NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
281 reportsClear category filter49,000 miles · Oct 11, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
DRIVER CONCLUDED BUSINESS AT A DRIVE THROUGH ATM AT A LOCAL SHOPPING MALL. VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED INTO 'DRIVE' AND AT THAT INSTANT THE ENGINE STARTED RACING AT HIGH SPEED AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED RAPIDLY. THE DRIVER DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RACING AT TOP SPEED AND THE VEH…
Read full complaint
DRIVER CONCLUDED BUSINESS AT A DRIVE THROUGH ATM AT A LOCAL SHOPPING MALL. VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED INTO 'DRIVE' AND AT THAT INSTANT THE ENGINE STARTED RACING AT HIGH SPEED AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED RAPIDLY. THE DRIVER DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. THE ENGINE WAS STILL RACING AT TOP SPEED AND THE VEHICLE WAS PICKING UP MOMENTUM. THE DRIVER PUMPED THE BRAKES SEVERAL TIMES, BUT NO FEEDBACK RESPONSE COULD BE FELT. THE RAPID, UNINTENDED ACCELERATION CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO TRAVEL ACROSS THE CENTERLINE AND INTO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC. WITH OPPOSING TRAFFIC APPROACHING THE DRIVER TURNED THE VEHICLE SHARPLY TO THE RIGHT IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID A COLLISION. SEEING A NUMBER OF CARS STOPPED AT THE APPROACHING INTERSECTION TO THE MAIN ROAD, THE DRIVER CONTINUED TO STEER THE CAR HARD TO THE RIGHT. THE VEHICLE THEN WENT OVER AN EMBANKMENT AND STRUCK A STEEL LIGHT POLE RESULTING IN TOTAL LOSS OF THE VEHICLE AND SIGNIFICANT INJURIES TO THE DRIVER. TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE OF THE VEHICLE FROM ACCELERATION TO IMPACT WAS APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET. TOTAL INCIDENT TIME AND FINAL SPEED ARE UNCERTAIN. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10170561
22,000 miles · Sep 22, 2006
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH IN A PARKING LOT AND ATTEMPTING TO MANEUVER INTO A PARKING SPACE THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED TO 30 MPH WITHOUT WARNING CRASHING INTO A POLE AND CAUSING DAMAGE TO A FENCE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN AND THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED BY T…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH IN A PARKING LOT AND ATTEMPTING TO MANEUVER INTO A PARKING SPACE THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED TO 30 MPH WITHOUT WARNING CRASHING INTO A POLE AND CAUSING DAMAGE TO A FENCE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN AND THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. UPDATED 10/13/06. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10168942
16,513 miles · Jul 17, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED AFTER STARTING THE VEHICLE, IT IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CRASHED INTO A HOUSE. UPDATED 10/06/06. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10162603
2,000 miles · Jun 27, 2006
Vehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING 10 TO 15 MPH THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED TO 30 MPH. THE ISSUE WAS INTERMITTENT. THE SERVICE DEALER WAS NOT UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE.
NHTSA ODI #10160873
Mileage unknown · May 4, 2006
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed ControlCrash
RESPONSE TO LETTER RECEIVED FROM CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, FOR TOYOTA, ALLEGING THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY FOR 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. *TS THE MANUFACTURER CLAIMED THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY WHEN THE CONSUMER'S VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND ENDED UP INSIDE A TRAVEL AGENCY. *NM SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE …
Read full complaint
RESPONSE TO LETTER RECEIVED FROM CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, FOR TOYOTA, ALLEGING THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY FOR 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. *TS THE MANUFACTURER CLAIMED THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY WHEN THE CONSUMER'S VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND ENDED UP INSIDE A TRAVEL AGENCY. *NM SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, THE BATTERY WENT COMPLETELY DEAD. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE BATTERY WOULD NOT HOLD A CHARGE AND A NEW BATTERY WAS NEEDED. UPDATED 02/23/10
NHTSA ODI #10157329
Mileage unknown · Mar 31, 2006
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
3 INCIDENTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATIONS, THE LAST ONE CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE. THE DEALER SAID NOTHING WRONG WITH CAR. I FOUND MANY OTHER PEOPLE ON-LINE THAT HAD SAME PROBLEM. SOMEONE IS GOING TO GET KILLED IN A CROSSWALK OR PARKING LOT. I'M AFRAID TO DRIVE IT OR SELL IT TO ANOTHER WITH THIS PROBLEM. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10154310
65,000 miles · Mar 14, 2006
Vehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE HAS LURCHED FORWARD SIX TIMES SINCE PURCHASE. THIS HAPPENS WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED AND WITH THE VEHICLE AT A STOP OR WHILE TRAVELING. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP, BUT THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN ALERTED.
NHTSA ODI #10152689
54,637 miles · Feb 9, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
CAR ACCELERATED WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS . THE LAST EVENT RESULTED IN SMASHING THROUGH A PLATE GLASS WINDOW OF A TRAVEL AGENCY, INJURING ONE EMPLOYEE. THE CAR ENDED UP TOTALLY IN THE AGENCY, HALTED BY AN INTERIOR WALL. THE POLICE REPORTED SKID MARKS ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE AGENCY, AS WELL AS WITHI…
Read full complaint
CAR ACCELERATED WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS . THE LAST EVENT RESULTED IN SMASHING THROUGH A PLATE GLASS WINDOW OF A TRAVEL AGENCY, INJURING ONE EMPLOYEE. THE CAR ENDED UP TOTALLY IN THE AGENCY, HALTED BY AN INTERIOR WALL. THE POLICE REPORTED SKID MARKS ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE AGENCY, AS WELL AS WITHIN THE AGENCY AS I ATTEMPTED TO BRAKE THE CAR. THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE WAS ROTATING VERY RAPIDLY, SO MUCH SO THAT WHEN THE CAR STOPPED THE TIRE BURNED A HOLE IN THE CARPET. CARPET THREADS ARE EMBEDDED IN THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL TIRE. ON THE ONE HAND, THE MARKS ON THE CARPET AND SIDEWALK INDICATE THAT SKID MARKS WERE MADE BY ALL THREE WHEELS, WHILE THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL OBVIOUSLY WAS BURNING RUBBER. *JB UPDATED 03/01/06
NHTSA ODI #10149898
59,100 miles · Jan 4, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
I HAD NEW CAR BATTERY INSTALLED BY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP LATE ON 12/2/05. THE CAR SEEMED TO SHIFT AND SOUND MARKEDLY DIFFERENTLY AFTER DRIVING THE CAR OFF THE LOT WITH THE NEW BATTERY. THREE DAYS LATER MY 4 CYLINDER, AUTOMATIC 2002 4D-S TOYOTA CAMRY WAS LEFT IN "D" WITH THE OVERDRIVE BUTTON REMAINED ENGAGED. MY FOOT WAS ON THE…
Read full complaint
I HAD NEW CAR BATTERY INSTALLED BY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP LATE ON 12/2/05. THE CAR SEEMED TO SHIFT AND SOUND MARKEDLY DIFFERENTLY AFTER DRIVING THE CAR OFF THE LOT WITH THE NEW BATTERY. THREE DAYS LATER MY 4 CYLINDER, AUTOMATIC 2002 4D-S TOYOTA CAMRY WAS LEFT IN "D" WITH THE OVERDRIVE BUTTON REMAINED ENGAGED. MY FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. I DID NOT DRIFT. I'D BEEN STOPPED FOR A WHILE AT A "T" INTERSECTION FOR A WHILE AND NOT MOVING; NOR WERE ANY OTHER VEHICLES MOVING. THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION IS CONTROLLED BY A LONG SIGNAL LIGHT. I WAS AIMED STRAIGHT AHEAD, BUT WAS THE THIRD CAR BACK FROM THE STOP LINE, SIGNALING TO TURN LEFT. ALL OF A SUDDEN I HEARD WHAT SOUNDED LIKE AN AIRPLANE ENGINE ROARING, GETTING EVER LOUDER. MY FOOT WAS STILL ON THE BRAKE. THE ENGINE RACED, SURGED ABRUPTLY CAUSED MY CAR TO ACCELERATE FORCEFULLY INTO THE STOPPED CAR IN FRONT OF ME. THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME WAS PUSHED INTO AN SUV IN FRONT OF IT. THE FORCE OF IMPACT CAUSED MY ENGINE TO SHUT DOWN. THE DRIVER IN FRONT OF ME APPEARED TO HAVE A WHIPLASH INJURY. ALL TOLD, THERE WAS ABOUT $1500.00 WORTH OF DAMAGE TO MY CAR AND IT WAS ESTIMATED THE SMALLER AND OLDER CAR IN FRONT OF ME SUSTAINED ABOUT $2500.00 WORTH OF DAMAGE. I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER INFORMED ME THEY "FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CAR." THE CAR WAS THEN TOWED TO A SHOP FOR BODY REPAIRS. UPON THE RETURN OF MY CAMRY, IT STILL HAD A BIT OF A VIBRATORY AND AUDITORY DISTORTION THAT WAS ATYPICAL FOR THE 3 PREVIOUS YEARS. I ALSO REALIZED THAT THE BRAKES WERE BARELY WORKING. AT A RETURN VISIT TO THE DEALER, I WAS TOLD MY BRAKES WERE ALMOST "COMPLETELY GONE" AND THAT I NEEDED NEW BRAKES. HOWEVER, I AM CERTAIN THAT THE MARKED AND SUDDEN DECLINE IN MY BRAKE FUNCTION WAS A RESULT OF THE BRAKES ATTEMPTING TO HOLD MY CAR BACK AS THE ENGINE SURGED FORWARD. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10146932
Mileage unknown · Dec 12, 2005
Vehicle Speed Control
PROBLEMS WITH 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. AUGUST 2003 - DRIVING ALONG. HUSBAND BEGAN TO STOP SLOWLY TO PULL UP TO A LIGHT AND IT FELT LIKE IT WAS NOT BREAKING BUT CAR CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE SO HUSBAND LET OFF BRAKE AND REAPPLIED THE BRAKE AND IT FINALLY STOPPED THE SURGING. 2. WHILE GETTING GAS WE WERE DRIVING AROUND IT TO FIN…
Read full complaint
PROBLEMS WITH 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. AUGUST 2003 - DRIVING ALONG. HUSBAND BEGAN TO STOP SLOWLY TO PULL UP TO A LIGHT AND IT FELT LIKE IT WAS NOT BREAKING BUT CAR CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE SO HUSBAND LET OFF BRAKE AND REAPPLIED THE BRAKE AND IT FINALLY STOPPED THE SURGING. 2. WHILE GETTING GAS WE WERE DRIVING AROUND IT TO FIND AN PUMP, WE WERE PRESSING THE BRAKE AND CAR WAS TRYING TO ACCELERATE AGAINST THE BRAKE AS IT WAS APPLIED. LET OFF BRAKE AND REAPPLIED QUICKLY AND CAR STOPPED NORMALLY. JANUARY 2004 HUSBAND BEGAN TO PULL INTO A PARKING SPACE AND AS HE STARTED TO BRAKE AGAIN THE CAR WAS TRYING TO ACCELERATE AND SO HE LET OFF THE BRAKE, REAPPLIED IT (ALL VERY QUICKLY) AND WAS ABLE TO PARK BARELY MISSING HITTING VEHICLE BESIDE HIM. MARCH 27, 2004, WE TOOK OUR VEHICLE ONCE AGAIN TO DEALERSHIP STATING THE VEHICLE WAS SURGING WHILE DRIVING. OCTOBER 2004 ON A TRIP TO GATLINBURG, TENNESSEE- HUSBAND APPLIED THE BRAKES, CAR CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE-REAPPLIED THE BRAKES- SURGING/ACCELERATION STOPPED. OCTOBER 3, 2005 TRIP TO NORTH CAROLINA ON 7 SEPARATE OCCASIONS THE CAR ENGINE STARTED RACING AND THE CAR HAD TO BE PUT IN NEUTRAL AND THE BRAKE HELD TIGHTLY. ON ONE OCCASION AS WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP BEHIND A SCHOOL BUS FULL OF CHILDREN, ALMOST HIT THE BUS FROM BEHIND BECAUSE ACCELERATOR WENT TO FULL ACCELERATION AS WE APPLIED THE BRAKES. FORTUNATELY, MY HUSBAND PUT THE CAR IN NEUTRAL AND IT WAS REVVING AT FULL THROTTLE. HE HIT ACCELERATOR PEDAL AS WE WAS IN NEUTRAL, AND ACCELERATION WENT BACK TO IDLE SPEED. DECEMBER 5, 2005 WHILE IN WE WERE STOPPED IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC WAITING AT A LIGHT THE ENGINE ONCE AGAIN STARTED RACING HAD TO PUT IT IN NEUTRAL, AND AGAIN IT REVVED AT FULL THROTTLE WHILE HOLDING BRAKE PEDAL DOWN TIGHTLY'' OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE REAR ENDED CARS IN FRONT OF US. PUT CAR IN NEUTRAL, RELEASED BRAKE PEDAL AND THEN PRESSED DOWN ON THE ACCELERATOR- ENGINE SPEED WENT TO IDLE SPEED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10144988
Official recalls
4Jul 13, 2004
ON CERTAIN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAGS (CSA), ONE OR BOTH OF THE CURTAIN AIR BAGS MAY BE TWISTED NEAR THE INFLATOR DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THE CSA MAY NOT DEPLOY RAPIDLY ENOUGH WHEN ACTIVATED IN A SIDE IMPACT COLLISION. THIS MAY RESULT IN FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE INTENDED HEAD PROTECTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE CSAS AND REPLACE THE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 6, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Dec 11, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A THREE-SPOKE STYLE STEERING WHEEL. DURING AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE BOTTOM SEAM OF THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG MODULE COVER (HORN PAD) COULD BE TORN AWAY ALLOWING THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE COVER TO COMPLETELY DETACH FROM THE AIR BAG MODULE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS SHOULD OCCUR, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE DETACHED BOTTOM PORTION MAY STRIKE THE DRIVER CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG MODULE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN DECEMBER 28, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331 OR LEXUS AT 1-888-333-9376.
Oct 1, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CONTINENTAL TOURING TIRES, P205-65R15 92S, INSTALLED AT THE PORTS IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. THE INCORRECT TIRES WERE INSTALLED ON VEHICLES THAT HAD DAMAGED TIRES. THE TIRES WERE DAMAGED DURING A PORT UPGRADE TO ALUMINUM WHEELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE TIRES DO NOT CONFORM TO THE SPEED RATING FOR THE VEHICLE. IF THE VEHICLE EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM SPEED RATING (112 MPH), POSSIBLE TIRE FAILURE COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE ALL FIVE TIRES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN SEPTEMBER 13, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHEAST TOYOTA AT 1-800-301-6859.
Sep 25, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. INCOMPLETE DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG COULD OCCUR IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: UNEXPECTED AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT CAN RESULT IN OCCUPANT INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY. BOTH OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED BY TELEPHONE AND ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM. THIS CAMPAIGN IS 100% COMPLETED. BOTH OWNERS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AND THEIR VEHICLES REPAIRED.
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
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