NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
92 reportsMileage unknown · Feb 8, 2025
Air BagsUnknown Or Other
In the last several years the dashboard is sticky and cracking. I am not only concerned about the glare and white residue but also the potential effect on the airbags. I have visited a dealership and sent written communication to Toyota in Plano TX. I also called Toyota asking for help with this issue and have been informed th…
Read full complaint
In the last several years the dashboard is sticky and cracking. I am not only concerned about the glare and white residue but also the potential effect on the airbags. I have visited a dealership and sent written communication to Toyota in Plano TX. I also called Toyota asking for help with this issue and have been informed the cost would be entirely my responsibility. Toyota created a case number which is [XXX]. The car is garage kept with approximately 112,000 miles and in very good condition. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11641468
Mileage unknown · Feb 6, 2024
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other
My engine has a sludge of oil and it was expensive to repair.The convertible top n windows malfunction and the electrical system stopped the windows from rolling up n down and out of no where they go down on their own,so I have many problems when it rains due to the windows.
NHTSA ODI #11570354
Mileage unknown · Jul 17, 2023
Engine
I bought my used car about 6-7 years ago. The transmission leaks. I had it supposedly fixed 3 tims and yet it still leaks. Was there a recall on the transmissions for that year 2005?
NHTSA ODI #11532850
Mileage unknown · Mar 6, 2023
Air BagsStructure
Dash is cracked all over, including where airbag is on front right passenger side, causing airbag light to stay lit. This is a safety hazard and should be repaired or replaced by Toyota. I was already informed by Toyota when I had called that there had been a recall on this matter for cosmetic reasons several years ago and now i…
Read full complaint
Dash is cracked all over, including where airbag is on front right passenger side, causing airbag light to stay lit. This is a safety hazard and should be repaired or replaced by Toyota. I was already informed by Toyota when I had called that there had been a recall on this matter for cosmetic reasons several years ago and now it was “too late” for them to be responsible, but I did not know of that condition/recall. This is not only a cosmetic issue, this is a safety concern and needs to be addressed immediately. I was informed by an employee at the number I was given that safety issues do not fall under the statue of limitations for recalls. I’ve been trying to get a response from the National Highway Safety Division but I haven’t received an actual determination as to whether Toyota had to replace the dash or not. Please help with this urgent safety concern. I can be reached at [XXX]. Thank you INFORMATION Redacted PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA ODI #11510282
Mileage unknown · Jan 31, 2023
Structure
Apparently Toyota had a recall for the dash of their camry solara models back in 2015 for dashes that melt, bubble, become extremely tacky/sticky & peel when temperatures rise. However, I never received any notice of said dash recall for which my 2005 Toyota Solara qualified for, nor did I hear of any recalls in my local area on…
Read full complaint
Apparently Toyota had a recall for the dash of their camry solara models back in 2015 for dashes that melt, bubble, become extremely tacky/sticky & peel when temperatures rise. However, I never received any notice of said dash recall for which my 2005 Toyota Solara qualified for, nor did I hear of any recalls in my local area on any MN news stations. A melting, sticky dash causes glare that is highly reflective reflecting the sun up into the driver's face. The glare from this design defect has caused accidents & injuries. Not only is a melting dash a safety issue but it's also non-compliant as a design defect/defective part with the standards of Toyota assembled parts. Safety & compliance recalls have no expiration date so why is Toyota not honoring that & replacing design defects/defective parts as such for an original owner of a recalled Toyota such as myself? Recalls, especially safety issue recalls, should not have "expiration" dates, especially when it's too easy for a consumer not to receive any notification or be beware of recalls. A consumer like myself should not have to wait until injury or a possible death occurs for everyone to do the right thing & get these dashes replaced. This is a 1) product liability issue of Toyota's defective parts/design defect & 2) safety issue with known injuries/accidents recorded because of such melting/glaring dashboard. These melting dash safety issues have been reported to NHTSA before & yet a nationwide recall hasn't been done. Local 2 discovered four accidents reported to NHTSA back in 2014 alone that drivers said were caused by the glare of their melting dashboards. I never received any supposed recall back in 2015 & didn't find out about said recall until more recently. All I want is dash replacement before any injuries occur. All too often, whey does it take a large body count of reports to NHTSA to get a nationwide safety recall when the purpose of safety recalls is to prevent deaths and injuries BEFORE they occur.
NHTSA ODI #11504610
Mileage unknown · May 12, 2021
Unknown Or Other
DASHBOARD MELTDOWN. I'M THE ORIGINAL OWNER, WE NEVER GOT NOTICE ON THIS PROBLEM. TOOK MY CAR OUT FOR A DRIVE YESTERDAY AND THE DASH IS DISGUSTING. MY CAR IS ALWAYS STORED IN A AIR CONDITIONED GARAGE. WHAT BOTHERS ME IS THAT WE NEVER GOT NOTICE SO WE COULD PROTECT OURSELVES AND MY CAR.
NHTSA ODI #11416299
115,000 miles · Apr 16, 2021
Air BagsStructure
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DASHBOARD WAS CRACKED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO CLASSIC TOYOTA (8510 TYLER BLVD., MENTOR, OH 44060) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH THE DASHBOARD NEEDING TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DASHBOARD WAS CRACKED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO CLASSIC TOYOTA (8510 TYLER BLVD., MENTOR, OH 44060) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED WITH THE DASHBOARD NEEDING TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CONTACT RELATED THE FAILURE TO AN UNKNOW RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE DASHBOARD WAS NO LONGER BEING MANUFACTURED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 115,000.
NHTSA ODI #11408385
90,000 miles · Jan 29, 2021
EngineFire
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA SOLARA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE OPERATING THE VEHICLE, THE ODOR OF BURNING OIL WAS PRESENT INSIDE THE CABIN OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT OIL SLUDGE WAS PRESENT INSIDE THE ENGINE AND THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA SOLARA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE OPERATING THE VEHICLE, THE ODOR OF BURNING OIL WAS PRESENT INSIDE THE CABIN OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT OIL SLUDGE WAS PRESENT INSIDE THE ENGINE AND THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER AND LOCAL DEALER WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000.*DT *JB
NHTSA ODI #11390628
170,199 miles · Jan 23, 2019
Air BagsStructureSuspensionCrashInjury
HAD A SEIZURE WENT OFF THE ROAD VEHICLE HIT SEVERAL TREES AND AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. CAR IS TOTALED. DRIVES HEAD HIT STEERING WHEEL AND HAD HEAD AND FACIAL DAMAGE. WAS ON CITY STREET TURNING TO GET ON HIGHWAY, HE HAS BEEN IN ICU FOR 3 DAYS. HAVE POLICE ACCIDENT REPORT..
NHTSA ODI #11171665
96,743 miles · Jan 6, 2019
Engine
2AZ-FE 4CYL ENGINE OIL CONSUMPTION ISSUE. OIL CHANGES EVERY 5,000 MILES THROUGHOUT VEHICLE'S LIFE. VEHICLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WELL-MAINTAINED. OIL LIGHT CAME ON AT 96,743 MILES. RECEIVED OIL CHANGE AT 96,760 MILES. CHECKING OIL ON LEVEL SURFACE EVERY 100-200 MILES. CAMRY SOLARA HAS BEEN CONSUMING EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF OIL. DIPSTICK …
Read full complaint
2AZ-FE 4CYL ENGINE OIL CONSUMPTION ISSUE. OIL CHANGES EVERY 5,000 MILES THROUGHOUT VEHICLE'S LIFE. VEHICLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WELL-MAINTAINED. OIL LIGHT CAME ON AT 96,743 MILES. RECEIVED OIL CHANGE AT 96,760 MILES. CHECKING OIL ON LEVEL SURFACE EVERY 100-200 MILES. CAMRY SOLARA HAS BEEN CONSUMING EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF OIL. DIPSTICK SHOWS OIL GOING FROM MAXIMUM TO MINIMUM WITHIN 1,500 MILE RANGE. FREQUENT TOP OFFS OF OIL NECESSARY TO AVOID CATASTROPHIC SEIZING OF ENGINE. REFER TO ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR WARRANTY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM - ZE7 OF TOYOTA VEHICLES WITH 2AZ-FE ENGINE. 2005 CAMRY SOLARA NOT INCLUDED WITHIN WARRANTY ENHANCEMENT DESPITE HAVING 2AZ-FE ENGINE WITH OIL CONSUMPTION ISSUE. VEHICLE CURRENTLY HAS 100,240 MILES AND OIL CHANGE WAS DONE AT 100,015 MILES. VEHICLE NEEDED EXTRA TOP OFFS TOTALING 2 TO 3 QUARTS OF 5W-30 OIL BETWEEN 96,760 AND 100,015 MILE OIL CHANGES TO AVOID ENGINE FROM SEIZING.
NHTSA ODI #11165449
NHTSA investigations
2DP06003 · Engine Surging
Opened Sep 14, 2006 · Closed Apr 3, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT 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 TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT 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 TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT 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 TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
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
Illustration