TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLINER ROOFING MATERIAL FELL. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY FAULTY GLUE OR WEAR AND TEAR. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE POWERTRAIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 30,000 AND FAILURE MI…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLINER ROOFING MATERIAL FELL. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY FAULTY GLUE OR WEAR AND TEAR. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE POWERTRAIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 30,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 10. UPDATED 12/12/2007 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED THE HEADLINER IS DETACHING FROM THE BACK BY THE REAR ALL THE WAY ACROSS. UPDATED 12/12/07 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10202181
46,009 miles · Jun 28, 2007
Structure
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE IS A GAP IN THE DASHBOARD ABOVE THE AIR BAG COVER. THE AIR BAG CAN BE SEEN THROUGH THE GAP. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE AIR BAG IS IN STILL IN PLACE AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING ABLE TO SEE THE AIR BAG THROUGH THE GA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE IS A GAP IN THE DASHBOARD ABOVE THE AIR BAG COVER. THE AIR BAG CAN BE SEEN THROUGH THE GAP. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE AIR BAG IS IN STILL IN PLACE AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING ABLE TO SEE THE AIR BAG THROUGH THE GAP. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 46,009.
NHTSA ODI #10194844
40,000 miles · Jun 27, 2007
EquipmentStructure
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT NOTICED HOLES IN THE REAR SPEAKER COVERS AND PIECES OF THE COVERS HAD FALLEN INTO THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE BEGAN IN MARCH OF 2007 AND STILL PERSISTS. THE DEALER AGREED TO SPLIT THE COST FOR PARTS, BUT THE CONTACT MUST PAY THE LABOR FEES. WHEN THE WINDOWS ARE R…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT NOTICED HOLES IN THE REAR SPEAKER COVERS AND PIECES OF THE COVERS HAD FALLEN INTO THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE BEGAN IN MARCH OF 2007 AND STILL PERSISTS. THE DEALER AGREED TO SPLIT THE COST FOR PARTS, BUT THE CONTACT MUST PAY THE LABOR FEES. WHEN THE WINDOWS ARE ROLLED DOWN, THE SPEAKER COVER FRAGMENTS FLOAT AROUND INSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE POWERTRAIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 45,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000. UPDATED 02-01-08 *BF UPDATED 02/01/08 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10194753
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
Mileage unknown · Jan 25, 2006
Power TrainStructure
RUST SPOTS APPEARED ON 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE, ESPECIALLY ON TRUNK LID , THROUGHOUT 2003-2006. TOYOTA DENYING ANY RESPONSIBILITY, STATING IT WAS ENVIRONMENTAL. MY SON' CAR AXLE OF SAME YEAR HAS SAME PROBLEM . HE LIVES 60 MILES FROM ME. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10148720
Mileage unknown · Jan 4, 2006
Structure
THE TORSION BARS ON OUR 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY SUDDENLY FAILED TO WORK. WHEN THE TRUNK WAS OPENED, IT THEN HAD TO BE MANUALLY PUSHED UP TO THE TOP OPEN POSITION, HOWEVER IT WOULD EASILY AND QUICKLY COME DOWN IF IT WAS WINDY OUTSIDE. TWICE I WAS HIT IN THE HEAD OR BACK WHILE LEANING INTO THE TRUNK AND PUTTING SOMETHING IN OR TAKING…
Read full complaint
THE TORSION BARS ON OUR 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY SUDDENLY FAILED TO WORK. WHEN THE TRUNK WAS OPENED, IT THEN HAD TO BE MANUALLY PUSHED UP TO THE TOP OPEN POSITION, HOWEVER IT WOULD EASILY AND QUICKLY COME DOWN IF IT WAS WINDY OUTSIDE. TWICE I WAS HIT IN THE HEAD OR BACK WHILE LEANING INTO THE TRUNK AND PUTTING SOMETHING IN OR TAKING SOMETHING OUT, A MAJOR PROBLEM BECAUSE WE WERE ALWAYS PUTTING IN OR TAKING OUR BABY STROLLER OUT OF THE TRUNK, AND WE WERE AFRAID THE TRUNK MIGHT ALSO CLOSE ON OUR SON'S HAND OR HEAD IF HE WERE STANDING NEARBY. WE REPORTED THIS PROBLEM TO OUR LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER; THEY AT FIRST DENIED THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE TRUNK. BUT THE SERVICE MANAGER EVENTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED WITH ME ABOUT THE PROBLEM. HE ORDERED AND REPLACED THE TORSION BARS IN OUR TRUNK; IT FIXED THE PROBLEM AT THAT TIME. THIS WAS ONE YEAR AGO. IN OCTOBER 2005, THE SAME THING STARTED HAPPENING AGAIN. WHILE THE TRUNK DOESN'T SLAM DOWN ON US YET, IT DOES IDLE HALFWAY UP AND MUST BE PUSHED UP OR DOWN TO LOCK THE POSITION. WE BROUGHT IT BACK TO OUR TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND ASKED FOR THE SAME SERVICE MANAGER DIRECTLY. HE REMEMBERED US AND IS GOING TO REPLACE THE TORSION BARS AGAIN, BUT CLAIMED THAT HE HASN'T SEEN THIS PROBLEM HAPPEN IN SEVERAL YEARS; APPARENTLY IT WAS A RECURRING PROBLEM ON OLDER MODELS. MY MAIN CONCERNS WITH THIS ISSUE ARE THAT FIRST, IT KEEPS ON HAPPENING AND SECONDLY, THIS PAST SUMMER ON LONG ISLAND, NY, TWO YOUNG BOYS WHO WERE MISSING, WERE LATER FOUND DEAD IN THE TRUNK OF A TOYOTA CAMRY ON THEIR STREET. APPARENTLY THE TRUNK WAS BROKEN AND IT SHUT ON THEM, TRAPPING THEM INSIDE THE VEHICLE DURING A HEAT WAVE. THE POLICE DIDN'T FIND THEM IN THE CAR UNTIL A FEW DAYS LATER. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BROKEN TRUNK HAD THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE TORSION BARS THAT WE HAVE, BUT THE NEWS STORY CONCERNED US ENOUGH TO REPORT THIS TO YOU. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10146931
Mileage unknown · Nov 5, 2004
Air BagsStructureVisibilityCrashInjury
THE VEHICLE WAS HIT BY A SEMI TRUCK AND TOTALED. NONE OF THE VEHICLE'S AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE CONSUMER SUSTAINED INJURIES. *NM THE HEADREST WAS SHAPED INCORRECTLY FOR A SHORT PERSON AND THE WINDSHIELDS REFLECTIVE PROPERTIES WERE DISTRACTING WHEN DRIVING ON BRIGHTLY SUNLIT DAYS. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10101430
5,000 miles · Nov 3, 2003
Structure
DURING THE DAY ODOMETER IS HARD TO VIEW. DEALER STATES THAT IT IS THE NEW DESIGN FOR THE 2003 MODELS. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10046174
1,500 miles · May 28, 2003
Structure
CONTINUAL WATER FLOODING REAR PASSENGER COMPARTMENT RUG AND FLOOR. DRAIN PLUG WAS MISSING FROM FACTORY AND REPLACED AFTER 3 TRIES. FLOODING STILL OCCURRING.
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 ↗
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