← 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

Structure complaints

15 reports
Clear category filter
45 miles · Aug 15, 2018
Air BagsService BrakesStructureCrashInjury

ON 08/07/2018, I WAS IN A CAR (2016 TOYOTA COROLLA) ACCIDENT WHERE ANOTHER CAR SLAMMED ME IN THE REAR AND I'VE HIT A CHEVY PICKUP IN THE BACK. THE PICK-UP WAS COMING TO A STOP WHICH I WAS SLOWING DOWN AS WELL AND I'M ASSUMING THE CAR THAT WAS BEHIND DID NOT PAID ATTENTION. THEREFORE, HE HIT ME BETWEEN 45-50 MPH IN THE BACK WH…

Read full complaint

ON 08/07/2018, I WAS IN A CAR (2016 TOYOTA COROLLA) ACCIDENT WHERE ANOTHER CAR SLAMMED ME IN THE REAR AND I'VE HIT A CHEVY PICKUP IN THE BACK. THE PICK-UP WAS COMING TO A STOP WHICH I WAS SLOWING DOWN AS WELL AND I'M ASSUMING THE CAR THAT WAS BEHIND DID NOT PAID ATTENTION. THEREFORE, HE HIT ME BETWEEN 45-50 MPH IN THE BACK WHICH I'VE HIT THE TRUCK ABRUPTLY AT 30-35MPH. MY AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY WHICH IS VERY SHOCKING AND MY SHOULDER ALONG WITH MY ARM SLAMMED INTO THE STEERING WHEEL. ALSO, I HAD A HARD TIME WITH MY BRAKES BECAUSE IT FELT LIKE IT WAS STUCK AND WOULDN'T GO DOWN AS I WAS PRESSING ON IT. I'M SUFFERING FROM INTENSE RIGHT LEG PAIN AS IF I'VE TORN THE MUSCLE BUT 10X'S WORST. EVER SINCE THE ACCIDENT, MY LEG HAS BEEN GOING NUMB QUITE FREQUENTLY WHICH GOES INTO MY TOES. I'M WALKING WITH A LIMP AND MY SHOULDER HAS SHARP PAIN AS WELL. I'M STARTING TO THINK THAT MY AIRBAGS WERE DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE DEPLOY AS SOON AS THE IMPACT OCCURRED BUT IT DIDN'T...

NHTSA ODI #11120041

Mileage unknown · Aug 30, 2017
Structure

THE WINDOWS ARE NOT AIRTIGHT, I HEAR THE WIND AS I DRIVE MY CAR DOWN THE INTERSTATE WHICH I CONSIDER A DISTRACTION. ON THE PASSENGER SIDE WHERE THE DASHBOARD MEETS THE WINDSHIELD, THERE IS A STRIP OF A STYROFOAM TYPE OF MATERIAL SHOWING. IT APPEARS IT IS COMING OUT OF THE DASHBOARD IT IS APPROXIMATELY 2-4" LONG ALONG THE DASHB…

Read full complaint

THE WINDOWS ARE NOT AIRTIGHT, I HEAR THE WIND AS I DRIVE MY CAR DOWN THE INTERSTATE WHICH I CONSIDER A DISTRACTION. ON THE PASSENGER SIDE WHERE THE DASHBOARD MEETS THE WINDSHIELD, THERE IS A STRIP OF A STYROFOAM TYPE OF MATERIAL SHOWING. IT APPEARS IT IS COMING OUT OF THE DASHBOARD IT IS APPROXIMATELY 2-4" LONG ALONG THE DASHBOARD.

NHTSA ODI #11020693

8,700 miles · Jun 25, 2017
Structure

DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 75MPH WHEN HEARD A LOUD EXPLOSION-LIKE NOISE. IT TOOK A MOMENT TO REALIZE THAT MY SUNROOF HAD EXPLODED AND I WAS NOW SITTING IN A POOL OF GLASS SHARDS. I QUICKLY CLOSED THE GLASS COVERING AND GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY TO VACUUM THE INTERIOR. THERE WERE NO OBVIOUS FLYING BITS OF GRAVEL OR ROCKS OB…

Read full complaint

DRIVING ON HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 75MPH WHEN HEARD A LOUD EXPLOSION-LIKE NOISE. IT TOOK A MOMENT TO REALIZE THAT MY SUNROOF HAD EXPLODED AND I WAS NOW SITTING IN A POOL OF GLASS SHARDS. I QUICKLY CLOSED THE GLASS COVERING AND GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY TO VACUUM THE INTERIOR. THERE WERE NO OBVIOUS FLYING BITS OF GRAVEL OR ROCKS OBSERVED. THE WEATHER WAS ABOUT 85DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. THERE WERE NO CARS IN FRONT OF ME, JUST ONE VEHICLE QUITE A DISTANCE BEHIND ME.

NHTSA ODI #11001209

Mileage unknown · Dec 18, 2016
StructureVisibility

MY HUSBAND AND I WERE DRIVING HOME FROM A CONCERT AT 10:30 PM ON THE 110 FREEWAY IN SAN PEDRO, CA WHEN WE HEARD A LOUD CRASH ON THE ROOF OF THE CAR. WE HADN'T JUST DRIVEN UNDER AN OVERPASS. THERE WAS NO DEBRIS BEHIND US. NO ONE WAS SWERVING OUT OF THE WAY TO AVOID ANYTHING. NO ONE WHO DROVE PASSED US REACTED AT ALL. WE COUL…

Read full complaint

MY HUSBAND AND I WERE DRIVING HOME FROM A CONCERT AT 10:30 PM ON THE 110 FREEWAY IN SAN PEDRO, CA WHEN WE HEARD A LOUD CRASH ON THE ROOF OF THE CAR. WE HADN'T JUST DRIVEN UNDER AN OVERPASS. THERE WAS NO DEBRIS BEHIND US. NO ONE WAS SWERVING OUT OF THE WAY TO AVOID ANYTHING. NO ONE WHO DROVE PASSED US REACTED AT ALL. WE COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT HAD HIT US AND KEPT HEARING GLASS MOVING AROUND. AT ONE POINT MY HUSBAND OPENED THE SUNROOF SLIGHTLY AND SAW A GAPING HOLE IN THE GLASS ALONG WITH GLASS SHARDS THAT STARTED FALLING INTO THE CAR. WHEN WE GOT HOME I LOOKED UP "EXPLODING SUN ROOFS" AND FOUND THAT SPONTANEOUS EXPLOSION WAS NOT UNCOMMON AND THERE IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT FORMING AND PEOPLE REPORTED THEIR EXPERIENCES TO YOU. THE CAR HAD BEEN PARKED OUTSIDE FOR ABOUT 2 1/2 HOURS. THE TEMP WAS 49 DEGREES. THIS IS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. NO ICE. NO SNOW. NOT THAT COLD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10936072

1,721 miles · Sep 6, 2016
Air BagsSeat BeltsStructureCrashInjury

I WAS MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN ON A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY. THE INDIVIDUAL BEHIND ME WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND DID NOT STOP. INSTEAD OF SWERVING TO THE RIGHT TO MISS ME, SHE SWERVED INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE JUST AS I WAS TURNING LEFT. HER GMC 2500 HEAVY DUTY PICK-UP IMPACTED MY CAR AT THE DRIVER DOOR, FRONT PILLAR, FRONT FENDE…

Read full complaint

I WAS MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN ON A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY. THE INDIVIDUAL BEHIND ME WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND DID NOT STOP. INSTEAD OF SWERVING TO THE RIGHT TO MISS ME, SHE SWERVED INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE JUST AS I WAS TURNING LEFT. HER GMC 2500 HEAVY DUTY PICK-UP IMPACTED MY CAR AT THE DRIVER DOOR, FRONT PILLAR, FRONT FENDER.THE IMPACT PUSHED MY CAR OVER 30 FT DOWN THE ROAD BEFORE PUSHING MY CAR APPROXIMATELY 20 FT OFF THE ROAD, UP A SLIGHT HILL. IN THIS IMPACT, NO AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. THE STATE TROOPER AT THE SCENE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER ARE ALL STUNNED BY THIS FACT. IN THIS ACCIDENT MY HEAD HIT THE PILLAR NEXT TO MY DOOR CAUSING ME TO BE KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS, GIVING ME A CONCUSSION AND CAUSING A HEAD LACERATION REQUIRING STAPLES IN MY HEAD. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER SAID THE CARTRIDGE IN THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY DID NOT DEPLOY AND MY COLLAR BONE WAS BROKEN AS WELL. MY CAR WAS GOING ABOUT 5 MILES PER HOUR AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT. I WAS SITTING IN TRAFFIC PRIOR TO MAKING THE LEFT-HAND TURN. IN ADDITION, I DID HAVE A PROGRESSIVE SNAP-SHOT INSTALLED IN THE CAR.

NHTSA ODI #10904241

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