Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
1960–25K
9425–50K
8150–75K
7275–100K
87100–150K
45150K+
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.
228 crash reports10 fire reports71 injury reports
What owners actually said
780 reports
Mileage unknown · Jul 6, 2004
SteeringSuspension
2003 CAMRY LE [XXX]. CURRENTLY 7585 MILES/17 MONTHS SINCE PURCHASE NEW. GRADUALLY DRIFTS RIGHT (BEGAN FROM BUY DATE). ONSET OF DRIFT IS APPROXIMATELY 3 SEC. AFTER STEADY TRACK ESTABLISHED. REQUIRES CONSTANT ATTENTION/CORRECTION. VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE, OTHER THAN FOR LOCAL SHORT TRIPS. TIRES AS CAUSE HAVE BEEN ELIMINATE…
Read full complaint
2003 CAMRY LE [XXX]. CURRENTLY 7585 MILES/17 MONTHS SINCE PURCHASE NEW. GRADUALLY DRIFTS RIGHT (BEGAN FROM BUY DATE). ONSET OF DRIFT IS APPROXIMATELY 3 SEC. AFTER STEADY TRACK ESTABLISHED. REQUIRES CONSTANT ATTENTION/CORRECTION. VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE, OTHER THAN FOR LOCAL SHORT TRIPS. TIRES AS CAUSE HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. (SIX NEW TIRES HAVE BEEN MOUNTED; RF, THEN LF, THEN ALL 4 TIRES). TOYOTA DEALER CHECK OF ALIGNMENT AT 2049 MILES--"..ALL IN SPEC". TOYOTA DEALER, AFTER TEST DRIVE AT 7468 MILES REVEALED VEHICLE DID INDEED DRIFT EXCLUSIVELY RIGHT, AND INFORMED ME: (1) VEHICLE DRIVES LIKE ALL 2003 CAMRY'S (2) THAT HE COULD MAKE NO ALIGNMENT ADJUSTMENT THAT WOULD IMPROVE CAR'S DRIVING PERFORMANCE, (3) THAT THE ONSET OF RIGHT DRIFT AS EARLY AS 2 SEC. AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A STRAIGHT TRACK WAS TOYOTA-ACCEPTABLE, (4) THAT DRIFT EXCLUSIVELY RIGHT WAS TOYOTA-ACCEPTABLE, (5) THAT PROBLEM OFTEN IS "OVER-SENSITIVE" DRIVER, (6) THAT HE WOULD NOT CONSIDER EXPLORING APPLICABILITY OF TSB ST002-04 AS POSSIBLE CORRECTION, AND (7) THAT MY OPTIONS ARE TO EITHER ACCEPT THE CONDITION OR GO TO ARBITRATION. AT REGIONAL LEVEL (TOYOTA CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER, TORRENCE, CA) I WAS TOLD THAT ALL SUCH PROBLEMS WERE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY AT THE DEALER LEVEL, AND THAT I SHOULD CONSIDER DRIVING OTHER 2003 CAMRY'S (IMPLIED: I MIGHT THEREBY CONVINCE MYSELF THAT MY VEHICLE DROVE "NORMALLY"! A MOST INTERESTING AND REVEALING APPROACH TO A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT!) I HAVE RECENTLY CONTACTED A SECOND TOYOTA DEALER THAT INDICATED THAT IT IS INDEED POSSIBLE TO GET A "FIELD TECHNICAL REP" TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM (I AM ANXIOUS TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT, BUT MY FRUSTRATION IS OBVIOUS). MEANWHILE, I HAVE TAKEN STEP OF ADVISING MY LAWYER IN WRITING TO CAREFULLY EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS UNSAFE STEERING PROBLEM AS A POSSIBLE PRIMARY AND/OR CONTRIBUTORY CAUSE FACTOR, SHOULD I EVER BE INVOLVED IN A DEATH OR SEVERE INJURY ACCIDENT IN THIS CAR. *JB UPDATED 07/25/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (
NHTSA ODI #10080438
12,500 miles · Jul 3, 2004
Fuel System, Other
WE FILLED UP OUR 2003 CAMRY LE AT COSTCO (ON A MONDAY). WE SHOPPED AT COSTCO AND THEN DROVE ABOUT 17 MILES TO OUR HOME. WE BACKED UP OUR INCLINE DRIVEWAY AND UNLOADED THE TRUNK. WE DROVE TO SAFEWAY (ABOUT 2 MILES AWAY) THAT SAME DAY AND DROPPED A RELATIVE AT THEIR HOUSE ABOUT A MILE AWAY. WE DROVE A TOTAL OF ABOUT 25 MILES AFTER…
Read full complaint
WE FILLED UP OUR 2003 CAMRY LE AT COSTCO (ON A MONDAY). WE SHOPPED AT COSTCO AND THEN DROVE ABOUT 17 MILES TO OUR HOME. WE BACKED UP OUR INCLINE DRIVEWAY AND UNLOADED THE TRUNK. WE DROVE TO SAFEWAY (ABOUT 2 MILES AWAY) THAT SAME DAY AND DROPPED A RELATIVE AT THEIR HOUSE ABOUT A MILE AWAY. WE DROVE A TOTAL OF ABOUT 25 MILES AFTER THE FILL UP AT COSTCO. THE CAMRY WAS NOT DRIVEN FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK UNTIL FRIDAY. ON FRIDAY THE CAR WAS DRIVEN NO MORE THAN THREE MILES BEFORE IT STARTED TO HESITATE AND THEN STALLED. IT DID THIS FOUR TIMES BEFORE GETTING BACK TO THE HOUSE. WE HAD IT TOWED TO THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIR. WE WERE TOLD THAT WE OVERFLOWED THE FUEL TANK AND THE CARBON CANISTER WAS FILLED WITH GAS. THIS CAUSED THE COMPUTER TO STALL THE CAR OUT BECAUSE IT IS SENSING AN OVER RICH CONDITION. THE PROBLEM IS WE DID NOT OVERFILL THE FUEL TANK AND WE DROVE IT FOR FAR TOO LONG FOR THIS TO BE WHAT CAUSED THE CARBON FILTER TO HAVE GOTTEN GAS IN IT. MAYBE BACKING UP THE DRIVEWAY WITH A FULL TANK CAUSED THE PROBLEM, BUT THAT IS A FLAW IN THE ENGINEERING OF THE CAR, NOT A MISTAKE BY THE CONSUMER. THE REPAIR AND TOWING COST 780 DOLLARS.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10079232
Mileage unknown · Jul 2, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
WHILE DRIVING AT 30 MPH AND APPLYING THE BRAKES PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. RESULTING IN EXTENDED STOPPING. DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE SEVERAL TIMES, AND INDICATED THAT VEHICLE OPERATED AS DESIGNED BY THE MANUFACTURER. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10080330
500 miles · Jul 1, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD EVEN WHEN THE HER FOOT WAS ON THE BREAK. THE BREAK PEDAL WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR, WHEN APPLIED. PROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10080299
Mileage unknown · Jun 28, 2004
Suspension
UPDATE TO COMPLAINT 10047147 ON 2003 CAMRY LE- VEHICLE CONSTANTLY DRIFTS TO THE RIGHT.*MR THE TIRES WERE ELIMINATED AS A CAUSE OF THE DRIFTING. THE DEALER INDICATED THAT A RIGHT DRIFT ONSET AS SOON AS TWO SECONDS WAS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE BY TOYOTA. THE ONLY OTHER RECOURSE THE CONSUMER HAS IS TO SEEK CORRECTION AT THE DEALER …
Read full complaint
UPDATE TO COMPLAINT 10047147 ON 2003 CAMRY LE- VEHICLE CONSTANTLY DRIFTS TO THE RIGHT.*MR THE TIRES WERE ELIMINATED AS A CAUSE OF THE DRIFTING. THE DEALER INDICATED THAT A RIGHT DRIFT ONSET AS SOON AS TWO SECONDS WAS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE BY TOYOTA. THE ONLY OTHER RECOURSE THE CONSUMER HAS IS TO SEEK CORRECTION AT THE DEALER LEVEL OR ARBITRATION. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10080097
Mileage unknown · Jun 25, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND WHEN CONSUMER DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL. VEHICLE EXPERIENCED UNWANTED ACCELERATION, RESULTING IN VEHICLE CRASHING INTO BUSHES AND CEMENT EMBANKMENT.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10079917
1,100 miles · Jun 25, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control
AFTER BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND COMING TO A STOP SIGN CONSUMER DEPRESSED THE BRAKES AND VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AGAIN AT ANOTHER STOP VEHICLE SURGED, NEARLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKES ON THREE OCCASIONS. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER O…
Read full complaint
AFTER BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND COMING TO A STOP SIGN CONSUMER DEPRESSED THE BRAKES AND VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AGAIN AT ANOTHER STOP VEHICLE SURGED, NEARLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKES ON THREE OCCASIONS. VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER ON TWO OCCASIONS BUT, THE PROBLEM WAS NOT RESOLVED. *AK *NM UPDATED 7/5/12 *CN
NHTSA ODI #10072248
18,700 miles · Jun 24, 2004
Air BagsCrash
ON MAY 13, 2004, WHILE STOPPED, THE VEHICLE WAS T-BONED BY ANOTHER VEHICLE AT AN ESTIMATED SPEED OF 50-55MPH. THE SIDE AIR BAG FAILED TO DEPLOY AT ANYTIME FROM THE CRASH. *JB THE SIDE AIR BAG SPLIT THE SEAT BACK UPHOLSTERY BUT FAILED TO FULLY DEPLOY. *SC *JB
NHTSA ODI #10073826
Mileage unknown · Jun 23, 2004
Wheels
THE HUB CAPS ON THE VEHICLE CRACKED.*MR *NM
NHTSA ODI #10079799
250 miles · Jun 17, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
INCIDENT OCCURRED DURING DAYTIME, CLEAR SKIES, DRY ROAD,WITH NO DEBRIS. VEHICLE WAS PRACTICALLY NEW, HAVING LESS THAN 300 MILES. AT 1230 IN AFTERNOON, I WAS DRIVING APPROX. 25-30 MPH ON A SLIGHT DOWNGRADE (IN A 45 MPH ZONE). ANOTHER VEHICLE SUDDENLY PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF VEHICLE THAT WAS 5-6 CAR LENGTHS DIRECTLY AHEAD OF ME. …
Read full complaint
INCIDENT OCCURRED DURING DAYTIME, CLEAR SKIES, DRY ROAD,WITH NO DEBRIS. VEHICLE WAS PRACTICALLY NEW, HAVING LESS THAN 300 MILES. AT 1230 IN AFTERNOON, I WAS DRIVING APPROX. 25-30 MPH ON A SLIGHT DOWNGRADE (IN A 45 MPH ZONE). ANOTHER VEHICLE SUDDENLY PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF VEHICLE THAT WAS 5-6 CAR LENGTHS DIRECTLY AHEAD OF ME. THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME SLAMMED ON BRAKES TO AVOID HITTING THE INTERLOPER. I TOO STEPPED ON BRAKE PEDAL HARD TO AVOID VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME. ALTHOUGH I WAS APPLYING SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE (1 LEG PRESS 400+LBS, AND WAS APPLYING APPROX 1/2 TO 3/4 OF THAT) , BUT MY VEHICLE SLOWED NEGLIGIBLE - PROMPTING AN EXPLETIVE VERSION OF "WHAT THE HECK?!?!". AFTER A COUPLE OF INEFFECTIVE ATTEMPTS TO PUSH DOWN BRAKE PEDAL I STOMPED IT, WITH LITTLE OR NO EFFECT. MY VEHICLE ULTIMATELY CAME TO A STOP THROUGH IMPACT WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME (AFTER TRAVELING APPROX 150-200 FEET). THE OTHER DRIVER AND VEHICLE, MY PASSENGER AND I WERE UNHARMED, BUT MY VEHICLE SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT FRONT-END DAMAGE. I REPORTED THE BRAKE PROBLEM TO BOTH MY INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP (LOCATED 1/4 MILE FROM THE SITE OF THE INCIDENT) WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED. THE DEALERSHIP WAS NOT INCLINED TO INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM, BUT I PRESSED THE ISSUE WITH TOYOTA AND MY INSURER, UNTIL SOMEONE FROM THE TOYOTA REGIONAL OFFICE IN BALTIMORE AGREED TO EXAMINE MY VEHICLE. THE "EXAMINATION" OCCURRED AFTER THE VEHICLE (FRONT-END DAMAGE AND ALL) HAD BEEN SITTING ON THE DEALERS LOT FOR 3 WEEKS, AND CONSISTED OF A COUPLE OF TEST STOPS IN THE PARKING LOT AND PULLING WHEELS OFF THE VEHICLE IN THE SHOP TO INSPECT THE BRAKES. THIS, OF COURSE, YIELDED NO NEW INFORMATION AND TOYOTA EFFECTIVELY CLOSED THE COMPLAINT. *JB
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 ↗
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