Power Train. Review the 24 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 15 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Air Bags. Review the 10 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

13 crash reports0 fire reports9 injury reports

Structure complaints

2 reports

Clear category filter

80,000 miles · Dec 4, 2013

Air BagsStructureCrashInjury

Read full complaint

MY WIFE ENTERED AN INTERSECTION AND WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE IN THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR, BY ANOTHER VEHICLE TRAVELING AT 30 MPH. THE DRIVER'S DOOR WINDOW EXPLODED ON IMPACT AND SHE WAS HIT WITH FLYING GLASS IN THE FACE. THE DRIVER'S DOOR WAS BENT INWARD APPROXIMATELY 12 INCHES FROM THE FORCE. WE BELIEVE SHE HIT HER HEAD ON THE B PILLAR, BECAUSE SHE SUFFERED A CONCUSSION AND A JAGGED CUT ABOVE HER LEFT EYE. SHE ALSO SUFFERED A BROKEN LEFT RIB IN THE ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT. THE MECHANIC WHO PERFORMED THE REPAIR NOTED THAT THERE WAS INTRUSION ON THE DRIVERS DOOR, THAT THE LOWER ROCKER HAD BEEN PUSHED IN, AND THAT DUE TO PRESSURE ON THE B PILLAR THE REAR DOOR DID NOT OPEN PROPERLY AFTER THE ACCIDENT. THIS VEHICLE IS EQUIPPED WITH SIDE CURTAIN AIRS BAGS WHICH DID NOT DEPLOY DURING THE ACCIDENT. THE OWNER'S MANUAL OF THE VEHICLE SHOWS AIRBAG SENSORS IN ALL FOUR DOORS OF THE CAR. GIVEN THE DIRECT HIT ON THE DRIVERS DOOR AND THE RESULTING EXPLOSION OF THE DRIVERS WINDOW, WE FEEL THE SIDE AIRBAGS SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED, WHICH WOULD HAVE LESSENED OR ELIMINATED THE INJURIES MY WIFE SUFFERED. I INFORMED TOYOTA MOTOR SALES THAT I WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE AIRBAG'S FAILURE TO DEPLOY, AND WAS INFORMED THAT SINCE "THE IMPACT FORCES WERE NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS THE B-PILLAR, DEPLOYMENT WAS NOT WARRANTED". TO ME THIS INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NOT SENSORS IN THE DOORS AS SHOWN IN THE OWNER'S MANUAL. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WERE FORCES EXERTED TO THE B-PILLAR IN THE ACCIDENT, AS NOTED BY THE MECHANICAL INSPECTION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10554812

63,000 miles · Jul 14, 2013

Exterior LightingStructureVehicle Speed ControlCrash

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING IN HEAVY TRAFFIC AND TRAVELING AT A LOW SPEED, THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD AND HIT THE CAR THAT WAS 6 FEET IN FRONT OF ME. THE SOUND OF THE ENGINE WAS THAT OF A SPONTANEOUS ACCELERATION JUST LIKE THE INCIDENT WE HAD ON APRIL 30, 2013. THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO DAMAGE TO THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME BUT THE LEXUS SUSTAINED OVER $10,000. WORTH OF DAMAGE AND HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN CONSIDERED A TOTAL LOSS. THE INCIDENT ON APRIL 30 CONSISTED OF OUR CRAWLING FORWARD INTO A PARKING SPOT, SUDDENLY THE CAR SPONTANEOUSLY ACCELERATED, WENT OVER THE CEMENT PARKING BARRIER AND HIT A CAR APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET AWAY. LEXUS LOOKED AT THE BLACK BOX AFTER THE 4/30 ACCIDENT AND DETERMINED THAT THE CAR WAS SAFE TO DRIVE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10524741

Official recalls

No recalls in this snapshot.

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

DP05002 · Vehicle Speed Control

Opened Aug 5, 2005 · Closed Jan 5, 2006

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control

IN A LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2005, AND AFTER EXPERIENCING TWO INCIDENTS (AND ONE CRASH) WHERE HE ALLEGES HIS MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 CAMRY ACCELERATED WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT, MR. JORDAN ZIPRIN PETITIONED THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION?S (NHTSA) OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFECT WITHIN THE ETC SYSTEM IN MY 2002 TO 2005 TOYOTA AND LEXUS VEHICLES, OR TO REOPEN A PRIOR INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-021.IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 18, 2005, MR. ZIPRIN AMENDED HIS PETITION TO INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF INTERRELATED BRAKE AND ACCELERATION PROBLEMS THAT ALLEGEDLY RESULT IN INAPPROPRIATE AND UNCONTROLLABLE VEHICLE ACCELERATIONS.THE 1172 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE REPORTS CITED BY THE PETITIONER INVOLVE 4 LEXUS AND 15 TOYOTA MODELS DEFINING A POPULATION OF 7 MILLION VEHICLES.THE REPORTS TYPICALLY ALLEGED A DEFECT IN THE BRAKE SYSTEM, THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH SYSTEMS.IN ITS REVIEW OF THE REPORTS, ODI A) FAILED TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A BRAKE RELATED DEFECT IN THE CITED MODELS, AND B) DETERMINED THAT MANY CITED PRODUCTS WERE NOT EQUIPPED WITH ETC.ACCORDINGLY, ODI RESTRICTED ITS ANALYSIS TO THE 432 PETITIONER REPORTS INVOLVING MY 2002 TO 2005 CAMRY, SOLARA, AND ES MODELS (ALL EQUIPPED WITH ETC) THAT ALLEGED AN ABNORMAL THROTTLE CONTROL EVENT (SEE THE JANUARY 3, 2006 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS).ABOUT 40% OF THE 432 REPORTS INVOLVE A DRIVEABILITY CONCERN WHERE THE OPERATOR INTENTIONALLY APPLIES THE THROTTLE PEDAL, IN EXPECTATION THAT THE VEHICLE WILL ACCELERATE, AND THEN EXPERIENCES A DELAY OR HESITATION IN VEHICLE RESPONSE.THESE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLE RESPONSE TO INTENTIONAL DRIVER COMMANDS WHICH ODI CONSIDERS UNRELATED TO THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED.ABOUT 20% OF THE REPORTS INVOLVE INCIDENTS WHERE OPERATORS ALLEGE VEHICLE ACCELERATION WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND AN INABILITY OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE WHEN APPLIED.NEITHER THE REPORTS, NOR THE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY ODI, IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE INCIDENTS OR DISCLOSED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT A FAILURE OF THE BRAKE OR THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM HAD OCCURRED.BECAUSE THESE REPORTS DO NOT INDICATE A DISTINCT SAFETY DEFECT FOR INVESTIGATION, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERTHE REMAINING REPORTS (~ 40%, SIMILAR TO THE PETITIONER?S AND THOSE OF PE04-021) TYPICALLY DESCRIBE INCIDENTS WHERE A VEHICLE IS BEING MANEUVERED AT SLOW SPEED IN A CLOSE QUARTER SITUATION AT WHICH POINT THE OPERATOR ALLEGES THAT THE VEHICLE ACCELERATES WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND CRASHES.IN THE AFTERMATH, OPERATORS ARE UNSURE OF WHETHER THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED OR NOT, SOMETIMES STATING THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO USE THE BRAKE; A CRASH OCCURRED AND THE OPERATOR BELIEVES AN UNCOMMANDED ACCELERATION CAUSED IT.IN SPITE OF THE EFFORT EXPENDED DURING PE04-021 AND DURING THIS ANALYSIS, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE REPORTS, OR UNCOVERED ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT A THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURE OCCURRED.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS HAVE AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS ON WHICH ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTION IS WARRANTED.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES T