The car stalled after trying to resume from stopping at a stop sign. After having a mechanic look at the vehicle it turned out It a bad fuel pump. Had to buy a new fuel pump from Toyota to replace the fuel pump and car is working perfectly fine. There was no warning whatsoever of it going bad.
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Corolla years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
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.
Fuel/propulsion System complaints
8 reportsMy engine light keeps coming on and I have replace three canisters. I need help getting this fixed.
ON TWO OCCASIONS, A STATIONARY VEHICLE WAS FOUND TO BE LEAKING GASOLINE FROM A FUEL LINE. DATES WERE APPROXIMATELY JULY, 2019 AND MAY, 2020. THE FUEL LINE HAD APPARENT RODENT (POSSIBLE SQUIRREL) BITE MARKS. THE CAR WAS DRIVEABLE DESPITE THE LEAKING FUEL LINE, BUT IF THE DRIVER DID NOT HAPPEN TO NOTICE THE FUEL SPILL UNDER THE CA…
Read full complaint
ON TWO OCCASIONS, A STATIONARY VEHICLE WAS FOUND TO BE LEAKING GASOLINE FROM A FUEL LINE. DATES WERE APPROXIMATELY JULY, 2019 AND MAY, 2020. THE FUEL LINE HAD APPARENT RODENT (POSSIBLE SQUIRREL) BITE MARKS. THE CAR WAS DRIVEABLE DESPITE THE LEAKING FUEL LINE, BUT IF THE DRIVER DID NOT HAPPEN TO NOTICE THE FUEL SPILL UNDER THE CAR (PHOTO ATTACHED), THERE COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN A FIRE OTHER OTHER ISSUE DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS OF THE CAR. REPAIRS COST OVER $350 FOR EACH INSTANCE.
MY CAR IS NOT COVERED BY THE TOYOTA FUEL PUMP RECALL BUT I RECENTLY HAD TO HAVE TOYOTA REPLACE MY INOPERATIVE FUEL PUMP. THE CAR WAS STATIONARY, IN MY GARAGE WOULD NOT START OR RUN.
SINCE PURCHASED, I HAVE EXPERIENCED MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMMING ON ONLY TO BE TOLD THAT THE "GAS CAP WASNT ON ALL THE WAY". YESTERSAY, MY BRAKE, ABS AND TRAC LIGHTS CAME ON WHILE DRIVING AND THE ONLY TIME THEY CLEARED WAS AFTER A SUDDEN GRID NOISE IN TRANSMISSION. FOLLOWING THIS THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAM…
Read full complaint
SINCE PURCHASED, I HAVE EXPERIENCED MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMMING ON ONLY TO BE TOLD THAT THE "GAS CAP WASNT ON ALL THE WAY". YESTERSAY, MY BRAKE, ABS AND TRAC LIGHTS CAME ON WHILE DRIVING AND THE ONLY TIME THEY CLEARED WAS AFTER A SUDDEN GRID NOISE IN TRANSMISSION. FOLLOWING THIS THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND TOYOTA INDICATED THE CHARCOAL CANISTER FOR THE EVAP SYSTEM HAS FAILED. MY VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED NEW AND FROM A DEALERSHIP. I SAW THAT A NUMBER OF MODELS WERE RECALLED IN 2016 FOR A CHARCOAL CANISTER FAIL AND I BELIEVE THIS VEHICLE EITHER WASNT SERVICES PROPERLY OR THIS MODEL SHOULDVE BEEB INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.
COMPUTER IS SENDING FALSE CODES. CAR WON'T ACCELERATE FROM A STOP THEN EVENTUALLY STARTS MOVING VERY SLOWLY. UNHOOKING THE BATTERY THEN HOOKING IT BACK UP DOES A HARD RESET ON THE COMPUTER WHICH MAKES THE CAR WORK PROPERLY FOR A DAY OR SO THEN IT DOES IT AGAIN. WAS TOLD BY MECHANIC THE COMPUTER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT GEAR THE CAR …
Read full complaint
COMPUTER IS SENDING FALSE CODES. CAR WON'T ACCELERATE FROM A STOP THEN EVENTUALLY STARTS MOVING VERY SLOWLY. UNHOOKING THE BATTERY THEN HOOKING IT BACK UP DOES A HARD RESET ON THE COMPUTER WHICH MAKES THE CAR WORK PROPERLY FOR A DAY OR SO THEN IT DOES IT AGAIN. WAS TOLD BY MECHANIC THE COMPUTER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT GEAR THE CAR IS IN.
MY DAUGHTER WAS ATTEMPTING TO PARK IN HER COLLEGE PARKING LOT AT FGCU. SHE SAID , THINKS THE BRAKE DIDN'T WORK WHEN SHE APPLIED IT. CAR HIT CONCRETE WALL TO STOP. AAA TOW TRUCK DRIVER CAME AND SAID BRAKES WENT TO FLOOR AND HE HAD TO USE E-BRAKE TO PUT ON TRUCK. HE STATES WHEN HE GOT BACK TO GARAGE BRAKES WORKED. I TOLD TOYOTA.…
Read full complaint
MY DAUGHTER WAS ATTEMPTING TO PARK IN HER COLLEGE PARKING LOT AT FGCU. SHE SAID , THINKS THE BRAKE DIDN'T WORK WHEN SHE APPLIED IT. CAR HIT CONCRETE WALL TO STOP. AAA TOW TRUCK DRIVER CAME AND SAID BRAKES WENT TO FLOOR AND HE HAD TO USE E-BRAKE TO PUT ON TRUCK. HE STATES WHEN HE GOT BACK TO GARAGE BRAKES WORKED. I TOLD TOYOTA. THEY CHECKED BRAKES OUT AND SAID EVERYTHING WAS WORKING FINE. I ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT BLACK BOX. THEY SENT ME RESULTS. I HAD MY INSURANCE CO. LOOK AT THEM ALONG WITH TOYOTA SERVICE ADVISER. BOTH SAID DATA SHOWS GAS APPLIED BEFORE BRAKE. I LOOKED UNDER CAR COMPLAINTS. OTHER PEOPLE HAD SAME PROBLEM. SOME HAD AUTOMATIC ACCELERATION. I DID NOT TELL THEM TO CHECK THAT OUT BECAUSE OF STATEMENT FROM TOW TRUCK GUY. SHE SAID IT HAPPENED SO FAST SHE DOESN'T REMEMBER. THE TIN WHISKERING WAS A PROBLEM FOR TOYOTA IN THE PAST. I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE NOT FIXED THE PROBLEM. CAN THE DATA SHOW IF GAS APPLIED BY DRIVER OR AUTOMATICALLY CAME ON? I HAVE SPOKEN TO ATTORNEYS AND NO ONE SEEMS TO WANT TO TAKE THIS CASE. MY DAUGHTER HAS BACK PAIN AND OTHER ISSUES. AS A PARENT I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO DO. CAR HAS BEEN REPAIRED. IT IS A LEASE. ( NINE MONTHS LEFT TO PAY.) I WOULD LIKE TO GET HER OUT OF THIS CAR AND GET A NEW ONE. ANY SUGGESTIONS? THANK YOU MIKE.
WHILE DRIVING CAR APPEARS NOT TO BE GETTING ENOUGH GAS TO KEEP GOING. ALMOST LIKE IT IS CHANGING GEAR SIMILIAR TO A STANDARD SHIFTING GEAR. MY DAUGTHER IS A SINGLE PARENT WITH A 14 MONTH OLD CHILD AND STATIONED OVERSEAS IN VICENCIA ITALY. THE CAR HAS 42,246 MILES. OVERSEAS DEALER DOESN'T HONOR US WARRANTY
Official recalls
120V024000 · 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
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.
Illustration