← New search

2007 Toyota Prius

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Prius years

Owner complaints for the 2007 Toyota Prius are substantially higher than the model-year median of 164.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,721 reports with mileage · 282 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.

  • Exterior Lighting. Review the 1,060 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 248 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 184 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

124 crash reports9 fire reports53 injury reports

Service Brakes complaints

127 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Jul 3, 2016
Electrical SystemExterior LightingService Brakes

THE HEADLIGHTS TURN OFF DURING DRIVING, SO I EXIT THE FREEWAY AND TURN THEM ON AND OFF AND THEY START AGAIN AND SO ON, I ALREADY CHANGED THE BULB DID NOT HELP, I TOOK IT TWO TIMES TO THE LONGO TOYOTA IN EL MONTE CALIFORNIA AND THEY REFUSED TO REPAIR IT STATING THAT THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE IT, I I COMPLAINED ABOUT THE NOISE…

Read full complaint

THE HEADLIGHTS TURN OFF DURING DRIVING, SO I EXIT THE FREEWAY AND TURN THEM ON AND OFF AND THEY START AGAIN AND SO ON, I ALREADY CHANGED THE BULB DID NOT HELP, I TOOK IT TWO TIMES TO THE LONGO TOYOTA IN EL MONTE CALIFORNIA AND THEY REFUSED TO REPAIR IT STATING THAT THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE IT, I I COMPLAINED ABOUT THE NOISE OF THE ABS SYSTEM AND THEY REFUSED TO REPAIR IT THERE IS RECALL ON BOTH

NHTSA ODI #10882357

40,002 miles · Feb 3, 2016
Fuel/propulsion SystemService BrakesCrash

I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. THIS REPORT IS REGARDING THE FIRST VEHICLE. I HAVE FILED A SEPARATE REPORT FOR THE SECOND VEHICLE WHICH I STILL HAVE IN MY POSSESSION. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW …

Read full complaint

I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. THIS REPORT IS REGARDING THE FIRST VEHICLE. I HAVE FILED A SEPARATE REPORT FOR THE SECOND VEHICLE WHICH I STILL HAVE IN MY POSSESSION. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW IN 2007. ON DEC 9, 2009, TO AVOID A COLLISION, I FULLY PRESSED THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE HOWEVER THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. I SHOULD EASILY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE IN TIME. AS IT CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD, I COLLIDED WITH THE OTHER CAR. THE SPEED AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT WAS APPROX 25 MPH. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE COST OF REPAIRING THE HYBRID SYSTEM. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE POLICE REPORT. SECOND TOYOTA PRIUS: I PURCHASED AN EXACT REPLACEMENT USED 2007 PRIUS IN DEC 2009. ON OCTOBER 17, 2015, A CAR STOPPED ABRUPTLY IN FRONT OF MY WIFE WHO WAS DRIVING AT APPROX 40 MPH. SHE REPORTED PRESSING ON THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE BUT THAT THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE HIT CAR IN FRONT THEN SWERVED TO THE RIGHT AS THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE STEERED TO THE LEFT INTO THE CENTER MEDIAN AND THE PRIUS STOPPED. THE CAR THEN CAUGHT ON FIRE. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE AND THE POLICE REPORT. I CONTACTED TOYOTA IN NOV 2015. AN INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED. A TOYOTA 'FIELD TECHNICAL SPECIALIST' INSPECTED THE VEHICLE. I SIGNED AN 'EDR CONSENT FORM' FOR TOYOTA TO READ ANY DATA FROM THE VEHICLE. HOWEVER DUE TO THE FIRE, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO READ ANY DATA. ON JANUARY 26, 2016 I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A LEGAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., STATING 'OUR INSPECTION WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM ANY EVIDENCE OF A MANUFACTURING OR DESIGN DEFECT IN YOUR VEHICLE'.

NHTSA ODI #10823998

102,000 miles · Feb 3, 2016
Fuel/propulsion SystemService BrakesCrashFire

I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW IN 2007. ON DEC 9, 2009, TO AVOID A COLLISION, I FULLY PRESSED THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE HOWEVER THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. …

Read full complaint

I HAVE OWNED TWO 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HAVE BEEN TOTALED DUE TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE OF THE HYBRID DRIVETRAIN TO DISENGAGE DURING EMERGENCY BRAKING. FIRST 2007 PRIUS, PURCHASED NEW IN 2007. ON DEC 9, 2009, TO AVOID A COLLISION, I FULLY PRESSED THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE HOWEVER THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. I SHOULD EASILY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE IN TIME. AS IT CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD, I COLLIDED WITH THE OTHER CAR. THE SPEED AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT WAS APPROX 25 MPH. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE COST OF REPAIRING THE HYBRID SYSTEM. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE POLICE REPORT. SECOND TOYOTA PRIUS: I PURCHASED AN EXACT REPLACEMENT USED 2007 PRIUS IN DEC 2009. ON OCTOBER 17, 2015, A CAR STOPPED ABRUPTLY IN FRONT OF MY WIFE WHO WAS DRIVING AT APPROX 40 MPH. SHE REPORTED PRESSING ON THE BRAKES WITH FULL FORCE BUT THAT THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE HIT CAR IN FRONT THEN SWERVED TO THE RIGHT AS THE PRIUS CONTINUED TO PROPEL FORWARD. SHE STEERED TO THE LEFT INTO THE CENTER MEDIAN AND THE PRIUS STOPPED. THE CAR THEN CAUGHT ON FIRE. NO AIRBAGS WERE DEPLOYED. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE AND THE POLICE REPORT. I CONTACTED TOYOTA IN NOV 2015. AN INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED. A TOYOTA 'FIELD TECHNICAL SPECIALIST' INSPECTED THE VEHICLE. I SIGNED AN 'EDR CONSENT FORM' FOR TOYOTA TO READ ANY DATA FROM THE VEHICLE. HOWEVER DUE TO THE FIRE, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO READ ANY DATA. ON JANUARY 26, 2016 I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A LEGAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., STATING 'OUR INSPECTION WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM ANY EVIDENCE OF A MANUFACTURING OR DESIGN DEFECT IN YOUR VEHICLE'. I CONTINUE TO OWN THE VEHICLE AND HAVE IT IN MY POSSESSION AT THIS TIME.

NHTSA ODI #10823988

115,000 miles · Dec 17, 2015
Service Brakes

WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE BRAKES ON MY VEHICLE BARELY RESPONDED TO THE TOUCH, AS THOUGH ALL THE POWER WAS GONE TO THEM. LUCKILY I WAS ONLY ENTERING MY SON'S SCHOOL PARKING LOT AND WITH THE LITTLE BIT OF BRAKING ABILITY I COULD STOP IN TIME. HOWEVER, IF THIS FAILURE HAD OCCURRED ON A MAJOR ROAD OR HIGHWAY, I COULD HAVE BEEN IN A T…

Read full complaint

WITHOUT ANY WARNING, THE BRAKES ON MY VEHICLE BARELY RESPONDED TO THE TOUCH, AS THOUGH ALL THE POWER WAS GONE TO THEM. LUCKILY I WAS ONLY ENTERING MY SON'S SCHOOL PARKING LOT AND WITH THE LITTLE BIT OF BRAKING ABILITY I COULD STOP IN TIME. HOWEVER, IF THIS FAILURE HAD OCCURRED ON A MAJOR ROAD OR HIGHWAY, I COULD HAVE BEEN IN A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT OR HURT SOMEONE ELSE. I SEE THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES NOW THAT I HAVE READ THROUGH OTHER REPORTS. HOW IS THIS NOT A RECALL ISSUE?? TO SUDDENLY, AND WITHOUT WARNING, HAVE A MAJOR LOSS OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS IS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS!!!

NHTSA ODI #10810988

52,800 miles · Nov 30, 2015
Electrical SystemService Brakes

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED ON ITS OWN AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE BRAKE HAZARD WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE APPRO…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED ON ITS OWN AND THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. THE BRAKE HAZARD WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 52,800.

NHTSA ODI #10807431

170,000 miles · Nov 21, 2015
Service Brakes

12/17/2013 VEHICLE EXPERIENCED COMPLETE BRAKE FAILURE ON THE FREEWAY. BRAKE LIGHTS AND ALARMS WENT ON. BRAKE PEDALS WERE NON RESPONSIVE AND WENT TO THE FLOOR WHEN PRESSED. MANAGED TO PULL OVER TO SIDE OF FREEWAY AND HAVE VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. AT DEALERSHIP WAS TOLD THAT THE BRAKE COMPUTER OR BRAKE ACTUATOR HAD FAILED. DEA…

Read full complaint

12/17/2013 VEHICLE EXPERIENCED COMPLETE BRAKE FAILURE ON THE FREEWAY. BRAKE LIGHTS AND ALARMS WENT ON. BRAKE PEDALS WERE NON RESPONSIVE AND WENT TO THE FLOOR WHEN PRESSED. MANAGED TO PULL OVER TO SIDE OF FREEWAY AND HAVE VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP. AT DEALERSHIP WAS TOLD THAT THE BRAKE COMPUTER OR BRAKE ACTUATOR HAD FAILED. DEALERSHIP REPLACED BRAKE ACTUATOR. MILEAGE ON VEHICLE AT THE TIME WAS 128,451. BRAKE ACTUATOR FAILED AGAIN. THIS TIME VEHICLE FAILED TO STOP WHILE DRIVING ON RESIDENTIAL STREET. BRAKE WARNING LIGHT AND ALARM WENT ON BRIEFLY. DROVE VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP. DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED PROBLEM AS BRAKE ACTUATOR FAILING AGAIN. CURRENT MILEAGE ABOUT 170,000. LUCKILY BOTH TIMES NOBODY WAS HURT, NO PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED. HOWEVER, I DON'T BELIEVE IT THAT A VEHICLE SHOULD SUDDENLY NOT BE ABLE TO BRAKE DUE TO A COMPUTER MALFUNCTION, ESPECIALLY 42,000 MILES APART.

NHTSA ODI #10795264

86,000 miles · Nov 11, 2015
Service BrakesStructure

THE RUBBER COVER OVER THE REAR HATCH LATCH GOT SOFT AND WOULD STICK ONTO MY HANDS. I HAD TO PAY TO HAVE IT REPLACED. ALSO MY BREAKS GRAB ESPECIALLY WHEN THE WEATHER IS DAMP.

NHTSA ODI #10789735

45,000 miles · Nov 10, 2015
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Exterior LightingService Brakes

THE HEADLIGHTS GO AT WITHOUT WARNING. SOMETIMES ONE GOES OUT SOMETIMES BOTH WHILE WE ARE DRIVING. BULB REPLACEMENT DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUES. THIS HAS CONTINUED TO BE A PROBLEM FOR YEARS. TOYOTA SERVICE HAS NOT OFFERED A FIX THAT WORKS! I HAVE BEEN DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY OR LOCAL ROADS WHEN, ALL OF A SUDDEN, ALL THE LIGHTING …

Read full complaint

THE HEADLIGHTS GO AT WITHOUT WARNING. SOMETIMES ONE GOES OUT SOMETIMES BOTH WHILE WE ARE DRIVING. BULB REPLACEMENT DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUES. THIS HAS CONTINUED TO BE A PROBLEM FOR YEARS. TOYOTA SERVICE HAS NOT OFFERED A FIX THAT WORKS! I HAVE BEEN DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY OR LOCAL ROADS WHEN, ALL OF A SUDDEN, ALL THE LIGHTING GOES DARK. I HAVE HAD SUCCESS IN RELIGHTING THE HEADLIGHTS BY TURNING OFF THE HEADLIGHTS AT THE MAIN SWITCH AND THEN TURNING THEM BACK ON. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. BREAKS ARE ALSO A MENACE: ON WET ROADS IT IS ESPECIALLY NOTICEABLE WHEN USING THE BREAKS. IF YOU ARE BREAKING AND A TIRE GOES OVER A MORE SLIPPERY SURFACE THAN THE PAVEMENT, SUCH AS A MANHOLE COVER, THE ABS SYSTEM CUTS BREAKING TO ALL THE WHEELS SUCH THAT THE CAR CONTINUES ON AS IF THE BREAKS ARE NOT BEING APPLIED - THE CAR EFFECTIVELY RELEASES THE BREAKS AND YOU LOOSE CONTROL OF THE CAR UNTIL ITS SYSTEMS DECIDE TO RETURN CONTROLS TO THE DRIVER. THIS HAPPENS OVER AND OVER AND OVER. TRY IT ON A ROAD WITH A BIT OF LOOSE GRAVEL ON IT OR THE LEFTOVER COARSE SAND FROM WINTER ROAD MAINTENANCE OR GOING THROUGH A MILDE POTHOLE WHERE GRAVEL HAS SPILLED ONTO THE ROAD....BREAKING IN THESE CONDITIONS WILL CONSISTENTLY CAUSE THE CAR TO DIMINISH BREAKING POWER TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE CAR IS NO LONGER LOWING DOWN. WE OWN 6 CARS OF VARYING MAKES AND THIS IS THE ONLY CAR THAT HAS THIS ISSUE. THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS SAME ISSUE IS THAT IF YOU ARE PULLING OUT INTO TRAFFIC AND A DRIVE WHEEL HITS A SLIGHTLY SLIPPERY PATCH, THE ENGINE POWER IS CUT FOR SO LONG AND SO SEVERELY THAT WE ARE AT RISK OF BEING HIT. THIS HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE TIME. TOYOTA SERVICE HAS NOT OFFERED A FIX. THOUGH WE HAVE TOLD THEM ABOU THIS ISSUE REPEATEDLY, THEY TYPICALLY DO NOT WRITE IT DOWN AND TELL US IT IS NORMAL. IT IS NOT NORMAL OR SAFE.

NHTSA ODI #10789456

135,000 miles · Oct 7, 2015
Service Brakes

OUR PRIUS WAS BURGLARIZED WHILE PARKED. THE SIDE WINDOW WAS SMASHED, PURSE STOLEN ALONG WITH ELECTRONIC KEY. VEHICLE WAS TOWED BY GIECO'S BODY REPAIR AGENT, BRIGHTON AUTO REPAIR (4 DAYS LATER-UNKNOWN TO US). VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO CAMELBACK TOYOTA WHERE THEY REPLACED AND PROGRAMMED KEY. THEY ALSO INITIATED AND PERFORMED RECALLS. T…

Read full complaint

OUR PRIUS WAS BURGLARIZED WHILE PARKED. THE SIDE WINDOW WAS SMASHED, PURSE STOLEN ALONG WITH ELECTRONIC KEY. VEHICLE WAS TOWED BY GIECO'S BODY REPAIR AGENT, BRIGHTON AUTO REPAIR (4 DAYS LATER-UNKNOWN TO US). VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO CAMELBACK TOYOTA WHERE THEY REPLACED AND PROGRAMMED KEY. THEY ALSO INITIATED AND PERFORMED RECALLS. THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED WITH BRAKE FAILURE WARNING LIGHT ACTIVATED. CAMELBACK TOY. SAID THE BULB WAS BURNED. WHEN ASKED IF THEY REPLACED IT OR REMOVED THE DASH, THEY SAID NO. THE VEHICLE WOULD SLAM US FORWARD EVERY TIME WE PRESSED THE BRAKES. TOYOTA CAMELBACK RETURNED OUR VEHICLE WITH 14 SENSORS BURNED. TO THIS DAY, WE HAVE TO USE BOTH FEET TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THEY REFUSED TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THEIR REPAIR TECHS. THEY SAID RECALLS WERE PERFORMED UNTIL THEY FOUND OUT OUR VEHICLE HAD A SALVAGE TITLE. ALL WORK WAS STOPPED AT THE STEERING COLUMN (WHERE MOST BRAKE SENSORS ARE LOCATED). TO THIS DAY GIECO, BRIGHTON AND CAMELBACK TOYOTA REFUSE TO REPAIR OUR VEHICLE. EVERYDAY WE PLACE OUR LIVES IN DANGER BECAUSE OF THEIR FAULTY REPAIRS AND DAMAGE THEY CAUSED. NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE EVEN AFTER I FILED WITH BBB. PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE. IT IS OUR DAILY DRIVER AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO REPAIR ALL THE SENSORS THEY BURNED AND THE DAMAGE TO OUR BRAKE SYSTEM (OVER 3500.00 IN DAMAGE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS BURGLARIZED, THE BRAKES WERE IN PERFECT WORKING CONDITION. NOW WE HAVE TO TOLERATE A CONTINUOUS LOUD BEEPING SOUND AND BRAKES WITH NO HYDRAULIC POWER BOOSTER OR ABS. SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO USE BOTH FEET TO STOP THE VEHICLE.

NHTSA ODI #10780454

74,000 miles · Sep 24, 2015
Service BrakesVehicle Speed Control

WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES IN TRAFFIC ON A CITY ROAD WITH A POSTED 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT, THE CAR FELT AS THOUGH IT SURGED FORWARD BRIEFLY AND ACCELERATED FOLLOWED BY THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKE DASHBOARD LIGHT COMING ON AND OFF AND THEN THE BRAKES FINALLY STARTED WORKING TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN. THIS HAS HAPPENED ABOUT 10 TIMES THE LAST FEW WE…

Read full complaint

WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES IN TRAFFIC ON A CITY ROAD WITH A POSTED 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT, THE CAR FELT AS THOUGH IT SURGED FORWARD BRIEFLY AND ACCELERATED FOLLOWED BY THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKE DASHBOARD LIGHT COMING ON AND OFF AND THEN THE BRAKES FINALLY STARTED WORKING TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN. THIS HAS HAPPENED ABOUT 10 TIMES THE LAST FEW WEEKS AND HAS NEARLY CAUSED ME TO REAR-END OTHER VEHICLES ON THE ROAD.

NHTSA ODI #10775959

Official recalls

4

12V536000 · Engine And Engine Cooling; Hybrid Propulsion System: Inverter

Nov 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.

12V537000 · Steering; Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector

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.

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.

09V388000 · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal

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.

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

3

DP22005 · 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.