REAR BRAKE LIGHTS OF 2003 -2006 CAMRY'S ARE INOPERABLE ON A MORE FREQUENT BASIS THAN STATISTICS WOULD INDICATE. PLEASE INVESTIGATE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MANUFACTURER DEFECT THAT AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL DRIVING PUBLIC. *JB
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 reportsHAVE A 2002 CAMRY AND I HAVE NOW PURCHASED MY THIRD INSIDE DOOR LATCH. TOYOTA MUST HAVE DISCOVERED THEY HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE NEWER CAMRY'S ARE METAL. I WOULD HOPE THE NHTSA WOULD GIVE CONSUMERS SOME HELP WITH THIS PROBLEM. *NM
MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY, WHICH I MAINTAINED IN A NORMAL MANNER, W/APPROPRIATE OIL CHANGES. THE OIL LIGHT CAME ON, I PUT IN 1 QT OF OIL, THE LIGHT WENT OFF. A SHORT TIME LATER, I DROVE THE CAR AND IT STARTED MAKING A LOUD CLACKING SOUND, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I DROVE IT HOME AND PARKED IT; CALLED A MECHANIC TO COME TAKE A LOOK…
Read full complaint
MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY, WHICH I MAINTAINED IN A NORMAL MANNER, W/APPROPRIATE OIL CHANGES. THE OIL LIGHT CAME ON, I PUT IN 1 QT OF OIL, THE LIGHT WENT OFF. A SHORT TIME LATER, I DROVE THE CAR AND IT STARTED MAKING A LOUD CLACKING SOUND, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I DROVE IT HOME AND PARKED IT; CALLED A MECHANIC TO COME TAKE A LOOK. HE SAID IT WAS THE ENGINE AND NEEDED TO BE TAKEN TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP, AND WE COULD NOT DRIVE IT AT ALL. I TOWED IT TO THE CLOSEST DEALERSHIP, APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES AWAY. THEY CHECKED IT OVER COUPLE OF DAYS, THEN CALLED AND SAID THE ENGINE HAD SLUDGE IN IT, AND NEEDED A $7,000-$8,000 REPAIR. THEY ALSO SAID IT WAS MY FAULT, BECAUSE THE OIL HAD OBVIOUSLY NOT BEEN CHANGED PROPERLY. WHEN I PURCHASED THE CAR, THE TOYOTA DEALER TALKED ME INTO A $999 EXTENDED WARRANTY PLAN, WHICH HE ASSURED ME WOULD COVER ANY MAJOR ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP WITH A CAR -- THEIR TENDER LOVING CARE PACKAGE. NOW THE WARRANTY (WHICH TOYOTA IS DISTANCING THEMSELVES FROM, SAYING IS AN OUTSIDE COMPANY, THEREFORE NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM) COMPANY DENIED THE REPAIR. ALSO, TOYOTA DENIED COVERING THE REPAIR, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE RESEARCHED AND FOUND TONS OF MATERIAL ONLINE INDICATING THAT THEY'VE HAD AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH THE CAMRY ENGINES AND SLUDGE ISSUES. IT LOOKS LIKE THOUSANDS OF CONSUMERS HAVE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM, AND TOYOTA ALWAYS SAYS IT IS THE OWNER'S FAULT. I HAD REGULAR OIL CHANGES, AND HAVE SOME OF THE RECORDS. I DO NOT HAVE ALL OF THE RECEIPTS, BUT HAVE WELL OVER HALF OF THEM. THE CAR HAS 96,000 MILES ON IT, AND THE EXTENDED WARRANTY IS FOR 100,000 MILES. TOYOTA SHOULD FIX THE ENGINE PROPERLY AT THEIR EXPENSE. A $7-8K REPAIR IS A MONUMENTAL EXPENSE FOR OUR FAMILY. THIS MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A SAFETY ISSUE, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS, AS AN ENGINE LOCKING UP OR STOPPING COLD COULD PRESENT A SERIOUS DRIVING ISSUE, AND CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE A VERY BROAD PROBLEM WITH THE TOYOTA CAMRYS. *NM
AT ABOUT 40,000 MILES, A KNOCKING SOUND BEGAN TO BE AUDIBLE WHEN TURNING THE VEHICLE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY PRECIPITATING INCIDENT; NO COLLISIONS OR HARD CONTACT WITH CURBING, POT HOLES, ETC.. THE KNOCK COULD ALSO BE FELT AS A SLIGHT JERK IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THERE WAS (AND STILL IS) NO NOTICEABLE DIFFICU…
Read full complaint
AT ABOUT 40,000 MILES, A KNOCKING SOUND BEGAN TO BE AUDIBLE WHEN TURNING THE VEHICLE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY PRECIPITATING INCIDENT; NO COLLISIONS OR HARD CONTACT WITH CURBING, POT HOLES, ETC.. THE KNOCK COULD ALSO BE FELT AS A SLIGHT JERK IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THERE WAS (AND STILL IS) NO NOTICEABLE DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING THE CAR. THE NOISE AND SLIGHT JERK IN THE STEERING WHEEL GRADUALLY WORSENED WITH TIME, AND THE CAR WAS JUST BEYOND THE GENERAL WARRANTY PERIOD WHEN THE PROBLEM WAS REPORTED TO THE DEALER. DIAGNOSIS BY THE DEALER WAS "BAD STEERING COLUMN; NEEDS TO BE REPLACED". AS IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED A DRIVE TRAIN COMPONENT, THERE WAS NO WARRANTY COVERAGE. THE COST WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT $1000 AT THE TIME. NO REPAIR HAS YET BEEN DONE. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE ACCELERATOR WERE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER, AND THE BRAKE PEDAL MOVES DOWN TOO FAR. THE POSITION OF THE BRAKE PEDAL AND ACCELERATOR CAUSED A COLLISION WHILE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT. THE ACCELERATOR WAS ACCIDENTALLY DEPRESSED CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO INCREASE IN SPEED AND COLLI…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE ACCELERATOR WERE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER, AND THE BRAKE PEDAL MOVES DOWN TOO FAR. THE POSITION OF THE BRAKE PEDAL AND ACCELERATOR CAUSED A COLLISION WHILE BACKING OUT OF A PARKING SPOT. THE ACCELERATOR WAS ACCIDENTALLY DEPRESSED CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO INCREASE IN SPEED AND COLLIDE WITH ANOTHER PARKED VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY PUSHED THAT VEHICLE INTO A THIRD. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED, AND THERE WERE NO MECHANICS CONSULTED.
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 7 MPH IN HEAVY STOP AND GO TRAFFIC WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS WEARING A SEAT BELT AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. MINOR DAMAGE WAS SUSTAINED TO THE VEHICLE. THE POLICE WERE ON THE SCENE AND A REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 7 MPH IN HEAVY STOP AND GO TRAFFIC WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONTACT WAS WEARING A SEAT BELT AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. MINOR DAMAGE WAS SUSTAINED TO THE VEHICLE. THE POLICE WERE ON THE SCENE AND A REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INSPECTED BY A DEALER. UPDATED 7/13/2006 - THIS ACCELERATION PROBLEM OCCURRED 6-7 TIME PRIOR TO THIS ACCIDENT. *NM
BRAKE FAILURE. HAS HAPPENED BEFORE AND COMPLAINT FILED PREVIOUSLY. THIS TIME, BRAKES FAILED WHEN APPROACHING INTERSECTION. VEHICLE SPEED BEFORE BRAKING ABOUT 35 MPH. VEHICLE HAD BEEN DRIVEN ABOUT 5 MILES WITH OCCASIONAL GENTLE BRAKING AFTER BEING PARKED FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 HOURS. OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE ABOUT 85 DEGREES, SUNNY AND D…
Read full complaint
BRAKE FAILURE. HAS HAPPENED BEFORE AND COMPLAINT FILED PREVIOUSLY. THIS TIME, BRAKES FAILED WHEN APPROACHING INTERSECTION. VEHICLE SPEED BEFORE BRAKING ABOUT 35 MPH. VEHICLE HAD BEEN DRIVEN ABOUT 5 MILES WITH OCCASIONAL GENTLE BRAKING AFTER BEING PARKED FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 HOURS. OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE ABOUT 85 DEGREES, SUNNY AND DRY. FAILURE HADN'T HAPPENED ALL WINTER, WARMER WEATHER ONLY TIME PROBLEM OCCURS. IN THIS INSTANCE, BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO FLOOR UPON INITIAL APPLICATION. BRAKING EFFORT INSUFFICIENT EVEN THOUGH BOTH FEET PUSHING PEDAL. I'M 210 LB ACTIVE CYCLIST. PUSHING EFFORT DEFINITELY NOT LACKING. NEARLY BROADSIDED CAR IN CROSS TRAFFIC. SWIFT EVASIVE ACTION BY OTHER DRIVER ONLY REASON ACCIDENT DIDN'T OCCUR. IN PAST, DEALER SAID THEY WERE UNABLE TO DUPLICATE CONDITION. BRAKE PEDAL HAS "QUIVER" WHEN PRESSED QUICKLY. DEALER REPLACED BRAKE BOOSTER BUT PROBLEM NOT CORRECTED. BRAKE PADS, SHOES, ROTORS AND DRUMS IN EXCELLENT CONDITION. BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND AT CORRECT LEVEL. FEELS LIKE FLAW INSIDE MASTER CYLINDER OR IN PEDAL LINKAGE DESIGN WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN MOST MOTOR VEHICLES. I FEEL CAR IS DANGEROUS TO OPERATE AND I WON'T LET OTHER 2 DRIVERS IN THE FAMILY USE THIS VEHICLE. TOYOTA SHOULD KNOW OF CAMRY BRAKING PROBLEMS AS THEY ARE POSTED MANY PLACES AND HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TOYOTA'S CUSTOMER, INCLUDING MYSELF. THSES DEFECTIVE VEHICLES ARE HIGHLY PREVALENT ON THE HIGHWQYS AND ARE A TICKING TIME BOMB WAITING TO KILL OR MAIM SOME UNSUSPECTING PERSON. *JB
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING SLOWLY AT 1 MPH WIT FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED SUDDENLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THREE OTHER VEHICLE'S CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE. THE SEAT BELTS WERE IN USE AT THE TIME. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS PRIOR TO THIS ACCIDENT. …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING SLOWLY AT 1 MPH WIT FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED SUDDENLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THREE OTHER VEHICLE'S CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE. THE SEAT BELTS WERE IN USE AT THE TIME. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS PRIOR TO THIS ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO LOCAL DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY WERE UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY TOYOTA. THE POLICE WERE ALERTED TO THE SCENE AND A REPORT WAS FILED. UPDATED 6/19/2006 - *NM
I WAS DRIVING INTO THE AUTOMATIC CAR WASH, SLOWED TO GO UP SLIGHT RAMP TO TOP. GAVE THE CAR A LITTLE GAS AND IT STARTED REVING, DID NOT STOP WHEN BRAKE PEDAL PUSHED, JUMPED THE TRACK AND HIT THE SIDE OF THE CAR WASH. THE CAR WAS ABLE TO BE MOVED TO OUTSIDE CARWASH, STILL REVING BUT WAS ABLE TO STOP AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. TH…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING INTO THE AUTOMATIC CAR WASH, SLOWED TO GO UP SLIGHT RAMP TO TOP. GAVE THE CAR A LITTLE GAS AND IT STARTED REVING, DID NOT STOP WHEN BRAKE PEDAL PUSHED, JUMPED THE TRACK AND HIT THE SIDE OF THE CAR WASH. THE CAR WAS ABLE TO BE MOVED TO OUTSIDE CARWASH, STILL REVING BUT WAS ABLE TO STOP AND TURN OFF THE ENGINE. THE FRONT BUMPER AND DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT FENDER WERE REPLACED, AND SUSPENSION DAMAGE REPAIRED. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. THIS OCCURRED FOUR TIMES. THE FIRST 3 TIMES THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WITH EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE LAST TIME THE VEHICLE STRUCK A POLE. THERE WAS A POLICE REPORT TAKEN AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. THIS OCCURRED FOUR TIMES. THE FIRST 3 TIMES THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED WITH EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE LAST TIME THE VEHICLE STRUCK A POLE. THERE WAS A POLICE REPORT TAKEN AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP FOR BODY REPAIRS CAUSED BY THE CRASH. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED THE FIRST THREE TIMES DIAGNOSTIC TESTING DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CODES. ALSO, WHILE CARRYING 125 POUNDS OF BIRD SEED IN THE TRUNK, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO VEER TO THE LEFT ON A SLUSHY ROAD. WHEN THE BIRD SEED WAS MOVED TO THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT THE VEHICLE OPERATED NORMALLY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED. UPDATED 7/11/2006 - THE CONSUMER REPORTED THESE INCIDENTS TO THE DEALER BUT THEY TOLD THE CONSUMER THAT NOTHING WAS WRONG. *NM
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