NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Engine complaints
52 reportsClear category filter229,000 miles · May 5, 2015
EngineSteering
DRIVING ON RURAL HIGHWAY THE CAR HEATS UP THE COOLANT FROM THE RESERVOIR OVERFLOWS. IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AFFECTING STEERING AND YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE BECAUSE OF THE VAPOR FRON THE BURNING COOLANT. REPAIR MAN SAYS HEAD GASKET IS GONE....THIS IS THE THIRD TIME NOW TO REPLACE THE HEAD GASKET .BECAUSE THE HEAD BOLTS AND THREADS…
Read full complaint
DRIVING ON RURAL HIGHWAY THE CAR HEATS UP THE COOLANT FROM THE RESERVOIR OVERFLOWS. IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AFFECTING STEERING AND YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE BECAUSE OF THE VAPOR FRON THE BURNING COOLANT. REPAIR MAN SAYS HEAD GASKET IS GONE....THIS IS THE THIRD TIME NOW TO REPLACE THE HEAD GASKET .BECAUSE THE HEAD BOLTS AND THREADS ALL STRIPPED DUE TO BAD ENGINEERING OR IMPROPER TORQUE BY TOYOTAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ....I BEEN RWADING ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND FOUND OUT THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROBKEM WITH THESE CARS FROM 2003-2006 ... I FEEL THAT IF IT WAS SOMETHING SIMPLE TO FIX THEN TOYOTA WOULD ADDRESS THE PROBLEM BUT SINCE ITS SEENS LIKE A NEW ENGINE IS THE ONLY FIX FOR THIS PROBLEM SO THEY ARE HUSH HUSH ...BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A COSTLY RECALL FOR TOYOTA . *TR
NHTSA ODI #10714573
25,000 miles · Apr 20, 2015
EngineVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE ENGINE REVVED AND THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY LUNGED FORWARD. THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL TO AVOID A COLLISION. THE DEALER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED NOR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE MAKING A LEFT TURN AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE ENGINE REVVED AND THE VEHICLE INDEPENDENTLY LUNGED FORWARD. THE CONTACT DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL TO AVOID A COLLISION. THE DEALER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED NOR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 25,000.
NHTSA ODI #10706652
126,800 miles · Apr 18, 2015
Engine
THE "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT CAME ON WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY. ABOUT 2 MINUTES LATER, A RATTLING SOUND COULD BE HEARD UNDER THE HOOD. WHILE CHANGING LANES TO EXIT THE HIGHWAY, THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND A LOUD POUNDING SOUND COULD BE HEARD WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE. JUST AFTER TURNING ONTO THE SIDE STREET FROM EXITING T…
Read full complaint
THE "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT CAME ON WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY. ABOUT 2 MINUTES LATER, A RATTLING SOUND COULD BE HEARD UNDER THE HOOD. WHILE CHANGING LANES TO EXIT THE HIGHWAY, THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND A LOUD POUNDING SOUND COULD BE HEARD WHEN TRYING TO ACCELERATE. JUST AFTER TURNING ONTO THE SIDE STREET FROM EXITING THE HIGHWAY, THE CAR DIED. ALL OF THIS OCCURRED WITHIN A 5 MINUTE PERIOD. UPON OPENING THE HOOD, THERE WAS SMOKE COMING FROM THE ENGINE AREA OF THE VEHICLE AND THE RESERVOIR FOR THE RADIATOR FLUID WAS BONE DRY. THE RADIATOR HAD BEEN FLUSHED AND REFILLED ONLY 2 MONTHS EARLIER. THE CAR WAS TOWED TO MY LOCAL MECHANIC. UPON THEIR INSPECTION, I WAS TOLD THE HEAD GASKET WAS BLOWN. THERE HAD BEEN NO WARNING LIGHTS OR INDICATION THAT THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING HOT PREVIOUS TO THE "CHECK ENGINE" LIGHT COMING ON MINUTES BEFORE THE HEAD GASKET BLEW. IN AUGUST, 2012, A RUSHING FLUID SOUND COULD BE HEARD IN THE DASH AREA. I HAD THE CAR INSPECTED AND THE WATER PUMP, THERMOSTAT, ALL HOSES AND A RADIATOR FLUSH WERE DONE TO THE VEHICLE. IN FEBRUARY 2013, THE POWER STEERING PUMP HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE RUSHING FLUID SOUND COULD STILL BE HEARD OFTEN. IF THE RADIATOR FLUID RESERVOIR WAS TOPPED OFF, GENERALLY THE SOUND WOULD STOP. THE FLUID SOUND BEGAN AGAIN IN JANUARY 2015. THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR GETTING THE RADIATOR FLUSHED. A NEW RADIATOR CAP WAS ALSO INSTALLED AT THAT TIME. I NEVER HEARD THE RUSHING FLUID SOUND AFTER THAT FLUSH. THE CAR IS A TOTAL LOSS. I AM FORCED TO REPLACE THE VEHICLE. THE COST OF A USED MOTOR AND ALL LABOR IS ALMOST $5,000. THAT'S APPROXIMATELY WHAT THE CAR IS WORTH. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS OF ALMOST IDENTICAL COMPLAINTS LISTED ON THE INTERNET. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A DEFECT IN THE VEHICLE AND TOYOTA SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO CORRECT IT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10706467
180,000 miles · Mar 1, 2015
Electrical SystemEngineStructureFire
CAR HAD BEEN DRIVEN TO GET GAS 1/2 MILE DOWN ROAD. WHEN RETURNED FROM GAS STATION WE PULLED ONTO PROPERTY , TURNED OFF CAR AND THERE WERE FLAMES COMING FROM THE HOOD. FIRE DEPT ARRIVED AND PUT OUT THE FIRE. TOTAL LOSS FOR CAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10691323
136,052 miles · Feb 27, 2015
Engine
MY WIFE HAD TAKEN HER 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IN FOR REGULAR SERVICE IN JANUARY, 2012 AND TOLD THE DEALER THAT SHE HAD BEEN HEARING UNUSUAL NOISES FROM THE ENGINE FOR SOME TIME. AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE THE SERVICE PERSON SAID THAT TOYOTA HAD ISSUED A BULLETIN TO THE DEALERS REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DATED APRI…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE HAD TAKEN HER 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY IN FOR REGULAR SERVICE IN JANUARY, 2012 AND TOLD THE DEALER THAT SHE HAD BEEN HEARING UNUSUAL NOISES FROM THE ENGINE FOR SOME TIME. AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE THE SERVICE PERSON SAID THAT TOYOTA HAD ISSUED A BULLETIN TO THE DEALERS REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD DATED APRIL 15, 2008. IT IS CURIOUS THAT THE BULLETIN STATED THAT "THIS REPAIR IS COVERED UNDER THE TOYOTA FEDERAL EMISSION WARRANTY. THIS IS IN EFFECT FOR 36 MONTHS OR 36,000 MILE, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST-". THE BULLETIN IS DATED APRIL 15, 2008 AND IS TO COVER VEHICLES OF THE 2002-2004 MODEL YEAR CAMRY. THIS MAKES NO SENSE AS SUPPOSEDLY COVERING VEHICLES BUILT 2002-2004 AND ISSUE A BULLETIN IN 2008 AND THEN SAY THERE IS A 36 MONTH WARRANTY FROM THE DATE THE VEHICLE WAS PUT IN SERVICE. WE WERE NEVER ADVISED OF THIS BULLETIN UNTIL 2012 AND REPAIRS WERE DONE AT THE COST OF $ 765.52 ON MARCH 27, 2012. WE SENT A LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO TOYOTA IN TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA ON FEBRUARY 28, 2014 WITH NO RESPONSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10691120
180,000 miles · Feb 3, 2015
Engine
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. THE CONTACT WAS TRAVELING 45 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DETERMINED THAT THE BOLT CONNECTED TO THE INTAKE VALVES TO THE ENGINE HAD BECOME LOOSE AND ALLOWED COOLANT TO RUN ON TO THE EXHAUST. AS A RE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE. THE CONTACT WAS TRAVELING 45 MPH, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DETERMINED THAT THE BOLT CONNECTED TO THE INTAKE VALVES TO THE ENGINE HAD BECOME LOOSE AND ALLOWED COOLANT TO RUN ON TO THE EXHAUST. AS A RESULT, EXHAUST FUMES EMITTED INTO THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000.
NHTSA ODI #10680850
88,259 miles · Jan 21, 2015
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE ENGINE SEIZED WHILE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO BE RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE RADIATOR AND THE ENGINE NE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE ENGINE SEIZED WHILE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO BE RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WAS A LEAK IN THE RADIATOR AND THE ENGINE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 88,259.
NHTSA ODI #10676996
145,000 miles · Oct 29, 2014
Engine
I OWN A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND NOTICED THAT IT WAS OVERHEATING!!! WENT TO REPLACE THE GASKET AND THE HEAD BOLTS WERE STRIPPED AND HAD TO HAVE TO HAVE A HEAD BOLT REPAIR KIT PUT IN ALONG WITH THE GASKET KIT WHICH WITH LABOR COST ME OVER 4,000 DOLLARS IN REPAIRS! THE FIRST PROBLEM WAS THE ALUMINUM BLOCK THAT OVER HEATED BECAUSE O…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND NOTICED THAT IT WAS OVERHEATING!!! WENT TO REPLACE THE GASKET AND THE HEAD BOLTS WERE STRIPPED AND HAD TO HAVE TO HAVE A HEAD BOLT REPAIR KIT PUT IN ALONG WITH THE GASKET KIT WHICH WITH LABOR COST ME OVER 4,000 DOLLARS IN REPAIRS! THE FIRST PROBLEM WAS THE ALUMINUM BLOCK THAT OVER HEATED BECAUSE OF THE COOLANT LEAK WHICH IN THAT OVERHEATED THE BLOCK/BOLTS AND CAUSED THEM TO STRIP THE THREAD FROM THE BLOCK BOLT, IN THAT HAD TO GET A REPAIR KIT DRILL THE HOLE OUT INSERT A STEAL COIL TO HOLD THE STEAL BOLT IN THE ALUMINUM BLOCK!!! POINT BEING I HAD TO PAY FOR THIS FACTORY ERROR OF AN ALUMINUM HEAD THAT EITHER SHOULD HAVE HAD STEAL INSERTS OR A STEAL BLOCK TO BEGIN WITH FOR ABOUT 4,000 WHICH IS CLOSE TO WHAT THE CAR WOULD COST IF I BOUGHT IT AT THIS TIME WITH THE MILES CURRENTLY ON IT!!! A WASTE OF MY MONEY WHEN THIS COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM TOYOTA IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! I HONESTLY CAN SAY THAT THIS IS MY 3RD CAMRY I HAVE OWNED AND I HAVE ALWAYS SWORE BY THE TOYOTA CAMRY BUT AFTER MY RESEARCH AND MY MONEY AND MY HEADACHE I AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED IN HOW THERE NOT STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE ON THIS ONE AND US AS TOYOTA OWNERS LOVE AND VALUE THE TOYOTA NAME COME ACROSS THIS PROBLEM AND NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT ITS VERY UPSETTING I'VE DROVE THE CAMRY SINCE 2004 AND BEEN SO PROUD OF THE NAME AND PASSED ALONG THE GOOD QUALITY OF THE CAMRY NAME ON AND ON THEN I COME ACROSS THIS ISSUE AND THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE SAME EXACT PROBLEMS AND TOYOTA WON'T STEP UP TO THE PLATE ON IT REALLY TARNISHES THE NAME FOR ME!!!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10651189
117,000 miles · Oct 21, 2014
Electrical SystemEngineExterior Lighting
WHILE DRIVING THE CAR, THE ENGINE AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS SUDDENLY SHUT OFF. THE FIRST FEW TIMES THIS HAPPENED, I WAS ABLE TO SIMPLY RE-START THE CAR WITH EVERYTHING WORKING AGAIN. I THEN BROUGHT THE CAR TO 3 DIFFERENT MECHANICS WHO COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE BATTERY OR ALTERNATOR (OR ANYTHING ELSE). THE PROBLEM WA…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING THE CAR, THE ENGINE AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS SUDDENLY SHUT OFF. THE FIRST FEW TIMES THIS HAPPENED, I WAS ABLE TO SIMPLY RE-START THE CAR WITH EVERYTHING WORKING AGAIN. I THEN BROUGHT THE CAR TO 3 DIFFERENT MECHANICS WHO COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE BATTERY OR ALTERNATOR (OR ANYTHING ELSE). THE PROBLEM WAS ERRATIC SO IT NEVER OCCURRED WITH THE MECHANICS. NOW THE PROBLEM OCCURS OCCASIONALLY WHEN I TURN THE HEADLIGHTS OR BRIGHTS OF THE CAR ON. THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENED (10/11/14) WAS WHILE I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 60 MPH. THE ENGINE SHUT OUT, THE DASH LIGHTS WENT OFF (AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER ELECTRICAL THINGS: GPS, AC, RADIO, ETC). EVEN THE FLASHERS WOULD NOT TURN ON. THEN, IN A MATTER OF MOMENTS, EVERYTHING TURNED ON AGAIN. THE CAR'S ENGINE DID NOT EVEN NEED TO BE RESTARTED. I WAS ABLE TO KEEP DRIVING WITHOUT INCIDENT FOR 20+ MILES. THIS INCIDENT HAS HAPPENED A TOTAL OF ABOUT 3-4 TIMES IN THE PAST, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT TRIGGERED IN THE PAST BY TURNING THE LIGHTS ON. THERE WAS NO APPARENT TRIGGER AT ALL. THE PROBLEM IS ERRATIC AND DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10649044
115,000 miles · Sep 12, 2014
Engine
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT OIL LEAKED FROM THE ENGINE OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE LEAK WAS DUE TO A FAULTY HEAD GASKET. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 115,000.
NHTSA ODI #10632767
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