I NOTICED A SLIGHT SWELLING IN THE AREA AROUND THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG SEAM. I LOOKED DOWN INTO THE CREVICE AND SAW A SLIGHT SEPARATION. I DIDN'T PAY IT NO MIND AT THE TIME. TODAY, THE SEAM SPLIT HAS GROWN TO THREE INCHES. I'M CONCERNED THAT THE AIR BAG MIGHT DEPLOY AND INJURE A PASSENGER. *TR
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.
What owners actually said
780 reportsIT WAS AN UNUSUALLY COLD DAY FOR OCTOBER AND I WAS DRIVING MY SON TO SCHOOL WITH MY THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IN HER CAR SEAT WHEN THE HEAT WOULD NOT WORK. ONLY COLD AIR CAME OUT OF THE VENTS. THE WINDOWS WERE FOGGED UP AND WOULD NOT DEFROST. I THEN NOTICED THAT THE TEMPERATURE GAGE WAS IN THE RED ZONE. IT KEPT CLIMBING UP AND DOW…
Read full complaint
IT WAS AN UNUSUALLY COLD DAY FOR OCTOBER AND I WAS DRIVING MY SON TO SCHOOL WITH MY THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IN HER CAR SEAT WHEN THE HEAT WOULD NOT WORK. ONLY COLD AIR CAME OUT OF THE VENTS. THE WINDOWS WERE FOGGED UP AND WOULD NOT DEFROST. I THEN NOTICED THAT THE TEMPERATURE GAGE WAS IN THE RED ZONE. IT KEPT CLIMBING UP AND DOWN. I COULD NOT SEE OUT OF THE WINDSHIELD AT ALL AND HAD TO PULL OVER FOR SAFETY REASONS. THANK GOD I WAS NOT ON THE HIGHWAY AS USUAL, BUT ON A LOCAL ROAD. I STOPPED AND I WIPED OFF THE WINDSHIELD AND WINDOWS MANUALLY. THIS WAS A TERRIFYING ORDEAL. THE NEXT MORNING I TOOK THE CAMRY TO THE COOPER TIRE GARAGE HERE IN FINDLAY. AFTER INSPECTION I WAS TOLD THAT THE HEAD GASKET PULLED OUT OF THE BLOCK AND THAT IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS AN ALUMINUM BLOCK. THEY ARE NOT MADE OUT OF STEEL ANYMORE. PREVIOUS TO THIS INCIDENT, I EXPERIENCED ABSOLUTELY NO SYMPTOMS THAT MY TOYOTA'S ENGINE WAS GOING TO MALFUNCTION. MY CAMRY'S ENGINE IS SHOT. I CONTACTED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER AND WAS TOLD THERE IS NOTHING THEY COULD HELP ME WITH. I WAS ACTUALLY CRYING WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE. I HAVE BEEN A PROUD OWNER OF TWO CAMRYS. MY DAUGHTER DRIVES A 1995 CAMRY THAT IS STILL RUNNING VERY WELL AND MY MOTHER IS DRIVING A 1999 CAMRY THAT SHE HAS HAD NO ENGINE ISSUES WITH. APPARENTLY, THIS IS A NEWER MODEL DEFECT. MY CAMRY HAS BEEN PAID OFF SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2011. I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING ANOTHER 100,000 MILES OF USE OUT OF IT. THE REPUTATION THAT TOYOTA CAMRY'S HAVE STATES THAT IF I REGULARLY MAINTAIN MY CAMRY I SHOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. I NOW HAVE THE URGE TO WARN ALL CAMRY DRIVERS TO BE AWARE THAT THEY COULD VERY WELL EXPERIENCE ENGINE FAILURE WITH NO SYMPTOMS AT ALL AND EVEN IF THEY REGULARLY MAINTAIN THEIR CAMRY. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS ISSUE. MY CAMRY STILL LOOKS AND DID RUN LIKE NEW. *TR
THE CAR WAS PARKED IN THE CVS PARKING LOT. WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKE AND PLACED THE VEHICLE IN THE REVERSE TO GET OUT THE PARKING. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE QUICKLY ACCELERATED AND I LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE HIT OTHER TWO VEHICLES IN THE PARKING LOT AND FINALLY STOPPED. WITNESSES WERE AT THE SCENE AND POLICES …
Read full complaint
THE CAR WAS PARKED IN THE CVS PARKING LOT. WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKE AND PLACED THE VEHICLE IN THE REVERSE TO GET OUT THE PARKING. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE QUICKLY ACCELERATED AND I LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE HIT OTHER TWO VEHICLES IN THE PARKING LOT AND FINALLY STOPPED. WITNESSES WERE AT THE SCENE AND POLICES WERE ARRIVED TO MAKE A REPORT. *TR
THE NIGHT BEFORE THE INCIDENT HAD SLIGHT RAIN DURING. EARLY MORNING, I WAS DRIVING IT KEEPING IT IN MIND THAT IT HAS SOME PROBLEM.... DRIVING AT 35-40 M/HR. THE CAR BEFORE ME STOPS ON THE STOP SIGN AND TRY TO STOP FOLLOWING 3 SECONDS RULE, HIT THE BRAKES ALL THE WAY BUT HEARD GRINDING SOUND AND DIDN'T STOP AND NEED TO GO TO ANOT…
Read full complaint
THE NIGHT BEFORE THE INCIDENT HAD SLIGHT RAIN DURING. EARLY MORNING, I WAS DRIVING IT KEEPING IT IN MIND THAT IT HAS SOME PROBLEM.... DRIVING AT 35-40 M/HR. THE CAR BEFORE ME STOPS ON THE STOP SIGN AND TRY TO STOP FOLLOWING 3 SECONDS RULE, HIT THE BRAKES ALL THE WAY BUT HEARD GRINDING SOUND AND DIDN'T STOP AND NEED TO GO TO ANOTHER INCOMING LANE ON THE LEFT TO AVOID HITTING THE CAR INFRONT OF ME. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I HAD THE SIMILAR PROBLEM..... ONE IN 2010 ONE IN 2011. I WENT TO JAY WOLFE TOYOTA OF WEST COUNTY MO AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT. IT WAS THEIR CLOSING TIME.... MET WITH ONE OF THE MAINTENANCE MANAGER .... EXPLAINED BUT WAS TOLD THAT IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE OF ABS. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD HONDA 2002 AND NEVER HAVE TO SCARE ABOUT THESE TYPE OF INCIDENTS BUT WHY IT IS HAPPENING WITH TOYOTA. HE INSISTED THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE . LATER DURING REGULAR OIL CHANGE I ASKED TO CHECK BRAKES AND THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY FAULT THERE. I TOLD THEM THE INCIDENT THEY DIDN'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.... THE NEXT TIME IT HAPPENED AGAIN. ONE DAY WAS DRIVING WITH FEAR ON INTERSTATE AT 60 MPH. THE SAME THING HAPPENED AND I WAS ABLE TO CHANGE LANE. AFTER THAT I RARELY TAKE THE CAR FOR INTERSTATE DRIVING. IF DO I ALWAYS SCARE AND START USING BRAKES BEFORE 1/4TH OF THE MILE. AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO GET HELP FROM TOYOTA COMPANY WHY IT IS HAPPENING AND FIX THE PROBLEM. I DON'T WANT TO SUE THEM LATER WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENED. IF THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT SAFETY OF THEIR CUSTOMER, TAKE MY CAR AND FIX IT. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN DRIVING AT LOW SPEEDS AND ATTEMPTING A TURN, SHE WOULD HEAR A LOUD SQUEAKING NOISE FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC HOWEVER, THEY REFERRED HER TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND O…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN DRIVING AT LOW SPEEDS AND ATTEMPTING A TURN, SHE WOULD HEAR A LOUD SQUEAKING NOISE FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC HOWEVER, THEY REFERRED HER TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 25,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 55,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE STOPPED A TRAFFIC STOP, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO A FENCE, CAUSING DAMAGE TO A RESIDENTIAL HOME. THE POLICE REPORTED TO THE SCENE AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL VIA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE STOPPED A TRAFFIC STOP, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO A FENCE, CAUSING DAMAGE TO A RESIDENTIAL HOME. THE POLICE REPORTED TO THE SCENE AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL VIA AMBULANCE AND WAS TREATED FOR A CONCUSSION, BRUISES AND LACERATIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A TOW YARD AND RULED AS DESTROYED. THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE WAS UNDETERMINED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, SHE NOTICED THAT ALL OF THE COOLANT FLUID HAD LEAKED OUT OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE BOLT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, SHE NOTICED THAT ALL OF THE COOLANT FLUID HAD LEAKED OUT OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE BOLTS BECAME DETACHED FROM THE ENGINE BASE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 86,000.
INTAKE MANIFOLD NOISE. DOCUMENTED PROBLEM. NO RECALL AVAILABLE. *TR
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ACCESSORY OUTLET(CIGARETTE LIGHTER) AND REAR WINDOWS NOT WORKING. *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO HER, SHE WAS INFORMED THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER HAD A SHORT AND HAD BEEN FIXED. SHE WAS ALSO TOLD THE RIGHT REAR WINDOW MOTOR WAS BURNED OUT AND WOULD NEED TO B…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ACCESSORY OUTLET(CIGARETTE LIGHTER) AND REAR WINDOWS NOT WORKING. *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO HER, SHE WAS INFORMED THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER HAD A SHORT AND HAD BEEN FIXED. SHE WAS ALSO TOLD THE RIGHT REAR WINDOW MOTOR WAS BURNED OUT AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE TWO FRONT WINDOWS WERE WORKING. THE CONSUMER DECLINED THE REPAIRS FOR THE WINDOW. HOWEVER, THE NEXT WEEK, THE PASSENGER WINDOW STOPPED WORKING. A FEW WEEKS LATER, SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE IN THE MAIL, IN WHICH A RECALL HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR A FAULTY WINDOW CONTROL BUTTON ON THE DRIVER'S DOOR, BUT FOR THE 2006 MODELS. THE CONSUMER STATED ONE DAY IT RAINED, AND AFTER IT STOPPED, THE WINDOWS STARTED TO WORK AGAIN. *JB
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
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