NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
107 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Oct 24, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
VEHICLE STARTED SMOKING (WHITE SMOKE) I TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER HE ADVISED THAT THE PRIOR YEAR VEHICLES HAD A DEFECT OF THE MOTOR SLUDGING UP BUT MY MODEL HAD BEEN REDESIGNED AND THAT IT WAS DUE TO ME NOT CHANGING THE OIL FILTER MY HUSBAND OWNS A REPAIR SHOP AND HAD DONE THE OIL CHANGES AND REPLACED THE FILTERS THE VEHICLE WAS S…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE STARTED SMOKING (WHITE SMOKE) I TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER HE ADVISED THAT THE PRIOR YEAR VEHICLES HAD A DEFECT OF THE MOTOR SLUDGING UP BUT MY MODEL HAD BEEN REDESIGNED AND THAT IT WAS DUE TO ME NOT CHANGING THE OIL FILTER MY HUSBAND OWNS A REPAIR SHOP AND HAD DONE THE OIL CHANGES AND REPLACED THE FILTERS THE VEHICLE WAS STILL UNDER 50,000 BUT DEALER WOULD NOT TAKE CARE OF PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10246667
97,000 miles · Jul 14, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
3/21/2008 CAR STOPPED RUNNING WHILE ON EXPRESSWAY. TOWED 50 MILES INTO DEALERSHIP ALAMO TOYOTA, SAN ANTONIO, TX =NOT WHERE PURCHASED 100 MILES FROM RESIDENCE. TOLD ENGINE MOUNTING BOLTS SHEERED OFF INTO THE ENGINE BLOCK WHICH CAUSED CRACK. ENGINE HAD TO BE REPLACED. DEALER FOUND SALVAGE ENGINE WITH 37000 MILES ON IT. OWNER …
Read full complaint
3/21/2008 CAR STOPPED RUNNING WHILE ON EXPRESSWAY. TOWED 50 MILES INTO DEALERSHIP ALAMO TOYOTA, SAN ANTONIO, TX =NOT WHERE PURCHASED 100 MILES FROM RESIDENCE. TOLD ENGINE MOUNTING BOLTS SHEERED OFF INTO THE ENGINE BLOCK WHICH CAUSED CRACK. ENGINE HAD TO BE REPLACED. DEALER FOUND SALVAGE ENGINE WITH 37000 MILES ON IT. OWNER DID NOT RECEIVE PROOF OF THE MILEAGE. DEALER KEPT USED ENGINE $4,000.00+. INCLUDED USED LONGBLOCK, OIL, OIL FILTER COOLANT REAR MAIN SEAL, FIPC, RADIATOR CLEANING. OWNER RENTED AT OWN EXPENSE RENTAL VEHICLE. TOLD CAR WAS REPAIRED. PICKED CAR UP DROVE OFF LOT, TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK INTO DEALERSHIP. CAR WAS MISFIRING. HAD TO LEAVE CAR AGAIN. ADDITIONAL $235.00 TO REPLACE 4 COILS APRIL 11,2008. ON MAY 2 2008, A/C STOPPED COOLING. TOOK CAR INTO CHAMPION TOYOTA, AUSTIN TEXAS. $613.00 FOR AC CONDENSER, CONDENSER ASSY, RELAY, WARRANTY. AC CONDENSER LEAKING, PROBABLY DAMAGED DURING RADIATOR CLEANING AT ALAMO TOYOTA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10234289
64,000 miles · Jun 28, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE PURCHASED A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY FROM ARLINGTON TOYOTA, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA- NEW IN DECEMBER 2001. WE HAVE ALWAYS OWNED TOYOTAS WITH NO PROBLEMS. PRESENTLY THE CAR HAS 64,000 MILES. ON JUNE 26 THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND THEN WENT OFF, AFTER THAT THE A/C STOPPED WORKING. WE T…
Read full complaint
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE PURCHASED A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY FROM ARLINGTON TOYOTA, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA- NEW IN DECEMBER 2001. WE HAVE ALWAYS OWNED TOYOTAS WITH NO PROBLEMS. PRESENTLY THE CAR HAS 64,000 MILES. ON JUNE 26 THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND THEN WENT OFF, AFTER THAT THE A/C STOPPED WORKING. WE TOOK THE CAR INTO COGGIN TOYOTA AT THE AVENUES ON JUNE 28 AND WERE GIVEN A BILL OF $1154 WITH AN EXPLANATION THAT THE ENTIRE A/C CONDENSER ASSEMBLY, AIR FLOW SENSOR AND AIR FUEL SENSOR NEEDED REPLACEMENT. OBVIOUSLY WE HAD TO PAY FOR THIS AND HAVE IT DONE AS WE'RE GOING OUT OF TOWN AND HAVE A CHILD WHO RIDES IN THIS CAR REGULARLY, BUT THIS IS BEYOND RIDICULOUS. FOR THIS AGE OF A CAR, AND SUPPOSEDLY BEING THE MOST RELIABLE AND HIGHLY RATED CAR FOR THAT YEAR THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. THIS CAR HAS NOT BEEN IN ANY BAD ACCIDENTS AND IS NOT DRIVEN EXCESSIVELY. ALL ROUTINE MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED ON A REGULAR BASIS. THIS IS CLEARLY A DEFECT ON TOYOTA'S PART AND NEEDS TO BE COMPENSATED FOR. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO PAY THIS MUCH FOR A REPAIR ON THIS TYPE OF CAR, WHETHER OR NOT THE WARRANTY IS EXPIRED. I EXPECTED MUCH MORE FROM TOYOTA THAN WE HAVE PRESENTLY EXPERIENCED AND AM VERY DISAPPOINTED AND FRUSTRATED. WE HAD PLANNED TO PURCHASE A NEW SIENNA WITHIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS BUT NOW WILL LOOK ELSE WHERE. ************ KRISTI B. GABRIEL, LMT, BA, MBA HEALING WATERS THERAPY *TR
NHTSA ODI #10232589
92,000 miles · Jun 6, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 2 MPH, SHE HEARD A GRINDING NOISE THEN THE VEHICLE SHUT OFF WITHOUT WARNING. THE DEALER STATED THAT ENGINE MOUNTING BOLTS SHEERED OFF INTO THE ENGINE BLOCK, WHICH CAUSED THE CORNER OF THE ENGINE TO CRACK. THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. AS OF …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 2 MPH, SHE HEARD A GRINDING NOISE THEN THE VEHICLE SHUT OFF WITHOUT WARNING. THE DEALER STATED THAT ENGINE MOUNTING BOLTS SHEERED OFF INTO THE ENGINE BLOCK, WHICH CAUSED THE CORNER OF THE ENGINE TO CRACK. THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. AS OF JUNE 6, 2008, THE DEALER HAD NOT REPAIRED THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 92,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE
NHTSA ODI #10230185
77,600 miles · May 30, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
I PURCHASED A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY NEW AND RECENTLY NOTICED THE CAR BLOWING BLUE SMOKE ON START UP IN THE MORNINGS. I TOOK THE CAR TO MY DEALER WHERE THEY DID AN EVAL. THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT I HAVE THE VALVE STEM SEALS REPLACED AT A COST OF AROUND $2,000.00. I WAS SHOCKED. MY CAR IS 5 YEARS OLD WITH 77,000 MILES. HOW COULD T…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY NEW AND RECENTLY NOTICED THE CAR BLOWING BLUE SMOKE ON START UP IN THE MORNINGS. I TOOK THE CAR TO MY DEALER WHERE THEY DID AN EVAL. THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT I HAVE THE VALVE STEM SEALS REPLACED AT A COST OF AROUND $2,000.00. I WAS SHOCKED. MY CAR IS 5 YEARS OLD WITH 77,000 MILES. HOW COULD THIS BE? I HAVE TAKEN EXCELLENT CARE OF MY CAR, GETTING OIL CHANGES EVERY 3,000 MILES (AND HAVE THE RECEIPTS AND RECORDS TO PROVE IT. IN FACT THE DEALER HANDLED ALL THE OIL CHANGES AND SERVICE FOR ME, UP TILL THE LAST 2 OIL CHANGES.) I KNOW THERE WAS A CLASS ACTION SUIT FOR AN OIL SLUDGE/GEL PROBLEM, WHICH AFTER READING EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET, I BELIEVE IS PROBABLY THE REAL ISSUE WITH MY CAR, BUT EVERYTHING I'VE READ SAYS IT ENDED WITH THE 2001 CAMRY MODELS. HAVE YOU HEARD OR RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS FOR THE 2002 MODELS AS WELL? ANY INFORMATION OR ADVICE YOU COULD GIVE ME WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10229340
82,630 miles · Mar 27, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. SHE STATED THAT THERE WAS A FAULTY CHARCOAL CANISTER THAT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 82,630. UPDATED 07/15/08 *BF UPDATED *JB 07/15/08
NHTSA ODI #10222519
108,000 miles · Sep 28, 2007
Engine And Engine CoolingPower Train
AT ABOUT 105,000 MILES ON MY 2002 CAMRY V6, THE CAR EXPERIENCED HESITATING DRIVING WHILE DRIVEN AT SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH WHEN REMOVING SLIGHTLY THE FOOT FROM THE THROTTLE PEDAL. THE CAR IS BUCKING BACKWARD AND FORWARD FOR INDEFINITE TIME UNTIL THE THROTTLE PEDAL IS FULLY DEPRESSED OR FULLY PRESSED. THIS IS AN UNSAFE SITUATION SINC…
Read full complaint
AT ABOUT 105,000 MILES ON MY 2002 CAMRY V6, THE CAR EXPERIENCED HESITATING DRIVING WHILE DRIVEN AT SPEEDS ABOVE 40 MPH WHEN REMOVING SLIGHTLY THE FOOT FROM THE THROTTLE PEDAL. THE CAR IS BUCKING BACKWARD AND FORWARD FOR INDEFINITE TIME UNTIL THE THROTTLE PEDAL IS FULLY DEPRESSED OR FULLY PRESSED. THIS IS AN UNSAFE SITUATION SINCE ON THE HIGHWAY THE SPEED CANNOT BE DECREASED OR INCREASED ANY TIME. NOTIFIED DEALER AND TOLD THAT THIS CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED SINCE THERE IS NO ERROR CODE GENERATED (NO CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON). REPLACED ALL SPARK PLUGS AT 108,000 MILES ON AUG 24, 2007. PROBLEM NOT SOLVED. SPOUSE NOTICED INCREASED BUCKING WHILE DRIVING DOWN HILL. WENT BACK TO THE DEALER. PERFORMED TEST DRIVE WITH TECHNICIAN IN THE CAR AND THE DIAGNOSE SYSTEM HOOKED TO THE CAR'S COMPUTER. DETECTED SOME MISFIRES ON CYLINDERS 5 AND 6. REPLACED SOLENOID IGNITION PACKS FOR CYLINDER 5 & 6 AND TEST DROVE AGAIN. PROBLEM NOT SOLVED. TECHNICIAN CONCLUDED THAT FUEL INJECTORS ARE CLOGGED. PERFORMED FUEL INJECTORS PURGE (CLEANING). PROBLEM NOT SOLVED. TECHNICIAN RECOMMENDED TO REPLACE ALL FUEL INJECTORS AND SOLENOID IGNITION PACKS. CAR WAS MAINTAINED PROPERLY DURING THE OWNERSHIP. OIL & FILTER CHANGED EVERY 3000 MILES, REPLACED AIR FILTER EVERY 30,000 MILES, REPLACED TIMING BELT AND BELT TENSIONERS AT 87,000 MILES, REPLACED WATER PUMP AT 87,000 MILES, FLUSHED TRANSMISSION FLUID AT 87,000 MILES. FROM READING VARIOUS CUSTOMERS COMPLAINTS, IT APPEARS TO BE A TRANSMISSION PROBLEM BUT DEALER DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT IT. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10204424
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
Mileage unknown · Dec 12, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
I PURCHASED MY CAR IN 2001, USED WITH 17K MILES, FORM TOYOTA OF DURHAM. I HAVE 105K MILES NOW ON IT. I KEPT THE ROUTINE OIL CHANGE AND HAD SLUGGISH OIL PROBLEMS EVERY TIME I GOT MY OIL CHANGED. THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTED OIL SLUGGISH PROBLEM FROM TOYOTA. MY VEHICLE IS CLICKING WITH A STRANGE SOUND. I HAD IT LOOKED AT AND THE MECHAN…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED MY CAR IN 2001, USED WITH 17K MILES, FORM TOYOTA OF DURHAM. I HAVE 105K MILES NOW ON IT. I KEPT THE ROUTINE OIL CHANGE AND HAD SLUGGISH OIL PROBLEMS EVERY TIME I GOT MY OIL CHANGED. THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTED OIL SLUGGISH PROBLEM FROM TOYOTA. MY VEHICLE IS CLICKING WITH A STRANGE SOUND. I HAD IT LOOKED AT AND THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THE TIMING BELT IS GOING. BUT HE ADVISED ME TO TAKE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED IT. I DID AND THEY TOLD ME THAT IT WAS THE ENGINE. I NEED A NEW ENGINE. A NEW ENGINE, NO WAY. HOW IS IT THAT A TOYOTA CAMRY WITH BARELY 100K MILES NEED A NEW ENGINE AND NOTHING IS SAID TO BE WRONG WITH THIS VEHICLE. I HAVE OWNED TOYOTA AND LEXUS MODELS FOR A LONG TIME NOW AND HAVE YET TO DEAL WITH SUCH SHAME IN THEIR MODELS. I AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED AT THIS MESS OF A CAR. SURELY, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOMETHING THAT NEED TO BE DONE AT A CERTAIN TIME BUT WHY IS IT THAT A NEW ENGINE WOULD BE REQUIRED? I AM REALLY NOT GOING TO BE THE BEST PERSON PROMOTING TOYOTA CARS IN THE FUTURE. I HAD PLANS ON LOOKING INTO THE TOYOTA SIENNA FOR MY FAMILY. BUT THE ODYSSEY IS LOOKING MUCH BETTER NOW. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10175899
98,000 miles · Oct 19, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
I WAS COMING HOME ONE DAY AND MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK MY CAR TO THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE O2 SENSOR GOING BAD. I WANTED A SECOND OPINION SO I TOOK MY CAR TO ANOTHER DEALER WHO TOLD ME IT WAS THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER. I WAS VERY CONCERN BY THESE TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS, SO I WENT TO A THIRD DEA…
Read full complaint
I WAS COMING HOME ONE DAY AND MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK MY CAR TO THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE O2 SENSOR GOING BAD. I WANTED A SECOND OPINION SO I TOOK MY CAR TO ANOTHER DEALER WHO TOLD ME IT WAS THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER. I WAS VERY CONCERN BY THESE TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS, SO I WENT TO A THIRD DEALER WHO TOLD ME IT WAS INDEED THE O2 SENSOR. AFTER HAVING THAT REPLACED, WITHIN 2 MONTHS THE LIGHT WAS BACK ON AGAIN. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10171382
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.
Illustration