IllustrationDT*: THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE BRAKING FROM A SPEED OF 25 MPH, THERE HAS BEEN A MOMENT OF RESISTANCE IN THE BRAKE PEDAL, THEN THE PEDAL DEPRESSES TO THE FLOOR. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS DETERMINED TO BE A NORMAL OCCURRENCE WITH ANTILOCK BRAKE SYSTEMS IN THE NEWER MODELS.
2005 Toyota Camry
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camry years
Owner complaints for the 2005 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
1860–25K
14725–50K
10650–75K
5375–100K
57100–150K
26150K+
575 reports with mileage · 146 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 272 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 84 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 71 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
223 crash reports10 fire reports91 injury reports
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
66 reportsDT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A COMPLETE LACK OF BRAKE PRESSURE WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED AT 20 MPH. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE WAS USED TO SLOW THE VEHICLE ENOUGH TO REACH A RESIDENCE SAFELY. FROM THERE THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM, THEREFORE NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. BRAKES TRAVEL…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A COMPLETE LACK OF BRAKE PRESSURE WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED AT 20 MPH. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE WAS USED TO SLOW THE VEHICLE ENOUGH TO REACH A RESIDENCE SAFELY. FROM THERE THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM, THEREFORE NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. BRAKES TRAVELED ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR IN ORDR TO ACTIVATE THE BRAKES. VEHICLE HAS BEEN TOWED TWICE TO THE DEALER FOR BRAKE FAILURE. VEHICLE WAS TEST AGAIN FOR BRAKE FAILURE ON MARCH 20, 2006 AND NO PROBLEM WAS FOUND. *AK
BRAKES FAILED CAUSING CAR TO ROLL INTO INTERSECTION. CAR WAS THEN HIT BY TRUCK. MAKE OF CAR IS 2005 CAMRY LE WITH 10,000 MILES. SE TOYOTA CLAIMS THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CAR EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME PROBLEM LISTED ON AUTOBYTEL.COM . GENERALLY THIS MAKE OF CAR HAS "MUSHY" BRAKES, BUT EVEN THE P…
Read full complaint
BRAKES FAILED CAUSING CAR TO ROLL INTO INTERSECTION. CAR WAS THEN HIT BY TRUCK. MAKE OF CAR IS 2005 CAMRY LE WITH 10,000 MILES. SE TOYOTA CLAIMS THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CAR EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME PROBLEM LISTED ON AUTOBYTEL.COM . GENERALLY THIS MAKE OF CAR HAS "MUSHY" BRAKES, BUT EVEN THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR COMMENTED THE BRAKES WERE UNSAFE. *JB
DT: THE CONSUMER STATES THE BRAKES ARE DEFECTIVE. WHEN THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED THEY IDLE AND HAVE TO BE APPLIED AGAIN. AFTER THE BRAKES HAVE BEEN REAPPLIED THE VEHICLE MOVES FORWARD. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED. THEY SAID THE VEHICLE WAS MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THE AIR CONDITIONER (A/C) WAS IN USE. THE CONSUMER CLAIMED THAT HE …
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONSUMER STATES THE BRAKES ARE DEFECTIVE. WHEN THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED THEY IDLE AND HAVE TO BE APPLIED AGAIN. AFTER THE BRAKES HAVE BEEN REAPPLIED THE VEHICLE MOVES FORWARD. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED. THEY SAID THE VEHICLE WAS MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THE AIR CONDITIONER (A/C) WAS IN USE. THE CONSUMER CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NOT USING THE A/C NOW AND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS STILL MOVING FORWARD. THE MANUFACTURER HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED. *AK UPDATED 12/07/05. *JB
BRAKE TOO LOW. HAVE TO PUSH BRAKE PEDAL DOWN HARD ESPECIALLY WHEN TRAVELING ABOVE 60 MPH. BRAKE GOES ALL THE WAY ALMOST TO THE FLOORBOARD TO STOP CAR. PLEASE CONTACT TOYOTA MOTORS (CASE #200507071372). *NM
CONSUMER HAS BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY BRAKE SYSTEM. *TS THE DEALER TOLD THE CONSUMER THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE BRAKES, BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS BRAND NEW. *JB
INCIDENT DESCRIPTION: IT WAS 3:00 PM WHEN I HAVE TO DRIVE TO PICK UP MY SISTER AT 6219 SW FREEWAY HOUSTON, TX, WHEN I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE RIGHT TURN TO GET IN TO THE SHOPPING CENTER I FOUND OUT THE BRAKE DID NOT WORK, I TRIED TO USE THE PARKING BRAKE AND IT DID NOT STOP THE CAR BUT SLOWED TO 15 MPH IN THE NEXT ENTRY TO THE S…
Read full complaint
INCIDENT DESCRIPTION: IT WAS 3:00 PM WHEN I HAVE TO DRIVE TO PICK UP MY SISTER AT 6219 SW FREEWAY HOUSTON, TX, WHEN I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE RIGHT TURN TO GET IN TO THE SHOPPING CENTER I FOUND OUT THE BRAKE DID NOT WORK, I TRIED TO USE THE PARKING BRAKE AND IT DID NOT STOP THE CAR BUT SLOWED TO 15 MPH IN THE NEXT ENTRY TO THE SHOPPING CENTER MAKE THE RIGHT TURN AND GET INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER TRY AGAIN TO GET THE PARKING BRAKE TO STOP THE VEHICLE BUT I COULDN'T. FINALLY GET ONTO THE SIDEWALK AND HIT THE WALL AT THE MOMENT IT WAS LESS THAN 5 MPH, I WAS DRIVING WITH MY NEWBORN BABY NEPHEW ABOARD, I PANICKED AND I DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO, YOLANDA GONZALEZ A LADY THAT WORKS AT FREYDD'S BEAUTY SALON CALL MY SISTER AND SHE CALL MY HUSBAND FOR HIM TO COME OVER AND HELP, HE CALL JOE MYERS SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENS TO US, THEY GIVE HIM A 1800 NUMBER FOR THEM TO GET THE CAR ON SERVICES, MY MISTAKE WAS NOT CALLING THE POLICE TO REPORT THE INCIDENT SINCE THEY DID NOT SAID THAT I HAVE TO, SINCE THEY ASK IF THERE WAS PEOPLE INJURED , AT THE MOMENT I WAS ON SHOCK, MY HUSBAND CALL ALEX SALESPERSON AT JOW MYERS FOR HELP, MY CAR WAS NEW WHEN WE BOUGHT IT ON JANUARY 2005, WITH 9640 MILES AT THE TIME, THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE CAR, IN STERLING MCCALL TOYOTA SERVICES CORNIE THE SERVICES WRITER LET US KNOW THAT THE BRAKE BOOSTER WAS BROKE AND THE BRAKE MASTER CYLINDER ALSO, AND THAT WAS NORMAL, THAT PIECE IS COVER UNDER WARRANTY SINCE IT CAN HAPPENED ANYTIME, HOW COME THIS BE POSSIBLE I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE DOOR LOCKS OR SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CONTROL OR MANAGE BUT BRAKES HOW CAN THAT PART BREAK ANYTIME?????, NOW THE CAR STILL ON REPAIR SINCE THE BRAKE DOES NOT FEEL RIGHT, I DO NOT HAVE A POLICE REPORT BUT I DO HAVE MANY WITNESS THAT SAW ME THAT DAY, AND ALSO THE TOWING TRUCK THAT SAW THE CAR OVER THE SIDEWALK AND TRY TO DRIVE THE CAR AND SAW THAT THERE WAS NO BRAKE AT ALL. TODAY IS OCTOBER 3RD, THE CAR STILL ON JOE MYERS WAITING TO BE CHECKED. *JB
BRAKES ARE SLOW AND DIFFICULT TO ENGAGE; PRODUCE LONG STOPS OR NONE. TOYOTA SAYS BRAKES ARE FUNCTIONING AS THEY'RE DESIGNED TO (WHICH MEANS BRAKES ARE DESIGNED TO BE UNSATISFACTORY) AND DOES NOTHING; ARBITRATION HEARING FOUND IN FAVOR OF TOYOTA, DESPITE CONSUMER REPORTS (2005) FINDING THAT BRAKES WERE SPONGY AND STOPS LONG. I…
Read full complaint
BRAKES ARE SLOW AND DIFFICULT TO ENGAGE; PRODUCE LONG STOPS OR NONE. TOYOTA SAYS BRAKES ARE FUNCTIONING AS THEY'RE DESIGNED TO (WHICH MEANS BRAKES ARE DESIGNED TO BE UNSATISFACTORY) AND DOES NOTHING; ARBITRATION HEARING FOUND IN FAVOR OF TOYOTA, DESPITE CONSUMER REPORTS (2005) FINDING THAT BRAKES WERE SPONGY AND STOPS LONG. I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS IS THE CASE BUT SUSPECT DRUM TYPE BRAKE NOT ADEQUATE FOR CAR OF THIS WEIGHT; HOWEVER, THE WHOLE SYSTEM MAY BE AT FAULT. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BRAKES WAS DUE TO A DEVICE CALLED A DOUBLE OR DUAL LINK PEDAL ASSEMBLY THAT WILL SOON BE REQUIRED IN ALL NEW VEHICLES. *JB
BRAKE TOO LOW. YOU HAVE TO STEP HARD ON THE BRAKE ALMOST TO THE FLOORBOARD TO STOP THE CAR. NEARLY REAR-ENDED CAR ON FREEWAY AT 65 MPH. BRAKE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HALFWAY DOWN, NOT ALMOST TO FLOORBOARD. *JB
ON A CLEAR DAY THE MORNING OF JUNE 14, 2005, I WAS DRIVING SOUTH IN THE SLOW LANE OF HIGHWAY 95 IN FLORIDA. ALL OF A SUDDEN I HEARD THE DRIVER IN THE MIDDLE LANE BLOW HIS HORN. AT THIS MOMENT I FELT THAT THE CAR WAS DRAGGING ME ON ONE SIDE TO THE LEFT. I TRIED TO STOP THE CAR BY PRESSING ON THE BRAKES. THE BRAKES WERE NON EXIS…
Read full complaint
ON A CLEAR DAY THE MORNING OF JUNE 14, 2005, I WAS DRIVING SOUTH IN THE SLOW LANE OF HIGHWAY 95 IN FLORIDA. ALL OF A SUDDEN I HEARD THE DRIVER IN THE MIDDLE LANE BLOW HIS HORN. AT THIS MOMENT I FELT THAT THE CAR WAS DRAGGING ME ON ONE SIDE TO THE LEFT. I TRIED TO STOP THE CAR BY PRESSING ON THE BRAKES. THE BRAKES WERE NON EXISTENT AND THE CAR KEPT GOING LEFT, HIT A PICK UP TRUCK IN THE MIDDLE LANE (TRUCK TURNED UPSIDE DOWN, DRIVER ON THE PAVEMENT); PASSED THE FAST LANE AND THROUGH THE MEDIAN; FINALLY GOT STUCK IN THE MUD (THANK GOD IT RAINED THE NIGHT BEFORE) NEAR THE NORTHBOUND LANE. MY CAR WAS TOWED TO THE NEAREST DEALER WITH $4,000 WORTH OF DAMAGES. MY INSURANCE HAS TO REPLACE THE OTHER DRIVER'S CAR. BOTH DRIVERS WERE INJURED IN THE CRASH.
Official recalls
516V396000 · Seats:front Assembly:seat Heater/cooler
Jun 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.
11V539000 · 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.
10V035000 · Equipment:other:labels
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.
10V036000 · Equipment:other:labels
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.
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..
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