UPON ENTERING MY CARPORT, WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD SEVERAL FEET, NEARLY COLLIDING WITH A CONCRETE WALL.MY CONCERN IS: WHEN WILL THIS OCCUR IN STREET TRAFFIC AND CAUSE A FATALITY?
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.
What owners actually said
214 reportsTHIS IS A NEW VEHICLE THERE HAS BEEN MANY TIMES THE BRAKES DELAY BEFORE STOPPING. THIS TIME THE CAR ACCIDENT. I HAD ENOUGH TIME TO BRAKE 4 THE CAR TO DTOP BUT THE BRAKE SCREECH AND WOULD NOT STOP UNTILL COLLISION. IN NOVEMBER THE VEHICLE BROKE DOWN ON THE HIGHWAY, TOYOTA SAID THE VEHICLE SPARK NEEDED CHANGING.
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.
WE BOUGHT A NEW 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA AND HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RODENTS GETTING IN IT. WE READ UP ON IT AND IT IS CAUSED BY THE MATERIALS USED. THE PERSON I SPOKE AT TOYOTA SAID THEY USE PEANUT BASED LUBRICANT. THIS APPARENTLY IS KNOW BY TOYOTA YET THEY CONTINUE TO USE IT. WHAT CAN BE DONE? I AM TIRED OF BEING TOLD NOTHING CAN BE DO…
Read full complaint
WE BOUGHT A NEW 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA AND HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RODENTS GETTING IN IT. WE READ UP ON IT AND IT IS CAUSED BY THE MATERIALS USED. THE PERSON I SPOKE AT TOYOTA SAID THEY USE PEANUT BASED LUBRICANT. THIS APPARENTLY IS KNOW BY TOYOTA YET THEY CONTINUE TO USE IT. WHAT CAN BE DONE? I AM TIRED OF BEING TOLD NOTHING CAN BE DONE.
PROJECTOR LIGHTS CAUSE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BLACK CURTAIN PAINTED ACROSS THE UPPER HALF OF MY WINDSHIELD AND I CANNOT SEE STREET SIGNS. THIS CURTAIN ALSO BOUNCES WHEN GOING UP AND DOWN ANY SLOPE IN THE ROAD AND WHILE GOING DOWN SLOPE THE LIGHT APPEARS TO BE DRIVEN DOWN INTO THE ROAD SURFACE.
I WAS DRIVING OUT OF A PARKING LOT AT 10-15MPH. A CAR WAS WAITING TO TURN AT A STOP SIGN 200 FEET AHEAD. THE ROAD HAD MILD SNOW AND ICE AND WAS ON A 20 DEGREE SLOPE, SO I STEPPED GENTLY ON THE BRAKE. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE CAR. I STEPPED OFF THE BRAKE AND STEPPED DOWN A LITTLE HARDER. THERE WAS MILD RESPONSE. I CONTINUED…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING OUT OF A PARKING LOT AT 10-15MPH. A CAR WAS WAITING TO TURN AT A STOP SIGN 200 FEET AHEAD. THE ROAD HAD MILD SNOW AND ICE AND WAS ON A 20 DEGREE SLOPE, SO I STEPPED GENTLY ON THE BRAKE. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE CAR. I STEPPED OFF THE BRAKE AND STEPPED DOWN A LITTLE HARDER. THERE WAS MILD RESPONSE. I CONTINUED PUSHING ON THE BRAKE, AND WAS ABLE TO PUSH ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLOOR. THE CAR DID NOT STOP. 50 FEET BEFORE COLLISION, I ATTEMPTED TURNING THE WHEEL TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, BUT THE CAR ONLY SHIFTED 3 FEET BEFORE I COLLIDED WITH THE FRONT CAR. 50 MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT, I WAS DRIVING THE SAME CAR HOME AT 25MPH. THE CITY STREET WAS FLAT AND STRAIGHT, AND THERE WAS MILD SNOW AND ICE. A CAR WAS TURNING RIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION 250 FT AHEAD. I WAS WORRIED THIS TIME, AND PRESSED ON THE BRAKE EARLIER AT MODERATE PRESSURE (PEDAL HALF DOWN). IN THE PAST, THAT TYPE OF PRESSURE COULD DECREASE THE CAR FROM 35 TO 10MPH IN 100FT. THIS TIME, THE CAR ONLY DECREASED FROM 25 TO 15MPH IN 245FT. I WAS LUCKY THE DRIVER AHEAD TURNED, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SECOND COLLISION IN ONE DAY. *TR
FUMES OUT OF VENT 15,000 MILES 79 MPH ON INTERSTATE, FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPEN, MAKE MY EYES TEAR UP(MILD PLUS) WENT ON FOR AT LEAST 10 MILES, WAS LOOKING FOR EXIT TO GET OFF. I STOPPED ABOUT 20 MILES FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, CHECKED EXHAUST PIPE, NO BLOCKAGE
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
WHEN DRIVING THIS MODEL, WHICH I OWN, I BELIEVE THE LED LIGHTING MAKES THESE CARS UNSAFE AT NIGHT. WHAT I WILL CALL THE LED HORIZON WHICH FLUCTUATES GREATLY ON HILLY OR UNEVEN ROADS, CAUSES LOSS OF NEEDED VISION. FLUCTUATION IN PAVEMENT REDUCES FORWARD VISION TO AS LITTLE AS A CAR LENGTH GOING DOWNHILL & PUTS IT INTO THE CLOUDS …
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING THIS MODEL, WHICH I OWN, I BELIEVE THE LED LIGHTING MAKES THESE CARS UNSAFE AT NIGHT. WHAT I WILL CALL THE LED HORIZON WHICH FLUCTUATES GREATLY ON HILLY OR UNEVEN ROADS, CAUSES LOSS OF NEEDED VISION. FLUCTUATION IN PAVEMENT REDUCES FORWARD VISION TO AS LITTLE AS A CAR LENGTH GOING DOWNHILL & PUTS IT INTO THE CLOUDS GOING UPHILL. & EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN ON SLIGHTLY UNEVEN ROADS. THE HORIZON IS CAUSED BY TOTAL LACK OF LIGHT - LED LIGHTS DON'T SHADE OR REFLECT GRADUALLY TO DARKNESS, BUT HAVE THAT SUDDEN CUT OFF RESULTING IN A TUNNEL VISION EFFECT. I HAVE TO LIVE WITH & DRIVE IN FOOTHILLS AT NIGHT. I COMPLAINED BY PHONE & EMAIL TO MANUFACTURER. I BROUGHT UP POSSIBLE REWIRING, DIFFERENT BULBS, ANYTHING AT 5000 MILE SERVICE & THAT I'D GLADLY PAY FOR SOME LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT. DEALER HELP SAID "NO ONE ELSE HAS COMPLAINED" & THERE IS NOTHING ALLOWED NOR AVAILABLE TO HELP IMPROVE LIGHTING. MANUFACTURER SAID THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF ANY PROBLEMS. I CITED 2015 COROLLA COMMENTS ON THIS SITE & LATER EMAILED THEM THE IIHS STUDY. SINCE TOYOTA OBVIOUSLY HAS THE PRIUS V LIGHTING FIGURED OUT & THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE I STRONGLY BELIEVE ALL CARS WITH LED NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP TO SAFE STANDARDS. THIS DOESN'T MEAN JUST TOYOTAS, BUT OTHER BRANDS AFFECTED. THE LITTLE CAR IS OUTDRIVING HEADLIGHTS AT 30 MPH. THAT & MAKING ALL NEWER CARS SO LOW THEY SINK INTO WATER PUDDLES TOO EASILY ARE SAFETY PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED INDUSTRY WIDE. I'LL GIVE THE DATE OF 1ST DRIVE, BUT OF COURSE IT IS ONGOING. *TR
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.
Official recalls
120V024000 · 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
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.
Illustration