Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
680–25K
3625–50K
2050–75K
1075–100K
4100–150K
1150K+
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
1,721 miles · Sep 6, 2016
Air BagsSeat BeltsStructureCrashInjury
I WAS MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN ON A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY. THE INDIVIDUAL BEHIND ME WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND DID NOT STOP. INSTEAD OF SWERVING TO THE RIGHT TO MISS ME, SHE SWERVED INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE JUST AS I WAS TURNING LEFT. HER GMC 2500 HEAVY DUTY PICK-UP IMPACTED MY CAR AT THE DRIVER DOOR, FRONT PILLAR, FRONT FENDE…
Read full complaint
I WAS MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN ON A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY. THE INDIVIDUAL BEHIND ME WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND DID NOT STOP. INSTEAD OF SWERVING TO THE RIGHT TO MISS ME, SHE SWERVED INTO THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE JUST AS I WAS TURNING LEFT. HER GMC 2500 HEAVY DUTY PICK-UP IMPACTED MY CAR AT THE DRIVER DOOR, FRONT PILLAR, FRONT FENDER.THE IMPACT PUSHED MY CAR OVER 30 FT DOWN THE ROAD BEFORE PUSHING MY CAR APPROXIMATELY 20 FT OFF THE ROAD, UP A SLIGHT HILL. IN THIS IMPACT, NO AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. THE STATE TROOPER AT THE SCENE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER ARE ALL STUNNED BY THIS FACT. IN THIS ACCIDENT MY HEAD HIT THE PILLAR NEXT TO MY DOOR CAUSING ME TO BE KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS, GIVING ME A CONCUSSION AND CAUSING A HEAD LACERATION REQUIRING STAPLES IN MY HEAD. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER SAID THE CARTRIDGE IN THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY DID NOT DEPLOY AND MY COLLAR BONE WAS BROKEN AS WELL. MY CAR WAS GOING ABOUT 5 MILES PER HOUR AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT. I WAS SITTING IN TRAFFIC PRIOR TO MAKING THE LEFT-HAND TURN. IN ADDITION, I DID HAVE A PROGRESSIVE SNAP-SHOT INSTALLED IN THE CAR.
NHTSA ODI #10904241
6,800 miles · Aug 6, 2016
Steering
STEERING WHEEL RECALL. I WAS COMING OUT FROM AN ALLEY TO GET INTO THE MAIN ROAD, THE STEERING WHEEL FROZE, LOCKED UP, OR JAMMED TO THE RIGHT. QUICKLY STEPPED ON THE BRAKE TO AVOID INJURY AND DAMAGE TO THE CAR. HAD TO RESTART ENGINE TO GAIN CONTROL OF CAR. COULD BE FATAL IF THERE WAS ONCOMING CAR OR MERGING ON INTERSTATE.
NHTSA ODI #10893690
3,000 miles · Aug 1, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control
NEW 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA - AROUND THE 3,000 MILE POINT THE SPEEDOMETER FAILED TO SHOW ANY SPEED ON 25-50 MPH NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJOINING ROUTE, ALTHOUGH THE CAR DROVE AT SOME NON-INDICATED SPEED FOR 5 MILES. SPEEDOMETER STARTED WORKING BUT WHEN LEFT AT DEALER TO DIAGNOSE PROBLEM, HAPPENED AGAIN. DEALER REPLACED THE "CLUSTER" COMPO…
Read full complaint
NEW 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA - AROUND THE 3,000 MILE POINT THE SPEEDOMETER FAILED TO SHOW ANY SPEED ON 25-50 MPH NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJOINING ROUTE, ALTHOUGH THE CAR DROVE AT SOME NON-INDICATED SPEED FOR 5 MILES. SPEEDOMETER STARTED WORKING BUT WHEN LEFT AT DEALER TO DIAGNOSE PROBLEM, HAPPENED AGAIN. DEALER REPLACED THE "CLUSTER" COMPONENT CONTAINING SPEEDOMETER.
NHTSA ODI #10892035
100 miles · Jun 23, 2016
Visibility/wiper
FRONT AND REAR WINDSHIELDS BOTH DISTORTED/DEFECTIVE. LIKE LOOKING THROUGH FUNHOUSE MIRROR GLASS. THE FRONT MAKES THINGS CLOSER AND LARGER AND VERY WAVY FROM MY VISUAL PERSPECTIVE STARTING AT ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE WINDSHIELD AND CONTINUING TO THE RIGHT (TO THE PASSENGER SIDE). IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MAKES IT AP…
Read full complaint
FRONT AND REAR WINDSHIELDS BOTH DISTORTED/DEFECTIVE. LIKE LOOKING THROUGH FUNHOUSE MIRROR GLASS. THE FRONT MAKES THINGS CLOSER AND LARGER AND VERY WAVY FROM MY VISUAL PERSPECTIVE STARTING AT ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE WINDSHIELD AND CONTINUING TO THE RIGHT (TO THE PASSENGER SIDE). IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MAKES IT APPEAR THAT LARGE TRUCKS OR GUARDRAILS ARE COMING AT YOU CLOSER THAN THEY ARE. ONE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO TRY TO COMPENSATE WHILE DRIVING FOR AN "OPTICAL ILLUSION" AS I WAS TOLD BY THE SERVICE MANAGER WHO SAW THE DEFECT IN MY GLASS AND SAID THAT "HOPEFULLY I WOULD ADJUST". WHEN DRIVING, ONE NEEDS TO FOCUS ON DRIVING, NOT HAVING TO TELL THEMSELVES THAT THEY SHOULD NOT SWERVE BECAUSE SOMETHING IS REALLY NOT THAT CLOSE. IT IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN IN ANY OF MY 26 YEARS OF DRIVING (OR IN EITHER OF THE OTHER 2 COROLLAS THAT I HAVE OWNED). THE REAR WINDSHIELD IS COMPLETELY BLURRY AND DISTORTED ESPECIALLY BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE DEFROSTER. IT GIVES A FUZZY,NAUSEATING EFFECT WHEN GOING FROM LOOKING IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR TO LOOKING FORWARD AGAIN. (IT IS ALMOST LIKE LOOKING AT HEAT SHIMMERING OFF A VERY HOT SURFACE OF A ROAD BUT PERMANENTLY BUILT INTO MY REAR WINDOW.) THE FRONT WINDSHIELD ISSUE IS FAR WORSE WHEN DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND THINGS ARE MOVING QUICKLY. HAVE BROUGHT IT TO 2 TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS AND CONTACTED TMC AND STILL TRYING TO GET ISSUE RESOLVED. 2ND DEALERSHIP SAID THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE DEFECTS IN SOME OF THEIR OTHER NEW WINDOW GLASS THEY WILL NOT REPLACE MINE ALTHOUGH THEY DO SEE IT AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT. THEY SAID TO REPLACE WOULD BE PUTTING IN THE SAME GLASS. A WINDSHIELD REPAIR SERVICE TOLD ME THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE AND THAT I SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING AROUND WITH GLASS LIKE THIS!
NHTSA ODI #10876073
100 miles · Jun 10, 2016
Exterior Lighting
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS DID NOT ILLUMINATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED, BUT THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE WAS UNDETERMINED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100.
NHTSA ODI #10873720
30,000 miles · Jun 4, 2016
Exterior Lighting
I WAS BLINDED BY THE HEADLIGHTS OF A TOYOTA COROLLA. IT ALMOST LED TO AN ACCIDENT WITH A PEDESTRIAN. PLEASE LOOK INTO ALL 2015+ TOYOTA COROLLAS WITH THE HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE LIGHTS SEEM TO BE AIMED HIGHER THAN NORMAL OR HAVE IMPROPER LENSES. WHEN APPROACHING THEY BLIND ONCOMING DRIVERS. THESE ECONOMY CARS ARE VERY COMMON AND…
Read full complaint
I WAS BLINDED BY THE HEADLIGHTS OF A TOYOTA COROLLA. IT ALMOST LED TO AN ACCIDENT WITH A PEDESTRIAN. PLEASE LOOK INTO ALL 2015+ TOYOTA COROLLAS WITH THE HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE LIGHTS SEEM TO BE AIMED HIGHER THAN NORMAL OR HAVE IMPROPER LENSES. WHEN APPROACHING THEY BLIND ONCOMING DRIVERS. THESE ECONOMY CARS ARE VERY COMMON AND PROBLEM IS BECOMING WORSE AS TOYOTA DID NOT RECALL THEM.
NHTSA ODI #10872534
1,397 miles · Jun 2, 2016
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS STATIONARY, THE WINDSHIELD CHIPPED AND CRACKED 20 INCHES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WINDSHIELD FROM THE DRIVER TO THE PASSENGER SIDES OF THE VEHICLE. THE EDGES OF THE WINDSHIELD WERE NOT LAMINATED WITH EDGE PROTECTION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MAN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS STATIONARY, THE WINDSHIELD CHIPPED AND CRACKED 20 INCHES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WINDSHIELD FROM THE DRIVER TO THE PASSENGER SIDES OF THE VEHICLE. THE EDGES OF THE WINDSHIELD WERE NOT LAMINATED WITH EDGE PROTECTION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,397.
NHTSA ODI #10872195
Mileage unknown · May 20, 2016
Seat BeltsSeats
REFERENCE: NHTSA ID NUMBER: 10865853. ADDITIONAL INFO - SNAPSHOT ATTACHED. UNABLE TO UPLOAD AUDIO FILE (AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST) THIS IS ABOUT "SQUEAKING/CREAKING" NOISE THAT EMANATES FROM BOTH FRONT SEAT BELTS SINCE PURCHASE OCT 2015. THE EVENT OCCURS WHEN DRIVER ACCELERATES, DECELERATES, GOES OVER SPEED BUMPS OR UNEVEN ROADS. …
Read full complaint
REFERENCE: NHTSA ID NUMBER: 10865853. ADDITIONAL INFO - SNAPSHOT ATTACHED. UNABLE TO UPLOAD AUDIO FILE (AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST) THIS IS ABOUT "SQUEAKING/CREAKING" NOISE THAT EMANATES FROM BOTH FRONT SEAT BELTS SINCE PURCHASE OCT 2015. THE EVENT OCCURS WHEN DRIVER ACCELERATES, DECELERATES, GOES OVER SPEED BUMPS OR UNEVEN ROADS. THE ISSUE DID NOT GO AWAY AFTER DRIVER SEAT WAS MOVED BACK AND FORTH TO ENSURE PROPER ENGAGEMENT IN SEAT TRACK.(NOTE - THIS VEHICLE TRIM HAS MANUAL SEAT ADJUSTMENT). THE CREAKING SOUNDS IS AS IF A BOLTED JOINT HAS COME LOOSE. OTHER DRIVERS HAVE REPORTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DUE TO THE SEAT BELT BOLT STRIPPING LOOSE. THE ISSUE IS MORE PRONOUNCED IN COLD WEATHER. THE "SQUEAKING" GOES AWAY WHEN THE SEAT BELT IS UNBUCKLED. THE "SQUEAKING/CREAKING" RESUMES WHEN THE BELT IS BRACED TIGHT AGAINST DRIVER AND VEHICLE ACCELERATES OR DECELERATES, OR GOES OVER UNEVEN ROAD OR BUMPS. THESE DB LEVELS ON THESE SQUEAKS HAVE INCREASED WHERE EVERYONE SEATED IN THE CAR CAN NOW HEAR IT. THE INCIDENTS ARE STILL SPORADIC.
NHTSA ODI #10870083
2,000 miles · May 19, 2016
Seat BeltsSeats
I AM REPORTING AN ISSUE ON SPORADIC "SQUEAKING" NOISE THAT COMES FROM BOTH FRONT SEAT BELTS SINCE PURCHASE OCT 2015. THE EVENT OCCURS WHEN DRIVER ACCELERATES OR DECELERATES OR GOES OVER SPEED BUMPS OR UNEVEN ROADS. THE ISSUE DOES NOT GO AWAY DESPITE MOVING THE SEATS BACK AND FORTH TO ENSURE PROPER ENGAGEMENT. (SEAT ADJUSTMENT IS…
Read full complaint
I AM REPORTING AN ISSUE ON SPORADIC "SQUEAKING" NOISE THAT COMES FROM BOTH FRONT SEAT BELTS SINCE PURCHASE OCT 2015. THE EVENT OCCURS WHEN DRIVER ACCELERATES OR DECELERATES OR GOES OVER SPEED BUMPS OR UNEVEN ROADS. THE ISSUE DOES NOT GO AWAY DESPITE MOVING THE SEATS BACK AND FORTH TO ENSURE PROPER ENGAGEMENT. (SEAT ADJUSTMENT IS MANUAL). THE ISSUE IS MORE PRONOUNCED IN COLD WEATHERS. THE "SQUEAK" EVENT STOPS WHEN THE SEAT BELT IS UNBUCKLED. THE ISSUE OCCURS WHEN THE BELT IS BRACED AGAINST DRIVER WHEN HAPPENS DURING ACCELERATION OR DECELERATION AND GOING OVER UNEVEN ROAD OR BUMPS. THESE SQUEAK ARE NOW LOUDER THAN AFTER PURCHASE AND MORE ANNOYING EVEN THOUGH THE SQUEAKS COME ON SPORADICALLY.
NHTSA ODI #10865853
Mileage unknown · Mar 31, 2016
Exterior Lighting
IN THE LAST 5 DAYS, I HAVE SEEN AT LEAST 4 TOYOTA COROLLA'S WITH LED HEADLIGHTS ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT WITHOUT THEIR TAILLIGHTS ON. I BELIEVE THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE LED HEADLIGHT OPTION RUNS ALL DAY LONG, SO PEOPLE ASSUME THEIR LIGHTS ARE AUTOMATIC? THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AS SOMEONE ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT CANNOT SEE …
Read full complaint
IN THE LAST 5 DAYS, I HAVE SEEN AT LEAST 4 TOYOTA COROLLA'S WITH LED HEADLIGHTS ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT WITHOUT THEIR TAILLIGHTS ON. I BELIEVE THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE LED HEADLIGHT OPTION RUNS ALL DAY LONG, SO PEOPLE ASSUME THEIR LIGHTS ARE AUTOMATIC? THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AS SOMEONE ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT CANNOT SEE THESE TOYOTA COROLLA'S IN FRONT OF THEM WHEN THE TAILLIGHTS ARE OFF. IN TOTAL, I HAVE PROBABLY SEEN AT LEAST 40+ COROLLA'S WITHOUT THEIR LIGHTS ACTUALLY TURNED ON, BUT THE HEADLIGHTS ALWAYS SHINE. I TRY TO FLASH MY LIGHTS AT THE DRIVERS TO SIGNAL THE PROBLEM, BUT FEW REALIZE THE ISSUE SINCE THEY ARE UNAWARE THEIR LIGHTS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATED.
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.