NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
953 reportsMileage unknown · Jun 11, 2006
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
I HAVE A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY - EVERY YEAR I REPLACE THE ROTORS AND BREAK PADS. NOW I HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM, MY CALIBERS FROZE, CAUSING THE(FRONT) BREAKS TO LOCK, AND NOW MY MASTER CYLINDER IS GONE - WE ARE TALKING A $700.00 REPAIR JOB, ON A CAR THAT IS 4 YEARS OLD, WITH LESS THAN 60K MILES. WITH ALL THE COMPLAINTS I JUST READ, H…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY - EVERY YEAR I REPLACE THE ROTORS AND BREAK PADS. NOW I HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM, MY CALIBERS FROZE, CAUSING THE(FRONT) BREAKS TO LOCK, AND NOW MY MASTER CYLINDER IS GONE - WE ARE TALKING A $700.00 REPAIR JOB, ON A CAR THAT IS 4 YEARS OLD, WITH LESS THAN 60K MILES. WITH ALL THE COMPLAINTS I JUST READ, HOW COME TOYOTA HASN'T DONE A RECALL?????????????????? WHY DO "WE" NEED TO REPLACE THE ROTORS, AND PADS EVERY YEAR? *NM
NHTSA ODI #10159526
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
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
44,500 miles · May 9, 2006
Structure
I AM THE OWNER OF A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. IN JUNE OF 2004, THE INSIDE DRIVER'S DOOR HANDLE CRACKED WHEN I TRIED TO EXIT THE CAR. THE HANDLE IS MADE OF PLASTIC. TOYOTA REPLACED THE HANDLE BECAUSE THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. ON MAY 5, 2006, THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO THE PASSENGER INSIDE, PLASTIC DOOR HANDLE WHEN ATTEMPTING…
Read full complaint
I AM THE OWNER OF A 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. IN JUNE OF 2004, THE INSIDE DRIVER'S DOOR HANDLE CRACKED WHEN I TRIED TO EXIT THE CAR. THE HANDLE IS MADE OF PLASTIC. TOYOTA REPLACED THE HANDLE BECAUSE THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY. ON MAY 5, 2006, THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO THE PASSENGER INSIDE, PLASTIC DOOR HANDLE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO EXIT THE CAR. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE THE DOOR WON'T OPEN AND YOU HAVE TO CLIMB OVER THE CONSOLE TO EXIT OR HAVE SOMEONE OPEN THE DOOR FOR YOU. I'M GRATEFUL I WASN'T EXITING FOR AN EMERGENCY. I HAVE CONTACTED TOYOTA. THE FIRST TIME YOU THINK IT IS A FLUKE BUT THE SECOND TIME MAKES YOU REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE A DEFECTIVE PART WHICH CREATES A SAFETY ISSUE. I DON'T WANT MY DOOR HANDLE BREAKING WHEN TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE CAR. I HAVE OWNED MANY CARS IN MY LIFE TIME AND HAVE NEVER BROKEN A DOOR HANDLE. TOYOTA HAS REFUSED TO FIX IT CLAIMING THAT IT IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. HOWEVER, THEY ASKED ME SUCH QUESTIONS AS WHETHER I HAD MY CAR SERVICED AT THE DEALER AND IF I EVER OWNED ANY OTHER TOYOTAS. THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10157045
Mileage unknown · May 4, 2006
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed ControlCrash
RESPONSE TO LETTER RECEIVED FROM CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, FOR TOYOTA, ALLEGING THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY FOR 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. *TS THE MANUFACTURER CLAIMED THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY WHEN THE CONSUMER'S VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND ENDED UP INSIDE A TRAVEL AGENCY. *NM SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE …
Read full complaint
RESPONSE TO LETTER RECEIVED FROM CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, FOR TOYOTA, ALLEGING THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY FOR 2002 TOYOTA CAMRY. *TS THE MANUFACTURER CLAIMED THAT ALL SYSTEMS WERE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY WHEN THE CONSUMER'S VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND ENDED UP INSIDE A TRAVEL AGENCY. *NM SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, THE BATTERY WENT COMPLETELY DEAD. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE BATTERY WOULD NOT HOLD A CHARGE AND A NEW BATTERY WAS NEEDED. UPDATED 02/23/10
NHTSA ODI #10157329
55,000 miles · Apr 12, 2006
Structure
I OWN A 2002 CAMRY, THE CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW FROM THE DEALER. IN JULY 2005, THE INSIDE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR HANDLE BROKE AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE DOOR. I HAD HANDLE REPLACED BY THE DEALER. NOVEMBER 24, 2004, WE WERE DRIVING CAMRY, AND REAR DRIVERS SIDE DOOR HANDLE BROKE IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE PREVIOUS FRONT DOOR H…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2002 CAMRY, THE CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW FROM THE DEALER. IN JULY 2005, THE INSIDE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR HANDLE BROKE AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE DOOR. I HAD HANDLE REPLACED BY THE DEALER. NOVEMBER 24, 2004, WE WERE DRIVING CAMRY, AND REAR DRIVERS SIDE DOOR HANDLE BROKE IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE PREVIOUS FRONT DOOR HANDLE. I QUESTIONED THE DEALER'S SERVICE COORDINATOR AS WHY, ANSWER "THEY GOT A BAD BATCH OF HANDLES, THEY ARE MADE IN USA AND THE JUST FALL OFF" TOYOTA HAS NOT RECALLED NOR CAN I FIND ANY INFORMATION ON FAILED HANDLES, BUT SEVERAL CUSTOMERS OF SAME DEALER AND CAR HAVE TOLD ME THEY ALSO HAVE HAD TO REPLACE FAULTY DOOR HANDLES, EACH HANDLE COSTS ABOUT $85 TO REPLACE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10155243
23,500 miles · Apr 5, 2006
Exterior LightingInjury
ATTEMPTED TO REPLACE LEFT FRONT PARKING LIGHT BULB. SOCKET WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO REMOVE AND NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO INSTALL. LOCATION ADJACENT TO VERY SHARP SHEET METAL CAUSED SEVERAL CUTS. MY WIFE'S HANDS ARE SMALLER, SO SHE WAS ABLE TO REINSTALL THE SOCKET, BUT NOT WITHOUT ALSO BEING CUT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10154585
Mileage unknown · Mar 31, 2006
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash
3 INCIDENTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATIONS, THE LAST ONE CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE. THE DEALER SAID NOTHING WRONG WITH CAR. I FOUND MANY OTHER PEOPLE ON-LINE THAT HAD SAME PROBLEM. SOMEONE IS GOING TO GET KILLED IN A CROSSWALK OR PARKING LOT. I'M AFRAID TO DRIVE IT OR SELL IT TO ANOTHER WITH THIS PROBLEM. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10154310
65,000 miles · Mar 14, 2006
Vehicle Speed Control
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE HAS LURCHED FORWARD SIX TIMES SINCE PURCHASE. THIS HAPPENS WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED AND WITH THE VEHICLE AT A STOP OR WHILE TRAVELING. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP, BUT THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN ALERTED.
NHTSA ODI #10152689
52,300 miles · Feb 17, 2006
Electrical SystemStructure
ON 12/31/05, DURING A RAINSTORM, THE HAZARD LIGHTS ON THE VEHICLE STARTED FLASHING WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AT OUR HOME AND NOT RUNNING. THE ONLY WAY TO TURN OFF THE HAZARD LIGHTS WAS BY REMOVING THE FUSE. THE NEXT DAY, WHILE DRIVING THE CAR, WE FOUND THAT WE HAD NO TURN SIGNALS AS THE FUSE REMOVED ALSO CONTROLLED THEM, AND…
Read full complaint
ON 12/31/05, DURING A RAINSTORM, THE HAZARD LIGHTS ON THE VEHICLE STARTED FLASHING WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AT OUR HOME AND NOT RUNNING. THE ONLY WAY TO TURN OFF THE HAZARD LIGHTS WAS BY REMOVING THE FUSE. THE NEXT DAY, WHILE DRIVING THE CAR, WE FOUND THAT WE HAD NO TURN SIGNALS AS THE FUSE REMOVED ALSO CONTROLLED THEM, AND WE DISCOVERED THERE WAS ABOUT AN INCH OF WATER ON THE FLOOR ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. WE REPLACED THE FUSE, AND ALTHOUGH THE HAZARD LIGHTS WERE NO LONGER CONSTANTLY FLASHING, WHEN A TURN SIGNAL IS ACTIVATED BOTH LIGHTS GO ON CAUSING A DRIVING HAZARD. AT OUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE (ON 1/17/06), I DROVE THE VEHICLE TO THE CLOSEST TOYOTA SERVICE AND DEALER (MODESTO TOYOTA, AND HOUR AND A HALF DRIVE FROM OUR HOME). AFTER CHECKING THE VEHICLE I WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE FIREWALL NEAR THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR AND THAT WATER DAMAGE HAD CAUSED THE ELECTRICAL DAMAGE. FURTHERMORE, THEY (MODESTO TOYOTA) COULD NOT REPAIR THE DAMAGE; WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO AN AUTO BODY SHOP. WE NEXT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS PURCHASED, MERCED TOYOTA, ON 1/25/06. THE RESULTS WERE THE SAME, AND WE WERE ALSO INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN REGARDING THIS PROBLEM (ALTHOUGH NO ONE EVER OFFERED TO GIVE US A COPY, OR EVEN ALLOW US TO READ IT). WE WERE ALSO TOLD THAT TOYOTA WOULD NOT FIX THIS PROBLEM, ALTHOUGH THEY KNOW ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE WERE PAST THE 3 YEAR/36,000 MILE WARRANTY. THE POSSIBILITY OF A WATER LEAK THAT CAN CAUSE MAJOR ELECTRICAL DAMAGE IS A HAZARD. BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM, WE HAVE BEEN DRIVING OUR CAR, WITH OUR 5 YEAR OLD AND 2 YEAR OLD DAUGHTERS IN THE BACK, WITH NO WORKING TURN SIGNALS FOR ALMOST TWO MONTHS. TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AS EVIDENCED BY THE TSB (I BELIEVE IT IS #B001503, NHTSA# 1000348), YET THEY HAVE NOT MADE CONSUMERS AWARE OF THIS POTENTIAL HAZARD AND THE NEED TO HAVE THIS SEAM REPAIRED BEFORE IT LEAKS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10150518
Official recalls
4Jul 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.
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.
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.
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.
Illustration