NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
269 reportsMileage 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
5,432 miles · Nov 17, 2014
Electrical System
VEHICLE STALLS. AFTER PUTTING VEHICLE IN REVERSE AND BACKING OUT OF PARKING SPOT, VEHICLE STALLED. AFTER RESTARTING AND PULLING BACK INTO PARKING SPOT VEHICLE STALLED. I SHUT CAR OFF AND RESTARTED IN PARK AND AFTER 5 SECONDS VEHICLE STALLED AGAIN. CAR HAD TO BE TOWED AND RENTAL CAR WAS NECESSARY TO GET HOME. TOYOTA REP SAID THAT…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE STALLS. AFTER PUTTING VEHICLE IN REVERSE AND BACKING OUT OF PARKING SPOT, VEHICLE STALLED. AFTER RESTARTING AND PULLING BACK INTO PARKING SPOT VEHICLE STALLED. I SHUT CAR OFF AND RESTARTED IN PARK AND AFTER 5 SECONDS VEHICLE STALLED AGAIN. CAR HAD TO BE TOWED AND RENTAL CAR WAS NECESSARY TO GET HOME. TOYOTA REP SAID THAT IT WAS THE COMPUTER. EITHER HAD TO BE UPDATED OR REBOOTED (DTC P2645 AND OR P265B WERE DOCUMENTED AS THE CAUSE). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10658735
6,120 miles · Nov 17, 2014
Electrical System
VEHICLE DOORS WOULD NOT UNLOCK AFTER PUMPING GAS AT STATION. VEHICLE WAS NOT STARTED AT THE TIME AND KEYS WERE IN CAR (KEY-LESS SYSTEM WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO AUTOMATICALLY UNLOCK DOORS WHEN KEYS ARE IN VEHICLE). AFTER ATTEMPTING TO OPEN THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR WITHOUT SUCCESS, THE PASSENGER DOOR DID THE SAME. AFTER A FEW MINUTES OF …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE DOORS WOULD NOT UNLOCK AFTER PUMPING GAS AT STATION. VEHICLE WAS NOT STARTED AT THE TIME AND KEYS WERE IN CAR (KEY-LESS SYSTEM WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO AUTOMATICALLY UNLOCK DOORS WHEN KEYS ARE IN VEHICLE). AFTER ATTEMPTING TO OPEN THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR WITHOUT SUCCESS, THE PASSENGER DOOR DID THE SAME. AFTER A FEW MINUTES OF WAITING THE PASSENGER DOOR FINALLY UNLOCKED. THE VEHICLE STARTED HOWEVER, THERE WAS A SMELL OF GASOLINE COMING FROM THE VENTS. THE AIR CONDITIONER ALSO STOPPED WORKING. WHEN THE BUTTON FOR VENTING OUTSIDE/INSIDE WAS SWITCH TO OUTSIDE AIR, THE GASOLINE SMELL DISSIPATED. WHEN I PRESSED INSIDE AIR THE STRONG SMELL OF GASOLINE OCCURRED AGAIN. AFTER APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES, THE AIR CONDITIONER BEGAN TO WORK AND SHORTLY THERE AFTER THE SMELL OF GASOLINE RESOLVED. AFTER A FEW HOURS THE HEADACHE FROM GASOLINE INHALATION WENT AWAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10658734
Mileage unknown · Nov 10, 2014
SteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrash
2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ENGINE AND STEERING WHEEL ISSUES. *SMD THE CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO START THE ENGINE DUE TO THE STEERING WHEEL BEING IN THE LOCKED POSITION. THE IGNITION KEY WOULD NOT TURN. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER, THE STEERING WHEEL SELF LOCKED, AND HE WOULD HAVE TO WIGGLE THE STEER…
Read full complaint
2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ENGINE AND STEERING WHEEL ISSUES. *SMD THE CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO START THE ENGINE DUE TO THE STEERING WHEEL BEING IN THE LOCKED POSITION. THE IGNITION KEY WOULD NOT TURN. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER, THE STEERING WHEEL SELF LOCKED, AND HE WOULD HAVE TO WIGGLE THE STEERING WHEEL LEFT TO RIGHT. *JB THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY STARTED TO ACCELERATE TO A SEEMINGLY UNCONTROLLED SPEED. THE CONSUMER APPLIED THE BRAKE AND LOWERED THE GEAR TO ITS LOWEST RATIO, BUT WITH LITTLE EFFECT TO CONTROL THE SEEMINGLY EVER INCREASING SPEED OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER MANAGED TO NAVIGATE SEVERAL SHORT RADIUS CURVES AND TORE DOWN THE SLOPE ROAD TOWARD A MAIN COMMUTER ROADWAY. THE VEHICLE WAS SPEEDING OUT OF CONTROL AND UNFORTUNATELY HE HIT A COMMERCIAL VAN. THE CONSUMER FINALLY MANAGED TO GET THE VEHICLE STOPPED. HOWEVER, THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. THE VEHICLE WAS PLACED IN PARKED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER. UPDATED 10/28/15.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10651207
2,600 miles · Oct 29, 2014
TiresCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA EQUIPPED WITH HANKOOK PMX9724 TIRES, SIZE: P205/55R16. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE TIRE BLEW OUT ABRUPTLY. THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND CRASHED INTO A CEMENT GUARD. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE FOREHEAD AND FRACTURED TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA EQUIPPED WITH HANKOOK PMX9724 TIRES, SIZE: P205/55R16. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE TIRE BLEW OUT ABRUPTLY. THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND CRASHED INTO A CEMENT GUARD. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE FOREHEAD AND FRACTURED THE RIGHT BIG TOE. THE FRONT PASSENGER SUSTAINED CUTS AND BURNS ON THE RIGHT ARM AND THE RIBS WERE FRACTURED DUE TO THE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT. BOTH THE DRIVER AND FRONT PASSENGER REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE VEHICLE AND TIRE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 2,600.
NHTSA ODI #10651109
4,000 miles · Oct 27, 2014
Seats
BOUGHT THE CAR NEW IN JUNE 2014. AFTER A FEW MONTHS OF DRIVING, I HAVE DEVELOPED BAD NECK AND BACK PAIN DUE TO THE DESIGN OF THE SEAT AND HEAD RESTRAINT. I LIKE T O SIT STRAIGHT AND THE HEAD RESTRAINT IS FORCING ME TO KEEP MY HEAD BENT FORWARD, WHICH AFTER A FEW MONTH, HAS CAUSE ME TO HEAD NECK AND BACK PAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10650484
18 miles · Oct 20, 2014
Fuel/propulsion System
I HAD JUST PURCHASED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA LE ECO, AFTER ONLY GOING 10 MILES ON A LEVEL DRY EVENING SURFACE, I WAS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN UP TO GO UP HILL. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE BETWEEN THE GAS PEDDLE AND THE ENGINE. AFTER TWO FULL DEPRESSIONS ON THE GAS PEDDLE, THE PEDDLE TO ENGINE FINALLY ENGAGED AFTER A ADDITIO…
Read full complaint
I HAD JUST PURCHASED A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA LE ECO, AFTER ONLY GOING 10 MILES ON A LEVEL DRY EVENING SURFACE, I WAS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN UP TO GO UP HILL. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE BETWEEN THE GAS PEDDLE AND THE ENGINE. AFTER TWO FULL DEPRESSIONS ON THE GAS PEDDLE, THE PEDDLE TO ENGINE FINALLY ENGAGED AFTER A ADDITIONAL 1/2 PEDDLE DEPRESSION. THE ACCEPTION WAS A SLOW STEADY WIND UP AND FINALLY UP TO POSTED SPEED. THIS HAS HAPPEN 6 TIMES IN THE LAST 3 1/2 MONTHS, WITH THE LAST INCIDENT THIS WEEK END. I HAD STOPPED DRIVING THIS VEHICLE 1.5 MONTHS AGO AND JUST TOOK IT OUT FOR A 248 MILE ROAD THIS LAST WEEK END. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10648746
4,100 miles · Oct 19, 2014
Service Brakes
WHILE DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC, THE BRAKES ON THE VEHICLE FAILED. EVEN WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL PRESSED COMPLETELY, THE CAR CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD. I WAS FORTUNATELY ABLE TO SWERVE INTO THE SHOULDER AND PULL THE EMERGENCY BRAKE, AND THERE WAS NO INCIDENT. HOWEVER, THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND THE …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC, THE BRAKES ON THE VEHICLE FAILED. EVEN WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL PRESSED COMPLETELY, THE CAR CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD. I WAS FORTUNATELY ABLE TO SWERVE INTO THE SHOULDER AND PULL THE EMERGENCY BRAKE, AND THERE WAS NO INCIDENT. HOWEVER, THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT AND IT SEEMS LIKE NOTHING WAS WRONG. THEY TESTED OUT THE BRAKES AND EVERYTHING SEEMED TECHNICALLY FINE. I WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING UNLESS THEY COULD RECREATE THE INCIDENT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT WRONG. I'M NOW JUST DRIVING THE CAR AND HOPING THE SITUATION IS NEVER RECREATED BECAUSE NEXT TIME, I MIGHT NOT BE LUCKY ENOUGH TO GET AWAY WITHOUT ANY INCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10648691
100 miles · Oct 17, 2014
Service BrakesVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT LOW SPEEDS, THE BRAKES FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND IT SUDDENLY ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT LOW SPEEDS, THE BRAKES FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND IT SUDDENLY ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100.
NHTSA ODI #10648394
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.