← New search

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 →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

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 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Jul 26, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling

2003 CAMRY LE, 39,000 MILES. THE CAR COMPLETELY SHUTS ITSELF DOWN WHILE DRIVING. LUCKILY, THIS HAPPENED IN A PARKING LOT OF A DEALERSHIP WHEN WE BROUGHT THE CAR IN FOR A SEEMLY UNRELATED ISSUE. SHOULD THIS HAPPEN OUTSIDE, IT COULD BE DEADLY. THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL ITEM GIVEN ITS DANGEROUS FAILURE MODE. THE CAR INITIALLY HA…

Read full complaint

2003 CAMRY LE, 39,000 MILES. THE CAR COMPLETELY SHUTS ITSELF DOWN WHILE DRIVING. LUCKILY, THIS HAPPENED IN A PARKING LOT OF A DEALERSHIP WHEN WE BROUGHT THE CAR IN FOR A SEEMLY UNRELATED ISSUE. SHOULD THIS HAPPEN OUTSIDE, IT COULD BE DEADLY. THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL ITEM GIVEN ITS DANGEROUS FAILURE MODE. THE CAR INITIALLY HAD START ISSUE A DAY EARLIER. IT ONLY STARTED AFTER THE HOOD HAS BEEN OPENED FOR A FEW MINUTES. BROUGHT THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP NEXT DAY. THE START ISSUE HAPPENED A FEW MORE TIMES IN THE DEALERS LOT. AFTER IT FINALLY STARTED, IT HAD A POWER WINDOW FAILURE, FOLLOWED BY THE SHUTTING DOWN OF THE CAR BY ITSELF WHILE THE CAR WAS PHYSICALLY MOVING. THE DEALER COULD NOT PIN POINT THE PROBLEM BUT SUSPECTED THE BODY ECU (ENGINE CONTROL UNIT) BECAUSE OF THE POWER WINDOW FAILURE. THEY REPLACED AN ECU AND THAT SOLVED THE PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10197610

Mileage unknown · Apr 10, 2007
Engine And Engine CoolingStructure

I PURCHASED THE 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IN SEPTEMBER 2005. WHILE I LOVE MY CAR I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AFTER HEARING THE OTHER COMPLAINTS. I HEAR SLOSHING SOUND UNDER THE DASH. IT IS REALLY LOUD WHEN BRAKING, ACCELERATING, OR PARKING. I ASKED THE DEALER ABOUT IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND WAS TOLD IT WAS NORMAL FOR YOUR CAR. ALSO , HEAR A S…

Read full complaint

I PURCHASED THE 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IN SEPTEMBER 2005. WHILE I LOVE MY CAR I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AFTER HEARING THE OTHER COMPLAINTS. I HEAR SLOSHING SOUND UNDER THE DASH. IT IS REALLY LOUD WHEN BRAKING, ACCELERATING, OR PARKING. I ASKED THE DEALER ABOUT IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND WAS TOLD IT WAS NORMAL FOR YOUR CAR. ALSO , HEAR A SQUEAKY, GRINDING SOUND WHEN TURNING THE STEERING WHEEL TO EITHER SIDE. THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME I TURN THE WHEEL, NO MATTER HOT OR COLD WEATHER. THE DELAERSHIP COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT THE FIRST TIME I TOOK IT THEM. THEY KEPT IT 2 DAYS, AND SAID NOTHIGN WAS WRONG. IT CONTINUED FOR ANTOHER WEEK, AND I RETURNED WITH IT TO THE DEALERSHIP, AND THEY KEPT IT OVERNIGHT AND CALLED ME THE NEXT DAY, AND TOLD ME THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT, BUT THEY WERE SURE NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH IT. THEY WILL NOT RETURN ANY PHONE CALLS OR EVEN TALK TO ME WHEN I GO THERE. THE LAS THING, WAS THE PAINT CONTINUALLY CHIPPING AND PEELING OF IN CHUNKS ON THE HOOD, FRONT BUMPER, AND REAR BUMPER. I HAVE SPOKEN TO TOYOTA ABOUT THIS SEVERAL TIMES, AND THEY CONTINUED TO SAY IT WAS NOT THEIR FAULT, AND MY CAR WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. SO THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING. THIS ALL STARTED ABOUT 3 WEEKS AFTER I BOUGHT THE CAR AND CONTINUED TODAY. PLEASE ADVIS ME IF THEREWAS ANYTHING I COULD DO TO FIX ANY OF THESE PROBLEMS. THANKS. AK

NHTSA ODI #10187452

68,000 miles · Feb 20, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling

TOYOTA DEALER ADVISES REPLACEMENT OF INTAKE MANIFOLD ON 2003 CAMRY 4-CYLINDER DUE TO LOUD RATTLING NOISE. TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE. MANY SIMILAR COMPLAINTS NOTED. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10183055

20,000 miles · Feb 13, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling

I BOUGHT A BRAND NEW TOYOTA CAMRY XLE IN MAY 2003. ABOUT 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER PURCHASING IT, I BEGAN TO HEAR A SLOSHING SOUND UNDER THE DASH BOARD. THE PRODUCING OF THE SOUND WASN'T CONSISTENT BECAUSE SOME DAYS IT WASN'T PRESENT AT ALL. WHEN THE SOUND FIRST STARTED IT WAS VERY FAINT AND THE PASSENGER COULD NOT HEAR IT EVEN WHEN …

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT A BRAND NEW TOYOTA CAMRY XLE IN MAY 2003. ABOUT 1 1/2 YEARS AFTER PURCHASING IT, I BEGAN TO HEAR A SLOSHING SOUND UNDER THE DASH BOARD. THE PRODUCING OF THE SOUND WASN'T CONSISTENT BECAUSE SOME DAYS IT WASN'T PRESENT AT ALL. WHEN THE SOUND FIRST STARTED IT WAS VERY FAINT AND THE PASSENGER COULD NOT HEAR IT EVEN WHEN I POINTED IT OUT. I CHECKED FOR LEAKS BUT I COULD NOT FIND ANY. TODAY, THE SOUND IS A LOT MORE NOTICABLE; HOWEVER, IT STILL DOES NOT PRESNET ITSELF EVERYDAY. I TRIED TO OBSERVE IF IT ONLY HAPPENS WHEN IT IS COLD OUT SIDE OR HOT, BUT THE SOUND IS NOT CONSISTENT. WHEN THE SOUND IS PRESENT, I WOULD HAVE TO TURN MY MUSIC UP A LITTLE TO IGNORE IT. MY CAR'S PERFORMANCE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE HAMPERED BY THIS SLOSHING OR SPLASHING NOISE SO I THOUGHT MY FLUIDS WERES JUST CIRCULATING. BUT IT HAS BECOME QUITE EMBARASSING AND ANNOYING HAVING TO DEAL WITH IT. I READ ANOTHER CONSUMER HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AND TOYOTA COULD NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE SO THEY BOUGHT THEIR CAR BACK. I AM NOW INQUIRING TO TOYOTA ABOUT THE ISSUE, BUT I WISHED I HAD WHEN MY CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY AND THE PROBLEM FIRST ARISED AT THE 20,000 MILE MARK. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10182477

48,000 miles · Nov 20, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling

03 CAMRY MANIFOLD AT 45K TOOK CAR TO DEALER WITH COMPLAINT OF KNOCKING/VIBRATION COMING FROM ENGINE. DEALER REPLACED WATER PUMP UNDER WARRANTY AND RECOMMENDED TENSIONER BE REPLACED, OUT OF WARRANTY ITEM, TO FULLY CORRECT NOISE. NOISE PERSISTED AND I LEARNED TO DEAL WITH IT SINCE IT WASN'T HARMING THE ENGINE. PROGRESSIVELY G…

Read full complaint

03 CAMRY MANIFOLD AT 45K TOOK CAR TO DEALER WITH COMPLAINT OF KNOCKING/VIBRATION COMING FROM ENGINE. DEALER REPLACED WATER PUMP UNDER WARRANTY AND RECOMMENDED TENSIONER BE REPLACED, OUT OF WARRANTY ITEM, TO FULLY CORRECT NOISE. NOISE PERSISTED AND I LEARNED TO DEAL WITH IT SINCE IT WASN'T HARMING THE ENGINE. PROGRESSIVELY GOT MORE ANNOYING AND AT 58K TOOK BACK TO DEALER. SSERVICE REP LISTENED TO IT FOR 2 MINUTES AND SAID IT WAS THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH WOULD COST $591 FOR PARTS AND LABOR. I DECIDED NOT TO LEAVE CAR AND HAVE WORK DONE AGAIN SINCE IT WAS NOT HARMING THE ENGINE AND MORE OF A NUISANCE THAN ANYTHING. AT 60,500K I E-MAILED TOYOTA AND ASKED ABOUT THE EMISSIONS WARRANTY COVERAGE AND WAS TOLD THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS COVERED UP TO 60K OR 5 YRS. I ONLY HAVE SELF TO BLAME FOR NOT BEING PROACTIVE SOONER, BUT TOYOTA SHOULD OWN UP TO THIS RATHER COMMON PROBLEM. PLEASE NOTE THAT I WAS TOLD BY TOYOTA THAT "THE WARRANTY COVERAGE FOR THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IS 5 YRS OR 60,000 WHICH EVER COMES FIRST FROM THE VEHICLES DATE OF FIRST USE..."*JB

NHTSA ODI #10173915

49,000 miles · Nov 12, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling

INTAKE MANIFOLD LEAKING ONLY 51000 MILES 2003 CAMRY . TOYOTA DEALERS EST. $675.00 TO REPAIR . I NOTICED ON LINE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVING THIS PROBLEM WITH 2003 CAMRY. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10173225

96,600 miles · Jul 19, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling

MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY, WHICH I MAINTAINED IN A NORMAL MANNER, W/APPROPRIATE OIL CHANGES. THE OIL LIGHT CAME ON, I PUT IN 1 QT OF OIL, THE LIGHT WENT OFF. A SHORT TIME LATER, I DROVE THE CAR AND IT STARTED MAKING A LOUD CLACKING SOUND, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I DROVE IT HOME AND PARKED IT; CALLED A MECHANIC TO COME TAKE A LOOK…

Read full complaint

MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY, WHICH I MAINTAINED IN A NORMAL MANNER, W/APPROPRIATE OIL CHANGES. THE OIL LIGHT CAME ON, I PUT IN 1 QT OF OIL, THE LIGHT WENT OFF. A SHORT TIME LATER, I DROVE THE CAR AND IT STARTED MAKING A LOUD CLACKING SOUND, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I DROVE IT HOME AND PARKED IT; CALLED A MECHANIC TO COME TAKE A LOOK. HE SAID IT WAS THE ENGINE AND NEEDED TO BE TAKEN TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP, AND WE COULD NOT DRIVE IT AT ALL. I TOWED IT TO THE CLOSEST DEALERSHIP, APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES AWAY. THEY CHECKED IT OVER COUPLE OF DAYS, THEN CALLED AND SAID THE ENGINE HAD SLUDGE IN IT, AND NEEDED A $7,000-$8,000 REPAIR. THEY ALSO SAID IT WAS MY FAULT, BECAUSE THE OIL HAD OBVIOUSLY NOT BEEN CHANGED PROPERLY. WHEN I PURCHASED THE CAR, THE TOYOTA DEALER TALKED ME INTO A $999 EXTENDED WARRANTY PLAN, WHICH HE ASSURED ME WOULD COVER ANY MAJOR ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP WITH A CAR -- THEIR TENDER LOVING CARE PACKAGE. NOW THE WARRANTY (WHICH TOYOTA IS DISTANCING THEMSELVES FROM, SAYING IS AN OUTSIDE COMPANY, THEREFORE NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM) COMPANY DENIED THE REPAIR. ALSO, TOYOTA DENIED COVERING THE REPAIR, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE RESEARCHED AND FOUND TONS OF MATERIAL ONLINE INDICATING THAT THEY'VE HAD AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH THE CAMRY ENGINES AND SLUDGE ISSUES. IT LOOKS LIKE THOUSANDS OF CONSUMERS HAVE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, AND TOYOTA ALWAYS SAYS IT IS THE OWNER'S FAULT. I HAD REGULAR OIL CHANGES, AND HAVE SOME OF THE RECORDS. I DO NOT HAVE ALL OF THE RECEIPTS, BUT HAVE WELL OVER HALF OF THEM. THE CAR HAS 96,000 MILES ON IT, AND THE EXTENDED WARRANTY IS FOR 100,000 MILES. TOYOTA SHOULD FIX THE ENGINE PROPERLY AT THEIR EXPENSE. A $7-8K REPAIR IS A MONUMENTAL EXPENSE FOR OUR FAMILY. THIS MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A SAFETY ISSUE, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS, AS AN ENGINE LOCKING UP OR STOPPING COLD COULD PRESENT A SERIOUS DRIVING ISSUE, AND CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE A VERY BROAD PROBLEM WITH THE TOYOTA CAMRYS. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10162916

39,000 miles · Mar 10, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling

CAR MAKES CLICKING NOISE WHEN IDLE AND IN FIRST GEAR. I GOT A DIAGNOSTIC TEST BY TOYOTA DEALER AND THE PROBLEM IS A BROKEN AIRFLOW DEFLECTOR IN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WHICH IS FLAPPING AROUND. THIS PROBLEM IS REPORTEDLY COMMON ON CAMRYS. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10152402

24,430 miles · Jan 9, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED A HISSING NOISE WAS COMING FROM THE ENGINE IMMEDIATELY AFTER STARTING THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP, AND THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS AN INTAKE MANIFOLD LEAK, AND THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED .*AK UPDATED 2/7/2006 - *NM

NHTSA ODI #10147221

Mileage unknown · Oct 15, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling

INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE ON 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY 2.4 ENGINE (TOYOTA MOTOR CO.) WILL NOT REPLACE. THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY REPLACED THEM WITH A NEW TYPE OF INTAKE MANIFOLD. MY CAMRY HAS 65000 MILES. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10139789

Official recalls

1

04V346000 · 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

3

DP06003 · 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.

Go deeper into Toyota Camry problems