NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
30 reportsClear category filter69,500 miles · Feb 10, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON 1/29/09 AFTER CAR HAD BEEN PARKED FOR ABOUT 5 HOURS. UPON STARTING THE CAR, I PUSHED THE ACCELERATOR DOWN, BUT DID NOT GET ANY RESPONSE FROM THE VEHICLE. IT WARMED UP. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTED. ACCELERATOR WAS NOW WORKING. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO CHECK THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE. THE COD…
Read full complaint
THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON 1/29/09 AFTER CAR HAD BEEN PARKED FOR ABOUT 5 HOURS. UPON STARTING THE CAR, I PUSHED THE ACCELERATOR DOWN, BUT DID NOT GET ANY RESPONSE FROM THE VEHICLE. IT WARMED UP. I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF AND RESTARTED. ACCELERATOR WAS NOW WORKING. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO CHECK THE DIAGNOSTIC CODE. THE CODE READ THAT THE THROTTLE BODY COULD BE FAILING. I STARTED DRIVING TOWARDS TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WENT OFF. A FEW DAYS WENT BY WITH NO PROBLEMS. THE NEXT TIME IT FAILED, I WAS DRIVING DOWN A MAIN ROAD AND HAD TO COAST TO A SIDE STREET. CAR DID NOT STALL, BUT WOULD ONLY IDLE. AGAIN NO RESPONSE WHEN PUSHING ACCELERATOR. I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. THEY REPLACED THE THROTTLE BODY FOR OVER $1000 FOR A NEW PART. THEY GAVE ME THE OPTION TO REPLACE THE PART USED FOR $150. I DON'T WANT THIS PROBLEM TO HAPPEN AGAIN A YEAR FROM NOW, SO I OPTED TO GO WITH THE NEW PART. AFTER SEARCHING ONLINE, THIS PROBLEM IS MUCH MORE WIDESPREAD THAN TOYOTA WILL ADMIT. IT IS A CLEAR DESIGN FLAW THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE THERE IS A SERIOUS ACCIDENT CAUSING MAJOR INJURY OR EVEN DEATH. THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 ACCOUNTS OF THIS OCCURRING THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, AND THE RESPONSE FROM TOYOTA APPEARS TO BE THE SAME IN ALL INSTANCES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10258176
59,615 miles · Feb 5, 2008
Engine And Engine CoolingFire
MY 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY ENGINE DIED 10/ 22/07 W/59,615 MILES ON IT. 13464 MILES @ PURCHASE-I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS A PROGRAM CAR W/EXTENDED WARRANTY=6 YRS/100K MILES. FOUND THE WINDOW STICKER WHEN I TRADED IT IN. NO PROBLEMS WITH THE CAR PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. COMING HOME FROM A TRIP, POWER STEERING LOST SOME FUNCTIONALITY; A SERVI…
Read full complaint
MY 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY ENGINE DIED 10/ 22/07 W/59,615 MILES ON IT. 13464 MILES @ PURCHASE-I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS A PROGRAM CAR W/EXTENDED WARRANTY=6 YRS/100K MILES. FOUND THE WINDOW STICKER WHEN I TRADED IT IN. NO PROBLEMS WITH THE CAR PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. COMING HOME FROM A TRIP, POWER STEERING LOST SOME FUNCTIONALITY; A SERVICE LIGHT CAME ON; MY HUSBAND PUT POWER STEERING FLUID IN; WE HEADED TO THE NEAREST TOYOTA DEALER. EN ROUTE WE LOST ALL POWER STEERING & ABILITY TO ACCELERATE, ENGINE BEGAN TO SMOKE; CAR CUT OFF. THE DEALERSHIP TOOK 5-6 WEEKS TO REPLACE THE ENGINE. DOUBT OLD PARTS ARE AVAILABLE. ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS INCORRECT PARTS WERE ORDERED/RECEIVED. PICKED THE VEHICLE UP~12/1/07; 59620 MILES ON IT. WHILE AWAITING REPAIRS DEALERSHIPS/CORPORATE OFFICES COULD ONLY ADVISE THE CAR MAY BE UNDER BASIC WARRANTY. TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE PURCHASED THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY. SMELLED SMOKE AND WANTED ASSURANCE A NEW ENGINE WAS PUT IN AS PROMISED & THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER PROBLEMS. THEY MADE $900+ WORTH OF ADDED REPAIRS-REAR MAIN SEAL OIL LEAK; AXLE BOOT LEAK. IT HAD 59949 MILES ON IT. AT THAT POINT I DIDN'T WANT IT BACK. I WANTED TOYOTA TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELLING A LEMON. MY MAIN CONCERN: IS THERE A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD WITH 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY MODELS AS SEEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS (ENGINE OIL SLUDGE)? SECONDLY, DID SOMETHING ELSE CAUSE THIS INCIDENT? THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THIS CAMRY SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO MY DISSATISFACTION; THEY SHOULD HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED/OFFERED SOME INCENTIVES FOR SELLING ME A LEMON. THEIR ONLY CONCERN, MAKE ANOTHER SALE. REQUESTED A CALL FROM/AUDIENCE WITH THE OWNER. HASN'T HAPPENED. I NEEDED A CAR AND BELIEVED THIS WAS ABERRATION WITH RESPECT TO CAMRY MODELS' PERFORMANCE. NOT SURE THAT THEY'LL KEEP ME AS A CUSTOMER. I THANK GOD WE HAD NO ACCIDENT, NO KNOWN INJURIES. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S LITIGATION RE: THIS MAKE/MODEL; I'D LIKE TO JOIN THE LITIGANTS. I CAN GIVE YOU MY VIN NUMBER AT YOUR REQUEST. THANKS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10216952
44,101 miles · Jun 25, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. DEALER DIAGNOSTIC REPORT SHOWED A FAILURE CODE OF P0136 OXYGEN SENSOR MALFUNCTION. DEALER ADVISED THAT SENSOR SHOULD BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $230.00. IF PART WAS NOT REPLACED THE ENGINE OR EMISSIONS SYSTEM COULD BE DAMAGED, AND THE CAR UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO POSSIBLE FAILURE WHILE DRIVING.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10194123
Mileage unknown · May 18, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
I AM WRITING DUE TO THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT THAT HAS BEEN ON FOR AT LEAST THE LAST YEAR. IT WAS A 4 CYLINDER, BUT ONE WOULDN'T KNOW IT BY DRIVING THE VEHICLE, NOT AT FIRST ANYWAY. I PURCHASED IT IN JULY 2005. SINCE THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE CAR SEEMED TO BE SLUGGISH. I DIDN'T T KNOW WHY THIS LIGHT WAS ON…
Read full complaint
I AM WRITING DUE TO THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT THAT HAS BEEN ON FOR AT LEAST THE LAST YEAR. IT WAS A 4 CYLINDER, BUT ONE WOULDN'T KNOW IT BY DRIVING THE VEHICLE, NOT AT FIRST ANYWAY. I PURCHASED IT IN JULY 2005. SINCE THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THE CAR SEEMED TO BE SLUGGISH. I DIDN'T T KNOW WHY THIS LIGHT WAS ON, AND WAS WONDERING IF THE ENGINE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT BEING SLUGGISH. ALSO, WAS LEAKING RIGHT WHERE THE ENGINE WAS. A FRIEND OF MINE HAS A CAMRY, AND TOLD ME THAT THE ENGINES IN CAMRYS WERE RECALLED. HERS WAS ONE OF THEM. I DIDN'T KNOW WHY THE LIGHT WAS ON, BUT I WANT TO SEE IF THE ENGINE WAS ONE OF THOSE RECALLED. ALSO ,THE BRAKES WENT DOWN FURTHER THAN ANY OTHER CAR THAT I HAVE EVER DRIVEN. I TOOK THE BRAKES TO GET THEM CHECKED, BUT THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE FINE. TOO ME, IT JUST DID NOT SEEM NORMAL. BUT THEN, THIS CAMRY WAS THE ONLY CAMRY THAT I HAVE EVER DRIVEN. I DID NOT KNOW THAT EXACT DATE THAT THE LIGHT CAME ON SO THE BELOW DATE WAS AN APPROXIMATE DATE. TO CONTACT ME PLEASE USE MY EMAIL ADDRESS. THANK YOU. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10191138
51,000 miles · Apr 1, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
MIL "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT CAME ON MORNING OF FRIDAY MARCH 30, 1997. CAR PERFORMED NORMAL FOR MOST OF DAY (35 MILES) UPON START THE VEHICLE FAILED TO RESPOND TO ACCELERATOR. SUBSEQUENT RESTARTS VARY FROM NO RESPONSE TO SUDDEN SURGE OF ACCELERATION TO VERY LOW POWER AND STALLS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10186659
61,000 miles · Jun 6, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
I PURCHASED A 2004 CERTIFIED TOYOTA CAMRY, WITH 51,000 MILES ON THE UNIT. ONE WEEK AFTER PURCHASE THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I TOOK IT BACK TO DEALERSHIP, THEY JUST SAID IT WAS A SENSOR ISSUE, AND RESET THE LIGHT. THE LIGHT CONTINUED TO GO ON AND OFF FOR THE NEXT 7 MONTHS. I TOOK THE TOYOTA THE DEALERSHIP FOR AN OIL CHANG…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2004 CERTIFIED TOYOTA CAMRY, WITH 51,000 MILES ON THE UNIT. ONE WEEK AFTER PURCHASE THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I TOOK IT BACK TO DEALERSHIP, THEY JUST SAID IT WAS A SENSOR ISSUE, AND RESET THE LIGHT. THE LIGHT CONTINUED TO GO ON AND OFF FOR THE NEXT 7 MONTHS. I TOOK THE TOYOTA THE DEALERSHIP FOR AN OIL CHANGE IN APRIL 2006, AGAIN I COMPLAINED ABOUT THE SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT COMING ON AND GOING OFF AT TIMES, THEY JUST RESET IT AGAIN, AND DID NOT DOCUMENT ANYTHING. ON 4-28-06 THE SERVICE ENGINE CAME ON EARLY MORNING, AND I HEARD A TICKING SOUND FROM ENGINE. I IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE SERVICE DEPT. AT THE SAME TOYOTA DEALERSHIP, THE SERVICE ADVISOR TOLD ME TO BRING THE CAR IN SINCE I WAS A FEW BLOCKS AWAY. I ARRIVED 10 MINUTES LATER, AND THERE WAS FLUID STARTING TO RUN OUT AND STEAM STARTING TO COME FROM MY HOOD. THE TECHNICIAN CHECKED THE CAR OUT, AND SAID THAT THE WATER PUMP WENT OUT, AND THE ENGINE BLOCK WAS DAMAGED ALSO. HE EXPLAINED THESE THINGS CAN HAPPEN PRETTY QUICK. I PURCHASED THE CAR WITH TOYOTA EXTRA WARRANTY, AND MPP EXTENDED WARRANTY, AND MY VEHICLE IS WITHIN THE WARRANTY PERIODS FOR BOTH, AND BOTH COVER THE DAMAGED PARTS. BUT, TOYOTA REFUSES TO FIX THE ISSUE BECAUSE THEY WONT TO PUT NEGLECT ON THE DRIVER. WHEN THE DEALERSHIP ADMITS ON PAPER TO THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF INDIANA, THAT THE DRIVER MADE AN HONEST EFFORT TO GET THIS CAR IN FOR SERVICING, AND THAT THE CONDITION OF THE CAR BEFORE BREAKDOWN WAS REALLY GOOD. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10159117
87,000 miles · Apr 27, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED WHEN THE ENGINE WAS STARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DETERMINED THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED.
NHTSA ODI #10156209
19,500 miles · Jul 21, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
(1) MERGING ONTO HIGHWAY AFTER SLOWING DOWN A BIT ON AN EXIT RAMP. (2) HESITATION IN ACCELERATION - CAR ACTUALLY SLOWS DRAMATICALLY INSTEAD OF ACCELERATING. (3) ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE WARRANTY AND THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT REPAIR. ATTEMPTED ARBITRATION AND THAT FAILED ALSO. NOTE THAT THIS PROBLEM OCCURS REGULARLY. THE DEA…
Read full complaint
(1) MERGING ONTO HIGHWAY AFTER SLOWING DOWN A BIT ON AN EXIT RAMP. (2) HESITATION IN ACCELERATION - CAR ACTUALLY SLOWS DRAMATICALLY INSTEAD OF ACCELERATING. (3) ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE WARRANTY AND THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT REPAIR. ATTEMPTED ARBITRATION AND THAT FAILED ALSO. NOTE THAT THIS PROBLEM OCCURS REGULARLY. THE DEALER TECHNICIAN CLAIMS THE CAR SHIFTS INTO NEUTRAL WHEN BRAKING AND THEN NEEDS TO SHIFT BACK INTO GEAR WHEN ACCELERATING AND THE PERFORMANCE IS TYPICAL.
NHTSA ODI #10129595
200 miles · Jul 12, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS VEHICLE COMMENCED TO ACCELERATE WHILE PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE AND APPLYING THE BRAKES. VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN TO THE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10081738
1,745 miles · Jul 10, 2004
Engine And Engine CoolingCrashInjury
I WAS DRIVING THEN THERE WAS A LARGE BANG AND A ENGINE VALVE WAS BUSTED. I CRASHED. (I WAS THE ONLY ONE DRIVING.)*AK
NHTSA ODI #10080778
Official recalls
3Nov 9, 2011
TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004 AVALON VEHICLES; 2004 AND 2005 CAMRY, CAMRY SOLARA, HIGHLANDER, AND SIENNA VEHICLES, 2006 HIGHLANDER HYBRID; 2004 AND 2005 LEXUS ES330 AND RX330; AND 2006 LEXUS RX400H VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 2004 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005, EQUIPPED WITH THE 1MZ-FE OR 3MZ-FE ENGINE. THE AMOUNT OF ADHESIVE AGENT APPLIED BETWEEN THE OUTER RING AND THE TORSIONAL RUBBER DAMPER (INNER RING) IN THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY MAY BE INADEQUATE. IF THE ADHESIVE IS INSUFFICIENT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE OUTER RING MAY BECOME MISALIGNED AND IT MAY NOT PROPERLY ROTATE WITH THE INNER RING, CAUSING NOISE AND/OR ILLUMINATION OF THE BATTERY DISCHARGE INDICATOR LIGHT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN SOME CASES, THE BELT FOR THE POWER STEERING PUMP MAY BECOME DETACHED FROM THE PULLEY WHICH COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF POWER STEERING AND A SUDDEN INCREASE IN STEERING EFFORT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: TOYOTA WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL CHECK THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY TO IDENTIFY WHETHER IT WAS PRODUCED BY THE U.S. SUPPLIER. IF SO, THE DEALER WILL REPLACE THE PULLEY WITH A NEW ONE AT NO CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING EARLY JANUARY 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Dec 15, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A FRONT PASSENGER POWER SEAT, WHEN INSTALLING CERTAIN REAR-FACING INFANT CHILD SEAT BASES ONTO THE SEAT WITH AN EXCESSIVELY HIGH SEATBELT TENSION, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO UNSEAT A COMPONENT CALLED THE BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH FROM THE SEAT BELT BUCKLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE SWITCH BECOMES UNSEATED, THE FRONT PASSENGER OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAY MISTAKE THE REAR-FACING CHILD RESTRAINT FOR AN UNBELTED ADULT OCCUPANT, AND MAY NOT SUPPRESS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONT PASSENGER AIRBAG.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT PASSENGER SEATBELT BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH. THIS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN (SSC 40M) BEGAN ON DECEMBER 20, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331 OR LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987..
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
2DP06003 · 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
Illustration