I WAS DRIVING AND WITHOUT WARNING THE GAS PETAL WAS NO LONGER WORKING. THEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. FORTUNATELY I WAS ON A SIDE STREET AND WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER. GOT IT TOWED AND WAS TOLD THAT THE THROTTLE BODY WAS BROKEN AND IT WAS A PRETTY COMMON PROBLEM FOR CAMRY'S. *TR
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
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.
What owners actually said
638 reports2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO PROBLEMS WITH THE FRONT SEAT BELTS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT STARTED FOLDING OVER ITSELF IN THE SLOT MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO PULL OUT. AFTER PULLING HARD AND MANIPULATING IT TO STRAIGHTEN IT OUT, IT WOULDN'T TIGHTEN UP OR RETRACT. THE CO…
Read full complaint
2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO PROBLEMS WITH THE FRONT SEAT BELTS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT STARTED FOLDING OVER ITSELF IN THE SLOT MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO PULL OUT. AFTER PULLING HARD AND MANIPULATING IT TO STRAIGHTEN IT OUT, IT WOULDN'T TIGHTEN UP OR RETRACT. THE CONSUMER STATED IT USED TO HAPPEN OCCASIONALLY, BUT NOW HE HAS TO STRUGGLE WITH IT OVER 50% OF THE TIME. THE PASSENGER SEAT BELT, HAS DEVELOPED THE SAME PROBLEM. *JB
AFTER ENTERING A PARKING LOT MY MOTHER-IN-LAW WAS TURNING INTO A SPOT WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED THRU THE SPOT AND WAS HEADING FOR THE CONCRETE WALL. SHE WAS ABLE TO TURN IT TO THE LEFT, RUN OVER THE CURB AND IN TO A SNOW BANK. SHE WAS UNABLE TO BACK THE CAR OUT AND HAD TO BE TOWED OUT. THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE FRONT END, …
Read full complaint
AFTER ENTERING A PARKING LOT MY MOTHER-IN-LAW WAS TURNING INTO A SPOT WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED THRU THE SPOT AND WAS HEADING FOR THE CONCRETE WALL. SHE WAS ABLE TO TURN IT TO THE LEFT, RUN OVER THE CURB AND IN TO A SNOW BANK. SHE WAS UNABLE TO BACK THE CAR OUT AND HAD TO BE TOWED OUT. THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE FRONT END, BUT THE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER SAID THAT SHE COULD DRIVE IT HOME AND SHE MANAGED TO DO SO, BUT SHE WAS SCARED TO DO SO. IT IS NOW SITTING IN THE DRIVEWAY AND WILL NOT BE DRIVEN UNTIL WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REPAIRS TO THE ACCELERATION PROBLEM. I AM STILL WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE DEALER?. *TR
I WAS APPROACHING A FREEWAY IN ATLANTA, GA. AS THE CONNECTOR CURVED, I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 35 MPH AND GENTLY BRAKE ABOUT 200 FEET FROM THE FREEWAY. THE CAR IMMEDIATELY AND VIOLENTLY ACCELERATED, THROWING MY HEAD BACK AGAINST THE HEADREST; I BRAKE HARDER BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE CAR; THE CAR SEEMED TO PIVOT ON THE RIGHT…
Read full complaint
I WAS APPROACHING A FREEWAY IN ATLANTA, GA. AS THE CONNECTOR CURVED, I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 35 MPH AND GENTLY BRAKE ABOUT 200 FEET FROM THE FREEWAY. THE CAR IMMEDIATELY AND VIOLENTLY ACCELERATED, THROWING MY HEAD BACK AGAINST THE HEADREST; I BRAKE HARDER BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE CAR; THE CAR SEEMED TO PIVOT ON THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE AND THE REAR END FLEW TO MY LEFT ABOUT 240 DEGREES OR SO AND STRUCK THE GUARD RAIL WITH THE LEFT REAR QUARTER PANEL AND BUMPER. THE CAR THEN, CONTINUING AT HIGH SPEED, RICOCHETED OFF THE GUARD RAIL AND THE REAR END PIVOTED TOWARD THE ROAD, MAKING THE FRONT BUMPER STRIKE THE SAME GUARD RAIL. THE SECOND COLLISION SCRAPED THE PAINT OFF THE CENTER OF THE BUMPER BUT THE IMPACT SEEMED STRONGER THAN THE DAMAGE WOULD INDICATE. THE SECOND IMPACT DID STOP THE CAR. I MAKE THIS REPORT BECAUSE MY CAR WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE RECALLED BY TOYOTA FOR THIS PROBLEM; BUT, BELIEVE ME, IT HAPPENED. *TR
DEFECTIVE GAS PEDAL SENSOR PREVENTED THE VEHICLE FROM MOVING. *TR
THIS PROBLEM HAS TO DO WITH THE POWER DOOR ACTUATOR ON THE DRIVER DOOR. THE MALFUNCTION STARTED INTERMITTENTLY AT CERTAIN TEMPERATURES. THE DOOR LOCK ON DRIVER SIDE WOULD NOT WORK WHEN PRESSING THE REMOTE OR PRESSING THE POWER DOOR LOCK BUTTON ON DRIVER DOOR. AS THE PROBLEM PROGRESSED THE INTERIOR DOOR LOCK BUTTON AND LATCH STOP…
Read full complaint
THIS PROBLEM HAS TO DO WITH THE POWER DOOR ACTUATOR ON THE DRIVER DOOR. THE MALFUNCTION STARTED INTERMITTENTLY AT CERTAIN TEMPERATURES. THE DOOR LOCK ON DRIVER SIDE WOULD NOT WORK WHEN PRESSING THE REMOTE OR PRESSING THE POWER DOOR LOCK BUTTON ON DRIVER DOOR. AS THE PROBLEM PROGRESSED THE INTERIOR DOOR LOCK BUTTON AND LATCH STOPPED FUNCTIONING IN MANUAL MODE. NOT ALLOWING THE DRIVER TO EXIT THE VEHICLE. THE LOCK DOES NOT OPEN ANYMORE AND DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE MALFUNCTIONING DOOR ACTUATOR. AS A RESULT, SHOULD I NEED TO QUICKLY EGRESS THE VEHICLE IN AN EMERGENCY SUCH AS A FIRE OR OTHERWISE I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO. THE ONLY WAY TO OPEN THE DOOR AT THIS TIME IS TO PRESS THE POWER DOOR LOCK BUTTON BACK AND FORTH UNTIL SOMETHING CATCHES ON, AND THE BUTTON OPENS. HOWEVER, THIS WILL LIKELY NOT WORK IN AN EMERGENCY. I'VE REQUESTED THAT TOYOTA REPLACE THE FAULTY PART, BUT WAS INFORMED THAT GIVEN THAT THE VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. I REQUESTED THAT THEY TAKE MY CASE TO SOUTHEASTERN TOYOTA UPPER MANAGEMENT TO MAKE A DECISION. ACCORDING TO THE TOYOTA DEALER I WAS AT, THE SERVICE MANAGER FOR THE ENTIRE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES DID NOT AGREE WITH MY COMPLAINT AND DID NOT THINK IT WAS WITHIN THEIR DUTIES TO REPLACE THE PART. MY INVESTIGATION INTO THE ISSUE HAS REVEALED THAT THIS ISSUE REPEATS WITH MANY OTHER VEHICLES OF THE SAME MODEL YEARS 02-06. SEE THE FOLLOWING LINKS: HTTP://WWW.TOYOTANATION.COM/FORUM/104-5TH-6TH-GENERATION-2002-2006-2007-2011/144851-2003-CAMRY-DOOR-LOCK-PROBLEM.HTML . IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT TOYOTA MUST BE AWARE OF AND REFUSES TO DEAL WITH GIVEN THAT NO FATALITIES HAVE BEEN REPORTED (TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE). HOWEVER, DOES SOMEONE NEED TO GET INJURED OR POSSIBLY LOSE THEIR LIFE UNTIL THIS PROBLEM IS RESOLVED BY THE MANUFACTURER? PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL SPLASHING WATER NOISE SOUND COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD AREA. THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO OVERHEAT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENGINE BOLTS WERE STRIPPE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL SPLASHING WATER NOISE SOUND COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD AREA. THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO OVERHEAT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENGINE BOLTS WERE STRIPPED, WHICH ALLOWED FLUIDS TO MIX WITH THE ENGINE. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE ENGINE WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 104,000. UPDATED 12/14/12*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE MECHANIC THE BOLTS COULD BE RETREADED, ENGINE REBUILT, OR TO TRADE THE VEHICLE IN. NONE OF THE REPAIRS ARE GUARANTEED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE. UPDATED 12/17/2012 *JS
ON OCT 18, 2012, MY CAR STARTED TO OVERHEAT. WE HAD IT TOWED TO OUR MECHANIC. ON FRIDAY, OCT 19, 2012 OUR MECHANIC STATED HE COULD NOT FIX IT AND LOOKS LIKE IT IS AN ENGINE COOLANT LEAK. HE FURTHER STATED WE NEEDED TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP THAT WE BOUGHT IT FROM TO CONFIRM THE ENGINE WAS NONE REPAIRABLE. ON MONDAY, OC…
Read full complaint
ON OCT 18, 2012, MY CAR STARTED TO OVERHEAT. WE HAD IT TOWED TO OUR MECHANIC. ON FRIDAY, OCT 19, 2012 OUR MECHANIC STATED HE COULD NOT FIX IT AND LOOKS LIKE IT IS AN ENGINE COOLANT LEAK. HE FURTHER STATED WE NEEDED TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP THAT WE BOUGHT IT FROM TO CONFIRM THE ENGINE WAS NONE REPAIRABLE. ON MONDAY, OCT 22, 2012, THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT CALLED US AND CONFIRMED THE BAD NEWS. OUR 2004 CAMRY 2.4L ENGINE IS LEAKING COOLANT INSIDE THE ENGINE AND THE ENGINE BOLTS ARE STRIPPED. THEY GAVE US SOME OPTIONS. THE DEALER COULD TRY TO REPAIR THE BOLTS BY RETREADING THEM (NO GUARANTEE IT WORLD WORK). REPLACE THE ENGINE (REBUILT AND NOT GUARANTEE IT WOULDN?T HAPPEN AGAIN). AND FINALLY, TRADE IN THE CAR (NOT ENOUGH TO PAY OFF MY LOAN). AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO CAMRY SINCE 2002. ONE POST STATED IT WAS FIXED WITH THE 2004 MODELS, BUT IN 2004 THE SAME ENGINE IS IN THE HIGHLANDER AND THE CAMRY. THE HIGHLANDER ALSO HAS SEVERAL POSTS TO THE SAME ISSUE. WHEN WILL TOYOTA TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS PROBLEM AND FIX IT WITHOUT COMING AFTER THE CONSUMER! I HAVE CONTACTED TOYOTA AT 800-331-4331 AND FILED A COMPLAINT AND WAS TOLD THE SAME THING THE DEALER TOLD ME, NOT THEIR FAULT. I AM REALLY HOPING THE GOVERNMENT TAKES THESE COMPLAINTS AND FORCES TOYOTA TO RECALL THESE CARS AND FIX THE ISSUES. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER HE PULLED ONTO THE HIGHWAY AND ATTEMPTED TO ENAGED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO MERGE TO THE SHOULDER SAFELY. ALSO, THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE ENGINE LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS LATER TOWED TO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER HE PULLED ONTO THE HIGHWAY AND ATTEMPTED TO ENAGED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO MERGE TO THE SHOULDER SAFELY. ALSO, THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE ENGINE LIGHT HAD ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS LATER TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSE THAT THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 94,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 94,200.
I NOTICED THAT WHITE SMOKE WAS COMING FROM MY EXHAUST PIPE, THEREFORE, I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC TO GET IT CHECKED OUT. THE MECHANIC SIMPLY TOLD ME IT WAS DUE TO A BAD HEAD GASKET. LATER ON, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIX, HE TOLD ME THAT THE ENGINE WAS UNREPAIRABLE, THAT I NEEDED A NEW ENGINE. I ASKED HIM, "WHY?" HE TOLD ME THAT THE BO…
Read full complaint
I NOTICED THAT WHITE SMOKE WAS COMING FROM MY EXHAUST PIPE, THEREFORE, I TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC TO GET IT CHECKED OUT. THE MECHANIC SIMPLY TOLD ME IT WAS DUE TO A BAD HEAD GASKET. LATER ON, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIX, HE TOLD ME THAT THE ENGINE WAS UNREPAIRABLE, THAT I NEEDED A NEW ENGINE. I ASKED HIM, "WHY?" HE TOLD ME THAT THE BOLTS THAT KEEPS THE ENGINE IN PLACE CAN NO LONGER BE TIGHTEN. THE ENGINE CAN NO LONGER BE HELD IN PLACE. HE CALLED IT, "STRIPPED HEAD BOLTS." ACCORDING TO THE MECHANIC AND HIS COLLEAGUES, IT IS A DESIGN FLAW BY TOYOTA. THE MECHANICS WENT ON STATING THAT, "EVEN UNDER NORMAL DRIVING CONDITIONS, THESE BOLTS WILL COME LOOSE CAUSING COOLANT TO LEAK IN. WHICH CAUSED THE WHITE SMOKE COMING FROM TAIL PIPE. SO, I CALLED UP TOYOTA TO SEE IF THEY CAN CORRECT THEIR PROBLEM. THEY TOLD ME THAT I NEEDED TO REPLACE THE ENGINE. IF TOYOTA CAN'T FIX IT, HOW WOULD A MECHANIC FIX IT? I ASKED TOYOTA IF THERE WERE A RECALL FOR THIS, THEY SIMPLY SAID, "NO." THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP IN AND TAKE CARE OF THIS AWFUL PROBLEM. IT TURNS OUT THAT EVERY 2003-200? CAMRY OWNERS HAVE OR WILL HAVE THIS AWFUL PROBLEM. IS NOT JUST A RELIABILITY PROBLEM, BUT IS ALSO POLLUTING OUR HOME PLANET. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CAMRYS ON THE ROAD RANGING FROM THESE YEARS AND ALL OF THEM ARE OR SOON WILL BE SPEWING OUT FOREIGN SMOKE. NO MECHANIC OUT THERE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM. ALL THEY CAN DO IS REPLACE IT WITH THE SAME ENGINE THAT WILL SOON HAVE THE SAME EXACT ISSUE. PLEASE STEP IN AND MAKE TOYOTA FIX THIS AWFUL ISSUES WITH THE "STRIPPED HEAD BOLT." [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
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
Illustration