WHEN CONSUMER BUCKLED CHILD IN SEAT SHIELD ARM BROKE OFF ON BOTH SIDES. *TS *NM (11/21/05) *SC
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 reportsDT: THE CONTACT WAS PUTTING THE VEHICLE INTO PARK AND THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. IT WENT FROM 2 MPH, TO BEING OUT OF CONTROL. THE VEHICLE SURGED AND CRASHED INTO A WOODEN RETAINING WALL. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED IN THE CRASH. THERE WAS PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE WALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TOTALED. SHE CONTACTED THE MAN…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT WAS PUTTING THE VEHICLE INTO PARK AND THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. IT WENT FROM 2 MPH, TO BEING OUT OF CONTROL. THE VEHICLE SURGED AND CRASHED INTO A WOODEN RETAINING WALL. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED IN THE CRASH. THERE WAS PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE WALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TOTALED. SHE CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER, AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE MANUFACTURER IN TOUCH WITH THE CONTACT. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. *AK
THE STEERING WHEEL WAS VERY LOOSE AND DIFFICULT TO CONTROL WHEN DRIVING. I ALSO HEARD A STRANGE NOISE WHEN TURNING TO EITHER DIRECTION. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE WHOLE STEERING COLUMN SHAFT ASSEMBLY FOR $1016.57. *JB
GLASS IN SUNROOF UNEXPLAINABLY "EXPLODED" WHILE DRIVING.
INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE ON 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY 2.4 ENGINE (TOYOTA MOTOR CO.) WILL NOT REPLACE. THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY REPLACED THEM WITH A NEW TYPE OF INTAKE MANIFOLD. MY CAMRY HAS 65000 MILES. *JB
FOR PAST 6 MONTHS MY POWER DOOR LOCKS TAKE TURNS NOT WORKING. SOMETIMES THEY STOP WORKING IN TWO AT A TIME AND REMAIN BROKEN FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS. THERE ARE TIME WHEN THEY WILL NOT EVEN OPEN MANUALLY(EVEN FROM THE INSIDE). THIS IS VERY SCARY IN THE EVENT I NEED TO GET OUT AND CANNOT BECAUSE OF THE LOCKS. IT USUALLY STARTS W…
Read full complaint
FOR PAST 6 MONTHS MY POWER DOOR LOCKS TAKE TURNS NOT WORKING. SOMETIMES THEY STOP WORKING IN TWO AT A TIME AND REMAIN BROKEN FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS. THERE ARE TIME WHEN THEY WILL NOT EVEN OPEN MANUALLY(EVEN FROM THE INSIDE). THIS IS VERY SCARY IN THE EVENT I NEED TO GET OUT AND CANNOT BECAUSE OF THE LOCKS. IT USUALLY STARTS WITH THE LEFT FRONT, THEN LEFT FRONT AND REAR, THEN LEFT REAR, LEFT AND RIGHT REAR, THEN RIGHT REAR, RIGHT REAR AND RIGHT FRONT, THEN RIGHT FRONT, THEN RIGHT AND LEFT FRONT DOORS. THEN THEY WILL ALL WORK FINE FOR A MONTH. IT APPEARS, TO ME, TO BE SOME TYPE OF SHORT IN THE WIRING. *JB
DT: 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE ENGINE I 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY CAUGHT ON FIRE. HAD NOT CONTACTED DEALERSHIP OR THE MANUFACTURER. DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY VEHICLE WAS OPERATING BEFORE THE FIRE STARTED. THE CONSUMER CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SAID IT WAS UP TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO INVE…
Read full complaint
DT: 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE ENGINE I 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY CAUGHT ON FIRE. HAD NOT CONTACTED DEALERSHIP OR THE MANUFACTURER. DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY VEHICLE WAS OPERATING BEFORE THE FIRE STARTED. THE CONSUMER CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SAID IT WAS UP TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO INVESTIGATE HOW THE FIRE STARTED. DID NOT KNOW IF IT WAS AN ELECTRICAL OR FUEL. THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT WAS BURNED COMPLETELY. VEHICLE WAS DAMAGED BY THE FIRE. CALLED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY SAID IT WAS THE HIGHWAY PATROL DEPARTMENT WHO NEEDED TO DO THE REPORT. TOOK PICTURES OF VEHICLE AT THE JUNK YARD. VEHICLE HAD ALL THE ORIGINAL PARTS. THERE WAS NO INJURIES OR PROPERTY DAMAGE OUTSIDE OF VEHICLE. *AK
DT: VEHICLE STALLED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD ON AUGUST 12, 2005. TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG AND SENT THE CONSUMER HOME WITH THE INVOICE. THERE WAS NO FOR WARNING. ABOUT 6 WEEKS BEFORE WHEN PUSHING ON THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IT SEEMED LIKE IT TOOK A FEW SECONDS FOR THE VEHICLE TO AC…
Read full complaint
DT: VEHICLE STALLED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD ON AUGUST 12, 2005. TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG AND SENT THE CONSUMER HOME WITH THE INVOICE. THERE WAS NO FOR WARNING. ABOUT 6 WEEKS BEFORE WHEN PUSHING ON THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IT SEEMED LIKE IT TOOK A FEW SECONDS FOR THE VEHICLE TO ACCELERATE. *AK
CAR SURGES TO MAXIMUM REVOLUTIONS ON TACHOMETER WHEN MOVING GEAR SHIFT FROM PARK TO REVERSE. HAS HAPPENED 2 TIMES IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS. AT THE TIME OF BOTH INCIDENTS, CAR WAS IDLING WITH AIR CONDITIONER ON. APPLICATION OF BRAKE CONTROLLED SITUATION BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT SEVERE ACCIDENT IF THIS OCCURS. THERE ARE 2 OTHER DRIV…
Read full complaint
CAR SURGES TO MAXIMUM REVOLUTIONS ON TACHOMETER WHEN MOVING GEAR SHIFT FROM PARK TO REVERSE. HAS HAPPENED 2 TIMES IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS. AT THE TIME OF BOTH INCIDENTS, CAR WAS IDLING WITH AIR CONDITIONER ON. APPLICATION OF BRAKE CONTROLLED SITUATION BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT SEVERE ACCIDENT IF THIS OCCURS. THERE ARE 2 OTHER DRIVERS IN THE FAMILY, OF WHICH ONE IS A TEENAGER AND A FOURTH WILL START DRIVING IN 6 MONTHS. THIS IS THE SAME AS THE CURRENT DEFECT INVESTIGATION NHTSA ACTION NUMBER DP05002. MY COMPLAINT IS AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER, NOT THE DEALER. THE DEALER DID A DIAGNOSIS AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT AND DETECTED NO PROBLEM. THERE NEEDS TO BE A DIAGNOSIS FOR THIS ISSUE AND A NATIONAL RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM. *JB
DT: THE CONSUMER STATED THAT HIS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT END OF THE CAR. THE CAR WAS PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN DRIVING. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THREE TIMES, BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. THE ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN CHECKED FIVE TIMES TO SEE IF THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. THERE HAS BEEN SO SUC…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONSUMER STATED THAT HIS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT END OF THE CAR. THE CAR WAS PULLING TO THE LEFT WHEN DRIVING. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP THREE TIMES, BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. THE ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN CHECKED FIVE TIMES TO SEE IF THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. THERE HAS BEEN SO SUCCESS IN THE CORRECTION OF THE PULLING TO THE LEFT. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN CONTACTED, AND A CLAIM WAS FILED FOR THE CONSUMER. THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT SINCE THE LAST TIME THAT THE DEALER SAW IT. THE CAR PULLED TO THE LEFT AND RAN OFF THE ROAD. THEN, HIT A TREE. THE CONSUMER COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE CAR WAS AT FAULT. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. AT THIS POINT, NO ONE COULD DETERMINE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE CAR, IT COULD BE THE SUSPENSION OR THE STEERING. THE SPEED WAS 35 MPH WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED. *AK
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