Filed Jan 22, 2026 · Airbags, Seat belts · NY
Unknown
The most common problem on the 2013 Toyota Corolla is airbags, typically around 39,000 miles. It has fewer complaints than a typical Corolla model year.
Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.
Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.
No deployment 24Pulling 9Airbag light 7Sudden acceleration 6ABS 5Check engine light 5
Recall number 20V024000 · Recall details
Recall number 19V741000 · Recall details
Recall number 19V005000 · Recall details
Recall number 18V024000 · Recall details
Recall number 13V014000 · Recall details
See all 5 recalls for the 2013 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 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 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
EA21002
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 (âEOSâ) 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 the federal safety agency 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.
EA19001
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
Official EPA estimates in miles per gallon (MPGe for electric). Ranges cover trims that share the same engine.
| Engine | Drive | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.8L 4‑cyl | FWD | 26-27 | 33 | 29 |
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
Unknown
The paint on my 2013 Toyota Corolla, Super White (040), is peeling extensively down to the primer on the roof, hood, trunk, and door frames and pillar areas. Toyota previously acknowledged this issue as a manufacturing defect affecting 2008–2017 Corollas and issued a Warranty Enhancement Program to address it. My vehicle’s claim for assistance was denied solely due to the program expiration, even though the defect persists. The peeling is widespread, severe, and not consistent with normal wear or environmental exposure. The metal surfaces are exposed, increasing the risk of corrosion. I am submitting this complaint to document the defect and Toyota’s refusal to assist despite prior acknowledgment.
Wiper blades only going fast. Fuse and moter are fine however wiper blades goes real fast.
Odometer Fraud. The contact purchased a 2013 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that while attempting to register the vehicle, it was discovered that there was a mileage discrepancy. The vehicle was a private sale. At the time of purchase, the vehicle mileage was 71,509 and at the time of registration, it was discovered that the mileage was 197,151.
Blue color paint on hood and trunk of vehicle peeling off.The vehicle only has 29,000 miles and is parked in garage. Toyota needs to repaint car and absorb the cost.
White paint peeling off, it looks like Toyota haven’t painted this car with primer before the base coat
The contact owns a 2013 Toyota Corolla. The contact received notifications of the federal safety agency Campaign Numbers: 20V024000 (AIR BAGS) and 19V005000 (AIR BAGS) and would like to be removed from the recall distribution list. The local dealer and manufacturer were contacted.
the white paint is peeling off
On Monday, [XXX], I was at the CVS pharmacy drive through when the failure occurred. There was no accident and otherwise no warning before it happened. I attempted to pull out when I noticed the car was drifting and the steering was extremely stiff. I looked down to see that the airbag light and BRAKE light were both on. I coasted into a spot I happened to be aligned with. As I did, I felt the brakes and steering stiffen even more until they were almost 100% seized. (Kind of felt like I was fighting hydraulic fluid.) You guys are welcome to request to inspect the vehicle. I haven't been able to get it inspected, because the Toyota dealership wants me to pay a diagnostic fee to prove the airbag light came on due to the airbag assembly for them to be able to cover the work under the extended warranty for the airbag system. There was no accident. I thankfully didn't have any speed behind me. So, I just barely had enough brakes to stop. This also means that I didn't make an insurance claim or call the police. I did get a tow truck to come out with State Farm roadside assistance, though. The vehicle is at my father's house. We far as how this has affected us, I'm never buying a vehicle with electric steering again. At least with traditional power steering, if there's a failure, you can still steer the vehicle, even if it is difficult. If I had been coming down the winding, 6% grade from Lake Tahoe to Carson when it occurred a few nights ago, I wouldn't have been able to stop or steer; I probably would have went into the ravine. Had we been on the highway or even coming down the hill in Carson from[XXX] when I lost controls, we could both be dead right now. What's worse is I saw a forum where a bunch of people were talking about this happening to them: losing brakes and steering randomly, while actively driving. A few of them were only at 40k miles. In each case, airbags did not deploy. I think the sensor is causing the crashes sporadically. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5
The contact owns a 2013 Toyota Corolla. The contact stated that when the outside temperature was hot, the vehicle was not working correctly. The vehicle was difficult to start, and there was an abnormal ticking sound while starting the vehicle. The contact allowed the vehicle to cool down before the vehicle would run smoothly. There were no warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, who retrieved DTC code: P1604 (Startability Malfunction), and the electronic control module needed to be replaced. The local dealer was contacted, but the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was contacted and opened a case. The approximate failure mileage was 188,000.
Corolla vs Ford FocusCorolla vs Honda CivicCorolla vs Volkswagen JettaCorolla vs Hyundai ElantraCorolla vs Nissan SentraCorolla vs Chevrolet CruzeCorolla vs Mazda MAZDA3Corolla vs Subaru Impreza
19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027
Owners have filed 201 complaints about the 2013 Toyota Corolla, fewer than a typical Corolla model year.
The 2013 Toyota Corolla scores 74 out of 100 (average). The score compares it with the other model years of the Toyota Corolla: 75 is a typical year, 50 means twice the usual complaints, and serious complaints and recalls lower it.
Airbags, with 72 complaints, typically around 39,000 miles. Next is steering (39).
5 recalls, covering air bags and seats.
Yes, 4 recalls: 20V024000, 19V741000, 19V005000. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.
The Toyota Corolla model years with the most airbags complaints are 2009 (552 complaints), 2005 (457 complaints) and 2006 (454 complaints).
Official estimates for the 2013 Toyota Corolla range from 29 mpg combined. The most efficient version (1.8L 4-cyl, FWD) gets 26-27 city and 33 highway.
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history