I was hit yesterday and my airbags didn't deploy. WHY???
2017 Toyota Corolla
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2017 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
107 reports with mileage · 71 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 54 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 25 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Air Bags complaints
54 reportsThree car accident. Driver 3 was at stop light (red) driver 2 (myself) was directly behind him (stopped). Driver 1 and at high speed hit me from behind. Airbags didn’t deploy. Causing injury to me and my passenger.
I was driving southbound on a main road when a car pulled out right Infront of me. This caused me to hit the left side of his car between the front and back door (Nissan Sedan) with the front right of my car. I hit his car at roughly 45mph. My car (Toyota Corolla) did not deploy any airbags. His car almost all the airbags went o…
Read full complaint
I was driving southbound on a main road when a car pulled out right Infront of me. This caused me to hit the left side of his car between the front and back door (Nissan Sedan) with the front right of my car. I hit his car at roughly 45mph. My car (Toyota Corolla) did not deploy any airbags. His car almost all the airbags went off. My car was totaled. The front right wheel was completely ripped apart, the fluids from around the engine all spilled out, and the front right door does not open. There is a police report filed and the accident is filed with my insurance (Progressive). The car was inspected by insurance just to determine if it is totaled and the value it's worth. There were never any warnings from my car and the car was regularly maintained. I believe my safety was at risk by the airbags not going off. I hit my face on the steering wheel causing injury to my jaw.
I got into a car accident on August 30, 2022. The airbags didn't go off. All of the airbags didn't go off when the accident happened. I have already filed a complaint against Toyota. They are looking into it.
The contact owned a 2017 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while stopped at a red light when the vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle which then caused him to crash into the vehicle in front. The contact stated that the other driver was driving approximately 70-80 MPH. The contact stated that no air bags were deployed…
Read full complaint
The contact owned a 2017 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while stopped at a red light when the vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle which then caused him to crash into the vehicle in front. The contact stated that the other driver was driving approximately 70-80 MPH. The contact stated that no air bags were deployed in his vehicle and was concerned due to having 4 child occupants in the vehicle during the failure. The contact stated that he sustained back, head, and neck injuries and was seen at the hospital a couple of days later. The contact stated that the other driver was seen with a bloody nose before she fled the scene. The contact stated that the front vehicle driver was not injured. A police report was filed. The vehicle was towed to a tow lot and deemed a total loss by the insurance company. The dealer or the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 65,000.
The contact owned a 2017 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving at 40-45 MPH, she saw an object on the road. The contact stated that as she was trying to swerve to the right to avoid the sharp object, the vehicle drove over the sharp object. The sharp object pierced the tires and the subframe. The vehicle hit the curb …
Read full complaint
The contact owned a 2017 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving at 40-45 MPH, she saw an object on the road. The contact stated that as she was trying to swerve to the right to avoid the sharp object, the vehicle drove over the sharp object. The sharp object pierced the tires and the subframe. The vehicle hit the curb and bounced back into the road. The was an unknown fluid leaking. The air bags did not deploy. The contact sustained back injuries. The contact did not seek medical assistance. The vehicle was towed to a tow lot where it was totaled. There was no further information provided. The dealer and the manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 20,300.
This vehicle when it's impacted there's really no help or assistance to get the vehicle removed off your property on the vehicle is a hazard it really needs to be retested and there needs to be someone to know that it's not safe for children and being this vehicle a lot of times it's kids slides and it doesn't have the front par…
Read full complaint
This vehicle when it's impacted there's really no help or assistance to get the vehicle removed off your property on the vehicle is a hazard it really needs to be retested and there needs to be someone to know that it's not safe for children and being this vehicle a lot of times it's kids slides and it doesn't have the front part of the vehicle is impacted bad and it's hard to get the car replaced by the manufacturer in thewayenough restraint so that you can take your kids a little faster in the car without answering them it's also a hazard because only certain drivers know how to operate it and it's not always safe to have this car out and about without issues or malfunction
This is my daughter's car. We purchased it in December, 2019. She was involved in a collision on 02/02/2022. At an intersection, she hit a pick-up truck on the side likely going 30 - 40MPH. The front-end of the car was demolished and the car totaled for insurance purposes. The airbags did not deploy. The title has been sign…
Read full complaint
This is my daughter's car. We purchased it in December, 2019. She was involved in a collision on 02/02/2022. At an intersection, she hit a pick-up truck on the side likely going 30 - 40MPH. The front-end of the car was demolished and the car totaled for insurance purposes. The airbags did not deploy. The title has been signed over to the insurance carrier, Farm Bureau and I believe the vehicle is now at their designated salvage facility. My daughter is awaiting the final insurance settlement amount. There was a police report filed and my daughter was cited. There were no indications of any issues with the airbags prior to the accident.
I was driving my 2017 Toyota Corolla when I was hit on my driver side . All four panels on driver side needed to be repaired. The air bags never deployed . I was injured and can’t understand why the airbags never deployed
DRIVING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN A CAR TURNED LEFT IN FRONT OF ME AT THE INTERSECTION. SPEED WAS APPROXIMATELY 35-45 WHEN COLLISION OCCURED. THE FRONT OF MY CAR HIT THE SIDE OF THEIR CAR. AFTER CRASH DASH SHOWED PCS MALFUNCTION SEE DEALER NO AIRBAGS DEPLOYED AND SEAT BELT DID NOT LOCK UP. CAR WAS DEEMED TOTALLED AT 50K MILES…
Read full complaint
DRIVING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN A CAR TURNED LEFT IN FRONT OF ME AT THE INTERSECTION. SPEED WAS APPROXIMATELY 35-45 WHEN COLLISION OCCURED. THE FRONT OF MY CAR HIT THE SIDE OF THEIR CAR. AFTER CRASH DASH SHOWED PCS MALFUNCTION SEE DEALER NO AIRBAGS DEPLOYED AND SEAT BELT DID NOT LOCK UP. CAR WAS DEEMED TOTALLED AT 50K MILES. I HAVE WHIPLASH AND MODERATE BACK INJURIES. CAR WAS TAKEN IN FOR RECALL ON 3/28/2021.
Official recalls
320V024000 · 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.
19V503000 · Equipment:other:labels
Jun 28, 2019
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET) is recalling certain 2017-2019 Toyota Camry, Corolla, Rav4, Sienna, and Yaris iA vehicles equipped with factory-installed floor mats. The load carrying capacity modification label may be incorrect. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 110, "Tire Selection and Rims."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An incorrect label may lead to unintentionally overloading the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: SET will notify owners and provide a corrected label for placement over the inaccurate label, free of charge. The recall began August 23, 2019. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371. SET's number for this recall is SET19A.
17V295000 · Tires:temporary/emergency Spare Tire
May 2, 2017
Gulf States Toyota, Inc. (Gulf States) is recalling certain 2017 4Runner , 86, Avalon, Camry, Camry Hybrid, Corolla, Corolla iM, Highlander, Highlander Hybrid, Prius, Prius C, RAV4, RAV4 Hybrid, Sienna and Yaris vehicles. The spare tire air pressure was not adjusted to the proper pressure as stated on the Tire Pressure Label.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A spare tire that is not inflated to the proper value may not perform as intended, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Gulf States will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the spare tires, adjusting their pressure as necessary, free of charge. The recall began June 15, 2017. Owners may contact Gulf States customer service at 1-800-444-1074. Toyota's number for this recall is 17R2.
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