NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
107 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Oct 5, 2006
Engine And Engine CoolingCrashInjury
I WAS SITTING AT A RED LIGHT WAITING TO TURN LEFT. I SUDDENLY HEARD MY ENGINE REV AND LOOKED AT THE DASH. THE RPM'S WERE ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE RIGHT. MY CAR LURCHED FORWARD, HARD, AND HIT A LINCOLN NAVIGATOR IN FRONT OF ME. I PRESSED THE BRAKE AS HARD AS I COULD, WITH BOTH FEET, TO TRY AND STOP, BUT ULTIMATELY HAD TO TURN T…
Read full complaint
I WAS SITTING AT A RED LIGHT WAITING TO TURN LEFT. I SUDDENLY HEARD MY ENGINE REV AND LOOKED AT THE DASH. THE RPM'S WERE ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE RIGHT. MY CAR LURCHED FORWARD, HARD, AND HIT A LINCOLN NAVIGATOR IN FRONT OF ME. I PRESSED THE BRAKE AS HARD AS I COULD, WITH BOTH FEET, TO TRY AND STOP, BUT ULTIMATELY HAD TO TURN THE CAR OFF TO STOP IT FROM MOVING FORWARD. I AM NOW WAITING FOR AN INVESTIGATION, WHICH THEY HAVE TOLD ME COULD TAKE UP TO 30 DAYS. I WAS TOLD THAT IF THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A MECHANICAL FAILURE, THEY HAVE ANOTHER 30 DAYS TO FIX IT. I AM IN SALES AND USE MY CAR ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. THEY WEREN'T VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10170037
15,000 miles · May 30, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
MY CAR'S CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WOULD COME ON AND MY SON WOULD CHECK THE CODE (PO420) THEN SEND ME TO THE DEALER. I TOOK THIS CAR TO TWO DIFFERENT DEALERS DURING THIS TIME. THE FIRST TIME THE LIGHT CAME ON I WAS OUT OF TOWN AND TOOK THE CAR TO A LOCAL DEALER WHO CHANGED A SENSOR CONNECTED TO THE EXHAUST SYSTEM. THE NEXT TIME TO LI…
Read full complaint
MY CAR'S CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WOULD COME ON AND MY SON WOULD CHECK THE CODE (PO420) THEN SEND ME TO THE DEALER. I TOOK THIS CAR TO TWO DIFFERENT DEALERS DURING THIS TIME. THE FIRST TIME THE LIGHT CAME ON I WAS OUT OF TOWN AND TOOK THE CAR TO A LOCAL DEALER WHO CHANGED A SENSOR CONNECTED TO THE EXHAUST SYSTEM. THE NEXT TIME TO LIGHT CAME ON I TOOK THE CAR TO A DEALER IN MY AREA AND THEY TOLD ME THAT IT WAS A BAD SENSOR (SAME ONE THAT HAD JUST BEEN CHANGED) AFTER I TOLD THEM THAT SENSOR HAD ALREADY BEEN REPLACED THEY CAME BACK AND TOLD ME THAT IT WAS A DIFFERENT SENSOR. I LEFT THIS DEALER AND SHORTLY AFTER THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON AGAIN AND I WENT BACK TO THE SECOND DEALER WHO SAID THAT THE COMPUTER NEEDED TO BE REPROGRAMMED. THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN ON GOING FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, DURING WHICH TIME MY CAR WAS UNDER WARRANTY AND THE FIRST SERVICE BULLETIN ON THIS PROBLEM WAS ISSUED ON MAY 24, 2004 AND THE SECOND ON JULY 27, 2004. NOW THAT THE CAR IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY I HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT THESE SERVICE BULLETINS. I INTEND TO TAKE THIS ISSUE UP WITH TOYOTA AS THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPAIRED BACK IN 2004. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10158617
89,230 miles · Feb 10, 2006
Engine And Engine CoolingInjury
THE 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY, PURCHASED USED FROM RAY BRANDT TOYOTA IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN WHILE MY MOTHER WAS DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THIS PAST MONDAY. SHE BARELY MISSED A HEAD-ON COLLISION, BECAUSE SHE WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE CAR WITHOUT POWER STEERING. I ADVISED HER TO BRING THE CAMRY IMMEDIATELY TO RAY …
Read full complaint
THE 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY, PURCHASED USED FROM RAY BRANDT TOYOTA IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN WHILE MY MOTHER WAS DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THIS PAST MONDAY. SHE BARELY MISSED A HEAD-ON COLLISION, BECAUSE SHE WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE CAR WITHOUT POWER STEERING. I ADVISED HER TO BRING THE CAMRY IMMEDIATELY TO RAY BRANDT TOYOTA?? S SERVICE DEPARTMENT. SHE TURNED IT OVER TO THEM THAT SAME AFTERNOON. THE NEXT DAY A SERVICE TECHNICIAN WAS ABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM IN THE SHOP. EVEN WITH THE PROBLEM OCCURRING AT THE SHOP, THE TECHNICIANS WERE UNABLE TO LOCATE THE CAUSE THAT DAY. YESTERDAY, SHEILA, A RAY BRANDT TOYOTA SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE, ASSURED ME THAT THEY HAD SOLVED THIS TYPE OF INTERMITTENT PROBLEM BEFORE. I ASKED IF THE DIAGNOSTIC COST WOULD RUN INTO THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. SHE SAID $300 WOULD MOST LIKELY BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR THE DIAGNOSTIC TIME TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE. SHE ADDED THAT SHE WOULD BE CALLING ME WITH THE RESOLUTION TODAY. TODAY, AT APPROXIMATELY 12:45 PM I WENT IN PERSON TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT. I SPOKE TO ANOTHER RAY BRANDT TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE NAMED MIKE. I ASKED HIM HAD RAY BRANDT TOYOTA SOLVED THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM BEFORE. MIKE STATED THAT YES THEY HAD ALTHOUGH IT TOOK 2 WEEKS AND COST $850. MIKE TOLD ME TO BE PATIENT; GIVE RAY BRANDT TOYOTA TIME TO FIX IT. LATER THIS AFTERNOON SHEILA TOLD MY MOTHER THAT THERE WAS NOTHING RAY BRANDT TOYOTA??S SERVICE COULD DO TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. THIS WAS, OF COURSE A DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT SHE STATED TO ME YESTERDAY. MY MOTHER THEN AGAIN EXPRESSED HER CONCERN THAT THE CAR WAS A DEATH TRAP. SHEILA AGREED THAT THE CAR WAS, IN FACT, NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. SHE NEVERTHELESS TOLD MY MOTHER TO COME PICK THE CAR UP. DOING THAT TO MY MOTHER WAS DESPICABLE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10149928
90,000 miles · Feb 8, 2006
Engine And Engine CoolingInjury
WITH NO WARNING OR PREVIOUS PROBLEMS, WHILE DRIVING AT 60 MPH, THE 4 CYLINDER ENGINE IN MY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. I AM A 78 YEAR OLD WOMAN AND I WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE CAR WITH NO POWER. I JUST BARELY AVOIDED A HEAD-ON COLLISION. THIS HAPPENED 5 MORE TIMES IN QUICK SUCCESSION BEFORE I COULD DRIVE IMMEDIATELY BACK TO MY HOME. I…
Read full complaint
WITH NO WARNING OR PREVIOUS PROBLEMS, WHILE DRIVING AT 60 MPH, THE 4 CYLINDER ENGINE IN MY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. I AM A 78 YEAR OLD WOMAN AND I WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE CAR WITH NO POWER. I JUST BARELY AVOIDED A HEAD-ON COLLISION. THIS HAPPENED 5 MORE TIMES IN QUICK SUCCESSION BEFORE I COULD DRIVE IMMEDIATELY BACK TO MY HOME. I BROUGHT THE CAR BACK TO RAY BRANDT TOYOTA OF METAIRIE 504-464-4500. TOLD THEM OF THE PROBLEM AND THE POTENTIAL FOR A SERIOUS ACCIDENT, DUE TO THE CAR SHUTTING DOWN WHILE DRIVING. THE DEALERS SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS HAD THE CAR FOR A DAY, DUPLICATED THE PROBLEM, BUT CLAIM THEY CAN FIND NO REASON FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. I DO NOT WANT TO DIE IN A FATAL ACCIDENT CAUSED BY THE ENGINE SHUTTING DOWN AND IF THEY CANNOT LOCATE THE CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM, I WILL GET RID OF THE CAR AND NEVER PURCHASE ANOTHER TOYOTA. PLEASE HELP. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10149690
61,000 miles · Feb 3, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
DURING A 60,000 MILE CHECK-UP AT MY SERVICE STATION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT I NEEDED A NEW "FLEX PIPE ASSEMBLY" (MANIFOLD EXHAUST PIPE AND CATALYTIC CONVERTER COMBINED). THE MECHANIC SAID THAT HE HAS SEEN THE SAME PROBLEM ON MANY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY LE'S. THE PART ALONE COST ME $900 AND $100 IN LABOR TO INSTALL. TOYOTA TOLD ME …
Read full complaint
DURING A 60,000 MILE CHECK-UP AT MY SERVICE STATION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT I NEEDED A NEW "FLEX PIPE ASSEMBLY" (MANIFOLD EXHAUST PIPE AND CATALYTIC CONVERTER COMBINED). THE MECHANIC SAID THAT HE HAS SEEN THE SAME PROBLEM ON MANY 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY LE'S. THE PART ALONE COST ME $900 AND $100 IN LABOR TO INSTALL. TOYOTA TOLD ME THAT THIS PART IS NOT ON RECALL LIST. I APPROVED THE REPLACEMENT BY MY MECHANIC WHO TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD FILE A COMPLAINT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10149358
42,390 miles · Sep 27, 2005
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel System, Gasoline
I HAVE A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH 42,608 MILES. THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WENT ON YESTERDAY. TODAY I HAD THE CHARCOAL CANISTER, HOSE AND VACUUM SEALED VALVE REPLACED AT GREAT COST. NOW I HAVE READ THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE 96-98 CAMRY'S AND THAT THE EPA REQUIRED TOYOTA TO EXTEND THE EMISSIONS WARRANTY TO 14/150000. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10137905
100 miles · Aug 25, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
TERRIBLE SMELL FROM HEAT/AIR VENTS,KIDS HAVE ASTHMA AND CAN'T STAND THE SMELL, TOYOTA DEALER JUST SPRAYED VENTS AND POURED FRESHNER IN OUTSIDE VENT, PROBLEM KEPT COMING BACK AND POLLEN FILTER KEPT PLUGGING, NOTHING DONE TO CORRECT IT, NOW IN 2005 MY WATER PUMP WENT BAD. I KNOW THAT THE SMELL IS SOME KIND OF MILDEW OR MOLD FROM …
Read full complaint
TERRIBLE SMELL FROM HEAT/AIR VENTS,KIDS HAVE ASTHMA AND CAN'T STAND THE SMELL, TOYOTA DEALER JUST SPRAYED VENTS AND POURED FRESHNER IN OUTSIDE VENT, PROBLEM KEPT COMING BACK AND POLLEN FILTER KEPT PLUGGING, NOTHING DONE TO CORRECT IT, NOW IN 2005 MY WATER PUMP WENT BAD. I KNOW THAT THE SMELL IS SOME KIND OF MILDEW OR MOLD FROM SOMETHING NOT BEING FIXED, WHICH COULD LEAD TO SEVERE HEALTH CONDITIONS!
NHTSA ODI #10134195
93,000 miles · Jun 16, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
AT APPROXIMATELY 90,000 MILES, THE VEHICLE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. CHECKING WITH TOYOTA DEALER, THEY INDICATED THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER MUST BE REPLACED. THEY FUTHER INDICTATED THAT THERE IS A NATIONWIDE BACKORDER FOR THIS ITEM AND THEY ALREADY HAVE 10 VEHICLES ON THE WAITING LIST AT THEIR DEALERSHIP. I BELIEVE, FROM THIS INF…
Read full complaint
AT APPROXIMATELY 90,000 MILES, THE VEHICLE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. CHECKING WITH TOYOTA DEALER, THEY INDICATED THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER MUST BE REPLACED. THEY FUTHER INDICTATED THAT THERE IS A NATIONWIDE BACKORDER FOR THIS ITEM AND THEY ALREADY HAVE 10 VEHICLES ON THE WAITING LIST AT THEIR DEALERSHIP. I BELIEVE, FROM THIS INFORMATION, THAT THIS MUST BE A PROBLEM THAT IS A RESULT OF A DESIGN DEFECT AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY TOYOTA.
NHTSA ODI #10125545
35,000 miles · May 23, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE DRIVING 80 MPH VEHICLE STALLED. CONSUMER MANAGED TO PULL OVER AND HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK THE BATTERY WAS REPLACED BUT THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO REIMBURSE THE TOWING COST. THEY WON'T PAY FOR THE 7 MILES TOWING CHARGE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TOWED TO…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING 80 MPH VEHICLE STALLED. CONSUMER MANAGED TO PULL OVER AND HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK THE BATTERY WAS REPLACED BUT THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO REIMBURSE THE TOWING COST. THEY WON'T PAY FOR THE 7 MILES TOWING CHARGE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TOWED TO THE NEAREST DEALER. *BF
NHTSA ODI #10115784
Mileage unknown · Dec 14, 2004
Engine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, HydraulicStructure
HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH BRAKE SYSTEM ON MY CAR. BRAKES REPAIRED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS . CONSUMER FEEL THIS PROBLEM COULD LEAD TO A SERIOUS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IF NOT CORRECTED. *BF NAR *JLS THE REAR BRAKES WERE NOISY AND MADE A GRINDING SOUND. THE FRONT BRAKES VIBRATED, THE CONSUMER REPLACED THE FRONT BRAKE PADS …
Read full complaint
HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH BRAKE SYSTEM ON MY CAR. BRAKES REPAIRED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS . CONSUMER FEEL THIS PROBLEM COULD LEAD TO A SERIOUS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IF NOT CORRECTED. *BF NAR *JLS THE REAR BRAKES WERE NOISY AND MADE A GRINDING SOUND. THE FRONT BRAKES VIBRATED, THE CONSUMER REPLACED THE FRONT BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS. THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE TRUNK FLAPS AND CLIPS WERE INSTALLED TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THE LEFT FRONT DOOR KICK PANEL CAME LOOSE. BOND PAK PRIMER APPLIED TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE SHIMMIES WHEN DRIVING AT HIGH SPEEDS. VEHICLE FRONT WHEELS OUT OF BALANCE. THE PROBLEM WAS NOT WITH THE WHEEL BALANCE BUT WITH THE BRAKES. ROTORS WHERE WARPED. THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE MOON ROOF DOES NOT OPEN SMOOTHLY IT JOLTS AND SHAKES THE CAR ROOF. THE CONSUMER SMELLED A ROTTEN EGG SMELL WHEN THE HEATER AND AIR CONDITIONER WAS USED. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS BURNING SULFUR AND IT WOULD DIMINISH AT 25000 MILES. 35000 MILES THE SMELL WAS STILL THERE. *TC THE REAR VIEW DEFOGGER WAS REPLACED.
NHTSA ODI #10107153
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