← 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

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

18 reports
Clear category filter
11,000 miles · Apr 7, 2016
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BECAME STUCK TO THE FLOORBOARD. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BECAME STUCK TO THE FLOORBOARD. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE CONTACT'S RESIDENCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A COLLISION CENTER TO BE REPAIRED FOR THE BODY DAMAGE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 11,000.

NHTSA ODI #10854027

Mileage unknown · Dec 3, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control

2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE SUDDEN ACCELERATION. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED AFTER SHE BACK OUT OF A PARKING LOT, SHE APPLIED THE BRAKE, PUT THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE TO PULL AWAY FROM THE BARRIER, WHEN SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED TO AT LEAST 30 MPH. SHE WAS BARELY ABLE TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE. SHE…

Read full complaint

2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE SUDDEN ACCELERATION. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED AFTER SHE BACK OUT OF A PARKING LOT, SHE APPLIED THE BRAKE, PUT THE VEHICLE IN DRIVE TO PULL AWAY FROM THE BARRIER, WHEN SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED TO AT LEAST 30 MPH. SHE WAS BARELY ABLE TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE. SHE TRIED PUTTING THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL, BUT IT WAS REVVING EXTREMELY LOUD. SHE CROSSED AN ALLEY, THE BACKSIDE OF A CAR WASH AND WAS HEADING RECKLESSLY TOWARD A BUSY STREET. SHE ATTEMPTED TO PUT THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL AGAIN AND THE VEHICLE STARTED TO SLOW DOWN AND SHE WAS ABLE TO PULL THE EMERGENCY BRAKE AND COME TO A COMPLETE STOP. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10816067

980 miles · Sep 14, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE PARKING AT APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO A METAL BARRIER. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE APPR…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE PARKING AT APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO A METAL BARRIER. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 980. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #10763536

Mileage unknown · Jul 16, 2015
Electrical SystemPower TrainVehicle Speed ControlCrash

FILING A COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF OUR INSURED/POLICYHOLDER. SHE WAS BACKING OUT OF DRIVEWAY IN REVERSE AND FOOT APPLIED ON BRAKE, AT THIS TIME THE ACCELERATOR BEGAN SURGING AND THE VEHICLE WHILE IN REVERSE AND BRAKE BEING PRESSED WENT UP IN SPEED TO POSSIBLY 35 MILES PER HOUR AND ACROSS THE STREET, HIT CURB AND JUMPED CURB, AND TH…

Read full complaint

FILING A COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF OUR INSURED/POLICYHOLDER. SHE WAS BACKING OUT OF DRIVEWAY IN REVERSE AND FOOT APPLIED ON BRAKE, AT THIS TIME THE ACCELERATOR BEGAN SURGING AND THE VEHICLE WHILE IN REVERSE AND BRAKE BEING PRESSED WENT UP IN SPEED TO POSSIBLY 35 MILES PER HOUR AND ACROSS THE STREET, HIT CURB AND JUMPED CURB, AND THE REAR END ULTIMATELY STRUCK A TREE AND CAME TO A REST IN THE OPPOSING HOME'S YARD. RESEARCH ONLINE SUCH AS THE LATIMES.COM SHOWS THAT THIS YEAR/MAKE/MODEL HAS HAD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS OF ACCELERATOR SURGING OCCURRING WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN DRIVE OR REVERSE.

NHTSA ODI #10734509

4,950 miles · May 5, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control

THE D DISAPPEARED FROM ODOMETER AND THE ECHO LIGHT STARTED FLASHING LOST ALL POWER TO CAR AS IT STALLED. WHEN THE D REAPPEARED THE POWER TO VEHICLE CAM BACK ON. BEEN DOING IT EVER SINCE. TOOK TO DEALERSHIP, BECAUSE THE COMPUTER COULD NOT LOCATE AN ISSUE NOTHING WAS DONE THEY TRIED SENDING ME ON MY WAY. THEY SAID THEY TEST DOVE …

Read full complaint

THE D DISAPPEARED FROM ODOMETER AND THE ECHO LIGHT STARTED FLASHING LOST ALL POWER TO CAR AS IT STALLED. WHEN THE D REAPPEARED THE POWER TO VEHICLE CAM BACK ON. BEEN DOING IT EVER SINCE. TOOK TO DEALERSHIP, BECAUSE THE COMPUTER COULD NOT LOCATE AN ISSUE NOTHING WAS DONE THEY TRIED SENDING ME ON MY WAY. THEY SAID THEY TEST DOVE IT BUT COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I THEN INSISTED THAT ANOTHER TEST DRIVE WITH ME IN CAR. IT STARTED DOING IT RIGHT AWAY AT 35-40 MPH. TOOK CAR BACK IN SHOP FOUND OUT COMPUTER CONNECTED TO TRANSMISSION WAS SHORTING OUT. ONE MECH. SAID HE SEEN IT ONE TIME BEFORE. I THINK THAT INFO SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED AROUND TO REST ON MECH TO KNOW ABOUT. I'M STILL DRIVING THE CAR HAVING SAME ISSUE WAITING FOR A ME COMPUTER TO BE DELIVERED. THEY SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE CAR GAVE ME A LOANER. I COME 25 MILES ONE WAY TO WORK I'M TAKING CITY STREETS TO KEEP OF FREEWAY BECAUSE I CANNOT KEEP THE SPEED WITH TRAFFIC. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10714791

6,500 miles · Feb 1, 2015
Service BrakesVehicle Speed Control

ON DECEMBER 24TH 2014 I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE (2014 TOYOTA COROLLA S) IN (D) AND WAS TRYING TO SLOW DOWN, BECAUSE THE DRIVER IN FRONT OF ME BRAKE. WHEN I DEPRESSED MY BRAKE PEDAL THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. I SHIFTED INTO NEUTRAL AND CONTINUED TO BRAKE AND IT EVENTUALLY SLOWED ME DOWN. I SHIFTED BACK INTO (D) AND CONTINUED ON MY W…

Read full complaint

ON DECEMBER 24TH 2014 I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE (2014 TOYOTA COROLLA S) IN (D) AND WAS TRYING TO SLOW DOWN, BECAUSE THE DRIVER IN FRONT OF ME BRAKE. WHEN I DEPRESSED MY BRAKE PEDAL THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. I SHIFTED INTO NEUTRAL AND CONTINUED TO BRAKE AND IT EVENTUALLY SLOWED ME DOWN. I SHIFTED BACK INTO (D) AND CONTINUED ON MY WAY, ALTHOUGH SHAKEN UP. THE ROAD CONDITIONS WERE GOOD, THERE WAS NO RAIN OR ICE ON THE ROAD THAT DAY. I CHECKED MY FLOOR MATS TO SEE IF THEY WERE STICKING TO THE ACCELERATION PEDAL WHEN I GOT INTO THE DRIVEWAY, BUT I DID NOT NOTICE ANY SUCH DEFECT WITH THE FLOOR MATS STICKING TO THE PEDAL. A FEW WEEKS LATER DRIVING TO WORK ON 01/20/2015 AROUND THE SAME SPEED ON THE SAME ROAD CONDITIONS THE VEHICLE GAVE ME UNWANTED ACCELERATION AGAIN WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BRAKE. I PERFORMED THE SAME WAY I HAD PREVIOUSLY, I ENTERED INTO NEUTRAL AND BRAKED, EXCEPT THIS TIME I CAME WITHIN INCHES OF THE VEHICLE FORWARD OF ME. THE NEXT DAY ON 01/21/2015 WHILE DRIVING TO WORK THE VEHICLE AGAIN PERFORMED THE EXACT SAME MALFUNCTION AS THE PREVIOUS DAY. ON ALL DAYS THE ROAD CONDITIONS WERE FINE AND SHOULD HAVE NOT AFFECTED THE VEHICLES PERFORMANCE. I DECIDED TO BRING THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I HAD LEASED THE VEHICLE. I SET UP AN APPOINTMENT AND HAD LEFT IT THERE 01/24/2015-01/26/2015. I RECEIVED THE VEHICLE BACK ON 01/26/2015 AND THE MASTER MECHANIC FOUND NO DEFECTS. I FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THE SERVICE MANAGER WOULD CONTACT ME. AFTER HE HAD NOT FOR A FEW DAYS, I DECIDED TO CALL HIM. I HAD GOTTEN HIS VOICEMAIL AND LEFT A MESSAGE. TO DATE I HAVE STILL NOT RECEIVED A CALL BACK FROM THE SERVICE MANAGER. I HAVE DECIDED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS AND BEGIN A VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLAINT. I WOULD LIKE THIS MATTER RESOLVED BEFORE MYSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BECOMES INJURED OR WORSE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10680323

Mileage unknown · Jan 14, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control

THIS IS AN ENTERPRISE RENTAL VEHICLE WHICH, FOR THE SECOND TIME, ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN. I WAS BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPACE, GEAR IN REVERSE AND FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDAL BUT NOT APPLYING THE BRAKE YET WHEN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED IN REVERSE. I IMMEDIATELY APPLIED THE BRAKE AND THE VEHICLE STOPPED AFTER SEVERAL FEET. …

Read full complaint

THIS IS AN ENTERPRISE RENTAL VEHICLE WHICH, FOR THE SECOND TIME, ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN. I WAS BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPACE, GEAR IN REVERSE AND FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDAL BUT NOT APPLYING THE BRAKE YET WHEN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED IN REVERSE. I IMMEDIATELY APPLIED THE BRAKE AND THE VEHICLE STOPPED AFTER SEVERAL FEET. THERE WAS NOTHING BEHIND THE VEHICLE SO NOTHING WAS DAMAGED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10672382

Mileage unknown · Jan 14, 2015
Vehicle Speed Control

THIS IS AN ENTERPRISE RENTAL VEHICLE WHICH I HAD JUST PICKED UP FROM ENTERPRISE IN MECHANICSBURG, PA. AS I WAS PULLING INTO MY GARAGE THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDAL BUT HAD NOT YET PRESSED DOWN ON IT TO APPLY THE BRAKE. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND RACED FORWARD. I QUICKLY APPLI…

Read full complaint

THIS IS AN ENTERPRISE RENTAL VEHICLE WHICH I HAD JUST PICKED UP FROM ENTERPRISE IN MECHANICSBURG, PA. AS I WAS PULLING INTO MY GARAGE THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDAL BUT HAD NOT YET PRESSED DOWN ON IT TO APPLY THE BRAKE. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND RACED FORWARD. I QUICKLY APPLIED THE BRAKES AND IT STOPPED SHORT OF HITTING ITEMS INSIDE THE GARAGE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10672376

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