I WAS PULLING INTO A PARKING SPOT AT A LOCAL DRY CLEANERS. AS I WAS PULLING INTO A PARKING SPOT, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY SURGED RAPIDLY FORWARD GOING OVER A CONCRETE BARRIER AND HIT A CONCRETE WALL. UNINTENDED SUDDEN ACCELERATION. *TR
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 reportsCAR HAD BEEN DRIVEN TO GET GAS 1/2 MILE DOWN ROAD. WHEN RETURNED FROM GAS STATION WE PULLED ONTO PROPERTY , TURNED OFF CAR AND THERE WERE FLAMES COMING FROM THE HOOD. FIRE DEPT ARRIVED AND PUT OUT THE FIRE. TOTAL LOSS FOR CAR. *TR
MY WIFE HAD TAKEN HER 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IN FOR REGULAR SERVICE IN JANUARY, 2012 AND TOLD THE DEALER THAT SHE HAD BEEN HEARING UNUSUAL NOISES FROM THE ENGINE FOR SOME TIME. AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE THE SERVICE PERSON SAID THAT TOYOTA HAD ISSUED A BULLETIN TO THE DEALERS REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DATED APRI…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE HAD TAKEN HER 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IN FOR REGULAR SERVICE IN JANUARY, 2012 AND TOLD THE DEALER THAT SHE HAD BEEN HEARING UNUSUAL NOISES FROM THE ENGINE FOR SOME TIME. AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE THE SERVICE PERSON SAID THAT TOYOTA HAD ISSUED A BULLETIN TO THE DEALERS REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DATED APRIL 15, 2008. IT IS CURIOUS THAT THE BULLETIN STATED THAT "THIS REPAIR IS COVERED UNDER THE TOYOTA FEDERAL EMISSION WARRANTY. THIS IS IN EFFECT FOR 36 MONTHS OR 36,000 MILE, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST-". THE BULLETIN IS DATED APRIL 15, 2008 AND IS TO COVER VEHICLES OF THE 2002-2004 MODEL YEAR CAMRY. THIS MAKES NO SENSE AS SUPPOSEDLY COVERING VEHICLES BUILT 2002-2004 AND ISSUE A BULLETIN IN 2008 AND THEN SAY THERE IS A 36 MONTH WARRANTY FROM THE DATE THE VEHICLE WAS PUT IN SERVICE. WE WERE NEVER ADVISED OF THIS BULLETIN UNTIL 2012 AND REPAIRS WERE DONE AT THE COST OF $ 765.52 ON MARCH 27, 2012. WE SENT A LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO TOYOTA IN TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA ON FEBRUARY 28, 2014 WITH NO RESPONSE. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. THE CONTACT WAS TRAVELING 45 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DETERMINED THAT THE BOLT CONNECTED TO THE INTAKE VALVES TO THE ENGINE HAD BECOME LOOSE AND ALLOWED COOLANT TO RUN ON TO THE EXHAUST. AS A RE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. THE CONTACT WAS TRAVELING 45 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DETERMINED THAT THE BOLT CONNECTED TO THE INTAKE VALVES TO THE ENGINE HAD BECOME LOOSE AND ALLOWED COOLANT TO RUN ON TO THE EXHAUST. AS A RESULT, EXHAUST FUMES EMITTED INTO THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE ENGINE SEIZED WHILE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO BE RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE RADIATOR AND THE ENGINE NE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE ENGINE SEIZED WHILE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO BE RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE RADIATOR AND THE ENGINE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 88,259.
THIS CAR HAS AN AIRBAG STARTING TO COME OF OUT OF IT CONTAINMENT. IT IS THE AIRBAG ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. WE HAVE TAKEN THIS CAR TO THE DEALER BUT THEY CLAIM THERE IS NO RECALL. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE. THIS IS A HAZARDOUS SITUATION. IT BEGAN AT ABOUT 50K BUT NOW IS GETTING WORSE AND THE MILEAGE IS OVER 74K. IT WAS TAKEN T…
Read full complaint
THIS CAR HAS AN AIRBAG STARTING TO COME OF OUT OF IT CONTAINMENT. IT IS THE AIRBAG ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. WE HAVE TAKEN THIS CAR TO THE DEALER BUT THEY CLAIM THERE IS NO RECALL. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE. THIS IS A HAZARDOUS SITUATION. IT BEGAN AT ABOUT 50K BUT NOW IS GETTING WORSE AND THE MILEAGE IS OVER 74K. IT WAS TAKEN TO THE CLOSEST DEALER WHEN THE MILEAGE WAS ABOUT 63K. IT GETS WORSE EVERY DAY. *TR
DRIVING WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL SET TO APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH. CARS AHEAD WERE STOPPING, SO THE CRUISE CONTROL CANCEL BUTTON WAS PRESSED. INSTEAD OF THE CAR DECELERATING, IT QUICKLY ACCELERATED AS IF THE GAS PEDAL HAD BEEN PRESSED TO THE FLOOR. THE BRAKES WERE QUICKLY PRESSED, BUT BEFORE THE CAR CAME TO A STOP, IT HIT THE REAR …
Read full complaint
DRIVING WITH THE CRUISE CONTROL SET TO APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH. CARS AHEAD WERE STOPPING, SO THE CRUISE CONTROL CANCEL BUTTON WAS PRESSED. INSTEAD OF THE CAR DECELERATING, IT QUICKLY ACCELERATED AS IF THE GAS PEDAL HAD BEEN PRESSED TO THE FLOOR. THE BRAKES WERE QUICKLY PRESSED, BUT BEFORE THE CAR CAME TO A STOP, IT HIT THE REAR END OF THE CAR AHEAD. THE PERSON IN THE OTHER CAR HAD A PRECAUTIONARY MEDICAL EXAM A FEW DAYS LATER, BUT NO INJURY WAS REPORTED. THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER OF THE CAMRY WERE NOT INJURED AND AIR BAGS WERE NOT DEPLOYED. THE CAMRY WAS DECLARED TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. THE OTHER CAR WAS REPAIRED. *TR
SEAT BELT APPEARS TO BE LATCHED BUT ISN'T ALWAYS. *TR
PLEASE ADD ME TO OTHER CAMRY OWNERS COMPLAINING ABOUT STEERING NOISE, EITHER AT REST OR DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, STEERING TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT: CLICKING SOUND HAPPENS AS THE STEERING WHEEL IS TURNED. THE NOISE IS GETTING LOUDER. NOW I HAVE LOST THE HORN, CRUISE CONTROL AND THE AIR BAG LIGHT IS ON. SO, IT SEEMS THAT THIS PRO…
Read full complaint
PLEASE ADD ME TO OTHER CAMRY OWNERS COMPLAINING ABOUT STEERING NOISE, EITHER AT REST OR DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, STEERING TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT: CLICKING SOUND HAPPENS AS THE STEERING WHEEL IS TURNED. THE NOISE IS GETTING LOUDER. NOW I HAVE LOST THE HORN, CRUISE CONTROL AND THE AIR BAG LIGHT IS ON. SO, IT SEEMS THAT THIS PROBLEM IS AFFECTING SOME KIND OF SWITCH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STEERING COLUMN! I HAVE CHECKED THE FUSES WHICH ARE ALL FINE! READING ALL THE COMPLAINTS AND REALIZING THAT TOYOTA IS NOT OWNING TO THE PROBLEM WITH THE OWNERS HAVING TO PAY FOR THE REPAIR, I AM TRULY DISAPPOINTED. IT DEFINITELY IS A DESIGN PROBLEM! *TR
I OWN A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND NOTICED THAT IT WAS OVERHEATING!!! WENT TO REPLACE THE GASKET AND THE HEAD BOLTS WERE STRIPPED AND HAD TO HAVE TO HAVE A HEAD BOLT REPAIR KIT PUT IN ALONG WITH THE GASKET KIT WHICH WITH LABOR COST ME OVER 4,000 DOLLARS IN REPAIRS! THE FIRST PROBLEM WAS THE ALUMINUM BLOCK THAT OVER HEATED BECAUSE O…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND NOTICED THAT IT WAS OVERHEATING!!! WENT TO REPLACE THE GASKET AND THE HEAD BOLTS WERE STRIPPED AND HAD TO HAVE TO HAVE A HEAD BOLT REPAIR KIT PUT IN ALONG WITH THE GASKET KIT WHICH WITH LABOR COST ME OVER 4,000 DOLLARS IN REPAIRS! THE FIRST PROBLEM WAS THE ALUMINUM BLOCK THAT OVER HEATED BECAUSE OF THE COOLANT LEAK WHICH IN THAT OVERHEATED THE BLOCK/BOLTS AND CAUSED THEM TO STRIP THE THREAD FROM THE BLOCK BOLT, IN THAT HAD TO GET A REPAIR KIT DRILL THE HOLE OUT INSERT A STEAL COIL TO HOLD THE STEAL BOLT IN THE ALUMINUM BLOCK!!! POINT BEING I HAD TO PAY FOR THIS FACTORY ERROR OF AN ALUMINUM HEAD THAT EITHER SHOULD HAVE HAD STEAL INSERTS OR A STEAL BLOCK TO BEGIN WITH FOR ABOUT 4,000 WHICH IS CLOSE TO WHAT THE CAR WOULD COST IF I BOUGHT IT AT THIS TIME WITH THE MILES CURRENTLY ON IT!!! A WASTE OF MY MONEY WHEN THIS COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM TOYOTA IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! I HONESTLY CAN SAY THAT THIS IS MY 3RD CAMRY I HAVE OWNED AND I HAVE ALWAYS SWORE BY THE TOYOTA CAMRY BUT AFTER MY RESEARCH AND MY MONEY AND MY HEADACHE I AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED IN HOW THERE NOT STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE ON THIS ONE AND US AS TOYOTA OWNERS LOVE AND VALUE THE TOYOTA NAME COME ACROSS THIS PROBLEM AND NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT ITS VERY UPSETTING I'VE DROVE THE CAMRY SINCE 2004 AND BEEN SO PROUD OF THE NAME AND PASSED ALONG THE GOOD QUALITY OF THE CAMRY NAME ON AND ON THEN I COME ACROSS THIS ISSUE AND THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE SAME EXACT PROBLEMS AND TOYOTA WON'T STEP UP TO THE PLATE ON IT REALLY TARNISHES THE NAME FOR ME!!!! *TR
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