Honda engineering analysis EA25003
Rear-View Camera Failure. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this engineering analysis about the back over prevention on 3 model years (2017–2019). Opened Feb 11, 2025, closed Sep 18, 2026 after 19 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedOn November 23, 2022, American Honda Motor Co. (Honda) filed recall 22V-867 to address a loss of the Rear-View Camera (RVC) function in model year (MY) 2017-2019 Honda Ridgeline vehicles. On May 3, 2024 Honda filed another recall, 24V-321, relating to the loss of the RVC function in MY 2020-2024 Honda Ridgeline vehicles. The production parts recalled under 24V-321 and the parts used for the remedy in 22V-867 used the same supplier and materials for critical components in the RVC wire harness. As such, on June 26, 2024, ODI opened Recall Query RQ24011 to investigate the long-term suitability of the remedy in recall 22V-867. After receiving 14 total reports of RVC wire harness failures in vehicles that received the remedy for recall 22V-867, NHTSA upgraded the RQ investigation to this Engineering Analysis (EA25003) to further assess these failures. Recall 22V-867 states that the RVC wire harness was manufactured with a protective corrugated tubing that was insufficient to protect against bending wear and zip ties that were insufficiently tightened and would not keep the protective tubing in place. The consequence is that the RVC wire harness may fatigue and break after the tailgate is repeatedly opened and closed. This ultimately results in the failure of the RVC to display an image due to a lack of connectivity. Honda’s remedy, as identified in the recall filing, was a replacement harness with longer protective corrugated tubing and sufficiently tightened zip ties. This remedy part was also installed as a production part in certain MY 2019 Ridgeline vehicles. Recall 24V-321 states that the RVC wire harness was manufactured with a material which was susceptible to breakage upon repeated opening and closing of the tailgate, which ultimately leads to a complete loss of RVC function. Honda’s remedy identified in the recall filing was a replacement harness manufactured by a new supplier with improved material properties to withstand wear from bending. Since the remedy parts for recall 22V-867 and the production parts recalled under 24V-321 use the same supplier and materials for critical components in the RVC wire harness, ODI opened this investigation. To date, ODI has received 4 allegations of RVC failures. Honda reported a total of 27 complaints of RVC failure. ODI’s analysis of these reports revealed that the majority of these reports are related to different failure modes within the RVC or harness. Thus, these reports cannot be attributed to the durability concern being assessed in this investigation. During the investigation, ODI utilized NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) to analyze further the potential safety related consequence and frequency of the alleged failures. VRTC surveyed owners of the subject vehicles in Ohio to collect additional information on the presence of RVC wire harness failures in vehicles subject to recall 22V-867. VRTC also performed inspections of select vehicles identified from the survey responses. The survey responses received and results of inspections did not show any RVC failures resulting from wire harness damage. Additionally, VRTC completed durability testing on the subject wire harness in an attempt to duplicate the failure mode. The test results indicated that the subject part is not expected to fail within a reasonable vehicle life span. As a result of ODI’s analysis of the field data and available test data, this Engineering Analysis is being closed without further action. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
A Engineering Analysis is the deeper stage, usually upgraded from a Preliminary Evaluation: NHTSA tests, requests engineering documents and decides whether a safety defect exists. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the resumes carrying the full reasoning are linked below.
The paperwork NHTSA filed
Source: every document on this action, at nhtsa.gov- Opening resume — ODI’s own summary of why it opened this — the subject, what prompted it, and the vehicles in scope.
- Closing resume — ODI’s own summary of why it closed this, and what it concluded.
| Document | Code | Filed | At NHTSA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening resume | INOA | 2025 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2025 | |
| Information request to the manufacturer | INIM | 2025 | |
| Manufacturer's response — data | INRD | 2025 | 21 files 123456789101112131415161718192021 |
| Manufacturer's response — full submission | INRL | 2025 | 2 files 12 |
| Filed document | INOV | 2025 | |
| Confidential business information notice | INCBC | 2025 | |
| Filed document | INCV | 2025 |
These are NHTSA’s own files, served from the agency’s site — the resumes are what ODI wrote when it opened and closed the action, and the rest is the correspondence behind them, including what the manufacturer sent when the agency asked. They are linked, not copied: where a document names the people who wrote in, that redaction is the agency’s to make and its copy is the one you should read.
What owners had already reported
Source: complaints on file the day it openedWhen NHTSA opened this on Feb 11, 2025, owners had filed 760 complaints with the agency about the model years above, of which 79 named the back over prevention NHTSA went on to investigate. Owner complaints are the agency’s main early signal: ODI screens them, and a Preliminary Evaluation is usually where a pattern in them ends up.
This is what the complaint file held on that date, not a claim about which reports prompted the investigation — NHTSA’s complaint records carry no investigation number, so nobody can make that link from the data alone. The opening resume linked above names the reports ODI itself cited. Complaint records on this site begin with 2016.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themA vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs EA25003 a recall?
No. A engineering analysis is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is EA25003 still open?
No. It closed on Sep 18, 2026 without a recall.
Which vehicles does EA25003 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 3 model years: 2019 Honda Ridgeline, 2018 Honda Ridgeline, 2017 Honda Ridgeline. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.