NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
638 reports7,400 miles · Jul 1, 2005
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
DT: CALLER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW JUST GOT HER CAR WASHED AND WHEN SHE PULLED OUT OF THE CAR WASH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. SHE PUMPED THE BRAKES AND TRIED TO STOP THE CAR, AND IT WOULD NOT STOP. THE CAR WENT INTO AN 8 LANE HIGHWAY AND WAS HIT BY AN 18 WHEELER AND A PICKUP TRUCK. DRIVER SUSTAINED INJURIES AND SO DID T…
Read full complaint
DT: CALLER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW JUST GOT HER CAR WASHED AND WHEN SHE PULLED OUT OF THE CAR WASH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. SHE PUMPED THE BRAKES AND TRIED TO STOP THE CAR, AND IT WOULD NOT STOP. THE CAR WENT INTO AN 8 LANE HIGHWAY AND WAS HIT BY AN 18 WHEELER AND A PICKUP TRUCK. DRIVER SUSTAINED INJURIES AND SO DID THE DRIVER OF THE PICKUP TRUCK, TRACTOR TRAILER DRIVER REFUSED TREATMENT. VEHICLE WAS TOTALED. MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED, AND WILL BE GETTING BACK TO CALLER. CALLER STATED SHE JUST FOUND OUT THAT IN THE SPRING HER MOTHER-IN-LAW STARTED THE VEHICLE AND THE ENGINE RACED WHILE IT WAS IN PARK. THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT WAS TO TURN IT OFF. AFTER THE ACCIDENT THE TACHOMETER SHOWED 7000 RPMS, AND THE SPEEDOMETER INDICATED 100 MPH. POLICE REPORT WAS FILED.*AK UPDATED 08/04/10 *BF UPDATED 08/05/10 *BF PICTURES RECEIVED. UPDATED 10/08/10
NHTSA ODI #10127269
14,200 miles · Jun 3, 2005
Power TrainSteering
RECENTLY I BROUGHT MY 04 CAMRY TO MY DEALER BECAUSE OF SULFUR SMELL AND RATTLE AT LIGHT ACCELERATION. THE DEALER VERIFIED THE PROBLEMS AND REPLACED THE CONVERTER AND INTAKE MANIFOLD ACCORDING TO THE TSBS. THEY SAID THEY ALSO HAD TO RE-PROGRAM THE ECM. THEN AFTER I PICKED UP THE CAR, I FOUND EVERYTHING IS HARDER: THE ACCELERATION…
Read full complaint
RECENTLY I BROUGHT MY 04 CAMRY TO MY DEALER BECAUSE OF SULFUR SMELL AND RATTLE AT LIGHT ACCELERATION. THE DEALER VERIFIED THE PROBLEMS AND REPLACED THE CONVERTER AND INTAKE MANIFOLD ACCORDING TO THE TSBS. THEY SAID THEY ALSO HAD TO RE-PROGRAM THE ECM. THEN AFTER I PICKED UP THE CAR, I FOUND EVERYTHING IS HARDER: THE ACCELERATION, STEERING, AND BRAKING. I FOUND IT IS HARD TO MAINTAIN A SPEED WHETHER ON LOCAL OR HIGHWAY. ON MAY 28,2005, WHILE I DROVE THE CAR ON HIGHWAY WITH 4 PERSONS SITTING IN THE CAR (INCLUDING ME), I FOUND THE STEERING WAS VERY HARD AND FELTED LIKE IT WAS LOCKED, AND I FOUND IT IS VERY HARD TO ACCELERATE TO HWY SPEED AND HARD TO MAINTAIN IT. I BROUGHT THE CAR TO THE DEALER AGAIN ON MAY 31. AFTER HAVING A TECHNICIAN TEST DROVE IT, THEY TOLD ME IT WAS SIMILAR TO OTHER CAMRYS (NORMAL) AND WOULDN'T WANT TO SOLVE MY PROBLEM. I BELIEVE THEY NEVER TRIED TO REPRODUCE MY PROBLEM (BY HAVING MORE PEOPLE SITTING IN THE CAR). I THINK THIS PROBLEM IS A SAFTY ISSUE SO I FILE COMPLAINT WITH NHTSA. I ALSO FEEL THE CAR DOESN'T SHIFT RIGHT AND ENGINE IS NOISER AFTER THE CONVERT/INTAKE CHANGE AND RE-PROGRAMMING.
NHTSA ODI #10124083
4,067 miles · Jun 2, 2005
SteeringSuspensionUnknown Or Other
VEHICLE PULLS TO LEFT OR RIGHT--MOSTLY LEFT. VEHILCE WILL NOT DRIVE STRAIGHT WITHOUT CONSTANT PRESSURE ON THE STEERING WHEEL. I HAVE COMPLAINED AND HAVE TAKEN IT IN FOR SERVICE AND/OR TEST DRIVEN A TOTAL OF EIGHT TIMES. FOUR TIMES HAVE BEEN IN THE LAST MONTH. THE SPRINGS HAVE BEEN REPLACED AND A WHEEL ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN PERFOR…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE PULLS TO LEFT OR RIGHT--MOSTLY LEFT. VEHILCE WILL NOT DRIVE STRAIGHT WITHOUT CONSTANT PRESSURE ON THE STEERING WHEEL. I HAVE COMPLAINED AND HAVE TAKEN IT IN FOR SERVICE AND/OR TEST DRIVEN A TOTAL OF EIGHT TIMES. FOUR TIMES HAVE BEEN IN THE LAST MONTH. THE SPRINGS HAVE BEEN REPLACED AND A WHEEL ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN PERFORMED. TWO SERVICE MANAGERS HAVE DRIVEN WITH ME FROM TWO DIFFERENT DEALERSHIPS. THEY COULD FEEL THE CAR PULLING BUT SAID IT WAS "NORMAL." THERE IS A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE PULL/DRIFT BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY IMPROVEMENT TO MY VEHICLE. I HEAR RATTLES IN THE DRIVER WINDOW, THE PASSENGER WINDOW/DOOR, AND THE DASH. THE WINDOWS WERE SERVICED ONCE. THE DASH HAS BEEN SERVICED TWICE. SERVICEMEN REPLACED THE SEATBELT PANEL ON THE PASSENGER SIDE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE NOISE EXISTED THERE. THE NOISE STILL EXISTS. SINCE THEN, THEY DON'T TRY TO REPAIR AND I'VE BEEN TOLD 'A LITTLE PLAY IN THE WINDOWS IS NORMAL.'
NHTSA ODI #10123934
20,740 miles · May 27, 2005
Tires
DT: CONSUMER BOUGHT A NEW TOYOTA CAMRY IN 2004. THE SALESMAN REPRESENTED THE TIRES AT 50,000 MILES WITH NO PROBLEMS. IN ONE YEAR, THE TIRE HAD LESS THAN 21,000 MILES AND ALL FOUR WERE BALD. THERE IS A NEED FOR 4 NEW TIRES. CONSUMER CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE AND WAS TOLD THAT THEIR TIRES ONLY HAD 20-30,000 MILES ON TIRE…
Read full complaint
DT: CONSUMER BOUGHT A NEW TOYOTA CAMRY IN 2004. THE SALESMAN REPRESENTED THE TIRES AT 50,000 MILES WITH NO PROBLEMS. IN ONE YEAR, THE TIRE HAD LESS THAN 21,000 MILES AND ALL FOUR WERE BALD. THERE IS A NEED FOR 4 NEW TIRES. CONSUMER CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE AND WAS TOLD THAT THEIR TIRES ONLY HAD 20-30,000 MILES ON TIRES. CONSUMER HAD BEEN DRIVING WITH GRANDCHILDREN IN CAR ON THOSE SUPPOSEDLY 50,000 MILE TIRES THINKING THEY HAD LONGER WEAR. VEHICLE NOW NEEDS ALL NEW TIRES AFTER ONE YEAR AND LESS THAN 21,000 MILES. CONSUMER TOOK A TRIP TO FLORIDA @ 14,000 MILES AND AFTER PICKING UP A TACK WENT TO DEALER TO GET REPAIRED AND SERVICE DEALER NOTED THERE WAS UNEVEN WEAR ON TIRES. CALLED TOYOTA AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD TAKE 3-5 DAYS. TOOK TO FIRESTONE INSTEAD WHO ROTATED TIRES AND SAID THE TIRES WERE NORMAL. YESTERDAY WAS TOLD THE TIRES WERE READY TO BLOW, THE STEEL BELTS WERE ABOUT TO COME. *TT
NHTSA ODI #10122296
6,000 miles · May 21, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
ON APRIL 26, 2005, MY DAUGHTER DRIVING A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY LE (V6) REAR-ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE (AN ACURA) AT AN SPEED OF 50+ MPH AND NONE OF THE AIRBAGS IN THE CAMRY WERE DEPLOYED. DRIVERS OF BOTH CARS WERE TAKEN TO HOSPITAL FOR FURTHER EVALUATION. LATER, I CONTACTED TOYOTA CORP. WHICH HAD ONE OF ITS INSPECTOR INSPECT THE WRECK…
Read full complaint
ON APRIL 26, 2005, MY DAUGHTER DRIVING A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY LE (V6) REAR-ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE (AN ACURA) AT AN SPEED OF 50+ MPH AND NONE OF THE AIRBAGS IN THE CAMRY WERE DEPLOYED. DRIVERS OF BOTH CARS WERE TAKEN TO HOSPITAL FOR FURTHER EVALUATION. LATER, I CONTACTED TOYOTA CORP. WHICH HAD ONE OF ITS INSPECTOR INSPECT THE WRECKED VEHICLE AND DETERMINED "THE AIRBAGS OPERATED AS DESIGNED." I HAVE REQUESTED ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS A COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS AND MEMOS FROM TOYOTA CORP AND THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS. IN A MAY 16, 2005, LETTER SENT TO ME BY TOYOTA, THEY HAVE STATED THAT "THE SRS AIRBAGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO INFLATE IF THE VEHICLE IS SUBJECTED TO A REAR IMPACT, IF IT ROLLS OVER OR IF IT IS INVOLVED IN A LOW SPEED FRONTAL COLLISION." IN REALITY, OUR CAMRY WAS NOT REAR-ENDED, DID NOT ROLL OVER, AND HAD A HIGH SPEED FRONTAL COLLISION OF 50+MPH.
NHTSA ODI #10121792
25,000 miles · May 9, 2005
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
DT: 5/8/05 10:15 AM AT A STOPLIGHT VEHICLE WAS STOPPED. THEN THE CAR ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN AND HIT CAR IN FRONT. CAR VEERED TO LEFT. KEY HAD TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO STOP THE CAR. ALL BRAKES FAILED. REGULARLY SERVICED AND RECORDS AVAILABLE.*AK NO PREVIOUS PROBLEMS WITH VEHICLE EVER.
NHTSA ODI #10120314
12,500 miles · Apr 29, 2005
Power Train
CONTACT STATES: MANUAL TRANSMISSION, GOING 50 MPH WITH NO POWER. SPEED DROPS AND THERE IS NO ACCELERATION. LAST A COUPLE OF SECONDS ANYWHERE 10 TO 30 SECONDS IT PICKS BACK UP. NOTICED ABOUT A WEEK AGO. NORMAL DRIVE HAPPENING ANYTIME. HAVEN'T NOTICED IT BEFORE 50 MPH. SPEED DROPS BUT HASN'T CHANGED SPEED WITH ACCELERATOR WITH ST…
Read full complaint
CONTACT STATES: MANUAL TRANSMISSION, GOING 50 MPH WITH NO POWER. SPEED DROPS AND THERE IS NO ACCELERATION. LAST A COUPLE OF SECONDS ANYWHERE 10 TO 30 SECONDS IT PICKS BACK UP. NOTICED ABOUT A WEEK AGO. NORMAL DRIVE HAPPENING ANYTIME. HAVEN'T NOTICED IT BEFORE 50 MPH. SPEED DROPS BUT HASN'T CHANGED SPEED WITH ACCELERATOR WITH STILL APPLYING PRESSURE ON ACCELERATOR. NOTICED THIS HAPPENING FOR ABOUT A WEEK. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10118668
1 miles · Apr 21, 2005
Steering
TOYOTA CAMRY WAS PURCHASED JUNE 28, 2004. PULLED TO LEFT DURING TEST DRIVE BUT WAS PROMISED THAT IT WOULD BE ALIGNED AND TAKEN CARE OF. REPEATED TRIP'S FOR SERVICE HAVE RESULTED IN THE TIRES BE ROTATED REPEATEDLY BUT NO EFFECT ON THE PULLING ISSUE. ENDED UP IN ARBITRATION. WASTE OF TIME. SHOP FORMAN TYPE PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED…
Read full complaint
TOYOTA CAMRY WAS PURCHASED JUNE 28, 2004. PULLED TO LEFT DURING TEST DRIVE BUT WAS PROMISED THAT IT WOULD BE ALIGNED AND TAKEN CARE OF. REPEATED TRIP'S FOR SERVICE HAVE RESULTED IN THE TIRES BE ROTATED REPEATEDLY BUT NO EFFECT ON THE PULLING ISSUE. ENDED UP IN ARBITRATION. WASTE OF TIME. SHOP FORMAN TYPE PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THIS AS A OFT REPEATED COMPLAINT. ARBITRATION DENIED ANY TYPE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT. CONSTANTLY REPEATED THE "CROWN OF THE ROAD" STORY, THE "ITS DESIGNED THAT WAY FOR YOUR SAFETY" STORY, ETC. FIRST SET OF TIRES WORE OUT AFTER 18000 MILES. WAS TOLD THAT THEY'RE DESIGNED THAT WAY FOR A BETTER RIDE. TOOK CAR TO ANOTHER TOYOTA DEALER. HE CHANGED SPRINGS AND SUCH, APPARENTLY TO EXERCISE THE WARRANTY. AFTER NEARLY A WEEK IN THE SHOP, NO BETTER. AGAIN TOLD THE "CROWN OF THE ROAD STORY" AND THE "ITS DESIGNED THAT WAY" STORY. TO REPEAT WHAT IF HAVE SEEN IN THE OTHER COMPLAINTS, THIS IS TOO MUCH TO PAY FOR A NEW CAR THAT CONSTANTLY PULLS TO THE LEFT. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT HAVING IT PULL TOWARDS THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC WOULD NOT BE THE DESIRED RESULT HERE. THE ACT OF HAVING TO CONSTANTLY APPLY RIGHT TENSION IS NOT ONLY TIRING, IT IS VERY DANGEROUS. IF YOU GLANCE AWAY FROM THE ROAD, THE ABNORMAL FEEL OF RIGHT TENSION CAUSES SOME TOTALLY UNDESIRABLE MANEUVERS. TOTALLY FRUSTRATING. IT APPEARS THAT MY THIRD TOYOTA WILL BE MY LAST. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10118232
Mileage unknown · Apr 20, 2005
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrashInjury
2004 TOYOTA CAMRY EXPERIENCED SUDDEN BRAKE FAILURE.*MR THE CONSUMER WAS UNALE TO SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN THE BRAKE FAILURE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT WHICH INVOLVED 4 VEHICLES. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10119171
29,000 miles · Apr 20, 2005
SteeringStructure
CAR WAS PARKED IN DRIVEWAY FOR 2 DAYS ON MARCH 31 AND APRIL 1 DURING A DRIVING RAIN STORM CAR WAS NOT DRIVEN FOR 2 DAYS. ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON APRIL 1 AT 3:3 PM OPENED CAR DOOR AND DRIVER'S SIDE FLOOR AND CARPETING WAS WET FROM GAS PEDAL UNDER SEAT TO BACK SEAT. TOYOTA SAID NOTHING WAS WRONG AND I MUST HAVE DRIVEN IN HIGH WATER…
Read full complaint
CAR WAS PARKED IN DRIVEWAY FOR 2 DAYS ON MARCH 31 AND APRIL 1 DURING A DRIVING RAIN STORM CAR WAS NOT DRIVEN FOR 2 DAYS. ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON APRIL 1 AT 3:3 PM OPENED CAR DOOR AND DRIVER'S SIDE FLOOR AND CARPETING WAS WET FROM GAS PEDAL UNDER SEAT TO BACK SEAT. TOYOTA SAID NOTHING WAS WRONG AND I MUST HAVE DRIVEN IN HIGH WATER OR PARKED WHERE MY CAR COULD FLOOD. FIRST OF ALL CAR WASN'T UNDER WATER IN MY DRIVEWAY, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, MY ENTIRE CAR WOULD BE FLOODED, NOT JUST DRIVERS SIDE FLOORBOARD, AND MY HOUSE WOULD BE UNDER WATER. SECOND OF ALL ,IF I HAD DRIVEN IN HIGH WATER BOTH SIDES OF FLOOR BOARD WOULD BE WET. NOT JUST DRIVERS SIDE. ON MARCH 30TH DAY BEFORE THE STORM MY CAR CAME FROM TOYOTA SHOP FROM GETTING A STEERING SHAFT PUT IN THE CAR. MAKES ME WONDER IF THEY DIDN'T SEAL SOMETHING UP AROUND THE FIREWALL, ANYWAY THEY ARE REFUSING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS CAR, IS LEAKING ON JUST THE DRIVERS SIDE FLOORBOARD. ALSO BAD RATTLES IN B PILLARS. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10118185
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