← New search

2002 Toyota Camry

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Camry years

Owner complaints for the 2002 Toyota Camry are substantially higher than the model-year median of 295.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

610 reports with mileage · 343 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.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 281 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 146 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 107 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

252 crash reports20 fire reports94 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

36 reports
Clear category filter
104,100 miles · Jan 9, 2011
Electrical SystemFire

ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2010, AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 PM, (AZ-GMT) I WAS DRIVING MY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY SE 4-DR IN A ROAD CONSTRUCTION ZONE AT 15 MILES PER HOUR. I CAME TO A STOP AT A RED SIGNAL LIGHT WHEN I SMELLED THE ODOR OF AN ELECTRICAL FIRE. I STARTED CHECKING THE DASHBOARD FOR ANY WARNING LIGHTS ON, WHICH THERE WERE NONE L…

Read full complaint

ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2010, AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 PM, (AZ-GMT) I WAS DRIVING MY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY SE 4-DR IN A ROAD CONSTRUCTION ZONE AT 15 MILES PER HOUR. I CAME TO A STOP AT A RED SIGNAL LIGHT WHEN I SMELLED THE ODOR OF AN ELECTRICAL FIRE. I STARTED CHECKING THE DASHBOARD FOR ANY WARNING LIGHTS ON, WHICH THERE WERE NONE LIT. A/C AND HEATER SWITCHES WERE IN THE OFF POSITION. AS THE LIGHT TURNED GREEN, I WENT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AND PULLED OVER IMMEDIATELY. I STARTED LOOKING AROUND THE INTERIOR TO SEE IF SOMETHING WAS BURNING. AS I WAS CHECKING THE BACK SEAT, I SAW BLACK SMOKE BILLOWING OUT OF THE REAR BOTTOM OF THE CAR, THINKING THAT IT WAS SOMETHING BURNING IN THE TRUNK. I USED THE TRUNK LEVER TO OPEN IT, GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND NOTICED THAT NOTHING WAS BURNING THERE, AND WENT BACK TO THE DRIVERS DOOR. I THEN NOTICED FLAMES COMING FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. I REALIZED THAT THE ENGINE WAS STILL RUNNING. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND RAN A SAFE DISTANCE AWAY FROM IT. I DIALED 911 TO REPORT THE FIRE. I WAS LESS THAN A HALF MILE FROM HOME AND CALLED MY HUSBAND, WHO RESPONDED IN LESS THAN 5 MINUTES WITH A LARGE FIRE EXTINGUISHER. HE DID NOT OPEN THE HOOD, BUT TRIED TO EXTINGUISH THE FLAMES FROM THE FRONT END, BUT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. THE FIRE SPREAD RAPIDLY INTO THE FRONT SEAT AREA BEFORE THE FIRE DEPT ARRIVED. THE CAR WAS A TOTAL LOSS. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE TOYOTA AS IT WAS IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION AND SERVICED REGULARLY. PREVIOUSLY THAT DAY, I HAD DRIVEN THE CAR APPROXIMATELY 10 MILES WITHOUT ANY ISSUES OR PROBLEMS. JUST BEFORE THE FIRE, I HAD DRIVEN THE CAR FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 MILES ON SURFACE STREETS AT 25 MILES PER HOUR. THE CAR WAS RUNNING JUST FINE, AND THERE WERE NO INDICATIONS OF PROBLEMS LIKE A LOSS OF POWER, AND NO WARNING LIGHTS HAD COME ON AT ALL. I WAS THE SECOND OWNER OF THE CAR. MY MOTHER BOUGHT THE CAR BRAND NEW IN 2002 IN MESA, AZ FROM SUPERSTITION SPRINGS TOYOTA. THE CAR WAS ALWAYS MAINTAINED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10375300

60,468 miles · Aug 4, 2010
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control

ONE OF TWO ELECTRONIC ACCELERATOR POSITION SENSORS MALFUNCTIONED ON MY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. I EXPERIENCED A SLUGGISH RESPONSE TO PEDAL ACTION (I.E. I HAD TO PUSH THE PEDAL FARTHER THAN NORMAL TO GAIN ANY ACCELERATION - CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ALSO ILLUMINATED). I IMMEDIATELY DROVE TO MY MECHANIC'S SHOP FOR EVALUATION AND REPAIR. …

Read full complaint

ONE OF TWO ELECTRONIC ACCELERATOR POSITION SENSORS MALFUNCTIONED ON MY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. I EXPERIENCED A SLUGGISH RESPONSE TO PEDAL ACTION (I.E. I HAD TO PUSH THE PEDAL FARTHER THAN NORMAL TO GAIN ANY ACCELERATION - CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ALSO ILLUMINATED). I IMMEDIATELY DROVE TO MY MECHANIC'S SHOP FOR EVALUATION AND REPAIR. AFTER RUNNING DIAGNOSTICS, HE DETERMINED THAT THE SENSOR HAD MALFUNCTIONED AND ADVISED ME NOT TO DRIVE THE CAR ANY FURTHER UNTIL IT WAS REPAIRED. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FROM MY MECHANIC'S EXPLANATION, THE SENSOR DETERMINES THE POSITION OF THE ACCELERATOR AND SENDS A REQUEST FOR ACCELERATION AS A VOLTAGE RANGING FROM 0-5V, WHERE 0V IS NO ACCELERATION AND 5V IS FULL-THROTTLE. THROUGH FURTHER TESTING, HE DETERMINED THAT THE SENSOR THAT HAD MALFUNCTIONED WAS READING 5V. I FIND IT VERY CONCERNING THAT IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE THE SENSOR DOES NOT "FAIL SAFE" (I.E. FAIL TO 0V, RATHER THAN 5V). THE TECHNICIAN EXPLAINED THAT THE SECOND SENSOR WAS THERE AS A SAFETY REDUNDANCY, BUT EITHER WAY, "FAIL SAFE" IS ONE OF THE MOST BASIC DESIGN CONCEPTS IN AN APPLICATION WHERE SAFETY IS CRITICAL AS IS THE CASE HERE. IN MY CONVERSATION WITH TOYOTA, THEY WOULD NOT STAND BEHIND THE PART (MY WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED AND IT WAS NOT ON RECALL), NOR COULD THEY GIVE ME ANY ASSURANCE THAT THE REPLACEMENT PART HAD BEEN REDESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WOULD "FAIL SAFE." I AM A WIFE, MOTHER OF TWO SMALL CHILDREN, AND THE PRIMARY INCOME GENERATOR FOR OUR FAMILY. I DO NOT FEEL GOOD ABOUT WHAT I NOW KNOW ABOUT THE SAFETY OF MY CAR AND DO NOT FEEL THAT TOYOTA TOOK MY CONCERNS TO HEART. I WOULD APPRECIATE ANYTHING YOU COULD DO TO HELP. I SUSPECT I MAY NOT BE THE ONLY ONE TO EXPERIENCE THIS SAFETY FAILURE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10347331

110,000 miles · Aug 3, 2010
Electrical System

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE CONTACT OBSERVED THAT THE ODOMETER AND TRIP ODOMETER DISPLAYED AN INACCURATE CALCULATION. THE ODOMETER READING WOULD INCREASE BY 1.6 MILES FOR EVERY MILE BEING TRAVELED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000. UPD…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE CONTACT OBSERVED THAT THE ODOMETER AND TRIP ODOMETER DISPLAYED AN INACCURATE CALCULATION. THE ODOMETER READING WOULD INCREASE BY 1.6 MILES FOR EVERY MILE BEING TRAVELED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000. UPDATED 11/03/10. *LJ

NHTSA ODI #10347074

30,000 miles · Jun 22, 2010
Electrical System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. SHE STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FAILED CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO LOSE POWER AND THE ABS SYSTEM FAILED. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE COMPUTER SYSTEM WAS DAMAGED CAUSING THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT PR…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. SHE STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FAILED CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO LOSE POWER AND THE ABS SYSTEM FAILED. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE COMPUTER SYSTEM WAS DAMAGED CAUSING THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 30,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 50,000.

NHTSA ODI #10339560

Mileage unknown · May 13, 2010
Electrical SystemFire

ON DRIVING, SMOKE AND FIRE FROM PASSENGER SIDE DOOR, 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10330329

75,000 miles · Sep 4, 2009
Electrical System

2002 TOYOTA CAMRY XLE COMES TO A STALL (ENGINE STOPS RUNNING AND CAR DOES NOT RESTART FOR A FEW MINUTES) ON RED LIGHT AND STOP SIGN. MANY PARTS HAVE BEEN REPLACED OR FIXED BUT DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUE. THE CAR AUTOMATICALLY RESTARTS IN A FEW MINUTES IN MOST CASES. IT IS VERY DANGEROUS FOR A CAR TO STOP SUDDENLY AT RED LIGHT OR ST…

Read full complaint

2002 TOYOTA CAMRY XLE COMES TO A STALL (ENGINE STOPS RUNNING AND CAR DOES NOT RESTART FOR A FEW MINUTES) ON RED LIGHT AND STOP SIGN. MANY PARTS HAVE BEEN REPLACED OR FIXED BUT DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUE. THE CAR AUTOMATICALLY RESTARTS IN A FEW MINUTES IN MOST CASES. IT IS VERY DANGEROUS FOR A CAR TO STOP SUDDENLY AT RED LIGHT OR STOP SIGN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10282856

50,000 miles · May 21, 2009
Electrical SystemService Brakes, HydraulicSuspension

2002 CAMRY LE,50K MILES ALWAYS PULLS TO LEFT. HAS BEEN TO DEALER AND VARIOUS SHOPS. STEERING WHEEL SHUDDERS AND VIBRATES AT ANY AND ALL SPEEDS. PROBLEM IS STRUCTURAL. BRAKES ARE CONSTANT PROBLEM. SUNROOF WILL NOT SEAL CORRECTLY THEREFORE REAR FLOOR IS NOW WET. NOW EXPERIENCING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS. WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF BUYI…

Read full complaint

2002 CAMRY LE,50K MILES ALWAYS PULLS TO LEFT. HAS BEEN TO DEALER AND VARIOUS SHOPS. STEERING WHEEL SHUDDERS AND VIBRATES AT ANY AND ALL SPEEDS. PROBLEM IS STRUCTURAL. BRAKES ARE CONSTANT PROBLEM. SUNROOF WILL NOT SEAL CORRECTLY THEREFORE REAR FLOOR IS NOW WET. NOW EXPERIENCING ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS. WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF BUYING A 1950 STUDEBAKER! AND GM IS IN TROUBLE? LAST TOYOTA FOR ME. CAR IS UNSAFE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10269634

84,000 miles · Apr 25, 2007
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingFuel System, Gasoline

TOYOTA CAMRY LE 2.4 L WINTER WEATHER CAUSE TO VVT ON AUTO TO FAIL AND STALL ENGINE. STALLED ENGINE CAUSED LOST OF CONTROLS, STEERING, BRAKES, ETC..PARTS REPLACED WERE OXYGEN SENSORS, CAT.CONVERTOR, ETC.. THE VVT IS VARIABLE VALVE TIMING CONTROL ALONG WITH OCM, PCM, THROTTLE SENSOR, MASS AIR SENSOR WHICH REGULATES THE ENGINE PE…

Read full complaint

TOYOTA CAMRY LE 2.4 L WINTER WEATHER CAUSE TO VVT ON AUTO TO FAIL AND STALL ENGINE. STALLED ENGINE CAUSED LOST OF CONTROLS, STEERING, BRAKES, ETC..PARTS REPLACED WERE OXYGEN SENSORS, CAT.CONVERTOR, ETC.. THE VVT IS VARIABLE VALVE TIMING CONTROL ALONG WITH OCM, PCM, THROTTLE SENSOR, MASS AIR SENSOR WHICH REGULATES THE ENGINE PERFORMANCE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10188813

33,000 miles · Jun 28, 2006
Electrical System

THE CAR WOULD NOT START. JUMP STARTED IT. DROVE AROUND BUT JUST STALLED AFTER 2 MILES. AGAIN TRIED TO START BUT COULD NOT. BATTERY OK. CALLED TOW COMPANY AND PUT THE CAR BACK IN MY GARAGE. AGAIN JUMP STARTED IT TO PULL BACK INTO GARAGE. LET THE CAR REMAIN STARTED IN PARKING POSITION. ENGINE AGAIN DIED AFTER 5 MINUTES. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10160980

28,765 miles · May 19, 2006
Electrical System

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE HEATER AND AIR CONDITIONER CONTROL PANEL ILLUMINATED INTERMITTENTLY. THE DEALERSHIP COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, DETERMINED THE PANEL NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WITHIN TWO DAYS, THE SAME PROBLEM AROSE WITH THE NEW PANEL. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE THIRD CONTROL PANEL. ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE …

Read full complaint

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE HEATER AND AIR CONDITIONER CONTROL PANEL ILLUMINATED INTERMITTENTLY. THE DEALERSHIP COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, DETERMINED THE PANEL NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WITHIN TWO DAYS, THE SAME PROBLEM AROSE WITH THE NEW PANEL. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE THIRD CONTROL PANEL. ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEMS WITH THE THIRD CONTROL PANEL, THE CONTACT IS CONCERNED THE SAME PROBLEMS WILL REOCCUR WITH THE NEW PANEL.*AK

NHTSA ODI #10157863

Official recalls

4

04V346000 · Air Bags:side/window

Jul 13, 2004

ON CERTAIN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAGS (CSA), ONE OR BOTH OF THE CURTAIN AIR BAGS MAY BE TWISTED NEAR THE INFLATOR DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THE CSA MAY NOT DEPLOY RAPIDLY ENOUGH WHEN ACTIVATED IN A SIDE IMPACT COLLISION. THIS MAY RESULT IN FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE INTENDED HEAD PROTECTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE CSAS AND REPLACE THE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 6, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.

01V372000 · Air Bags:frontal

Dec 11, 2001

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A THREE-SPOKE STYLE STEERING WHEEL. DURING AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE BOTTOM SEAM OF THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG MODULE COVER (HORN PAD) COULD BE TORN AWAY ALLOWING THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE COVER TO COMPLETELY DETACH FROM THE AIR BAG MODULE.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: IF THIS SHOULD OCCUR, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE DETACHED BOTTOM PORTION MAY STRIKE THE DRIVER CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG MODULE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN DECEMBER 28, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331 OR LEXUS AT 1-888-333-9376.

01V302000 · Tires

Oct 1, 2001

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CONTINENTAL TOURING TIRES, P205-65R15 92S, INSTALLED AT THE PORTS IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. THE INCORRECT TIRES WERE INSTALLED ON VEHICLES THAT HAD DAMAGED TIRES. THE TIRES WERE DAMAGED DURING A PORT UPGRADE TO ALUMINUM WHEELS.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THE TIRES DO NOT CONFORM TO THE SPEED RATING FOR THE VEHICLE. IF THE VEHICLE EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM SPEED RATING (112 MPH), POSSIBLE TIRE FAILURE COULD OCCUR.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE ALL FIVE TIRES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN SEPTEMBER 13, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHEAST TOYOTA AT 1-800-301-6859.

01V306000 · Air Bags:frontal

Sep 25, 2001

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. INCOMPLETE DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG COULD OCCUR IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: UNEXPECTED AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT CAN RESULT IN OCCUPANT INJURY.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY. BOTH OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED BY TELEPHONE AND ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM. THIS CAMPAIGN IS 100% COMPLETED. BOTH OWNERS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AND THEIR VEHICLES REPAIRED.

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

4

DP06003 · 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

PE04021 · Throttle Control System

Opened Mar 3, 2004 · Closed Jul 22, 2004

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

THE LEXUS MODELS WERE THE SUBJECT OF DEFECT PETITION (DP) 04-003.TWELVE ODI COMPLAINTS ARE DUPLICATIVE TO TOYOTA REPORTS, INCLUDING THE TWO MINOR CRASHES.THE V6 EQUIPPED SOLARA MODELS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONTAIN THE SUBJECT THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM.TOYOTA INTRODUCED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES BEGINNING IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002.ODI OPENED THE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF THE SYSTEM COULD BE THE CAUSE OF COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE ENGINE SPEED INCREASED, OR FAILED TO DECREASE, (FOR A SHORT DURATION) WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS NOT DEPRESSED (THE ALLEGED DEFECT).DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ANALYZED AGENCY DATA AND REVIEWED VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS, CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS INVOLVING 113 VOQ AND 36 TOYOTA REPORTS, INSPECTED TWO COMPLAINANT VEHICLES, REVIEWED RELEVANT TOYOTA SERVICE AND NEW CAR FEATURE DOCUMENTATION, REVIEWED AND ANALYZED TOYOTA?S RESPONSES TO ODI?S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER, CONDUCTED A LIMITED CONTROL PEDAL ASSESSMENT, AND ATTENDED A TOYOTA TECHNICAL PRESENTATION THAT INCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT OF TWO DEMONSTRATION VEHICLES.THROUGH INTERVIEWS, ODI IDENTIFIED 14 VOQ AND 6 TOYOTA REPORTS (20 UNIQUE VEHICLES) WHERE COMPLAINANTS REPORT MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.IN SOME CASES THE CONDITION WAS EXPERIENCED BY DIFFERENT VEHICLE OPERATORS OR WAS WITNESSED BY OTHER OCCUPANTS.ODI WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THE CAUSE OF 9 TOYOTA AND AN ADDITIONAL 37 VOQ REPORTS (WHICH DESCRIBE 28 UNIQUE INCIDENTS) DUE TO INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.THE REMAINING COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED (62 VOQ, 21 TOYOTA) DESCRIBED CONDITIONS NOT CAUSED BY A FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM AND WERE THUS CONSIDERED UNRELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED REPORTED A COMPONENT FAILURE (OR OTHER INDICATOR OF A SYSTEM FAILURE) AS THE POTENTIAL CAUSE OF INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO THIS INVESTIGATION.IN MANY CASES, THE COMPLAINT VEHICLES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY INSPECTED BY DEALERSHIP OR MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVES WHO ALSO FAILED TO IDENTIFY A FAULT WITHIN THE VEHICLE.TOYOTA IDENTIFIED 43 RELATED WARRANTY CLAIMS, 24 OF WHICH WERE FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES ONLY (NO REPAIRS PERFORMED).ODI FOUND NOTHING ABNORMAL IN THE CONTROL PEDAL CONFIGURATION OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.A DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR FURTHER DETAIL.

PE02079 · Engine Compartment Fire

Opened Oct 22, 2002 · Closed Mar 18, 2003

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

ODI'S DATA ANALYSIS FOUND THE FIRES RATES TO BE CONSISTENTLY LOW AND EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG SIX MODEL YEARS AND SIX DIFFERENT ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS.ODI EXAMINED A VARIETY OF ROOT CAUSES, THOSE BEING DETONATION (RESULTING IN OIL PAN PUNCTURE FROM CONNECTING ROD), STARTER FIRES, VARIOUS FUEL RELATED FIRES, LEAKING OIL FILTERS, WIRING ISSUES, IMPROPER REPAIRS AND BRAKE FLUID LEAKS.NONE OF THE ISSUES EXAMINED HAD REPORTS THAT INDICATED A TREND WHEN NORMALIZED FOR POPULATON AND EXPOSURE.SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR FULL DETAILS.

Go deeper into Toyota Camry problems