NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
780 reportsMileage unknown · Sep 15, 2005
Vehicle Speed Control
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY DEVELOPED NUMEROUS PROBLEMS.***NO ANSWER REQUIRED***. *MR THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE LEFT WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED, IT REQUIRED 2 OR 3 ATTEMPTS TO START THE VEHICLE, THE RADIO WAS REPLACED, THE POWER DOOR LOCKS DID NOT WORK, THE ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON AND THE GAUGES WERE ERRATIC, THE RIGHT REAR STRUT AND MO…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY DEVELOPED NUMEROUS PROBLEMS.***NO ANSWER REQUIRED***. *MR THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE LEFT WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED, IT REQUIRED 2 OR 3 ATTEMPTS TO START THE VEHICLE, THE RADIO WAS REPLACED, THE POWER DOOR LOCKS DID NOT WORK, THE ENGINE LIGHT STAYED ON AND THE GAUGES WERE ERRATIC, THE RIGHT REAR STRUT AND MOUNT WERE BROKEN. *JB THE BRAKE LIGHT WAS INOPERATIVE. THE HOOD RELEASE LATCH WAS RECONNECTED, BECAUSE THE CONSUMER HEARD A RATTLE NOISE. THE EXHAUST CONVERTER WAS REPLACED. *JB UPDATED 03/04/10 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED HE EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION TWICE. UPDATED 06/28/10*JB
NHTSA ODI #10136683
21,882 miles · Aug 29, 2005
Power Train
MY 03 CAMRY WITH 22K MILES, AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION, HAS AN ISSUE WITH THE SAFETY BUTTON ON THE SHIFTER, OR THE SHIFTER ITSELF. WITH THE ENGINE OFF AND NO KEY IN THE IGNITION, I CAN SLIDE THE SHIFTER FROM PARK TO ANY OTHER GEAR, WITHOUT PRESSING IN THE SAFETY BUTTON. I CANNOT SLIDE THE SHIFTER BACK INTO PARK. HERE'S HOW I FOUND O…
Read full complaint
MY 03 CAMRY WITH 22K MILES, AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION, HAS AN ISSUE WITH THE SAFETY BUTTON ON THE SHIFTER, OR THE SHIFTER ITSELF. WITH THE ENGINE OFF AND NO KEY IN THE IGNITION, I CAN SLIDE THE SHIFTER FROM PARK TO ANY OTHER GEAR, WITHOUT PRESSING IN THE SAFETY BUTTON. I CANNOT SLIDE THE SHIFTER BACK INTO PARK. HERE'S HOW I FOUND OUT. I PARKED IN MY DRIVE, PUT THE CAR IN PARK, REMOVED THE KEYS, GRABBED MY SHOPPING BAG AND WENT INSIDE. MY HUSBAND CAME IN A FEW MINUTES LATER WITH SOME SHOCKING NEWS. APPARENTLY, MY CAMRY HAD ROLLED DOWN THE DRIVE, TOOK OUT OUR MAILBOX, WENT ACROSS THE STREET AND STOPPED IN OUR NEIGHBOR'S FRONT YARD. OUR DRIVE IS OVER 100' LONG AND SLOPES DOWN TOWARD THE STREET. I HANDED MY HUSBAND THE KEYS AND HE WENT TO THE CAR. IT WAS IN DRIVE. WHAT I CAN FIGURE IS THAT WHEN I GRABBED MY SHOPPING BAG, WHICH WAS FAIRLY HEAVY, I HIT THE SHIFTER AND TOOK THE CAR OUT OF PARK. BUT THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN HOW THE SHIFTER WAS ABLE TO MOVE WITHOUT MY PUSHING IN THE SAFETY BUTTON. I CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER RELATIONS IN TORRANCE, AND THEY ARRANGED A SERVICE APPT FOR ME AT THE DEALER. THE DEALER INDICATED THEY HAD TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT. DURING A FOLLOW-UP CALL FROM THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE REP, THEY INDICATED THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE. WHEN I ASKED IF IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN, THE REP SAID IF IT DOES, BRING IT IN. I WILL TRY VERY HARD TO REMEMBER TO USE MY EMERGENCY BRAKE WHENEVER I PARK MY CAR. BUT WHAT IF I FORGET? I DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MY CAR ROLLING INTO A CHILD, ADULT OR OTHER VEHICLE. IT IS ONLY DUMB LUCK THAT NO ONE WAS HURT WHEN THE CAR ROLLED DOWN OUR DRIVE. HAD IT BEEN DAYTIME, THE CHANCES ARE VERY HIGH THAT SOMEONE WOULD HAVE BEEN INJURED OR KILLED. WE LIVE ON A CUL DE SAC, AND THOSE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT WALK WITH THEIR CHILDREN ON A REGULAR BASIS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. THIS IS VERY FRIGHTENING. ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS ISSUE HAPPENING PREVIOUSLY?*JB
NHTSA ODI #10134477
Mileage unknown · Aug 12, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
DT: THE VEHICLE ACCELARATED ON ITS OWN AND SURGED FORWARD 6 OR 7 TIMES. CONTACTED TOYOTA AND DEALT WITH THE LIABILITY DEPARTMENT. AND THEY DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT. THIS STARTED HAPPENING ON NOVEMBER 12, 2003. *AK SEE ALSO 10055728. *DSY
NHTSA ODI #10132649
48,785 miles · Aug 6, 2005
Wheels
THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE ALUMINUM ALLOY CHROME WHEELS. I PURCHASED NEW TIRES AT SEARS IN DECEMBER OF 2004 WITH ALL NEW VALVE STEMS AND SPEED BALANCES. APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 3 MONTHS LATER, 2 & 3 TIRES WERE LOSING AIR (SLOWLY) CONSTANTLY. SEARS SHOWED ME THAT THE ALLOY RIM WAS DETERIORATING AROUND THE VALVE STEMS AND THAT I SHOULD…
Read full complaint
THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE ALUMINUM ALLOY CHROME WHEELS. I PURCHASED NEW TIRES AT SEARS IN DECEMBER OF 2004 WITH ALL NEW VALVE STEMS AND SPEED BALANCES. APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 3 MONTHS LATER, 2 & 3 TIRES WERE LOSING AIR (SLOWLY) CONSTANTLY. SEARS SHOWED ME THAT THE ALLOY RIM WAS DETERIORATING AROUND THE VALVE STEMS AND THAT I SHOULD TAKE IT BACK TO THE DEALER. BECAUSE IT WAS OVER THE WARRANTY MILEAGE, THE DEALER (ROUTE 44 TOYOTA IN RAYNHAM, MASS.) WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. I EVEN WENT TO THE DISTRICT MANAGERS OFFICE WITH NO LUCK. I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT ALL I WANTED WAS THE STANDARD WHEEL FOR REPLACEMENT WITH WHEEL COVERS. MY POINT IS, IF TIRES LOSE THE AIR INFLATION, THERE'S LIKELY TO BE "TIRE FAILURE" CONTRIBUTING TO MORE ACCIDENTS ON OUR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS. I'M SURE I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH "ALLOY WHEELS" WITH THIS PROBLEM. CAN WE DO SOMETHING TO PREVENT ROAD DEATHS ON OUR HIGHWAYS BECAUSE OF THESE FLAWED "ALUMINUM ALLOY WHEELS"?*JB
NHTSA ODI #10131790
7,000 miles · Jul 18, 2005
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
THE BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BUT THE CAR DOES NOT DECELERATE ANY HARDER. I HAVE NOTIFIED THE MFG NUMEROUS TIMES, EVEN GOT THEIR LEGAL DEPT INVOLVED (CASE # 200301090284) ACCORDING TO TOYOTA THIS IS BY DESIGN - EVEN THOUGH THE BRAKE PEDAL HEIGHT & STOPPING DISTANCES ARE OUTSIDE THE PUBLISHED…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKE PEDAL GOES TO THE FLOOR IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BUT THE CAR DOES NOT DECELERATE ANY HARDER. I HAVE NOTIFIED THE MFG NUMEROUS TIMES, EVEN GOT THEIR LEGAL DEPT INVOLVED (CASE # 200301090284) ACCORDING TO TOYOTA THIS IS BY DESIGN - EVEN THOUGH THE BRAKE PEDAL HEIGHT & STOPPING DISTANCES ARE OUTSIDE THE PUBLISHED SPECS. I HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS SIMILAR COMPLAINTS ON THE NTTSA WEBSITE AND AM CONCERNED THIS HAS FALLEN IN A CRACK. THIS IS SO RAMPANT THAT I AM CONSIDERING A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT SHOULD ALL OTHER METHODS FAIL (I REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO THIS!!) THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS CRUCIAL MATTER. I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT A WHILE BACK - I CALLED THE 800 NUMBER TO INQUIRE WHAY NO RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE & I KNOW YOU ARE SPREAD VERY THIN - PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLGY BUT I REALLY THINK THIS IS A IMPORTANT MATTER
NHTSA ODI #10129058
47,800 miles · Jul 8, 2005
Visibility
WINDOW MOTOR BROKE WITHOUT WARNING. MECHANIC SAYS NO WAY SHOULD A MOTOR BREAK ON A 2 YEAR OLD CAR. INTERNET BLOGS FULL OF STORIES OF WINDOW MOTORS BREAKING ON TOYOTA VEHICLES. REPLACEMENT COST IS $700 WHICH IS RIDICULOUS.
NHTSA ODI #10127875
Mileage unknown · Jul 8, 2005
Power Train
DT: TOYOTA CAMRY 2003. THE CONSUMERS CAR HESITATES WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE. IT ACTUALLY SLOWS DOWN BY 10-20 MPH. *AK THE VEHICLE WOULD LURCH FORWARD AFTER HESITATING. THE PROBLEM OCCURRED WHEN TURNING CORNERS OR WHEN ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE ONTO THE HIGHWAY FROM A ROLLING START. *SC *JB
NHTSA ODI #10122499
51,545 miles · Jul 7, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
BRAKE PEDAL FREQUENTLY GOES NEARLY TO FLOOR. HAS HAPPENED EVEN WHEN CAR STOPPED AT LIGHTS. WHEN PEDAL TRAVEL EXCESSIVE, BRAKING PERFORMANCE VERY POOR. NO WARNING. BRAKES WORK FINE FOR A WHILE THEN PEDAL TRAVEL AND BRAKE PERFORMANCE DRGRADE SEVERELY WITHOUT WARNING. NEARLY IN SEVERAL COLLISIONS. ALSO, FRAQUENT VIBRATION IN PEDAL …
Read full complaint
BRAKE PEDAL FREQUENTLY GOES NEARLY TO FLOOR. HAS HAPPENED EVEN WHEN CAR STOPPED AT LIGHTS. WHEN PEDAL TRAVEL EXCESSIVE, BRAKING PERFORMANCE VERY POOR. NO WARNING. BRAKES WORK FINE FOR A WHILE THEN PEDAL TRAVEL AND BRAKE PERFORMANCE DRGRADE SEVERELY WITHOUT WARNING. NEARLY IN SEVERAL COLLISIONS. ALSO, FRAQUENT VIBRATION IN PEDAL LINKAGE, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEDAL PUSHED QUICKLY. DEALER REPLACED BRAKE BOOSTER BUT NO IMPORVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE. DEALER SAYS THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO BE DONE. OFTEN FEELS LIKE INTERNAL LEAK IN MASTER CYLINDER. COMPLAINT TO TOYOTA TURFED BACK TO DEALER. FEEL CAR IS DANGEROUS IN THIS CONDITION BUT TOYOTA AND NORTHWAY TOYOTA NOT INTERESTED IN REPAIRING PROBLEM. LAST DATE LISTED IN INCIDENT DATE, BUT HAS HAPPENED MANY, MANY TIMES. AFRAID TO OPERATE VEHICLE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS.
NHTSA ODI #10127828
6,918 miles · Jun 28, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
DT: ON DECEMBER 8, 2003, AT 6918 MILES CONSUMER WAS AT A STOP SIGN AND TRIED TO APPLY BRAKES AND THEY FAILED. CONSUMER WAS IN A SCHOOL ZONE AND TRIED TO STOP AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, TOOK THE VEHICLE TO DEALER TO BE INSPECTED, AND THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG. AGAIN, HAD THE VEHICLE OUT AND WAS AT A 3 WA…
Read full complaint
DT: ON DECEMBER 8, 2003, AT 6918 MILES CONSUMER WAS AT A STOP SIGN AND TRIED TO APPLY BRAKES AND THEY FAILED. CONSUMER WAS IN A SCHOOL ZONE AND TRIED TO STOP AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, TOOK THE VEHICLE TO DEALER TO BE INSPECTED, AND THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG. AGAIN, HAD THE VEHICLE OUT AND WAS AT A 3 WAY STOP AND TRIED TO APPLY THE BRAKES, AND THEY FAILED AGAIN. TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP ON APRIL 21, 2005 AT 13096 MILES, AND THEY DID FIND THAT BECAUSE OF A BRAKE FAILURE THERE WAS INTERNAL FAILURE IN MASTER CYLINDER, AND THE FRONT ROTORS WERE WARPED.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10125103
29,000 miles · Jun 16, 2005
Latches/locks/linkages
DT: DOOR WOULD NOT OPEN ON DRIVER'S SIDE OR ANY OF THE OTHER DOORS, CONSUMER COULD NOT UNLOCK THE DOORS WITH KEY OR LOCK BUTTON. THE TRANSMITTER WOULD NOT RESPOND EITHER. BEFORE WHEN IT WOULD GET REAL HOT THE TRANSMITTER WOULDN'T WORK AND LIGHTS WOULDN'T WORK. BUT COULD OPEN THE DOORS AND GET OUT. LAST NIGHT HAD TO CRAWL OUT…
Read full complaint
DT: DOOR WOULD NOT OPEN ON DRIVER'S SIDE OR ANY OF THE OTHER DOORS, CONSUMER COULD NOT UNLOCK THE DOORS WITH KEY OR LOCK BUTTON. THE TRANSMITTER WOULD NOT RESPOND EITHER. BEFORE WHEN IT WOULD GET REAL HOT THE TRANSMITTER WOULDN'T WORK AND LIGHTS WOULDN'T WORK. BUT COULD OPEN THE DOORS AND GET OUT. LAST NIGHT HAD TO CRAWL OUT THE WINDOW TO GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10125455
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.