NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
54 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Dec 11, 2004
Air BagsService Brakes, HydraulicCrashInjury
APPROACHING INTERSECTION THE STOP LIGHT CHANGED AND ATTEMPTING TO STOP VEHICLE, THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO FLOORBOARD, BUT DID NOT STOP VEHICLE BEFORE IMPACT WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE. SPEED AT IMPACT WAS APPROX. 20 MPH AND NEITHER AIRBAG DEPLOYED. JUST RECENTLY HAD VEHICLE AT DEALERSHIP TO HAVE SOFT BRAKE PEDAL CHECKED, AND WAS TOLD OF…
Read full complaint
APPROACHING INTERSECTION THE STOP LIGHT CHANGED AND ATTEMPTING TO STOP VEHICLE, THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO FLOORBOARD, BUT DID NOT STOP VEHICLE BEFORE IMPACT WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE. SPEED AT IMPACT WAS APPROX. 20 MPH AND NEITHER AIRBAG DEPLOYED. JUST RECENTLY HAD VEHICLE AT DEALERSHIP TO HAVE SOFT BRAKE PEDAL CHECKED, AND WAS TOLD OF OTHER COMPLAINTS CONCERNING SAME PROBLEM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10102690
Mileage unknown · Nov 22, 2004
EquipmentService Brakes, Hydraulic
THE SECURITY SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONED. THE BRAKE PEDAL AND GAS PEDAL TO CLOSE RESULT IN SOMETIMES PUSHING BOTH PEDALS AT ONCE. *BF THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS 4 3/4 INCHES WIDE AND HE BOTTOM OF THE CONSUMERS SHOES WAS 4 1/2 INCHES WIDE. THE GAS PEDAL WAS OVER TO THE CENTER OF THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE CONSUMER WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT HIS BOTT…
Read full complaint
THE SECURITY SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONED. THE BRAKE PEDAL AND GAS PEDAL TO CLOSE RESULT IN SOMETIMES PUSHING BOTH PEDALS AT ONCE. *BF THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS 4 3/4 INCHES WIDE AND HE BOTTOM OF THE CONSUMERS SHOES WAS 4 1/2 INCHES WIDE. THE GAS PEDAL WAS OVER TO THE CENTER OF THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE CONSUMER WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT HIS BOTTOM OR TWIST HIS FOOT INWARD AND PUSH DOWN ON THE BRAKE PEDAL BECAUSE HIS KNEE WOULD NOT BEND SIDEWAY. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10101997
2,000 miles · Oct 5, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
AFTER HEARING THE BRAKES SQUEAK, THEREAFTER THEY DID NOT HOLD AS EFFECTIVELY, HOWEVER, THE BRAKES WERE NOT INSPECTED.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10095083
16 miles · Sep 28, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
NEW CAR PURCHASED. BRAKE PEDAL CLEARANCE IS 1" FROM FLOOR. OWNER'S MANUAL SPECIFICATION IS 2.5" MINIMUM. TOYOTA SERVICE DECLARES NO PROBLEM EXISTS.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10093258
26,000 miles · Sep 8, 2004
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
WHILE DRIVING AT 30 MPH DRIVER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THEY FAILED. VEHICLE TOOK LONGER TO STOP. AS RESULT, IT REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE AND WAS SIDE SWIPED BY ANOTHER. PRIOR TO THE CRASH, CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP WHO FOUND NOTHING WRONG. *AK THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE VACUUM DID NOT EXIST. (THE PEDAL …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT 30 MPH DRIVER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THEY FAILED. VEHICLE TOOK LONGER TO STOP. AS RESULT, IT REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE AND WAS SIDE SWIPED BY ANOTHER. PRIOR TO THE CRASH, CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP WHO FOUND NOTHING WRONG. *AK THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE VACUUM DID NOT EXIST. (THE PEDAL WAS FULLY DEPRESSED TO THE FLOORBOARD) *SC
NHTSA ODI #10083594
Mileage unknown · Aug 31, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE BRAKE AND GAS PEDALS WERE DESIGNED TOO CLOSE TOGETHER. THIS ALMOST RESULTED IN TWO ACCIDENTS DUE TO SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE DEALERSHIP SERVICED THE VEHICLE ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, BUT WAS UNABLE TO CHANGE THE POSITION OF THE BRAKE PEDAL BECAUSE THAT WAS HOW IT WAS BUILT. A FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE WAS SCHEDULED TO COME AN…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKE AND GAS PEDALS WERE DESIGNED TOO CLOSE TOGETHER. THIS ALMOST RESULTED IN TWO ACCIDENTS DUE TO SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE DEALERSHIP SERVICED THE VEHICLE ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, BUT WAS UNABLE TO CHANGE THE POSITION OF THE BRAKE PEDAL BECAUSE THAT WAS HOW IT WAS BUILT. A FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE WAS SCHEDULED TO COME AND INSPECT THE PEDALS. *AK THE BRAKE PEDAL WOULD GO DOWN LOWER THAN THE GAS PEDAL WHEN THE CONSUMERS FOOT WAS SLIGHTLY OFF THE BRAKE, IT WOULD HIT THE GAS PEDAL AND THE VEHICLE WOULD ACCELERATE. THE BRAKE PROBLEM REMAINED THE SAME AFTER REPAIR ATTEMPTS. *SC *JB
NHTSA ODI #10083655
2,000 miles · Aug 30, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEFECTIVE. THE BRAKES DID NOT GRABB LIKE THEY SHOULD, THEY ALMOST WENT TO THE FLOOR. MANUFACTURER WAS NO NOTIFIED, HOWEVER THE DEALER FOUND NO DEFECTS.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10090057
1,423 miles · Aug 17, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
BREAK PEDAL GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR. CAR TAKES AN EXCESSIVE DISTANCE TO STOP FROM FREEWAY SPEEDS. DEALER SAYS ALL 2004 TOYOTA CAMRYS DO THIS. THEY SAY THERE IS NO PROBLEM. LETS DO SOMETHING BEFORE SOMEONE DIES INSTEAD OF AFTER SOMEONE DIES. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10088091
13,500 miles · Jul 28, 2004
Exterior LightingService Brakes, Hydraulic
THE BRAKE LIGHT CAME ON WHILE GOING DOWN THE INTERSTATE. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE STATION AND THE DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT THE CAR WAS QUICKLY LEAKING BRAKE FLUID FROM A BRAKE LINE, AND THE ABS ACTUATOR. AFTER ALREADY HAVING A FINAL REPAIR ATTEMPT FOR THE SAME DEFECTIVE PART, TOYOTA HAD TO AGAIN REPLACE THE BRAKE LINE AND THE AB…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKE LIGHT CAME ON WHILE GOING DOWN THE INTERSTATE. THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE STATION AND THE DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT THE CAR WAS QUICKLY LEAKING BRAKE FLUID FROM A BRAKE LINE, AND THE ABS ACTUATOR. AFTER ALREADY HAVING A FINAL REPAIR ATTEMPT FOR THE SAME DEFECTIVE PART, TOYOTA HAD TO AGAIN REPLACE THE BRAKE LINE AND THE ABS ACTUATOR. CURRENTLY WE ARE PURSUING ARRBITRATION BASED ON THE NORTH CAROLINA LEMON LAW TO DEMAND THE REPURCHASE OF THIS UNSAFE VEHICLE THAT CONTINUE TO HAVE DEFECTS IN THE BRAKING SYSTEM.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10082869
6,000 miles · Jul 28, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE ABS LIGHT CAME ON WHILE I WAS DRIVING THE CAR AFTER HAVING THIS PART REPAIRED THE PREVIOUS WEEK. TOYOTA DID A FINAL REPAIR ATTEMPT ON THE CAR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE LEMON LAW FOR A RESONABLE NUMBER OF ATTEPMTS. THE YAW SENSOR WAS REPLACED AND THE LIGHT WENT OFF. THE TRACTION CONTROL SYSTEM IN THE CAR WAS…
Read full complaint
THE ABS LIGHT CAME ON WHILE I WAS DRIVING THE CAR AFTER HAVING THIS PART REPAIRED THE PREVIOUS WEEK. TOYOTA DID A FINAL REPAIR ATTEMPT ON THE CAR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE LEMON LAW FOR A RESONABLE NUMBER OF ATTEPMTS. THE YAW SENSOR WAS REPLACED AND THE LIGHT WENT OFF. THE TRACTION CONTROL SYSTEM IN THE CAR WAS NOT WORKING UNTIL THE PART WAS REPLACED.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10082866
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