← 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

Latches/locks/linkages complaints

12 reports
Clear category filter
96,495 miles · May 11, 2013
Electrical SystemLatches/locks/linkages

DRIVER SIDE DOOR DOES NOT OPEN, AS LOCK REFUSES TO MOVE. INITIALLY IT REFUSED TO LISTEN TO POWER OR REMOTE LOCKING, BUT NOW IT REFUSES TO MOVE FROM MANUAL LOCKING. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AND SHOULD LEAD TO AN INVESTIGATION AND RECALL. EVERYTHING ONLINE POINTS TO FAULTY DOOR ACTUATORS. HUNDREDS (IF NOT THOUSANDS) OF PEO…

Read full complaint

DRIVER SIDE DOOR DOES NOT OPEN, AS LOCK REFUSES TO MOVE. INITIALLY IT REFUSED TO LISTEN TO POWER OR REMOTE LOCKING, BUT NOW IT REFUSES TO MOVE FROM MANUAL LOCKING. THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AND SHOULD LEAD TO AN INVESTIGATION AND RECALL. EVERYTHING ONLINE POINTS TO FAULTY DOOR ACTUATORS. HUNDREDS (IF NOT THOUSANDS) OF PEOPLE ARE HAVING THIS PROBLEM ONLINE. THE YEAR RANGE IS GUESSED TO BE 2002 TO 2005 OR 2007. 14 OTHER COMPLAINTS EXIST FOR THIS YEAR RANGE WITH THE DOOR ACTUATORS NOT WORKING: 10489801, 10483194, 10479564, 10461669, 10384238, 10369665, 10361184, 10342871, 10308523, 10308206, 10297834, 10284015, 10265333, AND 10253429. PLEASE, INVESTIGATE THIS PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10511513

62,000 miles · Feb 23, 2011
Latches/locks/linkages

THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR IN MY 2003 CAMRY HAD A FAILURE OF THE LOCK ACTUATOR. IN MID JANUARY 2011, IT JUST WOULD NOT OPEN, NOT MANUALLY UNLOCKING AT THE DOOR HANDLE, WITH THE LOCK SWITCH IN THE CAR, OR THE REMOTE UNLOCK. THE CAR WAS NOT HIT OR DAMAGED BEFORE THIS HAPPENED. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER, FOR $90 THEY TOOK APART THE DOOR…

Read full complaint

THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR IN MY 2003 CAMRY HAD A FAILURE OF THE LOCK ACTUATOR. IN MID JANUARY 2011, IT JUST WOULD NOT OPEN, NOT MANUALLY UNLOCKING AT THE DOOR HANDLE, WITH THE LOCK SWITCH IN THE CAR, OR THE REMOTE UNLOCK. THE CAR WAS NOT HIT OR DAMAGED BEFORE THIS HAPPENED. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER, FOR $90 THEY TOOK APART THE DOOR AND SAID THE LOCK ACTUATOR WAS FAILING, AND IT WOULD BE ALMOST $500 TO REPLACE IT. I DECLINED HAVING IT REPLACED AT THIS TIME, SINCE IT WORKED AFTER THE MECHANIC TOOK IT APART AND PUT IT BACK TOGETHER (IT HAS BEEN ONE WEEK AND HAS NOT LOCKED UP AGAIN YET). I WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE IT REPLACED SINCE MY CHILD RIDES IN THE BACK SEAT, AND I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A LIFE SAFETY PROBLEM. IF THE CAR WERE HIT IN THE SIDE THAT WORKED, I WOULD BE UNABLE TO GET HER OUT OF THE CAR, WITHOUT PULLING HER THROUGH THE FRONT SEAT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10384238

67,000 miles · Dec 8, 2010
Latches/locks/linkages

DOOR LOCKS FOR 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WORK INTERMITTENTLY?? THERE ARE SO MANY COMPLAINTS ON HERE NOW I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE PART (ACTUARIES) FOR THE DOOR LOCK? I DO ALSO AGREE THAT IT COULD POSE A SAFETY PROBLEM AS SOMETIMES THE DOOR WON'T UNLOCK AT ALL WITHOUT HAVING TO FORCE IT AND DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE…

Read full complaint

DOOR LOCKS FOR 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WORK INTERMITTENTLY?? THERE ARE SO MANY COMPLAINTS ON HERE NOW I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE PART (ACTUARIES) FOR THE DOOR LOCK? I DO ALSO AGREE THAT IT COULD POSE A SAFETY PROBLEM AS SOMETIMES THE DOOR WON'T UNLOCK AT ALL WITHOUT HAVING TO FORCE IT AND DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE IN A POND OR DITCH FILLED WITH WATER THIS COULD BE VERY DANGEROUS!! [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10369665

25,000 miles · May 6, 2010
Latches/locks/linkages

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS, THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR, BOTH REAR DRIVER AND PASSENGERS SIDE DOOR LOCKS FAILED. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED DUE TO A DEFECTIVE ACTUATOR. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO UNLOCK THE DOORS WHENEVER H…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS, THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR, BOTH REAR DRIVER AND PASSENGERS SIDE DOOR LOCKS FAILED. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED DUE TO A DEFECTIVE ACTUATOR. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO UNLOCK THE DOORS WHENEVER HE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 25,000.

NHTSA ODI #10329193

93,000 miles · Feb 9, 2010
Latches/locks/linkages

IN THE SPRING OF 2008 THE FRONT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK ON OUR 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY "FROZE" IN THE LOCKED POSITION. THE DOOR COULD NOT BE UNLOCKED BY ANY MEANS INCLUDING THE ELECTRONIC KEYLESS ENTRY, THE KEY IN THE DOOR OR MANUALLY FROM THE INSIDE. THERE WAS NO "WARNING" THAT THIS WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN IT JUST COULDN'T BE UNLOCKED.…

Read full complaint

IN THE SPRING OF 2008 THE FRONT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK ON OUR 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY "FROZE" IN THE LOCKED POSITION. THE DOOR COULD NOT BE UNLOCKED BY ANY MEANS INCLUDING THE ELECTRONIC KEYLESS ENTRY, THE KEY IN THE DOOR OR MANUALLY FROM THE INSIDE. THERE WAS NO "WARNING" THAT THIS WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN IT JUST COULDN'T BE UNLOCKED. FORTUNATELY WE WERE NOT IN THE CAR WHEN THIS OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR THEM TO SEE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE LOCK. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE "ACTUATOR" HAD GONE OUT AND HAD TO BE REPLACED, AT A COST TO ME OF APPROX. $380.00 WHICH I PAID. THE SAME THING HAPPENED AGAIN IN 9-09 ONLY THIS TIME ON THE PASSENGER SIDE AND AGAIN WITH NO "WARNING". THIS TIME WE WERE IN THE VEHICLE AND DIDN'T REALIZE IT HAD HAPPENED AGAIN UNTIL WE PARKED AND TRIED TO EXIT. AGAIN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN ( TO AN INDEPENDENT GARAGE) AND THE ACTUATOR ON THE PASSENGER SIDE HAD TO BE REPLACED, AGAIN AT A COST OF APPROX $350. MY CONCERN IS THAT WITH NO "WARNING OF WHEN THIS IS GOING TO OCCUR THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD HAPPEN WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN AND IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AND THE DOOR WAS UNABLE TO BE UNLOCKED THIS COULD POSE A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD IF A PERSON WAS UNABLE TO GET OUT OF THEIR VEHICLE DUE TO THIS FAILURE. I ASKED BOTH THE DEALERSHIP AND THE MAIN OFFICES OF TOYOTA IF THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM IN THESE VEHICLES AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO REPORTS OF THIS SORT OF PROBLEM. I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT I HAVE THE ONLY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY THAT HAS HAD THIS PROBLEM. I FEEL THIS BEARS INVESTIGATING FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL CONSUMERS WHO OWN A VEHICLE THAT THIS PROBLEM MAY OCCUR IN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10308206

29,500 miles · Apr 14, 2009
Latches/locks/linkages

THE ELECTRIC DOOR SWITCH, DRIVERS SIDE, DOES NOT ALWAYS OPEN OR LOCK. EITHER BY INSIDE DOOR LOCK/UNLOCK SWITCH OR WIRELESS/REMOTE CONTROL. THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS, ON AND OFF. OTHER DOORS OPEN & UNLOCK WITH INSIDE SWITCH AND WIRELESS/REMOTE CONTROL. BUT NOT ALWAYS THE DRIVERS SIDE. THIS HAPPENS ON A WE…

Read full complaint

THE ELECTRIC DOOR SWITCH, DRIVERS SIDE, DOES NOT ALWAYS OPEN OR LOCK. EITHER BY INSIDE DOOR LOCK/UNLOCK SWITCH OR WIRELESS/REMOTE CONTROL. THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS, ON AND OFF. OTHER DOORS OPEN & UNLOCK WITH INSIDE SWITCH AND WIRELESS/REMOTE CONTROL. BUT NOT ALWAYS THE DRIVERS SIDE. THIS HAPPENS ON A WEEKLY BASIS. MOST TIMES IT CORRECTED, AFTER I TURNED THE LOCKING BUTTON MANUALLY IN, INSTEAD OF HITTING THE ELECTRONIC SWITCH. BUT MORE AND MORE FREQUENTLY, I HAVE TO LOCK THE DOOR MANUALLY, BY PUSHING IN THE LOCK BUTTON. OR HAVING TO USE THE KEY, TO GET INSIDE THE CAR. THE CAR IS A 2003 CAMRY LE, WITH 29,500 MILES ON IT. DON'T DRIVE IT THAT MUCH. THE ELECTRONIC ACTUATOR SWITCH, SOLENOID SWITCH, OR PERHAPS THE MASTER LOCK SWITCH IS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. A CAMRY SHOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS KIND OF A PROBLEM, WITH SO FEW MILES ON IT!!! ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PARTS TO REPLACE THEM WITH ARE SO EXPENSIVE! NOT COUNTING THE DIAGNOSIS LABOR FEE, THAN THE ACTUAL LABOR FEE TO REPAIR!!! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10265333

Mileage unknown · Dec 29, 2006
Latches/locks/linkages

POWER LOCKS - BEGINNING IN 2005, THE POWER LOCKS IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY BEGAN TO FAIL. THE DRIVER'S DOOR WAS THE FIRST TO MALFUNCTION, FOLLOWED BY THE RIGHT REAR PASSENGER DOOR AND, MOST RECENTLY, THE LEFT REAR PASSENGER DOOR. THE FAILURE BEGINS WITH INTERMITTENT FUNCTIONING OF THE LOCKS - THE DOORS WILL LOCK/UNLOCK UNPREDICT…

Read full complaint

POWER LOCKS - BEGINNING IN 2005, THE POWER LOCKS IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY BEGAN TO FAIL. THE DRIVER'S DOOR WAS THE FIRST TO MALFUNCTION, FOLLOWED BY THE RIGHT REAR PASSENGER DOOR AND, MOST RECENTLY, THE LEFT REAR PASSENGER DOOR. THE FAILURE BEGINS WITH INTERMITTENT FUNCTIONING OF THE LOCKS - THE DOORS WILL LOCK/UNLOCK UNPREDICTABLY. I HAVE REPLACED 2 OF THE 3 MECHANISMS AT SIGNIFICANT COST. NOW THE THIRD IS FAILING. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A SAFETY ISSUE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS - CHILDREN IN THE CAR AND THE RISK OF THEFT FROM A CAR THAT FAILED TO LOCK.

NHTSA ODI #10177350

Mileage unknown · Jul 20, 2006
Latches/locks/linkages

HAVE A 2002 CAMRY AND I HAVE NOW PURCHASED MY THIRD INSIDE DOOR LATCH. TOYOTA MUST HAVE DISCOVERED THEY HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE NEWER CAMRY'S ARE METAL. I WOULD HOPE THE NHTSA WOULD GIVE CONSUMERS SOME HELP WITH THIS PROBLEM. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10162995

37,926 miles · Dec 12, 2005
Latches/locks/linkagesVisibility

DT: THE CONTACT STATED THE AUTOMATIC DOOR LOCKS WERE DEFECTIVE. THE DEALER REPLACED BOTH FRONT DOOR LOCK ACTUATORS, WHICH CORRECTED THE PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR LOCKS. AFTER A WHILE, BOTH REAR DOOR LOCKS FAILED. THE DEALER HAS NOT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. *AK THE POWER WINDOW WAS INOPER…

Read full complaint

DT: THE CONTACT STATED THE AUTOMATIC DOOR LOCKS WERE DEFECTIVE. THE DEALER REPLACED BOTH FRONT DOOR LOCK ACTUATORS, WHICH CORRECTED THE PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR LOCKS. AFTER A WHILE, BOTH REAR DOOR LOCKS FAILED. THE DEALER HAS NOT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. *AK THE POWER WINDOW WAS INOPERATIVE. UPDATED 01/11/06. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10144952

42,000 miles · Dec 5, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages

INSIDE DOOR LATCH ON 2002 CAMRY MADE OF PLASTIC AND BREAK FOR NO APPARENT REASON. I HAVE PURCHASED 3 FOR MY CAR. I AM AFRAID THAT IN AN ACCIDENT SITUATION THAT THE HANDLE COULD BREAK PREVENTING EXITING THE CAR. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10144501

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