← 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

Unknown Or Other complaints

38 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Sep 11, 2024
Unknown Or Other

The factory paint has been peeling very badly and exposing the metal underneath, allowing rust to begin to settle. I have been trying to get it repaired for a while now and continuously have been ignored. I have spoken to Toyota Customer Support and they told me that the warranty expired a couple months ago, and I have no record…

Read full complaint

The factory paint has been peeling very badly and exposing the metal underneath, allowing rust to begin to settle. I have been trying to get it repaired for a while now and continuously have been ignored. I have spoken to Toyota Customer Support and they told me that the warranty expired a couple months ago, and I have no record of them sending any communication out to us telling us it would expire, which was supposed to be what they needed to do per regulations. I was never notified of any resolutions and am extremely upset that they are not wanting to reconsider due to being 2 months out of warranty.

NHTSA ODI #11613974

Mileage unknown · Dec 22, 2023
Unknown Or Other

Radio is in constant reboot for months. It’s very unsafe seeing as the radio screen itself is VERY BRIGHT. It is distracting, bright, and it feels unsafe driving at night with what feels like a flashlight being shined in your face over and over again. Toyota dealers will not fix the issue without paying 1,000$ dollar for the sam…

Read full complaint

Radio is in constant reboot for months. It’s very unsafe seeing as the radio screen itself is VERY BRIGHT. It is distracting, bright, and it feels unsafe driving at night with what feels like a flashlight being shined in your face over and over again. Toyota dealers will not fix the issue without paying 1,000$ dollar for the same radio just to do the same thing. There were no warning signs, & it also doesn’t allow usb ports to work. This seems to be a common problem in most toyotas not just corolla's.

NHTSA ODI #11561579

Mileage unknown · Apr 20, 2023
EngineUnknown Or Other

Vehicle stopped accelerating while on highway leading to dangerous slow down with 2 little kids in the car. Car would no longer accelerate despite engine running. Check engine light turned on. Toyota dealer ran diagnostics and found vvti actuator had internally failed. This was a very expensive replacement. I worry that a previo…

Read full complaint

Vehicle stopped accelerating while on highway leading to dangerous slow down with 2 little kids in the car. Car would no longer accelerate despite engine running. Check engine light turned on. Toyota dealer ran diagnostics and found vvti actuator had internally failed. This was a very expensive replacement. I worry that a previous recall for ECM module update came too late before damage had already occured to the vvti actuator prematurely. Car is well taken care of and only 100k miles.

NHTSA ODI #11517998

Mileage unknown · Dec 3, 2022
Fuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other

On 11/30/2022 The CHECK light came on. After checking my Toyota manual it showed several reasons for the light. I called the Toyota Dealer (Bryan Easler, Hendersonville, NC) made an appointment for general service and inspection as to why the warning light came on. Was told the warning light was result of rodents chewing thro…

Read full complaint

On 11/30/2022 The CHECK light came on. After checking my Toyota manual it showed several reasons for the light. I called the Toyota Dealer (Bryan Easler, Hendersonville, NC) made an appointment for general service and inspection as to why the warning light came on. Was told the warning light was result of rodents chewing through the gas line causing fuel leak. This also happened about three years ago. Because the fuel system is all one piece it couldn't be repaired. I had to pay for a whole new fuel line system, second time I have had to pay for a whole new fuel system. There is no Toyota dealer my my area so I have to travel about forty miles for service. I am a very elderly half cripple woman long distance driving is tiring and dangerous for me, driving with a leaking gas line is dangerous for anyone. This is the second time I've dealt with this problem. There is something seriously wrong with a fuel line being exposed so animals can chew through it. It means I may have to replace it every time a rodent decides to dine on the fuel line. Where can I park and feel safe my gas line won't be destroyed? Not to mention all the other dangers a leaking fuel line can cause. It makes no sense why Toyota would manufacture such a disaster on any car.

NHTSA ODI #11495886

Mileage unknown · Dec 1, 2022
Unknown Or Other

Malfunction in transmission assembly. Car has less than 50,000 miles.

NHTSA ODI #11495669

Mileage unknown · Sep 24, 2022
Unknown Or Other

That’s completely great with good conditions

NHTSA ODI #11486226

Mileage unknown · Mar 25, 2022
Unknown Or Other

I'm writing you about my 2014 Toyota Corolla which I bought from Glendale KIA dealership (400 S. Brand st, Glendale, CA ) in Feb ,2022 with a Gold Warranty. It is about selling old (may be used) 2020 four tires to me instead of 2022 tires. I paid for NEW tires and I have the invoice(and credit card transaction ,..) They told me …

Read full complaint

I'm writing you about my 2014 Toyota Corolla which I bought from Glendale KIA dealership (400 S. Brand st, Glendale, CA ) in Feb ,2022 with a Gold Warranty. It is about selling old (may be used) 2020 four tires to me instead of 2022 tires. I paid for NEW tires and I have the invoice(and credit card transaction ,..) They told me first I only told them NEW tires and I didn't mention 2022 and those tires which are from 2020 are good. Their supervisor on Monday offered me a FULL TANK OF GAS for free instead of new tires and when I said no and I want four new tires 2022. He told me to go there again (Wednesday 03/23/2022) to get new tires but they tried to give me 2020 tires again. I asked them I want to talk with store manger , they said manager is off and when I asked that specific Employees name , he didn't respond and tried to go to other room and I started recording his video and he tried to grab my phone by force . I came out and called 911.The police officers came and went inside of the dealership and stayed with me to take my car outside (with out getting new tires and I'm still have the 2020 tires that they gave me on Monday). I emailed the manager and other guys several times before that day but they didn't respond . They never called back my VM. The scheduling links of their website is broken and from March 15 I tried to email and call them but they never respond. One mor thing , after police officers came one of their associates text me by his personal phone number ,. Most of the employees are Arabs, I think they are kind of family and friends Their employees have access to my information(Social Security, My family home address, cellphone,..) I know in 2019 in California , we had some legal efforts to make car dealers notice the customers about the manufacturing date. My tires manufacturing date is 3820(week 38, year 2020) I also tried to contact with AAA insurance( my car and my life insurance i) and if have an accident because of those old tires.

NHTSA ODI #11458399

Mileage unknown · Mar 25, 2022
Unknown Or Other

Hello, I found your website by browsing on web and may be I'm wrong and I should not fill this form here in your website. I'm writing you about my 2014 Toyota Corolla which I bought from Glendale KIA dealership (400 S. Brand st, Glendale, CA, ) in Feb ,2022 with a Gold Warranty. It is about selling old (may be used) 2020 four t…

Read full complaint

Hello, I found your website by browsing on web and may be I'm wrong and I should not fill this form here in your website. I'm writing you about my 2014 Toyota Corolla which I bought from Glendale KIA dealership (400 S. Brand st, Glendale, CA, ) in Feb ,2022 with a Gold Warranty. It is about selling old (may be used) 2020 four tires to me instead of 2022 tires. I paid for NEW tires and I have the invoice(and credit card transaction ,..) They told me first I only told them NEW tires and I didn't mention 2022 and those tires which are from 2020 are good. Their supervisor on Monday offered me a FULL TANK OF GAS for free instead of new tires and when I said no and I want four new tires 2022. He told me to go there again (Wednesday 03/23/2022) to get new tires but they tried to give me 2020 tires again. I asked them I want to talk with store manger , they said manager is off and when I asked that specific Employee name , he didn't respond and tried to go to other room and I started recording his video and he tried to grab my phone by force . I came out and called 911.The police officers came and went inside of the dealership and stayed with me to take my car outside (with out getting new tires and I'm still have the 2020 tires that they gave me on Monday).I emailed the manager and other guys several times before that day but they didn't respond . They never called back my VM. The scheduling links of their website is broken and from March 15 I tried to email and call them but they never respond. One more thing , after police officers came one of their associates text me by his personal cell number ,. Most of the employees are Arabs and I think they are kind of family and friends Their employees have access to my information(Social Security, My family home address, cellphone,..)in 2019 in California , we had some legal laws for tire age for dealerships . I I f I get an accident because of my tires who will be responsible, I paid for new tires for my safety and others.

NHTSA ODI #11458398

Mileage unknown · Oct 12, 2021
Electrical SystemUnknown Or Other

The infotainment system touch functionality is broken. The lower part of the touchscreen does not respond to touches. This is apparently due to the faulty digitizer layer. The infotainment system is used for everything from accessing the media, to car settings configuration, to properly interacting and setting the phone for …

Read full complaint

The infotainment system touch functionality is broken. The lower part of the touchscreen does not respond to touches. This is apparently due to the faulty digitizer layer. The infotainment system is used for everything from accessing the media, to car settings configuration, to properly interacting and setting the phone for hands-free phone calls communication as required by the vehicular laws in my state (California) and many others. This presents a large safety risk, as the driver can be become heavily distracted operating the system. Per my research, this is a widespread problem across the entire Toyota lineup and affects many models and multiple years around 2014 (particular after 2014). You can easily find this problem reported across the internet in many forums and Youtube videos. Although Toyota has issued some TSB's, it looks like, they are only covered in warranty. Toyota refuses to take responsibility for it and does not have any recalls for and the dealer will charge around $1000 to fix it, by changing the infotainment system.

NHTSA ODI #11436404

Mileage unknown · Apr 25, 2021
Power TrainUnknown Or OtherVehicle Speed Control

MY ABS AND TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT ARE ON

NHTSA ODI #11413829

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