NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
214 reportsMileage unknown · Mar 10, 2024
Electrical SystemEngineSteeringCrashInjury
I have been driving my car since 2016, however since Nov 24, 2023. Incidents that alarm me have happen. I have filed a police report but don't have the funds to get vehicle swept. All of these events occur while I am driving. Passenger windows goes up in and down a lot. Static in my speakers. Steering wheels lock. somethings dra…
Read full complaint
I have been driving my car since 2016, however since Nov 24, 2023. Incidents that alarm me have happen. I have filed a police report but don't have the funds to get vehicle swept. All of these events occur while I am driving. Passenger windows goes up in and down a lot. Static in my speakers. Steering wheels lock. somethings draining my battery. though I have ensured nothings on or there isn't any short fuses. Doors unlock. Door beeps though someone has had access. Trunk pops open. I am reaching out to NHTSA because my safety is at risk. Is any other Corolla owners reporting this. Please assist me.
NHTSA ODI #11576490
80,000 miles · Mar 6, 2024
Air BagsCrash
The contact's daughter owned a 2016 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the vehicle was stolen, and while being chased by the police, the suspect crashed into a supporting beam located on the expressway. The front end of the vehicle was damaged. The air bags did not deploy. A police report was not filed. The contact was unaw…
Read full complaint
The contact's daughter owned a 2016 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that the vehicle was stolen, and while being chased by the police, the suspect crashed into a supporting beam located on the expressway. The front end of the vehicle was damaged. The air bags did not deploy. A police report was not filed. The contact was unaware of any injuries. The vehicle was towed to a tow lot for the city. The local dealer was contacted. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The vehicle was deemed to be a total loss by the Insurance Provider. The manufacturer was not notified of the failre. The failure mileage was 80,000.
NHTSA ODI #11575853
Mileage unknown · Feb 27, 2024
Air BagsCrashInjury
Airbags did not deploy on time of the accident that I was very injured and hospitalized for 4 days in the iCU
NHTSA ODI #11574147
Mileage unknown · Dec 7, 2023
Unknown Or Other
The car is at very good condition
NHTSA ODI #11559014
Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2023
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemUnknown Or Other
Toyota has installed several parts on my 2016 corolla that were previous years' parts. In previous complaints, the tires (under 11,000 miles) started to dry rot. When filing the warranty repair, the dealerships and Toyota tried to claim that it was normal. After deep investigation, it was found that the tires were actually ov…
Read full complaint
Toyota has installed several parts on my 2016 corolla that were previous years' parts. In previous complaints, the tires (under 11,000 miles) started to dry rot. When filing the warranty repair, the dealerships and Toyota tried to claim that it was normal. After deep investigation, it was found that the tires were actually over a YEAR older than the release of the vehicle. The tire warranty started when they were sold to Toyota, not when the car was purchased. They did the same thing on Air intake components for the Air filter system for the car. This is the 3rd issue. Since I purchased the lease in 2016. The car constantly had a check engine light. Typically, it was suggested it was a "gas cap pressure check failure". But at all of the routine inspections and services. Dealerships never did anything but clear the code and keep going. I recently went back in to do a "smoke check" as I was getting tired of the code constantly pulling the check engine light. Now, supposedly, it's the Charcol canister. Ironically enough, Toyota had a recall on those items in 2015. I'm suspecting that this part if from that recall part, as it's been an issue (within service notes) to be checked since 2016 and was never suggested or further deep dive into the issue was never done. Now that the warranty is over, I'm supposed to pay another $800+ for the service parts and labor. Which Toyota should be liable for, as I KEPT taking the care to the dealership for warranty service, yet these checks were never done. When the service is underway, I would suggest sending this part to the NHTSA to investigate the old recalled parts are in fact being installed on newer vehicles. As this would be the 3rd item that was from other older models that mysteriously appeared on my 2016 model corolla.
NHTSA ODI #11536170
Mileage unknown · Jun 19, 2023
Air BagsElectrical SystemUnknown Or OtherFire
We discovered that there was an explosion of some sort inside the car on the passenger side, which seems to have potentially involve the air bag system and/or electrical around the system, but this is not entirely known. The car was parked at the time and had not been driven for approximately 65 hours. It appears there was a f…
Read full complaint
We discovered that there was an explosion of some sort inside the car on the passenger side, which seems to have potentially involve the air bag system and/or electrical around the system, but this is not entirely known. The car was parked at the time and had not been driven for approximately 65 hours. It appears there was a fire but we did not witness. The dash is melted leaving a gaping hole, what appears to be portions of the air bag are partially disintegrated and stuck to the ceiling, the ceiling is charred, the sun visor is melted and distorted, and hanging down, underneath the dash is also melted, and the smell in the car is absolutely stifling. The windshield is shattered in one spot, with additional cracks stemming from that point of contact. The windshield is damaged from the impact from inside the car and is pushing out. The car was locked, there is no evidence of forced entry or attempted forced entry. It has never been in a collision. The car was parked three feet away from our motorhome in the confines of our RV spot at an asphalt campground. The safety of all in the area was at risk, and furthermore, since this explosion was unprovoked, if we had been in the car at the time, it's unimaginable as to what sort of bodily damage the passengers, especially the passenger seat occupant, would have incurred. I do not believe the problem can be reproduced, but the car has yet to be inspected. I am currently awaiting insurance to take the car via tow truck to inspect it. There were no warnings, messages, or other symptoms.
NHTSA ODI #11527728
Mileage unknown · May 15, 2023
Tires
The tire had a blowout on the inside of the tire close to the inner rim. No road debris has been experienced on the trip on 71 N from Columbus to Cleveland. The blowout occured at around 10 PM Saturday (5/13/2023) A tire should not have an inner wall rupture unless the tire has a defect. This tire only has about 9,000 mille …
Read full complaint
The tire had a blowout on the inside of the tire close to the inner rim. No road debris has been experienced on the trip on 71 N from Columbus to Cleveland. The blowout occured at around 10 PM Saturday (5/13/2023) A tire should not have an inner wall rupture unless the tire has a defect. This tire only has about 9,000 mille of use prior to this situation. Tire Info.Firestone Firehawk 215/45R17 XL91V 50,000 Mile.
NHTSA ODI #11522019
Mileage unknown · Feb 3, 2023
Air BagsElectrical SystemSeat BeltsCrash
12/09/2019, The ECU did not have adequate protection against certain electrical noise that occurred during the collision. Airbags did not deploy in the event of under ride collision, a freak accident involving wildlife crossing the street. Seat belt pretensioners did not engage. I called Allstate insurance that same day. Had I …
Read full complaint
12/09/2019, The ECU did not have adequate protection against certain electrical noise that occurred during the collision. Airbags did not deploy in the event of under ride collision, a freak accident involving wildlife crossing the street. Seat belt pretensioners did not engage. I called Allstate insurance that same day. Had I not worn my seat belt, I might have gone through the windshield. Safety was in danger, and not protected. Meineke informed me the oil housing component, fused onto the component that allows for an oil change because it was made with a plastic material, that is an incorrect material, Oxygen sensor lit up after that finding. Vehicle is not available for inspection upon request. Tyler Law Enforcement might have inspected the vehicle in general. My VIN for my vehicle does not describe the style of my vehicle, which is a 2016 Toyota Carolla Sport, Red.
NHTSA ODI #11505391
Mileage unknown · Jan 10, 2023
SteeringSuspensionCrash
I was exiting a freeway offramp and as I was turning at a speed of approximately 35 mph, I had both hands on the steering wheel and full control, but the actual car wheels disengaged from the steering. The car went in a different direction than the steering wheel and hit a wall. I was able to reverse. But, as I kept driving, the…
Read full complaint
I was exiting a freeway offramp and as I was turning at a speed of approximately 35 mph, I had both hands on the steering wheel and full control, but the actual car wheels disengaged from the steering. The car went in a different direction than the steering wheel and hit a wall. I was able to reverse. But, as I kept driving, the steering wheel was not controlling the car wheels correctly. When I would turn the steering wheel, the car's wheels wouldn't obey.
NHTSA ODI #11501047
74,000 miles · Dec 15, 2022
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
The contact owns a 2016 Toyota. The contact stated that while driving forward into a parking space, the vehicle suddenly experienced unintended acceleration and crashed into a building wall. During the incident, the front end of the vehicle was severely damaged but the air bags did not deploy. The driver sustained a neck injury …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Toyota. The contact stated that while driving forward into a parking space, the vehicle suddenly experienced unintended acceleration and crashed into a building wall. During the incident, the front end of the vehicle was severely damaged but the air bags did not deploy. The driver sustained a neck injury and the front passenger sustained a bruised rib, both required medical treatment. A police report was taken at the scene and the vehicle was towed away. The cause of the failure was not yet determined. The local dealer and manufacturer were notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 74,000.
NHTSA ODI #11497613
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.