IllustrationTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA SOLARA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DASHBOARD WAS CRACKED ACROSS MOST OF THE PASSENGER'S SIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN FOR INSPECTION OR REPAIRS. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 89,000 AND THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
2006 Toyota Camry Solara
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2006 Toyota Camry Solara do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 83.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Camry Solara 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
220–25K
2225–50K
1950–75K
1275–100K
4100–150K
4150K+
83 reports with mileage · 33 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.
- Structure. Review the 45 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 19 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
21 crash reports5 fire reports8 injury reports
Structure complaints
45 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA SOLARA. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 20 MPH WHEN A CRACK WAS NOTICED ON THE DASHBOARD. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE DASHBOARD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 71,460 AND THE CURRENT MIL…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 TOYOTA SOLARA. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 20 MPH WHEN A CRACK WAS NOTICED ON THE DASHBOARD. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE DASHBOARD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 71,460 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 71,560.
BLACK FOAM USED IN THE A/C DUCTS BECOMES DISLOGED AND BLOWS INTO THE EYES OF THE OPERATOR, CAUSING TEMPORARY EYE SIGHT IMPAIRMENT. *TR
NEW TOYOTA SOLARA. VEHICLE PURCHASED MAY 30 2006. FRONT BUMPER FELL OFF THE CAR ON JULY 7, 2006. DEALER NOTICED A VERY SMALL DEPRESSION NEAR WHEEL WELL, AND SAYS THAT SOMEONE MAY HAVE BUMPED THE CAR IN A PARKING LOT. REFERRED ME TO PRIVATE BODY SHOP WHERE I WAS CHARGED $586.00. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL AAA INSPECTED CAR. THEY B…
Read full complaint
NEW TOYOTA SOLARA. VEHICLE PURCHASED MAY 30 2006. FRONT BUMPER FELL OFF THE CAR ON JULY 7, 2006. DEALER NOTICED A VERY SMALL DEPRESSION NEAR WHEEL WELL, AND SAYS THAT SOMEONE MAY HAVE BUMPED THE CAR IN A PARKING LOT. REFERRED ME TO PRIVATE BODY SHOP WHERE I WAS CHARGED $586.00. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL AAA INSPECTED CAR. THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE BUMPER SHOULD HAVE DETACHED. I WAS FORTUNATE THAT IT FELL OFF IN MY DRIVEWAY AND NOT ON THE FWY. AAA REQUESTED THAT I FILE NTSB REPORT, AND INSURANCE ADJUSTER IS EXAMINING THE CAR AND PHOTOGRAPHING THE BUMPER, WHICH WAS HELD TOGETHER BY TWO LITTLE PLASTIC BRACKETS. BODY SHOP SAYS THAT SOME OF THE NEW TOYOTAS HAVE BODY DEFECTS - THINGS THAT COME LOOSE. HE IS WONDERING IF THERE IS A PACKAGING AND SHIPPING PROBLEM THAT CAUSES THE BUMPERS TO GET LOOSE. HE ADDED 6 CLIPS AND BRACKETS TO THE BUMPER. THE NEW FRONT BUMPER IS NOW MUCH MORE STABLE THAN THE ORIGINAL BACK BUMPER. *JB
2006 TOYOTA SOLARA DEVELOPED VARIOUS PROBLEMS.*MR THE CONSUMER RENTED THE VEHICLE WHEN HE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEMS WITH THE HEAD REST WHICH PROTRUDED FROM THE BACK SEAT RESTRICTING THE ALREADY TINY REAR WINDOW. WHEN BACKING FROM ANY PARKING SPACE, WITH THE TOP UP, T HE CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO SEE PEDESTRIANS . THE VEHICLE HAD …
Read full complaint
2006 TOYOTA SOLARA DEVELOPED VARIOUS PROBLEMS.*MR THE CONSUMER RENTED THE VEHICLE WHEN HE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEMS WITH THE HEAD REST WHICH PROTRUDED FROM THE BACK SEAT RESTRICTING THE ALREADY TINY REAR WINDOW. WHEN BACKING FROM ANY PARKING SPACE, WITH THE TOP UP, T HE CONSUMER WAS UNABLE TO SEE PEDESTRIANS . THE VEHICLE HAD A 4-8 SECOND DELAY WHEN AUTOMATICALLY SHIFTING FROM SECOND TO A HIGHER GEAR. THE OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE GAUGE BECAME STUCK. THE LCD GAUGES CAN'T BE SEEN WHEN DRIVING IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT.*JB
Official recalls
216V396000 · Seats:front Assembly:seat Heater/cooler
Jun 2, 2016
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET) is recalling certain 2005-2011 4Runner, Highlander, Sequoia, and Sienna, 2005-2010 Avalon and Tundra, 2006-2008 Camry Solara, 2006-2010 Highlander hybrid, 2006-2011 Rav4 and Tacoma, 2007-2010 FJ Cruiser, 2007-2011 Camry hybrid, 2009-2010 Venza, 2010-2012 Prius, 1988-1990 and 2005-2010 Camry, and 1989 and 2009-2010 Corolla vehicles equipped with aftermarket accessory seat heaters with a copper strand heating element. The electrical wiring in the seat heaters may be damaged when the seat cushion is compressed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If damaged, the copper strand heating element may short circuit, increasing the risk of a fire.
Remedy: SET will notify owners, and dealers will disconnect the seat heaters, free of charge, and refund the purchase price of the seat heater accessory. The recall began on July 14, 2016. Owners may contact SET customer service at 1-866-405-4226. SET number for this recall is SET16B.
10V035000 · Equipment:other:labels
Feb 3, 2010
GULF STATES TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2010 VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 AND JUNE 2, 2008 WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. DEALERS WILL ALSO CORRECT THE OWNER'S MANUAL. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT GULF STATES TOYOTA AT 713-580-3300.
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
1DP06003 · 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.