NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,439 reports45,000 miles · Oct 10, 2011
Exterior Lighting
I HAVE DRIVE A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, PACKAGE 7 WITH HID HEADLAMPS. I HAVE NOTICED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT MY HEADLAMPS INCONSISTENTLY FAIL. SOMETIMES WHEN I TURN MY CAR ON AND SWITCH ON MY HEADLAMPS, ONLY ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE WILL ILLUMINATE. OTHER TIMES, BOTH HEADLAMP SIDES WILL TURN ON, BUT AFTER SOME TIME, ONE OR BOTH W…
Read full complaint
I HAVE DRIVE A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, PACKAGE 7 WITH HID HEADLAMPS. I HAVE NOTICED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT MY HEADLAMPS INCONSISTENTLY FAIL. SOMETIMES WHEN I TURN MY CAR ON AND SWITCH ON MY HEADLAMPS, ONLY ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE WILL ILLUMINATE. OTHER TIMES, BOTH HEADLAMP SIDES WILL TURN ON, BUT AFTER SOME TIME, ONE OR BOTH WILL TURN OFF. ALL OF THIS WITH THE DASH INDICATOR SHOWING THAT THE HEADLIGHTS ARE ON. WHILE DRIVING, I HAVE REMEDIED THIS PROBLEM BY FLIPPING THE ON-OFF SWITCH TO RE-ILLUMINATE THE LIGHTS. HOWEVER, IN THE COURSE OF A DRIVE THEY WILL FAIL AGAIN AND I PERIODICALLY HAVE TO FLIP THE ON-OFF HEADLIGHT SWITCH TO HAVE MY LIGHTS WORK. I DO FEEL THIS IS UNSAFE AND AM UNCOMFORTABLE DRIVING AT NIGHT OR IN DARK PLACES. *KB
NHTSA ODI #10429293
32,553 miles · Oct 6, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE STANDARD ENGINE WATER PUMP WAS FOUND TO BE LEAKING AND HAD TO BE REPLACED ON 10/1/11 AT 32553 MI. THE ELECTRIC HYBRID WATER PUMP WAS REPLACED UNDER RECALL ON 04/02/11 AT 30222 MI. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10428995
73,000 miles · Oct 6, 2011
Exterior Lighting
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK AT 4 A.M. ON A BACK ROAD, BOTH HID HEADLAMPS FAILED. TRYING TO USE HIGH BEAMS DIDN'T WORK. ONLY TURNING LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON WOULD GET THEM TO WORK AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES. THERE NEEDS TO BE A SAFETY RECALL ON THESE HEADLAMPS, NO EXCEPTIONS OR LIMITS ON TIME/MILEAGE. THIS IS DANGEROUS AND IF YO…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK AT 4 A.M. ON A BACK ROAD, BOTH HID HEADLAMPS FAILED. TRYING TO USE HIGH BEAMS DIDN'T WORK. ONLY TURNING LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON WOULD GET THEM TO WORK AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES. THERE NEEDS TO BE A SAFETY RECALL ON THESE HEADLAMPS, NO EXCEPTIONS OR LIMITS ON TIME/MILEAGE. THIS IS DANGEROUS AND IF YOU CHECK THE WEB, TOYOTA KNOWS ALL ABOUT IT. TALKING TO TOYOTA THEY TOLD ME IT WAS MY PROBLEM. REALLY? BASIC SAFETY ON A VEHICLE SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER. THIS WASN'T A ONE LIGHT FAILED AND THEN MONTHS LATER ANOTHER FAILED. THEY BOTH QUIT AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. I GUESS SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE KILLED BEFORE TOYOTA TAKES RESPONSIBILITY. THEIR WEBSITE SPEWS HOW COMMITTED THEY ARE TO SAFETY. SURE, AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER HAS TO PAY THOUSANDS FOR IT (THE COST OF THIS REPAIR CAN BE OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS), THEY ARE COMMITTED. IF THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR DESIGN FLAW...WELL...THEN THEY AREN'T SO HELPFUL. APPARENTLY THIS IS A RECURRING THEME WITH TOYOTA AND THEY NEED TO BE FINED HEAVILY AND FORCED TO FIX THIS. TAKE ACTION NOW BEFORE SOMEONE DIES, PLEASE! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10428934
40,000 miles · Oct 6, 2011
Exterior Lighting
BOUGHT THE THE 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS NEW. THE HID HEADLIGHT BULBS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED TWICE AND THEY NEED REPLACED AGAIN. TOYOTA HELPED WITH THE FIRST REPLACEMENT. EACH BULB STARTED OUT AT $300.00 A PIECE, TOYOTA HAS SINCE LOWERED THE COST TO $150.00 EACH PLUS LABOR. THE DESIGN REQUIRES THE FRONT BUMPER TO BE REMOVED TO INSTA…
Read full complaint
BOUGHT THE THE 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS NEW. THE HID HEADLIGHT BULBS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED TWICE AND THEY NEED REPLACED AGAIN. TOYOTA HELPED WITH THE FIRST REPLACEMENT. EACH BULB STARTED OUT AT $300.00 A PIECE, TOYOTA HAS SINCE LOWERED THE COST TO $150.00 EACH PLUS LABOR. THE DESIGN REQUIRES THE FRONT BUMPER TO BE REMOVED TO INSTALL THE LAMPS. TO DO THIS IS AT LEAST ANOTHER $100.00 LABOR. LOOKING AT THE INTERNET, I AM ONE OF THE THOUSANDS WHO HAVE HAD THIS PROBLEM. A RECALL ON THIS PROBLEM NEEDS TO HAPPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10428892
Mileage unknown · Sep 23, 2011
Electrical SystemEquipment
2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. LETTER FROM RE ONSTAR FMV DEFECT *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED THE SYSTEM LIGHT FAILED TO LIGHT, EXCEPT WHEN ONE WAS TALKING TO THE ONSTAR ADVISOR. THEN IT FLASHED GREEN ON AND OFF AS ADVERTISED. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS ON AND PRESUMABLY READY FOR USE, THE GREEN LIGHT DID NOT ILLUMINATE. SO FAR, THE CONSUMER …
Read full complaint
2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. LETTER FROM RE ONSTAR FMV DEFECT *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED THE SYSTEM LIGHT FAILED TO LIGHT, EXCEPT WHEN ONE WAS TALKING TO THE ONSTAR ADVISOR. THEN IT FLASHED GREEN ON AND OFF AS ADVERTISED. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS ON AND PRESUMABLY READY FOR USE, THE GREEN LIGHT DID NOT ILLUMINATE. SO FAR, THE CONSUMER WAS TO CONNECT TO THE ONSTAR ADVISOR WHEN THE LIGHT WAS OFF. THE CONSUMER RECEIVED SEVERAL ANSWER AS TO WHY THE SYSTEM WAS NOT WORKING AS ADVERTISED. THE CONSUMER STATED THE UNIT IS MALFUNCTIONING AND MAY NOT WORK IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. *JB THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A CALL FROM ONSTAR STATING THE PROBLEM HE WAS HAVING, WAS DUE TO IMPROPER INSTALLATION, BECAUSE OF AN INTERNAL BATTERY THAT REQUIRED A CONNECTION BEFORE USE. THE PROBLEM HAS SINCE BEEN RESOLVED. UPDATED 10/19/11. *JB THE CONSUMER STATED THE ONSTAR DEVICE MALFUNCTIONED AGAIN. UPDATED 08/15/12.*JB UPDATED 09/06/12. *JB UPDATED 09/18/12 *JB UPDATED 02/11/13. *JB THE CONSUMER STATED A DEFECT MANIFESTED ITSELF BY A PARTIAL LOSS OF INFORMATION ON THE CENTER CONSOLE DISPLAY AND THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS OF THE DIGITAL INFORMATION DISPLAYED ABOVE THE DASHBOARD. THE INFORMATION INCLUDED THE SPEED, ETC. THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN DEFECT OCCURRED, THE POWER BUTTON BECAME INOPERATIVE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE INABILITY TO TURN THE VEHICLE POWER OFF OR REMOVE THE ELECTRONIC KEY. UPDATED 06/22/15.*JB UPDATED 07/08/15. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10427391
35,000 miles · Sep 4, 2011
Exterior Lighting
THIS IS A FOLLOW UP TO NHTSA CASE # PE09019. THE NHTSA CLOSED THIS CASE AS A NON-SAFETY, NON-RECALL CASE, BECAUSE ONLY ONE HEADLIGHT WAS FAILING, GIVING THE DRIVER TIME TO GET TO A SERVICE CENTER. HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM IS DEGENERATIVE...THOUGH NO CASES OF DUAL-HEADLIGHT FAILURE HAD BEEN SEEN BY THE NHTSA AT THE TIME, IN THE PAST …
Read full complaint
THIS IS A FOLLOW UP TO NHTSA CASE # PE09019. THE NHTSA CLOSED THIS CASE AS A NON-SAFETY, NON-RECALL CASE, BECAUSE ONLY ONE HEADLIGHT WAS FAILING, GIVING THE DRIVER TIME TO GET TO A SERVICE CENTER. HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM IS DEGENERATIVE...THOUGH NO CASES OF DUAL-HEADLIGHT FAILURE HAD BEEN SEEN BY THE NHTSA AT THE TIME, IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CASES REPORTED ON PRIUS OWNER WEBSITES. ALL ARE CASES THAT BEGAN WITH ONE INTERMITTENT LIGHT AND PROGRESSED TO BOTH. I WOULD LIKE MY CASE RECORDED BY THE NHTSA AND INCLUDED IN ANY FUTURE CLASS-ACTION SUIT THAT I MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR. I HAVE A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS WITH HID HEADLIGHTS. THEY BEGAN TO FAIL INTERMITTENTLY IN 2009, WHEN MY CAR HAD APP. 35,000 MILES LOGGED. I NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE OPEN NHTSA CASE, OR OF THE CLASS ACTION SUIT THAT TOYOTA SETTLED BY EXTENDING WARRANTIES AND/OR REIMBURSING REPAIRS. I GOT 1 WARNING TICKET FOR WHICH I ATTEMPTED TO GET THEM FIXED, BUT THIS TIME AND OTHER TIMES I WENT FOR SERVICE THE PROBLEM WAS NOT EVIDENT (NO LOOSE WIRES, BULBS WORKED FINE, ETC.) AND I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO FIX. LAST WEEK BOTH OF MY HEADLIGHTS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY, AS DID THE PARKING LIGHTS AND HIGH BEAMS WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AT NIGHT. FORTUNATELY I DIDN'T HAVE AN ACCIDENT, AND I QUICKLY TOGGLED THE CONTROL STICK TO RESET THE LIGHTS, AND THOUGHT I'D RECOVERED DIM HEADLIGHTS AND DROVE HOME, WHERE I DISCOVERED THAT I HAD DRIVEN OVER 200 MILES WITH ONLY MY PARKING LIGHTS ON. THE NEXT DAY, THE LEFT HEADLIGHT BULB WORKED AGAIN, THE PARKING LIGHTS WORK, BUT THE HIGH BEAMS STILL WILL NOT TURN ON. I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THE BULBS CHANGED (THE ONLY RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE QUOTED TO ME BY TOYOTA SERVICE). HOWEVER, I'VE READ REPORTS ONLINE OF OTHERS WHO DID THIS FIX AND EVEN MORE, YET HAD THE HEADLIGHTS FAIL AGAIN SOMETIME LATER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10423236
88,900 miles · Aug 23, 2011
Air BagsSeat BeltsCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED SHE STOPPED SUDDENLY AND A VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF HER VEHICLE CAUSING HER TO CRASH INTO THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HER. THE SEAT BELT DID NOT RESTRAIN HER NOR DID THE AIR BAGS DEPLOY. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED NECK AND BACK INJURIES. THERE WERE NO PASSENGER IN THE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED SHE STOPPED SUDDENLY AND A VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF HER VEHICLE CAUSING HER TO CRASH INTO THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HER. THE SEAT BELT DID NOT RESTRAIN HER NOR DID THE AIR BAGS DEPLOY. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED NECK AND BACK INJURIES. THERE WERE NO PASSENGER IN THE VEHICLE. THE FRONT AND REAR END HAD EXTENSIVE DAMAGE. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 88,900. UPDATED 10/14/11 *BF UPDATED 11/07/11
NHTSA ODI #10421123
60,000 miles · Aug 21, 2011
Exterior Lighting
ONE OF OUR HID HEADLAMPS TURNS OFF INTERMITTENTLY. SOMETIMES IT IS OFF, AND SOMETIMES IT IS ON, NO WAY TO PREDICT. WE HAD THE LIGHT BULB REPLACED BY OUR LOCAL MECHANIC WITH AN AFTER-MARKET PRODUCT, BUT THE PROBLEM PERSISTED. SO WE WENT TO THE DEALER, WHO ALSO REPLACED THE LIGHT BULB (MUCH MORE EXPENSIVELY), BUT IT STILL TURNE…
Read full complaint
ONE OF OUR HID HEADLAMPS TURNS OFF INTERMITTENTLY. SOMETIMES IT IS OFF, AND SOMETIMES IT IS ON, NO WAY TO PREDICT. WE HAD THE LIGHT BULB REPLACED BY OUR LOCAL MECHANIC WITH AN AFTER-MARKET PRODUCT, BUT THE PROBLEM PERSISTED. SO WE WENT TO THE DEALER, WHO ALSO REPLACED THE LIGHT BULB (MUCH MORE EXPENSIVELY), BUT IT STILL TURNED OFF WHENEVER. NOW THE INTERMITTENT TURN-OFF HAS STARTED TO OCCUR ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO FAR THEY HAVE NOT BOTH BEEN OUT AT THE SAME TIME, BUT IF THAT HAPPENED, IT WOULD BE A REAL SAFETY ISSUE. THE DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHY IT IS DOING THIS, AND CAN ONLY SUGGEST THAT WE REPLACE THE LIGHTBULB AGAIN. IT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO US TO KEEP REPLACING $150-$300 LIGHTBULBS. WE NEED TO KNOW THE UNDERLYING CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM, WHETHER IT IS IN THE HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY, OR SOME OTHER PART THAT CONTROLS THE LIGHT. IN SUMMARY, A PRODUCT THAT FAILS INTERMITTENTLY, EVEN AFTER BEING REPLACED HAS A DEFECT THAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. AND ALSO, THE DEALER/MAKER SHOULD KNOW WHY THIS IS HAPPENING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10420890
79,000 miles · Aug 19, 2011
Structure
THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH ON OUR 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY, RUBBERY, GOOEY SUBSTANCE. IT'S LIKE A VISCOUS BLACK GLOB LIKE ROOFING TAR. WHEN OPENING THE HATCH, IT IS SOFT AND GETS UNDER MY FINGERNAILS. I BELIEVE THIS MELTING PROCESS STARTED A COUPLE YEARS AGO, BUT IT'S BEEN WORSE THIS YEAR WITH TH…
Read full complaint
THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH ON OUR 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY, RUBBERY, GOOEY SUBSTANCE. IT'S LIKE A VISCOUS BLACK GLOB LIKE ROOFING TAR. WHEN OPENING THE HATCH, IT IS SOFT AND GETS UNDER MY FINGERNAILS. I BELIEVE THIS MELTING PROCESS STARTED A COUPLE YEARS AGO, BUT IT'S BEEN WORSE THIS YEAR WITH THE TRIPLE-DIGIT TEMPS. MY DEALER, LOU FUSZ TOYOTA (IN MISSOURI) SAID THEY HAVE NOT HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING BEFORE, BUT WHEN I RESEARCH IT ON-LINE, I FOUND THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO SEVERAL CAR OWNERS. TOYOTA KNOWS ABOUT THIS, AND IS SELLING THE ENTIRE WIRING HARNESS FOR $250 PLUS REPAIR COSTS, AND HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT RECALLING THIS. FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, THIS MEANS YOU CAN EXPERIENCE DIFFICULTY OPENING THE REAR HATCH (A LIFE SAFETY ACCESS POINT), AND WILL GET STICKY BLACK TAR ON YOU FROM THE MELTED DOWN RUBBER COVER OF THE EXTERIOR HATCH RELEASE HANDLE. TO ME, THIS IS BOTH A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE AND A QUALITY DEFECT THAT TOYOTA IS OPTING TO IGNORE, AND ONLY FIXING ON VEHICLES WITH EXTENDED WARRANTIES, SINCE THE FAILURE APPEARS TO OCCUR AT AROUND THE 4 YEAR MARK. I AM AWARE OF THE OUTSTANDING WORK DONE BY NHTSA ON OTHER SAFETY ISSUES, INCLUDING THE PROBLEM WITH RUSTY FRAMES ON 02 ISUZU AXIOMS, AND I FIND THIS PROBLEM TO BE SIMILAR IN NATURE, SO I AM ASKING FOR YOUR AGENCY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THESE INSTANCES AND ALSO TO INQUIRE FROM TOYOTA WHY THEY ARE NOT RECALLING THESE HANDLES THAT ARE MELTING IN THE SUN. I THINK A DOOR HANDLE OR HATCH HANDLE SHOULD BE MADE TO LAST MORE THAN 4 YEARS! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10420772
72,000 miles · Aug 13, 2011
Latches/locks/linkagesStructure
AFTER ONLY ABOUT 4 YEARS USE, THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH RELEASE HANDLE (THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH) OF OUR 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY BLACK RUBBERY GOOEY MESS. I CAN BEST DESCRIBE IT AS BEING A VISCOUS BLACK GLOB LIKE ROOFING TAR. TO OPEN THE HATCH, YOU HAVE TO TOUCH THIS BLACK GOO EACH TIME, WH…
Read full complaint
AFTER ONLY ABOUT 4 YEARS USE, THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH RELEASE HANDLE (THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH) OF OUR 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY BLACK RUBBERY GOOEY MESS. I CAN BEST DESCRIBE IT AS BEING A VISCOUS BLACK GLOB LIKE ROOFING TAR. TO OPEN THE HATCH, YOU HAVE TO TOUCH THIS BLACK GOO EACH TIME, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO OPERATE THE HATCH RELEASE. WE BELIEVE THIS MELTING PROCESS STARTED AT ABOUT THE 2 YR. MARK. I THOUGHT THAT THIS MIGHT BE A SINGULAR ISSUE, BUT HAVE FOUND THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO SEVERAL CAR OWNERS, PARTICULARLY IN FLORIDA. WE ALSO LIVE IN FLORIDA. TOYOTA KNOWS ABOUT THIS, AND IS SELLING THE ENTIRE WIRING HARNESS FOR $96 PLUS REPAIR COSTS(200.00), AND HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT RECALLING THIS. FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, THIS MEANS YOU CAN EXPERIENCE EXTREME DIFFICULTY OPENING THE REAR HATCH (A LIFE SAFETY ACCESS POINT), AND WILL GET STICKY BLACK TAR ON YOU FROM THE MELTED DOWN RUBBER COVER OF THE EXTERIOR HATCH RELEASE HANDLE. TO ME, THIS IS BOTH A SERIOUS LIFE SAFETY ISSUE AND A SERIOUS QUALITY DEFECT THAT TOYOTA IS OPTING TO IGNORE AND ONLY FIXING ON VEHICLES WITH EXTENDED WARRANTIES, SINCE THE FAILURE APPEARS TO OCCUR AT AROUND THE 3 YEAR MARK (IE AFTER 3 YEARS OF EXPOSURE TO THE BRIGHT SUN IN FLORIDA FOR EXAMPLE). I AM AWARE OF THE OUTSTANDING WORK DONE BY NHTSA ON OTHER SAFETY ISSUES, INCLUDING THE PROBLEM WITH RUSTY FRAMES ON 02 ISUZU AXIOMS, AND I FIND THIS PROBLEM TO BE SIMILAR IN NATURE, SO I AM ASKING FOR YOUR AGENCY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THESE INSTANCES AND ALSO TO INQUIRE FROM TOYOTA WHY THEY ARE NOT RECALLING THESE HANDLES THAT ARE MELTING IN THE SUN!!! IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. I THINK A DOOR HANDLE OR HATCH HANDLE SHOULD BE MADE TO LAST MORE THAN 3 YEARS. PLEASE REVIEW THESE FORUM COMMENTS OF OTHER INCIDENTS: *TR
NHTSA ODI #10419311
Official recalls
6Nov 14, 2012
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Hybrid Propulsion System: Inverter
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.
Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
Engine And Engine Cooling
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.
Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
Nov 14, 2012
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.
Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
Steering
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.
Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
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.
Oct 5, 2009
TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004-2010 PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL CAN GET STUCK IN THE WIDE OPEN POSITION DUE TO ITS BEING TRAPPED BY AN UNSECURED OR INCOMPATIBLE DRIVER'S FLOOR MAT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A STUCK OPEN ACCELERATOR PEDAL MAY RESULT IN VERY HIGH VEHICLE SPEEDS AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO STOP THE VEHICLE, WHICH COULD CAUSE A CRASH, SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH.
Remedy: TOYOTA FILED AN AMENDED DEFECT REPORT ON NOVEMBER 25, 2009, STATING THAT DEALERS WILL MODIFY THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND, ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, ALTER THE SHAPE OF THE FLOOR SURFACE UNDER THE PEDAL. THESE CHANGES ADDRESS THE RISK OF PEDAL ENTRAPMENT DUE TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE FLOOR MAT. REDESIGNED ACCELERATOR PEDALS WILL BECOME AVAILABLE BEGINNING IN APRIL 2010 AND DEALERS WILL REPLACE ANY MODIFIED PEDAL WITH THE NEW PEDAL IF DESIRED. ALSO, DEALERS WILL REPLACE ANY GENUINE TOYOTA OR LEXUS ALL-WEATHER FLOOR MATS WITH REDESIGNED ALL-WEATHER MATS, OR REPURCHASE THE PREVIOUS MATS FROM OWNERS WHO DO NOT WANT THE NEW ONES. ADDITIONALLY, SOFTWARE MODIFICATIONS WILL BE INSTALLED ON CAMRY, AVALON AND LEXUS ES 350, IS 350 AND IS 250 MODELS THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE BRAKE OVERRIDES THE ACCELERATOR IN THE EVENT BOTH BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS ARE APPLIED. TOYOTA WILL BEGIN MAILING LETTERS TO OWNERS ON DECEMBER 31, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331, LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987.
May 31, 2006
THE INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND SLIDING YOKE IN THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING SYSTEM CAN CRACK WHEN LARGE FORCES ARE APPLIED AND THE CONNECTION MAY SEPARATE OR THE SLEEVE MAY FRACTURE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.
Remedy: TOYOTA WILL REPLACE THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND INSPECT THE SLIDING YOKE AND REPLACE IT IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 9, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Apr 3, 2006
ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE AIR BAG INFLATOR, WHICH IS USED IN THE SIDE AIR BAG, THE CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAG, AND THE KNEE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY, SOME INFLATORS WERE PRODUCED WITH AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF THE HEATING AGENTS NECESSARY FOR PROPER AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT. IN THIS CONDITION, THE EXPANSION FORCE OF THE GAS MAY BE INSUFFICIENT TO PROPERLY INFLATE THE AIR BAG WHEN THE SRS SYSTEM IS ACTIVATED DURING A CRASH.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT IN THE INVOLVED SEATING POSITION IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SPECIFIC SRS AIR BAG. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 6, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-888-270-9371, SCION AT 1-866-548-1851, 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
3DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds
Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System
NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.
DP13001 · Intermediate Steering Shaft Separation
Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Apr 8, 2020
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering; Steering:column; Steering:linkages
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606
Additional source detail variants (3)
Steering:column
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606
Steering:linkages
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606
Steering
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606
PE09019 · Headlight Failure
Opened Apr 17, 2009 · Closed Aug 27, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights
ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting:headlights
ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Exterior Lighting
ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Illustration