IllustrationDUE TO ANTI FREEZE LEAK THE MECHANIC FOUND LEAK TO BE COMING FROM CYLINDER HEAD GASKET, WHEN HEAD WAS REMOVED FOUND 3 CENTER BOLTS WERE LOOSE, THREADS WERE STRIPPED AND DAMAGED. I WAS TOLD THIS IS A DEFECT IN 2003 4 CYL TOYOTA CAMRY ENGINES. DEALER WOULD NOT COVER, AS IT WAS REPAIRED ELSEWHERE. *TR
2003 Toyota Camry
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camry years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Toyota Camry are substantially higher than the model-year median of 295.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Camry years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
1960–25K
9425–50K
8150–75K
7275–100K
87100–150K
45150K+
575 reports with mileage · 205 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 259 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 112 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 91 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
228 crash reports10 fire reports71 injury reports
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
112 reportsTL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED. THE CONTACT FILLED THE VEHICLE WITH WATER AND DROVE TO A MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE ENGINE COOLANT LEAKED WATER BETWEEN THE CYLINDER HEAD AND THE BLOCK. IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THREE CYLINDER HEAD BOLTS WERE LO…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED. THE CONTACT FILLED THE VEHICLE WITH WATER AND DROVE TO A MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE ENGINE COOLANT LEAKED WATER BETWEEN THE CYLINDER HEAD AND THE BLOCK. IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THREE CYLINDER HEAD BOLTS WERE LOOSE. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 100,000. UPDATED 10/16/08. *LJ UPDATED 10/17/08.*JB
VEHICLE STARTED MAKING A LOUD RATTLING/VIBRATING NOISE THAT STARTED AROUND 57,000 MILES. IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS NO OIL IN THE CAR, THOUGH OIL CHANGE HAD BEEN DONE LESS THAN 1,000 MILES PRIOR TO NOTICING THIS. SOUND GOT WORSE AND WORSE OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR SO AND WAS USUALLY LOUDEST WHEN THE CAR WAS FIRST STARTED UP IN THE …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE STARTED MAKING A LOUD RATTLING/VIBRATING NOISE THAT STARTED AROUND 57,000 MILES. IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS NO OIL IN THE CAR, THOUGH OIL CHANGE HAD BEEN DONE LESS THAN 1,000 MILES PRIOR TO NOTICING THIS. SOUND GOT WORSE AND WORSE OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR SO AND WAS USUALLY LOUDEST WHEN THE CAR WAS FIRST STARTED UP IN THE MORNING OR AFTER IT HAD BEEN SITTING ALL DAY. HEARD MOSTLY WHEN IT WAS IDLING IN PARK AND WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED DRIVING. ONCE YOU GOT GOING, THE SOUND WASN'T SO BAD. TOOK IT BACK TO THE OIL CHANGE PLACE AND THEY SAID IT SOUNDED LIKE A LIFTER PROBLEM. DID SOME RESEARCH AT HTTP://WWW.TOPIX.NET/FORUM/AUTOS/TOYOTA-CAMRY/T9MGD2F66FRTCKKID AND VARIOUS OTHER PLACES ON THE INTERNET AND FOUND OUT MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. IT'S ACTUALLY THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. I CALLED TOYOTA AND WAS TOLD WARRANTY WAS 5 YEARS OR 50K MILES. SINCE CAR WAS PURCHASED USED I HAD THEM RESEARCH DATE OF FIRST USE AND, OF COURSE, MY 5 YEAR CUTOFF WAS 2 MONTHS PRIOR TO MY PHONE CALL. THE SOUND GOT SO BAD BY 58,000 MILES I TOOK IT TO OUR LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND WITHOUT TELLING THEM WHAT I HAD FOUND OUT, THEY TOLD ME THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD TO BE REPLACED FOR A COST OF $600. VEHICLE IS IN THE SHOP BEING REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE AS I WRITE THIS. TOYOTA SHOULD BE MADE AWARE THAT THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM AND RECALL THIS PART SINCE IT IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. EVERY TIME THE CONTACT DROVE THE VEHICLE AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, HE NOTICED A NOISE COMING FROM THE ENGINE, WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE THE VALVE. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND A TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THERE WAS EXCESSIVE SLUDGE DAMAGE IN THE ENGINE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ENGINE NE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. EVERY TIME THE CONTACT DROVE THE VEHICLE AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, HE NOTICED A NOISE COMING FROM THE ENGINE, WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE THE VALVE. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND A TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THERE WAS EXCESSIVE SLUDGE DAMAGE IN THE ENGINE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ENGINE NEEDED TO BE REBUILT AT THE CONTACT'S EXPENSE BECAUSE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED. HE HAS HAD THE OIL CHANGED ROUTINELY AT 5,000 MILES; THEREFORE, THE SLUDGE BUILD-UP WAS ABNORMAL. THE CONTACT HAS A COPY OF EACH TIME THE VEHICLE WAS PERSONALLY SERVICED. HE ALSO HAS A SAMPLE OF THE SLUDGE TAKEN FROM THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 36,949. UPDATE 05/13/08 *BF AFTER A BREAKDOWN OF THE ENGINE, HUGE AMOUNTS OF GEL OIL SLUDGE WAS VISIBLE IN THE ENGINE CYLINDER HEAD. UPDATED 05/13/08. *JB
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY-MILEAGE ABOUT 101,000. UNBELIEVABLE THAT MY 2003 NEEDS A NEW CATALYTIC CONVERTER. I HAVE HAD MORE TROUBLE WITH THIS 2003 TOYOTA THEN ANY OTHER TOYOTA I HAVE EVER PURCHASED. I HAVE PURCHASED SEVERAL TOYOTAS OVER THE YEARS AND WAS GOING TO GET A NEW 2008 OR 2009 TOYOTA CAMRY BUT NOT NOW. ALSO THE CATALYST CONVE…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY-MILEAGE ABOUT 101,000. UNBELIEVABLE THAT MY 2003 NEEDS A NEW CATALYTIC CONVERTER. I HAVE HAD MORE TROUBLE WITH THIS 2003 TOYOTA THEN ANY OTHER TOYOTA I HAVE EVER PURCHASED. I HAVE PURCHASED SEVERAL TOYOTAS OVER THE YEARS AND WAS GOING TO GET A NEW 2008 OR 2009 TOYOTA CAMRY BUT NOT NOW. ALSO THE CATALYST CONVERTER IS ON BACK ORDER AND THE DEALER IS NOT SURE WHEN IT WILL BE IN - IT WAS ORDERED 02/12/08 AND NOT DUE IN UNTIL MAY BE 02/21/08. DIDN'T KNOW I HAD A PROBLEM UNTIL I WENT FOR AN EMISSION CHECK. THIS PIECE IS VERY EXPENSES AND I'M JUST WONDERING IS IT NOT USUAL FOR THIS CONVERTER TO GO BAD SO EARLY. I DO NOT PULL ANY HEAVY LOADS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. *TR
THE DEALERSHIP STATES THAT THE MANIFOLD HAS A PROBLEM CAUSING A VERY LOUR RATTLING AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. MANY MANY INDIVIDUALS HAVE THIS SAME PROBLEM FORUMS ON THIS SITE: HTTP://WWW.TOPIX.NET/FORUM/AUTOS/TOYOTA-CAMRY/T9MGD2F66FRTCKKID. *TR
HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY, THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IS BROKEN. TOYOTA WON'T HELP EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS TO BE AN OCCASIONAL PROBLEM WITH THE CAMRY. *TR
GETTING A LARGE CHATTER OR RATTLE FROM THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD, WHICH AFTER REVIEWING INTERNET INFO APPEARS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM THAT WARRANTS A DEFECTIVE ISSUE. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A LOCAL MECHANIC AND HE STATED THAT THERE WAS SLUDGE IN THE ENGINE. THE MECHANIC WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND ACC…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A LOCAL MECHANIC AND HE STATED THAT THERE WAS SLUDGE IN THE ENGINE. THE MECHANIC WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS IMPOSSIBLE AND ACCUSED THE CONTACT OF NOT USING THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT OF OIL AND INSPECTING THE VEHICLE. HE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE MANUFACTURER. THE VEHICLE IS UNABLE TO BE DRIVEN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 42,000.
BEGAN TO HEAR RATTLING NOISE SHORTLY BEFORE TAKING CAR TO DEALER FOR 90,000 MILE SERVICING. ADVISED BY DEALER THAT INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS BROKEN AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $600. HAD MANIFOLD REPLACED UNDER EXTENDED WARRANTY. *TR
Official recalls
104V346000 · Air Bags:side/window
Jul 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.
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
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.