NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Air Bags complaints
56 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Nov 8, 2017
Air Bags
I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL NOTICES OF AN AIRBAG RECALL IN MY VEHICLE. THE NOTICES INSTRUCT ME TO TAKE THE CAR TO A DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR IMMEDIATELY. IF I'M UNABLE TO TAKE TO A DEALERSHIP, I'M TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE PERFORM THE REPAIR AND THEN TOYOTA WILL REIMBURSE ME. THE DEALERSHIP IN COSTA RICA, WHERE MY CAR IS LOCATED, WILL NOT P…
Read full complaint
I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL NOTICES OF AN AIRBAG RECALL IN MY VEHICLE. THE NOTICES INSTRUCT ME TO TAKE THE CAR TO A DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR IMMEDIATELY. IF I'M UNABLE TO TAKE TO A DEALERSHIP, I'M TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE PERFORM THE REPAIR AND THEN TOYOTA WILL REIMBURSE ME. THE DEALERSHIP IN COSTA RICA, WHERE MY CAR IS LOCATED, WILL NOT PERFORM THE REPAIR. I HAVE CONTACTED TOYOTA AND AM UNABLE TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OR HOW TO GET REIMBURSED ONCE THE REPAIR IS COMPLETE. THE LAST COMMUNICATION I HAD WITH TOYOTA, A REPRESENTATIVE TOLD ME HE WAS WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM JAPAN AND THAT HE WOULD ONLY EMAIL ME IF HE HEARD AND THEY GAVE HIM RELEVANT INFORMATION. SURELY SOMEONE AT THE TOYOTA COMPANY MUST KNOW THE REPAIR NEEDED. IN THE MEANTIME, I KEEP RECEIVING NOTICES FROM TOYOTA ABOUT HOW UNSAFE MY CAR IS AND TO GET IT FIXED IMMEDIATELY. I'M TRYING!!!
NHTSA ODI #11044440
24,000 miles · Oct 17, 2017
Air BagsCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 36 MPH, THE DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF THE STEERING AND THE VEHICLE ROLLED OVER MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE CRASHING INTO A WOODED AREA. DURING THE INCIDENT, THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED, BUT THE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED A CON…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 36 MPH, THE DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF THE STEERING AND THE VEHICLE ROLLED OVER MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE CRASHING INTO A WOODED AREA. DURING THE INCIDENT, THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED, BUT THE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED A CONCUSSION, AND AN INJURED BACK AND RIBS. MEDICAL ATTENTION WAS RECEIVED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND TOWED. THE MANUFACTURER AND LOCAL DEALER WERE NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 24,000.
NHTSA ODI #11034091
Mileage unknown · Sep 14, 2017
Air Bags
I RECEIVE ONE LETTER FOR RECALL RED COROLLA TOYOTA 2015 AIRBAGS PROBLEMS
NHTSA ODI #11023412
12,000 miles · Aug 30, 2017
Air BagsStructureCrashInjury
THIS CAR WAS REAR ENDED 17 MONTHS AGO AND NONE OF THE 8 AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. I GOT A HERNIATED DISC AND A BROKEN RIB. THE OTHER DRIVER INSURANCE PAID FOR THE $12,000 REPAIRS ON MY CAR AND SOME OF MY MEDICAL EXPENSES BUT NOW HERE I AM WITH AN INJURY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. THIS CAR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE AIRBAG LAWSUIT AND I SHO…
Read full complaint
THIS CAR WAS REAR ENDED 17 MONTHS AGO AND NONE OF THE 8 AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. I GOT A HERNIATED DISC AND A BROKEN RIB. THE OTHER DRIVER INSURANCE PAID FOR THE $12,000 REPAIRS ON MY CAR AND SOME OF MY MEDICAL EXPENSES BUT NOW HERE I AM WITH AN INJURY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. THIS CAR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE AIRBAG LAWSUIT AND I SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR MY INJURIES.
NHTSA ODI #11020566
60,000 miles · Aug 14, 2017
Air BagsCrashInjury
TAKATA RECALL ACCIDENT WITH DEER APRIL 2017 CAR WAS TOTALED. NO AIRBAGS DEPLOYED
NHTSA ODI #11015037
55,000 miles · Aug 13, 2017
Air BagsElectrical SystemWheelsCrashInjury
TAMARA RECALL MY AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY DURING IMPACT. CONSTANT LOWVTIRE PRESSURE AND ELECTRICAL ISSUES
NHTSA ODI #11014880
12,000 miles · Aug 7, 2017
Air BagsCrash
TAKATA RECALL WITH TWO ACCIDENTS INVOLVING DEER COLLISIONS, ONE ON 11/19/2016, AND A SEVERE ONE ON 2/27/2017, 2/27/2017 ALMOST TOTALED THE CAR!! AIR BAGS NEVER DEPLOYED IN EITHER ACCIDENT!!!!
NHTSA ODI #11013366
26,000 miles · Apr 27, 2017
Air BagsElectronic Stability Control (esc)StructureCrashInjury
MY DAUGHTER WAS ON A 2 LANE STRETCH OF I-15 HIGHWAY SOUTHBOUND, APPROX 7 MILES NORTH OF LASVEGAS NV. SHE WAS IN THE LEFT LANE SLOWLY CREEPING BY A 18 WHEEL RIG W/TRAILER. SHE WAS DOING 74 WITH CRUISE CONTROL AND WITNESSES SAY THE RIG MUST HAVE BEEN DOING 73MPH. HE VIOLENTLY TURNED INTO HER LANE CAUSING HER TO DO EVASIVE MANEUV…
Read full complaint
MY DAUGHTER WAS ON A 2 LANE STRETCH OF I-15 HIGHWAY SOUTHBOUND, APPROX 7 MILES NORTH OF LASVEGAS NV. SHE WAS IN THE LEFT LANE SLOWLY CREEPING BY A 18 WHEEL RIG W/TRAILER. SHE WAS DOING 74 WITH CRUISE CONTROL AND WITNESSES SAY THE RIG MUST HAVE BEEN DOING 73MPH. HE VIOLENTLY TURNED INTO HER LANE CAUSING HER TO DO EVASIVE MANEUVER LEFT AND BRAKE HARD SKIDDING INTO THE SOFT SHOULDER THEN SPINNING CLOCKWISE CROSSING TO THE RIGHT SIDE HITTING A SMALL SHOULDER ELEVATION CHANGE WITH BOTH DRIVERS SIDE WHEELS, CAUSING A DOUBLE ROLL OVER AND A CARTWHEEL LANDING ON THE TRUNK, THEN COMING TO A REST ON THE ROOF. NOT A SINGLE AIR BAG DEPLOYED! SHE SUFFERED MULTIPLE BLUNT HITS TO THE HEAD FROM HITTING AGAINST THE DOOR, SHE HAS A CONCUSSION WITH SPRAINED SHOULDER AND ANKLES. GRANTED SHE SHOULD BE IN MUCH WORSE CONDITION BUT WE ARE GRATEFUL SHE HAD HER BLANKETS AND HER DOGS BEDS THAT FLEW FROM THE BACK SEAT TO THE FRONT HELPING TO KEEP HER PADDED FROM EVEN MORE TRAUMA. I FEEL THAT A SIDE CURTAIN AND STEERING BAG SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED. IS THIS A FLUKE THAT TOYOTA ENGINEERS MISSED? BECAUSE NO PARTICULAR CORNER WAS IMPACTED? THE ROLLOVER IMPACTS WERE AT THE WHEELS, JUST ABOVE BOTH BUMPERS AND THE ENTIRE ROOF AREA.
NHTSA ODI #10981087
Mileage unknown · Feb 18, 2017
Air Bags
IT'S A SAFETY RECALL ON THE AIRBAGS THEY'VE HAVEN'T SERVICES YET.
NHTSA ODI #10955384
28,000 miles · Aug 16, 2016
Air BagsSteeringCrashInjury
I PURCHASED A USED 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA WITH ABOUT 27,085MILES, IN JUNE 2016. THREE MONTHS LATER, THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. I COULD NOT TURN THE WHEEL AND THE BRAKES WOULD NOT WORK. BY HAVING NO CONTROL OF THE CAR, IT CRASHED INTO A PARKED VEHICLE. THERE WAS MINOR DAMAGE TO THE PARKED VEHICLE. …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A USED 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA WITH ABOUT 27,085MILES, IN JUNE 2016. THREE MONTHS LATER, THE STEERING WHEEL LOCKED WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. I COULD NOT TURN THE WHEEL AND THE BRAKES WOULD NOT WORK. BY HAVING NO CONTROL OF THE CAR, IT CRASHED INTO A PARKED VEHICLE. THERE WAS MINOR DAMAGE TO THE PARKED VEHICLE. THE COROLLA HAD MAJOR DAMAGE BECAUSE ALL THE AIR BAGS WERE DEPLOYED. THIS OCCURED THREE BLOCKS FROM HOME, ON A CITY STREET. NO SPEEDING WAS INVOLVED AND NO CITATIONS WERE ISSUED BY THE POLICE
NHTSA ODI #10896231
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.