2012 Toyota Sequoia

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.

I am filing a formal complaint regarding a known paint defect on my 2012 Toyota Sequoia, painted in Blizzard Pearl (paint code 070). The paint is peeling and delaminating from multiple areas of the vehicle, including the roof, hood, and rear panels, down to the primer and in some cases bare metal. This is not a cosmetic or age-related issue — it is the result of a manufacturing defect that Toyota has already acknowledged in multiple models and years through Customer Support Program ZKG. This issue affects vehicles painted in Blizzard Pearl and Super White, due to poor adhesion between the basecoat and primer. It is a systemic defect that poses a long-term corrosion and safety concern, particularly as bare metal becomes exposed and vulnerable to rust. Toyota refuses to take responsibility, citing expiration of the CSP in December 2022. However, this defect is not time-sensitive—it emerges gradually and unpredictably over the life of the vehicle. It is unfair to place the burden of repair on consumers when the issue is clearly the result of poor materials and workmanship. I have contacted Toyota and provided photographic evidence. They acknowledged the vehicle is affected by the exact problem covered by the CSP, but declined to offer assistance because the program has technically ended. This is unacceptable, as the issue is part of a known national defect, not an isolated case. There are thousands of documented complaints for this exact same issue on forums, social media, and Toyota owner sites. I am requesting that Toyota: •Acknowledge this as an ongoing manufacturing defect regardless of warranty expiration, •Provide goodwill repair coverage or reimbursement for repainting, •Prevent further corrosion that could compromise vehicle safety and resale value. I am submitting this complaint so the issue can be formally documented and investigated, with the hope that Toyota will be held accountable and other owners will not be left to absorb the

NHTSA ID

11670515

Incident

Feb 9, 2024

Toyota had a recall on fuel pumps in 2020 mine was not part of the recall even though mine went bad and had to be replaced in February 2020. Now with another fuel pump recall issued in January 2025 I am also told mine is not part if the recall however I am having issues related to the fuel pump once again causing my engine to stall. Can someone please look into this as I feel my car should be part of that recall for another failing fuel pump. I do have receipt of repair in 2020 by First Class HALT I can provide if needed. My engine is stalling, not cycling fuel properly and has left me stranded. Then other times fires up normally.

NHTSA ID

11654129

Incident

Mar 20, 2025

The rear door latch for the lift gate malfunctioned and wouldn’t release. The power motor for the lift gate continued to work, trying to lift the rear gate. The result was bending the left gate hinge and hinge mounting area. The gate latch was corroded, but is supposed to be protected from the elements! The lift gate had to be taken apart from the inside with a number of parts having to be damaged/destroyed to open it as there was no other way to release the rear door latch (no manual release). The dealer didn’t have the rear door latch in initially in stock when I needed it because they’ve never replaced one for corrosion until now. The damage occurred after I left the dealership, but before I could get the part ordered and scheduled back in the dealership. Toyota has provided $400 of “goodwill” for what turned out to be a $1,400 repair for an item that shouldn’t ever need to be replaced!

NHTSA ID

11487048

Incident

Sep 13, 2022

Lower ball joint on drivers side sheared off.

NHTSA ID

11459943

Incident

Apr 6, 2022

VEHICLE HAS BEEN RUSTING ONLY ON THE REAR HATCH SINCE 2019. IT'S RUSTING AROUND THE WIPER ASSEMBLY AND NEAR THE LATCH ASSEMBLY. WE HAD IT REPAIRED ONCE BUT IT'S WORSE NOW. I'VE NOTICED MANY OWNERS ON LINE COMPLAINING OF THIS

NHTSA ID

11400244

Incident

Jun 2, 2019

Mileage

90,000 mi

TOYOTA HAS DEVELOPED WHAT IS BECOMING AN INFAMOUS OIL LEAK ON THEIR 5.7 V8 ENGINES THAT IS COMING FROM THE CAMSHAFT TOWER (CAMSHAFT HOUSING SUB ASSEMBLY). APPARENTLY IN PRODUCTION THEY USE A SILICONE WHERE THIS ATTACHES TO THE HEAD AND IN MANY CASES THEY DID NOT GET ENOUGH SILICONE. RESEARCH HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY, MANY OF THESE HAVE THIS ISSUE AND THAT WHEN THE VEHICLE IS FAIRLY NEW THAT TOYOTA WILL STAND BEHIND IT IN LIMITED CASES. MY VEHICLE HAS 150,000 MILES ON IT SO THEY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO STAND BEHIND IT AND CLAIMED TO NOT BE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. I HAVE CONTACTED SEVERAL DEALERSHIPS AND ALL OF THEM STATED THEY WERE WELL AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. I BELIEVE THIS TO BE A SAFETY ISSUE AS MINE HAS STARTED TO LEAK, IT DOES SO ON TO THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD AND HAS A STRONG BURNING SMELL EACH TIME I DRIVE EVEN IF ONLY A SHORT DISTANCE. THIS COULD EASILY CAUSE A FIRE. WHILE I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE CAUSING A FIRE IT IS A VERY COMMON ISSUE TO THE POINT THAT I FOUND A LAW FIRM THAT WAS LOOKING TO DO A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT BECAUSE OF IT. I CAN PROVIDE PICTURES IF NEEDED BUT THEY CAN BE SEEN ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

NHTSA ID

11387479

Incident

Jul 15, 2020

Mileage

150,000 mi

I HAVE A SAFETY ISSUE WITH MY VEHICLE THAT TOYOTA IS NOT COVERING UNDER WARRANTY AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE A RECALL. I HAVE HAD 3 DOOR LOCK ACTUATORS FAIL AND THE DOORS WILL NOT LOCK OR UNLOCK AUTOMATICALLY. YOU CAN NOT OPEN THE DOOR. IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH YOU CANNOT OPEN THE DOOR SAFELY TO EXIT THE VEHICLE IN A TIMELY MANNER. THIS IS NOT SAFE. THE VEHICLE IS LESS THAN 5 YEARS OLD AND I DON'T THINK THIS KIND OF SAFETY PART SHOULD BE THAT PRONE TO FAIL.

NHTSA ID

11006546

Incident

Jul 20, 2017

ELECTRIC DOOR LOCKS FAILED ON ALL 4 DOORS. TWO WERE REPLACED BY TOYOTA UNDER WARRANTY. THEY MADE ME PAY TO REPLACE ONE AND THEY REFUSED TO REPLACE THE OTHER. NOW THE DRIVERS DOOR LOCK HAS FAILED AGAIN. THE DRIVERS DOOR WILL NOT LOCK OR UNLOCK WHEN USING THE FOB. THE REAR DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WILL NOT LOCK OR UNLOCK USING THE FOB OR ANY OTHER LOCK / UNLOCK SWITCH IN THE CAR. THIS MEANS THE CAR CANNOT BE OPENED USING THE FOB AT ALL. IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD AND TOYOTA WILL NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLACE THEM.

NHTSA ID

11005497

Incident

Jul 15, 2016

Mileage

40,000 mi

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vehicles may occasionally be subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles shed from railroad tracks, train wheels, exposure to heavy machinery facilities, grinding, welding, etc. This type of contamination can be identified by the presence of small, red or brown particles on the paint surface. These particles are often difficult to see on dark color paints but can be easily felt when brushing a hand across horizontal body surfaces such as the hood, roof, or deck lid. Follow the Repair Procedure in this bulletin to clean vehicles that may have been subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles such as rail dust during rail transportation or extended storage near industrial areas.