NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
780 reports120,000 miles · Feb 4, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
AFTER READING THE RECENT DESCRIPTION OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES ON THE 2010 TOYOTA PRIUS I REALIZED THAT THE DESCRIPTION IS IDENTICAL TO THE PROBLEM I HAVE ON MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THIS HAS HAPPENED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. WHEN THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED AND AT THE SAME TIME I HAPPEN TO HIT A POTHOLE OR A ROUGH OR UNEV…
Read full complaint
AFTER READING THE RECENT DESCRIPTION OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES ON THE 2010 TOYOTA PRIUS I REALIZED THAT THE DESCRIPTION IS IDENTICAL TO THE PROBLEM I HAVE ON MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THIS HAS HAPPENED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. WHEN THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED AND AT THE SAME TIME I HAPPEN TO HIT A POTHOLE OR A ROUGH OR UNEVEN SURFACE THE CAR WILL LOSE BRAKING ABILITY AND IT IS OFTEN ACCOMPANIED BY THE CHATTERING SOUND LIKE YOU HEAR WHEN ANTI-LOCK BRAKES ARE ENGAGING, EXCEPT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE THE BRAKES DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY EFFECT. ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT HAD AN ACCIDENT IT IS VERY MUCH A SENSE OF LOST OF CONTROL WHEN IT HAPPENS, AND MOST RECENTLY WHEN THIS HAPPENED I HAD TO SHIFT LANES SUDDENLY TO AVOID HITTING THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. AS STATED THIS PHENOMENA HAS OCCURRED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10305399
60,000 miles · Feb 3, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT WAS BACKING OUT OF HER DRIVEWAY. THERE WAS NOT AN APPLICATION TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL OR BRAKE PEDAL, SUDDENLY THERE WAS AN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. THE DRIVER APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL AND WAS ABLE TO SLOW DOWN. THE IDENTICAL FAILURES OCCURRED ON FOUR SEPARATE OC…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT WAS BACKING OUT OF HER DRIVEWAY. THERE WAS NOT AN APPLICATION TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL OR BRAKE PEDAL, SUDDENLY THERE WAS AN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. THE DRIVER APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL AND WAS ABLE TO SLOW DOWN. THE IDENTICAL FAILURES OCCURRED ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED FOR THE MALFUNCTION. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 60,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 130,000.
NHTSA ODI #10304572
93,000 miles · Feb 3, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2003 CAMRY LE WITH A FAILING BRAKING SYSTEM. THE BRAKE PEDAL MUST BE PUSHED ALMOST TO THE FLOOR FOR THE BRAKES TO ENGAGE. I HAVE HAD IT TO THE DEALER ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS WITH THE SAME COMPLAINT. THEY CLAIM THE BRAKES MEET MANUFACTURER'S SPECS, AND HAVE FAILED TO DIAGNOSE ANY PROBLEM, AND NO FIX WAS…
Read full complaint
2003 CAMRY LE WITH A FAILING BRAKING SYSTEM. THE BRAKE PEDAL MUST BE PUSHED ALMOST TO THE FLOOR FOR THE BRAKES TO ENGAGE. I HAVE HAD IT TO THE DEALER ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS WITH THE SAME COMPLAINT. THEY CLAIM THE BRAKES MEET MANUFACTURER'S SPECS, AND HAVE FAILED TO DIAGNOSE ANY PROBLEM, AND NO FIX WAS EVER OFFERED. THE PADS AND ROTORS ARE OK, AND THEY AGREE THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. I OWNED THE CAR SINCE IT WAS NEW, AND THERE IS A DEFINITE PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL NEEDING EXCESSIVE DEPRESSION, WHICH TOYOTA DENIES. THEY HAVE OPENED A CASE FILE ON THE CAR, BUT HAVE DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT. I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE IT, FOR FEAR THE BRAKES WILL NOT ENGAGE AT ALL. PURCHASED AT SUNNYSIDE TOYOTA IN NORTH OLMSTED, OHIO (440)777-9911. I BELIEVE THE BRAKING SYSTEM ON THIS MODEL IS FAULTY, AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED. EVERY TIME I TAKE THIS CAR OUT FOR A TEST RIDE, IT SEEMS TO BE WORSE. I HAVE STOPPED DRIVING IT, AND TOYOTA HAS REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING, EXCEPT HAVE YET ANOTHER OF THEIR DEALERS "LOOK AT IT". I AM TIRED OF TAKING THIS INTO THE SHOP TO BE DIAGNOSED, ONLY TO BE TURNED AWAY SAYING IT'S "COMPLETELY UP TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECS." FOUR TIMES IS ENOUGH !!! THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10304442
81,957 miles · Feb 3, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control
I HAVE A 2003 CAMRY. ON NOV. 8, 2009 I HAD A VERY BIG PROBLEM WITH THE ACCELERATOR. WHEN STEPPING ON THE GAS PEDAL I COULDN'T GET ANY GAS, AND THEN THE CAR WOULD JERK FORWARD AT A RAPID RATE SO THAT I HAD TO APPLY THE BRAKES. IT WAS TOTALLY UNDRIVABLE. THE MECHANIC REPLACED THE GAS PEDAL ASSEMBLY, AND I HAVE THE OLD PART IN…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 CAMRY. ON NOV. 8, 2009 I HAD A VERY BIG PROBLEM WITH THE ACCELERATOR. WHEN STEPPING ON THE GAS PEDAL I COULDN'T GET ANY GAS, AND THEN THE CAR WOULD JERK FORWARD AT A RAPID RATE SO THAT I HAD TO APPLY THE BRAKES. IT WAS TOTALLY UNDRIVABLE. THE MECHANIC REPLACED THE GAS PEDAL ASSEMBLY, AND I HAVE THE OLD PART IN MY POSSESSION. THE PART WAS $428.01 PLUS THE LABOR COST. MY OLD CAMRY I DROVE FOR 12 YEARS WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS. I FEEL THE PART WAS DEFECTIVE AND THAT TOYOTA SHOULD REIMBURSE ME FOR THE COST OF REPLACEMENT. WOULD YOUR AGENCY PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS FOR ME? *TR UPDATED 11/16/10*BF THE MECHANIC REPLACED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ASSEMBLY THE PEDAL POSITION SENSOR. UPDATED 11/19/10 UPDATED 11/24/10*JB UPDATED 01/06/11 *BF UPDATED 04/12/11
NHTSA ODI #10304368
Mileage unknown · Feb 3, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
I BOUGHT A TOYOTA CAMRY 2003 LE IN JUNE 2006 AND I FOUND THAT IT TAKES TIME FOR THE BRAKE TO STOP THE CAR.. I WENT BACK TO DEALER 3 TIMES THE CHECK THE CAR AND I WAS TOLD THAT'S HOW THE CAR IS DESIGNED THEY CANNOT HELP ME, AND THEY SAID THAT I WILL GET USE TO IT. BUT I NEVER GET USE TO IT . IT VERY SCARY WHEN DRIVING ON HIGHW…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT A TOYOTA CAMRY 2003 LE IN JUNE 2006 AND I FOUND THAT IT TAKES TIME FOR THE BRAKE TO STOP THE CAR.. I WENT BACK TO DEALER 3 TIMES THE CHECK THE CAR AND I WAS TOLD THAT'S HOW THE CAR IS DESIGNED THEY CANNOT HELP ME, AND THEY SAID THAT I WILL GET USE TO IT. BUT I NEVER GET USE TO IT . IT VERY SCARY WHEN DRIVING ON HIGHWAY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10304223
85,000 miles · Feb 2, 2010
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHENEVER THE CONTACT STARTED THE VEHICLE SHE NOTICED A RATTLING SOUND IN THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED FOR THE FAILURE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 8500…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHENEVER THE CONTACT STARTED THE VEHICLE SHE NOTICED A RATTLING SOUND IN THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED FOR THE FAILURE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 85000.
NHTSA ODI #10303975
43,587 miles · Feb 2, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH, THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO APPLY THE BRAKES TO SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN; HOWEVER, IT ACCELERATED RAPIDLY WHILE DRIVING DOWN A HILL. THE CONTACT AND PASSENGER WERE FORCED TO APPLY EXTREME PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL IN ORDER TO SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN. THE VEHICLE CRASHED…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH, THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO APPLY THE BRAKES TO SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN; HOWEVER, IT ACCELERATED RAPIDLY WHILE DRIVING DOWN A HILL. THE CONTACT AND PASSENGER WERE FORCED TO APPLY EXTREME PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL IN ORDER TO SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO SOME SMALL TREES WHICH CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE PASSENGER MIRROR, PARKING LENS, AND THE WASHER FLUID CONTAINER. THE CONTACT SHUT THE VEHICLE OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES, RESTARTED IT AND WAS ABLE TO SAFELY DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO HIS RESIDENCE. THE FOLLOWING DAY THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE; HOWEVER, THE DAMAGES WERE REPAIRED. THE CONTACT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY RISK SINCE THE ACCELERATOR WAS STICKING AND CAUSED THE FAILURE TO OCCUR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 43,587. UPDATED 03/04/10. *LJ
NHTSA ODI #10303938
52,500 miles · Feb 2, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AS SHE DROVE THROUGH A GREEN LIGHT, THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HER STOPPED SHORT AND WHEN SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP. SHE CRASHED INTO THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HER SINCE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BECAME STUCK. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. SHE ALSO STATE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AS SHE DROVE THROUGH A GREEN LIGHT, THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HER STOPPED SHORT AND WHEN SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP. SHE CRASHED INTO THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HER SINCE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BECAME STUCK. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. SHE ALSO STATED THAT BRAKES FAILED INTERMITTENTLY. SHE HAS NOT CONTACTED THE DEALER OR THE MANUFACTURER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED AT THE TIME OF THE COMPLAINT. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 54,867. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 52,500.
NHTSA ODI #10303803
102,000 miles · Jan 28, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT PLACED THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE GEAR, SLIGHTLY PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE RPM'S RAPIDLY INCREASED WITHOUT WARNING AND CONTINUED TO INCREASE UNTIL THE CONTACT SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALER AND THERE WERE NO PRIOR WARNINGS. THE CU…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT PLACED THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE GEAR, SLIGHTLY PRESSED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND THE RPM'S RAPIDLY INCREASED WITHOUT WARNING AND CONTINUED TO INCREASE UNTIL THE CONTACT SHUT THE ENGINE OFF. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALER AND THERE WERE NO PRIOR WARNINGS. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 102,000.
NHTSA ODI #10302962
80,000 miles · Jan 28, 2010
Engine And Engine Cooling
MY CAMRY HAS A BLOW GASKET. I FOUND OUT BECAUSE MY MECHANIC DID THE EXAM HE PRESSURIZED THE COOLING SYSTEM AND PUT THE CAR UP ON THE LIFT. HE IMMEDIATELY NOTICED COOLANT LEAKING FROM UNDERNEATH THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD IN THE REAR OF THE ENGINE. HE ALSO NOTICED A LARGE PIECE OF FOAM RUBBER BETWEEN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND THE …
Read full complaint
MY CAMRY HAS A BLOW GASKET. I FOUND OUT BECAUSE MY MECHANIC DID THE EXAM HE PRESSURIZED THE COOLING SYSTEM AND PUT THE CAR UP ON THE LIFT. HE IMMEDIATELY NOTICED COOLANT LEAKING FROM UNDERNEATH THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD IN THE REAR OF THE ENGINE. HE ALSO NOTICED A LARGE PIECE OF FOAM RUBBER BETWEEN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND THE ENGINE BLOCK AND HEAD. THIS WAS BLOCKING OUR VIEW OF THE LEAK. WE COULD ONLY SEE THAT THE LEAK WAS BEHIND THE FOAM PIECE. THE ONLY OPTION TO DISCOVER THE SOURCE OF THIS LEAK WAS TO REMOVE THE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD, WHICH I DID. AFTER THIS WAS REMOVED, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT COOLANT HAD BEEN LEAKING A MINOR AMOUNT FOR QUITE SOME TIME DUE TO BUILD UP BETWEEN THE CYLINDER HEAD AND BLOCK. THE ONLY OPTION LEFT IS TO REMOVE THE HEAD, WHICH REQUIRES AN EXTENSIVE DISASSEMBLY (R AND R CYLINDER HEAD). AFTER LOOSENING THE BOLTS IN SEQUENCE, HE NOTICED THE HEAD BOLTS IN THE BACK OF THE ENGINE WERE LOOSE. FROM HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD, HE CAN CONFIDENTLY CONCLUDE THAT THIS ONLY MEANS ONE OF TWO THINGS: THE BOLTS WERE LEFT LOOSE AT THE FACTORY, OR THE BOLTS ARE STRIPPED. ( HE COMMONLY HAS SEEN STRIPPED BOLTS IN THE ALUMINUM CADILLAC NORTH STAR BLOCK DISCOVERED THROUGH LEAKING COOLANT.)NEXT, HE REMOVED THE HEAD AND SURE ENOUGH, ONE BOLT CAME OUT WITH ALUMINUM IN THE THREAD...THUS INDICATING A STRIPPED BOLT. THE PLACEMENT OF THE (INSULATION) FOAM RUBBER PIECE BETWEEN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND THE ENGINE BLOCK CREATED AN UNEVEN DISPERSION OF HEAT, CREATING "METAL FATIGUE" IN THE ALUMINUM BLOCK ALLOWING THE HEADBOLT TO STRIP. IF TOYOTA HAD OUT AN ALUMINUM MANIFOLD INSTEAD OF PLASTIC, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO INSULATE (W/ FOAM PIECE), THUS ELIMINATING THE PROBLEM. THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS TO UNFORTUNATELY REPLACE THE ENGINE. THE COST TO REPAIR IT OTHERWISE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL. THIS IS AN ENGINE DEFECT AND WE WILL BE SEEING MORE OF THIS. *TW
NHTSA ODI #10302903
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.