NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
112 reportsClear category filter68,430 miles · Apr 26, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
ENGINE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE. THERE IS A TSB ALREADY FOR THIS FAILURE, TSB-0034-08. THEY IS VERY HIGH FAILURE RATE THAT WAS CAUSED BY INADEQUATE BAFFLES IN THE INTAKE THAT WILL BREAK APART AND POSSIBLY CAUSE ENGINE FAILURE. THE PROBLEM STARTS WITH A LIGHT TAPPING NOISE AND GRADUALLY GETS LOUDER. THIS PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE VE…
Read full complaint
ENGINE INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE. THERE IS A TSB ALREADY FOR THIS FAILURE, TSB-0034-08. THEY IS VERY HIGH FAILURE RATE THAT WAS CAUSED BY INADEQUATE BAFFLES IN THE INTAKE THAT WILL BREAK APART AND POSSIBLY CAUSE ENGINE FAILURE. THE PROBLEM STARTS WITH A LIGHT TAPPING NOISE AND GRADUALLY GETS LOUDER. THIS PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE VERY WIDESPREAD WITH TOYOTA OWNERS WITH THE 2.4L 4 CYLINDER ENGINE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10266774
38,712 miles · Apr 16, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
MY TOYOTA CAMRY 2003 BECAME NOISY A FEW WEEKS AGO. YESTERDAY, I SENT THE CAR TO TOYOTA DEALER. THE DEALER TOLD ME THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD SHOULD TO BE REPLACED. I SPEND ~$600 TO REPLACED THE MANIFOLD. NOW THE NOISE IS GONE. AFTER I SEARCH INTERNET, SAME PROBLEMS HAVE HAPPENED IN LOTS OF TOYOTA CAMRY 2003. THUS, I HAVE TO BELI…
Read full complaint
MY TOYOTA CAMRY 2003 BECAME NOISY A FEW WEEKS AGO. YESTERDAY, I SENT THE CAR TO TOYOTA DEALER. THE DEALER TOLD ME THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD SHOULD TO BE REPLACED. I SPEND ~$600 TO REPLACED THE MANIFOLD. NOW THE NOISE IS GONE. AFTER I SEARCH INTERNET, SAME PROBLEMS HAVE HAPPENED IN LOTS OF TOYOTA CAMRY 2003. THUS, I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS INTAKE MANIFOLD PROBLEM IS A DEFICIENCY FROM MANUFACTURE. TOYOTA SHOULD RECALL THIS PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10265576
70,000 miles · Apr 7, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
A SERPENTINE BELT PULLEY DETACHED FROM THE ENGINE DISABLING THE POWER STEERING MAKING TURNS DIFFICULT. THIS HAPPENED AT LOW SPEED, SO THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT, BUT AT HIGH SPEED WOULD HAVE BEEN A REAL PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10264379
114,000 miles · Feb 18, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS MAKING ALOT OF NOISE. APPARENTLY TOYOTA WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY REPLACE IT FOR FREE ON LOW MILEAGE VEHICLES (WITHIN THE 3 YR, 36K MILE FACTORY WARRANTY) OR ON HIGHER MILEAGE CARS UP TO 70K MILES. MY VEHICLE HAS 114K MILES SO IT WAS NOT COVERED. I WILL BE ISSUING A COMPLAINT WITH TOYOTA A…
Read full complaint
THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS MAKING ALOT OF NOISE. APPARENTLY TOYOTA WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY REPLACE IT FOR FREE ON LOW MILEAGE VEHICLES (WITHIN THE 3 YR, 36K MILE FACTORY WARRANTY) OR ON HIGHER MILEAGE CARS UP TO 70K MILES. MY VEHICLE HAS 114K MILES SO IT WAS NOT COVERED. I WILL BE ISSUING A COMPLAINT WITH TOYOTA AS WELL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10259286
69,000 miles · Dec 30, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE INTAKE MANIFOLD OF MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IS FAULTY FROM THE TIME THE CAR WAS BUILT. TOYOTA IS SAYING THAT THEY WON'T COVER AS ITS NOT IN WARRANTY. HOW CAN A PART THAT WAS FAULTY FROM THE DATE IT WAS INSTALLED NOT BE COVERED. IT IS CLEARLY A FACTORY ISSUE IN THEIR OWN ADMISSION. HOW CAN THEY NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIXING? …
Read full complaint
THE INTAKE MANIFOLD OF MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IS FAULTY FROM THE TIME THE CAR WAS BUILT. TOYOTA IS SAYING THAT THEY WON'T COVER AS ITS NOT IN WARRANTY. HOW CAN A PART THAT WAS FAULTY FROM THE DATE IT WAS INSTALLED NOT BE COVERED. IT IS CLEARLY A FACTORY ISSUE IN THEIR OWN ADMISSION. HOW CAN THEY NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIXING? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10253262
77 miles · Dec 18, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING HOME ONE DAY I BEGAN TO SMELL ANTIFREEZE IN MY CAR. MY HUSBAND TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL GARAGE WHO INFORMED HIM THAT IT WAS THE HEAD GASKET. MY CAR HAS ONLY 77,000 MILES ON IT. I TOOK THE CAR TO MY MECHANIC WHO CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS THE HEAD GASKET. WHILE REPAIRING MY VEHICLE THE MECHANIC NOTICED THAT ALL FOUR…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING HOME ONE DAY I BEGAN TO SMELL ANTIFREEZE IN MY CAR. MY HUSBAND TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL GARAGE WHO INFORMED HIM THAT IT WAS THE HEAD GASKET. MY CAR HAS ONLY 77,000 MILES ON IT. I TOOK THE CAR TO MY MECHANIC WHO CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS THE HEAD GASKET. WHILE REPAIRING MY VEHICLE THE MECHANIC NOTICED THAT ALL FOUR SCREWS POPPED OUT. IT COST ME OVER 1700.00 TO REPAIR. MY MECHANIC REPORTED THIS TO BE UNUSUAL FOR ANY CAR'S HEAD GASKET TO GO WITH SUCH LOW MILEAGE. "IT'S UNHEARD OF". TOYOTA CLAIMS I AM NOT COVERED BECAUSE I'M OVER THE MILEAGE AND WOULD NOT HELP ME. CLEARLY THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10252244
Mileage unknown · Dec 9, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
ENGINE NOISE CAUSED BY INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACK AS DIAGNOSED BY A TOYOTA SERVICE DEALER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10251258
Mileage unknown · Nov 27, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
WATER PUMP FAILURE,REPLACED 3 TIMES 1ST. TIME15MONTHS INTO NEW CAR WARRANTY 2NDTIME 13MONTHS LATER STILL UNDER WARRANTY 3RDTIME AFTER 5 YEAR WARRANTY TOYOTA COVERED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10249986
89,000 miles · Nov 18, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
THERE IS CLATTERING NOISE IN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE NOISE STARTED ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO AND HAS GOTTEN CONTINUALLY WORSE. I TOOK THE CAR TO A LOCAL DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE NOISE WAS. THE MANUFACTURER CLAIMS IT IS NOT A DEFECTIVE PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10249080
66,000 miles · Nov 17, 2008
Engine And Engine CoolingCrash
THE CAR WAS IDLING, WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN PARK, FOR ABOUT THREE MINUTES. I PLACED MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE IN ORDER TO SHIFT THE CAR FROM PARK INTO DRIVE. THE INSTANT THE SHIFT LEVER WENT INTO DRIVE THE CAR ENGINE ROARED, THE TIRES SQUEALED, I WAS PUSHED BACK INTO THE SEAT AND THE CAR SHOT FORWARD HEADING TOWARD VEHICLES ON…
Read full complaint
THE CAR WAS IDLING, WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN PARK, FOR ABOUT THREE MINUTES. I PLACED MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE IN ORDER TO SHIFT THE CAR FROM PARK INTO DRIVE. THE INSTANT THE SHIFT LEVER WENT INTO DRIVE THE CAR ENGINE ROARED, THE TIRES SQUEALED, I WAS PUSHED BACK INTO THE SEAT AND THE CAR SHOT FORWARD HEADING TOWARD VEHICLES ON A BUSY STREET. I SEEMED TO HAVE NO CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, EXCEPT FOR STEERING, FROM THAT POINT ON. TO AVOID A BROADSIDE COLLISION WITH VEHICLES THE STREET I FOLLOWED THE CONTOUR OF THE BANKS DRIVE THROUGH LANE WHICH WAS A 90 DEGREE TURN TO THE LEFT. NOTHING I DID SEEMED TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE MOTION AND OPERATION OF THE CAR. IN MAKING THE TURN THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL CLIMBED OVER THE DRIVEWAY CURB. IN CORRECTING FOR THAT I OVER STEERED THE CAR AND CLIMBED THE CURB ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY STRIKING A WELLS FARGO SIGN ON THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY BEFORE ADVANCING INTO THE MAIN BANK PARKING LOT. THE CAR PROCEEDED FORWARD WHERE, JUST AFTER ENTERING THE PARKING LOT, IT STRUCK THE RIGHT FRONT FENDER AND BUMPER OF A USPS MAIL TRUCK. THE CAR RICOCHETS OFF THE MAIL TRUCK AND PROCEEDS INTO AND ALMOST THROUGH THE ADJACENT CVS PHARMACY PARKING LOT BEFORE COMING TO A STOP. THE GASOLINE TANK WAS GUTTED WHEN THE CAR RAN OVER THE SIGN RESULTING IN GAS BEING DUMPED ON THE BANK DRIVEWAY. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GAS WAS SPILLED ON THE BANK DRIVEWAY JUST AFTER THE SIGN. THE GAS CONTINUED TO SPILL BUT DIMINISHED AS THE CAR PROCEEDED THROUGH THE CVS PARKING LOT TO THE POINT WHERE THERE WAS NO GASOLINE SPILL AT ALL WHERE THE CAR CAME TO A STOP. IT IS MY BELIEF THE CAR STOPPED FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT RAN OUT OF GAS. NOTHING I DID OR TRIED TO DO APPEARED TO HAVE ANY EFFECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10249011
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.