IllustrationCOOLANT LEAK DUE TO APPARENT STRIPPED HEAD BOLTS DUE TO MANUFACTURER DEFECT. *TR
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Camry 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
1860–25K
11025–50K
8750–75K
8175–100K
96100–150K
50150K+
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
Engine complaints
58 reportsBEGAN NOTICING GURGLING/WATER SLOSHING NOISES AT APPROXIMATELY 100K MILES. APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LATER, CAR OVERHEATED. NOTICED COOLANT WAS LOW, SO HAD COOLANT REFILLED. CHECKED OUT BY MECHANIC NEXT DAY AND WAS TOLD THAT A STOP-LEAK WOULD FIX PROBLEM. COMPLETED THIS PROCEDURE AT PERSONAL COST. THREE DAYS LATER, CAR OVERHEATED …
Read full complaint
BEGAN NOTICING GURGLING/WATER SLOSHING NOISES AT APPROXIMATELY 100K MILES. APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LATER, CAR OVERHEATED. NOTICED COOLANT WAS LOW, SO HAD COOLANT REFILLED. CHECKED OUT BY MECHANIC NEXT DAY AND WAS TOLD THAT A STOP-LEAK WOULD FIX PROBLEM. COMPLETED THIS PROCEDURE AT PERSONAL COST. THREE DAYS LATER, CAR OVERHEATED AGAIN. TOOK TO DIFFERENT MECHANIC, AND WAS ADVISED TO REPLACE RADIATOR. REPLACED RADIATOR AT PERSONAL COST. FEW DAYS LATER, CAR OVERHEATED AGAIN. TOOK TO FOUR DIFFERENT MECHANICS AND NOTICED COOLANT LEAKS. WAS ADVISED BY ALL FOUR MECHANICS THAT IT WAS BLOWN HEAD GASKET, THAT THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THIS MAKE/MODEL, THAT REPLACING THE ENGINE WOULD BE SAFEST SOLUTION. ONE MECHANIC ALSO SAID THAT SIMPLY REPLACING HEAD GASKET MIGHT NOT WORK BECAUSE THE BOLT THREADING IN THIS PARTICULAR MODEL WAS KNOWN TO BE DEFECTIVE. CANNOT AFFORD $4000 TO REPLACE ENGINE, ESPECIALLY IF THIS SAME PROBLEM CAN POSSIBLY RECUR. CURRENTLY REFILLING COOLANT EVERY OTHER DAY. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE ENGINE OVERHEATED AS THE TEMPERATURE WARNING INDICATOR. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE ENGINE CYLINDER HEAD BLOT WAS STRIPPED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW ONE HOWEVER, THE TRANSMISSION FAILED.…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE ENGINE OVERHEATED AS THE TEMPERATURE WARNING INDICATOR. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE ENGINE CYLINDER HEAD BLOT WAS STRIPPED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW ONE HOWEVER, THE TRANSMISSION FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED FOR THE MOST RECENT FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 125,000.
THE COOLANT STARTED LEAKING FROM BEHIND THE MOTOR. MY MECHANIC LOOKED AT IT AND SAID THAT THE FOAM INSULATION WAS SATURATED WITH COOLANT AND IT WAS LEAKING FROM THERE, BETWEEN THE HEAD AND THE CYLINDER. WHEN I RESEARCHED ABOUT IT ONLINE IN MANY TOYOTA FORUMS, THE COMMON THING THAT I HAVE COME ACROSS IS THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WI…
Read full complaint
THE COOLANT STARTED LEAKING FROM BEHIND THE MOTOR. MY MECHANIC LOOKED AT IT AND SAID THAT THE FOAM INSULATION WAS SATURATED WITH COOLANT AND IT WAS LEAKING FROM THERE, BETWEEN THE HEAD AND THE CYLINDER. WHEN I RESEARCHED ABOUT IT ONLINE IN MANY TOYOTA FORUMS, THE COMMON THING THAT I HAVE COME ACROSS IS THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE HEAD BOLTS STRIPPING AND THE COOLANT LEAKING FROM THAT AREA. MY MECHANIC SAID THAT I EITHER NEED A NEW ENGINE OR DO A FIX THE STRIPPED HEAD BOLTS WITH A HELI-COIL OR A TIME-SERT. THIS IS VERY DISAPPOINTING WITH TOYOTA, THAT THEY ARE NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE DEFECT WITH THERE 5TH GEN 4 CYL 2AZ-FE ENGINES AND ARE REFUSING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT. THE SOLUTION THAT THEY ARE GIVING IS A VERY EXPENSIVE ONE OF GETTING A NEW ENGINE FOR $5000. THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY TOYOTA OR SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE THEM TAKE NOTICE OF THIS ISSUE. *TR
THE IS A SERVICE BULLETIN REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER AND REPROGRAMMING THE ECU. I DON'T THINK TOYOTA NOTIFIES CURRENT OWNERS OF FREE WORK TO BE DONE THAT IS NOT AN ACTUAL RECALL. INSTEAD THEY WAIT TO SEE WHO FINDS OUT ON THEIR OWN. THE SERVICE BULLETIN TSB 2404 DATED 07-01-04 COVERS THE REPLACEMENT OF T…
Read full complaint
THE IS A SERVICE BULLETIN REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER AND REPROGRAMMING THE ECU. I DON'T THINK TOYOTA NOTIFIES CURRENT OWNERS OF FREE WORK TO BE DONE THAT IS NOT AN ACTUAL RECALL. INSTEAD THEY WAIT TO SEE WHO FINDS OUT ON THEIR OWN. THE SERVICE BULLETIN TSB 2404 DATED 07-01-04 COVERS THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER AND REPROGRAMMING THE ECU TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. IT MENTIONS THE SMELL OF SULFUR FROM THE EXHAUST AND WAS APPARENTLY THE ONLY REASON MOST PEOPLE HAD IT CHECKED OUT. MY WIFE'S CAR HAS HAD THE SMELL OF SULFUR FOR A FEW YEARS NOW, BUT SINCE WE DON'T MAKE IT A HABIT OF MAKING OUR CAR EXHAUST SMELL PLEASANT WE NEVER THOUGHT ANYTHING OF IT. NOW, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ON AND THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER NEEDS TO BE REPLACED BUT HER CAR IS OVER THE 8 YEAR, 80,000 MILE LIMIT OF THE TSB. IF WE WERE NOTIFIED OF TOYOTA'S DESIGN ERROR EARLIER AND HAD THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER REPLACED AND THE ECU REPROGRAMMED FOR FREE, WE WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT A $1000 REPAIR BILL IN OUR FUTURE. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR TOYOTA'S ERROR, WE ALREADY PAID FOR THE CAR. *TR
AFTER TAKING MY CAR TO A LOCAL MECHANIC BECAUSE OF OVERHEATING, A COOLANT LEAK, AND MISFIRING, I BROUGHT MY CAMRY TO A CERTIFIED TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. I EXPLAINED TO THE TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FORE MENTIONED ISSUES. AFTER CONDUCTING AN INSPECTION, THE TOYOTA REP. TOLD ME I HAD A BAD COIL IN CYLINDER #2, AND FOUND PRESSURE LEA…
Read full complaint
AFTER TAKING MY CAR TO A LOCAL MECHANIC BECAUSE OF OVERHEATING, A COOLANT LEAK, AND MISFIRING, I BROUGHT MY CAMRY TO A CERTIFIED TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. I EXPLAINED TO THE TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FORE MENTIONED ISSUES. AFTER CONDUCTING AN INSPECTION, THE TOYOTA REP. TOLD ME I HAD A BAD COIL IN CYLINDER #2, AND FOUND PRESSURE LEAKING INTO #2 AND #3 CYLINDERS. AFTER A FURTHER TEAR DOWN OF THE ENGINE, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE ENGINE HAD LOOSE HEAD BOLTS IN THESE CYLINDERS, AND THAT THE THREADS ON THE ENGINE FOR THESE BOLTS WAS STRIPPED. THEY TOLD ME THAT THERE IS NO FIX TO THIS PROBLEM AND QUOTED ME A NEW ENGINE WITH 90,000 MILES WITH AN ESTIMATE COST BETWEEN $5000-$6000. FURTHERMORE, I WAS TOLD REPLACING THE COIL AT $227, WOULD FIX THE MISFIRING. HOWEVER THIS DID NOT FIX THE MISFIRING PROBLEM, AS THE MISFIRE WAS DUE BECAUSE OF THE LOOSE HEAD BOLTS WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BY THE DEALERSHIP AS WELL. THIS CONFLICTING INFORMATION LED ME TO BELIEVE IT WAS SAFE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AS LONG AS COOLANT WAS PLENTIFUL IN THE RADIATOR AND OVER FLOW RESERVOIR. HOWEVER, THE OVERHEATING, LEAKING OF COOLANT AND MISFIRING CONTINUES. THE MISFIRING CREATES DANGEROUS RANDOM STALLS. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE INCREASED RAPIDLY INTO THE RED ZONE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO STATED THAT THE RADIATOR WAS LEAKING AND THE THERMOSTAT WAS DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. SMOKE ALSO EMITTED FROM T…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH THE TEMPERATURE GAUGE INCREASED RAPIDLY INTO THE RED ZONE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO STATED THAT THE RADIATOR WAS LEAKING AND THE THERMOSTAT WAS DEFECTIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. SMOKE ALSO EMITTED FROM THE ENGINE TWO HOURS AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO BOTH AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE DEALER DETECTED THAT THE ENGINE CYLINDER HEAD BOLTS WERE STRIPED AND THE ENGINE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
HARSH/HARD/DELAYED SHIFTING BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD OR 2ND AND 4TH (OVERDRIVE) ON 1MZ-FE V6 ENGINE DUE TO FAULTY ENGINE CONTROL MODULE FAILING TO REGULATE TRANSMISSION SOLENOIDS PROPERLY. THIS ISSUE OCCURRED ON THE ECM ON RAV4 (SAME YEAR, 2002) AND RESULTED IN SETTLEMENT IN WHICH TOYOTA AGREED TO REPAIR ALL. *TR
CYLINDER HEAD BOLT STRIPPED OFF FROM ENGINE BLOCK THREAD AND DAMAGED THE ENGINE. *TR
BLOWN HEAD GASKET ON 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. APPARENTLY THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT AS EVIDENCED BY ALL THE BLOGS ON THE INTERNET. SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE TO COMPENSATE THE CONSUMER FOR THIS DEFECT. *TR
Official recalls
404V346000 · 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
4DP06003 · 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.