← New search

2016 Toyota Corolla

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2016 Toyota Corolla do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 129.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Compare all Corolla years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

All reported categories

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

139 reports with mileage · 75 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 65 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Seat Belts. Review the 26 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

66 crash reports1 fire reports43 injury reports

Engine complaints

13 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Aug 13, 2024
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

We own a 2016 Toyota Corolla Sport model. 4 door sedan. We first started to notice a loud sound that was seemingly coming from the front of the car. It was a whining, rattling sound. The car's mileage is 87k. We took it into the shop, we were first told that it sounded like a bearing going out in the wheel. Then we took it to a…

Read full complaint

We own a 2016 Toyota Corolla Sport model. 4 door sedan. We first started to notice a loud sound that was seemingly coming from the front of the car. It was a whining, rattling sound. The car's mileage is 87k. We took it into the shop, we were first told that it sounded like a bearing going out in the wheel. Then we took it to a licensed Toyota dealership. The dealership then tells us that it is actually due to the transmission chain, and our transmission will need to be replaced for $8900!! So I begin to dig online, and find that our model is the same years of other Toyota models that Toyota has a KNOWN problem with. This is a major issue, and puts our safety at risk if the transmission just suddenly goes out. The Toyota dealership has confirmed that we have an issue, and are saying that the transmission MUST be replaced, effectively decommissioning our work commuter vehicle until we can get this sorted. It was diagnosed by a licensed Toyota technician, but it can be inspected by a insurance rep/mechanic upon request. There were no warnings, no lamps, no codes. We just heard the noise, which is seemingly getting worse and louder. Which appeared about 7/15/24. The car has had it's routine maintenance done per the manufacturers specifications. The fluids are routinely checked, and it is taken in to a Toyota dealership for it's servicing, with certified maintenance records. It was never noted on oil changes that this was an issue, or that the transmission fluid was ever an issue. We do not drive this car hard, we do not abuse it. It is our commuter. And now we are looking at having to replace the transmission for essentially the same cost as the car itself.

NHTSA ODI #11608325

Mileage unknown · May 22, 2024
EnginePower Train

Unknown

NHTSA ODI #11590200

Mileage unknown · Mar 10, 2024
Electrical SystemEngineSteeringCrashInjury

I have been driving my car since 2016, however since Nov 24, 2023. Incidents that alarm me have happen. I have filed a police report but don't have the funds to get vehicle swept. All of these events occur while I am driving. Passenger windows goes up in and down a lot. Static in my speakers. Steering wheels lock. somethings dra…

Read full complaint

I have been driving my car since 2016, however since Nov 24, 2023. Incidents that alarm me have happen. I have filed a police report but don't have the funds to get vehicle swept. All of these events occur while I am driving. Passenger windows goes up in and down a lot. Static in my speakers. Steering wheels lock. somethings draining my battery. though I have ensured nothings on or there isn't any short fuses. Doors unlock. Door beeps though someone has had access. Trunk pops open. I am reaching out to NHTSA because my safety is at risk. Is any other Corolla owners reporting this. Please assist me.

NHTSA ODI #11576490

Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2023
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other

Toyota has installed several parts on my 2016 corolla that were previous years' parts. In previous complaints, the tires (under 11,000 miles) started to dry rot. When filing the warranty repair, the dealerships and Toyota tried to claim that it was normal. After deep investigation, it was found that the tires were actually ov…

Read full complaint

Toyota has installed several parts on my 2016 corolla that were previous years' parts. In previous complaints, the tires (under 11,000 miles) started to dry rot. When filing the warranty repair, the dealerships and Toyota tried to claim that it was normal. After deep investigation, it was found that the tires were actually over a YEAR older than the release of the vehicle. The tire warranty started when they were sold to Toyota, not when the car was purchased. They did the same thing on Air intake components for the Air filter system for the car. This is the 3rd issue. Since I purchased the lease in 2016. The car constantly had a check engine light. Typically, it was suggested it was a "gas cap pressure check failure". But at all of the routine inspections and services. Dealerships never did anything but clear the code and keep going. I recently went back in to do a "smoke check" as I was getting tired of the code constantly pulling the check engine light. Now, supposedly, it's the Charcol canister. Ironically enough, Toyota had a recall on those items in 2015. I'm suspecting that this part if from that recall part, as it's been an issue (within service notes) to be checked since 2016 and was never suggested or further deep dive into the issue was never done. Now that the warranty is over, I'm supposed to pay another $800+ for the service parts and labor. Which Toyota should be liable for, as I KEPT taking the care to the dealership for warranty service, yet these checks were never done. When the service is underway, I would suggest sending this part to the NHTSA to investigate the old recalled parts are in fact being installed on newer vehicles. As this would be the 3rd item that was from other older models that mysteriously appeared on my 2016 model corolla.

NHTSA ODI #11536170

Mileage unknown · Jun 29, 2021
Engine

Car began with issues switching gears. It would hesitate to go into gear and once it was finally in gear it began to buck. Currently stationed overseas And brought my car to Toyota multiple times and was told they wouldn’t look at it since it’s an American spec Toyota and not a European. After a week of trying to get it fixed wi…

Read full complaint

Car began with issues switching gears. It would hesitate to go into gear and once it was finally in gear it began to buck. Currently stationed overseas And brought my car to Toyota multiple times and was told they wouldn’t look at it since it’s an American spec Toyota and not a European. After a week of trying to get it fixed with no luck the vehicle began getting worse and wasn’t able to go above 35 miles an hour. Finally the check engine light came on. Brought it into a local mechanic and a P 2820 J code was the issue. After researching online I found that Toyota had a service campaign for the same issues I was having. The problem is with the ECU and the cars solenoid. Currently trying to get it repaired but Toyota will not help since I’m stationed overseas in europe and it’s an American Toyota. Toyota USA has been little to no help with the issue so I have had to stop driving the vehicle since it’s a safety hazard to my family.

NHTSA ODI #11422793

44,092 miles · Feb 12, 2021
EnginePower Train

I DROVE TO TOYOTA ARLINGTON FOR TIRE ROTATION ON 2/4/21 AND THE CAR WAS RUNNING FINE. ODOMETER WAS 44091 MILES. AFTER LEAVING THE DEALERSHIP, I DROVE ABOUT A MILE THEN THE ENGINE LOST POWER. THE CAR COULD ONLY GO ABOUT 5 MPH. THE CAR JERK UP AND DOWN AS IF I DROVE ON THE RAIL ROAD TRACKS. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT, TRAC OFF AND RED…

Read full complaint

I DROVE TO TOYOTA ARLINGTON FOR TIRE ROTATION ON 2/4/21 AND THE CAR WAS RUNNING FINE. ODOMETER WAS 44091 MILES. AFTER LEAVING THE DEALERSHIP, I DROVE ABOUT A MILE THEN THE ENGINE LOST POWER. THE CAR COULD ONLY GO ABOUT 5 MPH. THE CAR JERK UP AND DOWN AS IF I DROVE ON THE RAIL ROAD TRACKS. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT, TRAC OFF AND RED STEERING WHEEL SYMBOL LIT UP BUT NOT FLASHING. I WENT BACK TO THE DEALER RIGHT AWAY. I TURNED THE CAR OFF, THE ATTENDANT TURNED IT BACK ON. THE CHECK ENGINE, TRACK OFF AND STEERING SYMBOLS WERE OFF. THE CODE WAS NOT SAVED, SO ON 2/8/21 THE INDEPENDENT SHOP COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM (44132 MILES). ON 2/12/21 THE SAME SYMPTOMS CAME BACK AT 44175 MILES. THIS TIME THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT FLASHING, TRACK OFF LIGHT AND STEERING WHEEL SYMBOLS CAME ON BUT NOT FLASHING. MY WIFE TURNED THE CAR OFF, WAITED FOR A FEW MINUTES THEN TURNED IT ON. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS OFF BUT THE TRAC OFF LIGHT REMAINED ON. IN THE PAST, AFTER I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND TURNED IT ON ONE CLICK, THE SYMBOLS WERE ON, AND WHEN THE IGNITION TURNED ON, THE SYMBOLS WERE OFF. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. THE CAR ALSO SMELL LIKE A BURNING TIRE. WE WERE DRIVING ABOUT 35 MPH ON LANE NUMBER 1 (NEXT TO YELLOW LINES MEDIAN) ON A COUNTY 4 LANES HIGHWAY. THE CAR SLOWED DOWN TO ABOUT 5 MPH, JERK UP AND DOWN AND THE CAR VIBRATES AND IT HAPPENED TWICE IN A WEEK. THE CAR IS ONLY 4.5 YEARS OLD AND ONLY 44175 MILES. THE SECOND INDEPENDENT SHOP READ THE CODE AS P0301, MISFIRED. HE SUGGESTED TO BRING THE CAR TO THE DEALER FOR TOYOTA TO FIX IT UNDER POWERTRAIN WARRANTY. NO REPAIR HAS BEEN DONE YET.

NHTSA ODI #11395950

115,000 miles · Feb 26, 2020
EngineVehicle Speed Control

ABOUT A YEAR AFTER HAVING MY NEW CAR. IT STARTING SHIFTING HARD OUT OF GEAR WHEN I TOOK IT TO GET MAINTANCE THEY SAID NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH IT. WHEN THE MAINTANCE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. TOOK IT TO A LOCAL MECHANIC SHOP. AND THEY SAID IT MIGHT BE A COMPUTER RELATED. THEY TOLD ME THEY COULD DOBA TRANSMISSION FLUID CHANGE SO I TOOK …

Read full complaint

ABOUT A YEAR AFTER HAVING MY NEW CAR. IT STARTING SHIFTING HARD OUT OF GEAR WHEN I TOOK IT TO GET MAINTANCE THEY SAID NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH IT. WHEN THE MAINTANCE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. TOOK IT TO A LOCAL MECHANIC SHOP. AND THEY SAID IT MIGHT BE A COMPUTER RELATED. THEY TOLD ME THEY COULD DOBA TRANSMISSION FLUID CHANGE SO I TOOK IT TO TOYOTA TO HAVE THE FLUID CHANGE TO SEE IF THAT WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM BUT IT DIDNT HERE RECENTLY LIKE 5 MONTHS AGO IT STARTED TO SHIFT REALLY BAD. AND WOULD KICK BACK LIKE IF IT WAS GOING TO SPEED BUT IT DOESNT MOVE ANY FASTER WONT LET ME GO PASS THE SPEED LIMIT OF 40 WHEN IN REGULAR DRIVE IT RPMS WILL GO UPP REALLY HIGH EVERY TIME IT KICKS BACK. ITS GOTTEN SO BAD I CANT DRIVE IT FAR PLACES CAUSE IT ONLY DRIVES SMOOTH IN 3RD. GEAR I CANT DRIVE IT ON HIGHWAYS CAUSE IT WONT GO UP TO THE SPEED LIMIT IN THE CITY IT RPMS TO HIGH AND THE CAR HAS A JERKY FEELING. I WAS TOLD TOYOTAS LAST A LONG TIME THATS WHY I WENT WITH TOYOTA CAUSE I NEEDED A RELIABLE CAR. BUT EVERYONE I SPOKE WITH HAS TOLD ME IT DOESNT SOUND RIGHT FOR A TOYOTAS TRANSMISION TO GO OUT AT 130000 MIOES THAT THEY ALWAYS LAST AT LEAST 300000 TO 500000 MILES SO I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE RECALLED

NHTSA ODI #11311679

60,000 miles · Jan 23, 2020
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other

WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON A STREET, MY CAR STARTED TO STALL, AND DIE, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES. IT JUST HAPPENED TODAY, I WAS DRIVING ON THE STREET, AND THE ENGINE JUST STOPPED, AND CAR STOPPED RUNNING, I HAD TO PULL OVER AND MAKE SURE IT WAS IN DRIVE, AND START IT UP AGAIN. I ALMOST GOT HIT BY ANOTHER CAR, BECAUSE THE ENGINE STOP…

Read full complaint

WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON A STREET, MY CAR STARTED TO STALL, AND DIE, THIS HAS HAPPENED 3 TIMES. IT JUST HAPPENED TODAY, I WAS DRIVING ON THE STREET, AND THE ENGINE JUST STOPPED, AND CAR STOPPED RUNNING, I HAD TO PULL OVER AND MAKE SURE IT WAS IN DRIVE, AND START IT UP AGAIN. I ALMOST GOT HIT BY ANOTHER CAR, BECAUSE THE ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING. ANOTHER TIME I WAS DRIVING ON THE STREET ABOUT TO GET ON THE FREEWAY, AND THE CAR STALLED, DIED. I CHECKED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS IN DRIVE, ADJUSTED IT AND THEN KEPT GOING. I CALLED THE DEALER TODAY, AND WILL TAKE MY CAR THERE IN MESA, AZ ON SATURDAY TO BE CHECKED. IT SEEMED THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THIS SAME PROBLEM, BUT WITH TOYOTA TACOMAS. I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MY SAFETY! I'M DRIVING, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR JUST STOPS RUNNING AND DIES. THE CAR SHUTS OFF WITHOUT WARNING, AND THERE ARE NO LIGHTS OR MESSAGES INSIDE MY CAR, TO LET ME KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. MY CAR IS ONLY A 2016, WHICH I PURCHASED NEW. I ONLY HAVE A LITTLE OVER 60,000 MILES. THE PROBLEM IS UNKNOWN TO ME.

NHTSA ODI #11301493

3,180 miles · Nov 18, 2019
Engine

MY CAR ONLY HAS 3,200 MILES AND TODAY WHEN I WAS IN A TRAFFIC JAM MY CAR TEMPERATURE BLOW UP AND I HAD TO STOP THE CAR. IT'S PRACTICALLY A NEW CAR WITH A VERY LOW MILES A USAGE. WHAT HAPPENING???

NHTSA ODI #11280924

75,500 miles · Oct 4, 2019
EngineSteering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE, THE CONTACT TURNED THE KEY IN THE IGNITION AND THE VEHICLE MADE AN ABNORMAL NOISE. ALSO, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AND THE POWER STEERING WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE, THE CONTACT TURNED THE KEY IN THE IGNITION AND THE VEHICLE MADE AN ABNORMAL NOISE. ALSO, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN AND THE POWER STEERING WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 75,500.

NHTSA ODI #11266203

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