← 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

What owners actually said

219 reports
96,500 miles · May 30, 2023
Air BagsCrash

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while driving 30 MPH and approaching a stop, the vehicle struck a deer, causing the front windshield to crack. The air bags did not deploy. The vehicle was towed to the residence. There were no reported injuries. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was n…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while driving 30 MPH and approaching a stop, the vehicle struck a deer, causing the front windshield to crack. The air bags did not deploy. The vehicle was towed to the residence. There were no reported injuries. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 96,500.

NHTSA ODI #11524380

Mileage unknown · May 10, 2023
Fuel/propulsion System

My engine light keeps coming on and I have replace three canisters. I need help getting this fixed.

NHTSA ODI #11521314

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

125,000 miles · Mar 15, 2023
EngineEngine And Engine Cooling

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the vehicle was consuming an excessive amount of engine oil. While driving at an undetermined speed, the vehicle became sluggish and lost motive power. The contact stated that the oil level was 3-quarts low. The contact added oil as needed. There were no warning lig…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the vehicle was consuming an excessive amount of engine oil. While driving at an undetermined speed, the vehicle became sluggish and lost motive power. The contact stated that the oil level was 3-quarts low. The contact added oil as needed. There were no warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer and the mechanic performed three oil consumption tests on the vehicle. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was contacted and referred the contact to the dealer for assistance. The failure mileage was approximately 125,000.

NHTSA ODI #11511911

68,000 miles · Jan 5, 2023
EngineFuel System, Gasoline

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the check engine warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed. The contact was made aware of a crack in the canister in the fuel tank, causing a leak. The contact was informed that the fuel tank needed to be replaced. The vehicl…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the check engine warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed. The contact was made aware of a crack in the canister in the fuel tank, causing a leak. The contact was informed that the fuel tank needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was contacted and confirmed there was no recall on the VIN for the failure. The failure mileage was 68,000.

NHTSA ODI #11500295

Mileage unknown · Sep 18, 2022
Suspension

NOISE COMING FROM FROM SUSPENSION.

NHTSA ODI #11485028

13,000 miles · Jul 1, 2022
Tires

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla equipped with Nika Supercharger tires, Tire Size: 215/45/R17, DOT Number: 16MTSB3 and manufactured on 4/5/2020. The contact stated while driving approximately 60 mph the front driver's side tire had experienced rapid air pressure loss. After stopping to inspect the vehicle it was discovere…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2015 Toyota Corolla equipped with Nika Supercharger tires, Tire Size: 215/45/R17, DOT Number: 16MTSB3 and manufactured on 4/5/2020. The contact stated while driving approximately 60 mph the front driver's side tire had experienced rapid air pressure loss. After stopping to inspect the vehicle it was discovered that the inner sidewall of the tire had separated from the tread of the tire. Upon inspection, it was then discovered that the same failure had occurred on three of the four-tire. The cause of the failures was not determined. The dealer and manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 13,000.

NHTSA ODI #11471944

Mileage unknown · Jun 30, 2022
Tires

I had a NIKA Supercharger tire on drivers front inside tread/ sidewall separation I checked the front passenger and rear passenger tires, and they are also separating the same way and in the same place. The tires are barely two years old and were not worn out. Something is wrong with these tires. I was lucky I had not got on the…

Read full complaint

I had a NIKA Supercharger tire on drivers front inside tread/ sidewall separation I checked the front passenger and rear passenger tires, and they are also separating the same way and in the same place. The tires are barely two years old and were not worn out. Something is wrong with these tires. I was lucky I had not got on the interstate yet when the tire failed. Tire size 215/45/R17-91W XL These tires are not Toyota supplied tires and were on the car at time of purchase. They are the proper size for the car however.

NHTSA ODI #11471903

Mileage unknown · Apr 6, 2022
Air Bags

The contact owned a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving approximately 70 MPH the vehicle rolled 3 1/2 times. There were no warning lights on the instrument panel. No air bags were deployed at the accident The vehicle was towed to a local auto shop which diagnosed the failure of air bag sensors that needed repla…

Read full complaint

The contact owned a 2015 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving approximately 70 MPH the vehicle rolled 3 1/2 times. There were no warning lights on the instrument panel. No air bags were deployed at the accident The vehicle was towed to a local auto shop which diagnosed the failure of air bag sensors that needed replacement. The vehicle was totally damaged. There were no injuries or medical treatments needed. There was a police report filed. The contact related the air bag failure to NHTSA Campaign 20V024000 (AIR BAGS). The approximate failure mileage was 79,900.

NHTSA ODI #11459830

Mileage unknown · Mar 14, 2022
Air BagsStructureWheelsCrashInjury

My daughter was driving my car on the interstate the airbags deployed and hit her in the face, filled the car up with smoke, she couldn’t see anything she hit the iron poles that are together by cables. My car is totaled. My back tire broke completely off of the car. These cars aren’t built safe. I owned my car and now I’m witho…

Read full complaint

My daughter was driving my car on the interstate the airbags deployed and hit her in the face, filled the car up with smoke, she couldn’t see anything she hit the iron poles that are together by cables. My car is totaled. My back tire broke completely off of the car. These cars aren’t built safe. I owned my car and now I’m without a car. Has anyone else ever had this happen? Air bags deploying for no reason?

NHTSA ODI #11456649

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