NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
146 reportsClear category filter17,250 miles · Mar 8, 2003
Engine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, HydraulicTires
SINCE I PURCHASED THIS CAR IT HAS BEEN PROBLEMS, FIRST IT WAS THE BRAKES VIBRATING, TOOK IT IN AND RIGHT AWAY THE DEALER KNEW WHAT IT WAS WITHOUT ME EVEN EXPLAINING IT TO HIM, THEY FIXED THAT IN 2 TRIPS. THEN IT WAS THE ROTTEN EGG SMELL, THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG.(THEN WHY DOES MY CAR STINK WHEN I TRY TO GET POWER OUT O…
Read full complaint
SINCE I PURCHASED THIS CAR IT HAS BEEN PROBLEMS, FIRST IT WAS THE BRAKES VIBRATING, TOOK IT IN AND RIGHT AWAY THE DEALER KNEW WHAT IT WAS WITHOUT ME EVEN EXPLAINING IT TO HIM, THEY FIXED THAT IN 2 TRIPS. THEN IT WAS THE ROTTEN EGG SMELL, THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG.(THEN WHY DOES MY CAR STINK WHEN I TRY TO GET POWER OUT OF THE ENGINE?) THEN IT WAS THE KNOCKING AND PINGING IN THE ENGINE, (I WAS TOLD THAT THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM, BUT MY OCTANE LEVEL WAS LOW TO UPGRADE MY GAS. THE MANUFACTURERS PROVIDED OWNERS MANUAL STATES 87 OCTANE GAS OR HIGHER, I ALREADY USE 89 OCTANE AND HAVE SINCE THE DAY I BOUGHT THE CAR, SO WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO SPEND MONEY ON HIGHER PRICED GAS WHEN THE CAR IS ONLY 1 YEAR OLD AND THE ENGINE SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY NOISES. NOW IT IS THE TIRES AND ALIGNMENT THE ALIGNMENT IS COMPLETELY OFF THAT THE TIRES ARE DESTROYED WITH ONLY 17,250 MILES ON THEM, YET THE CAR SHOWS NO SIGN OF THE ALIGNMENT BEING OFF, IT DRIVES STRAIGHT STAYS IN ONE LANE AND THE STEERING WHEEL IS EVEN STRAIGHT, SO HOW AFTER ONE YEAR WITH LOW MILES IS THE ALIGNMENT OFF AND THE TIRES ARE DESTROYED, AND WHY WAS IT UNNOTICED WHEN I HAD MY TIRES BALANCED AND ROTATED 2 MONTHS EARLIER AT 15,000 MILES? BY THE SAME DEALERSHIP! I FEEL THAT THIS CAR HAS ALOT OF PROBLEMS THAT THE MANUFACTURER DOES NOT WANT TO ADDRESS, LOOK AT HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS, AND WE ARE ALL TOLD THAT IT IS WEAR AND TEAR OR THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM AT ALL, WELL THEN WHY ARE WE ALL HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS? I CALLED TOYOTA'S MAIN OFFICE LOGGED A COMPLAINT AND WAS TOLD THAT SOMEONE WOULD GET BACK TO ME, IT HAS BEEN 3 DAYS NOW AND NOT ONE CALL HAS COME MY WAY! I FEEL THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THE REPAIRS TO THIS CAR SINCE IT IS A NATION WIDE PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS A $27000.00 CAR THAT HAS DEPRECIATED IN VALUE BY MORE THAN $7000.00 IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR, WHAT HAPPENED TO TOYOTA'S RETAINING THERE VALUE? I WISH EVERYBODY MUCH LUCK WITH THEIR ISSUES. *NLM
NHTSA ODI #10010165
Mileage unknown · Mar 7, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE VEHICLE EXHIBITS POOR BRAKING DURING HARD STOP. BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO FLOOR. DURING NORMAL BRAKING, BRAKE PEDAL IS VERY LOW. WHEN YOU PUMP BRAKES, THE BRAKE PEDAL SINKS. THE DEALER HAS CHECKED BRAKES AND SAYS THIS IS NORMAL CONDITION.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10010102
33,483 miles · Mar 4, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WITH FOOT ON THE BRAKE WHEN THE VEHICLE ROLLED FORWARD AND TAPPED ANOTHER VEHICLE. SCC *NLM
NHTSA ODI #10009116
7,000 miles · Mar 2, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE FRONT DISK BRAKE ROTORS ARE REPEATEDLY WARPING DESPITE NORMAL DRIVING HABITS, CAUSING SHAKING OF STEERING WHEEL WHEN BRAKING AND POSSIBLY COMPROMISING VEHICLE STOPPING ABILITY. FIRST OCCURRENCE WAS AT 7,000 MILES, SECOND AT 15,000, THIRD AT 27,000. ROTORS WERE RESURFACED AT FIRST TWO OCCURRENCES TO TEMPORARILY CORRECT PROB…
Read full complaint
THE FRONT DISK BRAKE ROTORS ARE REPEATEDLY WARPING DESPITE NORMAL DRIVING HABITS, CAUSING SHAKING OF STEERING WHEEL WHEN BRAKING AND POSSIBLY COMPROMISING VEHICLE STOPPING ABILITY. FIRST OCCURRENCE WAS AT 7,000 MILES, SECOND AT 15,000, THIRD AT 27,000. ROTORS WERE RESURFACED AT FIRST TWO OCCURRENCES TO TEMPORARILY CORRECT PROBLEM. TOYOTA WARRANTY SERVICE ONLY PROVIDES FOR RESURFACING RATHER THAN PART REPLACEMENT. IS THIS PROBLEM DUE TO DEFECTIVE ROTOR MATERIALS AND/OR FAULTY BRAKE SYSTEM DESIGN?*JB
NHTSA ODI #10008319
Mileage unknown · Feb 25, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHEN THE BRAKE WAS APPLIED, CONSUMER WOULD ALSO HIT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL.*JB THE CONSUMER'S ACCESS TO THE BRAKE PEDAL IS IMPEDED, OR INHIBITED DURING APPLICATION OF THE BRAKE DUE TO THE DESIGN OF THE FOOTWELL AND THE BRAKE PEDAL SUPPORT ASSEMBLY.
NHTSA ODI #10009302
Mileage unknown · Feb 20, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHEN THE BRAKE WAS APPLIED, THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10008811
11,000 miles · Feb 10, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10006878
6,806 miles · Jan 15, 2003
Service Brakes, HydraulicStructure
THERE WAS A GRINDING SOUND COMING FROM THE BRAKES, THE BRAKE PEDAL WOULD GO TO THE FLOOR, AND IT WOULD FEEL AS IF THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP, THE CARPET HAD TO BE REGLUED IN THE TRUNK WHICH WOULD HANG DOWN, THERE WAS AN INTERIOR RATTLE IN THE CARPET, AND THE WASHERS FELL OUT THE RIGHT REAR DOOR, THE BRAKE PROBLEM WOULD OCCUR O…
Read full complaint
THERE WAS A GRINDING SOUND COMING FROM THE BRAKES, THE BRAKE PEDAL WOULD GO TO THE FLOOR, AND IT WOULD FEEL AS IF THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP, THE CARPET HAD TO BE REGLUED IN THE TRUNK WHICH WOULD HANG DOWN, THERE WAS AN INTERIOR RATTLE IN THE CARPET, AND THE WASHERS FELL OUT THE RIGHT REAR DOOR, THE BRAKE PROBLEM WOULD OCCUR ON DRY TO NORMAL ROAD SURFACES. SCC *JB
NHTSA ODI #10002123
40 miles · Jan 14, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
CONSUMER STATED THE BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR BEFORE THE VEHICLE STOPS, INCIDENT HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES, IN WHICH THE VEHICLE HAD STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. (VERY UNSAFE) THE DEALER BLAMES IT ON THE DESIGN. *SCC *JB
NHTSA ODI #10002086
Mileage unknown · Dec 24, 2002
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED, THE GAS PEDAL WAS PRESSED ACCIDENTALLY, WHICH CAUSED UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION. TS THE BRAKE PEDAL HAD GONE TO THE FLOOR, BELOW THE GAS PEDAL WHICH HAD FELT SPONGY. THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO A SERVICE DEALER WHICH STATED THAT THE BRAKES WERE OUT OF ADJUSTMENT. AFTER THE REPAIR WAS DONE…
Read full complaint
WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED, THE GAS PEDAL WAS PRESSED ACCIDENTALLY, WHICH CAUSED UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION. TS THE BRAKE PEDAL HAD GONE TO THE FLOOR, BELOW THE GAS PEDAL WHICH HAD FELT SPONGY. THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO A SERVICE DEALER WHICH STATED THAT THE BRAKES WERE OUT OF ADJUSTMENT. AFTER THE REPAIR WAS DONE, THE BRAKES STILL REMAINED THE SAME. SCC
NHTSA ODI #10001457
NHTSA investigations
4DP06003 · 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.
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.
PE02079 · Engine Compartment Fire
Opened Oct 22, 2002 · Closed Mar 18, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling
ODI'S DATA ANALYSIS FOUND THE FIRES RATES TO BE CONSISTENTLY LOW AND EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG SIX MODEL YEARS AND SIX DIFFERENT ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS.ODI EXAMINED A VARIETY OF ROOT CAUSES, THOSE BEING DETONATION (RESULTING IN OIL PAN PUNCTURE FROM CONNECTING ROD), STARTER FIRES, VARIOUS FUEL RELATED FIRES, LEAKING OIL FILTERS, WIRING ISSUES, IMPROPER REPAIRS AND BRAKE FLUID LEAKS.NONE OF THE ISSUES EXAMINED HAD REPORTS THAT INDICATED A TREND WHEN NORMALIZED FOR POPULATON AND EXPOSURE.SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR FULL DETAILS.
Illustration