NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
780 reports20,000 miles · Jun 9, 2008
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE BACKING INTO A PARKING SPACE, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. HE ATTEMPTED TO APPLY THE BRAKES, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED FROM THE SCENE TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND IS ON…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE BACKING INTO A PARKING SPACE, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND CAUSED THE CONTACT TO CRASH INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. HE ATTEMPTED TO APPLY THE BRAKES, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED FROM THE SCENE TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP AND IS ONLY BEING REPAIRED FOR BODY DAMAGE. THE FAILURE HAS OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES. THE SPEED WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 20,000. UPDATED 07/16/08.*LJ
NHTSA ODI #10230304
24,500 miles · May 15, 2008
Unknown Or Other
IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR THAT I COMPLAINED TO TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE ABOUT MY HEADLINER COMING DOWN. THEY INITIALLY AGREED TO REPAIR OR REPLACE IT AND THEN AFTER THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE GOT INVOLVED THEY RESCINDED THEIR INITIAL AGREEMENT TO REPAIR IT. I ASKED CUSTOMER SERVICE WHO IS LOCATED IN TORRANCE, CALIF. TO S…
Read full complaint
IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR THAT I COMPLAINED TO TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE ABOUT MY HEADLINER COMING DOWN. THEY INITIALLY AGREED TO REPAIR OR REPLACE IT AND THEN AFTER THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE GOT INVOLVED THEY RESCINDED THEIR INITIAL AGREEMENT TO REPAIR IT. I ASKED CUSTOMER SERVICE WHO IS LOCATED IN TORRANCE, CALIF. TO SEND ME A WRITTEN LETTER STATING WHY THEY REFUSED TO REPAIR OR REPLACE IT AS THEY INITIALLY AGREED TO AND THEY REFUSED TO DO SO. MY VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED AT THE END OF 2003 AND AS STATED, IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR THAT I HAVE HAD NO SATISFACTION TO THIS PROBLEM. THE HEADLINER IS CONTINUALLY COMING DOWN AND I FEEL IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND A MANUFACTURER DEFECT. TOYOTA CONCLUDES IT IS WEAR AND TEAR. YOUR HEADLINER SHOULD LAST THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10227961
36,949 miles · Apr 28, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. EVERY TIME THE CONTACT DROVE THE VEHICLE AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, HE NOTICED A NOISE COMING FROM THE ENGINE, WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE THE VALVE. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND A TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THERE WAS EXCESSIVE SLUDGE DAMAGE IN THE ENGINE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ENGINE NE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. EVERY TIME THE CONTACT DROVE THE VEHICLE AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, HE NOTICED A NOISE COMING FROM THE ENGINE, WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE THE VALVE. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND A TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THERE WAS EXCESSIVE SLUDGE DAMAGE IN THE ENGINE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ENGINE NEEDED TO BE REBUILT AT THE CONTACT'S EXPENSE BECAUSE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED. HE HAS HAD THE OIL CHANGED ROUTINELY AT 5,000 MILES; THEREFORE, THE SLUDGE BUILD-UP WAS ABNORMAL. THE CONTACT HAS A COPY OF EACH TIME THE VEHICLE WAS PERSONALLY SERVICED. HE ALSO HAS A SAMPLE OF THE SLUDGE TAKEN FROM THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 36,949. UPDATE 05/13/08 *BF AFTER A BREAKDOWN OF THE ENGINE, HUGE AMOUNTS OF GEL OIL SLUDGE WAS VISIBLE IN THE ENGINE CYLINDER HEAD. UPDATED 05/13/08. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10225937
77,250 miles · Apr 24, 2008
Air Bags
PASSENGER SIDE CURTAIN AIRBAG DEPLOYED ON HARD DOOR SLAM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10225646
60,000 miles · Apr 14, 2008
Fuel System, Gasoline
THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I SCANNED FOR CODES WHICH INDICATED CODE NUMBER 0456 LEAK IN THE FUEL SYSTEM. I HAVE TWICE BEFORE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AND EACH TIME HAD TO CLEAN A LARGE AMOUNT OF RUST FROM THE FUEL FILLER NECK TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. I HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND ADVISED THEM OF THE…
Read full complaint
THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I SCANNED FOR CODES WHICH INDICATED CODE NUMBER 0456 LEAK IN THE FUEL SYSTEM. I HAVE TWICE BEFORE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AND EACH TIME HAD TO CLEAN A LARGE AMOUNT OF RUST FROM THE FUEL FILLER NECK TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. I HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND ADVISED THEM OF THE PROBLEM. THEY ADVISED IF THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN TO BRING IT IN FOR SERVICE. WHEN THE LIGHT CAME ON THIS TIME THE DEALER SCANNED THE SAME CODE AND DIAGNOSED THE FUEL FILLER NECK AND GAS CAP MUST BE REPLACED AT A COST OF OVER $300. I CONTACTED TOYOTA CORPORATION BUT THEY INDICATED THE CAR WAS NOT COVERED. THE CAR CAN NOT PASS INSPECTION BECAUSE OF THE POOR QUALITY MATERIALS USED IN THE FUEL FILLER NECK. REFER TO COMPLAINT ODI ID NUMBER 10223726 DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10224450
80,085 miles · Apr 8, 2008
Fuel System, Gasoline
SEPTEMBER OF 2007- I NOTICED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE CAR AND I WAS DUE FOR A CAR INSPECTION FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THE DEALERSHIP AND OTHER REPAIR SHOPS STATED THAT THE CAR WOULD NOT PASS THE CAR INSPECTION WITH THAT LIGHT ON. ON SEPTEMBER 10TH,2007, I TOOK THE CAR TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AN…
Read full complaint
SEPTEMBER OF 2007- I NOTICED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE CAR AND I WAS DUE FOR A CAR INSPECTION FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THE DEALERSHIP AND OTHER REPAIR SHOPS STATED THAT THE CAR WOULD NOT PASS THE CAR INSPECTION WITH THAT LIGHT ON. ON SEPTEMBER 10TH,2007, I TOOK THE CAR TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND A MECHANIC FOUND A LEAK AT THE FUEL FILLER NECK. THEY REPLACED THE FUEL FILLER NECK AND CAP. THE COSTS WERE $225 FOR LABOR, $143.60 FOR PARTS, AND $25.80 FOR SALES TAX FOR A TOTAL REPAIR JOB OF $394.40! THE CAR WAS OVER 3 YEARS OLD. THAT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IN A YOUNG CAR. I BOUGHT THE CAR IN OCTOBER OF 2005 FROM A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. THE COMPLAINT IS WHY SHOULD THE CUSTOMERS BE PAYING FOR " POOR QUALITY" BY THE TOYOTA MANUFACTURER WHEN I COULDN'T HAVE PASSED A CAR INSPECTION FOR THEIR "POOR QUALITY " PARTS? IF I CAN'T PASS AN INSPECTION THEN WE HAVE AN EMISSIONS AND SAFETY ISSUE BY THE FAULT OF TOYOTA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10223726
70,000 miles · Apr 4, 2008
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrashInjury
I WAS INVOLVED IN A REAR-END COLLISION IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WHEN MY ABS BRAKES FAILED. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY TO HAVE THE BRAKES INSPECTED. THE INSPECTION WAS VISUAL ONLY. THE ABS BRAKE LIGHT WAS NOT ON AND NO DEFECT WAS OBSERVED. THE SERVICE ADVISOR RECOMMENDED THAT WE HAVE OUR TIRES REPLACED, I…
Read full complaint
I WAS INVOLVED IN A REAR-END COLLISION IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WHEN MY ABS BRAKES FAILED. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THE NEXT DAY TO HAVE THE BRAKES INSPECTED. THE INSPECTION WAS VISUAL ONLY. THE ABS BRAKE LIGHT WAS NOT ON AND NO DEFECT WAS OBSERVED. THE SERVICE ADVISOR RECOMMENDED THAT WE HAVE OUR TIRES REPLACED, IN CASE THE TIRES CONTRIBUTED TO THE FAILURE. WE REPLACED ALL FOUR TIRES. ONE WEEK LATER, WE EXPERIENCED ANOTHER INCIDENT IN WHICH THE BRAKES FAILED TO DEPLOY CORRECTLY, CAUSING US TO FEEL UNSAFE AT A STOP LIGHT IN TIGHT TRAFFIC. WE TOOK THE CAR IN FOR A SECOND INSPECTION. A TOYOTA TECHNICIAN TOOK ME FOR A TEST RIDE AND SAID THEY HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS OF "SOFT, CUSHY" BRAKES, BUT THAT WHENEVER TESTED, THESE BRAKES MET THE TOYOTA SPECIFICATIONS. AGAIN, WE WERE DISSATISFIED AND FELT THAT OUR SAFETY WAS COMPROMISED IN THIS CAR. WE CONTACTED TOYOTA'S CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS AND REGISTERED A COMPLAINT. AN ACCIDENT REPORT WAS TAKEN OVER THE TELEPHONE. WE WERE GIVEN NO FURTHER HELP. WE RECONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP AND REQUESTED THAT THE DISTRICT TECHNICIAN TAKE OUR CAR FOR A TEST RIDE. ON 4/4/08, THE TECHNICIAN AND THE SERVICE MANAGER OF THE DEALERSHIP TOOK THE CAR OUT ON A TEST RIDE. THEY INFORMED US THAT THE ABS BRAKES MET TOYOTA'S SPECIFICATIONS. DESPITE THE DEALERSHIPS ASSURANCES, MY HUSBAND HAD A THIRD INCIDENT RECENTLY IN TRAFFIC WHERE THE BRAKES FAILED ONCE AGAIN. WE FEAR FOR OUR SAFETY IN THIS CAR AND DO NOT WANT TO DRIVE IT IN TRAFFIC OR OTHERWISE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10223407
101,000 miles · Feb 13, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY-MILEAGE ABOUT 101,000. UNBELIEVABLE THAT MY 2003 NEEDS A NEW CATALYTIC CONVERTER. I HAVE HAD MORE TROUBLE WITH THIS 2003 TOYOTA THEN ANY OTHER TOYOTA I HAVE EVER PURCHASED. I HAVE PURCHASED SEVERAL TOYOTAS OVER THE YEARS AND WAS GOING TO GET A NEW 2008 OR 2009 TOYOTA CAMRY BUT NOT NOW. ALSO THE CATALYST CONVE…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY-MILEAGE ABOUT 101,000. UNBELIEVABLE THAT MY 2003 NEEDS A NEW CATALYTIC CONVERTER. I HAVE HAD MORE TROUBLE WITH THIS 2003 TOYOTA THEN ANY OTHER TOYOTA I HAVE EVER PURCHASED. I HAVE PURCHASED SEVERAL TOYOTAS OVER THE YEARS AND WAS GOING TO GET A NEW 2008 OR 2009 TOYOTA CAMRY BUT NOT NOW. ALSO THE CATALYST CONVERTER IS ON BACK ORDER AND THE DEALER IS NOT SURE WHEN IT WILL BE IN - IT WAS ORDERED 02/12/08 AND NOT DUE IN UNTIL MAY BE 02/21/08. DIDN'T KNOW I HAD A PROBLEM UNTIL I WENT FOR AN EMISSION CHECK. THIS PIECE IS VERY EXPENSES AND I'M JUST WONDERING IS IT NOT USUAL FOR THIS CONVERTER TO GO BAD SO EARLY. I DO NOT PULL ANY HEAVY LOADS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10217996
Mileage unknown · Feb 8, 2008
Unknown Or Other
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH CRACKS APPEARING ON THE REAR SPEAKERS. CONSUMER STATES THAT BY 2006 THE PLASTIC PIECE WAS BEGINNING TO FALL INTO THE LOUD SPEAKER ASSEMBLY, CREATING A BLACK HOLE IN THE REAR DASH. *KB *JB
NHTSA ODI #10218292
Mileage unknown · Feb 5, 2008
Structure
THE SPEAKER PANEL BEHIND THE BACK SEAT HAS CRACKED AND THIS HAS MADE HOLES IN THIS BACK PANEL. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING PLACED IN THE BACK WINDOW TO HAVE CREATED THIS TO HAPPEN. WE CONTACTED OUR TOYOTA DEALER AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST $500.00 DOLLARS TO FIX WHICH IN MY OPINION IT WAS CAUSED BY FAULTY MATERIAL THAT THE T…
Read full complaint
THE SPEAKER PANEL BEHIND THE BACK SEAT HAS CRACKED AND THIS HAS MADE HOLES IN THIS BACK PANEL. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING PLACED IN THE BACK WINDOW TO HAVE CREATED THIS TO HAPPEN. WE CONTACTED OUR TOYOTA DEALER AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST $500.00 DOLLARS TO FIX WHICH IN MY OPINION IT WAS CAUSED BY FAULTY MATERIAL THAT THE TOYOTA COMPANY USED. IN ALL OF THE CARS I HAVE BOUGHT OVER THE YEARS MANY DIFFERENT MAKES THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED. I WENT INTO A PART SITE TO SEE IF THIS CAN BE REPLACED AND MANY OTHER TOYOTA OWNERS HAD THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THIS PANEL. I LOVE MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY BUT IF I HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THIS PART FIXED I WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER TOYOTA. I ALSO EMAILED THE TOYOTA CORP OFFICE AND THEY DID NOT GIVE ME ANY RESPONDS TO THIS MATTER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10216964
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.