← New search

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 →

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.

44 crash reports1 fire reports29 injury reports

Structure complaints

9 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · May 7, 2024
Structure

To whom it may concern, I would like to report that my vehicle's paint has been peeling off since June 2018. The vehicle was purchased on 8/11/17, and I have continuously reported the paint problem to no avail from the dealership or manufacturer. As a matter of fact, in February 2019, the vehicle was serviced to due bubbles deve…

Read full complaint

To whom it may concern, I would like to report that my vehicle's paint has been peeling off since June 2018. The vehicle was purchased on 8/11/17, and I have continuously reported the paint problem to no avail from the dealership or manufacturer. As a matter of fact, in February 2019, the vehicle was serviced to due bubbles developing around the windshield, and I again reported the paint issues and received no resolution to my problem. Hence, I would like to know whether my case is an isolated one or just like the white paint settlement, Toyota has deceived some of its customers that chose blue paint in this model (Corolla).

NHTSA ODI #11587382

Mileage unknown · Jun 14, 2022
Structure

Currently have paid off my WHITE TOYOTA COROLLA 2017, and is been a while since i notice the paint was pealing off and take it to the body shop, they told me to check my car for a recall since toyota has extended warranty for this matter (which i found here that does not have a recall), and that it was too soon for the car pain…

Read full complaint

Currently have paid off my WHITE TOYOTA COROLLA 2017, and is been a while since i notice the paint was pealing off and take it to the body shop, they told me to check my car for a recall since toyota has extended warranty for this matter (which i found here that does not have a recall), and that it was too soon for the car paint to be this bad, the top is also star to roasted and i just paid it off and think is not fair for me to be paying for something so early, also i take good care of it, washed two or more times at month and also handwax once or twice every month, hope this can do something about me and many more out there having the same issue.

NHTSA ODI #11469248

Mileage unknown · Oct 23, 2021
StructureUnknown Or Other

Vehicle is leaking a large amount of water/condensation on my passenger side front seat which is causing mold/mildew. I asked Toyota to take a look at it, they stated it’s not a manufactured or engineered problem, which it actually is. That is not part of a schedule maintenance issue. Wanted to charge me to take a look at it and…

Read full complaint

Vehicle is leaking a large amount of water/condensation on my passenger side front seat which is causing mold/mildew. I asked Toyota to take a look at it, they stated it’s not a manufactured or engineered problem, which it actually is. That is not part of a schedule maintenance issue. Wanted to charge me to take a look at it and I have an extended warranty

NHTSA ODI #11437876

Mileage unknown · Sep 19, 2021
StructureUnknown Or Other

Hi, I purchased my car in Feb 2017. but before 9 months back, it starts to have bubbles on all perimeter of the windshield. and currently have too many bubbles on that perimeter. My current Car milage is 33,000 only So, I talked to Toyota care regarding this but they denied handling this as they said this is outside of the w…

Read full complaint

Hi, I purchased my car in Feb 2017. but before 9 months back, it starts to have bubbles on all perimeter of the windshield. and currently have too many bubbles on that perimeter. My current Car milage is 33,000 only So, I talked to Toyota care regarding this but they denied handling this as they said this is outside of the warranty period. but I feel that this is a manufacturing defect. and that must be resolved by Toyota as there is no user reason for this bubbling happens. this happens when any manufacturing defect. Also, when I searching for a reason for such bubbling, I found that the ford car also has some issues in 2014. and ford made a correction on this. (Ref: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2011/RCMN-11V445-9034.pdf) Let me know if any other information is required from my end.

NHTSA ODI #11433527

30,000 miles · Apr 13, 2021
Structure

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE COMING TO A STOP, THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT SEAT MOVED FORWARD AND BACKWARD WHERE THE SEAT WAS CONNECTED TO THE SUBFRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER TOYOTA OF GREENVILLE (2686 LAURENS RD, GREENVILLE, SC 29607, (864)754-7866) BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 TOYOTA COROLLA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE COMING TO A STOP, THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT SEAT MOVED FORWARD AND BACKWARD WHERE THE SEAT WAS CONNECTED TO THE SUBFRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER TOYOTA OF GREENVILLE (2686 LAURENS RD, GREENVILLE, SC 29607, (864)754-7866) BUT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 30,000.

NHTSA ODI #11407885

95,000 miles · Mar 25, 2021
Structure

PAINT PEELING ON THIS COLOR BLUE AND TOYOTA IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEM, PAINT IS CHIPPING ALL OVER THE CAR , PLACES WHERE IT SHOULD NEVER YOU CAN EVEN SEE THE ORIGINAL PRIMER THE FACTORY USES UNDERNEATH THE CAR

NHTSA ODI #11404828

10,000 miles · Nov 9, 2018
Air BagsStructureUnknown Or OtherCrashInjury

TAKATA RECALL IT WAS A REGULAR WEDNESDAY MORNING DRIVE TO MY OFFICE. I WAS IN HIGHWAY 101 N AND IN THE MOTION OF APPROX 30MPH DUE TO TRAFFIC. SUDDENLY AT AROUND 8AM, DUE TO THE TRAFFIC AHEAD I HAD TO BRAKE MY CAR. MY CAR WAS HALT AT A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE CAR AHEAD OF ME WHEN I HEARD THE EMERGENCY BEEP OF MY CAR AND WHILE I …

Read full complaint

TAKATA RECALL IT WAS A REGULAR WEDNESDAY MORNING DRIVE TO MY OFFICE. I WAS IN HIGHWAY 101 N AND IN THE MOTION OF APPROX 30MPH DUE TO TRAFFIC. SUDDENLY AT AROUND 8AM, DUE TO THE TRAFFIC AHEAD I HAD TO BRAKE MY CAR. MY CAR WAS HALT AT A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE CAR AHEAD OF ME WHEN I HEARD THE EMERGENCY BEEP OF MY CAR AND WHILE I WAS BEING CONFUSED AS TO WHY THE BEEP WENT OFF BECAUSE MY CAR WAS AT A SAFE DISTANCE OF THE CAR AHEAD OF ME, MY CAR WAS SEVERELY HIT FROM BEHIND.THE IMPACT WAS SO SEVERE TOWARDS THE TRUNK THAT MY CAR WAS DRAGGED FORWARD SUCH THAT THE FRONT OF MY CAR WENT ONTO HIT THE BACK OF THE CAR THAT WAS AT A SAFE DISTANCE FROM MY CAR.THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY SHIFT OF MY CAR FROM THE SECOND LANE WHERE THE IMPACT TOOK PLACE TO THE THIRD LANE OF THE HIGHWAY. MY CAR WAS TOTALED BECAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT. DURING THIS ACCIDENTAL EVENT MY FRONT CAR AND BACK CAR BOTH AIR BAG DEPLOYED EXCEPT MY CAR AIR BAG DIDN'T GET DEPLOYED AND BECAUSE OF THIS I WENT THROUGH SERIOUS MULTIPLE INJURIES CAUSING SOME LONG TERM BODILY DAMAGES.

NHTSA ODI #11150408

1,711 miles · Nov 19, 2017
Air BagsService BrakesStructureCrash

I WAS DRIVING HOME ON HAMILTON ROAD, IN COLUMBUS, OHIO, AT 535PM. I NOTICED THAT MY HEADLIGHTS WEREN'T ON, WHEN OTHER DRIVERS WERE TRYING TO WORN ME. I SET MY HEADLIGHTS ON AUTOMATIC WHEN I FIRST RECEIVED THE CAR. I FINALLY FOUND THE SWITCH TO TURN MY HEADLIGHTS ON MANUALLY. THEN MY CAR STARTED TO BRAKE 10-15 FEET FROM THE CA…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING HOME ON HAMILTON ROAD, IN COLUMBUS, OHIO, AT 535PM. I NOTICED THAT MY HEADLIGHTS WEREN'T ON, WHEN OTHER DRIVERS WERE TRYING TO WORN ME. I SET MY HEADLIGHTS ON AUTOMATIC WHEN I FIRST RECEIVED THE CAR. I FINALLY FOUND THE SWITCH TO TURN MY HEADLIGHTS ON MANUALLY. THEN MY CAR STARTED TO BRAKE 10-15 FEET FROM THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME, MY TIRES WERE SQUEALING. MY FOOT WAS NOT ON THE BRAKE PEDAL IT WAS STILL ON THE ACCELERATOR. IT WAS TOO LATE I HIT THE SUV IN FRONT ME. MY AIR BAGS DIDN'T DEPLOY. THE ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE SYSTEM DIDN'T ACTIVATE UNTIL TO LATE. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CAR RESPONDED AFTER THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH WAS MANUALLY TURNED ON INSTEAD OF BEING IN THE AUTO POSITION. IT WAS SUGGESTED AT A DEALERSHIP EARLIER THAT CYCLING THE NAVIGATION SYSTEM ON THE CAR COULD INADVERTENTLY DISARM IT. IF THAT WERE THE CASE AND IT WAS OFF ACCIDENTLY WHY DID THE CAR TRY TO BRAKE AT THE LAST SECOND ON ITS OWN BY TURNING ON THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH. THIS CAR WAS PURCHASED FOR THE DRIVER FOR THE VERY REASONS OF ITS SAFETY FEATURES UNFORTUNATELY THIS CAR COMPLETELY FAILED TO PROTECT THE DRIVER. THAT IS WHY I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IMMEDIATELY TO SEE IF THIS IS A MECHANICAL ISSUE, PROGRAM ISSUE, OR SIMPLY DRIVER ERROR, WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE AT THIS POINT. I HAVE PHOTOS OF VEHICLE AND INTERIOR WHICH I AM UNABLE TO UPLOAD ON THIS SITE, THEY ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.

NHTSA ODI #11047303

7,000 miles · Aug 7, 2017
Air BagsStructureCrash

MY WIFE WAS DRIVING THE CAR ON I95 FROM SOUTH TO NORTH (AFTER EXIT 6 IN PA) TOWARDS PHILLY AIRPORT ON 7/22/2017 AND THE CAR WAS HIT AT THE REAR BY ANOTHER CAR. CAR WAS SPAN AND STOPPED. THANK TO GOD THAT SHE IS OK. HOWEVER, THE CAR WAS TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE. OUR CONCERN WAS NO AIRBAG DEPLOYED. OUR COLLISION CENTER AS WELL AS …

Read full complaint

MY WIFE WAS DRIVING THE CAR ON I95 FROM SOUTH TO NORTH (AFTER EXIT 6 IN PA) TOWARDS PHILLY AIRPORT ON 7/22/2017 AND THE CAR WAS HIT AT THE REAR BY ANOTHER CAR. CAR WAS SPAN AND STOPPED. THANK TO GOD THAT SHE IS OK. HOWEVER, THE CAR WAS TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE. OUR CONCERN WAS NO AIRBAG DEPLOYED. OUR COLLISION CENTER AS WELL AS TOYOTA DOESN'T KNOW WHY. NEED YOUR HELP AS WELL AS IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN TO SOMEONE.

NHTSA ODI #11013342

Official recalls

3

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.

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

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