NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
1,439 reports40,045 miles · Aug 8, 2011
Structure
AFTER ONLY ABOUT 2 YEARS USE, THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH RELEASE HANDLE (THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH) OF OUR 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, STARTED TO BE STICKY. NOW, AFTER NEARLY 5 YEARS AFTER PURCHASE, I NOTICE THAT IT HAS MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY BLACK RUBBERY GOOEY MESS WHICH HAS SPREAD OVER A MUCH LARGER AREA. I CAN BEST…
Read full complaint
AFTER ONLY ABOUT 2 YEARS USE, THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH RELEASE HANDLE (THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH) OF OUR 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS, STARTED TO BE STICKY. NOW, AFTER NEARLY 5 YEARS AFTER PURCHASE, I NOTICE THAT IT HAS MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY BLACK RUBBERY GOOEY MESS WHICH HAS SPREAD OVER A MUCH LARGER AREA. 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 (IT TAKES 2-3 DAYS TO REMOVE THE STAIN COMPLETELY FROM FINGERS/NAILS), WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO OPERATE THE HATCH RELEASE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS MELTING PROCESS STARTED WHEN I NOTICED THE STICKY FEEL. I THOUGHT THAT THIS MIGHT BE A SINGULAR ISSUE, BUT HAVE FOUND THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO SEVERAL CAR OWNERS, PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTH. WE LIVE IN MOBILE, ALABAMA. IT SEEMS THAT TOYOTA KNOWS ABOUT THIS FAULTY MATERIAL, 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. 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 (IT IS OUTRAGEOUS). I THINK A DOOR HANDLE OR HATCH HANDLE SHOULD BE MADE TO LAST MORE THAN 3 YEARS. PLEASE REVIEW THIS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10418013
42,000 miles · Jul 29, 2011
Electrical SystemElectronic Stability Control (esc)Exterior Lighting
IN ADDITION TO MY COMPLAINT, ODI ID #10400072, WHEN I TURN MY HEADLIGHTS ON, THE LIGHTING IN MY CONSOLE LOSES IT BRIGHTNESS--ALOT. DURING THE DAYTIME, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE THE ODOMETER/SPEEDOMETER AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED ON MY CONSOLE... THIS INCLUDES THE BUILT-IN GPS/INFO SCREEN. THIS IS DEFINITELY A DESIGN …
Read full complaint
IN ADDITION TO MY COMPLAINT, ODI ID #10400072, WHEN I TURN MY HEADLIGHTS ON, THE LIGHTING IN MY CONSOLE LOSES IT BRIGHTNESS--ALOT. DURING THE DAYTIME, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE THE ODOMETER/SPEEDOMETER AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED ON MY CONSOLE... THIS INCLUDES THE BUILT-IN GPS/INFO SCREEN. THIS IS DEFINITELY A DESIGN FLAW THAT TOYOTA CREATED AND APPROVED FOR SALE HERE IN THE U.S. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY TOYOTA IS NOT HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE VERY SERIOUS FLAWS AND ARE REQUIRED TO CORRECT THESE VERY SERIOUS FLAWS AT NO COST THE THE INNOCENT CONSUMER THAT ARE VICTIMS FOR PURCHASING THESE VEHICLES FULLY TRUSTING THAT TOYOTA FULLY BACKED UP THEIR VEHICLES AND REPUTATION. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO REQUIRE TOYOTA TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO RECTIFY THESE VERY OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THEIR VEHICLES? A DEATH AS A RESULT OF AN INNOCENT DRIVER AND HIS FAMILY TRUSTING THE TOYOTA BRAND NAME? I SURE HOPE NOT.
NHTSA ODI #10417216
56,551 miles · Jul 14, 2011
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
MOMENTARY LOSS OF BRAKING WHILE DRIVING OVER A BUMPY SURFACE, OVER SMALL POTHOLES, ROUGH PATCHES ETC., THE CAR LUNGES FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME MY TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT WILL FLASH ON AND OFF UNTIL THE ROAD SMOOTHS OUT.
NHTSA ODI #10412888
33,000 miles · Jul 9, 2011
Service Brakes, Electric
WHEN BRAKING QUICKLY USUALLY ON ROUGH SURFACES, WET ROADS, SLOPES BRAKES TEMPORARILY FAIL AS IF NO CONTROL OVER THE CAR GIVING ME AN ADRENALINE RUSH. I HAVE BEEN DRIVING LIKE THIS FOR 4 YEARS THINKING IS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF PRIUS. JUNE 30TH 2011, I STEERED INTO THE PARKING LOT AND WAS PARKING ON THE FIRST SPOT AT THE RIGHT IM…
Read full complaint
WHEN BRAKING QUICKLY USUALLY ON ROUGH SURFACES, WET ROADS, SLOPES BRAKES TEMPORARILY FAIL AS IF NO CONTROL OVER THE CAR GIVING ME AN ADRENALINE RUSH. I HAVE BEEN DRIVING LIKE THIS FOR 4 YEARS THINKING IS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF PRIUS. JUNE 30TH 2011, I STEERED INTO THE PARKING LOT AND WAS PARKING ON THE FIRST SPOT AT THE RIGHT IMMEDIATELY AFTER ENTRY TO PARKING LOT AT THE SPEED OF 5 MPH. APPROXIMATELY HALF WAY TO CURB I WITHDREW MY FOOT OFF THE GAS PEDAL AND PUT ON THE BRAKES SLOWLY. I WAS EXPECTING THE CAR TO HALT PRIOR TO THE CURB LINE AS USUAL. BUT IT DID NOT STOP ON THE CONTRARY IT ACCELERATED AND WENT OVER THE CURB AND RIGHT ON THE FENCE. THE FENCE WAS APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET FROM CURB; BEFORE IT WENT ON FENCE I LOOKED AT MY FEET AND MADE SURE IT WAS ON THE BRAKES AS COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THE CAR AND YES I AM 100% SURE IT WAS ON BRAKES. I ALSO APPLIED PARKING BRAKES AND PUT CAR IN NEUTRAL AND SHUT OFF THE POWER, WHEN IT STOPPED OVER THE FENCE. I HAVE REPORTED THIS TO DEALER AS THE CAR HAD BEEN SERVICED 4 WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT AT 32,431 MILES. THE DEALER DID HEALTH CHECK SCAN TWICE TAKING 6 HOURS FOR EACH SCAN. AFTER FIRST SCAN I WAS TOLD THE CAR HAD FRONT SPEED SENSORS CODES AND A LOW OR ABNORMAL HIGH BATTERY VOLTAGE. AND ADVISED TO DETECT SENSORS IN DETAILS AND REPLACE THEM AT NEXT APPOINTMENT. SECOND DAY AFTER THE MANAGER DID ANOTHER HEALTH CHECK FOR 6 HOURS, I DON'T KNOW WHY ANOTHER SCAN; AND REPORTED CODES FOR LOW BATTERY AND SPEED SENSORS AND ECU. NONE HAVE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE CUSTOMER CONCERN. THEY FINALLY BLAMED THE FLOOR MAT WHICH WAS DEFINITELY NOT THE PROBLEM. SURPRISINGLY WHEN I ASKED HOW DID THEY TAKE CARE OF THE CODES? IF SENSORS NEED TO BE REPLACED, THEY TOLD ME THE CODES ARE GONE NOW. THERE WERE NO DETAILS PROVIDED INSPITE OF ME ASKING SEVERAL TIMES WHY THE CAR MOVES AFTER APPLYING BRAKES. BEING A DOCTOR I AM CONCERNED WITH SAFETY AND PREVENTION MORE THAN ANYTHING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10411580
50,000 miles · Jul 2, 2011
Exterior Lighting
LIKE MANY OTHER PRIUS OWNERS, I BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE HEADLAMP PROBLEMS AFTER ABOUT 4 OTHERWISE VERY SATISFACTORY YEARS OF DRIVING MY 2006 PRIUS. ONE OF THE LAMPS (THE RIGHT SO FAR) GOES OFF IRREGULARLY DURING OPERATION, AND I CAN'T TELL WHEN IT HAS GONE. THIS CONDITION CREATES A SAFETY HAZARD FOR OTHER DRIVERS BECAUSE (1) IN TH…
Read full complaint
LIKE MANY OTHER PRIUS OWNERS, I BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE HEADLAMP PROBLEMS AFTER ABOUT 4 OTHERWISE VERY SATISFACTORY YEARS OF DRIVING MY 2006 PRIUS. ONE OF THE LAMPS (THE RIGHT SO FAR) GOES OFF IRREGULARLY DURING OPERATION, AND I CAN'T TELL WHEN IT HAS GONE. THIS CONDITION CREATES A SAFETY HAZARD FOR OTHER DRIVERS BECAUSE (1) IN THE DARK A "ONE-EYED" CAR COULD BE LOOMING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ONE VISIBLE LIGHT, AND (2) TO REDUCE THE RISK (I THINK!) I ROUTINELY DRIVE WITH BRIGHTS ON WHICH BLINDS ON-COMING DRIVERS. BLOGS ON THIS SUBJECT MAKE A FIX SOUND TOO UNCERTAIN AND EXPENSIVE TO ENTRUST TO A DEALER OR DO MYSELF. NHTSA SHOULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK.
NHTSA ODI #10411152
Mileage unknown · Jun 30, 2011
Exterior Lighting
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THE PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT FAILED. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE BULB AND THE HEADLIGHT FAILED THREE MORE TIMES ON BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDES. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THE PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT FAILED. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE BULB AND THE HEADLIGHT FAILED THREE MORE TIMES ON BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDES. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
NHTSA ODI #10410101
100,000 miles · Jun 28, 2011
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
EVER SINCE I GOT MY 2006 PRIUS, THE BRAKES HAVE BRIEFLY STOPPED WORKING WHEN I TRY TO STOP QUICKLY OR ON A HILL WHEN IT IS WET OR ICY OUTSIDE. ON FEBRUARY 24, IT WAS VERY ICY, AND THE CAR COMPLETELY LOCKED UP WHEN I WAS GOING DOWN A HILL. I WAS GOING VERY SLOWLY WHEN I STARTED GOING DOWNHILL, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED WHEN I TRIED …
Read full complaint
EVER SINCE I GOT MY 2006 PRIUS, THE BRAKES HAVE BRIEFLY STOPPED WORKING WHEN I TRY TO STOP QUICKLY OR ON A HILL WHEN IT IS WET OR ICY OUTSIDE. ON FEBRUARY 24, IT WAS VERY ICY, AND THE CAR COMPLETELY LOCKED UP WHEN I WAS GOING DOWN A HILL. I WAS GOING VERY SLOWLY WHEN I STARTED GOING DOWNHILL, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED WHEN I TRIED TO STEER OR PUSH DOWN THE BRAKES AND I GOT IN AN ACCIDENT. I CONTACTED TOYOTA, BUT THEY ONLY TESTED IT WHEN IT WAS DRY OUTSIDE, AND I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY TROUBLE WHEN IT WAS DRY. THEY TOLD ME NOTHING WAS WRONG. SINCE THEN, I HAVE HAD INCREASED TROUBLE STOPPING AT STOPLIGHTS WHEN IT IS WET. THE WHOLE CAR SEEMS TO LOCK UP AND I SLIDE TOWARD THE LIGHT FOR A FEW SECONDS BEFORE THE BRAKES RE-ENGAGE. I AM TRADING THE CAR IN, AS I AM AFRAID FOR THE SAFETY OF MY CHILDREN IN THIS CAR.
NHTSA ODI #10409881
73,000 miles · Jun 23, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling
PRIUS UNDER ENGINE DUST COVER KEEPS TEARING AWAY FROM BOLTS ON BODY. PART REPLACED FOR THE 5TH TIME. CAR LOW TO GROUND. COMES IN CONTACT WITH PARKING BUMPERS, ETC. TOYOTA DENIES RESPONSIBILITY. A DESIGN FLAW WITH FRONT EDGE OF COVER EXPOSED TO LOW LYING OBJECTS CAUSING IT TO BE PUSHED BACK FROM ANCHOR BOLTS. CAN BE EASILY RESOLV…
Read full complaint
PRIUS UNDER ENGINE DUST COVER KEEPS TEARING AWAY FROM BOLTS ON BODY. PART REPLACED FOR THE 5TH TIME. CAR LOW TO GROUND. COMES IN CONTACT WITH PARKING BUMPERS, ETC. TOYOTA DENIES RESPONSIBILITY. A DESIGN FLAW WITH FRONT EDGE OF COVER EXPOSED TO LOW LYING OBJECTS CAUSING IT TO BE PUSHED BACK FROM ANCHOR BOLTS. CAN BE EASILY RESOLVED BY DESIGNING COVER TO FIT INSIDE LIP OF FRAME RATHER THAN OUTSIDE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10408672
65,000 miles · Jun 15, 2011
Exterior Lighting
TOYOTA 2006 PRIUS. BOTH HID HEAD LAMPS INTERMITTENTLY GO OFF, BUT USUALLY NOT AT THE SAME TIME. CURRENTLY HAVE 75K MI ON CAR. PROBLEM STARTED WHEN CAR HAD APPROX 55K MILES ON IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10406968
90,000 miles · Jun 14, 2011
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DRIVER WAS OPERATING THE VEHICLE APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH. AS SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP UNTIL CRASHING INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED, BUT NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WHER…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DRIVER WAS OPERATING THE VEHICLE APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH. AS SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP UNTIL CRASHING INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED, BUT NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING THE BODY DAMAGES REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 90,000. UPDATED 07/26/11*LJ
NHTSA ODI #10406847
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