← New search

2008 Pontiac Vibe

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2008 Pontiac Vibe do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 116.5.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Vibe 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

20 reports with mileage · 43 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.

  • Air Bags. Review the 48 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

3 crash reports0 fire reports3 injury reports

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

4 reports
Clear category filter
600,305 miles · Sep 9, 2013
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control

ONE MILE INTO COMMUTE, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL DIDN'T RESPOND AFTER STOPPING, THEN SUDDENLY RESPONDED CAUSING CAR TO ACCELERATE RAPIDLY. REPEATED TWICE BEFORE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. STOPPED CAR, SHUT THE CAR OFF, CHECKED GAS CAP WAS FASTENED SECURELY. RESTARTED CAR. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT REMAINED ILLUMINATED. TURNED AROU…

Read full complaint

ONE MILE INTO COMMUTE, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL DIDN'T RESPOND AFTER STOPPING, THEN SUDDENLY RESPONDED CAUSING CAR TO ACCELERATE RAPIDLY. REPEATED TWICE BEFORE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. STOPPED CAR, SHUT THE CAR OFF, CHECKED GAS CAP WAS FASTENED SECURELY. RESTARTED CAR. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT REMAINED ILLUMINATED. TURNED AROUND AND PROCEEDED THE ONE MILE HOME. COASTED INTO THE PARKING GARAGE AND STOPPED THE CAR TO WAIT FOR THE GARAGE DOOR TO CLOSE. WHILE COMPLETELY STOPPED THE CAR TRIED TO ACCELERATE WITHOUT ANY INPUT TO THE GAS PEDAL. THE RPM'S INCREASED AND THE CAR TRIED TO DRIVE FORWARD. THE RPM'S DIDN'T DECREASE UNTIL THE CAR WAS PLACED IN NEUTRAL. THE SUDDEN RPM INCREASE WHILE STOPPED CAUSED THE TIRES TO SQUEAL AGAINST THE SMOOTH PAVEMENT IN THE PARKING GARAGE. SHUT THE CAR OFF, PLACED IN PARK, RESTARTED THE CAR AND PULLED INTO MY PARKING SPOT. THE NEXT DAY STARTED THE CAR AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS STILL ILLUMINATED. DROVE THE CAR APPROXIMATELY 5 MILES TO THE DEALER WITHOUT INCIDENT. DEALER INITIALLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE ORDER AND AFTER INSISTING ON HAVING A COPY THE SERVICE MANAGER NEGLECTED TO INDICATE ON THE WORK ORDER THAT THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED WITHOUT INPUT TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. DEALER REFUSED TO COVER THE COST OF REPLACING THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL POSITION SENSOR UNDER WARRANTY AND ARGUED THAT THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION WITHOUT INPUT OR RANDOM INCREASED RPM VIOLATES THE 8/80K EPA WARRANTY OR MODERN SAFETY STANDARDS. CONTACTED GM WARRANTY WHO ALSO REFUSED TO COVER THE REPLACEMENT COST UNDER EPA OR SAFETY WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10542776

40,000 miles · Feb 8, 2011
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

FEB 3, 2011 WAS THE FIRST OCCURRENCE. I PUT THE CAR IN REVERSE THEN PULLED FORWARD, TURNING THE WHEEL TO THE RIGHT TO GIVE MYSELF ROOM TO BACK UP AND TURN MY CAR SO I COULD PULL OUT ONTO A BUSY STREET GOING FORWARD RATHER THAN BACKING OUT INTO TRAFFIC. I WAS GOING VERY SLOWLY AND APPLIED THE BRAKES WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELE…

Read full complaint

FEB 3, 2011 WAS THE FIRST OCCURRENCE. I PUT THE CAR IN REVERSE THEN PULLED FORWARD, TURNING THE WHEEL TO THE RIGHT TO GIVE MYSELF ROOM TO BACK UP AND TURN MY CAR SO I COULD PULL OUT ONTO A BUSY STREET GOING FORWARD RATHER THAN BACKING OUT INTO TRAFFIC. I WAS GOING VERY SLOWLY AND APPLIED THE BRAKES WHEN THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED VERY FAST. IT RAN UP AN 18" ROCK WALL, PUSHING THE BRAKE DID NOTHING, I TURNED THE WHEEL TO THE RIGHT TO AVOID A TREE WHILE STILL TRYING TO BRAKE. THE BRAKE FINALLY HELD. A TIRE WAS DESTROYED, IT WAS REPLACED AND TAKEN TO MY MECHANIC WHO FOUND NO FURTHER DAMAGE AND NO REASON FOR THE ACCELERATION. AFTER LEAVING THE MECHANIC I NOTICED THAT IT SEEMED A BIT JERKY. TWO DAYS LATER I TURNED THE CAR ON WHILE SITTING IN A PARKING LOT WITH MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE, I WAS STILL IN PARK SO THE CAR DID NOT MOVE, BUT IT DID ACCELERATE. IT SEEMED OK AFTER THAT, MONDAY WHEN I RETURNED TO TOWN I DISCUSSED IT WITH MY MECHANIC AND NOTICED A REPORT ON BLOOMBERG ABOUT THE ISSUE WITH TOYOTA ACCELERATION PROBLEMS AND THAT THE PROBLEM WAS ALSO WITH 2009 AND 2010 PONTIAC VIBES.. I CHECKED THIS SITE AND FOUND 2 COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY SAME ISSUE WITH THE 2008 PONTIAC VIBE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10381175

18,500 miles · Sep 1, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 PONTIAC VIBE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING FOR 2 MILES WITHOUT TOUCHING THE ACCELERATOR; SHE SLOWLY APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THEY MADE A LOUD CLANKING NOISE. WHILE DRIVING UP HILL IN HER DRIVEWAY THE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 20 MPH ON IT'S OWN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. DIAGNOSTIC TEST HA…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 PONTIAC VIBE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING FOR 2 MILES WITHOUT TOUCHING THE ACCELERATOR; SHE SLOWLY APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THEY MADE A LOUD CLANKING NOISE. WHILE DRIVING UP HILL IN HER DRIVEWAY THE VEHICLE WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 20 MPH ON IT'S OWN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. DIAGNOSTIC TEST HAVE BEEN PERFORMED ON THE VEHICLE SEVERAL TIMES FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 18,500.

NHTSA ODI #10353306

Mileage unknown · Apr 5, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control

2008 PONTIAC VIBE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. CONSUMER SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES BUT IT DIDN'T STOP THE VEHICLE. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE FINALLY RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION. THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED THERE WAS A RECALL, BUT WHEN SHE WENT TO THE DEALER, SHE WAS INFORMED ONLY THE 2009 AND 2010 VEHICLES WERE BEING REPAIRED UN…

Read full complaint

2008 PONTIAC VIBE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. CONSUMER SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES BUT IT DIDN'T STOP THE VEHICLE. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE FINALLY RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION. THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED THERE WAS A RECALL, BUT WHEN SHE WENT TO THE DEALER, SHE WAS INFORMED ONLY THE 2009 AND 2010 VEHICLES WERE BEING REPAIRED UNDER THE RECALL. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10323090

Official recalls

4

19V627000 · Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

Aug 28, 2019

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain 2003-2008 Corolla, 2005-2008 Corolla Matrix, and Pontiac Vibe vehicles equipped with a front passenger air bag assembly replaced under a prior recall. The air bag may not unfold as designed during inflation under high temperature conditions, possibly resulting in the air bag not inflating properly.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: An improperly inflated air bag increases the risk of injury during a crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify their owners. Pontiac Vibe owners will be notified by GM. Dealers will replace the front passenger air bag assembly or sub-assembly, free of charge. Toyota owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371. Toyota's numbers for this recall are K1Q and K0Q. Pontiac owners may contact GM customer service at 1-800-762-2737. GM's number for this recall is N192273760.

16V127000 · Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

Mar 3, 2016

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain model year 2008-2010 Lexus SC vehicles manufactured August 3, 2007, to July 30, 2010, 2008 Toyota Corolla vehicles manufactured May 25, 2007, to December 21, 2007, 2008 Toyota Corolla Matrix vehicles manufactured June 1, 2007, to December 18, 2007, and 2008 Pontiac Vibe vehicles manufactured June 1, 2007, to January 2, 2008. This is to address a safety defect in the passenger side frontal air bag inflator which may produce excessive internal pressure causing the inflator to rupture upon deployment of the air bag. This recall addresses both the passenger side frontal air bags that were originally installed in the vehicles, as well as replacement air bags that may have been installed as replacement service parts. A replacement air bag may have been installed, as one example, if a vehicle had been in a crash necessitating the replacement of the passenger side frontal air bag.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag, the inflator could rupture with metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants potentially resulting in serious injury or death.

Remedy: The recall began on March 25, 2016 for Toyota and Lexus vehicle owners. The recall began on June 23, 2016 for GM owners. The respective dealers will either replace the front passenger air bag inflator or the entire front passenger air bag assembly depending on the model. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331, or Pontiac customer service at 1-800-762-2737. This recall expands recall 15V-285.

16V128000 · Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

Mar 2, 2016

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain model year 2008-2010 Lexus SC vehicles manufactured August 3, 2007, to July 30, 2010, 2008 Toyota Corolla vehicles manufactured June 1, 2007, to December 21, 2007, 2008 Toyota Corolla Matrix vehicles manufactured June 1, 2007, to December 18, 2007, and 2008 Pontiac Vibe vehicles manufactured June 1, 2007, to January 2, 2008 that were originally sold, or ever registered, in Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Saipan, American Samoa, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The affected vehicles have a passenger side frontal air bag that may be susceptible to moisture intrusion which, over time, could cause the inflator to rupture upon its deployment.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag, the inflator could rupture with metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants potentially resulting in serious injury or death.

Remedy: The recall began on March 25, 2016 for Toyota and Lexus vehicle owners. The recall began on June 8, 2016 for GM owners. The respective dealers will either replace the front passenger air bag inflator or the entire front passenger air bag assembly depending on the model. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331, or Pontiac customer service at 1-800-762-2737. This recall expands recall 15V-286.

10V387000 · Engine And Engine Cooling

Aug 26, 2010

GM IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2008 PONTIAC VIBE VEHICLES. THE ENGINE CONTROL MODULE (ECM) FOR THE SUBJECT MODELS EQUIPPED WITH THE 1ZZ-FE (LV6) ENGINE AND TWO-WHEEL DRIVE MAY HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY MANUFACTURED. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT A CRACK MAY DEVELOP AT CERTAIN SOLDER POINTS OR ON VARISTORS ON THE CIRCUIT BOARD.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THERE ARE A VARIETY OF WARNINGS AND CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEFECT. THE ENGINE WARNING LAMP COULD BE ILLUMINATED, HARSH SHIFTING COULD RESULT, THE ENGINE MAY NOT START, OR THE ENGINE COULD SHUT OFF WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN. AN ENGINE SHUTOFF WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN INCREASES THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE PRODUCTION NUMBER OF THE ECM AND REPLACE THE ECM IF NECESSARY. THIS SERVICE WILL BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 8, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT GM AT 1-800-620-7668.

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

2

EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture

Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied

Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

EA10006 · Engine Stall

Opened Aug 18, 2010 · Closed Sep 16, 2010

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling

On August 26, 2010, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding problems with Engine Control Modules that could result in engine stall while driving in certain model year (MY) 2005 through 2008 Toyota Corolla, Corolla Matrix and Pontiac Vibe vehicles equipped with the 1ZZ-FE engine and two-wheel drive and manufactured between April 19, 2004 and January 2, 2008.Toyota's report indicated that cracks may develop at certain solder point or on varistors on the ECMs.According to Toyota, such cracks generally resulted in engine warning lamp illumination, harsh shifting or engine no-start.In some cases, if the cracking occurs on particular solder points or varistors, the engine could stop while the vehicle is being driven.Toyota will notify owners of subject vehicles that they should return their vehicles to a Toyota or Pontiac dealer.Dealers will be instructed to inspect the production number of the ECM for each vehicle and replace the ECM if necessary.On November 30, 2009, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE09-054) to investigate alleged engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2006 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles.In its response to ODI's information request, submitted on March 2, 2010, Toyota indicated that it had identified two possible conditions with ECMs used in MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Matrix vehicles:1) cracks forming between the IC and the board caused by an improperly cured conformal coating applied to the circuit boards after the soldering process is completed; and 2) cracks occurring in a variable resistor (varistor) due to overheating.During the manufacturing process a glass coating is created on the surface of the varistor.Between March and August 2010, Toyota began collecting ECMs from the field to further investigate failure modes that may result in engine stall.Toyota also conducted durability testing on ECMs collected from in-use vehicles to assess whether the problems may be a continuing trend. In addition, they conducted durability testing in order to assess whether this problem was a continuing trend.Toyota found that 4 of 32 collected ECMs malfunctioned after thermal shock testing.Toyota also confirmed that cracking could develop at solder points on the ECM circuit board that could lead to engine stall while driving and that this trend was likely to continue.The manufacturer failure data in this resume is limited to MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles.Based on Toyota's recall, this Engineering analysis has been closed.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Engine And Engine Cooling

On August 26, 2010, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding problems with Engine Control Modules that could result in engine stall while driving in certain model year (MY) 2005 through 2008 Toyota Corolla, Corolla Matrix and Pontiac Vibe vehicles equipped with the 1ZZ-FE engine and two-wheel drive and manufactured between April 19, 2004 and January 2, 2008.Toyota's report indicated that cracks may develop at certain solder point or on varistors on the ECMs.According to Toyota, such cracks generally resulted in engine warning lamp illumination, harsh shifting or engine no-start.In some cases, if the cracking occurs on particular solder points or varistors, the engine could stop while the vehicle is being driven.Toyota will notify owners of subject vehicles that they should return their vehicles to a Toyota or Pontiac dealer.Dealers will be instructed to inspect the production number of the ECM for each vehicle and replace the ECM if necessary.On November 30, 2009, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE09-054) to investigate alleged engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2006 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles.In its response to ODI's information request, submitted on March 2, 2010, Toyota indicated that it had identified two possible conditions with ECMs used in MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Matrix vehicles:1) cracks forming between the IC and the board caused by an improperly cured conformal coating applied to the circuit boards after the soldering process is completed; and 2) cracks occurring in a variable resistor (varistor) due to overheating.During the manufacturing process a glass coating is created on the surface of the varistor.Between March and August 2010, Toyota began collecting ECMs from the field to further investigate failure modes that may result in engine stall.Toyota also conducted durability testing on ECMs collected from in-use vehicles to assess whether the problems may be a continuing trend. In addition, they conducted durability testing in order to assess whether this problem was a continuing trend.Toyota found that 4 of 32 collected ECMs malfunctioned after thermal shock testing.Toyota also confirmed that cracking could develop at solder points on the ECM circuit board that could lead to engine stall while driving and that this trend was likely to continue.The manufacturer failure data in this resume is limited to MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles.Based on Toyota's recall, this Engineering analysis has been closed.

Engine And Engine Cooling

On August 26, 2010, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding problems with Engine Control Modules that could result in engine stall while driving in certain model year (MY) 2005 through 2008 Toyota Corolla, Corolla Matrix and Pontiac Vibe vehicles equipped with the 1ZZ-FE engine and two-wheel drive and manufactured between April 19, 2004 and January 2, 2008.Toyota's report indicated that cracks may develop at certain solder point or on varistors on the ECMs.According to Toyota, such cracks generally resulted in engine warning lamp illumination, harsh shifting or engine no-start.In some cases, if the cracking occurs on particular solder points or varistors, the engine could stop while the vehicle is being driven.Toyota will notify owners of subject vehicles that they should return their vehicles to a Toyota or Pontiac dealer.Dealers will be instructed to inspect the production number of the ECM for each vehicle and replace the ECM if necessary.On November 30, 2009, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE09-054) to investigate alleged engine stall while driving in model year (MY) 2006 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles.In its response to ODI's information request, submitted on March 2, 2010, Toyota indicated that it had identified two possible conditions with ECMs used in MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Matrix vehicles:1) cracks forming between the IC and the board caused by an improperly cured conformal coating applied to the circuit boards after the soldering process is completed; and 2) cracks occurring in a variable resistor (varistor) due to overheating.During the manufacturing process a glass coating is created on the surface of the varistor.Between March and August 2010, Toyota began collecting ECMs from the field to further investigate failure modes that may result in engine stall.Toyota also conducted durability testing on ECMs collected from in-use vehicles to assess whether the problems may be a continuing trend. In addition, they conducted durability testing in order to assess whether this problem was a continuing trend.Toyota found that 4 of 32 collected ECMs malfunctioned after thermal shock testing.Toyota also confirmed that cracking could develop at solder points on the ECM circuit board that could lead to engine stall while driving and that this trend was likely to continue.The manufacturer failure data in this resume is limited to MY 2005 through 2007 Toyota Corolla and Corolla Matrix vehicles.Based on Toyota's recall, this Engineering analysis has been closed.