NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
112 reportsClear category filter149,000 miles · Mar 29, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT ANTIFREEZE WAS LEAKING OUT OF THE REAR OF THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE HEAD BOLTS STRIPPED AND AS A RESULT, THE ENGINE HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BY THE DEALER WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VIN WAS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT ANTIFREEZE WAS LEAKING OUT OF THE REAR OF THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE HEAD BOLTS STRIPPED AND AS A RESULT, THE ENGINE HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BY THE DEALER WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 149,000.
NHTSA ODI #10393638
130,000 miles · Mar 8, 2011
Engine And Engine CoolingFire
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE EMITTING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. SHE THEN APPLIED THE BRAKES BUT THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND. SHE WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE INTO AN OPEN FIELD AND WITHIN SECONDS, THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE WAS ALSO ON FIRE. THE F…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED SMOKE EMITTING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. SHE THEN APPLIED THE BRAKES BUT THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND. SHE WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE INTO AN OPEN FIELD AND WITHIN SECONDS, THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE WAS ALSO ON FIRE. THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED BY THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT. A FIRE AND POLICE REPORT WERE FILED (FIRE REPORT: 11-003597 AND POLICE REPORT NUMBER: 11-004293). THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A LOCAL JUNKYARD. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 130,000.
NHTSA ODI #10386807
148,000 miles · Mar 6, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE (4 CYLINDER, 2.4 L) WHICH BEGAN LEAKING ENGINE COOLANT FROM AROUND THE BACK OF THE ENGINE BLOCK. MY MECHANIC SAID THAT IT WAS LIKELY A BLOWN HEAD GASKET. AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH, HE DETERMINED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE LEAK WAS MOST LIKELY LOOSE HEAD BOLTS IN THE ENGINE BLOCK WHICH WERE DUE TO THE BOLT…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE (4 CYLINDER, 2.4 L) WHICH BEGAN LEAKING ENGINE COOLANT FROM AROUND THE BACK OF THE ENGINE BLOCK. MY MECHANIC SAID THAT IT WAS LIKELY A BLOWN HEAD GASKET. AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH, HE DETERMINED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE LEAK WAS MOST LIKELY LOOSE HEAD BOLTS IN THE ENGINE BLOCK WHICH WERE DUE TO THE BOLTS STRIPPING THE THREAD FROM THE BLOCK. HE SAID MY ONLY OPTION WAS TO REPLACE THE ENGINE AT THAT POINT. APPARENTLY THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBLEM WITH 2002 AND 2003 CAMRYS, AND TOYOTA NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS! I BOUGHT A TOYOTA BECAUSE I WANTED A VEHICLE WHICH I COULD BE DRIVING YEARS FROM NOW. NOW I'M LEFT WITH A VEHICLE I DON'T KNOW IF I WILL BE ABLE TO DRIVE NEXT WEEK! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10386576
Mileage unknown · Feb 20, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. COOLANT LEAKING, PROBLEM WITH ENGINE, SAY MANY OTHER PEOPLE STATING HAVING THIS PROBLEM ON THE INTERNET UNDER VEHICLE REVIEWS AND COMPLAINTS. HAD TO REPLACE THE ENGINE AT 100,000 MILES. VERY UPSET. SAME DESCRIPTION AS EVERY ONE ELSE, GURGLING NOISE, COOLANT BEING QUICKLY REMOVED, MECHANIC CHASING THE PROBLE…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. COOLANT LEAKING, PROBLEM WITH ENGINE, SAY MANY OTHER PEOPLE STATING HAVING THIS PROBLEM ON THE INTERNET UNDER VEHICLE REVIEWS AND COMPLAINTS. HAD TO REPLACE THE ENGINE AT 100,000 MILES. VERY UPSET. SAME DESCRIPTION AS EVERY ONE ELSE, GURGLING NOISE, COOLANT BEING QUICKLY REMOVED, MECHANIC CHASING THE PROBLEM TO THE ENGINE, ENGINE REPLACED. CALLED TOYOTA, JOKE OF A REACTION, NO APOLOGY OR ANY OFFER OF COMPENSATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10383360
Mileage unknown · Feb 8, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
MY 2003 CAMRY WAS NO LONGER HEATING THE INSIDE OF THE CAR EVEN WITH THE HEAT ON 'HIGH.' THEN I REALIZED THE THERMOSTAT WAS IN THE 'RED.' I HAD ANTIFREEZE ADDED AND IT WORKED FINE FOR 24 HOURS. THEN, IT HAPPENED AGAIN. SINCE I WAS DRIVING, I TURNED THE AIR CONDITIONER ON AND THE THERMOSTAT WENT DOWN TO 'NORMAL' RANGE. I TOOK IT…
Read full complaint
MY 2003 CAMRY WAS NO LONGER HEATING THE INSIDE OF THE CAR EVEN WITH THE HEAT ON 'HIGH.' THEN I REALIZED THE THERMOSTAT WAS IN THE 'RED.' I HAD ANTIFREEZE ADDED AND IT WORKED FINE FOR 24 HOURS. THEN, IT HAPPENED AGAIN. SINCE I WAS DRIVING, I TURNED THE AIR CONDITIONER ON AND THE THERMOSTAT WENT DOWN TO 'NORMAL' RANGE. I TOOK IT BACK TO THE MECHANIC, WHO ADDED MORE ANTIFREEZE. IT WORKED FINE UNTIL THE NEXT MORNING. THEN, IT HAPPENED AGAIN: NO HEAT IN CABIN AND THERMOSTAT ON 'RED.' I COOLED IT DOWN AND TOOK IT TO ANOTHER MECHANIC WHO SAID THE HEAD BOLTS ARE STRIPPED, CAUSING COOLANT TO LEAK AND THE ENGINE TO OVERHEAT. HE SAID THE BOLTS WERE NOT PUT IN PROPERLY DURING MANUFACTURING. I SEE MANY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ON THE INTERNET. I CALL TOYOTA (1800 331-4331). THE REP SAYS TOYOTA HAS NOT ISSUED A RECALL ABOUT THIS, LEAVING ME SOL (SIMPLY OUT OF LUCK). RIGHT NOW, I'M LOOKING AT HAVING TO SPEND AT LEAST $1600 TO REPAIR A CAR THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE RELIABLE. REMEMBER, 'TOYOTA TOUGH?' I'VE BEEN A LOYAL TOYOTA OWNER FOR YEARS ' BUT I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE MY LAST. ' SIGNED, DISAPPOINTED CUSTOMER
NHTSA ODI #10382070
114,000 miles · Feb 2, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A SMELL OF FUEL WHEN THE CONTACT CHECKED THE OIL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO STATED THAT THERE WAS FUEL MIXED IN WITH THE OIL BUT COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHERE IT WAS COMING FROM. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SMELL MOVED THROUGH THE VEN…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A SMELL OF FUEL WHEN THE CONTACT CHECKED THE OIL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO STATED THAT THERE WAS FUEL MIXED IN WITH THE OIL BUT COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHERE IT WAS COMING FROM. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SMELL MOVED THROUGH THE VENTS AND BURNED HER EYES. A MECHANIC REPLACED THE VALVE GASKETS. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 114,000.
NHTSA ODI #10379993
160,000 miles · Jan 25, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING HOT. THE VEHICLE THEN STALLED AND WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED YET THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE EXACT CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FAILURE COULD HAVE BEEN …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING HOT. THE VEHICLE THEN STALLED AND WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED YET THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE EXACT CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FAILURE COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A FAULTY THERMOSTAT OR THE HEADERS. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENGINE WAS DESTROYED AND WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 160,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 169,668.
NHTSA ODI #10378632
99,600 miles · Jan 24, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK ON THE HEAD GASKET AND THEY ARE UNABLE TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM UNLESS THE MOTOR WAS REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED WHO STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK ON THE HEAD GASKET AND THEY ARE UNABLE TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM UNLESS THE MOTOR WAS REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED WHO STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 99,600. UPDATED 03/02/11 *BF UPDATED 04/29/11
NHTSA ODI #10378507
66,000 miles · Jan 5, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS HE NOTICED THAT THE LOW ANTI FREEZE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENTAL PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE HEAD GASKET WAS LEAKING DUE TO THE BOLTS SEPARATING FR…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS HE NOTICED THAT THE LOW ANTI FREEZE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENTAL PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE HEAD GASKET WAS LEAKING DUE TO THE BOLTS SEPARATING FROM THE ENGINE BLOCK. HE WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT HE NEEDED TO REPLACE THE MOTOR. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 66,000.
NHTSA ODI #10374737
99,000 miles · Jan 3, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
IN MARCH 2010 I HAD A PROBLEM WITH MY WIFE'S TOYOTA THAT I BELIEVE I EITHER SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO FIX OR HAVE TOYOTA SHARE IN THE COST. WHEN I CALLED TOYOTA TO REGISTER THE COMPLAINT THEY SAID COULDN'T HELP ME, SO I AM ASKING FOR YOUR HELP. MY WIFE'S CAMRY (2003 WITH JUST UNDER 100,000 MILES) DEVELOPED A LEAK IN ITS HEAD …
Read full complaint
IN MARCH 2010 I HAD A PROBLEM WITH MY WIFE'S TOYOTA THAT I BELIEVE I EITHER SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO FIX OR HAVE TOYOTA SHARE IN THE COST. WHEN I CALLED TOYOTA TO REGISTER THE COMPLAINT THEY SAID COULDN'T HELP ME, SO I AM ASKING FOR YOUR HELP. MY WIFE'S CAMRY (2003 WITH JUST UNDER 100,000 MILES) DEVELOPED A LEAK IN ITS HEAD GASKET, SO I TOOK IT INTO OUR LOCAL GARAGE. THEY LOOKED AT IT (PRESSURE TEST) CONFIRMED IT WAS LEAKING AND WENT ON LINE (IDENTIFIX.COM) TO SEE WHAT EXPERIENCES OTHER MECHANICS HAD WITH THIS PROBLEM AND RECOMMENDED FIXES. THE RESEARCH SHOWED THAT THIS PROBLEM WAS BEING REPORTED FREQUENTLY AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT ALSO RESULTED IN A MORE SEVERE PROBLEM OF STRIPPING THE ENGINE BOLTS OUT OF THE BLOCK, REQUIRING AN ENGINE REPLACEMENT. MY MECHANIC SAID I WOULD BE BEST OFF TAKING IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE WE PURCHASED THE CAR AND HAVE THEM LOOK AT IT, BECAUSE IF IT WAS MORE THAN JUST THE HEAD GASKET, I MAY BE ABLE TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THEM. IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT A LEAK IN THE HEAD GASKET SHOULDN'T CAUSE THE STRIPPING OF THE ENGINE BOLTS. WE TOOK IT INTO OUR TOYOTA DEALER AND THEY INVESTIGATED - TOOK THE HEAD OFF - AND FOUND THAT IT WAS WHAT MY MECHANIC HAD FEARED, THREE ENGINE BOLTS WERE STRIPPED AND THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. COST FOR A NEW ENGINE BLOCK, HEAD, LABOR, ETC. $7,500. I TOLD THEM WHAT MY MECHANIC HAD FOUND ONLINE - THIS WAS HAPPENING A LOT TO THIS TYPE ENGINE (2003 - 6) - AND MY BELIEF THAT THIS WAS A DESIGN FLAW AND ASKED THEM IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT TOYOTA COULD DO TO HELP DEFRAY THE COST OR WAS THERE A RECALL, ETC. THE SERVICE REP SAID NO... NO HELP FROM TOYOTA. I HAVE ALL THE PAPERWORK AND CAN YOU SEND YOU COPIES, INCLUDING THE IDENTIFIX REPORT. CONSIDERING ALL THE PRESSURE PEOPLE, GOVERNMENT, AND LAWYERS HAD TO EXERT ON TOYOTA TO GET THEM TO ADMIT AND ADDRESS THE RECENT ACCELERATOR PROBLEMS, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD CHECK OR ADD MY CASE TO A DATABASE TO SEE IF SOME LEGAL ACTION IS WARRANTED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10373836
NHTSA investigations
3DP06003 · 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.