← 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

Visibility/wiper complaints

7 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Apr 30, 2023
Visibility/wiperInjury

As my husband + I were driving home on the open highway Friday night (no vehicles nearby, nor debris on the road)…we heard popping/shattering sounds. As my husband (who was driving) looked up, it rained sunroof glass shards all over our faces, eyes, hair, back seat, front seat…everywhere. This was completely out of the blue, no …

Read full complaint

As my husband + I were driving home on the open highway Friday night (no vehicles nearby, nor debris on the road)…we heard popping/shattering sounds. As my husband (who was driving) looked up, it rained sunroof glass shards all over our faces, eyes, hair, back seat, front seat…everywhere. This was completely out of the blue, no warning lights or anything out of the ordinary. Minus the fact that the sunroof literally shattered and we’ve never had not one issue with our car. It’s been amazing for the entire time we’ve had it, so this was extremely bizarre. We pulled over immediately at a rest stop close to where we were to assess everything. I have photos and videos of the sunroof damage, as well as debris + bloody cuts on my head. It’s a good thing we didn’t have kids in the back + a miracle it didn’t drive us off the road because I had glass powder/shards in my eyes etc. We could have gotten into a way worse accident had my husband not have had his glasses on to protect his eyes. I did some research + it looks like this has happened quite a bit to car owners over the years. Same bizarre experience of their sunroof just randomly shattering while driving, or even while their car was sitting in their driveway. There is also a class action lawsuit: Gamez, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00262 regarding their panoramic roofs suddenly shattering. There are videos and tweets all over social of sunroofs shattering like this too. Toyota hasn’r assessed it yet, but I have a call tomorrow with the Corporate Liability team. Hoping they‘ll do the right thing + loan us a car while they replace + repair my sunroof, including an interior detailing as there is glass everywhere in the car. SO disappointed that this hasn’t been a recall/liability issue Toyota has confirmed. It seems as if these bigger corps like to gaslight the car owners into thinking it was their fault or a rock. Very upsetting altogether and extremely dangerous.

NHTSA ODI #11519709

15,248 miles · Aug 8, 2018
Visibility/wiper

ATLANTA GA TEMP WAS 105 ON AUG 7, WHEN I HEARD A POP SOUND AND THEN THE PASSENGER SIDE MIRROR EXPLODED

NHTSA ODI #11118449

Mileage unknown · Nov 30, 2017
Electrical SystemStructureVisibility/wiper

I WANT TO REPORT THAT I FOUND A LOOSE BOLT POKING OUT OF THE DRAIN HOLE ON THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR OF OUR 2015 TOYTOTA COROLLA. IT WAS ORIENTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ONLY THE THREADED END WAS POKING OUT THE HOLE AND HELD INSIDE THE DOOR BY THE BOLT HEAD. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND AS A COURTESY THEY REMOVED THE DOOR PANEL AND DET…

Read full complaint

I WANT TO REPORT THAT I FOUND A LOOSE BOLT POKING OUT OF THE DRAIN HOLE ON THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR OF OUR 2015 TOYTOTA COROLLA. IT WAS ORIENTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ONLY THE THREADED END WAS POKING OUT THE HOLE AND HELD INSIDE THE DOOR BY THE BOLT HEAD. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND AS A COURTESY THEY REMOVED THE DOOR PANEL AND DETERMINED IT HAD COME FROM ONE OF THE WINDOW PARTS (REGULATOR OR MOTOR). THEY REINSTALLED AND TIGHTENED THE BOLT. I READ ON THE INTERNET THIS WAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH PREVIOUS TOYOTAS AND CREATED SAFETY CONCERNS. THIS MAY BE A CONTINUED PROBLEM WITH TOYOTAS. IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A VERY SMALL CHANCE THAT THE BOLT ACTUALLY LANDED IN A FASHION TO PARTIALLY STICK OUT OF THE DRAIN HOLE SO I WAS ABLE TO SPOT THIS, SO I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER IF OTHER WINDOW BOLTS IN THE CAR HAVE, OR WILL, COME LOOSE AND FALL INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE DOORS WITHOUT DETECTION. THIS MAY ALSO BE THE CASE WITH MANY OTHER COROLLAS SOLD. BOLTS THAT BECOME LOOSE AND FALL OFF OF WINDOW PARTS COULD LEAD TO INADVERTENT AND DANGEROUS FAILURE OF WINDOWS ON THE ROAD. I SUGGEST YOU INVESTIGATE THIS POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE.

NHTSA ODI #11051602

Mileage unknown · Oct 14, 2017
Unknown Or OtherVisibility/wiper

VEHICLE SOLD WITH A DEFECTIVE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW. TOOK OUR 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA INTO A SHOP TO GET THE WINDOWS TINTED, THE VENDOR THAT TINTED THE WINDOWS STATED THE VEHICLE WINDOWS SHOULD NOT BE ROLLED DOWN FOR 5 DAYS TO ALLOW THE WINDOW TINT TO DRY. WE FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE VENDOR (TINT MY RIDE) - 1330 S PARKER RD, …

Read full complaint

VEHICLE SOLD WITH A DEFECTIVE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW. TOOK OUR 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA INTO A SHOP TO GET THE WINDOWS TINTED, THE VENDOR THAT TINTED THE WINDOWS STATED THE VEHICLE WINDOWS SHOULD NOT BE ROLLED DOWN FOR 5 DAYS TO ALLOW THE WINDOW TINT TO DRY. WE FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE VENDOR (TINT MY RIDE) - 1330 S PARKER RD, DENVER, CO 80231 - (720) 808-8286. WE BEGIN ROLLING THE WINDOWS DOWN AFTER 5 DAYS AS INSTRUCTED A FEW WEEKS WENT BY AND I NOTICED A GAP BETWEEN THE TINT AND THE CAR DOOR. I TOOK THE CAR BACK TO THE VENDOR TINT MY RIDE TO HAVE THEM CORRECT THE WINDOW TINT ISSUE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE WHO SOLD MY THE WINDOW TINT (VERONICA) MENTIONED THAT IT WAS NOT A WINDOW TINT ISSUE AND THAT IT WAS A CAR WINDOW ISSUE WITH THE WINDOW SLIDING AND BEING OFF TRACK. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE IF CAR MANUFACTURERS ARE ABLE TO SELL BRAND NEW VEHICLES WITH WINDOWS THAT ARE DEFECTIVE AND OFF TRACK. THIS VEHICLE WAS BOUGHT BRAND NEW AND HAS NEVER BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT AND WE HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN THE VEHICLE IN TO GET IT MAINTENANCE ACCORDING TO THE DEALERSHIPS RECOMMENDATIONS. HOW CAN A DEALERSHIP SELL A BRAND NEW VEHICLE TO A CUSTOMER THAT HAS A DEFECTIVE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW? THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED AS A SAFETY ISSUE AS I AM CONCERNED THERE MAY BE OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THIS VEHICLE.

NHTSA ODI #11033356

4 miles · Oct 7, 2015
Visibility/wiper

I PURCHASED A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA IN AUGUST 2015. AFTER DRIVING THE CAR FOR ABOUT THREE DAYS I NOTICED A VERY STRONG WAVE EFFECT WAS PRESENT IN THE WINDSHIELD THAT SPANNED THE LENGTH OF THE GLASS FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND A SERIES OF WAVES WITH VARYING WIDTH SPANNED THE ENTIRE WINDSHIELD. IT APPEARED AS THOUGH THE THICKNESS OF TH…

Read full complaint

I PURCHASED A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA IN AUGUST 2015. AFTER DRIVING THE CAR FOR ABOUT THREE DAYS I NOTICED A VERY STRONG WAVE EFFECT WAS PRESENT IN THE WINDSHIELD THAT SPANNED THE LENGTH OF THE GLASS FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND A SERIES OF WAVES WITH VARYING WIDTH SPANNED THE ENTIRE WINDSHIELD. IT APPEARED AS THOUGH THE THICKNESS OF THE GLASS VARIED. DRIVING THE CAR CAUSED MIGRAINE HEADACHES AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO CONCENTRATE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE OF THE DISTORTION PRESENT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE. THE EFFECT IS SIMILAR TO LOOKING THROUGH EYEGLASSES THAT ARE THE WRONG PRESCRIPTION, OR USING READER GLASSES THAT ARE TOO STRONG. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP WHO DID SEE THE DEFECT AND WORKED WITH ME TO REPLACE IT. UPON PICKING THE CAR UP I FOUND THE REPLACEMENT WINDSHIELD HAD THE SAME DEFECT BUT IN A DIFFERENT SPOT. THE DEFECT THIS TIME WAS IN THE CENTER OF THE GLASS MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO LOOK INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHEN TRYING TO MAKE A TURN. THE CAR WAS AGAIN RETURNED TO THE DEALER WHO CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFECT AND AGREED TO YET AGAIN REPLACE THE WINDSHIELD. THE THIRD REPLACEMENT WINDSHIELD IS NOW ON THE CAR AND ALTHOUGH THE EFFECT IS NOT AS STRONG AS THE FIRST TWO THE THIRD WINDSHIELD ALSO HAS NOTICEABLE WAVES GOING THROUGH THE DRIVERS SIDE AND A VERY OBVIOUS RIPPLING EFFECT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE WINDSHIELD. THERE APPEARS TO BE A DEFECT IN EVERY WINDSHIELD THAT IS COMING FROM THE MANUFACTURER FACTORY, THESE HAVE ALL BEEN OEM WINDSHIELDS. IT CAUSES HEADACHES, IS A DISTRACTION WHEN DRIVING DUE TO OBJECTS CHANGING SHAPE WHILE DRIVING, AND I AM CONCERNED THAT IT IS ALSO A SAFETY ISSUE IF THE LAMINATE AND GLASS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY TEMPERED AND BONDED TOGETHER, THEREFORE MAKING THE WINDSHIELD WEAKER IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH. I BELIEVE THE ASASHI GLASS COMPANY IS EXPORTING DEFECTIVE WINDSHIELDS TO BE PLACED ON COROLLAS.

NHTSA ODI #10780610

55 miles · Sep 9, 2015
Exterior LightingUnknown Or OtherVisibility/wiper

WHEN DRIVING THE TOYOTA COROLLA S 2015 AT NIGHT AND ESPECIALLY WHEN GOING DOWNHILL, HALF OF THE WINDSHIELD IS DARK HORIZONTALLY FROM THE MIDDLE UP. SOME DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS MAY EXPERIENCE MORE DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT OF THE PERSON DRIVING OR RIDING IN THE VEHICLE. THE WINDSHIELD APPEARS TO GO COMPLETELY DARK IN SOME CASES A…

Read full complaint

WHEN DRIVING THE TOYOTA COROLLA S 2015 AT NIGHT AND ESPECIALLY WHEN GOING DOWNHILL, HALF OF THE WINDSHIELD IS DARK HORIZONTALLY FROM THE MIDDLE UP. SOME DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS MAY EXPERIENCE MORE DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT OF THE PERSON DRIVING OR RIDING IN THE VEHICLE. THE WINDSHIELD APPEARS TO GO COMPLETELY DARK IN SOME CASES AND IS VERY SCARY! THIS IS MY DADS CAR AND HE IS 67 YEARS OLD AND IS SCARED TO DRIVE AT NIGHT DUE TO THIS PROBLEM. I AM 36 YEARS OLD AND AT THE TIME I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST HIM COMPLAINING. HOWEVER, I DROVE THE CAR TONIGHT 9/9/2015 AND IT WAS SCARY TO GO DOWNHILL, AND THIS PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED VERY SOON BEFORE SOMEONE GETS BADLY HURT OR KILLED. IF YOU TURN THE HIGH BEAMS ON YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THIS DOES NOT HELP WHEN YOU HAVE TO TURN BACK OFF THE HIGH BEAMS DUE TO ANOTHER CAR COMING TOWARDS YOU OF COURSE. ANOTHER PERSON DESCRIBED IT VERY WELL ON THIS SITE HTTPS://WWW-ODI.NHTSA.DOT.GOV/ HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS SENT IN BY CULLMAN, AL, USA AND HE OR SHE DESCRIBED IT BEST BELOW: "THE LOW-BEAM LIGHT DESIGN ON THE LENS COVER CUTS OFF THE TOP VIEW OF LIGHT AT NIGHT TIME. YOU SEE LIGHT FROM THE GROUND UP BUT ONLY HALFWAY UP. FROM THERE YOU ONLY SEE DARKNESS. IT LOOKS LIKE A HALF-LIT MOON BEAM FROM THE GROUND UP. YOU ONLY SEE THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE TREES IT IS LIKE A STRAIGHT LINE DRAWN BETWEEN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR VIEW IN FRONT OF THE CAR. WHITE ON THE BOTTOM HALF AND BLACK ON THE TOP HALF. I AM SCARED TO DEATH TO DRIVE MY CAR AROUND CURVES AND LULLS IN THE ROADS. YOUR NIGHT VISION IS EXTREMELY LIMITED. IT IS VERY STRAINING TO HAVE TO LOOK AHEAD AND AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVE TO KEEP TWO DIFFERENT COLORS SEPARATED."

NHTSA ODI #10762730

300 miles · Aug 7, 2015
Visibility/wiper

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE VIEW MIRRORS EXHIBITED A GLARE FROM THE DASHBOARD WHICH DISTORTED THE VISIBILITY. THE REFLECTION WAS PERMANENT AND OCCURRED EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SUNLIGHT. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FUNCTIONED AS DESIGNED. THE MANUF…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE VIEW MIRRORS EXHIBITED A GLARE FROM THE DASHBOARD WHICH DISTORTED THE VISIBILITY. THE REFLECTION WAS PERMANENT AND OCCURRED EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SUNLIGHT. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FUNCTIONED AS DESIGNED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 300.

NHTSA ODI #10746978

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