← 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

Power Train complaints

40 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Jun 26, 2022
EnginePower Train

Having purchased w 2003 Toyota Camry 2.4l, (with good paint, no rust, great interior, and new clear headlights) 3 days prior, the previous owner reported no current issues. The check engine light come on the 3 rd day as I drove away from the DMV having just titled it. AC was blowing cold, no other dash lights were on and I could…

Read full complaint

Having purchased w 2003 Toyota Camry 2.4l, (with good paint, no rust, great interior, and new clear headlights) 3 days prior, the previous owner reported no current issues. The check engine light come on the 3 rd day as I drove away from the DMV having just titled it. AC was blowing cold, no other dash lights were on and I couldn't feel any apparent issues driving, so I proceed to my place of employment, where a friend whom is an independent mechanic had the machine to read check engine codes. I never made it. Had driven approximately 25 miles and came to a full stop for a red light. Upon turning green and beginning to accelerate, my Camry's engine died and would not start. When the key was turned it made no noise at all. Towed to a mechanic shop, I was asked if it had overheated, it had not. Without investing further and me acquiring a diagnostics charge, he said one apparent issue was the fact that there was absolutely no coolant in the engine. Dumfounded I had ittowed home where another Mechanic friend (licensed) was going to see about reapiring it. One of the code//errors read, was that the was no combustion, the radiator was full, but there was no traces of coolant in the engine, when took of the engine mainfold right away he noticed 3 cool packs that were damaged, as well as what appeared to be a used head gasket poorly installed, and worse if all the timing chain had jumped and made a mad mesh nightmare to the engine...so previous owners obviously sold me their night mare, I now am stuck with either replacing the engine (not) or bring carless once again.✔️✔️ Note: Contacted the acclaimed christian, God fearing sellers, whom I paid $4000 and they kindly refunded me $1000, as they stated it was no fault of theirs ..

NHTSA ODI #11471000

Mileage unknown · Apr 21, 2017
Air BagsElectrical SystemEngineCrash

TAKATA INFLATORS: EVERY TIME I FIX MY VEHICLE INDIVIDUALS CAUSE HATE CRIMES DAMAGING MY VEHICLE AS I GO TO SLEEP OR WHEN I AM NOT VIEWING MY VEHICLE THEY MUST KNOW EXACTLY WHEN I GO TO SLEEP BECAUSE I CANT CATCH THEM EVEN THOUGH I THINK I KNOW WHO IT IS I CAN NOT PROVE IT SO THIS IS WHY I AM COMPLAINING I REMEMBER CHECKING MY T…

Read full complaint

TAKATA INFLATORS: EVERY TIME I FIX MY VEHICLE INDIVIDUALS CAUSE HATE CRIMES DAMAGING MY VEHICLE AS I GO TO SLEEP OR WHEN I AM NOT VIEWING MY VEHICLE THEY MUST KNOW EXACTLY WHEN I GO TO SLEEP BECAUSE I CANT CATCH THEM EVEN THOUGH I THINK I KNOW WHO IT IS I CAN NOT PROVE IT SO THIS IS WHY I AM COMPLAINING I REMEMBER CHECKING MY TIRES IN THE NIGHT NOTICING NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM THEN CHECKED IN THE MOURNING AND NOTICED NAILS NAILED IN THE TIRES THEN I NOTICED DRIED TURTLE WAX ALL OVER THE BODY OF THE CAR MESSING UP THE PAINT WHEEL ALIGNMENT OUT OF LINE RIGHT DOOR POWER WINDOW MALFUNCTION TRUNK OPEN POWER SWITCH BROKEN POWER SUN ROOF SLIDING WINDOW BROKEN VEHICLE WAS STATIONARY THIS HAPPENED ON DIFFERENT DATE IN COMBINATION TO THE DAMAGE BETWEEN 06/16/06 TO 04/21/17.

NHTSA ODI #10979713

Mileage unknown · Dec 9, 2015
Power TrainService BrakesSteering

"TAKATA RECALL" - I AM EXPERIENCING A CLICKING NOISE FROM THE STEERING WHEEL WHEN TURNING THE WHEEL TO THE LEFT & RIGHT, THE WHOLE DASH BOARD SHAKES WHEN THE AC OR HEAT IS ON, BRAKES PEDAL GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR & MAKING SOUNDS, AND WHEN YOU PUT THE CAR IN PARK IT WILL MOVE FORWARD.

NHTSA ODI #10809228

33,705 miles · Dec 8, 2015
Power TrainService BrakesSteering

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN MAKING A LEFT OR RIGHT TURN, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE EMITTING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE LOWER STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. IN ADDITION,…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN MAKING A LEFT OR RIGHT TURN, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE EMITTING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE LOWER STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, THE VEHICLE HESITATED TO RESPOND. THE CONTACT ALSO MENTIONED THAT AFTER SWITCHING INTO THE PARK POSITION, THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY SWITCHED IN THE REVERSE POSITION WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 33,705.

NHTSA ODI #10809104

90,000 miles · Jan 28, 2014
EnginePower Train

ACCORDING TO TOYOTA'S TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN T-SB-0034-08 (APRIL 15, 2008), THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IN 2002 ? 2004 CAMRY EQUIPPED WITH 2AZ ENGINE MAY PRODUCE A LOUD RATTLE NOISE FROM THE ENGINE AREA, MOST NOTICEABLE AT IDLE OR ON LIGHT ACCELERATION. THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAS BEEN UPDATED / MODIFIED TO SOLVE THIS ISSUES ON THE NEWE…

Read full complaint

ACCORDING TO TOYOTA'S TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN T-SB-0034-08 (APRIL 15, 2008), THE INTAKE MANIFOLD IN 2002 ? 2004 CAMRY EQUIPPED WITH 2AZ ENGINE MAY PRODUCE A LOUD RATTLE NOISE FROM THE ENGINE AREA, MOST NOTICEABLE AT IDLE OR ON LIGHT ACCELERATION. THE INTAKE MANIFOLD HAS BEEN UPDATED / MODIFIED TO SOLVE THIS ISSUES ON THE NEWER VEHICLES. A FAULTY INTAKE MANIFOLD WILL AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE AND AFFECT EMISSIONS. TOYOTA USA SHOULD RECALL ALL THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WITH THIS FAULTY INTAKE MANIFOLD, BUT THEY ONLY COVER THE REPAIR TO THE VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNDER WARRANTY. THIS FAULTY INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS SERIOUS ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10561878

Mileage unknown · Aug 11, 2013
Air BagsPower TrainStructureCrash

I WAS IN THE DRIVER SEAT WAITING TO TURN LEFT, WHEN SUDDENLY I GOT HIT FROM THE REAR RIGHT PART OF MY CAR. FROM THAT MOMENT THE CAR COULD NOT DRIVE.. THE REAR LEFT PART OF THE CAR BODY AND THE TIRE WAS TOTALLY DAMAGED. THE REPAIR SHOP DECLARED THAT THE CAR COULD NOT BE REPAIRED ANY MORE. ONLY LATER OF THE INCIDENT DID I REMEMB…

Read full complaint

I WAS IN THE DRIVER SEAT WAITING TO TURN LEFT, WHEN SUDDENLY I GOT HIT FROM THE REAR RIGHT PART OF MY CAR. FROM THAT MOMENT THE CAR COULD NOT DRIVE.. THE REAR LEFT PART OF THE CAR BODY AND THE TIRE WAS TOTALLY DAMAGED. THE REPAIR SHOP DECLARED THAT THE CAR COULD NOT BE REPAIRED ANY MORE. ONLY LATER OF THE INCIDENT DID I REMEMBER THAT THE AIRBAGS DID NOT WORK AT ALL. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10534701

127,470 miles · Oct 25, 2012
Fuel/propulsion SystemPower TrainCrash

ON OCTOBER 24, 2012, I PARALLEL PARKED MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY ON THE STREET. THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME WAS LEAVING, SO HE ASKED ME TO MOVE BACK A FEW INCHES SO HE COULD GET OUT. MY CAR WAS STILL RUNNING SO I SHIFTED THE CAR INTO REVERSE, AND AS I BEGAN TO TAKE MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL, MY CAR ACCELERATED BACKWARDS AT A VERY FAST…

Read full complaint

ON OCTOBER 24, 2012, I PARALLEL PARKED MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY ON THE STREET. THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME WAS LEAVING, SO HE ASKED ME TO MOVE BACK A FEW INCHES SO HE COULD GET OUT. MY CAR WAS STILL RUNNING SO I SHIFTED THE CAR INTO REVERSE, AND AS I BEGAN TO TAKE MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL, MY CAR ACCELERATED BACKWARDS AT A VERY FAST SPEED INTO THE CAR BEHIND ME. WANTING TO PULL UP A FEW INCHES TO GET OUT AND ASSESS THE DAMAGE, I SHIFTED THE CAR INTO DRIVE AND AS I DID, MY CAR ACCELERATED FORWARDS INTO THE PARKED CAR IN FRONT OF ME. IT ACCELERATED AT SUCH A HIGH SPEED THAT IT PUSHED THE THREE CARS IN FRONT OF ME TOGETHER. AT NO POINT DURING THESE TWO RAPID ACCELERATIONS DID I EVER APPLY MY FOOT TO THE GAS PEDAL. THIS INCIDENT CAUSED DAMAGE TO SEVERAL CARS AND COULD HAVE ENDED UP WITH MUCH MORE SEVERE CONSEQUENCES HAD I NOT BEEN IN THAT LOCATION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10482281

90,000 miles · Feb 4, 2011
Power Train

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT WAS TOLD BY TOYOTA THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED A NEW TRANSMISSION IN JANUARY OF 2009, BUT THEY WERE NOT TOLD WHY. A REBUILT TRANSMISSION WAS INSTALLED AND NOW THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE TRANS AXLE FAILED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND WAS TOLD T…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT WAS TOLD BY TOYOTA THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED A NEW TRANSMISSION IN JANUARY OF 2009, BUT THEY WERE NOT TOLD WHY. A REBUILT TRANSMISSION WAS INSTALLED AND NOW THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE TRANS AXLE FAILED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE GEAR SHIFT BOX, WHICH CAUSED THE TRANSMISSION TO SLIP AND MAKE A BANGING NOISE WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 20 MPH. THE ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION FAILED AT 70,000 MILES. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE WARRANTY EXPIRED; HOWEVER, THE EXTENDED WARRANTY WAS VALID UP TO 75,000 MILES. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS A MANUFACTURERS DEFECT. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 90,000. UPDATED 03/15/11*LJ UPDATED 1/3/11 *CN

NHTSA ODI #10380188

120,000 miles · Jul 13, 2010
Power Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. AFTER STARTING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE GEAR SHIFTER WOULD NOT SHIFT OUT OF THE PARK GEAR. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED AND THERE WERE NO PRIOR WARNINGS OF THE FAILURE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 120,000.

NHTSA ODI #10342898

122,867 miles · Apr 4, 2010
Power TrainVehicle Speed ControlCrash

2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE WAS RUNNING, SITTING IN DRIVEWAY, BUT IN PARK WITH EMERGENCY BRAKE ON. CAR "TOOK OFF" IN REVERSE, AND ONLY CAME TO A STOP WHEN DRIVER JUMPED INTO CAR, PUSHED HARD ON FOOT BRAKE, TURNED OFF IGNITION, AND CAR DOOR SLAMMED INTO ANOTHER PARKED VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10323662

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