← 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

What owners actually said

269 reports
70,000 miles · Feb 19, 2020
Electrical System

THE SCREEN THAT CONTAINS ALL HANDS FREE OPTIONS CONTINUOUSLY ACTS AS IF IT IS REBOOTING AND NEVER FINISHES. IT HAPPENED AT 70,000 MILES AND DID THIS SUDDENLY. IT HAS NEVER WORKED SINCE AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND $1,000 FOR A NEW ONE WHEN IT WASN'T OUR FAULT. THIS IS A MAJOR DISTRACTION WHEN DRIVING AT NIGHT AND HAVE A HARD T…

Read full complaint

THE SCREEN THAT CONTAINS ALL HANDS FREE OPTIONS CONTINUOUSLY ACTS AS IF IT IS REBOOTING AND NEVER FINISHES. IT HAPPENED AT 70,000 MILES AND DID THIS SUDDENLY. IT HAS NEVER WORKED SINCE AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND $1,000 FOR A NEW ONE WHEN IT WASN'T OUR FAULT. THIS IS A MAJOR DISTRACTION WHEN DRIVING AT NIGHT AND HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING IF A DEER COMES OUT OR OTHER THINGS I NEED TO WATCH FOR. I HAVE ADHD AND SO THIS CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS FOR ME THAN MAYBE OTHERS. IT FLASHES REALLY BRIGHT AND GOES DIM BUT CONTINUES TO DO THIS THE WHOLE TIME. THIS IS A DANGER FOR ME BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT THAT EXUDES OFF OF THE SCREEN AND NEVER STOPS. IT ALSO IS A SAFETY CONCERN DUE TO MYSELF NOT BEING ABLE TO USE ANY OF THE HANDS FREE OPTIONS. THIS MUST BE CALLED IN FOR A RECALL BECAUSE IT IS DANGEROUS TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN.

NHTSA ODI #11310230

45,996 miles · Feb 15, 2020
Unknown Or Other

THE PROBLEM STARTED WITH 3 OF THE DOOR LOCK ACTUATORS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY ON MY 2014 COROLLA. THE KEY FOB WOULD NOT ACTIVATE THEM. I BROUGHT IT IN FOR SERVICE ON 2/8/2020 AND THE DEALER CONFIRMED THEY WERE FAULTY AND WOULD ORDER THE PARTS. WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS, THE 4TH ACTUATOR AND THE TRUNK LOCK ACTUATOR ALSO FAILED. …

Read full complaint

THE PROBLEM STARTED WITH 3 OF THE DOOR LOCK ACTUATORS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY ON MY 2014 COROLLA. THE KEY FOB WOULD NOT ACTIVATE THEM. I BROUGHT IT IN FOR SERVICE ON 2/8/2020 AND THE DEALER CONFIRMED THEY WERE FAULTY AND WOULD ORDER THE PARTS. WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS, THE 4TH ACTUATOR AND THE TRUNK LOCK ACTUATOR ALSO FAILED. I BOUGHT IT IN ON 2/15/2020 TO HAVE THE FIRST 3 FIXED AND ALSO TO CONFIRM THE PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER 2 ISSUES SO THOSE PARTS COULD BE ORDERED. I WAS TOLD THE COST TO FIX THE FIRST 3 WOULD BE ABOUT $1500! THE EXTENDED WARRANTY I PURCHASED HAD EXPIRED AND SO I COULD NOT AFFORD THIS. I WAS TOLD BY THE SERVICE CONSULTANT THAT HE'S SEEN THIS PROBLEM WITH COROLLAS. I LOOKED ON LINE AND HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FOR THIS SAME VEHICLE ABOUT THIS SAME SITUATION. WITH THIS NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A RECALL BY TOYOTA AS THIS CAN BE CONSIDERED A SAFETY ISSUE, CONSIDERING IT TAKES LONGER FOR PEOPLE TO GET IN THEIR WHICH CAN SUBJECT THEM TO POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. THEY ALSO SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND FIX THEM AT NO CHARGE BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S A PROBLEM. I'VE ATTACHED THE SERVICE FOR 2/15/2020 JUST TO SHOW THAT I DID BRING IT IN.

NHTSA ODI #11309387

145,000 miles · Feb 9, 2020
Fuel/propulsion System

WE PURCHASED MY CAR IN 2014 NEW. COME 2015 WE HAD TO REPLACE THE CHARCOAL CANISTER. I BELIEVE THE CAR HAD @60,000 MILES (YES, THAT'S A LOT BUT THOSE ARE MOSTLY HIGHWAY MILES)ON IT AT THIS TIME. LUCKILY IT WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. 7/ 2019 WE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. LESS THAN 60, 000 MILES MORE HAD BEEN PUT ON AT THIS TIME. GUES…

Read full complaint

WE PURCHASED MY CAR IN 2014 NEW. COME 2015 WE HAD TO REPLACE THE CHARCOAL CANISTER. I BELIEVE THE CAR HAD @60,000 MILES (YES, THAT'S A LOT BUT THOSE ARE MOSTLY HIGHWAY MILES)ON IT AT THIS TIME. LUCKILY IT WAS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. 7/ 2019 WE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. LESS THAN 60, 000 MILES MORE HAD BEEN PUT ON AT THIS TIME. GUESS WHAT NO WARRANTY.! $1,000 LATER WE HAVE A NEW CHARCOAL CANISTER. IT IS NOW 2/2020 , WE ARE AT 145,000 MILES NOW AND GUESS WHAT? SAME PROBLEM. WE'VE CHANGED GAS CAPS. WE'VE DONE FUEL TREATMENTS. WE ARE NOW WAITING ON CHECK ENGINE LIGHT TO COME BACK ON SO WE CAN TAKE IT BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP (WHY IS IT OFF? BECAUSE WE JUST PURCHASED THE 3RD GAS CAP IN 6MTHS AND HAD TO RESET IT TO SEE IF THE GAS CAP WAS THE CAUSE.) PROBLEMS: CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON, I COULD HEAR THE FUEL BEING PUSHED THROUGH THE LINES, IT WOULD MISS AS YOU GIVE IT GAS.SOMETIMES IT'SWHEN YOU ARE TAKING OFF BUT IT DONE IT WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY ALSO, THE CRUISING RANGE IS NOT ACCURATE (EX: I JUST FILLED UP. USUALLY IT GIVES ME 428 MILES NOW ITS TELLING ME 376) AND THE ECO LIGHT GOES OFF. NOW THE 1ST 2 TIMES WERE KIND OF DIFFERENT THAN THIS TIME. I THINK WERE ARE IN THE BEGINNING STAGES AT THIS POINT NOW FOR THE 3RD TIME.

NHTSA ODI #11308066

40,000 miles · Feb 8, 2020
Vehicle Speed Control

WHEN ACCELERATING THE ENGINE REVOLUTIONS RISE IN EXCESS AND THERE IS NO LOGICAL INCREASE IN THE SPEED. THE TRANSMISSION SOFTWARE WAS UPDATED AND I THINK IT'S WORSE.

NHTSA ODI #11307894

Mileage unknown · Jan 22, 2020
Air BagsElectronic Stability Control (esc)Unknown Or Other

MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN RECALLED

NHTSA ODI #11301135

Mileage unknown · Jan 22, 2020
Air BagsSeat Belts

FOR 2 YEARS I'VE RECEIVED RECALL ON MY CAR AND EACH TIME I GET SAME RESPONSE FROM TOYOTA THE TEJAS LOCATION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A REMEDY AND I WILL GET NOTIFIED WHEN THEY DO. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE !!! THIS IS MY 2ND YEAR WAITING AND THEY DON'T HAVE A LIST FOR ME TO GET ON . TWO YEARS WAITING IN A FIX IS WAY TOO LONG.

NHTSA ODI #11301072

Mileage unknown · Jan 22, 2020
Air Bags

THERE IS A RECALL FOR MY VEHICLE AND I NEED IT TO BE REPLACED.

NHTSA ODI #11301031

112,000 miles · Jan 15, 2020
Unknown Or Other

WHILE DRIVING ON AN INTERSTATE (~80MPH) I HEARD A LOUD NOISE ABOVE ME. I NOTICED GLASS WAS ON MY LAP AND ON THE PASSENGER SEAT. I LOOKED UP TO SEE MY SUNROOF HAD SHATTERED (THE SUNROOF COVER WAS OPEN). I PULLED OVER EXPECTING TO FIND SOMETHING IN MY CAR (I.E. DEBRIS FROM THE ROAD) THAT CAUSED THE SUNROOF DAMAGE. NO FOREIGN OBJEC…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON AN INTERSTATE (~80MPH) I HEARD A LOUD NOISE ABOVE ME. I NOTICED GLASS WAS ON MY LAP AND ON THE PASSENGER SEAT. I LOOKED UP TO SEE MY SUNROOF HAD SHATTERED (THE SUNROOF COVER WAS OPEN). I PULLED OVER EXPECTING TO FIND SOMETHING IN MY CAR (I.E. DEBRIS FROM THE ROAD) THAT CAUSED THE SUNROOF DAMAGE. NO FOREIGN OBJECT WAS FOUND. NO OTHER DAMAGE (SCRATCH, DENT, ETC.) WAS EVIDENT ON ANY PART OF THE CAR. I DRIVE A 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA S.

NHTSA ODI #11299597

80,000 miles · Dec 19, 2019
Air BagsStructureWheelsCrashInjury

COLLIDED AT 60+ MPH ON 190 BY DIESEL LARGE TRUCK MAJOR FRONT AND SIDE DAMAGE AND NO AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT OF ANY KIND. HIS TRUCK WAS FINE AND NONE OF MY SIDE NOR FRONTAL AIRBAGS WENT OFF. MY HEAD SLAMMED INTO THE DRIVER'S WINDOW AND MY NECK AND BACK ARE REALLY HURTING. THIS HAPPENED JUST A COUPLE DAYS AGO.

NHTSA ODI #11290098

145,000 miles · Dec 10, 2019
Power Train

I BOUGHT MY TOYOTA 2014 NEW FROM A DEALERSHIP JUST PAID OFF MY CAR HD IT FOR FIVE YEARS DEALERSHIP SAID ITS THE TRANSMISSION THAT HAS GONE OUT .REPAIRS ARE GOING TO BE 7500.00 MY CAR ONLY LASTED 5 YEARS .THIS CAR SHOULD BE RECALLED FOR THE TRANSMISSION .I BOUGHT A NEW CAR SO I CAN GO TO WORK WHO CAN AFFORD TO SPEND SEVENTY-FIVE …

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT MY TOYOTA 2014 NEW FROM A DEALERSHIP JUST PAID OFF MY CAR HD IT FOR FIVE YEARS DEALERSHIP SAID ITS THE TRANSMISSION THAT HAS GONE OUT .REPAIRS ARE GOING TO BE 7500.00 MY CAR ONLY LASTED 5 YEARS .THIS CAR SHOULD BE RECALLED FOR THE TRANSMISSION .I BOUGHT A NEW CAR SO I CAN GO TO WORK WHO CAN AFFORD TO SPEND SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ON THE REPAIR .PLEASE HELP THE CONSUMER LIKE ME.TOYOTA SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIRS CAN'T AFFORD THESE COSTLY REPAIRS AND CAN'T AFFORD A NEW CAR

NHTSA ODI #11288066

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