NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
66 reportsClear category filter100,000 miles · Feb 4, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH IN WET AND ICY CONDITIONS AND APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE ABS WOULD ACTIVATE IT FAILED TO SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN. THE CONTACT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABS RISK FOR HIS YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL VEHICLE. THE DEALER'S DIAGNOSIS FOUND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING NORMALLY. THE F…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH IN WET AND ICY CONDITIONS AND APPLYING THE BRAKES, THE ABS WOULD ACTIVATE IT FAILED TO SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN. THE CONTACT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABS RISK FOR HIS YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL VEHICLE. THE DEALER'S DIAGNOSIS FOUND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING NORMALLY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.
NHTSA ODI #10305940
70,000 miles · Feb 4, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED HIS ANTI LOCKING BRAKING SYSTEM ON DRY SURFACES IS NOT HOLDING AND BRAKING WELL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THEY REPLACED THE BRAKE PADS AND ROTOR, HOWEVER THIS PROBLEM IS STILL HAPPENING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT DEALER AND THEY CANNOT FIN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED HIS ANTI LOCKING BRAKING SYSTEM ON DRY SURFACES IS NOT HOLDING AND BRAKING WELL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THEY REPLACED THE BRAKE PADS AND ROTOR, HOWEVER THIS PROBLEM IS STILL HAPPENING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT DEALER AND THEY CANNOT FIND ANY MECHANICAL PROBLEMS. THE TOYOTA MANUFACTURER HAVE NOT BEEN CALLED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70,000.
NHTSA ODI #10305169
10,000 miles · Feb 4, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
IN JULY 2008 I WAS PULLING MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY INTO A PARKING SPOT AND HIT A STEEL FENCE (WHICH PREVENTED ME FROM HITTING A BRICK WALL). I REPORTED TO GEICO THAT MY BRAKES FAILED. A WITNESS SAID THAT MY FOOT PROBABLY SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE, BECAUSE MY TIRES WERE SPINNING AND THERE WAS THE SMELL OF BURNT RUBBER. I LOOKED DOWN …
Read full complaint
IN JULY 2008 I WAS PULLING MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY INTO A PARKING SPOT AND HIT A STEEL FENCE (WHICH PREVENTED ME FROM HITTING A BRICK WALL). I REPORTED TO GEICO THAT MY BRAKES FAILED. A WITNESS SAID THAT MY FOOT PROBABLY SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE, BECAUSE MY TIRES WERE SPINNING AND THERE WAS THE SMELL OF BURNT RUBBER. I LOOKED DOWN THROUGH THE STEERING WHEEL AND MY FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE. THE BRAKES WERE FINE. I BELIEVE MY CAR (WHICH I RARELY DRIVE ANYMORE OUT OF FEAR) SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL AND SHOULD BE REPAIRED. I REPORTED THIS TO TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE, BUT ALL THEY COULD DO WAS "FILE THE REPORT". THERE MUST BE OTHER 2005 CAMRYS AFFECTED. THIS IS MY 3RD AND LAST TOYOTA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10305108
Mileage unknown · Feb 4, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
I HAD THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM THAT I'M READING ABOUT IN THE TOYOTA PRIUS (BRIEF BRAKE FAILURE AT SLOW SPEEDS ON WET OR UNEVEN SURFACES) IN A 2005 CAMRY. I BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALER, WHO WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM, TELLING ME THAT THE BRAKES "CONFORMED TO STANDARDS." SO I DON'T BELIEVE ANY TALK FROM TOYOTA THAT THE PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
I HAD THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM THAT I'M READING ABOUT IN THE TOYOTA PRIUS (BRIEF BRAKE FAILURE AT SLOW SPEEDS ON WET OR UNEVEN SURFACES) IN A 2005 CAMRY. I BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALER, WHO WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM, TELLING ME THAT THE BRAKES "CONFORMED TO STANDARDS." SO I DON'T BELIEVE ANY TALK FROM TOYOTA THAT THE PROBLEM IS SOME KIND OF DESIGN FLAW LIMITED TO THE PRIUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10305092
25 miles · Jan 17, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
WE ARE WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR DISCOMFORT AND DISAPPOINTMENT WITH OUR 2005 CAMRY. THIS IS THE THIRD CAMRY THAT WE HAVE OWNED, AND UNTIL NOW, WE HAVE BEEN EXCEPTIONALLY PLEASED WITH ALL OF THEM FROM THE STYLE, THE PERFORMANCE, AS WELL AS THE MAINTENANCE. ON DECEMBER 23, 2009, WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK, THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD, AC…
Read full complaint
WE ARE WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR DISCOMFORT AND DISAPPOINTMENT WITH OUR 2005 CAMRY. THIS IS THE THIRD CAMRY THAT WE HAVE OWNED, AND UNTIL NOW, WE HAVE BEEN EXCEPTIONALLY PLEASED WITH ALL OF THEM FROM THE STYLE, THE PERFORMANCE, AS WELL AS THE MAINTENANCE. ON DECEMBER 23, 2009, WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK, THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD, ACCELERATED, HIT A PARKED VEHICLE, AND UPON MY (LILLIE) TRYING TO APPLY THE BRAKES, THE PEDAL WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR, AND THUS THE BRAKES DID NOT CATCH. I MANAGED TO MANEUVER THE CAR TO AN EMPTY LOT AND BRING IT TO A STOP. THERE WERE TWO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CAR WITH ME INCLUDING A CHILD. I WAS DISTRAUGHT. OF COURSE, DAMAGE WAS DONE TO BOTH VEHICLES. WHEN MY HUSBAND ARRIVED, HE TRIED THE BRAKES, AND THEY DID NOT CATCH. AFTER REPORTING THIS INCIDENT TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY, WE CALLED THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER TO TOW IT IN TO BE CHECKED. THE BRAKES WERE TESTED, AND ACCORDING TO THE MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT, THERE WAS NO PROBLEM FOUND AT THIS TIME. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST ACCIDENT WITH THE BRAKES FAILING. SHORTLY AFTER PURCHASING THE CAR IN AUGUST OF 2005, AND AGAIN ATTEMPTING TO PARK, THE VEHICLE LURCHED FORWARD AND WENT THROUGH THE WALL OF A LOCAL RESTAURANT. FORTUNATELY, THE RESTAURANT WAS CLOSED, AND NO ONE WAS INJURED, HOWEVER, EXTENSIVE DAMAGE WAS DONE TO BOTH THE CAR AND THE RESTAURANT. I WAS SURE THE BRAKES FAILED, BUT THINKING THIS WAS PROBABLY UNUSUAL, I CONVINCED MYSELF THAT PERHAPS SINCE THE CAR WAS NEW, I WAS NOT QUITE ACCUSTOMED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BRAKES. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THIS HAPPENED AGAIN, THAT I KNEW THE BRAKES HAD CERTAINLY FAILED. THESE WERE TWO FRIGHTENING, EXPENSIVE EXPERIENCES. THE FIRST ONE WAS REPORTED TO THE POLICE. BOTH WERE REPORTED TO OUR INSURANCE. *TR JAMES & LILLIE WILSON
NHTSA ODI #10300034
71,000 miles · Dec 29, 2009
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY, BRAKES DIDN'T WORK WHILE GOING OVER A POTHOLE. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME AT LEAST 3 TIMES. USED BRAKES TO REDUCE SPEED DUE TO POTHOLE AND BRAKES FAILED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10297315
25,000 miles · Dec 15, 2009
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE EXITING A PARKING LOT, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE WITHOUT INTENTION. AFTER REPEATED BRAKE APPLICATION THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. CONSEQUENTLY HE CRASHED THROUGH A FENCE AND THEN INTO A BUILDING. THE AIR BAGS DID DEPLOY. HOWEVER HE AND HIS WIFE WERE INJURED (HIS WIFE HAD A F…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE EXITING A PARKING LOT, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE WITHOUT INTENTION. AFTER REPEATED BRAKE APPLICATION THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. CONSEQUENTLY HE CRASHED THROUGH A FENCE AND THEN INTO A BUILDING. THE AIR BAGS DID DEPLOY. HOWEVER HE AND HIS WIFE WERE INJURED (HIS WIFE HAD A FRACTURED VERTEBRAE AND OTHER ISSUES) AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED, AND REPRESENTATIVE WAS SENT TO INSPECT THE BRAKES. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 25,000.
NHTSA ODI #10295872
35,000 miles · May 8, 2009
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNED A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE CONTACT HAD TO EXERT EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE BRAKE PEDAL EXTENDED TO THE FLOOR BEFORE THE VEHICLE COULD BE STOPPED. SHE PUMPED THE BRAKES AND THEY RETURNED TO NORMAL. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THEY…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNED A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE CONTACT HAD TO EXERT EXCESSIVE PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE BRAKE PEDAL EXTENDED TO THE FLOOR BEFORE THE VEHICLE COULD BE STOPPED. SHE PUMPED THE BRAKES AND THEY RETURNED TO NORMAL. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THERE WAS NO BRAKE FAILURE. THE CONTACT RETURNED TO THE DEALER THREE TIMES, BUT THEY COULD NOT FIND ANY FAILURES. TWO WEEKS AGO, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED. SHE PUMPED THE BRAKES TWICE AND THEY RETURNED TO NORMAL. SHE REFUSED TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE ANYMORE AND RETURNED IT TO THE DEALER. THE CONTACT PURCHASED A NEW VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000.
NHTSA ODI #10268248
42,537 miles · Dec 17, 2008
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrashInjury
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH ON NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO SLOW DOWN WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS PUMPED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE THE VEHICLE CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH ON NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS, THE VEHICLE FAILED TO SLOW DOWN WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS PUMPED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE THE VEHICLE CAME TO A COMPLETE STOP. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR INSPECTION, BUT THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. ON SEPARATE OCCASIONS, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WITHOUT RESOLUTIONS. RECENTLY, THE BRAKES FAILED AND CAUSED A CRASH. THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER VEHICLE SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 42,537 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 43,300.
NHTSA ODI #10252123
36,247 miles · Aug 17, 2008
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE CAR BRAKES ARE SOFT AND HARD TO STOP THE CAR ON ROAD CONDITIONS. WET, SNOW, ICE, OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN DRY THE BRAKES GO TO THE FLOOR AND GRATE. STANDING ON BRAKE TO THE FLOOR STILL DOESN'T STOP THE CAR. I TOLD THIS TO THE CAR LOT AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY ARE ALL LIKE THAT. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CLOSE CALLS AN…
Read full complaint
THE CAR BRAKES ARE SOFT AND HARD TO STOP THE CAR ON ROAD CONDITIONS. WET, SNOW, ICE, OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN DRY THE BRAKES GO TO THE FLOOR AND GRATE. STANDING ON BRAKE TO THE FLOOR STILL DOESN'T STOP THE CAR. I TOLD THIS TO THE CAR LOT AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY ARE ALL LIKE THAT. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CLOSE CALLS AND HAD TO GO UP ONTO GRASS OR OTHER AREA TO STOP MY CAR. THE GRATING SOUND WHEN ON WET CONDITIONS IS AWFUL AND STILL DOESN'T CONTROL THE STOP. NEW DESIGN OR DIFFERENT BRAKES NEED TO BE PUT ON THESE CARS. IT DOESN'T SEEM SAFE TO NOT BE ABLE TO STOP. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10238581
Official recalls
5Jun 2, 2016
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET) is recalling certain 2005-2011 4Runner, Highlander, Sequoia, and Sienna, 2005-2010 Avalon and Tundra, 2006-2008 Camry Solara, 2006-2010 Highlander hybrid, 2006-2011 Rav4 and Tacoma, 2007-2010 FJ Cruiser, 2007-2011 Camry hybrid, 2009-2010 Venza, 2010-2012 Prius, 1988-1990 and 2005-2010 Camry, and 1989 and 2009-2010 Corolla vehicles equipped with aftermarket accessory seat heaters with a copper strand heating element. The electrical wiring in the seat heaters may be damaged when the seat cushion is compressed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If damaged, the copper strand heating element may short circuit, increasing the risk of a fire.
Remedy: SET will notify owners, and dealers will disconnect the seat heaters, free of charge, and refund the purchase price of the seat heater accessory. The recall began on July 14, 2016. Owners may contact SET customer service at 1-866-405-4226. SET number for this recall is SET16B.
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.
Feb 3, 2010
GULF STATES TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2010 VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 AND JUNE 2, 2008 WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. DEALERS WILL ALSO CORRECT THE OWNER'S MANUAL. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT GULF STATES TOYOTA AT 713-580-3300.
Feb 3, 2010
SOUTHEAST TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2011 PASSENGER VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A DRIVER MAY OVERLOAD A VEHICLE WHICH MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT SOUTHEAST TOYOTA AT 1-800-301-6859.
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..
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