← 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

Steering complaints

15 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Nov 26, 2024
Service BrakesSteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrash

I am not sure exactly what happened but their was indeed an internal systems failure of some sort that definitely needs to be resolved and the public needs to be made aware of. I lost control of my vehicle do to some circumstance beyond my control and I was nearly killed an a father and son as well. I hope the government gets to…

Read full complaint

I am not sure exactly what happened but their was indeed an internal systems failure of some sort that definitely needs to be resolved and the public needs to be made aware of. I lost control of my vehicle do to some circumstance beyond my control and I was nearly killed an a father and son as well. I hope the government gets to the bottom of this and makes all humans aware of this threat to our way of life and human's lifes in general. Regardless I was driving and minding my own business and causing no harm to anyone when I lost control of my vehicle and it swerved to the right in an intersection causing an accident. Please utilize our tax money properly and make sure the people responsible for this are held accountable in accordance with the law and make the public aware of who they are. I thank you for your assistance in making sure humans and businesses are held accountable under the law of the laws of the country in relations to vehicle safety.

NHTSA ODI #11627614

Mileage unknown · Aug 17, 2024
Steering

Rack and pinion steering rack failure. Car only has 119K miles. Diagnosed by Peterson Toyota on 08/16/2024. Repair cost is $2,000.00! Rack and pinion failure created very tight steering characteristic and banging, knocking noise.

NHTSA ODI #11609140

Mileage unknown · Jan 23, 2024
Steering

THE TOP OF THE STEERING WHEEL HAS A BULGE OR IS BUCKLED. I TOOK IT TO A TOYOTA DIRECT SHOP IN COLUMBUS OHIO AND WAS TOLD IT COULD BE DUE TO THE CONSTANT GLARE FROM THE SUN. IT MAKES IT HARD TO DRIVE THE CAR. I NOTICED IT AROUND OCTOBER 2023.

NHTSA ODI #11567359

34,000 miles · Mar 19, 2019
Electrical SystemSteering

STEERING WHEEL LOCKED UP AND HOLE OPERATING THE VEHICLE AND THE KEY BROKE IN THE IGNITION.

NHTSA ODI #11189859

33,000 miles · Mar 19, 2018
SteeringCrashInjury

TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN SIEZED, WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO VEER TO THE LEFT WHILE BEING OPERATED AT 60 MPH. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A CEMENT BARRIER. THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SALVAGE YARD AND DEEMED…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN SIEZED, WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO VEER TO THE LEFT WHILE BEING OPERATED AT 60 MPH. AS A RESULT, THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A CEMENT BARRIER. THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SALVAGE YARD AND DEEMED DESTROYED. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE CONTACT SUFFERED MINOR BRUISING FROM THE COLLISION, WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 33,000.

NHTSA ODI #11080118

Mileage unknown · Jan 31, 2018
Electrical SystemSteering

WHEN I PUSH THE START BUTTON ON MY VEHICLE IT TAKES A MINUTE TO START. IT DOESN'T START UP RIGHT AWAY LIKE IT USED TO. THEN THE STEERING WHEEL BECOMES LOCKED MAKING IT HARD TO STEER. WHEN I DRIVE THE VEHICLE THE WHEEL THEN GETS LOOSE.

NHTSA ODI #11066009

300 miles · Jan 10, 2017
Steering

CAR DRIFTS TOWARD THE LEFT THUS CAUSES CONSTANT CORRECTION ESPECIALLY AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS OF 30 AND ABOVE. CONTROLLING THIS IS VERY TIRING AND MORE IMPORTANTLY CAN CAUSE AN ACCIDENT WITH THE CAR IN THE OTHER LANE. WITH THIS DISTRACTION IT LEAVES ONE NOT GIVING OTHER SAFETY OBSERVATIONS AS MUCH TIME TO MONITOR.. TOYOTA HAS BEEN AWA…

Read full complaint

CAR DRIFTS TOWARD THE LEFT THUS CAUSES CONSTANT CORRECTION ESPECIALLY AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS OF 30 AND ABOVE. CONTROLLING THIS IS VERY TIRING AND MORE IMPORTANTLY CAN CAUSE AN ACCIDENT WITH THE CAR IN THE OTHER LANE. WITH THIS DISTRACTION IT LEAVES ONE NOT GIVING OTHER SAFETY OBSERVATIONS AS MUCH TIME TO MONITOR.. TOYOTA HAS BEEN AWARE OF THIS IN OLDER MODEL YEARS BUT HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS IT SINCE NOT ENOUGH OWNERS CARS OR AFFECTED BY THIS DRIFTING OR SIMPLY THRU APATHY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT IS CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE ECU UNIT THAT IS PART OF THE STEERING UNIT. MY PREDICTION IS THAT NOTHING WILL COME OUT OF THIS COMPLAINTS AS WITH OTHER OWNERS HAVE REPORTED ON GOOGLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10944212

51,000 miles · Dec 28, 2016
Steering

POWER STEERING HARD WHEN I TURN ENGINE ON AFTER ABOUT TEN SECOND IS NORMAL

NHTSA ODI #10937961

Mileage unknown · Dec 1, 2016
Electronic Stability Control (esc)SteeringStructureCrash

JERKING FRONT PRIOR PERHAPS TWICE ON THE DAY IN QUESTION I REVERSED TO GO IN A FRIEND HOUSE AND THE CAR WENT A FULL HALF CIRCLE AND END IN THE NEIGHBOR HOSE NEXT DOOR. MY CAR ENDED IN TO HER FENCE WHERE A SWING WAS THERE. DUE THE DEFECTIVE HER PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE FIX AS SOON AS POSSIBLE HAD THE CAR TOWED TO DICK DYER KILLIAN…

Read full complaint

JERKING FRONT PRIOR PERHAPS TWICE ON THE DAY IN QUESTION I REVERSED TO GO IN A FRIEND HOUSE AND THE CAR WENT A FULL HALF CIRCLE AND END IN THE NEIGHBOR HOSE NEXT DOOR. MY CAR ENDED IN TO HER FENCE WHERE A SWING WAS THERE. DUE THE DEFECTIVE HER PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE FIX AS SOON AS POSSIBLE HAD THE CAR TOWED TO DICK DYER KILLIAN ROAD TODAY. I HAVE WITNESSES TO VERIFY HOW THE CAR DID A HALF MOON.

NHTSA ODI #10929028

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

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