WHILE COMING OUT OF A REVERED POSITION, I WAS DRIVING FORWARD AND MY BRAKES VIBRATED. THIS CAUSED MY CAR TO STALL WHILE IN THE DRIVING POSITION.
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.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
29 reportsRED BRAKE LIGHT, ABS, VSC, POWER STEERING, AND MIL LIGHTS CAME ON. DTC'S U0129.
AS OTHERS HAVE REPORTED THE CRUISE CONTROL ON A DOWN HILL SLOPE GOES OUT OF CONTROL. AS I REACH THE TOP OF THE HILL AND START DOWN THE CRUISE CONTROL WILL ACCELERATE TO 4000 RPM AND THE SPEED WILL INCREASE 10-15 MPH OVER WHAT THE CRUISE CONTROL IS SET AT. I MUST TURN OFF THE CRUISE CONTROL TO REGAIN CONTROL OVER THE SPEED. SOMET…
Read full complaint
AS OTHERS HAVE REPORTED THE CRUISE CONTROL ON A DOWN HILL SLOPE GOES OUT OF CONTROL. AS I REACH THE TOP OF THE HILL AND START DOWN THE CRUISE CONTROL WILL ACCELERATE TO 4000 RPM AND THE SPEED WILL INCREASE 10-15 MPH OVER WHAT THE CRUISE CONTROL IS SET AT. I MUST TURN OFF THE CRUISE CONTROL TO REGAIN CONTROL OVER THE SPEED. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE PROGRAMMING OF THE CRUISE CONTROL. ON DOWN HILL THE CRUISE CONTROL SHOULD BE REDUCING FUEL TO MAINTAIN SPEED NOT INCREASE IT. I AM A POLICE OFFICER AND THIS CRUISE CONTROL IS A HAZARD.
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A DOWNGRADE WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED AND SET TO 65MPH, THE CVT TRANSMISSION SEEMED TO DOWNSHIFT, THE RPM'S INCREASED AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED TO WELL OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. IT FELT LIKE I WAS LOSING CONTROL. I HAD TO ACTIVATE THE BRAKES TO DISENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL IN ORDER TO REDUCE MY SPEED TO BE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING DOWN A DOWNGRADE WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL ENGAGED AND SET TO 65MPH, THE CVT TRANSMISSION SEEMED TO DOWNSHIFT, THE RPM'S INCREASED AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED TO WELL OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. IT FELT LIKE I WAS LOSING CONTROL. I HAD TO ACTIVATE THE BRAKES TO DISENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL IN ORDER TO REDUCE MY SPEED TO BELOW THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT. I TRIED IT AGAIN ON ANOTHER DOWNGRADE AND THE SAME SITUATION WAS DUPLICATED. I DID NOT TAKE THE CAR INTO A DEALER SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN REPORTED TO DEALERSHIPS WITH A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.
BOUGHT THE CAR LAST APRIL, IT HAS GIVEN ME NO PROBLEMS, UNTIL NOW. THE CAR START TO LOOSE ACCELERATION WHEN DRIVING ALMOST GOT INTO TWO CAR ACCIDENT ON THE ROAD, CALLED TOYOTA BUT THEY WANT TO CHARGE ME TO INSPECT THE CAR, THE CAR SEEMS TO BE STUCK ON GEARS LIKE IF IT WAS ON NEATRUAL.
WAS DRIVING IN MIDDLE LANE OF INTERSTATE 10 WHEN VEHICLE LOST POWER. CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. CAR COASTED FOR APPROX. 5 MINUTES. HAD TO PUT ON EMERGENCY FLASHER, PUT CAR IN PARK TO RESTART ENGINE. CARS COMING UP BEHIND ME DOING 75/80/85 MILES PER HOUR AND HAD TO SWERVE IMMEDIATELY TO KEEP FROM HITTING MY VEHICLE. I HAD A FRIEN…
Read full complaint
WAS DRIVING IN MIDDLE LANE OF INTERSTATE 10 WHEN VEHICLE LOST POWER. CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE. CAR COASTED FOR APPROX. 5 MINUTES. HAD TO PUT ON EMERGENCY FLASHER, PUT CAR IN PARK TO RESTART ENGINE. CARS COMING UP BEHIND ME DOING 75/80/85 MILES PER HOUR AND HAD TO SWERVE IMMEDIATELY TO KEEP FROM HITTING MY VEHICLE. I HAD A FRIEND IN PASSENGER SEAT AND WE WERE BOTH SCARED FOR OUR LIVES. TO THIS DAY, I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE ON INTERSTATE OR ANY OTHER BUSY HIGHWAY BECAUSE TOYOTA SAID THEY COULD NOT FIND ANY PROBLEM.
ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL CAUSES THE CAR TO DOWN-SHIFT UNNECESSARILY ON A STRAIGHT DOWNHILL GRADE AND SOMETIMES INCREASES THE SPEED BY AS MUCH AS 8-10 MPH. I FEEL OUT OF CONTROL, WHICH IS DANGEROUS. A TOYOTA TECHNICIAN HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME BEHAVIOR ON ANOTHER 2017 COROLLA. ON ONE OCCASION, ON A FREEWAY DOWNHILL WHERE THE S…
Read full complaint
ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL CAUSES THE CAR TO DOWN-SHIFT UNNECESSARILY ON A STRAIGHT DOWNHILL GRADE AND SOMETIMES INCREASES THE SPEED BY AS MUCH AS 8-10 MPH. I FEEL OUT OF CONTROL, WHICH IS DANGEROUS. A TOYOTA TECHNICIAN HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME BEHAVIOR ON ANOTHER 2017 COROLLA. ON ONE OCCASION, ON A FREEWAY DOWNHILL WHERE THE SPEED COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN CONTROLLED BY LETTING OFF THE GAS, THE CAR DOWNSHIFTED TO D3, REVS WENT TO ABOUT 4000, AND THE SPEED INCREASED TO 70MPH - WHEN IT WAS SET TO ABOUT 62. ON ANOTHER OCCASION, ON A RELATIVELY FLAT, STRAIGHT FREEWAY ROAD, IT AGAIN DOWNSHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, AND THE SPEED AGAIN INCREASED OVER THE SET SPEED (OF COURSE THE REVS WERE HIGHER AGAIN). IN BOTH OF THE ABOVE CASES, THERE WAS NO CAR OR OTHER OBSTACLE IN FRONT OF ME THAT SHOULD CAUSE THE CAR TO SLOW DOWN. I'VE SEEN THE ADAPTIVE CRUISE RESPOND TO A CAR TOO CLOSE SO KNOW HOW THAT FEELS.
MY CAR WAS STRUCK BY A CAR SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL MAINLY THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR CENTER POST AND REAR DOOR. I THINK THE CAR IS TOTALED. THE PASSENGER REAR WHEEL IS BENT FROM THE IMPACT. NONE OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT WORKED THE ACCIDENT WAS ASTONISHED. HE SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED. MY CAR WAS MOVING …
Read full complaint
MY CAR WAS STRUCK BY A CAR SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL MAINLY THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR CENTER POST AND REAR DOOR. I THINK THE CAR IS TOTALED. THE PASSENGER REAR WHEEL IS BENT FROM THE IMPACT. NONE OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT WORKED THE ACCIDENT WAS ASTONISHED. HE SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED. MY CAR WAS MOVING ABOUT 15MPH THE CAR THAT HIT MINE WAS SPINNING VERY FAST. THE ROADS WERE SLICK AND IT WAS RAINING. THE IMPACT WAS ABOUT 40 TO 60MPH AT LEAST.
THE CRUISE CONTROL IS JUST AWFUL AND HAS BEEN SINCE I BOUGHT THE CAR BRAND NEW IN DECEMBER 2016. JUST AS SEVERAL OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED, IT CANNOT CONTROL THE SPEED WHEN GOING DOWN HILL. IT RAISES THE RPM'S TRYING TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN, BUT IT ISN'T VERY EFFECTIVE. I'VE NEVER HAD ANOTHER CAR OR ANOTHER TOYOTA HAVE SUCH POOR SPEED …
Read full complaint
THE CRUISE CONTROL IS JUST AWFUL AND HAS BEEN SINCE I BOUGHT THE CAR BRAND NEW IN DECEMBER 2016. JUST AS SEVERAL OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED, IT CANNOT CONTROL THE SPEED WHEN GOING DOWN HILL. IT RAISES THE RPM'S TRYING TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN, BUT IT ISN'T VERY EFFECTIVE. I'VE NEVER HAD ANOTHER CAR OR ANOTHER TOYOTA HAVE SUCH POOR SPEED CONTROL. SO MUCH, THAT I DON'T EVEN BOTHER TRYING TO USE IT ANYMORE. A COP ISN'T GOING TO LISTEN TO "MY CRUISE CONTROL WASN'T WORKING RIGHT" IF I GET PULLED OVER. THE BRAKES ALREADY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE WEARING OUT AT 26K MILES. MY 13 CAMRY HAD 30K AND THE BRAKES STILL FELT BRAND NEW. SAME WITH THE 15 SENTRA I HAD. THE SUSPENSION FEELS ROUGHER AND IS STARTING TO MAKE NOISES ALREADY. THIS CAR SHOULDN'T FEEL LIKE IT HAS 60K MILES ON IT ALREADY.
THE VEHICLE DOES THIS 100% OF THE TIME. WHEN ON THE ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL ON THE INTERSTATE THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE THE CRUISE WILL GO 14 MPH ABOVE THE SET LIMIT AND THE ENGINE IS AT 4000 RPM OR HIGHER. I TYPICALLY DRIVE AT 65 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE; THIS IS CAUSING ME TO GO TO OVER 75 MPH WHILE THE SYSTEM IS TRYING TO RECO…
Read full complaint
THE VEHICLE DOES THIS 100% OF THE TIME. WHEN ON THE ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL ON THE INTERSTATE THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE THE CRUISE WILL GO 14 MPH ABOVE THE SET LIMIT AND THE ENGINE IS AT 4000 RPM OR HIGHER. I TYPICALLY DRIVE AT 65 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE; THIS IS CAUSING ME TO GO TO OVER 75 MPH WHILE THE SYSTEM IS TRYING TO RECOVER BACK TO 65MPH. I ALSO OWN A 2017 TOYOTA RAV4 AND DRIVE THE SAME ROADS; THE CRUISE IS 'ROCK STEADY'. IT HOLDS AT A CONSTANT 65MPH.
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