THE PASSENGER AIRBAG COVER IS BEEN CURLED UP AND NOW IT'S STARTING TO CRACK, IT SEEMS THE AIRBAG WILL DEPLOYED ANYTIME SOON. I KNOW THERE IS SOME ISSUES WITH AIRBAGS DEPLOYMENT IN 2003 CAMRY, I JUST CAN'T ABLE TO FIND THE INFO AND DEALER IS NOT THE BIG HELP EITHER. THANKS *TR
2003 Toyota Camry
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camry years
Owner complaints for the 2003 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
575 reports with mileage · 205 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 259 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 112 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 91 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Air Bags complaints
72 reportsI NOTICED A SLIGHT SWELLING IN THE AREA AROUND THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG SEAM. I LOOKED DOWN INTO THE CREVICE AND SAW A SLIGHT SEPARATION. I DIDN'T PAY IT NO MIND AT THE TIME. TODAY, THE SEAM SPLIT HAS GROWN TO THREE INCHES. I'M CONCERNED THAT THE AIR BAG MIGHT DEPLOY AND INJURE A PASSENGER. *TR
A LARGE GAP DEVELOPED BETWEEN PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG COVER AND THE DASH BOARD. INSIDE THE GAP, A YELLOW COVER, POSSIBLE AIRBAG, CAN BE SEEN. NO ACCIDENT INVOLVED. *TR
I AM MAKING THIS REPORT FOR MY MOTHER, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT IN WHICH SHE HIT THE BACK OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. SHE WAS GOING APPROXIMATELY 40-45 MPH AND RAN INTO A STOPPED VEHICLE. THE AIRBAG IN HER VEHICLE DID NOT ENGAGE IN THE COLLISION. THANK GOD THE SEAT BELT WORKED. I AM FILING THIS REPORT WITH HER NAME AND PERSONAL I…
Read full complaint
I AM MAKING THIS REPORT FOR MY MOTHER, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT IN WHICH SHE HIT THE BACK OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. SHE WAS GOING APPROXIMATELY 40-45 MPH AND RAN INTO A STOPPED VEHICLE. THE AIRBAG IN HER VEHICLE DID NOT ENGAGE IN THE COLLISION. THANK GOD THE SEAT BELT WORKED. I AM FILING THIS REPORT WITH HER NAME AND PERSONAL INFORMATION, EXCEPT THE EMAIL ADDRESS IS MINE, AS SHE DOESN'T USE EMAIL. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, SHE NOTICED THAT THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS THEN DEPLOYED ERRONEOUSLY. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED MINOR BURNS TO THE ARMS AND NECK AS A RESULT OF THE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, SHE NOTICED THAT THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS THEN DEPLOYED ERRONEOUSLY. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED MINOR BURNS TO THE ARMS AND NECK AS A RESULT OF THE AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO HER HOME AND WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION OR REPAIRS. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 83,000.
I HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA, CAMRY WITH 50,000 MILES ON IT THAT HAS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED (AT MY EXPENSE AT THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED IT). I LIVE IN OREGON WHERE WE HAVE SEASONS SO IT ONLY GETS HOT A FEW MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AND I USE A SUN VISOR DURING THE SUMMER FOR PROTECTION. IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF MY CAR WH…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA, CAMRY WITH 50,000 MILES ON IT THAT HAS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED (AT MY EXPENSE AT THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED IT). I LIVE IN OREGON WHERE WE HAVE SEASONS SO IT ONLY GETS HOT A FEW MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AND I USE A SUN VISOR DURING THE SUMMER FOR PROTECTION. IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF MY CAR WHERE THE AIRBAG IS IN THE DASH, THE RECTANGULAR INDENTATION (LIKE A SEAM) AROUND THE AIRBAG HAS COMPLETELY SEPARATED AT THE TOP EXPOSING YELLOW FOAM AND HAS ME VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF ANY PASSENGERS OR EVEN MYSELF OR OTHERS ON THE ROAD SHOULD THE AIRBAG DEPLOY. MY FATHER IS TERMINALLY ILL WITH CANCER AND ONLY WEIGHS ABOUT 115 POUNDS AND I HAVE TO DRIVE HIM TO DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS REGULARLY. I WAS SO CONCERNED WHEN I FIRST NOTICED WHAT I CALL A "DESIGN FLAW" THAT I MADE HIM RIDE IN THE BACK SEAT. HOWEVER, SINCE HE IS SO THIN, HE WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE BACK AND WANTED TO RIDE IN THE FRONT SEAT AGAIN WHICH I ALLOWED HIM TO DO AFTER THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP IN MEDFORD (LITHIA MOTORS, INC) GUARANTEED ME "100%" THAT THIS IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE BUT IS PURELY COSMETIC. I HAVE PROVIDED PROOF OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS TO LITHIA AND HAVE SPOKEN TO TOYOTA CORPORATE A FEW TIMES. THEY STILL INSIST IT IS ONLY COSMETIC AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING THE ENTIRE DASH AT A COST OF OVER $2,000.00. I MAINTAIN THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND IF THEY CAN AFFORD TO SPEND A MILLION DOLLARS A DAY ON SAFETY (PER THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS) AND ARE SPENDING EVEN MORE ON PR, THEY CAN DO A "GOOD WILL" REPAIR FOR A LOYAL CUSTOMER. TO THEIR CREDIT, I SHOULD ADD THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO PAY 50% TO REPAIR THE DASH, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE "UNREPAIRABLE" BY THEIR UPHOLSTERY PERSON. I HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM FOR MONTHS NOW. I AM A VERY PRINCIPLE BASED PERSON AND BELIEVE THIS IS WRONG CONSIDERING THE AGE, MILEAGE, ETC AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED AT THEIR EXPENSE ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHERS HAVE REPORTED THE SAME PROBLEM. DOES CUSTOMER SERVICE STILL EXIST?? *TR
SEAL AROUND FRONT PASSENGERS SIDE AIRBAG SEPARATING FROM DASHBOARD CAUSING DANGER OF SPONTANEOUS AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE CONSUMER WAS INVOLVED IN A CRASH AND THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS INJURED AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AIR BAG INDICATOR LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL DURING THE C…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE CONSUMER WAS INVOLVED IN A CRASH AND THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS INJURED AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE AIR BAG INDICATOR LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL DURING THE CRASH AND A REPAIR SHOP INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT UNDERCARRIAGE DAMAGE PREVENTED THE AIR BAGS FROM DEPLOYING. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 98,000. UPDATED 07/01/10 *BF UPDATED 07/02/10.*JB UPDATED 07/09/10.*JB
THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON THE 5 FREEWAY GOING FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ON THE GRAPEVINE. IT WAS RAINY OUT AND DURING THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT THE RAIN WAS JUST SOFTENING UP. IN THE FAR LEFT LANE I DRIVEN MY VEHICLE AT ABOUT 55 - 60MPH, SPEED LIMIT WAS AT 65MPH. I BEGIN TO SLOW DOWN, AND WHILE DOING SO T…
Read full complaint
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
ON JANUARY 12, 2010, I HAD MY 2003 CAMRY DETAILED (WASHED INSIDE AND OUT-INCLUDING THE CARPET)AT A CAR WASH. I PROCEEDED TO A NEARBY MALL,WHERE I STOPPED BRIEFLY AT A STORE. UPON EXITING THE PARKING LOT, I MADE A FULL STOP AT THE STOP SIGN. I THEN PROCEEDED TO GO BY STEPPING ON THE ACCELERATOR. AT THIS POINT THE CAR SUDDENLY…
Read full complaint
ON JANUARY 12, 2010, I HAD MY 2003 CAMRY DETAILED (WASHED INSIDE AND OUT-INCLUDING THE CARPET)AT A CAR WASH. I PROCEEDED TO A NEARBY MALL,WHERE I STOPPED BRIEFLY AT A STORE. UPON EXITING THE PARKING LOT, I MADE A FULL STOP AT THE STOP SIGN. I THEN PROCEEDED TO GO BY STEPPING ON THE ACCELERATOR. AT THIS POINT THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED TO A HIGH SPEED, AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO STOP IT, EVEN THOUGH I WAS PRESSING ON THE BRAKE. THE CAR WENT ACROSS 3 LANES & UP, OVER, AND DOWN A MEDIAN,CONTINUED TO GO ACROSS ANOTHER 3 LANES AND FINALLY CAME TO REST AFTER HITTING A TREE ON ANOTHER MEDIAN. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ACCELERATOR BECAME STUCK IN THE DOWN POSITION, AND PUSHING DOWN ON THE BRAKE TO THE LEFT OF IT DID NOT HELP, NOR DID THE STEERING WHEEL TURN AS I WAS TRYING TO AVOID HITTING THE TREE. ALSO, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT MY FRONT AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. AT THE TIME, I HAD NO VISIBLE SIGNS OF INJURY, BUT INJURIES BECAME APPARENT SOON AFTER, AND CAN BE VERIFIED BY A DOCTOR. A POLICE REPORT IS AVAILABLE, IF NEEDED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A COLLISION SHOP, WAITING TO BE REPAIRED. A CLAIM WAS FILED WITH TOYOTA MANUFACTURING. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS ABOUT 52,000. *JB SEE ODI 10301845 *DSY
Official recalls
104V346000 · 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.
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
3DP06003 · 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.
Illustration