Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 48 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Power Train. Review the 27 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Air Bags. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

43 crash reports4 fire reports16 injury reports

Unknown Or Other complaints

4 reports

Clear category filter

80,900 miles · Aug 3, 2016

Unknown Or Other

Read full complaint

UNWANTED ACCELERATION WHILE APPLYING THE BREAK WHILE SLOWING DOWN THE RPM GAUGE PINS ITSELF TO ABOUT 3000. THE CAR WILL NOT DOWN SHIFT UNTIL IT JOLTS FORWARD JUST A LITTLE AND THE YOU CAN FEEL THE LOWER GEARS ENGAGE. I BOUGHT IT AS A USED VEHICAL ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO WITH 80,336 MILES . I SEE LOTS OF COMPLAINTS FOR THE SAME THING ON MANY OTHER VEHICALS OF THE SAME MAKE MODEL AND YEAR. I'M ASSUMING IT'S A BAD SPEED SENSOR . WHY IS THIS NOT A RECALL? THIS STARTED HAPPENING AFTER WE TOOK A RIDE ON THE HIGHWAY. AND IT ONLY APPEARS TO HAPPEN WHILE THE CAR IS IN MOTION. SOMETIMES THE CAR WILL NOT ACCELERATE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR IS APPLIED IT JUST MAKES THE RPMS REV UP, AND THESE DOESN'T GO ANY FASTER KIND OF THE SAME EFFECT YOU WOULD GET IF IT WAS IN NEUTRAL AND APPLIED THE ACCELERATOR.

NHTSA ODI #10893003

57,000 miles · Jun 21, 2012

EnginePower TrainUnknown Or Other

Read full complaint

WE HAVE EXPERIENCED ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS THAT VEHICLE HESITATES WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE AT STOP SIGN OR WHEN INITIALY IN START TO DRIVE AT ABOUT 20-30 MILES PER HOUR AT TIMES FOR FEW SECONDS & AT TIMES IT RATTLES 3-4 TIMES. THIS CAR WAS PURCHASED AS CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED FROM LEXUS DEALER IN EXCELLENT CONDITION IN 2006 THAT CAME WITH EXTENDED WARRANTY UPTO 75000 MILES BUT THIS PROBLEM STARTED WITH SLIGHT & SMOOTH JERK ABOUT 3 YEARS BACK, TOOK IT TO DEALER AFTER NOTICED FOR FEW TIMES TO DIAGNOSIS. AT FIRST INSTANCE THEY COULD NOT FEEL IT SINCE IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT BUT WHEN AGAIN COMPLAINED FOR SECOND TIME WAS TOLD THAT IT COULD BE FUEL INJECTORS CLOGED FOLLOWED BY OTHER LIST OF POTENTIAL SERVICE ITEMS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT $1000+ EXPENSE WHICH WE DENIED IT SINCE WE HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED OUR CAR GOOD & ALWAYS USE 93 OR 89 OCTAINE GAS WITH MAINTENANCE SERVICE AS RECOMMENDED. THIS ONE IS MY WIFE'S VEHICLE & USED TO COMMUTE TO WORK MOSTLY ON EXPRESS WAY. WE DO HAVE COUPLE OTHER ISSUES WITH THIS CAR BUT NOT AS IMPORTANT. NOW, LATELY THIS HESITATION FREQUENCY HAVE INCREASED & FROM WHAT I HEAR IS THAT WE ARE NOT ALONE AND THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING ISSUE WITH SOME OTHER ES300 OWNERS AS WELL. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10462547

25,000 miles · May 20, 2005

Unknown Or Other

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING TO WORK WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 15 MILES FROM MY HOME. UPON ENTERING THE PARKING LOT, I HAD TO YEILD TO A SCHOOL BUS AND STOP. AFTER THE STOP I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE AT APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH TO PARK THE CAR. I TURNED FOUR TIMES TO GET TO THE PARKING SPACE WITH FOOT ON THE BREAK OR JUST COASTING. AS I TURNED INTO THE PARKING SPACE WITH THE BRAKES PRESSED. THE CAR ACCERALATED AND WENT OVER THE CURB AND PROCEEDED ON THE GRASS. MY FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE INCIDENT. I TRIED TO STOP THE CAR BY PUSHING THE BRAKES DOWN HARDER. SINCE THE BRAKEKS WERE NOT RESPOND, I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE AND STOMPED/PUMPED THE BRAKES WITH NO AVAIL. THE BRAKES WERE NOT RESPONDING. THE CAR WAS ON THE GRASS AND LUCKILY SINCE THE STEERING WHEEL WAS IN A LEFT HAND TURN POSTION I AVOIDED HITTING STUDENTS AND A HUGE TREE. USING THE EMERGENCY BRAKE FINALLY STOPPED THE CAR. 3. I CALLED 180025LEXUS AND HAD THEM PICK THE CAR UP AND TAKE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP (STERLING MC CALL LEXUS) THE SERVICER ADVISOR (LOPEZ) CALLED SAYING THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE VECHILE AND IT WAS READY TO BE PICKED UP. WHEN THE CAR WAS PICKED UP MY HUSBAND MADE A NOTATION ON THE SERVIE SHEET SAYING HE DID NOT AGREE. HE ALSO WENT TO TALK TO THE SALES MANAGER (COOK) TO LET HIM KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND HOW UNHAPPY WE WERE. HE ALSO LET HIM KNOW THAT WE HAD RESEARCHED LEXUS ON THE NHTSA SITE AND FOUND THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT AND MANY ORTHER REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED CONCERNING BRAKES NOT WORKING AND WITH HIGH ACCERATION. HE SAID TO REPORT IT TO 180025LEXUS AND HE WOUDL GET ON TO IT ONCE IT WAS REPORTED. I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE THIS CAR BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY ISSUE AND SINCE LEXUS WILL NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILTY THE CAR MUST BE REPLACED.

NHTSA ODI #10121756

Mileage unknown · Jan 15, 2004

Unknown Or Other

Read full complaint

I REALIZE THAT MY PROBLEM, WITH A BAD RADIO IS NOT A MECHANICAL ONE. HOWEVER, I AM SENDING THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION, AND TO INDICATE THAT LEXUS DOES NOT LIVE UP TO ITS ADS AS PURSUING PERFECTION I HAVE SPOKEN TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT LEXUS, IN MY DEALERSHIP AND AT THE MAIN OFFICE OVER A PERIOD OF 10 MONTHS. I HAVE EVEN WRITTEN TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF LEXUS. HE DID NOT REPLY TO MY FIRST LETTER SO I SENT HIM A SECOND LETTER, CERTIFIED. RETURN RECEIPT. I RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THAT SECOND LETTER FROM SOMEONE AT CUSTOMER RELATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THAT CALL, I HAVE RECEIVED A CALL FROM A SERVICE MANAGER AT THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED MY CAR, AND FROM ANOTHER PERSON. THE FINAL DECISION SEEMS TO BE THAT, ALTHOUGH THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH THE RADIO IN THE ES 300, AND THAT THEY REALIZE THAT IT IS DUE TO A FAULTY ANTENNA IN THE REAR WINDOW, BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT. I TOLD THAT PERSON THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME AND AM WAITING FOR A RESPONSE WHICH I ASSUME WILL BE NEGAZTIVE.

NHTSA ODI #10070548

Official recalls

No recalls in this snapshot.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

DP09001 · Unwanted And Unintended Acceleration

Opened Apr 8, 2009 · Closed Oct 29, 2009

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control

THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED DP09-001 ON APRIL 8, 2009, TO EVALUATE A DEFECT PETITION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM DEFECTS UNRELATED TO FLOOR MAT INTERFERENCE WITH ACCELERATOR PEDALS IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 LEXUS ES 350 VEHICLES.THE PETITIONER REFERENCED AN EARLIER ODI INVESTIGATION CONCERNING FLOOR MAT INTERFERENCE WITH ACCELERATOR PEDAL RETURN (PE07-016/EA07-010), WHICH HE STATED WAS TOO NARROW IN SCOPE AS IT DID NOT INCLUDE ALL INCIDENTS OF UNWANTED ACCELERATION AND CONSIDER ALL POTENTIAL CAUSES OF VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL CONCERNS.THE PETITION ALSO REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION OF MY 2002-2003 LEXUS ES300 FOR THOSE 'LONGER DURATION INCIDENTS INVOLVING UNCONTROLLABLE ACCELERATION WHERE BRAKE PEDAL APPLICATION ALLEGEDLY HAD NO EFFECT' THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION PE04-021. AS BACKGROUND, THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2007 LEXUS ES350 THAT ALLEGEDLY EXPERIENCED AN UNWANTED AND UNCONTROLLED ACCELERATION EVENT (ODI COMPLAINT NUMBER 10261660).TOYOTA CONCLUDED THAT THE INCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY AN UNSECURED FLOOR MAT. TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST, ODI INTERVIEWED THE PETITIONER, INSPECTED HIS VEHICLE, REVIEWED INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY TOYOTA, REVIEWED OWNER COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF UNWANTED ACCELERATION IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND MATERIAL RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS CITED BY THE PETITIONER.ODI IDENTIFIED 64 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF UNWANTED ACCELERATION IN MY 2007 LEXUS VEHICLES, RESULTING IN 8 CRASHES AND 15 INJURIES.ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THESE COMPLAINTS DETERMINED THAT 50 (78%) INVOLVED INCIDENTS OF FLOOR MAT INTERFERENCE, INCLUDING 7 (88%) OF THE CRASHES AND ALL 15 INJURIES.THEREFORE, ODI'S ANALYSIS FOUND THAT THE ONLY DEFECT TREND RELATED TO VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES INVOLVED THE POTENTIAL FOR ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO BECOME TRAPPED NEAR THE FLOOR BY OUT-OF-POSITION OR INAPPROPRIATE FLOOR MAT INSTALLATIONS. ON OCTOBER 5, 2009, TOYOTA INITIATED A SAFETY RECALL (RECALL 09V-388) TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH POTENTIAL ACCELERATOR PEDAL ENTRAPMENT BY FLOOR MATS IN APPROXIMATELY 3.8 MILLION VEHICLES, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS RELATE TO THAT RECALL, THE FACTUAL BASES OF THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS THAT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY ARE UNSUPPORTED. IN OUR VIEW, ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION IS UNLIKELY TO RESULT IN A FINDING THAT A DEFECT RELATED TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY EXISTS OR A NHTSA ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT, AS ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE REQUESTED INVESTIGATION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.THIS ACTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.PLEASE SEE THEFEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.

DP05002 · Vehicle Speed Control

Opened Aug 5, 2005 · Closed Jan 5, 2006

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control

IN A LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2005, AND AFTER EXPERIENCING TWO INCIDENTS (AND ONE CRASH) WHERE HE ALLEGES HIS MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 CAMRY ACCELERATED WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT, MR. JORDAN ZIPRIN PETITIONED THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION?S (NHTSA) OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFECT WITHIN THE ETC SYSTEM IN MY 2002 TO 2005 TOYOTA AND LEXUS VEHICLES, OR TO REOPEN A PRIOR INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-021.IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 18, 2005, MR. ZIPRIN AMENDED HIS PETITION TO INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF INTERRELATED BRAKE AND ACCELERATION PROBLEMS THAT ALLEGEDLY RESULT IN INAPPROPRIATE AND UNCONTROLLABLE VEHICLE ACCELERATIONS.THE 1172 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE REPORTS CITED BY THE PETITIONER INVOLVE 4 LEXUS AND 15 TOYOTA MODELS DEFINING A POPULATION OF 7 MILLION VEHICLES.THE REPORTS TYPICALLY ALLEGED A DEFECT IN THE BRAKE SYSTEM, THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH SYSTEMS.IN ITS REVIEW OF THE REPORTS, ODI A) FAILED TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A BRAKE RELATED DEFECT IN THE CITED MODELS, AND B) DETERMINED THAT MANY CITED PRODUCTS WERE NOT EQUIPPED WITH ETC.ACCORDINGLY, ODI RESTRICTED ITS ANALYSIS TO THE 432 PETITIONER REPORTS INVOLVING MY 2002 TO 2005 CAMRY, SOLARA, AND ES MODELS (ALL EQUIPPED WITH ETC) THAT ALLEGED AN ABNORMAL THROTTLE CONTROL EVENT (SEE THE JANUARY 3, 2006 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS).ABOUT 40% OF THE 432 REPORTS INVOLVE A DRIVEABILITY CONCERN WHERE THE OPERATOR INTENTIONALLY APPLIES THE THROTTLE PEDAL, IN EXPECTATION THAT THE VEHICLE WILL ACCELERATE, AND THEN EXPERIENCES A DELAY OR HESITATION IN VEHICLE RESPONSE.THESE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLE RESPONSE TO INTENTIONAL DRIVER COMMANDS WHICH ODI CONSIDERS UNRELATED TO THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED.ABOUT 20% OF THE REPORTS INVOLVE INCIDENTS WHERE OPERATORS ALLEGE VEHICLE ACCELERATION WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND AN INABILITY OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE WHEN APPLIED.NEITHER THE REPORTS, NOR THE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY ODI, IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE INCIDENTS OR DISCLOSED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT A FAILURE OF THE BRAKE OR THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM HAD OCCURRED.BECAUSE THESE REPORTS DO NOT INDICATE A DISTINCT SAFETY DEFECT FOR INVESTIGATION, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERTHE REMAINING REPORTS (~ 40%, SIMILAR TO THE PETITIONER?S AND THOSE OF PE04-021) TYPICALLY DESCRIBE INCIDENTS WHERE A VEHICLE IS BEING MANEUVERED AT SLOW SPEED IN A CLOSE QUARTER SITUATION AT WHICH POINT THE OPERATOR ALLEGES THAT THE VEHICLE ACCELERATES WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND CRASHES.IN THE AFTERMATH, OPERATORS ARE UNSURE OF WHETHER THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED OR NOT, SOMETIMES STATING THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO USE THE BRAKE; A CRASH OCCURRED AND THE OPERATOR BELIEVES AN UNCOMMANDED ACCELERATION CAUSED IT.IN SPITE OF THE EFFORT EXPENDED DURING PE04-021 AND DURING THIS ANALYSIS, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE REPORTS, OR UNCOVERED ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT A THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURE OCCURRED.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS HAVE AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS ON WHICH ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTION IS WARRANTED.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES T

PE04021 · Throttle Control System

Opened Mar 3, 2004 · Closed Jul 22, 2004

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control

THE LEXUS MODELS WERE THE SUBJECT OF DEFECT PETITION (DP) 04-003.TWELVE ODI COMPLAINTS ARE DUPLICATIVE TO TOYOTA REPORTS, INCLUDING THE TWO MINOR CRASHES.THE V6 EQUIPPED SOLARA MODELS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONTAIN THE SUBJECT THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM.TOYOTA INTRODUCED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES BEGINNING IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002.ODI OPENED THE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF THE SYSTEM COULD BE THE CAUSE OF COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE ENGINE SPEED INCREASED, OR FAILED TO DECREASE, (FOR A SHORT DURATION) WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS NOT DEPRESSED (THE ALLEGED DEFECT).DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ANALYZED AGENCY DATA AND REVIEWED VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS, CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS INVOLVING 113 VOQ AND 36 TOYOTA REPORTS, INSPECTED TWO COMPLAINANT VEHICLES, REVIEWED RELEVANT TOYOTA SERVICE AND NEW CAR FEATURE DOCUMENTATION, REVIEWED AND ANALYZED TOYOTA?S RESPONSES TO ODI?S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER, CONDUCTED A LIMITED CONTROL PEDAL ASSESSMENT, AND ATTENDED A TOYOTA TECHNICAL PRESENTATION THAT INCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT OF TWO DEMONSTRATION VEHICLES.THROUGH INTERVIEWS, ODI IDENTIFIED 14 VOQ AND 6 TOYOTA REPORTS (20 UNIQUE VEHICLES) WHERE COMPLAINANTS REPORT MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.IN SOME CASES THE CONDITION WAS EXPERIENCED BY DIFFERENT VEHICLE OPERATORS OR WAS WITNESSED BY OTHER OCCUPANTS.ODI WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THE CAUSE OF 9 TOYOTA AND AN ADDITIONAL 37 VOQ REPORTS (WHICH DESCRIBE 28 UNIQUE INCIDENTS) DUE TO INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.THE REMAINING COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED (62 VOQ, 21 TOYOTA) DESCRIBED CONDITIONS NOT CAUSED BY A FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM AND WERE THUS CONSIDERED UNRELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED REPORTED A COMPONENT FAILURE (OR OTHER INDICATOR OF A SYSTEM FAILURE) AS THE POTENTIAL CAUSE OF INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO THIS INVESTIGATION.IN MANY CASES, THE COMPLAINT VEHICLES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY INSPECTED BY DEALERSHIP OR MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVES WHO ALSO FAILED TO IDENTIFY A FAULT WITHIN THE VEHICLE.TOYOTA IDENTIFIED 43 RELATED WARRANTY CLAIMS, 24 OF WHICH WERE FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES ONLY (NO REPAIRS PERFORMED).ODI FOUND NOTHING ABNORMAL IN THE CONTROL PEDAL CONFIGURATION OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.A DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR FURTHER DETAIL.

DP04003 · Throttle Control System

Opened Feb 17, 2004 · Closed Mar 5, 2004

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control

THE POPULATION NUMBER NOTED ABOVE IS ESTIMATED.IN THE JANUARY 15TH, 2004 PETITION REQUEST LETTER TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA), THE PETITIONER IDENTIFIED 37 VOQ COMPLAINTS AS RELATED TO VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL ISSUES SIMILAR TO THOSE THE PETITIONER ALLEGEDLY EXPERIENCED IN THEIR OWN VEHICLE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS (AS DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION REQUEST LETTER).DURING IT'S CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) REVIEWED THE 37 COMPLAINTS AND CONCLUDED THAT 34 OF THE COMPLAINTS DID NOT INVOLVE A THROTTLE CONTROL ISSUE AS DESCRIBED AND ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER; THREE VOQS (ONE OF WHICH IS THE PETITIONER'S) DO ALLEGE A THROTTLE CONTROL ISSUE.HOWEVER, THE THROTTLE CONTROL ISSUES ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE ALLEGED IN THE SUPPORTING VOQS FOR PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE04-021 WHICH INVOLVES THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND CAMRY SOLARA MODELS.BASED ON ODI'S REVIEW OF AVAILABLE SERVICE INFORMATION, IT APPEARS THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM MANUFACTURED ON THE LEXUS ES300 MODELS IS THE SAME AS, OR SIMILAR TO, THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM USED ON THE TOYOTA CAMRY AND CAMRY SOLARA MODELS.ACCORDINGLY, THE ES300 MODELS WILL BE ADDED TO THE SCOPE OF PE04-021 AND THE PETITION IS GRANTED.