2014 Toyota Corolla

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.

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.

Odometer Fraud. The contact purchased a 2014 Toyota Corolla. It was discovered that there was a mileage discrepancy. The vehicle was a private sale. At the time of purchase, the vehicle mileage was 91,000 and at the time of registration, it was discovered that the mileage was 254,000.

NHTSA ID

11736547

Incident

Apr 29, 2026

Mileage

254,000 mi

The factory white paint on my 2014 Toyota Corolla has been peeling and delaminating in large sheets down to the primer and bare metal. This appears to be a paint adhesion failure, not normal wear or surface chipping. The vehicle has not been in any accidents, repainted, or subjected to improper care. The problem developed gradually and has continued to worsen over time. Large sections of paint detach from body panels such as the hood, roof, trunk, and sides. Paint has come off while driving and during routine car washing. This condition presents a safety concern because pieces of paint can separate at driving speeds and become road debris, which could strike other vehicles or create hazards for nearby drivers. In addition, exposed metal body panels are vulnerable to corrosion, which may affect the long‑term safety and integrity of the vehicle. No warning lights or messages were present prior to the paint failure. A Toyota dealership visually confirmed the peeling paint and indicated this issue has been observed on other Toyota vehicles with white paint. No repair was offered without full repainting at the owner’s expense. The affected areas are visible and available for inspection upon request.

NHTSA ID

11734621

Incident

Apr 23, 2026

After having my vehicle washed at a car wash, paint began to peel. The vehicle at the time had only 42000 miles. Toyota repair apologized for the paint problem (V70 white) and said they would provide me with a car rental for 1-2 weeks while its repainted as there is a recall for the paint (again apologised for the inconvience). After discovering the recall expired, the insurance technician said he would call me back in 1-2 days as the vehicle is no longer under the recall (Does the paint repair itself after that time period)? The technician never called me back. The cost to repaint the vehicle is 7-$14000, more than the value of the vehicle with only 4 years worth of miles driven

NHTSA ID

11722847

Incident

Mar 2, 2026

The contact owns a 2014 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while reversing, the back-over prevention screen malfunctioned and displayed a black screen, creating a rear visibility hazard for the driver. The cause of the failure was not yet determined. The manufacturer and local dealer were notified of the failure, but no assistance was provided. The failure mileage was 124,000.

NHTSA ID

11720873

Incident

Feb 2, 2026

Mileage

124,000 mi

Noted that Toyota has a black screen recall for Tundra related to backup camera. Toyota should consider extending the recall to include Corolla models, as my 2014 Corolla S and 2019 Corolla SE have both experienced intermittent black screen failures many times while backing up. (At least twice a week for the past 5 years) I reported the issue to the 441 Toyota Dealer in the past and they told me that Toyota is aware of the issue but there is no related recall.

NHTSA ID

11713301

Incident

Jan 22, 2026

The contact owns a 2014 Toyota Corolla equipped with American Omni Tires, Tire Line: Tourer, Tire Size: P205/55/16, DOT Number: (N/A). The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle wobbled and shook abnormally. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the two front tires had bubbles on the outside sidewall. The cause of the failure was not yet determined. The contact stated that metal steel belts were showing. The contact took the tires back to Pep Boys, and the contact was informed that the failure was due to an alignment failure. The contact stated that all four tires were purchased at the same time, and the mileage on the vehicle was 150,613. The contact stated that the DOT number listed on the receipt did not match the DOT number on the tires. The contact took the tires to Firestone; however, the employees at Firestone did not find a cause for the failure. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The tires were not replaced. The failure mileage was 165,580.

NHTSA ID

11710352

Incident

Jan 1, 2026

Mileage

165,580 mi

On March 12, 2025, I was involved in a frontal collision when another vehicle unexpectedly pulled out in front of me. Impact occurred to the front-left area of my vehicle. Despite the nature of the collision, the front airbags did not deploy. The vehicle is subject to Safety Recall 20TA03, which addresses incomplete or non-deployment of airbags and/or seat belt pretensioners due to ECU susceptibility to electrical noise in certain crash scenarios. The vehicle was declared a total loss by my insurance company and is no longer available for inspection. The manufacturer was notified in May 2025 and again in November 2025. The manufacturer closed the case citing inability to inspect the vehicle and later relied on photographs only to rule out airbag deployment concerns. No warning lights or messages related to the airbag system were observed prior to the collision. The non-deployment of the airbags placed my safety at risk during a frontal impact.

NHTSA ID

11710098

Incident

Mar 12, 2025

Electric

NHTSA ID

11662996

Incident

Jul 5, 2024

Some 2005 – 2026 Toyota vehicles that have undergone water intrusion may exhibit a condition in which a musty odor is present. Follow the procedures in this bulletin to remediate the odor and address this condition. The purpose of this Service Bulletin is to provide general guidelines and procedures for odor remediation. This Service Bulletin provides a guide on how to prepare and treat the interior of the vehicle for odor remediation. Refer to the applicable model and model year Repair Manual and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) website for the most up-to-date safety and precautionary guidelines.

The air conditioning dye injection tool kit has been developed to aid in identifying the location of air conditioning refrigerant leaks. The procedures outlined in this Service Bulletin aid in locating, inspecting, and repairing refrigerant leaks.

Acid rain results from rainwater or other airborne moisture that become acidic due to industrial chemical impurities in the atmosphere. If these acidic compounds settle on an exposed vehicle, especially the horizontal areas such as the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage to the painted surfaces can occur. Acid rain damage can typically be identified on vehicles by the presence of stains on the paint surface that resemble hard water spots. Unlike water spots however, acid rain damage cannot be removed by regular washing procedures. Also, because acid rain can etch and soften the paint, normal buffing or polishing repair procedures should not be attempted. This can cause further damage and result in visible depressions in the paint surface. The following are the three major categories of acid rain damage: •Minor damage: requires only buffing to repair. •Moderate damage: usually requires neutralizing, color sanding, and buffing. •Severe damage: extending beyond 1/2 mil of clearcoat on a pearl, metallic, or solid color, requires neutralization, sanding, and repainting. In cases where acid rain damage is minor, neutralization and buffing with a liquid-type paint finessing product may provide an adequate repair. Only specially formulated products outlined in this bulletin should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, other than minor damage, there is no simple method of determining the actual extent (depth) of acid penetration other than color sanding a representative affected area until there is no visible etching or depressions, followed by measuring the amount of paint removed with either a magnetic or digital-type film thickness gauge. The procedures in this bulletin are intended for use by qualified body/paint technicians and should not be attempted by inexperienced personnel. It is the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. Perform frequent vehicle washing, as often as daily, during high heat and humidity periods to minimize the potential for paint damage due to acid rain exposure. This is especially important in geographical areas known for high frequency and concentration of acid rain and industrial fallout.

To prevent brake rotor rust from forming during transportation and storage, wheel film will be used instead of a cardboard type of anti-rust cover. The purpose of the wheel film is to shield the disc brake rotor from weather elements and initial rust before the vehicle is delivered to the customer. Consequently, the film should remain on the wheel for as long as possible.

The condition known as acid rain is caused by airborne chemicals or particles in the atmosphere, which mix with rainwater, nighttime dew, or high humidity to form acidic compounds. If these contaminants settle and remain on a painted vehicle surface, especially the horizonal areas of the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage can occur. This damage is the result of actual etching of the paint and appears as pitting or water spots. As acid rain droplets on the vehicle surface evaporate, the concentration strength of the acid increases, causing deeper and more rapid damage. This evaporation and corrosive action also occur more rapidly on dark colored cars as direct sun heat increases. It is the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. In areas known for high frequency and/or concentration of acid rain, frequent vehicle washing during high heat or humidity periods will minimize the potential for paint damage caused by acid rain. It is further recommended that either reverse osmosis or deionized water be used to prevent water spotting.

Toyota vehicles are currently protected with RapgardTM protective film designed to protect the horizontal painted surfaces. This material protects from acid rain, environmental fallout, and rail contamination. Follow the Removal Procedure in this bulletin to remove the RapgardTM protective film within 90 days from initial application.