IllustrationCopper wiring on driver seat caught fire causing damage to driver door driver harness underneath the dash and electric seat mechanism also caused staining to the fabric and interior
2006 Toyota Camry Solara
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2006 Toyota Camry Solara do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 83.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Camry Solara years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
220–25K
2225–50K
1950–75K
1275–100K
4100–150K
4150K+
83 reports with mileage · 33 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Structure. Review the 45 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 19 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
21 crash reports5 fire reports8 injury reports
Seats complaints
6 reportsTL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR SEAT HEADRESTS RESTRICT VISIBILITY. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE SEAT WAS DESIGNED. THE PURCHASE DATE AND A VALID VIN WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 25,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 10.
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA SOLARA CONVERTIBLE WITH A CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE OF 12,953 . THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS IN A CRASH ON MARCH 27, 2007 THE DRIVER WAS BACKING OUT OF THE PARKING SPOT AND HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE. SHE COULD NOT SEE OUT OF THE REARVIEW MIRROR BECAUSE THE HEAD REST WAS TOO BIG. THER…
Read full complaint
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA SOLARA CONVERTIBLE WITH A CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE OF 12,953 . THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS IN A CRASH ON MARCH 27, 2007 THE DRIVER WAS BACKING OUT OF THE PARKING SPOT AND HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE. SHE COULD NOT SEE OUT OF THE REARVIEW MIRROR BECAUSE THE HEAD REST WAS TOO BIG. THERE WAS NO POLICE REPORT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TOWED. THE CONTACT STATED TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER TO SEE IF HE COULD GET THE HEADREST TAKEN OFF OR REPLACED WITH SMALLER ONE, AND WAS TOLD THAT THE HEADREST COULD NOT BE REMOVED OR REPLACED.*AK UPDATE 05/04/07*TR\UPDATED 08/08/07. *JB
TL*- THE CONTACT HAD DIFFICULTY SEEING OUT OF THE 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA'S REARVIEW MIRROR BECAUSE THE HEAD RESTRAINT WAS BLOCKING THE VIEW. THE CONTACT CALLED MANUFACTURER TO SEE IF THEY COULD INSTALL THE HEAD RESTRAINT THAT WAS ON THE 2007 TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA WHICH WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE HEADREST SHE HAD IN HER VE…
Read full complaint
TL*- THE CONTACT HAD DIFFICULTY SEEING OUT OF THE 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA'S REARVIEW MIRROR BECAUSE THE HEAD RESTRAINT WAS BLOCKING THE VIEW. THE CONTACT CALLED MANUFACTURER TO SEE IF THEY COULD INSTALL THE HEAD RESTRAINT THAT WAS ON THE 2007 TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA WHICH WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE HEADREST SHE HAD IN HER VEHICLE, BUT MANUFACTURER STATED THEY COULD NOT DO THAT. THE ONLY OPTION THE MANUFACTURER GAVE HER WASTO TRADE IN THE VEHICLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 2600.*AK
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE REAR SEAT ASSEMBLY HEADRESTS OBSTRUCTED THE VIEW OF THE DRIVER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BACK THE VEHICLE OUT OF A PARKING SPACE OR WHILE DRIVING AND LOOKING TO PASS A VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY A DEALER WHO DETERMINED THIS WAS A NORMAL DESIGN AND INSTRUCTED THE CONTACT TO USE THE REARVIEW AND S…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE REAR SEAT ASSEMBLY HEADRESTS OBSTRUCTED THE VIEW OF THE DRIVER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BACK THE VEHICLE OUT OF A PARKING SPACE OR WHILE DRIVING AND LOOKING TO PASS A VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY A DEALER WHO DETERMINED THIS WAS A NORMAL DESIGN AND INSTRUCTED THE CONTACT TO USE THE REARVIEW AND SIDE MIRRORS FOR VIEWING WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN REVERSE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. UPDATED 10/18/2006 - *NM
THE HEAD REST IN THE BACK TOTALLY BLOCK THE VISION WHEN BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT. THERE IS A DEFINITE BLIND SPOT THAT IS NOT DIMINISHED BY THE REAR VIEW MIRROR. I HAVE HAD THIS CAR FOR 1 MONTH AND HAVE HAD 3 "CLOSE CALLS" WITH PEDESTRIANS APPEARING AS IF FROM NOWHERE. I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS PROBLEM IN ANY OTHER AUTOMOBILE…
Read full complaint
THE HEAD REST IN THE BACK TOTALLY BLOCK THE VISION WHEN BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT. THERE IS A DEFINITE BLIND SPOT THAT IS NOT DIMINISHED BY THE REAR VIEW MIRROR. I HAVE HAD THIS CAR FOR 1 MONTH AND HAVE HAD 3 "CLOSE CALLS" WITH PEDESTRIANS APPEARING AS IF FROM NOWHERE. I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS PROBLEM IN ANY OTHER AUTOMOBILE. *JB
Official recalls
216V396000 · Seats:front Assembly:seat Heater/cooler
Jun 2, 2016
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET) is recalling certain 2005-2011 4Runner, Highlander, Sequoia, and Sienna, 2005-2010 Avalon and Tundra, 2006-2008 Camry Solara, 2006-2010 Highlander hybrid, 2006-2011 Rav4 and Tacoma, 2007-2010 FJ Cruiser, 2007-2011 Camry hybrid, 2009-2010 Venza, 2010-2012 Prius, 1988-1990 and 2005-2010 Camry, and 1989 and 2009-2010 Corolla vehicles equipped with aftermarket accessory seat heaters with a copper strand heating element. The electrical wiring in the seat heaters may be damaged when the seat cushion is compressed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If damaged, the copper strand heating element may short circuit, increasing the risk of a fire.
Remedy: SET will notify owners, and dealers will disconnect the seat heaters, free of charge, and refund the purchase price of the seat heater accessory. The recall began on July 14, 2016. Owners may contact SET customer service at 1-866-405-4226. SET number for this recall is SET16B.
10V035000 · Equipment:other:labels
Feb 3, 2010
GULF STATES TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2010 VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 AND JUNE 2, 2008 WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. DEALERS WILL ALSO CORRECT THE OWNER'S MANUAL. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT GULF STATES TOYOTA AT 713-580-3300.
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
1DP06003 · Engine Surging
Opened Sep 14, 2006 · Closed Apr 3, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT 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 TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT 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 TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT 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 TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.