AT A VERY HIGH RATE OF SPEED. CONSEQUENTIALLY, MY CAR ZOOMED UP THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE GROUND LEVEL PARKING FACING WEST. WITHIN A SECOND OR SO, MY CAR COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER CAR, PARKED FACING WEST IN FRONT OF PIZZA HUT. DUE TO THE FORCE OF THE IMPACT AT SUCH A HIGH RATE OF SPEED, THE PARKED HYUNDAI SUPERSEDED THE CONCRETE PARKING BARRIER CRASHING INTO PIZZA HUT, SHATTERING THE STORE FRONT WINDOW. 5.MY CAR WAS THANKFULLY STOPPED DUE TO IMPACT WITH THE HYUNDAI ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF MY VEHICLE AND A LOW WALL ON THE LEFT SIDE.
NHTSA ODI #10881511
29,300 miles · Jan 26, 2016
Air BagsService BrakesCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE BRAKES SEIZED. THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND THE BRAKES SEIZED. THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 29,300.
NHTSA ODI #10822414
Official recalls
2Jan 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.
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
2EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
EA19001 · Electrical Overstress
Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.