← 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

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

22 reports
Clear category filter
116,000 miles · Aug 1, 2018
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

THE CAR FAILED TO ACCELERATE PROPERLY WHEN ENTERING THE HIGHWAY. IT WOULD NOT EXCEED 45 MILES PER HOUR. TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THIS TRANSMISSION PROBLEM AS THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED A SERVICE CAMPAIGN BULLETIN TO ADDRESS THE FAULTY TRANSMISSION. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE SINCE SUSPENDED THE RECALL LEAVING DRIVERS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING T…

Read full complaint

THE CAR FAILED TO ACCELERATE PROPERLY WHEN ENTERING THE HIGHWAY. IT WOULD NOT EXCEED 45 MILES PER HOUR. TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THIS TRANSMISSION PROBLEM AS THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED A SERVICE CAMPAIGN BULLETIN TO ADDRESS THE FAULTY TRANSMISSION. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE SINCE SUSPENDED THE RECALL LEAVING DRIVERS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THIS PROBLEM AT RISK. THE ONLY APPARENT SOLUTION IS TO REPLACE THE TRANSMISSION AT A COST OF $9200 WHICH MAY BE WHY TOYOTA IS HESITATING ON ISSUING A PROPER RECALL. UNFORTUNATELY, I DO NOT HAVE $9200 SO THE CAR REMAINS UNDRIVEABLE.

NHTSA ODI #11115101

Mileage unknown · May 3, 2018
Vehicle Speed Control

PER TOYOTA'S WEBSITE- (SUSPENDED) AND "REMEDY NOT AVAILABLE" SPECIAL SERVICE CAMPAIGN J0D-REMEDY NOTICE CERTAIN 2014-2017 MODEL YEAR COROLLA VEHICLES. THE VEHICLE COULD EXPERIENCE A REDUCTION OF SPEED WHILE BEING DRIVEN BECAUSE THE TRANSMISSION IS RECEIVING AND IMPROPER PROGRAMMING.

NHTSA ODI #11091579

Mileage unknown · Mar 6, 2018
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED UPON DEPRESSING THE BRAKE TO PULL INTO A PARKING SPACE, THE VEHCLE LUNGED FORWARD INTO A GUARD RAIL. *JS

NHTSA ODI #11078128

5,000 miles · Mar 1, 2018
Vehicle Speed Control

TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS WITH THE ACCLERATOR PEDAL DEDEPRESSED, THE ENGINE REVVED BUT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE IN A TIMELY MANNER. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TOYOTA OF YORK (1885 WHITEFORD RD, YORK, PA 17402…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS WITH THE ACCLERATOR PEDAL DEDEPRESSED, THE ENGINE REVVED BUT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE IN A TIMELY MANNER. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO TOYOTA OF YORK (1885 WHITEFORD RD, YORK, PA 17402, (717) 755-2961) WHERE NO DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE CODES WERE FOUND AND THE FAILURE COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT AN ACCELERATION DELAY WAS EXPERIENCED AND THE TRANSMISSION WAS DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN THAT MANNER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL AND PROVIDED CASE NUMBER: 1712081065. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 5,000.

NHTSA ODI #11075610

13,000 miles · Dec 16, 2017
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

I WAS PULLING IN TO PARKING SPACE AT A VERY LOW SPEED. MY CAR STARTED TO ACCELERATE AND LUNGED INTO PARED CAR IN FRONT OF ME. CAUSING DAMAGE TO OTHER CAR AND MINE. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE BUT IT DIDINT STOP THE CAR. A COUPLE IF DAYS BEFORE THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO MY HUSBAND WHEN HE WAS PULLING INTO PARKING PLACE AND CAR ST…

Read full complaint

I WAS PULLING IN TO PARKING SPACE AT A VERY LOW SPEED. MY CAR STARTED TO ACCELERATE AND LUNGED INTO PARED CAR IN FRONT OF ME. CAUSING DAMAGE TO OTHER CAR AND MINE. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE BUT IT DIDINT STOP THE CAR. A COUPLE IF DAYS BEFORE THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO MY HUSBAND WHEN HE WAS PULLING INTO PARKING PLACE AND CAR STARTED TO ACCELERATE AND LUNGED FORWARD. WE GOT BACK THE RESULTS FROM TOYOTA AND THE SAID THEIR WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CAR. THEY WON'T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CAR. WE ARE LEFT WITH A CAR THAT WE ARE TO AFRAID TO DRIVE. WE KNOW THAT IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN BUT JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN.

NHTSA ODI #11055024

15,000 miles · Oct 26, 2017
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

I HAD EASED IN MY PARKING SPACE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED TO EXCELERATE AND LUNGED FORWARD AND HIT THE PARKED CAR IN FRONT OF ME. THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO BUT WATCH HELPLESSLY. IT'S WAS LIKE THE CAR HAD A MIND OF ITS OWN. I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED. I DID PUT MY FOOT ON BRAKE IT DIDINT HELP.IT WAS 10: 15 AM…

Read full complaint

I HAD EASED IN MY PARKING SPACE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAR STARTED TO EXCELERATE AND LUNGED FORWARD AND HIT THE PARKED CAR IN FRONT OF ME. THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO BUT WATCH HELPLESSLY. IT'S WAS LIKE THE CAR HAD A MIND OF ITS OWN. I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED. I DID PUT MY FOOT ON BRAKE IT DIDINT HELP.IT WAS 10: 15 AM. I WAS PRAKING TO PICK UP MY DOG FROM GROOMER. IT WAS ON 10/24/17. IT WAS A CLEAR MILD MORNING.I NOTIFIED OUR INSURANCE TO REPORT DAMAGE TO MY BUMPER AND THE OTHER CARS BUMPER. THEN CALLED TOYOTA DEALER AND TOOK OUR CAR IN TO TOYOGA. THEY GAVE ME A NUMBER TO CALL TO REPORT THIS AND MAKE A CLAIM. NOW WE ARE WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO GO AND INSPECT OUR CAR. MY HUSBAND HAD THE SAME THING HAPPEN TO HIM JUST A FEW DAYS EARILER WHERE CAR EXCELERATED, AND HE HAD TO PUT ON EMERGENCY BRAKE.WE BOTH KNOW IT WAS NOT ANYTHING WE DID BUT IT WAS THE CARS FAULT.VERY SCARED TO EVER GET IN THAT CAR AGAIN.

NHTSA ODI #11039916

15,000 miles · Aug 3, 2017
Vehicle Speed Control

ABOUT ONCE A MONTH FOR THE PAST 3 MONTHS, MY SPEEDOMETER HAS BEEN STUCK AT 0 FOR AT LEAST 15 OR 20 MINUTES OF MY DRIVE. AFTER ABOUT 15 MINUTES, IT SLOWLY STARTS TO INCREASE: IF I'M GOING WHAT I'D ASSUME IS 60 MPH, IT SHOWS AT 40 AND CLIMBING, AND ABOUT 20 MINUTES INTO MY COMMUTE, MY SPEEDOMETER APPEARS TO BE WORKING FINE. THIS O…

Read full complaint

ABOUT ONCE A MONTH FOR THE PAST 3 MONTHS, MY SPEEDOMETER HAS BEEN STUCK AT 0 FOR AT LEAST 15 OR 20 MINUTES OF MY DRIVE. AFTER ABOUT 15 MINUTES, IT SLOWLY STARTS TO INCREASE: IF I'M GOING WHAT I'D ASSUME IS 60 MPH, IT SHOWS AT 40 AND CLIMBING, AND ABOUT 20 MINUTES INTO MY COMMUTE, MY SPEEDOMETER APPEARS TO BE WORKING FINE. THIS ONLY APPEARS TO HAPPEN WHEN THE CAR HAS JUST BEEN STARTED. I TOOK IT TO AN AUTHORIZED TOYOTA DEALER, WHERE I PURCHASED THE CAR ON LEASE, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO REPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THAT MAKES SENSE, AS THIS ONLY HAPPENS ABOUT ONCE PER MONTH. THEY INDICATED THAT THEY CHECKED THE CAR'S COMPUTER AND NO ERROR CODES WERE FOUND, AND THAT THE SYSTEM IS OPERATING AS DESIGNED.

NHTSA ODI #11012703

11,800 miles · Jul 31, 2017
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED, THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN AWAY BY THE CONTACT. THERE WERE ONE INJURY THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED, THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN AWAY BY THE CONTACT. THERE WERE ONE INJURY THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WERE NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 11,800.

NHTSA ODI #11011698

7,463 miles · Feb 21, 2017
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash

WHEN I DROVE MY CAR INTO MY GARAGE, THE CAR ACCELERATED AND SMASHED INTO MY BACK GARAGE WALL (A LOAD BEARING WALL), COMPLETELY DETACHING IT FROM THE TOP AND BOTTOM. I DECIDED TO BACK UP THE CAR A FOOT FOR CLEARANCE FOR ME INTO MY HOUSE, BUT THE CAR THEN ACCELERATED BACKWARDS INTO THE STREET RAMMING INTO MY NEIGHBOR'S VEHICLE. …

Read full complaint

WHEN I DROVE MY CAR INTO MY GARAGE, THE CAR ACCELERATED AND SMASHED INTO MY BACK GARAGE WALL (A LOAD BEARING WALL), COMPLETELY DETACHING IT FROM THE TOP AND BOTTOM. I DECIDED TO BACK UP THE CAR A FOOT FOR CLEARANCE FOR ME INTO MY HOUSE, BUT THE CAR THEN ACCELERATED BACKWARDS INTO THE STREET RAMMING INTO MY NEIGHBOR'S VEHICLE. WHILE MY CAR WAS NOW SMASHED FRONT AND BACK, NONE OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. I PUT THE CAR BACK IN DRIVE TO REMOVE IT FROM MY NEIGHBOR'S CAR AND AGAIN, IT ACCELERATED, RACING DOWN THE STREET AND, ACROSS A BUSY INTERSECTION. I HAD MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND WAS PULLING ON THE EMERGENCY (OR PARKING) BRAKE AND IT FINALLY CAME TO A STOP. THE POLICE WERE CALLED AND CAME BUT SAID SINCE IT WAS ONLY PROPERTY DAMAGE THERE WOULD BE NO REPORT. I SHUT OFF THE IGNITION.

NHTSA ODI #10956108

Mileage unknown · Dec 12, 2016
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL* THE CONTACT RENTED A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE REVERSING IN A PARKING LOT, THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PLACED IN THE DRIVE GEAR, IT BECAME INOPERABLE AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AGAIN. THE CONTACT STRUCK SEVERAL OTHER VEHICLES. A POLICE REPORT WAS FI…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT RENTED A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE REVERSING IN A PARKING LOT, THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS PLACED IN THE DRIVE GEAR, IT BECAME INOPERABLE AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AGAIN. THE CONTACT STRUCK SEVERAL OTHER VEHICLES. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE AND VIN WERE UNKNOWN.

NHTSA ODI #10934827

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