NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
92 reports500 miles · Sep 22, 2006
Electrical SystemPower Train
THE SECOND GENERATION TOYOTA SOLARA USES "DRIVE BY WIRE" TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF A THROTTLE CABLE. MY CAR EXPERIENCES A LAG BETWEEN THE TIME WHEN I PRESS THE GAS PEDAL AND WHEN THE CAR ACTUALLY STARTS TO MOVE. THIS HAPPENS IN A SPECIFIC SCENARIO WHERE THE CAR IS DECELERATING, BUT THEN THE DRIVER RESUMES ACCELERATING. THE LAG CA…
Read full complaint
THE SECOND GENERATION TOYOTA SOLARA USES "DRIVE BY WIRE" TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF A THROTTLE CABLE. MY CAR EXPERIENCES A LAG BETWEEN THE TIME WHEN I PRESS THE GAS PEDAL AND WHEN THE CAR ACTUALLY STARTS TO MOVE. THIS HAPPENS IN A SPECIFIC SCENARIO WHERE THE CAR IS DECELERATING, BUT THEN THE DRIVER RESUMES ACCELERATING. THE LAG CAN LAST UP TO 2 SECONDS AND PRESENTS A CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE WHICH HAS LED TO THREE NEAR MISS ACCIDENTS IN INTERSECTIONS FOR ME. THIS FEELS LIKE IT WOULD IF YOUR CAR STALLED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION AND THEN THE LIGHT CHANGED. A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN WAS ISSUED FOR CERTAIN VIN SOLARAS WHICH REFLASHED THE ECU TO A NEW PROGRAM IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE LAG. THIS WAS NOT AN EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION. TOYOTA HAS NO SOLUTION AT THIS TIME AND THIS PUTS MY SAFETY AT RISK. *NM,
NHTSA ODI #10168990
Mileage unknown · Sep 19, 2006
Power Train
THROTTLE LAG AT LOW SPEED AND FROM STOP IS INCONSISTENT AND HAS BEEN THE CAUSE FOR SEVERAL CLOSE CALLS WHEN PULLING INTO TRAFFIC. MANUFACTURER WAS INFORMED; DEALER INVESTIGATED; STATES THIS IS NORMAL AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE, THAT LAG IS "ACCEPTABLE". SOME INSTANCES HAVE BEEN SEVERAL SECONDS BEFORE ACTUAL THROTTLE RESPONSE. DRIVE…
Read full complaint
THROTTLE LAG AT LOW SPEED AND FROM STOP IS INCONSISTENT AND HAS BEEN THE CAUSE FOR SEVERAL CLOSE CALLS WHEN PULLING INTO TRAFFIC. MANUFACTURER WAS INFORMED; DEALER INVESTIGATED; STATES THIS IS NORMAL AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE, THAT LAG IS "ACCEPTABLE". SOME INSTANCES HAVE BEEN SEVERAL SECONDS BEFORE ACTUAL THROTTLE RESPONSE. DRIVER HAS TO USE HARDER ACCELERATION TO COMPENSATE WHEN THIS HAPPENS. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE THAT TOYOTA IS AWARE OF BUT DECLINES TO ADMIT IT IS A PROBLEM. DRIVER IS VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS ISSUE WILL BE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10168704
5,000 miles · Jan 23, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE IN A PARKING LOT THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED CRASHING INTO A CURB. THE PASSENGER SIDE RIM, SUSPENSION, WHEEL ASSEMBLY AND TIRE WERE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A BODY SHOP WHERE NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE.
NHTSA ODI #10148347
10,000 miles · Dec 6, 2005
Service Brakes, HydraulicTires
REAR RIGHT TIRE SHOWS EARLY WORN-OUT, CAR SKIDS TO THE RIGHT, IT CAN BE FELT ON THE RIGHT REAR AGAIN. IT'S BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE CAR WAS BOUGHT IN APRIL, 05. THE DEALER COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG. ONLY THE REAR RIGHT BRAKE PLATE SHOWS "SLOPE AND HILL" SIGN. WARP??? IT IS HARD TO SHIFT FROM PARK SOMETIMES, BRAKE MUST…
Read full complaint
REAR RIGHT TIRE SHOWS EARLY WORN-OUT, CAR SKIDS TO THE RIGHT, IT CAN BE FELT ON THE RIGHT REAR AGAIN. IT'S BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE CAR WAS BOUGHT IN APRIL, 05. THE DEALER COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG. ONLY THE REAR RIGHT BRAKE PLATE SHOWS "SLOPE AND HILL" SIGN. WARP??? IT IS HARD TO SHIFT FROM PARK SOMETIMES, BRAKE MUST BE PRESSED AGAIN AND AGAIN OR THE CAR MUSH BE PUSHED SLIGHTLY. ALL OTHER THINGS ARE FINE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10144585
9,854 miles · Oct 21, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
I WAS IN AN ACCIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2005. I WAS DRIVING NORTHBOUND ON 5TH STREET IN SANTA MONICA AND HAD THE GREEN LIGHT. AS I ENTERED THE INTERSECTION, I SAW A CAR GOING EASTBOUND ON SANTA MONICA BLVD ENTERING THE INTERSECTION AGAINST THE LIGHT. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP IN TIME AND HIT THE OTHER CAR. MY AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY…
Read full complaint
I WAS IN AN ACCIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2005. I WAS DRIVING NORTHBOUND ON 5TH STREET IN SANTA MONICA AND HAD THE GREEN LIGHT. AS I ENTERED THE INTERSECTION, I SAW A CAR GOING EASTBOUND ON SANTA MONICA BLVD ENTERING THE INTERSECTION AGAINST THE LIGHT. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP IN TIME AND HIT THE OTHER CAR. MY AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE ON-SCENE OFFICERS, THE BODY SHOP, AND THE CLAIMS ADJUSTER WERE CONCERNED THAT MY AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND THEY DID AN INSPECTION AND ON OR ABOUT 10/7/05 CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE AIR BAGS. THEY WILL NOT GIVE ME A COPY OF THE REPORT. I HAD AN ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST LOOK AT PHOTOS OF MY CAR AND SHE STATED THE AIRBAGS SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10140474
Mileage unknown · Sep 30, 2005
Fuel System, Gasoline
VEHICLE HESITATES REGULARLY WHEN ACCELERATING FROM STOPPED POSITION. DEALERSHIP TWICE REVIEWED THE VEHICLES AND REPORTED "NO CODES". WE BELIEVE THIS PROBLEM IS REAL AND UNSAFE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10138248
Mileage unknown · Aug 12, 2005
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2005 CAMRY SOLARA DEFECT WAS FOUND IN THE BRAKE SYSTEM.*MR WHILE DRIVING, THE ABS, BRAKE AND LOW TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND REMAINED ON FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES. THE DEALER REPLACED THE ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10133420
Mileage unknown · Jul 25, 2005
Seats
DT: ABOUT 4 WEEKS AGO, THE CONSUMER NOTICED THE SEAT HEAD REST WERE CLEARLY IN THE WAY, WHICH LEFT THE CONSUMER NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE . THE ONLY VISIBILITY WHEN LOOKING BACK WAS BY LOOKING BETWEEN THE HEAD RESTS. THE HEAD RESTS WERE SO BIG THEY OBSTRUCTED THE CONSUMERS VIEW. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THERE WERE NO OTHER SEATS AND…
Read full complaint
DT: ABOUT 4 WEEKS AGO, THE CONSUMER NOTICED THE SEAT HEAD REST WERE CLEARLY IN THE WAY, WHICH LEFT THE CONSUMER NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE . THE ONLY VISIBILITY WHEN LOOKING BACK WAS BY LOOKING BETWEEN THE HEAD RESTS. THE HEAD RESTS WERE SO BIG THEY OBSTRUCTED THE CONSUMERS VIEW. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THERE WERE NO OTHER SEATS AND IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO REMOVE THE HEADRESTS. THE OWNER NOTICED THAT THERE WERE NEW HEADRESTS AVAILABLE ON 2006 SOLARA, BUT SINCE TOYOTA DID NOT PUBLISH THIS INFORMATION THERE WAS NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT THIS. OWNER WOULD LIKE TO LOCATE ALTERNATE HEAD RESTS FOR VEHICLE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10129898
Mileage unknown · Jul 22, 2005
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
DT: THE SHIFTING MECHANISM IN THE VEHICLE DELAYS WHEN GOING AROUND THE CORNER. WHEN PUSHING ON THE ACCELERATOR TRANSMISSION HESITATED. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT 3 OR 4 TIMES. DEALERSHIP STATED IT WAS THE WAY THE VEHICLE WAS SUPPOSE TO WORK. COMPUTER WAS REPROGRAMMED ONCE. IT MADE IT A LITTLE BETTER, B…
Read full complaint
DT: THE SHIFTING MECHANISM IN THE VEHICLE DELAYS WHEN GOING AROUND THE CORNER. WHEN PUSHING ON THE ACCELERATOR TRANSMISSION HESITATED. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT 3 OR 4 TIMES. DEALERSHIP STATED IT WAS THE WAY THE VEHICLE WAS SUPPOSE TO WORK. COMPUTER WAS REPROGRAMMED ONCE. IT MADE IT A LITTLE BETTER, BUT DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT STATED THERE WAS NO OTHER SOLUTION FOR THIS. THIS STARTED RIGHT AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED. IT HAPPENED MAINLY WHEN THE VEHICLE COASTED AND THE ACCELERATOR WAS PUSHED AFTERWARDS. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10129692
Mileage unknown · Jul 20, 2005
Seats
THIS COMPLAINT IS IN REGARD TO THE DESIGN, RATHER THAN A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THE 2006 TOYOTA SOLARA CONVERTIBLE HAS A SMALLISH REAR WINDOW BUILT INTO THE CONVERTIBLE TOP (AS MOST CONVERTIBLES DO). HOWEVER, TOYOTA TAKES THIS TO THE EXTREME BY HAVING TWO LARGE HEADRESTS ON THE REAR SEAT THAT BLOCKS OVER HALF OF THE VISIBILITY TO…
Read full complaint
THIS COMPLAINT IS IN REGARD TO THE DESIGN, RATHER THAN A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. THE 2006 TOYOTA SOLARA CONVERTIBLE HAS A SMALLISH REAR WINDOW BUILT INTO THE CONVERTIBLE TOP (AS MOST CONVERTIBLES DO). HOWEVER, TOYOTA TAKES THIS TO THE EXTREME BY HAVING TWO LARGE HEADRESTS ON THE REAR SEAT THAT BLOCKS OVER HALF OF THE VISIBILITY TO THE REAR WINDOW. THESE HEADRESTS ARE FIXED, AND SO THE DRIVER HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO LIVE WITH A VERY NARROW VIEW OUT THE REAR WINDOW. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE HEADRESTS CONTAIN ROLLBARS TO PROTECT PASSENGERS, BUT THE DESIGN COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN MORE OPEN SO AS TO ALLOW VISIBILITY. THERE WERE REPORTS IN THE PRESS THAT THE 2006 MODEL WAS GOING TO SWITCH TO A 'HOOP-STYLE' HEADREST, BUT MY VEHICLE IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT. I DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE ARE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO REAR VISIBILITY. IT SURPRISES ME THAT A MANUFACTURER IS ALLOWED TO PRODUCE A CAR WITH SUCH POOR VISIBILITY. BUT I DO KNOW THAT IT IS VIRTUALLY INEVITABLE THAT THERE WILL BE NUMEROUS VEHICLE COLLISIONS OR WORSE - PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A DRIVER BACKING UP THE TOYOTA SOLARA WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE VIEW OF WHAT LIES BEHIND HIM. I BELIEVE THIS ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
NHTSA ODI #10129448
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