NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
22 reportsClear category filterMileage 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
74,000 miles · Dec 15, 2022
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
The contact owns a 2016 Toyota. The contact stated that while driving forward into a parking space, the vehicle suddenly experienced unintended acceleration and crashed into a building wall. During the incident, the front end of the vehicle was severely damaged but the air bags did not deploy. The driver sustained a neck injury …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Toyota. The contact stated that while driving forward into a parking space, the vehicle suddenly experienced unintended acceleration and crashed into a building wall. During the incident, the front end of the vehicle was severely damaged but the air bags did not deploy. The driver sustained a neck injury and the front passenger sustained a bruised rib, both required medical treatment. A police report was taken at the scene and the vehicle was towed away. The cause of the failure was not yet determined. The local dealer and manufacturer were notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 74,000.
NHTSA ODI #11497613
54,000 miles · May 29, 2020
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL UPON APPROACHING A STOP SIGN; THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT SWERVED THE VEHICLE TO THE RIGHT TO AVOID HITTING ANOTHER VEHICLE AND HIT A POLE. DESPITE HITTING THE POLE, THE VEHICLE CONT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL UPON APPROACHING A STOP SIGN; THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT SWERVED THE VEHICLE TO THE RIGHT TO AVOID HITTING ANOTHER VEHICLE AND HIT A POLE. DESPITE HITTING THE POLE, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE AND HIT ANOTHER POLE, WHICH FINALLY CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO HALT. THE DRIVER'S FRONTAL AIR BAG AS WELL AS THE KNEE AIR BAG DEPLOYED UPON IMPACT WITH THE FIRST POLE. THE CONTACT SUFFERED SORENESS THROUGHOUT HER BODY AND HAD A MINOR CUT ON HER LIP, LEFT INDEX FINGER, AND RIGHT KNEE CAP. THE CONTACT DID NOT SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR HER INJURIES. THE POLICE WERE CALLED AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE BELIEVES THE VEHICLE SHALL BE DEEMED TOTAL LOSS HOWEVER, WAS AWAITING INSPECTION BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. THE VEHICLE WAS INITIALLY TOWED TO A TOW YARD. A FEW DAYS LATER, THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT REMAINED IN THEIR POSSESSION. THE DEALER NOR THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 54,000. *LN CONSUMER STATED RIGHT COMPARTMENT CORNER OF AIRBAG CUT HER KNEES.*JB
NHTSA ODI #11326505
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
600 miles · Jan 24, 2020
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE REVERSING OUT OF A PARKING LOT, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO STOP. THE CONTACT PLACED THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL WHICH FAILED TO ENGAGE CAUSING THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO A POST. NO AIRBAG DEPLOYED. NO MEDIC…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE REVERSING OUT OF A PARKING LOT, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO STOP. THE CONTACT PLACED THE VEHICLE IN NEUTRAL WHICH FAILED TO ENGAGE CAUSING THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO A POST. NO AIRBAG DEPLOYED. NO MEDICAL ATTENTION WAS CONTACTED. NO POLICE REPORT WAS MADE AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER INFINITI OF LAS VEGAS (5555 W SAHARA AVE, LAS VEGAS, NV 89146 (702) 829-5975) WHERE IT WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE A FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TEST DROVE AND STILL UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE ISSUE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND AN INVESTIGATION WAS STARTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATION 600.
NHTSA ODI #11301700
Mileage unknown · Jan 10, 2020
StructureVehicle Speed Control
THE DASH INSIDE THE CAR IS MAKING A RATTLE NOISE AND SUDDENLY THE CAR LOOSES POWER.
NHTSA ODI #11298439
80,000 miles · Nov 13, 2019
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
2016 TOYOTA COROLLA, 80,000 MILES. I'M DRIVING UP A HILL TOWARDS THE FREEWAY AND MY CAR SLOWS AND COMES TO A STOP. I TRY TO TURN THE CAR ON AND IT WON'T TURN ON. GET IT TOWED TO A MECHANIC AND THEY SAY THE TRANSMISSION FAILED AND IT'LL BE $8,000 TO REPAIR. THIS TRANSMISSION FAILURE CAME OUT OF THE BLUE AND MY CAR ISN'T EVEN COVE…
Read full complaint
2016 TOYOTA COROLLA, 80,000 MILES. I'M DRIVING UP A HILL TOWARDS THE FREEWAY AND MY CAR SLOWS AND COMES TO A STOP. I TRY TO TURN THE CAR ON AND IT WON'T TURN ON. GET IT TOWED TO A MECHANIC AND THEY SAY THE TRANSMISSION FAILED AND IT'LL BE $8,000 TO REPAIR. THIS TRANSMISSION FAILURE CAME OUT OF THE BLUE AND MY CAR ISN'T EVEN COVERED FOR IT BECAUSE MY WARRANTY EXPIRED AT 75,000 MILES. CONTACTED TOYOTA USA AND THEY SAID MY CAR ISN'T COVERED UNDER THE CVT RECALL OF CERTAIN 2014-2017 COROLLAS SO I'M LEFT WITH THIS MYSTERIOUS TRANSMISSION DEFECT WHICH PUT ME IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION AS I WAS TRYING TO HEAD ONTO THE FREEWAY!
NHTSA ODI #11279914
8,330 miles · Jul 29, 2019
Vehicle Speed Control
MY WIFE WAS PULLING AROUND OUR CUL-DU-SAC TO GO TO THE STORE, WHEN HER 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA SPORT ACCELERATED OUT-OF-CONTROL. SHE WAS ABLE TO GET IT BACK TO OUR DRIVEWAY AND INTO THE GARAGE BY PUTTING HEAVY PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE. THE ENGINE WAS CONTINUING TO REV AT A VERY HIGH SPEED. HAVE CALL INTO TOYOTA DEALER, BUT DO WANT T…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE WAS PULLING AROUND OUR CUL-DU-SAC TO GO TO THE STORE, WHEN HER 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA SPORT ACCELERATED OUT-OF-CONTROL. SHE WAS ABLE TO GET IT BACK TO OUR DRIVEWAY AND INTO THE GARAGE BY PUTTING HEAVY PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE. THE ENGINE WAS CONTINUING TO REV AT A VERY HIGH SPEED. HAVE CALL INTO TOYOTA DEALER, BUT DO WANT TO DRIVE IT FOR SAFETY REASONS. I JUS STARTED IT IN PARK, AND IT IMMEDIATELY REVVED TO OVER 4000 RPM.
NHTSA ODI #11240397
54,500 miles · Mar 17, 2019
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
SUDDEN LOST IN SPEED WEATHER IT'S TO SLOW DOWN OR AFTER COMING TO A STOP HAPPENS INFREQUENTLY USUALLY HAVING ME TO PULL OVER TURNING OF CAR AND TURNING BACK ON TO CORRECT THE ISSUE. MAJOR CONCERNS ARE WHEN ON THE HIGHWAY WITH TRAFFIC GOING ANYWARE FROM 45 TO 75 MILES PER HOUR HAVING THE CAR LOOSE SPEED TO LESS THAN 15MPH IS A RE…
Read full complaint
SUDDEN LOST IN SPEED WEATHER IT'S TO SLOW DOWN OR AFTER COMING TO A STOP HAPPENS INFREQUENTLY USUALLY HAVING ME TO PULL OVER TURNING OF CAR AND TURNING BACK ON TO CORRECT THE ISSUE. MAJOR CONCERNS ARE WHEN ON THE HIGHWAY WITH TRAFFIC GOING ANYWARE FROM 45 TO 75 MILES PER HOUR HAVING THE CAR LOOSE SPEED TO LESS THAN 15MPH IS A REAL DANGER
NHTSA ODI #11187404
2,368 miles · Dec 7, 2018
Service BrakesVehicle Speed Control
I WAS DRIVING ON A CITY STREET AT 15 MPH AND WHEN MY FOOT PRESSED THE BRAKE (FOR 2 SECONDS), THE ENGINE REVVED AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED FOR A COUPLE OF SECONDS BEFORE BRAKING FULLY.
NHTSA ODI #11156891
NHTSA investigations
2EA21002 · 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.