← 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

What owners actually said

214 reports
Mileage unknown · Apr 21, 2025
StructureUnknown Or Other

At about 40000 miles on about [XXX] I noticed my paint starting to peel and fade from my roof as time passed it went to my hood and trunk faded and clear coat peeling I took my car to Toyota in Brownsville Tx and there was no recall on paint defect on roof but the associate told me they had 2 Toyota Corollas being fix on recall…

Read full complaint

At about 40000 miles on about [XXX] I noticed my paint starting to peel and fade from my roof as time passed it went to my hood and trunk faded and clear coat peeling I took my car to Toyota in Brownsville Tx and there was no recall on paint defect on roof but the associate told me they had 2 Toyota Corollas being fix on recall for same defect as my Red toyota Corolla but those cars are white I don’t understand why my red car with same defect wouldn’t fall under recall I have seen my self a green and blue Corolla on the streets with same issue I have paid my car clear I’m [XXX] can’t afford to paint and car has plenty of years for me but paint is look bad thank u 🙏 hope for a repose or help INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #11655945

43,000 miles · Mar 25, 2025
Power TrainSteering

The contact owns a 2016 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle downshifted with no warning light illuminated. The contact also stated that the steering wheel seized with no warning light illuminated. The contact stated that the steering wheel became difficult to turn. The vehicle wa…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2016 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle downshifted with no warning light illuminated. The contact also stated that the steering wheel seized with no warning light illuminated. The contact stated that the steering wheel became difficult to turn. The vehicle was able to restart. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, where it was diagnosed that the steering module and the transmission had failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The vehicle was taken to the dealer but was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 43,000.

NHTSA ODI #11650547

Mileage unknown · Feb 16, 2025
Service BrakesSteeringSuspension

I recently 6 weeks ago bought a used certified 2016 Toyota Corolla with 43,000 miles. I have been going back and forth with Toyota since the day after I bought it about the many mechanical issues that pose a major safety risk. The car shudders/vibrates when accelerating, knocks when backing up. And when making turns the car shif…

Read full complaint

I recently 6 weeks ago bought a used certified 2016 Toyota Corolla with 43,000 miles. I have been going back and forth with Toyota since the day after I bought it about the many mechanical issues that pose a major safety risk. The car shudders/vibrates when accelerating, knocks when backing up. And when making turns the car shifts hard side to side with a shudder and wobble in floor board of car. It feels as if you don’t have control of the vehicle when driving. It has lots of loose play in the front end and steering really the whole car. It also has a problem going up hill and jumping on fwy a major problem accelerating. They keep telling me car is working per design but this is a lie. I have taken it to 2 other mechanics who told me this car has major issues safety ones to take it back. Toyota fixed the control arms stating that might be what it is but the same problems remain. I am afraid to drive this vehicle and they refuse to figure out the problems and fix them. 2 days after buying it I told them take the car back it has too many mechanical issues they refused. I don’t know what to do I cannot continue driving this car like this and in the rain it could barely handle also. The car has a feeling of loss of control like the whole frame of car is loose. I need help and don’t know what else to do I’ve taken the car back to them about 15 times. They continue to lie and say nothing is wrong even though when I test drove it with the head mechanic. He admitted the car has major issues but told me he did not want to get involved and I would have to take it up with management. I traded in my 2011 suv that was in good working order to buy this smaller car so my daughter could also learn to drive. They should have never sold this vehicle with this many mechanical safety issues please help.

NHTSA ODI #11643020

Mileage unknown · Aug 27, 2024
Unknown Or Other

There are no incidents but it is requiring me to fill this out.

NHTSA ODI #11611058

Mileage unknown · Aug 13, 2024
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

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

Read full complaint

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

NHTSA ODI #11608325

Mileage unknown · Aug 12, 2024
Structure

The roof of my car started peeling. It’s been progressing quickly. Also starting a small little part in the back as well.

NHTSA ODI #11607959

Mileage unknown · Jun 26, 2024
Suspension

I own a 2016 Toyota Corolla with 35000 miles. My extended warranty expired in January 2024. In the the last few months my Toyota developed a “rattle” or noise, primarily on the right side at slow speeds and slow turns. I took the car to a well respected and nearby repair facility for an oil change and had them look at the noi…

Read full complaint

I own a 2016 Toyota Corolla with 35000 miles. My extended warranty expired in January 2024. In the the last few months my Toyota developed a “rattle” or noise, primarily on the right side at slow speeds and slow turns. I took the car to a well respected and nearby repair facility for an oil change and had them look at the noise. They found that the control arm bushings had stress cracks and the sway bar end links and mount bushings were leaking. I had the repairs done. The defective parts are documented with photos in the electronic version of the repair invoice. The noise came back in a day. The next step would be replacing the struts. The repair shop found no visible wear or damage to the struts. I already spent $2400 on repairs. The noise remains. The damage to the parts most likely started long before the warranty expired in January. I found a Technical Service Bulletin describing the repair for this noise issue. The repair described specifies replacing the control arms. I did that in the above described repair. There are many upset consumers complaining in Internet forums about the same problem in 2014-2019 Toyota Corolla’s. I contacted Toyota customer service by email. They told me there was nothing they could do about the problem since the warranty expired 5 years after purchasing the car. I told them I have an 8 year extended warranty. They insisted that there was no 8 year warranty. I offered to send them proof. I have the same problem as shown below. I replaced the control arms and stabilizer bar links. They appeared to be failing. There are many more pages on the internet with the same problem. I reported this to Toyota. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #11596733

Mileage unknown · Jun 10, 2024
SteeringSuspension

A knocking noise is coming from the front of car. Noise correlates with car motion. Worn parts in suspension were replaced by Euro Car Doctor in Costa Mesa. One problem complies with Toyota Technical Service Bulletin. Noise continues. The electronic invoice has photos of worn parts. Euro Car Doctor documents concern. I do no…

Read full complaint

A knocking noise is coming from the front of car. Noise correlates with car motion. Worn parts in suspension were replaced by Euro Car Doctor in Costa Mesa. One problem complies with Toyota Technical Service Bulletin. Noise continues. The electronic invoice has photos of worn parts. Euro Car Doctor documents concern. I do not trust the local Toyota dealer service department to properly inspect the vehicle.

NHTSA ODI #11593343

Mileage unknown · May 22, 2024
EnginePower Train

Unknown

NHTSA ODI #11590200

60,000 miles · Mar 26, 2024
Air BagsCrashInjury

The contact owns a 2016 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle was rear-ended. The contact stated that the air bags did not deploy. The contact stated that the other driver was driving at about 45 MPH when the contact's vehicle was rear-ended. A police report was filed. The…

Read full complaint

The contact owns a 2016 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle was rear-ended. The contact stated that the air bags did not deploy. The contact stated that the other driver was driving at about 45 MPH when the contact's vehicle was rear-ended. A police report was filed. The contact did not seek medical attention at the scene but later went to the hospital where the contact was treated for whiplash. The vehicle was towed to a repair shop, however the vehicle had not been inspected. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 60,000.

NHTSA ODI #11579473

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