2014 Toyota Corolla
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Toyota › Corolla › 2014
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2014 Toyota Corolla. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
2 recalls name the 2014 Toyota Corolla. Newest first.
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.
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.
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.
Toyota Motor Engineering & manufacturing North America, Inc. (Toyota) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 Camry and Camry HV, model year 2013 Avalon and Avalon HV and model year 2014 Corolla vehicles. In the affected vehicles, the windshield wiper switch assembly may short circuit. As such, these vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of…
A short circuit could cause inoperative windshield wipers, reducing driver visibility and increasing the risk of a crash.
Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the wiper switch assembly, free of charge. The recall began on November 8, 2013. Owners may contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331.
A critical oversight in the execution of an official Toyota Special Service Campaign (JSD) resulted in the severe premature failure of a replacement CVT assembly, creating a severe high-speed safety hazard on a highway. The vehicle experienced an abrupt mechanical lock-up, power loss, and transition into an extreme "limp mode" while operating at highway speeds. This sudden deceleration in active traffic created an immediate rear-end collision hazard and a severe handling emergency. Sequence of Events: 1. Initial Assembly Replacement (May 2019): The vehicle’s original K313 CVT transaxle assembly failed and was replaced at an authorized Toyota dealership with a factory-remanufactured unit. Review of the repair invoice confirms the physical hardware swap and CVT fluid line items were executed. However, the dealership omitted the mandatory Electronic Control Unit (ECU/ECM) software reflash mandated by Toyota Special Service Campaign JSD to prevent the internal gear-ratio control solenoid valve from cycling unnecessarily and experiencing abnormal mechanical wear. 2. The new, remanufactured CVT assembly was subsequently operated for approximately 9,000 miles with the defective original software. Then, the vehicle was returned to the same authorized dealership for a different recall at the time. The invoice explicitly documents the retro-active application of the software with: "JSD Special Service Campaign - PERFORMED SOFTWARE UPDATE." 5. Premature Secondary Failure (Current): Approximately 42,000 miles following the installation of the replacement transaxle, the unit suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure on the highway. Per official technical service data, operating the K313 CVT transaxle under the uncorrected software logic subjects the CVT to abnormal mechanical fatigue. The incomplete execution of an active safety campaign by an authorized modifier directly compromised the operational lifespan and integrity of a primary powertrain component.
SYSTEM THAT FAILED: Powertrain / Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) and differential/transaxle assembly. The component is currently intact and available for inspection at the diagnosing dealership. SAFETY RISK DESCRIPTION: While traveling on the highway, the vehicle suffered a physical jolt followed by a loud, sustained mechanical whirring noise. The powertrain immediately dropped into an un-commanded "limp mode" that capped the maximum speed to below 40 MPH. Upon attempting to accelerate out of active highway traffic toward an exit ramp, the CVT slipped severely, causing the engine speed to fluctuate violently and rhythmically between 1,000 and 3,000 RPM while failing to transmit power to the wheels. This sudden, unexpected loss of propulsion on a highway created an immediate and severe collision hazard to the operator and surrounding motorists. DEALER CONFIRMATION & INSPECTION: The vehicle and its components have been officially inspected and diagnosed by an authorized manufacturer dealership. The dealership’s shop foreman personally verified a total mechanical failure of the transaxle and differential assembly, noting that the component is physically stuck in a lower gear. No insurance or police inspections were conducted, as the safety event did not result in an accident. WARNINGS & PRIOR SYMPTOMS: There were absolutely no warning lamps, dashboard messages, or pre-failure symptoms prior to this specific incident. Onboard diagnostics failed to provide any prior warning to the operator. Furthermore, a subsequent computer diagnostic sweep by the dealership confirmed that zero electronic Diagnostic Trouble Codes were triggered or stored, confirming a sudden, purely physical mechanical breakdown. This vehicle represents a repeat structural failure of a manufacturer-supplied safety remedy. The current Toyota dealer-installed replacement from a previous JSD campaign remedy suffered the exact highway mechanical breakdown after only 43,000 miles of operation.
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 109,000, but upon contacting the dealer to trade the vehicle in, it was discovered via a Carfax report that the mileage was 260,000.
I am reporting a severe manufacturing defect involving the Blizzard Pearl paint (Paint Code 070) on my 2014 Toyota Corolla. The exterior paint is actively peeling and delaminating from the vehicle body panels in large, brittle chunks, exposing the bare metal underneath.This issue presents a distinct safety hazard to both myself and other drivers on the road. The paint detaches unexpectedly while driving at highway speeds, causing flying debris that can distract or impact the windshields of trailing vehicles. Furthermore, the structural degradation and exposed metal can lead to premature rust, compromising the integrity of the body panels over time.Toyota has previously acknowledged this specific adhesive failure between the factory primer layer and the metal sheet body under a prior Warranty Enhancement Program (Customer Support Program 19N01). However, the peeling continues to spread to new panels, creating an ongoing road hazard. I am requesting that the NHTSA investigate this widespread defect as a structural safety issue.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Electric
A Toyota owner is frustrated with a faulty navigation system that repeatedly crashes and refuses to update. Despite multiple dealership visits and a customer service call, the issue remains unresolved. The owner argues that the malfunctioning system poses a safety hazard, as it could potentially direct drivers to dangerous roads.
White paint and clear coat is peeling off vehicle in large sections. It started around the windows and door frames but now almost half the vehicle is missing the paint. I was told by a local mechanic that Toyota had a recall but when I went to Meridian Toyota, they said the recall was for 10 years from the manufacturer date which was 10/13. This is a 2014 vehicle so we didn’t purchase it until 2014. I went at the end of 2024 and they refused to help with it since it was manufacturers date and not 10 years from the year of vehicle. The vehicle is now starting to rust due to a known problem from Toyota which they refuse to fix. My family has had 7 Toyota vehicles which we love but I am extremely disappointed that you won’t fix this problem which is in no way our fault. The paint in the pictures attached has actually gotten worse in the past few months. Please help resolve this situation.
The paint on my car IS coming off in sheets and chunks as I go down the road. it IS my understanding this IS a systemic problem with white paint on toyota's vehicles manufactured during years that include my car. I took it to the dealer and they said there had been a program to fix this problem but it expired, I think this should be repaired asap to avoid future damages & issues
The contact owned a 2014 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while the daughter was driving approximately 70 MPH the daughter lost control of the steering causing the vehicle to roll over and crash into a ditch. During the crash, the vehicle sustained severe front-end damage and was destroyed but no air bags were deployed. During the crash, the driver sustained a concussion that later required medical assistance. A police report was taken at the scene and the vehicle was towed away. The cause of the failure was not determined. The manufacturer was contacted regarding the incident. The contact indicated that the vehicle was previously serviced under the NHTSA Campaign Number: 20V024000(AIR BAGS). The contact indicated that the vehicle had experienced that same failure listed in the recall. The Local dealer was not contacted. The failure mileage was 130,000.
I was in a car accident .A woman failed to yield at a stop sign and rammed into the front of my car at a high accelerated speed. I was restrained but the right side of my forehead hit the rearview mirror .causing two huge knots on my head. My eye glasses also smashed into my right eye and I had a cut above my eye .I was thrown to the right passenger seat area , my right hip hit the gear shift and my knees and hip , were bruised. Apparently the seatbelt failed as well , but my main complaint is that the airbags failed to deploy. I suffered damage strain and bruising to both hands, the left was worse , I was made to wear a brace . I was taken to the ER via ambulance . One of the officers assumed I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt , which was not true at all . He thought I hit the windshield but I did not , it was the mirror . I have proof , photos and all EMT and ER records report that I was restrained . A paramedic helped me remove the seatbelt to exit my car . I feel I wouldn't have suffered the head, eye and other injuries if the airbag had deployed.
The AC compressor is failing as it’s blowing hot air at idle or when the vehicle is running at 20-40mph. During Texas hot summers, baby & toddlers are at risk for extreme heat as the AC blows hot/warm air. The problem has been reproduce at an automotive AC shop where they have inspected the AC for leaks, vacuumed refrigerant and replaced refrigerant. Still same issues without any leaks. Police or insurance has not been involved. There are no dash lights when this happens and the issue happens daily which started 3 years ago. The vehicle is driven less because of the issue. There is a TSB T-SB-0086-14 that says this is covered within 36k mile warranty or 3 years. I bought the vehicle with 48K miles and about 2 years later the AC blows hot air at idle.
The factory paint has been peeling very badly and exposing the metal underneath, allowing rust to begin to settle. I have been trying to get it repaired for a while now and continuously have been ignored. I have spoken to Toyota Customer Support and they told me that the warranty expired a couple months ago, and I have no record of them sending any communication out to us telling us it would expire, which was supposed to be what they needed to do per regulations. I was never notified of any resolutions and am extremely upset that they are not wanting to reconsider due to being 2 months out of warranty.
While car was in for oil change and tire rotation, it was noted that the driver's side front tire had substantial wear on the inside of the tire. It looks like the inside of the tire was ground down causing an indention. Mechanic thinks the belt may have shifted. Said he had never seen it before.
Radio is not working and the light stays on the radio making it hard to drive cause it is so bright which is dangerous.
The contact owns a 2014 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the contact was involved in a head-on collision, however the air bags did not deploy. The contact sustained a concussion and was transported to the local hospital for treatment. The vehicle was towed to a local tow yard. A police report was filed, however the report information was unavailable. The contact stated that the police report was undergoing amendment due to missing information. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 165,000.
The contact owns a 2014 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated while driving 45 MPH the vehicle in front of the contact made a complete stop. The contact attempted to brake, but the Anti-lock Brake System was not engaged. The contact also stated there was a sudden unintended acceleration which caused the contact to rear-end the vehicle in front. No warning lights were illuminated. The Air Bags deployed. The contact sustained neck and lower back injury, facial burn, bloody nose, and a chest contusion which the contact to seek medical attention. The vehicle was towed and deemed destroyed. A police report was filed. The contact notified the manufacturer of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 86,000.
The website of https://www.toyota.com/recall is not working. Therefore, I am unable to change my recalled airbag.
Air bags did not go off during the crash and the seats belt tensioner didn't lock up the seat belt resulting in injury to my self. Radio keeps rebooting
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
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.
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.