IllustrationDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH IN THE RAIN, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BECAME STUCK, RAISING THE VEHICLE'S SPEED, AND CAUSING IT TO COLLIDE WITH 3 OTHER VEHICLES. IT WAS TOWED TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. UPDATED 12/28/06. *JB
2004 Toyota Camry
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camry years
Owner complaints for the 2004 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
1700–25K
11225–50K
7950–75K
6075–100K
63100–150K
32150K+
516 reports with mileage · 122 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 238 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 80 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 79 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
199 crash reports11 fire reports96 injury reports
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
238 reportsTHE VEHICLE IS A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS, THE VEHICLE SURGED WHEN THE DRIVER DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL WITHOUT DEPRESSING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE TOYOTA DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND REPORTED NO PROBLEMS. *NM
MY MOTHER AND FRIEND STARTED OUT FOR CHURCH, THE FRIEND HAD COME TO PICK HER UP WHEN THE 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH LESS THAN 3000 MILES ON IT WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY SHIFTING INTO REVERSE, THEN WHEN SHE SHIFTED INTO DRIVE THE CAR ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY EST SPEED ON 80 - 92 MILE A HOUR IN LESS THAN 250 FT WHEN THE CAR HIT A MOBILE…
Read full complaint
MY MOTHER AND FRIEND STARTED OUT FOR CHURCH, THE FRIEND HAD COME TO PICK HER UP WHEN THE 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH LESS THAN 3000 MILES ON IT WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY SHIFTING INTO REVERSE, THEN WHEN SHE SHIFTED INTO DRIVE THE CAR ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY EST SPEED ON 80 - 92 MILE A HOUR IN LESS THAN 250 FT WHEN THE CAR HIT A MOBILE HOME. THEY HIT SO HARD IT MOVED DOUBLE WIDE ALMOST A FOOT. KILLING MY MOTHER THE PASSENGER AND INJURY TO HER FRIEND THE DRIVER. NO AIR BAG DEPLOYED AND WHEN TOYOTA WAS CONTACTED THEY REFUSED TO SPECK TO US. ATTORNEYS HAVE SAID THAT TOYOTA IS SO BIG, NOT COST AFFECTIVE....SO I WATCH AND IN TWO YEARS THERE ARE MANY MANY MORE NOW....HOW MANY MORE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE SOMETHING IS DONE. SEE ALSO 10074472. *DSY *NM
I WAS ENTERING A PARKING SPACE. MY TOYOTA CAMRY (2004), HAD A SURGE OF ACCELERATION WHILE I WAS DEPRESSING THE BRAKE. IT WOULD NOT STOP CAUSING MY VEHICLE TO LUNGE FORWARD THROUGH A PARKING SIGN AND A CEMENT CURVE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY AT THE TIME TO CRASH. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE APPLYING BRAKE PRESSURE AT 25 MPH ON A CITY STREET, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT ENGAGED THE EMERGENCY BRAKE AND PLACED THE VEHICLE IN PARK WHICH STOPPED THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHO DETERMINED THE FLOOR MAT WAS PRESSED AGAINST THE ACCELER…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE APPLYING BRAKE PRESSURE AT 25 MPH ON A CITY STREET, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT ENGAGED THE EMERGENCY BRAKE AND PLACED THE VEHICLE IN PARK WHICH STOPPED THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHO DETERMINED THE FLOOR MAT WAS PRESSED AGAINST THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. ADDITIONALLY, THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP THAT WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. UPDATED 10/6/2006 - WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES TO MAKE A LEFT TURN, THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD AND STARTED ACCELERATING. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE UP TO 50 MPH. WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKE PEDAL NOTHING HAPPENED. WHEN PUTTING THE CAR IN PARK NOTHING HAPPENED. WHEN APPLYING THE EMERGENCY BRAKE THE CAR STARTED TO SLOW DOWN. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED ACCELERATING ON IT'S OWN FOR ANOTHER FIVE HUNDRED FEET. THE TOW TRUCK OPERATOR ARRIVED AND CHECK THE FLOOR MATS, NOTING THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE FLOOR MAT'S POSITIONING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DETERMINED THAT THE FLOOR MAT BECAME STUCK UNDER THE ACCELERATOR. THE DEALER TRIMMED THE CARPET. *NM UPDATED 10/26/11
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE INSIDE OF A PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD CRASHING INTO THREE POLES AND A TICKET MACHINE. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. UPDATED 8/14/2006 - THE IMPACT CAUSED WHIPLASH AND PAIN IN THE CONSUMER'S NECK. THI…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE INSIDE OF A PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD CRASHING INTO THREE POLES AND A TICKET MACHINE. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. UPDATED 8/14/2006 - THE IMPACT CAUSED WHIPLASH AND PAIN IN THE CONSUMER'S NECK. THIS PROBLEM HAS OCCURRED BEFORE AND RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. THE CONSUMER BELIEVES THE PEDALS MAY BE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER CAUSING HIM TO HIT THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY WHILE BRAKING. THE CONSUME BELIEVES THE HEAD REST ARE TOO LOW TO PREVENT WHIPLASH. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S ACCELERATOR PEDAL STUCK AT 30 MPH WHILE BACKING UP INTO A PARKING SPACE AT A SERVICE STATION. THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES, BUT THE ACCELERATION CONTINUED. THE CONTACT STOMPED ON THE BRAKES, AND ACCIDENTLY SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKES ONTO THE ACCELERATOR BEFORE IMPACT. THE VEHICLE'S REA…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S ACCELERATOR PEDAL STUCK AT 30 MPH WHILE BACKING UP INTO A PARKING SPACE AT A SERVICE STATION. THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES, BUT THE ACCELERATION CONTINUED. THE CONTACT STOMPED ON THE BRAKES, AND ACCIDENTLY SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKES ONTO THE ACCELERATOR BEFORE IMPACT. THE VEHICLE'S REAR END SLAMMED INTO A BUILDING AND THE DRIVER WAS INJURED. THERE WAS OVER $6000 DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE.
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TURNING INTO THE DRIVEWAY AT 10 MPH THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD JUMPED THE CURB AND CRASHED INTO SEVERAL SCRUBS. THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING. THERE WAS PRE IMPACT BRAKING. SEAT BELTS WERE IN USE HOWEVER INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TURNING INTO THE DRIVEWAY AT 10 MPH THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD JUMPED THE CURB AND CRASHED INTO SEVERAL SCRUBS. THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING. THERE WAS PRE IMPACT BRAKING. SEAT BELTS WERE IN USE HOWEVER INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY PRIOR TO BEING TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT AUTO SHOP FOR REPAIRS. THE VEHICLE HAD MAJOR DAMAGE TO THE FRONT END AND THE MECHANIC WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT CAUSED THIS INCIDENT. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED.
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED OUT OF CONTROL 3 TIMES WHEN PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE. THE CONSUMER NEVE RHIT ANOTHE RPERSON OR CAR. SHE LID IN A RETIREMENT HOME WITH OTHERS WHO PARK IN A CROWDED LOT. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THAT A DEFECT CAUSED THESE THREE INCIDENTS. UPDATED 06/01/2006. *AK *TS …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED OUT OF CONTROL 3 TIMES WHEN PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE. THE CONSUMER NEVE RHIT ANOTHE RPERSON OR CAR. SHE LID IN A RETIREMENT HOME WITH OTHERS WHO PARK IN A CROWDED LOT. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THAT A DEFECT CAUSED THESE THREE INCIDENTS. UPDATED 06/01/2006. *AK *TS
I OWN A 2004 CAMRY SE WITH THE 3.3 LITER V6. EVER SINCE WE PURCHASED THIS CAR WE HAVE PUT UP WITH A TERRIBLE HESITATION IN THROTTLE RESPONSE. MANY TIMES WE HAVE NEARLY BEEN HIT BY OTHER CARS WHILE PULLING INTO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND SPOKEN WITH THE MANAGER AS WELL AS MET WITH THE REGIONAL TOYO…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2004 CAMRY SE WITH THE 3.3 LITER V6. EVER SINCE WE PURCHASED THIS CAR WE HAVE PUT UP WITH A TERRIBLE HESITATION IN THROTTLE RESPONSE. MANY TIMES WE HAVE NEARLY BEEN HIT BY OTHER CARS WHILE PULLING INTO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE DEALERSHIP AND SPOKEN WITH THE MANAGER AS WELL AS MET WITH THE REGIONAL TOYOTA REP. THEY BOTH ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE BUT OFFERED NO RESOLUTION. *NM
Official recalls
311V539000 · Engine And Engine Cooling
Nov 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.
04V595000 · Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
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..
04V346000 · 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
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