DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. THIS OCCURRED FOUR TIMES. THE FIRST 3 TIMES THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WITH EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE LAST TIME THE VEHICLE STRUCK A POLE. THERE WAS A POLICE REPORT TAKEN AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. THIS OCCURRED FOUR TIMES. THE FIRST 3 TIMES THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WITH EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE LAST TIME THE VEHICLE STRUCK A POLE. THERE WAS A POLICE REPORT TAKEN AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP FOR BODY REPAIRS CAUSED BY THE CRASH. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED THE FIRST THREE TIMES DIAGNOSTIC TESTING DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CODES. ALSO, WHILE CARRYING 125 POUNDS OF BIRD SEED IN THE TRUNK, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO VEER TO THE LEFT ON A SLUSHY ROAD. WHEN THE BIRD SEED WAS MOVED TO THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT THE VEHICLE OPERATED NORMALLY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED. UPDATED 7/11/2006 - THE CONSUMER REPORTED THESE INCIDENTS TO THE DEALER BUT THEY TOLD THE CONSUMER THAT NOTHING WAS WRONG. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10156846
21,822 miles · Jan 3, 2006
Suspension
DT: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT. HOWEVER, MORE TO THE LEFT. THE TIRES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED WITH PROPER AIR INFLATION. ROAD CONDITIONS OR SPEED DID NOT APPEAR TO IMPACT THE PULLING. AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT THE DEALER ALIGNED THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THIS DID NOT CORRECT THE PULLING PROBL…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT. HOWEVER, MORE TO THE LEFT. THE TIRES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED WITH PROPER AIR INFLATION. ROAD CONDITIONS OR SPEED DID NOT APPEAR TO IMPACT THE PULLING. AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT THE DEALER ALIGNED THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THIS DID NOT CORRECT THE PULLING PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE DEALER, AND THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WAS ALIGNED. THIS, TOO, DID NOT CORRECT THE PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED TO THE DEALER FOR FURTHER INSPECTION. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10146781
35,038 miles · Sep 21, 2005
SuspensionCrash
DT: THE CONSUMER STATED THAT HIS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT END OF THE CAR. THE CAR WAS PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN DRIVING. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THREE TIMES, BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. THE ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN CHECKED FIVE TIMES TO SEE IF THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. THERE HAS BEEN SO SUC…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONSUMER STATED THAT HIS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT END OF THE CAR. THE CAR WAS PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN DRIVING. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THREE TIMES, BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. THE ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN CHECKED FIVE TIMES TO SEE IF THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. THERE HAS BEEN SO SUCCESS IN THE CORRECTION OF THE PULLING TO THE LEFT. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN CONTACTED, AND A CLAIM WAS FILED FOR THE CONSUMER. THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT SINCE THE LAST TIME THAT THE DEALER SAW IT. THE CAR PULLED TO THE LEFT AND RAN OFF THE ROAD. THEN, HIT A TREE. THE CONSUMER COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE CAR WAS AT FAULT. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. AT THIS POINT, NO ONE COULD DETERMINE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE CAR, IT COULD BE THE SUSPENSION OR THE STEERING. THE SPEED WAS 35 MPH WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10137167
18,000 miles · Dec 7, 2004
Suspension
WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH FRONT END VIBRATED VIOLENTLY. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10103285
9,500 miles · Oct 25, 2004
SteeringSuspension
COMPLAINT RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL THIS CAR PULLS TO THE LEFT AND STEERING FEELS LOOSE AND CAR DRIFTS. DEALERSHIP IS NOT PROVIDING ANY ASSISTANCE. ALIGNMENT AND TIRE BALANCING DID NOT HELP. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10097631
Mileage unknown · Aug 20, 2004
SuspensionTires
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY PROBLEMS WITH LEFT PULL.*MR THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE LEFT WHILE DRIVING. THE TECHNICIAN TEST DROVE THE VEHICLE AND INDICATED IT WAS EITHER AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM OR TIRES. THE TECHNICIAN THEN REALIGNED THE VEHICLE BUT THE ALIGNMENT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATION. THE CONSUMER INDICATED THAT TH…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY PROBLEMS WITH LEFT PULL.*MR THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE LEFT WHILE DRIVING. THE TECHNICIAN TEST DROVE THE VEHICLE AND INDICATED IT WAS EITHER AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM OR TIRES. THE TECHNICIAN THEN REALIGNED THE VEHICLE BUT THE ALIGNMENT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATION. THE CONSUMER INDICATED THAT THE PULL IS DIMINISHED, IF NOT GENERALLY GONE, BUT IS CONCERN ABOUT THE PARAMETERS OF THE ALIGNMENT. THE CONSUMER BELIEVES IF THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE ALIGNED OUT OF SPECIFICATION THAT THE PROBLEM MAY BE WITH THE TIRES. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10089534
Mileage unknown · Jul 6, 2004
SteeringSuspension
2003 CAMRY LE [XXX]. CURRENTLY 7585 MILES/17 MONTHS SINCE PURCHASE NEW. GRADUALLY DRIFTS RIGHT (BEGAN FROM BUY DATE). ONSET OF DRIFT IS APPROXIMATELY 3 SEC. AFTER STEADY TRACK ESTABLISHED. REQUIRES CONSTANT ATTENTION/CORRECTION. VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE, OTHER THAN FOR LOCAL SHORT TRIPS. TIRES AS CAUSE HAVE BEEN ELIMINATE…
Read full complaint
2003 CAMRY LE [XXX]. CURRENTLY 7585 MILES/17 MONTHS SINCE PURCHASE NEW. GRADUALLY DRIFTS RIGHT (BEGAN FROM BUY DATE). ONSET OF DRIFT IS APPROXIMATELY 3 SEC. AFTER STEADY TRACK ESTABLISHED. REQUIRES CONSTANT ATTENTION/CORRECTION. VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE, OTHER THAN FOR LOCAL SHORT TRIPS. TIRES AS CAUSE HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. (SIX NEW TIRES HAVE BEEN MOUNTED; RF, THEN LF, THEN ALL 4 TIRES). TOYOTA DEALER CHECK OF ALIGNMENT AT 2049 MILES--"..ALL IN SPEC". TOYOTA DEALER, AFTER TEST DRIVE AT 7468 MILES REVEALED VEHICLE DID INDEED DRIFT EXCLUSIVELY RIGHT, AND INFORMED ME: (1) VEHICLE DRIVES LIKE ALL 2003 CAMRY'S (2) THAT HE COULD MAKE NO ALIGNMENT ADJUSTMENT THAT WOULD IMPROVE CAR'S DRIVING PERFORMANCE, (3) THAT THE ONSET OF RIGHT DRIFT AS EARLY AS 2 SEC. AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A STRAIGHT TRACK WAS TOYOTA-ACCEPTABLE, (4) THAT DRIFT EXCLUSIVELY RIGHT WAS TOYOTA-ACCEPTABLE, (5) THAT PROBLEM OFTEN IS "OVER-SENSITIVE" DRIVER, (6) THAT HE WOULD NOT CONSIDER EXPLORING APPLICABILITY OF TSB ST002-04 AS POSSIBLE CORRECTION, AND (7) THAT MY OPTIONS ARE TO EITHER ACCEPT THE CONDITION OR GO TO ARBITRATION. AT REGIONAL LEVEL (TOYOTA CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER, TORRENCE, CA) I WAS TOLD THAT ALL SUCH PROBLEMS WERE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY AT THE DEALER LEVEL, AND THAT I SHOULD CONSIDER DRIVING OTHER 2003 CAMRY'S (IMPLIED: I MIGHT THEREBY CONVINCE MYSELF THAT MY VEHICLE DROVE "NORMALLY"! A MOST INTERESTING AND REVEALING APPROACH TO A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT!) I HAVE RECENTLY CONTACTED A SECOND TOYOTA DEALER THAT INDICATED THAT IT IS INDEED POSSIBLE TO GET A "FIELD TECHNICAL REP" TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM (I AM ANXIOUS TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT, BUT MY FRUSTRATION IS OBVIOUS). MEANWHILE, I HAVE TAKEN STEP OF ADVISING MY LAWYER IN WRITING TO CAREFULLY EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS UNSAFE STEERING PROBLEM AS A POSSIBLE PRIMARY AND/OR CONTRIBUTORY CAUSE FACTOR, SHOULD I EVER BE INVOLVED IN A DEATH OR SEVERE INJURY ACCIDENT IN THIS CAR. *JB UPDATED 07/25/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (
NHTSA ODI #10080438
Mileage unknown · Jun 28, 2004
Suspension
UPDATE TO COMPLAINT 10047147 ON 2003 CAMRY LE- VEHICLE CONSTANTLY DRIFTS TO THE RIGHT.*MR THE TIRES WERE ELIMINATED AS A CAUSE OF THE DRIFTING. THE DEALER INDICATED THAT A RIGHT DRIFT ONSET AS SOON AS TWO SECONDS WAS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE BY TOYOTA. THE ONLY OTHER RECOURSE THE CONSUMER HAS IS TO SEEK CORRECTION AT THE DEALER …
Read full complaint
UPDATE TO COMPLAINT 10047147 ON 2003 CAMRY LE- VEHICLE CONSTANTLY DRIFTS TO THE RIGHT.*MR THE TIRES WERE ELIMINATED AS A CAUSE OF THE DRIFTING. THE DEALER INDICATED THAT A RIGHT DRIFT ONSET AS SOON AS TWO SECONDS WAS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE BY TOYOTA. THE ONLY OTHER RECOURSE THE CONSUMER HAS IS TO SEEK CORRECTION AT THE DEALER LEVEL OR ARBITRATION. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10080097
Mileage unknown · Mar 30, 2004
Suspension
I BOUGHT A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE IN JAN.04 AND TEST DROVE IT AND IT PULLED TO THE LEFT AND THE SALESPERSON SAID IT WAS TIRE PRESSURE SO THEY ADJUSTED IT. WE DROVE THE CAR A LONG DISTANCE AND THE WHOLE TIME IT PULLED TO THE LEFT. I HAVE JUST FOUND OUT THAT TOYOTA HAS A TSB OUT ON 2003-2004 CAMRY'S WITH THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS A S…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE IN JAN.04 AND TEST DROVE IT AND IT PULLED TO THE LEFT AND THE SALESPERSON SAID IT WAS TIRE PRESSURE SO THEY ADJUSTED IT. WE DROVE THE CAR A LONG DISTANCE AND THE WHOLE TIME IT PULLED TO THE LEFT. I HAVE JUST FOUND OUT THAT TOYOTA HAS A TSB OUT ON 2003-2004 CAMRY'S WITH THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS A SAFETY CONCERN AND THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL ON THESE VEHICLES.
NHTSA ODI #10064156
Mileage unknown · Mar 24, 2004
SteeringSuspension
2003 CAMRY LE PURCHASED AUGUST 2003. CAR PULLS/VEERS TO LEFT AT SPEEDS BELOW 50-55 MPH. WHEN REACHING SPEEDS ABOVE THIS, THE PULL /VEERING TO THE LEFT IS VERY PRONOUNCED (ESPECIALLY INTERSTATE DRIVING). HAVE TAKEN THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP TWICE; THE FIRST VISIT THEY CHECKED THE TIRE PRESSURE, TIRES, ETC. AND WAS TOLD THEY C…
Read full complaint
2003 CAMRY LE PURCHASED AUGUST 2003. CAR PULLS/VEERS TO LEFT AT SPEEDS BELOW 50-55 MPH. WHEN REACHING SPEEDS ABOVE THIS, THE PULL /VEERING TO THE LEFT IS VERY PRONOUNCED (ESPECIALLY INTERSTATE DRIVING). HAVE TAKEN THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP TWICE; THE FIRST VISIT THEY CHECKED THE TIRE PRESSURE, TIRES, ETC. AND WAS TOLD THEY COULDN'T FIND A PROBLEM AND STATED VARIATIONS IN THE ROADS TRAVELED MAY CAUSE THIS. SECOND VISIT, ROUTINE ITEMS WERE CHECKED AGAIN AND WAS TOLD TECHNICIAN COULDN'T FIND THE PROBLEM. AFTER TAKING HIM ON A DRIVE ON THE INTERSTATE, HE "SAW THE PROBLEM" AND THE CAR WAS LEFT AT THE DEALERSHIP UNTIL THE FOLLOWING AFTERNOON. THEY ADJUSTED ALIGNMENT TO SPECIFICATIONS AND SAID THEY ROTATED THE UPPER SPRING INSULATORS (?). THE PROBLEM PERSISTS AND ONCE AGAIN CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP. (THEY HAVE BEEN VERY COURTEOUS THROUGHOUT) WAS TOLD THEY HAVE BASICALLY DONE ALL THEY CAN OR KNOW OF, BUT WOULD CONTACT TOYOTA FOR FURTHER IDEAS. THIS STEERING DEFECT CAN BE A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY RISK AND NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. *NM
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