NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
272 reportsClear category filter5,200 miles · Jun 27, 2006
Vehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY WHILE THE DRIVER'S FOOT WAS PLANTED ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PARKED WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE HIT A POLE AND STOPPED. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED ON 06/26/06 AND COULD NOT DETERMINE WHY THIS PROBLEM OCCU…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY WHILE THE DRIVER'S FOOT WAS PLANTED ON THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PARKED WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE HIT A POLE AND STOPPED. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED ON 06/26/06 AND COULD NOT DETERMINE WHY THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED.
NHTSA ODI #10160858
3,718 miles · Jun 8, 2006
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE STOPPED AT AN INTERSECTION, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY BEGAN TO REV UNCONTROLLABLY WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM ME. DUE TO THE HIGH REVOLUTIONS OF THE ENGINE THE BRAKES WERE INCAPABLE OF PRVENTING THE CAR FROM MOVING FORWARD EVEN THOUGH THE BRAKE PETAL WAS FULLY DEPRESSED. THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT MY CAR FROM HITTING TH…
Read full complaint
WHILE STOPPED AT AN INTERSECTION, THE ENGINE SUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY BEGAN TO REV UNCONTROLLABLY WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM ME. DUE TO THE HIGH REVOLUTIONS OF THE ENGINE THE BRAKES WERE INCAPABLE OF PRVENTING THE CAR FROM MOVING FORWARD EVEN THOUGH THE BRAKE PETAL WAS FULLY DEPRESSED. THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT MY CAR FROM HITTING THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME WAS TO SHUT OFF THE ENGINE. TWO SUBSEQUENT ATTEMPTS TO RE-START THE ENGINE RESULTED IN A REPEAT OF THE OVER-REVVING SITUATION. ONLY AFTER THE THIRD ATTEMPT DID THE ENGINE RESUME NORMAL OPERATION. A PASSENGER IN THE CAR AT THE TIME VERIFIED THAT THE ACCELERATOR WAS NOT ENGAGED AT ANY TIME DURING THE INCIDENT. THE CAR WAS IMMEDIATELY DRIVEN TO THE DEALER WHO INSPECTED IT AND FOUND NO FAULT WITH THE ETC SYSTEM AND NO STORED CODES THAT WOULD VERIFY MY COMPLAINT. THE CAR WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED TO US AND WAS DRIVEN WITHOUT INCIDENT FOR THE NEXT NINETEEN MONTHS BEFORE THE PROBLEM ONCE AGAIN PRESENTED ITSELF. AS WE WERE PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE WHILE MY FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE PETAL THE ENGINE ONCE AGAIN BEGAN TO OVER-REV WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM ME. AGAIN, THE PASSENGER IN THE CAR WHO HAD WITNESSED THE FIRST INCIDENT IMMEDIATELY LOOKED TO SEE IF THE ACCELERATOR WAS ACCIDENTALLY BEING DEPRESSED. IT WAS NOT. AGAIN, THE ONLY MEANS OF PREVENTING MY CAR FROM STRIKING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME WAS TO SHUT OFF THE ENGINE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10159364
5,200 miles · May 17, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
I WAS SLOWLY TURNING LEFT INTO A PARKING SPACE AT ABOUT 3:30 P.M., WHEN MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY SUDDENLY, AND QUITE RAPIDLY, ACCELERATED WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM ME. IT JUMPED A CURB, CROSSED A SIDEWALK, AND A TREE STOPPED THE CAR. IT FELT LIKE I HAD NO CONTROL OF THE CAR. ALSO, THE STEERING WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. SOMEHOW, I MA…
Read full complaint
I WAS SLOWLY TURNING LEFT INTO A PARKING SPACE AT ABOUT 3:30 P.M., WHEN MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY SUDDENLY, AND QUITE RAPIDLY, ACCELERATED WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM ME. IT JUMPED A CURB, CROSSED A SIDEWALK, AND A TREE STOPPED THE CAR. IT FELT LIKE I HAD NO CONTROL OF THE CAR. ALSO, THE STEERING WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. SOMEHOW, I MANAGED TO STEER THE CAR AWAY FROM THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND MY NEIGHBOR GLASS SLIDER. THE CAR TRAVELED ABOUT 30 PLUS FEET IN ITS ACCELERATION, WHEN A TREE STOPPED IT. IT LEFT ABOUT 20 FEET OF SKID MARKS. I WAS NOT HURT IN THE CRASH. THE CAR SUSTAINED DAMAGE, MAINLY TO THE FRONT BUMPER, COOLANT SYSTEM, AND HOOD, FOR APPROXIMATELY $5,400. I FILED A COMPLAINT WITH TOYOTA CORPORATION, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AND THEY INVESTIGATED THE CAR. THEY REPORTED THEY COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CAR, AND THERE WERE NO DESIGN FAULTS. THE TOYOTA DEALER WHERE I HAD BOUGHT THE CAMRY ADDITIONALLY TESTED THE CAR COMPUTERS, AND ALSO CALLED IN A TOYOTA FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE TO TEST THE CAR. THEY COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CAR. I SOLD THE CAMRY BACK TO THIS DEALER. THE CAR HAD ABOUT 5,400 MILES ON IT AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH. THE CAR HAD BEEN RUNNING WELL UNTIL THIS SUDDEN, UNEXPLAINED ACCELERATION THAT RESULTED IN A CRASH. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10157743
6,200 miles · Feb 27, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PARKING THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WHILE HIS FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE. THE VEHICLE WENT OVER A SIDEWALK, PUSHED OVER A SIGN AND HIT A FENCE, HOWEVER NO ONE WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED DAMAGE TO THE FRONT BUMPER. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION; HOWEVER NO REPAIRS HAVE B…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE PARKING THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD WHILE HIS FOOT WAS ON THE BRAKE. THE VEHICLE WENT OVER A SIDEWALK, PUSHED OVER A SIGN AND HIT A FENCE, HOWEVER NO ONE WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE SUSTAINED DAMAGE TO THE FRONT BUMPER. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION; HOWEVER NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT ALERTED. UPDATED 03/22/06.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10151349
10,000 miles · Jan 19, 2006
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PULL IN A PARKING SPACE AT 2 MPH, THE VEHICLE SURGED AND SUDDENLY ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WENT THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND OVER A PUBLIC SIDEWALK BEFORE CRASHING INTO A FIRE HYDRANT. THE CONTACT AND PASSENGE…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PULL IN A PARKING SPACE AT 2 MPH, THE VEHICLE SURGED AND SUDDENLY ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WENT THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND OVER A PUBLIC SIDEWALK BEFORE CRASHING INTO A FIRE HYDRANT. THE CONTACT AND PASSENGER WERE WEARING SAFETY RESTRAINTS. THE VEHICLE IMPACTED THE FIRE HYDRANT WITH SUCH FORCE THAT THE FIRE HYDRANT WAS EXTRACTED 3 FEET ABOVE GROUND. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP WERE DIAGNOSTIC TESTING WAS PERFORMED. THE LOCAL SERVICE DEALER COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; HOWEVER THE DEALER ADDITIONAL TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED BEFORE THE VEHICLE IS REPAIRED. THE POLICE FILED A REPORT AT THE SCENE AND THE CONTACT'S INSURANCE COMPANY ALSO FILED A REPORT. THERE WAS ADDITIONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE SIDEWALK, FIRE HYDRANT AND A CHILDREN'S MUSEUM THAT WAS FLOODED BY THE WATER FROM THE FIRE HYDRANT. *NM UPDATED 2/27/2006 - THE AIR BAGS ALSO FAILED TO DEPLOY. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10148115
2,931 miles · Dec 13, 2005
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
ON 9/11/05 OUR 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY SUDDENLY ACCELERATED (SA) WHILE THE DRIVER WAS SLOWLY TURNING INTO A LOCAL PARKING LOT. APPLYING THE BRAKES DID NOT STOP THE AUTO BUT DID LEAVE SKID MARKS ON THE PAVEMENT, AS NOTED BY THE POLICE. WE TURNED OFF THE IGNITION AFTER SEVERAL SECONDS BUT CRASHED INTO TWO PARKED CARS. THE CAR WAS TOW…
Read full complaint
ON 9/11/05 OUR 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY SUDDENLY ACCELERATED (SA) WHILE THE DRIVER WAS SLOWLY TURNING INTO A LOCAL PARKING LOT. APPLYING THE BRAKES DID NOT STOP THE AUTO BUT DID LEAVE SKID MARKS ON THE PAVEMENT, AS NOTED BY THE POLICE. WE TURNED OFF THE IGNITION AFTER SEVERAL SECONDS BUT CRASHED INTO TWO PARKED CARS. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO AN AUTO BODY SHOP AND LATER TO A TOYOTA BODY SHOP. TOYOTA KEPT US FROM REPAIRING THE CAR FOR 12 DAYS UNTIL THEIR EXPERT INSPECTED THE CAR. HE REPORTED NO BRAKE OR THROTTLE PROBLEM AND DISREGARDED THE SKID MARKS EVIDENCE. . WE DON'T KNOW IF HE CHECKED THE CRUISE CONTROL. A RECENT REQUEST FOR THAT INFORMATION HAS GIVEN NO RESPONSE. TOYOTA REPORTED THAT NOTHING WAS WRONG. WE SOLD THE CAR BACK TO TOYOTA AT A $10,000 LOSS. AFTER A MONTH, THE DRIVER DEVELOPED A SEVERE RIGHT HIP PAIN, ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACCIDENT BY TWO DOCTORS. SHE RECOVERED SLOWLY WITH MUCH THERAPY. WE DID NOT KEEP THE CAR BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT ,IN SEVERAL CASES AT LEAST, A REPAIRED SA CAR HAD A SECOND SA. THE POSSIBILITY OF A MALFUNCTIONING CRUISE CONTROL LINKAGE WAS POSSIBLY NOT INVESTIGATED. SEE ODI 10136882. *DSY*JB
NHTSA ODI #10145141
2,000 miles · Nov 17, 2005
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
DT: CONTACT STATES VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD, LOST CONTROL AND HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE. SHE DEPRESSED THE BRAKES, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. THERE WERE NO INJURIES, AND NO POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE DEALER INFORMED HER NO OTHER FAILURES OF THIS TYPE HAVE BEEN REPORTED. IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE MANUFACTURER THAT IT WAS DRIVER'S…
Read full complaint
DT: CONTACT STATES VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD, LOST CONTROL AND HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE. SHE DEPRESSED THE BRAKES, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. THERE WERE NO INJURIES, AND NO POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN. THE DEALER INFORMED HER NO OTHER FAILURES OF THIS TYPE HAVE BEEN REPORTED. IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE MANUFACTURER THAT IT WAS DRIVER'S ERROR.*AK UPDATED 12/14/2005. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED WHEN IT SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. *NM UPDATED 12/01/10. *LJ UPDATED 12/08/10
NHTSA ODI #10142957
Mileage unknown · Nov 10, 2005
Vehicle Speed Control
DT:THE CONTACT STATED ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THE ENGINE RACED AND THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD. THIS HAPPENED WITH HIS FOOT ON THE BRAKE, AND WHEN SHIFTING FROM PARK TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN CONTACTED, AND THEY RECO…
Read full complaint
DT:THE CONTACT STATED ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THE ENGINE RACED AND THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD. THIS HAPPENED WITH HIS FOOT ON THE BRAKE, AND WHEN SHIFTING FROM PARK TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN CONTACTED, AND THEY RECOMMENDED TAKING THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP.*AK UPDATED EVOQ 10/08/10 THE CONSUMER STATED THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES, SINCE THE FALL OF 2005. UPDATED EVOQ 04/19/12 THE CONSUMER STATED HE EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION FROM 2005-2010. IT APPEARED TO BE A PROBLEM MOSTLY LIKELY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE MICROPROCESSOR. UPDATED 04/09/14
NHTSA ODI #10142422
6,000 miles · Sep 19, 2005
Vehicle Speed Control
CAR SURGES. IT HAS DONE THIS TWICE. THE DEALER CAN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CAR, AND TOYOTA STANDS BEHIND THE DEALER. ACCIDENTS WERE AVOIDED BOTH TIMES. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10136905
2,391 miles · Sep 18, 2005
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
I WAS MAKING A LEFT TURN INTO THE GARRISON PARKING LOT,TEANECK, DRIVING MY 2005 CAMRY. I PRESSED VERY LIGHTLY ON THE ACCELERATOR. THE CAR SUDDENLY HAD A SURGE OF ACCELERATION DISPROPORTIONATE TO MY GENTLE TAPPING OF THE GAS PEDAL. PRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL AND ALSO TURNING THE IGNITION KEY OFF DID NOT SLOW THE CAR DOWN SUFFICIENT…
Read full complaint
I WAS MAKING A LEFT TURN INTO THE GARRISON PARKING LOT,TEANECK, DRIVING MY 2005 CAMRY. I PRESSED VERY LIGHTLY ON THE ACCELERATOR. THE CAR SUDDENLY HAD A SURGE OF ACCELERATION DISPROPORTIONATE TO MY GENTLE TAPPING OF THE GAS PEDAL. PRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL AND ALSO TURNING THE IGNITION KEY OFF DID NOT SLOW THE CAR DOWN SUFFICIENTLY TO PREVENT A CRASH INTO TWO PARKED CARS. THERE WERE NO OCCUPANTS IN THE PARKED CAR. MY HUSBAND, IRVING J. BOROWITZ, WAS WITH ME. WE HAD NO APPARENT INJURIES AT THAT TIME EXCEPT FOR LEFT SHOULDER ACHE (GRACE). WE WERE BOTH TRAUMATIZED. THE CAMRY IS AT A TOYOTA BODY SHOP, AWAITING INSPECTION BY TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVE TOM MORIN ON SEPT. 23. OUR ALLSTATE INSURANCE ADJUSTER ESTIMATED PARTIAL COST OF REPAIRS AT $5025. NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN DONE YET. THE CAMRY HAS 2391 MILES. REFERRED TO YOU BY LEONRAD BURCHMAN (VOICE OF THE ELDERLY). CAR PURCHASED FEB 26, 2005 AT PARKWAY TOYOTA, ENGLWD CLIFFS, NJ. *NM SEE ODI 10145141. *DSY
NHTSA ODI #10136882
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