2002 Honda
CR-VProblems & recalls

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 PE14-016 in June 2014 based on six inflator rupture incidents involving consumer owned vehicles produced by five vehicle manufacturers.All six vehicles were operated in Florida or Puerto Rico at the time of the rupture and for the majority of their service life, and were equipped with inflators produced by Takata, a tier-one supplier of automotive air bag systems.During the course of PE14-016, ODI determined that five additional vehicle manufacturers used inflators of a similar design and vintage also supplied by Takata. No evidence of field failures was found in vehicles produced by these five additional manufacturers.Nonetheless, at ODI's insistence, all 10 vehicle manufacturers initiated a regional recall within approximately two weeks of the opening of the investigation.The regions recalled initially included Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas with high absolute humidity and climatic conditions believed to be a significant factor in the inflator ruptures.As part of the recall actions, inflators removed from remedied vehicles are to be returned to Takata for testing.Takata's initial test results on passenger inflators from remedied vehicles indicated a much higher than anticipated rupture frequency for inflators returned from Florida.Accordingly ODI requested all 10 manufacturers expand the regional recalls for passenger inflators to include other geographic areas where high absolute humidity conditions exist, including the Gulf States and other coastal areas.Takata's testing of the passenger inflators to date continues to indicate this geographic area as having the highest risk, with no ruptures occurring from inflators returned from outside the expanded recall regions.During PE14-016 four additional passenger inflator field events occurred, all in vehicles from the same expanded geographic region.Also during PE14-016 four additional driver inflator field events occurred including two in vehicles from regions not known for high absolute humidity, specifically California and North Carolina.Accordingly, ODI requested all five of the affected vehicle manufacturers currently using the subject Takata driver inflators expand to nationwide recalls.Significantly, neither of the affected vehicle manufacturers or Takata provided any explanation to account for these two driver air bag inflator ruptures outside the area of high absolute humidity.Takata testing of returned driver inflators indicates a lower rupture frequency as compared to passenger inflator testing.All test ruptures reported by Takata to date have occurred on inflators returned from high absolute humidity areas.The investigation now includes all manufacturers and vehicles known to be affected at this time.ODI's investigation will focus on, among other things, root cause analysis, other potential defect consequences, identification of affected vehicles scope, and adequacy of the remedy.The five ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

Campaign reference in the source: 22V945

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE14-016 in June 2014 based on six inflator rupture incidents involving consumer owned vehicles produced by five vehicle manufacturers.All six vehicles were operated in Florida or Puerto Rico at the time of the rupture and for the majority of their service life, and were equipped with inflators produced by Takata, a tier-one supplier of automotive air bag systems.During the course of PE14-016, ODI determined that five additional vehicle manufacturers used inflators of a similar design and vintage also supplied by Takata. No evidence of field failures was found in vehicles produced by these five additional manufacturers.Nonetheless, at ODI's insistence, all 10 vehicle manufacturers initiated a regional recall within approximately two weeks of the opening of the investigation.The regions recalled initially included Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas with consistently high absolute humidity and climatic conditions believed to be a significant factor in the inflator ruptures.As part of the recall actions, inflators removed from remedied vehicles are to be returned to Takata for testing.Takata's initial test results on passenger inflators from remedied vehicles indicated a much higher than anticipated rupture frequency for inflators returned from Florida.Accordingly, ODI requested all 10 manufacturers expand the regional recalls for passenger inflators to include other geographic areas where high absolute humidity conditions exist, including the Gulf States and other coastal areas.Takata's testing of the passenger inflators to date continues to indicate this geographic area as having the highest risk, with no ruptures occurring from inflators returned from outside the expanded recall regions.During PE14-016, four additional passenger inflator field events occurred, all in vehicles from the same expanded geographic region.Also during PE14-016, four additional driver inflator field events occurred including two in vehicles from regions not known for high absolute humidity, specifically California and North Carolina.Accordingly, ODI requested all five of the affected vehicle manufacturers currently using the subject Takata driver inflators expand to nationwide recalls.Significantly, neither of the affected vehicle manufacturers or Takata provided any explanation to account for these two driver air bag inflator ruptures outside the area of high absolute humidity.Takata testing of returned driver inflators indicates a lower rupture frequency as compared to passenger inflator testing.All test ruptures reported by Takata to date have occurred on inflators returned from high absolute humidity areas.The PE is now closed/upgraded to an Engineering Evaluation (EA15-001) to include all manufacturersand vehicles known to be affected at this time.ODI's EA investigation will focus on, among other things, root cause analysis, other potential defect consequences, identification of affected vehicles scope, and adequacy of the remedy.The recalls related to this PE are: 14V343, 14V344, 14V348, 14V351, 14V353, 14V655, 14V700, 14V701, 14V752, 14V763, 14V770, 14V773, 14V787, 14V802 and 14V817.The number of vehicles affected are an estimate since some vehicles may have both the driver and passenger side inflators recalled. The five ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

Recorded closure: Mar 2, 2015

Campaign reference in the source: 15V226000

This investigation was prompted by Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 11-017, and was based on reports from consumers alleging that both low beam headlights stopped illuminating simultaneously.Some complainants also reported that the combination switch (switch) that controls the headlights and turn signals, and/or its electrical wiring harness connector were damaged by overheating.ODI's PE information request letter asked Honda for certain data on model years (MY) 2002-2006 CR-V, 2003-2008 Pilot, 2003-2008 Element, 2001-2005 Civic, and 2000-2001 S 2000 vehicles.Analysis of complaint and Honda data show that a complete low beam headlight circuit failure occurs in models with 2-bulb headlight systems (i.e., a single bulb on each side for high and low beam).Models with 2-bulb systems include MY 2002-2004 CR-V, 2003-2005 Pilot, 2001-2003 Civic, and 2003-2008 Element.Models with 4-bulb headlight systems (i.e., two bulbs on each side, one for high and one for low beam) have different electrical circuits for the headlights and do not experience the same failure mechanism as the 2-bulb system.MY 2000-2001 S 2000 models with 2-bulb high intensity discharge headlights also have different electrical circuits for the headlights and do not experience the same failure mechanism.Honda introduced the 4-bulb headlight system in CR-V in MY 2005, in Pilot in MY 2006, and in Civic in MY 2004.On March 29, 2012 Honda submitted a defect information report (DIR) to recall 554,428 vehicles, including MY 2002-2004 CR-V and MY 2003 Pilot.In the DIR, Honda stated that tension from the combination switch wiring harness to the electrical terminal for the low beam headlight circuit could cause a small amount of motion as the combination switch was operated.This motion, over time, can wear the surface of the terminal creating copper oxide, increasing electrical resistance, which may cause the terminal to melt within the harness connector.ODI continued its investigation, and on August 31, 2012 Honda submitted another DIR to recall an additional 820,789 vehicles.This report included the MY 2002 Civic vehicles which were not subject to a prior safety recall (04V-086) for headlights, all of MY 2003 Civic, and MY 2004-2005 Pilot.Honda's DIR advised that operation of the turn signal switch lever at high speed and/or with heavy force can cause movement between the combination switch body and the sub-harness wiring connector.This can cause wear and continued movement can create copper oxide, increasing electrical resistance, and potentially causing the terminal to melt within the harness connector. Please see both DIRs at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/ under safety recall 12V-136 for complete details.Honda also provided additional information on the Element model, stating that it was not recalled due to it's very low failure rate.Honda sold 301,497 Element vehicles in the United States and received 17 reports, while ODI received one report (see VOQ 10395219).Honda's technical explanation for the low rate, which was submitted under request for confidentiality, is that the headlight switch, as installed in the Element, reacts differently to the forces applied to it as compared to the recalled models.See attachment for additional information.

Recorded closure: Sep 17, 2012

Campaign reference in the source: 12V136000

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation based on 12 reports from consumers alleging the low beam headlights stopped working simultaneously.Several of the complainants reported that the headlight switch and/or its wiring harness connector required replacement to repair the low beam headlight circuit, and also reported that the switch and/or the wire harness connector were damaged from overheating.Based on information provided by Honda in response to ODI's Preliminary Evaluation information request, ODI is upgrading the investigation to EA11-012.

Recorded closure: Sep 23, 2011

This investigation was prompted by Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 10-047 and was based on reports from consumers alleging that smoke and/or fire, as defined in 49 CFR ? 579.4, had occurred inside of the driver's door.The subject vehicles, model year (MY) 2006 CR-V, were manufactured at two different assembly plants.The vehicles manufactured in Japan (Sayama plant) were produced with a power window master switch (PWMS) supplied by the Thai Toyo Denso Company, Ltd. (Denso).The vehicles manufactured in the United Kingdom (UK, Swindon, England plant) were produced with a PWMS supplied by the Omron Corporation (Omron).Honda provided 45 reports on the subject vehicles responsive to this investigation.Of this number, 24 reports concerned Japan-built vehicles, 19 reports on UK-built vehicles, and two reports without a vehicle identification number which could not be identified by assembly plant. Four of Honda's reports were duplicative of ODI reports.ODI received nine reports on the subject vehicles:five on Japan-built and four on UK-built vehicles, and one additional report on a MY 2005 UK built vehicle.The ODI reports can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification (ODI) numbers: 10343884, 10307287, 10321646, 10375324, 10386750, 10425406, 10437807, 10439880, 10469350, and 10406979.In most cases, it was reported that the PWMS and/or its electrical wiring harness had sustained heat related damage requiring replacement of the affected component(s).However, in three of the cases involving an Omron PWMS (UK built), a fire breached the driver's door panel and spread into the vehicle interior.Two of the three vehicles were determined to be a total loss by insurance companies, and one was repaired.All three fires occurred as the vehicles were parked with the ignition switch turned off.On September 6, 2011 Honda submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to recall 80,111 subject vehicles built in Japan.In it's DIR, Honda explained that the Denso PWMS assembly has switches made of a resin material that can allow residues to accumulate over time.Residue from silicone based cleaning products used near the PWMS can adhere to the electrical contacts of the switch and repeated operation of the switch may accelerate wear of the electrical contact.Silicone particles that have accumulated between the power source and the ground in the switch can become heated when electrical power is supplied to the circuit.If this occurs, the resin material of the switch can carbonize and form an electrically conductive path which causes the resin material to heat up.As a result, the switch may melt and produce smoke.In the worst case, the switch cover may burn.ODI notes that this recall was limited to MY 2006 because the PWMS subject to the recall (P/N 3750-S9A-C05ZA) was made of a new resin material introduced during MY 2006 production.ODI continued its investigation with respect to UK built vehicles with the Omron PMWS.On October 4, 2012 Honda submitted an additional DIR to recall 268,655 MY 2002-2006 CR-V vehicles.Honda's DIR stated that water or other fluids can enter the Omron PWMS assembly and over time cause electrical resistance in the switch.Increased resistance can result in overheating and melting of the switch, which could potentially cause a fire.Please see both DIRs at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/ under safety recalls 11V456 and 12V486 for further details of the recalls.

Recorded closure: Oct 24, 2012

Campaign reference in the source: 12V486000

ALL BUT ONE ODI COMPLAINT AND ALL ODI CRASHES ARE DUPLICATIVE OF HONDA REPORTS.ALL 7 CRASHES WERE ROLL-AWAY CRASHES THAT OCCURRED WHEN THE INTERLOCK SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONED AND THE VEHICLES WERE PARKED UNSECURED (NOT IN PARK, BRAKE NOT ENGAGED).THE 3 NOTED INJURIES WERE RELATIVELY MINOR.THE WARRANTY CLAIMS SHOWN UNDER OTHER WERE CONFIRMED BY HONDA AS INTERLOCK SYSTEM FAILURES.IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE IGNITION-PARK INTERLOCK SYSTEM, AN ELECTRICALLY DRIVEN SOLENOID OPERATES A BLOCKING LEVER TO PREVENT IGNITION KEY REMOVAL WHEN THE SHIFT LEVER IS NOT IN THE PARK POSITION.ACCORDING TO HONDA, AN IGNITION SWITCH MANUFACTURING OPERATION COULD OCCASIONALLY PRODUCE METAL DEBRIS.IN SOME CASES THE DEBRIS COULD FALL INTO THE AREA BETWEEN THE INTERLOCK LEVER AND THE BODY OF THE IGNITION SWITCH WHERE RELATIVE MOVEMENT OCCURS.DEBRIS TRAPPED IN THIS AREA CAN INCREASE FRICTION BETWEEN THE LEVER AND THE SWITCH BODY.IF THE DEBRIS IS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE, IT MAY SLOW THE RESPONSE OF THE LEVEL WHEN THE SOLENOID IS ENERGIZED.IN THIS SITUATION, IF THE TRANSMISSION IS NOT IN PARK AND THE IGNITION KEY IS ROTATED IN A CERTAIN MANNER THE INTERLOCK SYSTEM MAY FAIL TO PREVENT KEY REMOVAL, AS REQUIRED UNDER FMVSS 114.HONDA IMPLEMENTED MANUFACTURING CHANGES IN MARCH 2002 TO PREVENT DEBRIS FROM ENTERING THE IGNITION SWITCH ASSEMBLY.HONDA ALSO CHANGED END-OF-LINE INSPECTION PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE DETECTION OF DEBRIS.THE PRESENCE OF DEBRIS IN THE IGNITION SWITCH IS OTHERWISE UNAPPARENT TO THE OPERATOR OF THE VEHICLE.UNDER SAFETY RECALL 03V-422, HONDA WILL RECALL VEHICLES MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO MARCH 2002 TO TEST THE INTERLOCK SYSTEM FOR THE PRESENCE OF DEBRIS.VEHICLES THAT FAIL THE TEST WILL RECEIVE NEW IGNITION SWITCH ASSEMBLIES.

Recorded closure: Nov 13, 2003

Campaign reference in the source: 03V422000

ALL ODI COMPLAINTS AND CRASHES ARE DUPLICATIVE OF HONDA COMPLAINTS.THE WARRANTY CLAIM COUNT SHOWN FOR OTHER REPRESENTS INCIDENTS WHERE HONDA'S ANALYSIS OF CLAIM DETAIL INDICATES THE INTERLOCK SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONED.THE CR-V INTERLOCK SYSTEM UTILIZES AN ECU TO CONTROL A SOLENOID DRIVEN BLOCKING DEVICE THAT PREVENTS KEY REMOVAL WHEN THE SHIFTER IS NOT IN PARK.HONDA DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED A CONDITION WHERE METALLIC DEBRIS INTERFERES WITH THE OPERATION OF THE BLOCKING SOLENOID AND CAUSES THE INTERLOCK SYSTEM TO MALFUNCTION.HONDA DETERMINED THAT A MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS THE SOURCE OF THE DEBRIS AND IMPLEMENTED A COUNTERMEASURE IN MARCH 2002.APPROXIMATELY 62,000 VEHICLES WERE PRODUCED PRIOR TO THIS DATE.ODI RECOGNIZES 63 INCIDENTS OF INTERLOCK FAILURE, WHICH INCLUDE 7 ROLLAWAY CRASHES, TWO OF WHICH RESULTED IN THREE INJURIES AND A MULTI VEHICLE ACCIDENT.ALL 63 FAILURES OCCURRED ON VEHICLES PRODUCED PRIOR TO THE MARCH COUNTERMEASURE.NOTING THE POPULATION OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED VEHICLES, BOTH THE FAILURE AND CRASH RATES ARE OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN TO ODI.

Recorded closure: Sep 9, 2003