NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
259 reportsClear category filter23,000 miles · Sep 13, 2004
EquipmentVehicle Speed ControlCrash
WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK SUDDENLY VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. CONSUMER WAS DEPRESSING THE BRAKES, BUT, VEHICLE JUMPED A CURB, STRUCK A BENCH, AND SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS. CONSUMER WAS NOT INJURED IN THE INCIDENT. DEALER EXAMINED THE VEHICLE, AND CLAIMED THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. *AK THE CONSUMER STATES THA…
Read full complaint
WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK SUDDENLY VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. CONSUMER WAS DEPRESSING THE BRAKES, BUT, VEHICLE JUMPED A CURB, STRUCK A BENCH, AND SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS. CONSUMER WAS NOT INJURED IN THE INCIDENT. DEALER EXAMINED THE VEHICLE, AND CLAIMED THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. *AK THE CONSUMER STATES THAT THE MALFUNCTION MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSE BECAUSE OF THE A/C CYCLED THROUGH ON/OFF. RPM INCREASED. A WITNESS STATED THAT HE HEARD THE ENGINE RACING. THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE A/C WAS ON. THE INCIDENT WAS REPORTED TO THE BUILDING SECURITY. *TC
NHTSA ODI #10087487
Mileage unknown · Sep 9, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
WAS PARKING THE CAR WHEN THE MOTOR SUDDENLY SPED UP CAUSING THE CAR TO GO OVER THE CURB AND RUN AT HIGH SPEED INTO TRAFFIC. THE CAR WAS FINALLY STOPPED BY REPEATEDLY APPLYING THE BRAKES.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10090710
4,000 miles · Aug 31, 2004
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
WHILE PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND HIT THE CEMENT BLOCK IN THE PARKING SPACE. *AK *NM
NHTSA ODI #10083953
Mileage unknown · Aug 24, 2004
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
WHILE APPLYING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL VEHICLE ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY. CONSUMER WAS NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND COLLIDED WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT. UPON IMPACT,BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. DRIVER SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES, AND WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL BY AN AMBULANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS T…
Read full complaint
WHILE APPLYING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL VEHICLE ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY. CONSUMER WAS NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND COLLIDED WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT. UPON IMPACT,BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. DRIVER SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES, AND WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL BY AN AMBULANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10089673
Mileage unknown · Aug 12, 2004
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
WHEN THE CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO PARK, THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. THIS CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND HIT A TREE HEAD ON. UPON IMPACT, BOTH AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. *AK THE VEHICLE WAS ALMOST AT A COMPLETE STOP, IN WHICH THE CONSUMER HAD HER FOOT LIGHTLY RESTING ON THE BRAKE, WHEN THE SUDDEN ACCELERATI…
Read full complaint
WHEN THE CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO PARK, THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. THIS CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND HIT A TREE HEAD ON. UPON IMPACT, BOTH AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. *AK THE VEHICLE WAS ALMOST AT A COMPLETE STOP, IN WHICH THE CONSUMER HAD HER FOOT LIGHTLY RESTING ON THE BRAKE, WHEN THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION OCCURRED. *SC *JB
NHTSA ODI #10081639
12,500 miles · Jul 19, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
WHEN DRIVING AT LOW SPEEDS VEHICLE SURGED FOWARD WHEN DEPRESSING THE BRAKES, CAUSING EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS, BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. *AK *NM
NHTSA ODI #10079376
Mileage unknown · Jul 15, 2004
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
WHILE PULLING INSIDE OF A PARKING SPACE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER PLACED BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKES, BUT THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. IT JUMPED A CURB AND COLLIDED WITH A GLASS WINDOW INSIDE A STORE. UPON IMPACT, BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY.…
Read full complaint
WHILE PULLING INSIDE OF A PARKING SPACE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER PLACED BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKES, BUT THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. IT JUMPED A CURB AND COLLIDED WITH A GLASS WINDOW INSIDE A STORE. UPON IMPACT, BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. HOWEVER, THERE WERE NO INJURIES. *AK *JB
NHTSA ODI #10076212
1,200 miles · Jul 9, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
WITHIN 3 WEEKS FROM PURCHASE DATE THE CAR ACCELERATED WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO BRAKE. THIS HAPPENED TWICE. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG. THEY HAD THE CAR FOR A MONTH IN THAT TIME CORPORATION REPS ALSO TRIED TO FIND THE FAULT. THEY WERE UNABLE TO. I WAS TOLD CAR WAS FINE. I WAS TERRIFIED TO DRIVE …
Read full complaint
WITHIN 3 WEEKS FROM PURCHASE DATE THE CAR ACCELERATED WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO BRAKE. THIS HAPPENED TWICE. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG. THEY HAD THE CAR FOR A MONTH IN THAT TIME CORPORATION REPS ALSO TRIED TO FIND THE FAULT. THEY WERE UNABLE TO. I WAS TOLD CAR WAS FINE. I WAS TERRIFIED TO DRIVE IT AND WOULD NOT TAKE IT . THE DEALER WOULD ASUME NO RESPONSIBILITY AND SAID IF I WANTED A NEW CAR I WOULD HAVE TO TRADE THIS MODEL IN TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF A NEW CAR. BECAUSE I WAS SO AFRAID TO DRIVE IT AND WOULD NOT TAKE THE CAR ANYPLACE ELSE TO SELL BECAUSE I KNEW HOW DANGEROUS IT WAS (AND SO DID THE DEALER AND IF THEY SOLD THAT DANGEROUS CAR TO ANOTHER IT WAS ON THEIR RESPONSIBILITY NOT MINE) I ACCEPTED THE CONDITIONS PUT FORTH BY MY DEALER AND TRADED MY 3 WEEK OLD TOYOTA IN FOR A NEW TOYOTAAND HAD TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $4000.00 BECAUSE THE 3 WEEK OLD CAR WITH LESS THAN 1200 MILES ON IT WAS NOW A USED CAR. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10080662
500 miles · Jul 1, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD EVEN WHEN THE HER FOOT WAS ON THE BREAK. THE BREAK PEDAL WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR, WHEN APPLIED. PROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10080299
1,100 miles · Jun 25, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
AFTER BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND COMING TO A STOP SIGN CONSUMER DEPRESSED THE BRAKES AND VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AGAIN AT ANOTHER STOP VEHICLE SURGED, NEARLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKES ON THREE OCCASIONS. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER O…
Read full complaint
AFTER BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND COMING TO A STOP SIGN CONSUMER DEPRESSED THE BRAKES AND VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AGAIN AT ANOTHER STOP VEHICLE SURGED, NEARLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKES ON THREE OCCASIONS. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER ON TWO OCCASIONS BUT, THE PROBLEM WAS NOT RESOLVED. *AK *NM UPDATED 7/5/12 *CN
NHTSA ODI #10072248
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.