NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
146 reportsClear category filter26,000 miles · Mar 19, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 35 MPH, I PLACED MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE TO SLOW DOWN A BIT. THE CAR DID NOT SLOW DOWN, INSTEAD IT SPEED UP TO ABOUT 75 MPH. I HIT THE BRAKES HARDER, BUT THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP. *AK I QUICKLY PULLED ON THE HAND BRAKE AND SHIFTED THE GEAR TO PARK, THEN SHUT OFF THE ENGINE. I HADE THE VEHICLE TOWED TO A…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT ABOUT 35 MPH, I PLACED MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE TO SLOW DOWN A BIT. THE CAR DID NOT SLOW DOWN, INSTEAD IT SPEED UP TO ABOUT 75 MPH. I HIT THE BRAKES HARDER, BUT THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP. *AK I QUICKLY PULLED ON THE HAND BRAKE AND SHIFTED THE GEAR TO PARK, THEN SHUT OFF THE ENGINE. I HADE THE VEHICLE TOWED TO A TOYOTA DEALER. THE DEALER COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM, SO THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE A REPAIR. I HAVE ALSO FILED A COMPLAINT WITH TOYOTA.
NHTSA ODI #10062583
47,000 miles · Mar 18, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
BRAKES FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE IMMEDIATELY WHEN DEPRESSED. THIS RESULTED IN THE CONSUMER RUNNING A STOP SIGN. DEALERSHIP WILL BE CONTACTED. THIS FAILURE OCCURRED TWICE PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN BY THEIR SON.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10063438
Mileage unknown · Mar 10, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
CONSUMER WILL PROVIDE DETAILS INFORMATION ON THE ABS BRAKE SYSTEM PROBLEM. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10062891
13,100 miles · Mar 9, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
WHILE APPLYING BRAKES VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WITHOUT WARNING. AS A RESULT, VEHICLE COLLIDED INTO A ANOTHER VEHICLE. NO INJURIES REPORTED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10061698
12,000 miles · Mar 9, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL IS DEPRESSED PEDAL FLUTTERS, AND IT FEELS LIKE THE VEHICLE WILL NOT STOP. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10061682
50,000 miles · Feb 24, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS BRAKES FAILED. ON 12/1/2003, WHILE DRIVING UPHILL, BRAKES MALFUNCTIONED, AND CONSUMER'S VEHICLE BUMPED THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. ON 1/27/2004, WHILE DRIVING DOWN HILL, BRAKES FAILED. VEHICLE WENT ONTO A SMALL INCLINE AND SLOWED DOWN, AND BRAKES STARTED TO OPERATE AGAIN. DEALER COULD NOT DUPLIC…
Read full complaint
ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS BRAKES FAILED. ON 12/1/2003, WHILE DRIVING UPHILL, BRAKES MALFUNCTIONED, AND CONSUMER'S VEHICLE BUMPED THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. ON 1/27/2004, WHILE DRIVING DOWN HILL, BRAKES FAILED. VEHICLE WENT ONTO A SMALL INCLINE AND SLOWED DOWN, AND BRAKES STARTED TO OPERATE AGAIN. DEALER COULD NOT DUPLICATE OR DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. *AK *MR
NHTSA ODI #10055965
Mileage unknown · Feb 19, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
VEHICLE HAS A VERY LOW BRAKE PEDAL, WHEN APPLIED IT STOPPED BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. *LA THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THE BRAKES WERE NORMAL. THE DRUMS WERE CLEANED. HOWEVER THAT DID NOT REMEDY THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER ALSO HAS A SECOND 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY VIN# [XXX] WITH THE SAME BRAKE ISSUE. *JB INFO…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE HAS A VERY LOW BRAKE PEDAL, WHEN APPLIED IT STOPPED BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. *LA THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THE BRAKES WERE NORMAL. THE DRUMS WERE CLEANED. HOWEVER THAT DID NOT REMEDY THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER ALSO HAS A SECOND 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY VIN# [XXX] WITH THE SAME BRAKE ISSUE. *JB INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10059667
8,807 miles · Feb 6, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2002 TOYOTA CAMRY SE V6, WHEN YOU APPLY THE BRAKES THEY WILL NOT STOP THE CAR IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF DISTANCE EACH TIME. EVERY TIME WHEN THE BRAKES ARE HAVING PROBLEMS, IT TAKES TWICE ARE FAR TO STOP THE CAR AS NORMAL. MY WIFE AND I JUST SIGNED UP TO TAKE AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATIONS CLASS SO THAT WHEN THE BRAKES FAIL AGAIN,…
Read full complaint
2002 TOYOTA CAMRY SE V6, WHEN YOU APPLY THE BRAKES THEY WILL NOT STOP THE CAR IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF DISTANCE EACH TIME. EVERY TIME WHEN THE BRAKES ARE HAVING PROBLEMS, IT TAKES TWICE ARE FAR TO STOP THE CAR AS NORMAL. MY WIFE AND I JUST SIGNED UP TO TAKE AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATIONS CLASS SO THAT WHEN THE BRAKES FAIL AGAIN, WE WILL BE MORE PREPARED TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A WRECK WITH OUR 2 CHILDREN IN THE CAR. THE CAR HAS BEEN LEFT AT THE DEALERSHIP 10 TIMES JUST FOR THE BRAKES . THE BRAKES HAVE FAILED WITH THE DEALER 2 TIMES, BUT THEY ARE CELLULOSE AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM . THE DEALERSHIP IS AFFRAID TO DRIVE THE CAR MORE THAN A FEW MILES AT A TIME, BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY "DO NOT WANT TO WRECK THE CAR". THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY!!!! I CALLED SOUTHEAST TOYOTA, CASE #200308050397, SHE SAID IF THE DEALER CAN NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM EACH TIME, THAT THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM. SE TOYOTA TOLD THE DEALER TO " QUIT LOOKING AT THE CAR FOR BRAKE PROBLEMS". THAT WAS A STATEMENT THE SERVICE MGR WOULD NOT GIVE TO ME IN WRITING!! IT IS NOW FAILING MORE OFTEN . I AM AFRAID FOR MY WIFE AND KIDS TO BE IN THE CAR AT ALL . I WILL BE FILING FOR ARBITRAION VERY SOON. AFTER THIS I WILL NEVER DRIVE ANOTHER TOYOTA. THE CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM TOYOTA, ON A PROBLEM AS MAJOR AS BRAKES , LACKS ANY CONCERN AT ALL. I HOPE TOYOTA FINDS THE PROBLEM BEFORE ANYONE ELSE GETS HURT!!!!!!!!!!JW . *AK
NHTSA ODI #10056707
5,000 miles · Jan 17, 2004
Air BagsFuel System, OtherPower Train
1. LOUD CREAKING AND RATTLES: AFTER MANY ATTEMPTS AT REPAIRS, THE PROBLEM FINALLY TURNED OUT TO BE A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THEY LEFT PLASTIC ASSEMBLY GUIDES IN PLACE, WHICH THEY HAD TO REMOVE BY REMOVING THE WINDOW AGAIN (THIS WAS A SUPER SECRET SERVICE BULLETIN THAT WAS DIVULGED ONLY WHEN THE CUSTOMER ENGINEER FOR NEW ENGLAN…
Read full complaint
1. LOUD CREAKING AND RATTLES: AFTER MANY ATTEMPTS AT REPAIRS, THE PROBLEM FINALLY TURNED OUT TO BE A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THEY LEFT PLASTIC ASSEMBLY GUIDES IN PLACE, WHICH THEY HAD TO REMOVE BY REMOVING THE WINDOW AGAIN (THIS WAS A SUPER SECRET SERVICE BULLETIN THAT WAS DIVULGED ONLY WHEN THE CUSTOMER ENGINEER FOR NEW ENGLAND SHOWED UP). BUT HE DEALERSHIP MANAGED TO CHIP THE PAINT IN THE PROCESS, REQUIRING THE ROOF TO BE REPAINTED. ONCE THE CREAK WAS GONE, THE INTERIOR RATTLES WERE UNBEARABLE FROM ALL THE QUALITY WORK COMPLETED. 2. TRANSMISSION ISSUE: I'VE BEEN ASSURED BY THE SERVICE MANAGER AT ME DEALERSHIP THAT IT IS NORMAL THE TRANSMISSION TAKE AT LEAST A MILE SHIFT OUT OF SECOND GEAR WHEN BELOW 30F AND TO A LESSER DEGREE DURING WARM WEATHER. THE CAR WON'T SHIFT INTO THIRD OR OVERDRIVEN UNTIL AFTER LEAST 1-2 MINUTE OF DRIVING, NO MATTER WHAT SPEED. 3. TRANSMISSION ISSUE: WHEN LIFTING OFF THE THROTTLE FROM 60 TO 55MPH ON A DOWNHILL, THERE'S A "HITCH" OR BUCKING WHERE THE TRANSMISSION ABRUPTLY CATCHES, THEN RELEASES. ALMOST LIKE IT DOWN SHIFTING, BUT IT STOPS HALF WAY. THIS HAS BEEN AN ANNOYING PROBLEM SINCE DAY ONE. THE BUCKING PROBLEM IS ANNOYING AND PROBLEMATIC. IT WAS SOLVED BY RESET THE COMPUTER AND SHOWED UP AGAIN AT 42,000 MILES. THEY ARE BLAMING IT ON THE ADAPTIVE MICRO-PROCESSOR AND MY DRIVING STYLE. (WARRANTY) 4. DOOR RATTLES: DRIVER'S SIDE AND PASSENGER SIDE DOORS RATTLE/TICK WHEN GOING OVER BUMPS. I ASKED THE SERVICE MANAGER THAT WAS LET GO ABOUT THE RATTLE, AND HE EXPLAINED IT'S NORMAL FOR NEW CAMRY'S TO HAVE THE DOORS MAKE THAT MAKE NOISE. CONSTANT USE OF SILICONE WAS ADVISED BY THE DEALERSHIP. 5. AIRBAG RECALL 6. PASSENGER SEAT REPLACEMENT DUE TO POOR CONSTRUCTION AND SQUEAKING 7. CHECK ENGINE LIGHT FOR DEFECTIVE CHARCOAL CANISTER 8. WARPED FRONT BRAKE ROTORS 9. PEALING CHROME ON PASSENGER DOOR HANDLE. (WARRANTY) 10. FLAKING PAINT ON EXTERIOR DOOR HANDLES. * CB
NHTSA ODI #10054347
2,000 miles · Jan 13, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
CONSUMER COMPLAINED THAT THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DESIGNED TOO BIG. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO MOVE FOOT FROM THE GAS TO THE BRAKE PEDAL WHEN THEIR SHOE SOLE GOT CAUGHT UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL. THIS CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO APPLY THE GAS PEDAL INADVERTENTLY. *AK *MR
NHTSA ODI #10053975
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