IllustrationPROBLEM WITH 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY PASSENGER SEAT BELT. THE PASSENGER SEAT BELT GETS "STUCK" WHEN TRYING TO LOCK BELT INTO LATCH. THIS RESULTS IN THE BELT EITHER NOT PROPERLY RETRACTING OR NOT ABLE TO EXTEND. THIS HAPPENS IN ABOUT 1 OUT OF EVERY 4 USES. *TR
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
What owners actually said
721 reportsREAR SPEAKER COVERS HAVE CRUMBLED AND FALLEN INTO THE SPEAKERS. A CALL TO THE DEALER REVEALED THAT THE COVERS CANNOT BE REPLACED. THE ENTIRE REAR COVER MUST BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $350+. AN ONLINE RESEARCH OF THIS PROBLEM REVEALED MANY SUCH COMPLAINTS FOR THIS YEAR, WITH NO TOYOTA SOLUTION. THIS IS DEFINITELY A DEFECT AND …
Read full complaint
REAR SPEAKER COVERS HAVE CRUMBLED AND FALLEN INTO THE SPEAKERS. A CALL TO THE DEALER REVEALED THAT THE COVERS CANNOT BE REPLACED. THE ENTIRE REAR COVER MUST BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $350+. AN ONLINE RESEARCH OF THIS PROBLEM REVEALED MANY SUCH COMPLAINTS FOR THIS YEAR, WITH NO TOYOTA SOLUTION. THIS IS DEFINITELY A DEFECT AND DESIGN FLAW TO HAVE TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE REAR COVER. WILL PURSUE SITUATION WITH TOYOTA CORP. *TR
I OWNED A TOYOTA CAMRY FOR 2 YEARS AND HAD 2 INCIDENTS WHEN THE ACCELERATOR STUCK CAUSING ME TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE CAR. AFTER THE 1ST INCIDENT I RETURNED THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH VEHICLE. THEN THE TOYOTA RECALLS BEGAN AND I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND WAS TOLD MY VEHICLE WAS NOT PART OF THE RECALL…
Read full complaint
I OWNED A TOYOTA CAMRY FOR 2 YEARS AND HAD 2 INCIDENTS WHEN THE ACCELERATOR STUCK CAUSING ME TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE CAR. AFTER THE 1ST INCIDENT I RETURNED THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH VEHICLE. THEN THE TOYOTA RECALLS BEGAN AND I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND WAS TOLD MY VEHICLE WAS NOT PART OF THE RECALL EVEN THOUGH I WAS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS. I REQUESTED MY VEHICLE BE CHECKED AND WAS TOLD I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL COSTS. AFTER THE 2ND INCIDENT I AGAIN RETURNED THE VEHICLE WHERE I WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO MECHANICAL OR ELECTRONIC PROBLEMS IT WAS AN ISSUE WITH PEDAL PLACEMENT AND FLOOR MATS. I SOLD THE CAR BACK TO THE DEALER AT A CONSIDERABLE FINANCIAL LOSS. I AM VERY CONCERNED THIS VEHICLE AND OTHERS LIKE IT ARE BACK ON THE ROAD. UPDATED IVOQ 08/24/10 *TR
ACTUATORS IN MY 2005 CAMRY SE CONTINUE TO STICK; THEREBY CAUSING ALL OF THE PASSENGER DOORS TO NOT OPEN THE MAJORITY (90%) OF THE TIME. I REPORTED THE ISSUE IMMEDIATELY TO TOYOTA CORPORATE AND THE DEALER (BAIERL TOYOTA IN CRANBERRY, PA) BECAUSE IT'S ALSO A SAFETY RISK; ESPECIALLY SINCE I HAVE A 3 MONTH YEAR OLD AND A 2 YEAR OL…
Read full complaint
ACTUATORS IN MY 2005 CAMRY SE CONTINUE TO STICK; THEREBY CAUSING ALL OF THE PASSENGER DOORS TO NOT OPEN THE MAJORITY (90%) OF THE TIME. I REPORTED THE ISSUE IMMEDIATELY TO TOYOTA CORPORATE AND THE DEALER (BAIERL TOYOTA IN CRANBERRY, PA) BECAUSE IT'S ALSO A SAFETY RISK; ESPECIALLY SINCE I HAVE A 3 MONTH YEAR OLD AND A 2 YEAR OLD. THE TOYOTA MECHANIC ALSO REPORTED THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING AND THE ACTUATORS SHOULD BE REPLACED. *TR
REAR SPEAKER COVERS ARE DEFECTIVE-I NOTICE THE HOLES WERE GETTING LARGER AND TOUCHED THE SPEAKER AND IT FELL/CAVED IN! THE PIECES JUST FELL APART LIKE DUST. THESE PIECES FELL INSIDE AND NOW MAKING A CRACKLING SPARK NOISE AND IF OVERHEATED CAUSE A FIRE. IT IS OVER 100 DEGREES HERE IN DALLAS TEXAS. CONTACT TOYOTA AND REFUSE TO FIX…
Read full complaint
REAR SPEAKER COVERS ARE DEFECTIVE-I NOTICE THE HOLES WERE GETTING LARGER AND TOUCHED THE SPEAKER AND IT FELL/CAVED IN! THE PIECES JUST FELL APART LIKE DUST. THESE PIECES FELL INSIDE AND NOW MAKING A CRACKLING SPARK NOISE AND IF OVERHEATED CAUSE A FIRE. IT IS OVER 100 DEGREES HERE IN DALLAS TEXAS. CONTACT TOYOTA AND REFUSE TO FIX THE $200.00 PROBLEM TO FIZ=X. TOYOTA HAS HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS ONLINE FOR THE SAME PROBLEM SINCE 2003. TOYOTA WAS WELL AWARE OF THIS AND CONTINUED TO MAKE THE EXACT SPEAKER COVERS FOR 5 YRS. THEY PLACE THE BLAME ON THE WARRANTY UP AND OR CONTACT THE DEALER AS THEY DENY ITS THEIR FAULT & CLAIMS ITS MINE. I HAVE NO CHILDREN NOR SIT IN THE BACK OF THE CAR, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I TOUCHED THE SPEAKER AND IT FELL IN. NOW CAUSING HEAT & SPARKS IN THE BACK OF THE CAR. MAY BE HAZARDOUS & CATCH FIRE. TOYOTA DENIED TO FIX AND CARELESSLY CONTINUED TO MAKE THE SAME DEFECTIVE PART AFTER RECEIVING NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED UP TO 80 MPH THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND CRASHED INTO A VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND THREE PEOPLE INCLUDING THE CONTACT WERE INJURED. THE CONTACT SUFFERED INJURIES TO THE HEAD, NECK, AND SHOULDERS. DURING THE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED UP TO 80 MPH THROUGH AN INTERSECTION AND CRASHED INTO A VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND THREE PEOPLE INCLUDING THE CONTACT WERE INJURED. THE CONTACT SUFFERED INJURIES TO THE HEAD, NECK, AND SHOULDERS. DURING THE CRASH THE CONTACT WAS DENIED MEDICAL ATTENTION BECAUSE THE OFFICERS SUSPECTED THE CONTACT WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE. THE CONTACT COULD NOT PASS THE SOBRIETY TEST BECAUSE THE CONTACT HAD A HEAD INJURY. THE POLICE OFFICERS ARRESTED THE CONTACT. THE CONTACT'S BLOOD WORK DID NOT SHOW ANY SIGNS OF HER BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKES WERE MAKING A BUMPING SOUND WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS ACCELERATING. THE CONTACT DID NOT CALL THE MANUFACTURER REGARDING THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 64,000.
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. APPROXIMATELY 1 TO 2 SECONDS AFTER SHIFTING INTO REVERSE, ENGINE WENT INTO HIGH RPM AND ACCELERATED OUT OF GARAGE. DRIVER ALREADY HAD FOOT ON BRAKE PEDAL AND BRAKED HARD LEAVING SKID MARK (FROM RIGHT FRONT TIRE) OF APPROXIMATELY 24 - 30 INCHES IN LENGTH ON COATED GARAGE FLOOR. RIGHT SIDE MIRROR WAS RIPP…
Read full complaint
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. APPROXIMATELY 1 TO 2 SECONDS AFTER SHIFTING INTO REVERSE, ENGINE WENT INTO HIGH RPM AND ACCELERATED OUT OF GARAGE. DRIVER ALREADY HAD FOOT ON BRAKE PEDAL AND BRAKED HARD LEAVING SKID MARK (FROM RIGHT FRONT TIRE) OF APPROXIMATELY 24 - 30 INCHES IN LENGTH ON COATED GARAGE FLOOR. RIGHT SIDE MIRROR WAS RIPPED FROM CAR. REQUIRED APPROX. 10 FEET TO STOP. ENGINE DID NOT REMAIN AT HIGH RPM. (A/C MAY HAVE BEEN "ON". ENGINE WAS "COLD" - I.E., 1ST TIME STARTED THAT DAY; HOWEVER AMBIENT TEMPERATURE WAS IN MID-UPPER 70'S.) LATER THAT SAME MORNING, THE ENGINE AGAIN WENT TO HIGH RPM SHORTLY AFTER SHIFTING INTO REVERSE TO BACK OUT OF PARKING SPACE. DRIVER WAS PREPARED AND ABLE TO IMMEDIATELY STOP CAR. AIR CONDITIONING WAS NOT ENGAGED THIS TIME. TOOK CAR TO ORIGINAL DEALER SAME DAY. DEALER STATES NO FAULT CODES IN COMPUTER. "SOME" CARBON BUILD UP ON THROTTLE BODY. PERFORMED SAFETY CHECK INSPECTION. SERVICED/CLEANED THROTTLE BODY, FUEL INJECTORS, REPLACED TRANSMISSION FLUID, AND CLEANED/ADJUSTED REAR BRAKES. IN THE 3 DAYS SINCE THE ORIGINAL INCIDENTS AND SERVICE, PHENOMENON HAS NOT REPEATED. CAR HAS APPROX. 62KMILES AND HAS RECEIVED ALL WARRANTY AND REGULAR, PRESCRIBED SERVICE AT ORIGINAL DEALER ON SCHEDULE. CAR HAS HAD NO MAJOR REPAIRS DURING ITS HISTORY. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING DOWN A HILL AT 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED UP TO 60 MPH. THE VEHICLE BEGAN SPINNING. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A TREE BUT PROCEEDED TO ACCELERATE. THE CONTACT THEN CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING DOWN A HILL AT 25 MPH, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED UP TO 60 MPH. THE VEHICLE BEGAN SPINNING. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A TREE BUT PROCEEDED TO ACCELERATE. THE CONTACT THEN CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE CONTACT SUFFERED UNKNOWN INJURIES.THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SCRAP YARD. . THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 83,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SHIFT INTO GEARS ON AN INTERMITTENT BASIS. THE CONTACT WOULD DEPRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL SEVERAL TIMES UNTIL THE VEHICLE WOULD SHIFT. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE GEAR SHIFTER WAS DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR FACILITY WHERE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SHIFT INTO GEARS ON AN INTERMITTENT BASIS. THE CONTACT WOULD DEPRESS THE BRAKE PEDAL SEVERAL TIMES UNTIL THE VEHICLE WOULD SHIFT. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE GEAR SHIFTER WAS DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR FACILITY WHERE SHE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AT THE REPAIR FACILITY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 55,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 60,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT 55 MPH, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE HEAD ON. THE CONTACT SUFFERED A BROKEN COLLAR BONE AND A SPRAINED NECK AND BACK. THE PASSENGER SUFFERED TWO BROKEN RIBS AND A BROKEN COLLAR BONE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING AT 55 MPH, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE HEAD ON. THE CONTACT SUFFERED A BROKEN COLLAR BONE AND A SPRAINED NECK AND BACK. THE PASSENGER SUFFERED TWO BROKEN RIBS AND A BROKEN COLLAR BONE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THAT THE AIR BAGS DID NOT ALWAYS DEPLOY WHEN THERE WAS A CRASH. THEY STATED THAT THE AIR BAGS SENSORS WOULD ONLY DETECT A CRASH IF THE VEHICLE WAS STRUCK AT A CERTAIN ANGLE. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THE AIR BAGS TO BE DEFECTIVE AND STATED THEY HE AND HIS PASSENGER COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 23,000.
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