IllustrationToyota ABS Actuator Accumulator shows problems after a while. Most common on hybrid vehicles. Signs comes up such ABS Malfunction, Pre-Collision Malfunction, Low Braking Power, and lose traction control.
2017 Toyota RAV4
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2017 Toyota RAV4 do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 258.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all RAV4 years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
890–25K
3225–50K
1450–75K
1575–100K
9100–150K
3150K+
162 reports with mileage · 145 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.
- Electrical System. Review the 108 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 38 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Exterior Lighting. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
33 crash reports24 fire reports22 injury reports
Forward Collision Avoidance complaints
8 reportsPCS brake has enormously engaged twice. 1. small branch fell off tree on a dirt road. brakes engaged and should not have and almost caused vehicle to slide off a 1000 foot cliff. 2. auto braked with my dog was in car and broke dogs' leg and cost a 2,000 dollar vet bill. brakes where not needed i could have easily just did …
Read full complaint
PCS brake has enormously engaged twice. 1. small branch fell off tree on a dirt road. brakes engaged and should not have and almost caused vehicle to slide off a 1000 foot cliff. 2. auto braked with my dog was in car and broke dogs' leg and cost a 2,000 dollar vet bill. brakes where not needed i could have easily just did a slight steering adjustment to avoid collusion. the braking prevented that and almost was also almost rearended overall, the autobrake can be disabled with a lot of work on various menus. but comes on when the car is restarted. I do this every time i restart the car. I suspect a glitch or a low voltage caused it to come back on. Also trying to always remember to do it is difficult to do. I consider this auto brake to be a huge safety risk and could cause loss of life. I am so scared by this and afraid to dive the car now. may have to take a total loss on the car I just bought. Toyota dealers said they cannot reprogram the car to prevent this serious safety risk
While driving the vehicle on an uphill stretch of highway with cruise control set at approximately 65 mph, the vehicle suddenly slowed down without warning. A distinct clunk was heard at the same moment. The cruise control system attempted to restore speed, and the engine became noticeably louder, but the vehicle struggled to re…
Read full complaint
While driving the vehicle on an uphill stretch of highway with cruise control set at approximately 65 mph, the vehicle suddenly slowed down without warning. A distinct clunk was heard at the same moment. The cruise control system attempted to restore speed, and the engine became noticeably louder, but the vehicle struggled to return to the set speed. The driver tapped the brake to disengage cruise control and manually pressed the accelerator to resume normal speed. The trip was completed without additional events. After parking, the check engine light illuminated and the cruise control system became disabled on all subsequent drives. No warning indicators were present at the time of the initial failure, and there were no vehicles ahead that would have triggered the collision-avoidance system. Two days later, the vehicle became an intermittent no-start and eventually failed to start entirely. The vehicle was towed to a dealership for inspection. Technicians confirmed an electrical malfunction and reported that the multiplex ECU was likely experiencing an internal short. A parasitic draw test showed an abnormally high current draw of approximately 113 mA, which disappeared when the dome-light fuse and later the multiplex ECU were disconnected. The failure is intermittent and appears to involve an internal electrical short within the multiplex ECU. The sudden loss of cruise control function, abrupt deceleration, and subsequent intermittent electrical behavior created a safety risk, as the electrical malfunction occurred without warning while the vehicle was in motion. The issue was confirmed by a dealership service department.
My 2017 Toyota RAV4 XLE is experiencing unsafe behavior with the Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). When driving around modest or slight turns, the ACC frequently loses tracking of the vehicle ahead and suddenly accelerates, then harshly brakes once it reacquires the vehicle. This creates a jerking motion and significantly reduces m…
Read full complaint
My 2017 Toyota RAV4 XLE is experiencing unsafe behavior with the Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). When driving around modest or slight turns, the ACC frequently loses tracking of the vehicle ahead and suddenly accelerates, then harshly brakes once it reacquires the vehicle. This creates a jerking motion and significantly reduces my confidence in the system. On one occasion while traveling approximately 45 miles per hour on a slight curve, the ACC began rapidly accelerating toward the vehicle in front of me as if no vehicle was there, forcing me to perform an emergency manual takeover and disengage the ACC to avoid a potential rear end collision. This issue is repeatable and appears to be related to how the ACC detects vehicles ahead while cornering. I am requesting that this behavior be investigated as a potential safety defect.
I have a 2017 RAV4 Hybrid XLE that I bought brand New. I have done all schedule maintenance on it. I was driving to an appointment on 15 November 2023 and the vehicle all the sudden jerked violently side to side throwing me off the road. I brought the car to the shop thinking an alignment or something. My whole rear subframe was…
Read full complaint
I have a 2017 RAV4 Hybrid XLE that I bought brand New. I have done all schedule maintenance on it. I was driving to an appointment on 15 November 2023 and the vehicle all the sudden jerked violently side to side throwing me off the road. I brought the car to the shop thinking an alignment or something. My whole rear subframe was cracked, and by the driver side rear wheel bolt it was broke straight through where the tow bar connects to the subframe. The mechanic said it was from rust from living in the Northeast, and the salt from the road during winter months. The Mechanic said Even though I took care of the vehicle this was going to happen anyways due to the subframe suspension parts that Toyota puts in the RAV4. Being flung into a ditch coming off a highway is a dangerous situation, and could of cost me my life because Toyota wants to save money and put in parts knowing that the rust problem will and could occur. I did my research, and found out this has been going on since 2007 and there have been recalls on models all the way up to 2012. If this is a known thing then why is Toyota being allowed to still make a weak subframe. Does someone have to die for this to be stoped. I’m am asking for a recall on all models of 2017 Rav4 hybrids and on to fix this problem. I am lucky to escape with minor injures, but maybe the next person isn’t. Something has to be done.
I have attached a letter that I wrote Toyota but did not mail. Vechicle is a 2017 Rav Hybrid. We bought it in CA April 2021 and it had 28230 miles. Car went to Renton WA in August, 2021. Vechicle was serviced a couple of times, but in October 2022, dealer gave us a bill for $9700 due to a faulty wire halter. The Toyot…
Read full complaint
I have attached a letter that I wrote Toyota but did not mail. Vechicle is a 2017 Rav Hybrid. We bought it in CA April 2021 and it had 28230 miles. Car went to Renton WA in August, 2021. Vechicle was serviced a couple of times, but in October 2022, dealer gave us a bill for $9700 due to a faulty wire halter. The Toyota people said the car is out of warranty. Please read the letter with lots more details. Thanks.
WITH RAIN AND SNOW THE SENSOR START BEEPING AND WARNING OF OBJECTS IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE WHEN THERE ARE NOTHING. DRIVING IN SNOW GETS THE SENSORS BLOCKED AND YOU CANT USE THE CRUISE CONTROL.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 TOYOTA RAV4. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 75 MPH BEHIND ANOTHER VEHICLE, THE CONTACT SWITCHED LANES AND THE FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE FEATURE IMMEDIATELY ACTIVATED. AS A RESULT, THE BRAKES ENGAGED AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO STOP ABRUPTLY. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE DETECTION SYSTEM ACTIVATED ALTHO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2017 TOYOTA RAV4. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 75 MPH BEHIND ANOTHER VEHICLE, THE CONTACT SWITCHED LANES AND THE FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE FEATURE IMMEDIATELY ACTIVATED. AS A RESULT, THE BRAKES ENGAGED AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO STOP ABRUPTLY. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE DETECTION SYSTEM ACTIVATED ALTHOUGH THE PRECEDING VEHICLE WAS MORE THAN 150 FEET AWAY. THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE WAS NOT DETERMINED. THE MANUFACTURER AND LOCAL DEALER WERE NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 38,000. *TT*JB
Official recalls
323V734000 · Electrical SYSTEM:12V/24V/48V Battery
Nov 1, 2023
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain 2013-2018 RAV4 vehicles. Certain replacement 12-volt batteries may not fit properly in the battery tray, allowing the battery to move and contact the hold-down bracket, possibly causing a short circuit.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A battery short circuit increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Dealers will replace the battery clamp sub-assembly, battery tray, and positive terminal cover, free of charge. Owner letters were mailed December 27, 2024, to 2013-2014 RAV4 owners. Additional owner notification letters will be mailed in phases, phase 2 will begin on May 14, 2025, and phase 3 in late July 2025. Owners may contact Toyota's customer service at 1-800-331-4331. Toyota's numbers for this recall are 23TB13 and 23TA13.
19V503000 · Equipment:other:labels
Jun 28, 2019
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET) is recalling certain 2017-2019 Toyota Camry, Corolla, Rav4, Sienna, and Yaris iA vehicles equipped with factory-installed floor mats. The load carrying capacity modification label may be incorrect. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 110, "Tire Selection and Rims."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An incorrect label may lead to unintentionally overloading the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: SET will notify owners and provide a corrected label for placement over the inaccurate label, free of charge. The recall began August 23, 2019. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371. SET's number for this recall is SET19A.
17V295000 · Tires:temporary/emergency Spare Tire
May 2, 2017
Gulf States Toyota, Inc. (Gulf States) is recalling certain 2017 4Runner , 86, Avalon, Camry, Camry Hybrid, Corolla, Corolla iM, Highlander, Highlander Hybrid, Prius, Prius C, RAV4, RAV4 Hybrid, Sienna and Yaris vehicles. The spare tire air pressure was not adjusted to the proper pressure as stated on the Tire Pressure Label.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A spare tire that is not inflated to the proper value may not perform as intended, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Gulf States will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the spare tires, adjusting their pressure as necessary, free of charge. The recall began June 15, 2017. Owners may contact Gulf States customer service at 1-800-444-1074. Toyota's number for this recall is 17R2.
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
1PE21005 · Battery Hold Down Bracket Thermal Events
Opened Feb 25, 2021 · Closed Aug 12, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical SYSTEM:12V/24V/48V Battery
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to understand the contributing factors and frequency of vehicle fires originating from the battery region of the engine compartment in Model Year (MY) 2013-2018 Toyota RAV4 vehicles on 25 February 2021. At the time of opening, ODI attributed eleven allegations and additional EWR events to this PE. PE21005 focused on replacement batteries installed in the subject vehicles. No reported fire event identified in PE21005 involved the originally supplied 12V battery. The reported fires took place in vehicles known to contain aftermarket batteries or whose age exceeded the expected life of the original equipment battery. ODI identified battery dimensioning as it relates to the battery retention system (hold down bracket, radiator support bolt, J-hook, and battery tray) as the main factor set in the contact between the battery hold down bracket contacting the positive terminal of the 12V battery. The subject vehicles carried over the same battery tray and retention system from the prior generation (MY2006 – MY2012) of RAV4 vehicles. However, the subject vehicles were equipped with a dimensionally smaller battery (Group 35) than the prior generation (Group 24F). The smaller- length measurement in the Group 35 battery size in a battery tray originally designed to fit a Group 24F battery contributed to increased potential for battery movement which was exacerbated by the diversity in aftermarket battery configuration and irregularities intrinsic to battery replacement procedures. Battery movement coupled with the proximity of the B+ terminal on the battery and the grounded electrically conductive hold down bracket set the stage for a short to ground leading to an engine stall (if in operation) followed by a vehicle fire. This investigation was not able to classify the installation status, battery size, or cause of every allegation due to the fire event causing damage to the area, inaccessible vehicle, modification to the battery retention system after the event, and/or inconclusive photographic evidence. Toyota's investigation of the issue identified aftermarket battery catalogs that listed an improper battery replacement size (Group 26R) that would nevertheless fit into the subject vehicles whose battery retention system is incapable of reliably restraining a Group 26R battery. On 18 November 2021, Toyota initiated a consumer advisory campaign (21TG01) to the subject vehicle owners, notifying them of the correct size battery and offering a free inspection of the battery and retention hardware, a caution label to affix to the hold down bracket, and a discounted replacement 12V battery. This investigation with Toyota established three broad categories to characterize the battery retention system state of a given vehicle: "correct", "minor mis-installation", and "major mis-installation". - The "correct" terminology references the front bolt, bracket, and J-hook installed in a position not in contact with the positive battery terminal and the front bolt torqued to 17 Nm and the J-hook engaged with the tray hole and torqued to 4.9 Nm. - A "minor mis-installation" would describe the three retention components installed in the prescribed location, however not to the correct torque values. - The "major mis-installation" condition would constitute a retention component missing or disconnected from the system. Toyota's own testing used five exemplar batteries installed on a subject vehicle in each battery categorization resulted in: - Contact between the B+ terminal and hold down bracket in "major mis-installations" - Movement of the battery in "minor mis-installations" - No observable motion in "correct" installations. ODI conducted its own evaluation of the Toyota- specified replacement battery and 5 aftermarket Group 35 batteries. The six batteries tested conformed to the Group 35 Battery Council International (BCI) standard on overall dimensional tolerance and terminal location. That standard does not define the edge shape or material of battery casing. Physical interaction between the hold down bracket and the battery case and the friction between the casing material and the battery tray resulted in a large variability in movement forces required to incite movement when the battery was installed in the "correct" condition. Resulting in movement at an induced lateral load between 0.6 G and 1.91 G equivalent force across each battery. This force is higher than a typical vehicle could exert in a steady state turn and would only experience loads through brief shock or impulses. Multiple shock or impulse loads across time would contribute to a delay between the replacement battery installation and the fire event. Likelihood of a fire event increases as the installation method degraded from the "correct", to "minor mis-installation", and then to "major mis-installation". Protruding vent caps atop some of the batteries tested aided in restricting battery movement relative to the hold down. An absence of vent caps permitted additional movement. Following several discussions and vehicle inspections with ODI during this investigation, on 01 November 2023, Toyota filed a safety recall (NHTSA 23V-734) of 1,853,568 MY 2013 through MY 2018 Toyota RAV4 vehicles to reduce the risk of a vehicle fire with redesigned battery retention components. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.