← New search

2015 Toyota Corolla

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2015 Toyota Corolla do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 129.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

133 reports with mileage · 86 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 56 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 →
  • Power Train. Review the 30 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

60 crash reports1 fire reports42 injury reports

Exterior Lighting complaints

13 reports
Clear category filter
60,000 miles · Dec 8, 2018
Electrical SystemExterior LightingStructureFire

TRUNK FIRE UNKNOWN CAUSE, CAR WAS PARKED

NHTSA ODI #11157027

48,000 miles · Nov 6, 2018
Exterior Lighting

LOW BEAM HEADLIGHT WENT OUT AT 48,000 MILES. THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHT IS SEALED WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR BULB REPLACEMENT. YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY. EVERY OTHER BULB IN THE ASSEMBLY CAN BE REPLACED. WILL WE BEGIN SEEING VEHICLES WITH NO HEADLIGHTS DUE TO THE PROHIBITIVE COST AND NO OPTION FOR BULB REPL…

Read full complaint

LOW BEAM HEADLIGHT WENT OUT AT 48,000 MILES. THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHT IS SEALED WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR BULB REPLACEMENT. YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY. EVERY OTHER BULB IN THE ASSEMBLY CAN BE REPLACED. WILL WE BEGIN SEEING VEHICLES WITH NO HEADLIGHTS DUE TO THE PROHIBITIVE COST AND NO OPTION FOR BULB REPLACEMENT.

NHTSA ODI #11149629

8,000 miles · Dec 31, 2016
Exterior Lighting

1. THIS FORM ASSUMES I OWN THE VEHICLE. A BETTER FORM SHOULD BE AVAILABLE WHERE I CAN REPORT ISSUES WITH OTHER VEHICLES. SO MOST OF INCIDENT DATA IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS COMPLAINT. 2 ACTUAL COMPLAINT IS REGARDING 2015 AND NEWER TOYOTA COROLLAS. THEIR LOW BEAM HEAD LIGHTS ARE BLINDING AND A DANGER. A RECALL MUST BE ISSUED TO FIX…

Read full complaint

1. THIS FORM ASSUMES I OWN THE VEHICLE. A BETTER FORM SHOULD BE AVAILABLE WHERE I CAN REPORT ISSUES WITH OTHER VEHICLES. SO MOST OF INCIDENT DATA IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS COMPLAINT. 2 ACTUAL COMPLAINT IS REGARDING 2015 AND NEWER TOYOTA COROLLAS. THEIR LOW BEAM HEAD LIGHTS ARE BLINDING AND A DANGER. A RECALL MUST BE ISSUED TO FIX THE LOW BEAMS

NHTSA ODI #10938878

40,000 miles · Aug 25, 2016
Exterior Lighting

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS IN LIGHTING. CAR BY DESIGN HAS LED HEADLIGHTS WHICH ARE ALSO THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS. THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE SO BRIGHT THAT THE OPERATOR COULD DRIVE IN THE DARK FAILING TO NOTICE THAT THE REAL HEADLIGHT ARE NOT ON. THE MAIN PROBLEM IS WHEN JUST THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE ON, THERE IS NO TAILI…

Read full complaint

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS IN LIGHTING. CAR BY DESIGN HAS LED HEADLIGHTS WHICH ARE ALSO THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS. THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE SO BRIGHT THAT THE OPERATOR COULD DRIVE IN THE DARK FAILING TO NOTICE THAT THE REAL HEADLIGHT ARE NOT ON. THE MAIN PROBLEM IS WHEN JUST THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE ON, THERE IS NO TAILIGHTS, THUS A PERSON COULD DRIVE WITHOUT TAILLIGHTS AND BE HIT FROM BEHIND ON A DARK ROAD.

NHTSA ODI #10898672

Mileage unknown · Apr 16, 2016
Exterior Lighting

THE MAIN FRONT LED LOW-BEAM IS A PROBLEM ON ALL TRIMS OF THIS CURRENT GENERATION. IT IS TOO BRIGHT AND BLINDS ONCOMING DRIVERS, THERE IS ALSO A HARD CUTOFF LINE IN WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOVE IT. THEY ALSO POORLY LIGHT THE ROAD. THE BEAM GOES EVERYWHERE BUT THE ROAD. IT SEEMS THEY ARE INCORRECTLY AIMED. THERE IS ALSO A TA…

Read full complaint

THE MAIN FRONT LED LOW-BEAM IS A PROBLEM ON ALL TRIMS OF THIS CURRENT GENERATION. IT IS TOO BRIGHT AND BLINDS ONCOMING DRIVERS, THERE IS ALSO A HARD CUTOFF LINE IN WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOVE IT. THEY ALSO POORLY LIGHT THE ROAD. THE BEAM GOES EVERYWHERE BUT THE ROAD. IT SEEMS THEY ARE INCORRECTLY AIMED. THERE IS ALSO A TAIL-LIGHT PROBLEM THAT AFFECTS THE HIGHER-END TRIMS OF THIS GENERATION. THERE IS A DRL OPTION, WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE, THAT TURNS ON THE FRONT LOW-BEAM, YOU CAN SEE THAT YOUR FRONT HEADLIGHTS ARE ON, BUT YOU DON'T REALIZE YOUR TAIL-LIGHTS AREN'T ON AND THAT YOU HAVE TO TURN THE STOCK AGAIN TO TURN THEM ON. THERE IS NO INDICATOR ON THE DASH THAT SIGNIFIES ANY SORT OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS ON BESIDES THE HIGH-BEAM. I'VE SEEN MULTIPLE COROLLA DRIVERS ON THE ROAD WITH ONLY DRLS ON AT NIGHT. THE LOWER END TRIMS DON'T SUFFER THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE DASH AT NIGHT WITHOUT TURNING ON THE TAILLIGHTS, THE HIGHER END TRIMS HAVE AN ALWAYS LIT DASH. THIS CREATES A HAZARD IN WHICH THE COROLLA IN FRONT OF YOU IS UNLIT IN THE REAR AND ALLOWS A REAR-END COLLISION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM.

NHTSA ODI #10859913

1 miles · Jan 14, 2016
Exterior Lighting

2014+ TOYOTA COROLLA HEADLIGHTS ARE TOO BRIGHT AND BLIND ON-COMING DRIVERS

NHTSA ODI #10820323

12,211 miles · Dec 14, 2015
EngineExterior LightingPower Train

THE NEW TOYOTA COROLLA'S HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THEIR HEADLIGHT DESIGN. FIRST, THE DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS ON VEHICLES WITH THE XENON OR LED LIGHTS APPEARS TO BE THE SAME LIGHTS THAT RUN AT NIGHT WHEN YOU TURN ON THE SWITCH. THIS MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN ONCOMING LANES CONSTANTLY FLASH THEIR LIGHTS THINKING THE BRIGHT LIGHTS ARE ON …

Read full complaint

THE NEW TOYOTA COROLLA'S HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THEIR HEADLIGHT DESIGN. FIRST, THE DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS ON VEHICLES WITH THE XENON OR LED LIGHTS APPEARS TO BE THE SAME LIGHTS THAT RUN AT NIGHT WHEN YOU TURN ON THE SWITCH. THIS MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN ONCOMING LANES CONSTANTLY FLASH THEIR LIGHTS THINKING THE BRIGHT LIGHTS ARE ON DURING THE DAY BECAUSE IT IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT. I'VE ALSO NOTICED THAT A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WITH THIS SAME CAR DON'T REALIZE THEY HAVE TO MANUALLY TURN ON THEIR LIGHTS SINCE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS IS THE SAME AS WHEN THE SWITCH IS TURNED ON. PEOPLE MUST THINK THEY HAVE AUTOMATIC HEADLIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY FAIL TO TURN THEIR LIGHT SWITCH ON WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE NO REAR LIGHTS. I CAN SEE THIS CAUSING SO MANY ACCIDENTS, ESPECIALLY IN THE RAIN OR AT NIGHT. IT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. PEOPLE HAVE ALSO COMPLAINED TO ME THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE BRIGHT LIGHTS ARE ON WHEN THEY'RE NOT AND THE HEADLIGHTS ARE "BLINDINGLY BRIGHT", BUT HOW THE LIGHTS ARE AIMED OR DESIGNED, THEY DON'T CAST MUCH LIGHT ON THE ROAD AHEAD. IT SEEMS LIKE THE LIGHT IS JUST DIFFUSED IN ALL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS INSTEAD OF IN A BEAM LIKE NORMAL HEADLIGHTS. THERE IS A HUGE ISSUE WITH THESE NEW COROLLA MODELS' LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND TOYOTA NEEDS TO RETROFIT THEM IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS. IN ADDITION, THIS CAR BASICALLY HAS NO POWER WHICH MAKES IT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO PULL OUT IN TRAFFIC AS THE AWFUL CVT TRANSMISSION TAKES FOREVER TO RESPOND. ONCE THE ENGINE HAS FINALLY WOKEN UP FROM ITS SLEEP, IT OFFERS TERRIBLE RESPONSE AND IS EXTREMELY SLOW PICKING UP SPEED. THIS IS AN ISSUE WITH ALL COROLLA'S BECAUSE OF HOW HEAVY THE CAR IS FOR HOW LITTLE POWER TOYOTA GIVES IT. I ALSO HATE THE HUGE BLIND SPOTS CREATED BY THE AWKWARDLY SHAPED REAR END. I'M GLAD THIS IS JUST A RENTAL CAR, BUT I FEEL SO BAD FOR OWNERS OF THIS TYPE OF CAR.

NHTSA ODI #10810041

Mileage unknown · Dec 9, 2015
Exterior Lighting

PLEASE LOOK INTO ALL 2015+ TOYOTA COROLLAS WITH THE HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE LIGHTS SEEM TO BE AIMED HIGHER THAN NORMAL OR HAVE IMPROPER LIGHT TAMING LENSES. WHEN APPROACHING THEY BLIND ONCOMING DRIVERS.

NHTSA ODI #10809180

Mileage unknown · Nov 9, 2015
Exterior Lighting

EVERYDAY I SEE AT LEAST 5 PEOPLE IN 2014-2016 COROLLA MODELS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WITH THEIR DRLS ON BUT NO OTHER LIGHTS. THIS OCCURS BECAUSE THE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH LED HEADLIGHTS USE THEIR REGULAR BEAM AS THE DRL AND PEOPLE ASSUME THEY HAVE AUTOMATIC HEADLIGHTS. HOWEVER THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AS THERE ARE NO TAILLIGH…

Read full complaint

EVERYDAY I SEE AT LEAST 5 PEOPLE IN 2014-2016 COROLLA MODELS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WITH THEIR DRLS ON BUT NO OTHER LIGHTS. THIS OCCURS BECAUSE THE VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH LED HEADLIGHTS USE THEIR REGULAR BEAM AS THE DRL AND PEOPLE ASSUME THEY HAVE AUTOMATIC HEADLIGHTS. HOWEVER THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AS THERE ARE NO TAILLIGHTS ON. I HAVE SEEN SO MANY PEOPLE DRIVING IN THE PITCH BLACK WITH NO TAILLIGHTS. PLEASE ISSUE MANDATORY RECALL TO REFIT VEHICLES WITH WARNING THAT HEADLIGHTS AREN'T AUTOMATIC IN OFF POSITION EVEN WITH DRL ON OR ADD LIGHT SENSOR THAT CAN DETECT DARKNESS AND AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATES TAILLIGHTS. THIS SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO RAINY CONDITIONS AS HARDLY ANY TOYOTA DRIVERS KNOW THAT MOST STATES REQUIRE HEADLIGHTS ON IN RAIN.

NHTSA ODI #10789395

17,000 miles · Oct 15, 2015
Electrical SystemExterior LightingStructureCrashInjury

ON THE FREEWAY DRIVING AND EIGHTEEN WHEELER CAME OVER ON MY CAR AND HIT AND DRAGGED MY UNTIL MY DETACHED FROM THE TRUCK SPIN AROUND AND THE BACK OF MY CAR SLAMMED INTO THE MEDIAN WALL. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY....UPDATED 10/29/15*BF

NHTSA ODI #10782267

Official recalls

1

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.

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