BRAKE PEDAL GOES DOWN LOW CLOSE TO THE GAS PEDAL BY ITSELF. WHEN MASTER CYLINDER FLUID IS ADDED THE PEDAL RETURNS TO ITS CORRECT POSITION. DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE MASTER CYLINDER, BUT THE PROBLEM RECURS. *AK
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
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.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
91 reportsWHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AT ANY SPEED, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP. THIS RESULTED IN EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE MASTER CYLINDER BECAUSE IT WAS LEAKING, BUT THE PROBLEM RECURRED, THEN THE DEALERSHIP CLEANED AND READJUSTED THE REAR BRAKES. *AK THE BRAKE PEDAL TRAVELED TO THE GROUND. *…
Read full complaint
WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AT ANY SPEED, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP. THIS RESULTED IN EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE MASTER CYLINDER BECAUSE IT WAS LEAKING, BUT THE PROBLEM RECURRED, THEN THE DEALERSHIP CLEANED AND READJUSTED THE REAR BRAKES. *AK THE BRAKE PEDAL TRAVELED TO THE GROUND. *SCC *JB
DURING A ROUTINE MAINTENANCE CHECK, THE DEALER DETERMINED THAT THE REAR BRAKE PADS LOCKED UP AND DAMAGED THE BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS. THE DEALER RESURFACED THE REAR BRAKE ROTORS AND REPLACED THE REAR BRAKE PADS. *JB *NLM
MY WIFE RECENTLY PURCHASED A 2003 CAMRY LE AND HAS AN ISSUE WITH THE BRAKING ON THE VEHICLE. IN OUR OPINIONS THERE IS EXCESSIVE PEDAL TRAVEL BEFORE THE BRAKING SYSTEMS STARTS TO ENGAGE AND YOU MUST PRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL PRACTICALLY TO THE FLOOR IN ORDER TO STOP. AS A RESULT, MY WIFE NEARLY HAD TWO ACCIDENTS DURING SUDDEN STOPS…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE RECENTLY PURCHASED A 2003 CAMRY LE AND HAS AN ISSUE WITH THE BRAKING ON THE VEHICLE. IN OUR OPINIONS THERE IS EXCESSIVE PEDAL TRAVEL BEFORE THE BRAKING SYSTEMS STARTS TO ENGAGE AND YOU MUST PRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL PRACTICALLY TO THE FLOOR IN ORDER TO STOP. AS A RESULT, MY WIFE NEARLY HAD TWO ACCIDENTS DURING SUDDEN STOPS. WE BROUGHT THE CAR BACK TO THE DEALER AND THEIR ASSESSMENT WAS THAT THE BRAKES ARE FINE AND WE MUST GET USED TO THEM. *LA
A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY, V-6, WITH ALL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EXPERIENCED INTERMITTENT CRUISE CONTROL DISENGAGEMENT, ACTUAL TURN-OFF, AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. SOMETIMES THE BRAKE PEDAL NEEDED TO BE LIFTED WITH THE LEFT FOOT TO RESTART/RE-ENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL. LATER, WHILE PARALLEL PARKING, ON APPLYING THE BRAKE, THE CAR SURGED AHEAD HITTIN…
Read full complaint
A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY, V-6, WITH ALL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EXPERIENCED INTERMITTENT CRUISE CONTROL DISENGAGEMENT, ACTUAL TURN-OFF, AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. SOMETIMES THE BRAKE PEDAL NEEDED TO BE LIFTED WITH THE LEFT FOOT TO RESTART/RE-ENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL. LATER, WHILE PARALLEL PARKING, ON APPLYING THE BRAKE, THE CAR SURGED AHEAD HITTING THE SUV PARKED AHEAD. TOYOTA DEALER, AND FIELD TECHNICIAN DROVE VEHICLE AND THE ONLY THING NOTICED WAS THE CRUISE CONTROL WENT OFF WHEN TURNING AROUND IN A DRIVEWAY. THE PROBLEM WAS SPORADIC ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN FIRST OBSERVED. TOYOTA LEGALLY DENIED THE CLAIM AFTER OVER 3 MONTHS TIME FROM REPORTING TO THEIR REGIONAL CENTER. NO INJURIES OCCURRED. THE MASTER CYLINDER HAS BEEN REPLACED AND THE FRONT END REPAIRED. THE CAR APPEARS TO BE OPERATING SATISFACTORILY. *LA THE CONSUMER STATED IF THE BRAKE PEDAL IS DEPRESSED SLIGHTLY TO DISENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL, HE STILL HAS TO LIFT THE PEDAL TO ENGAGE IT AGAIN. UPDATED 03/05/10
PROBLEMS WITH BRAKE PEDAL AND ACCELERATOR PEDAL ON 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. *MR THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WERE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER. THE PEDAL MOVED IN DISTANCE BEFORE HARD BRAKING OCCURRED. THE BRAKES WOULD STOP THE VEHICLE BUT THE PEDAL TRAVELED TO THE FLOOR. IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE WHEN THE CONSUMER APPLIED TH…
Read full complaint
PROBLEMS WITH BRAKE PEDAL AND ACCELERATOR PEDAL ON 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. *MR THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WERE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER. THE PEDAL MOVED IN DISTANCE BEFORE HARD BRAKING OCCURRED. THE BRAKES WOULD STOP THE VEHICLE BUT THE PEDAL TRAVELED TO THE FLOOR. IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE WHEN THE CONSUMER APPLIED THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS PRESSED AS WELL. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO WERE THREE INCHES. THE VEHICLE WOULD ALSO SHOOT FORWARD WHEN BRAKING. *SCC *JB
BRAKE PEDAL OF 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY GOES TO THE FLOOR! DEALER SAYS THEY HAVE HAD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS BUT CORPORATE SAYS THAT'S NORMAL. I FEEL IT'S DANGEROUS ESPECIALLY TO SHORT DRIVERS. THIS CAR IS BRAND NEW AND I HAVE DRIVEN FOUR OTHER CAMRY'S, A 2002 AND 3-2003 S. THE DEALER SAYS THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN THE NEWER BODY STYL…
Read full complaint
BRAKE PEDAL OF 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY GOES TO THE FLOOR! DEALER SAYS THEY HAVE HAD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS BUT CORPORATE SAYS THAT'S NORMAL. I FEEL IT'S DANGEROUS ESPECIALLY TO SHORT DRIVERS. THIS CAR IS BRAND NEW AND I HAVE DRIVEN FOUR OTHER CAMRY'S, A 2002 AND 3-2003 S. THE DEALER SAYS THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN THE NEWER BODY STYLE BUT "THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT." 8JB
CONSUMER NOTICED THAT WHEN DEPRESSING THE BRAKES PEDAL IT TRAVELED TO THE FLOORBOARD. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN CONTACTED. *AK THE VEHICLE HAD TRAVEL TIME ON THE PEDAL ABOUT ONE INCH AND SPONGY. DEALER STATED ALL 2002'S AND 2003'S HAD THAT PROBLEM. *PH *JB
BRAKES DO NOT REACT UNLESS PRESSED TO THE FLOOR. *MR THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO TWO DIFFERENT TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS WHERE THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE BRAKES WERE NORMAL. THE OWNER'S MANUAL STATED THAT THE MINIMUM PEDAL CLEARANCE WHEN DEPRESSED WITH FORCE OF 110 FOOT POUNDS WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING SHOULD BE 2.5 INCHES. …
Read full complaint
BRAKES DO NOT REACT UNLESS PRESSED TO THE FLOOR. *MR THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO TWO DIFFERENT TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS WHERE THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE BRAKES WERE NORMAL. THE OWNER'S MANUAL STATED THAT THE MINIMUM PEDAL CLEARANCE WHEN DEPRESSED WITH FORCE OF 110 FOOT POUNDS WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING SHOULD BE 2.5 INCHES. THE CONSUMER FOUND THAT THE BRAKE MEASUREMENT WAS 0.5 INCHES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MEANS TO TEST THE REQUIRED PEDAL SPECIFICATION. *SCC *JB
ON THE FREEWAY WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKES FOR EMERGENCY STOP IT WENT TO THE FLOOR.T TOOK EXTENDED DISTANCE TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER CHANGED THE MAIN CYLINDER, BUT AFTER A WEEK THE PROBLEM GOT WORSE. THE BRAKE PEDAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY RESERVE DISTANCE AS IT SPECIFIED IN THE MAINTANANCE AND REPAIR MANUAL, THE PEDAL IS TOO SOF…
Read full complaint
ON THE FREEWAY WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKES FOR EMERGENCY STOP IT WENT TO THE FLOOR.T TOOK EXTENDED DISTANCE TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER CHANGED THE MAIN CYLINDER, BUT AFTER A WEEK THE PROBLEM GOT WORSE. THE BRAKE PEDAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY RESERVE DISTANCE AS IT SPECIFIED IN THE MAINTANANCE AND REPAIR MANUAL, THE PEDAL IS TOO SOFT AND SPONGY. BECAUSE THE BRAKE PEDAL SOFTNESS THE BRAKING TIME IS INCREASED BY 3 SECONDS. WHEN I ASKED THE ASSITANT MANGER HAD THEY PERFORMED ACTUAL TESTS ON THE VEHICLE AFTER THE REPAIR HE TOLD ME THAT THEY DID A COMPUTERIZED BRAKE TEST, BUT WHEN I ASKED FOR HTE PRINTOUT HE SAID THAT THE COMPUTER CANNOT PRINT IT. *AK
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.
Illustration