NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Equipment complaints
12 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Sep 2, 2014
Equipment
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. ATTORNEY REPRESENTING CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO AIR CONDITIONER PROBLEMS,VEHICLE SHUTS OFF WHEN SWITCHED IN REVERSE AND OTHER MECHANICAL PROBLEMS. *SMD THE CONSUMER HAD ANOTHER MECHANIC CHECKED THE VEHICLE, AND HE DETERMINED THE MOTOR MOUNTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WHEN THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE SELLI…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. ATTORNEY REPRESENTING CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO AIR CONDITIONER PROBLEMS,VEHICLE SHUTS OFF WHEN SWITCHED IN REVERSE AND OTHER MECHANICAL PROBLEMS. *SMD THE CONSUMER HAD ANOTHER MECHANIC CHECKED THE VEHICLE, AND HE DETERMINED THE MOTOR MOUNTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WHEN THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE SELLING DEALER, THEY INFORMED HER THE MOTOR MOUNTS WERE ONLY WEAK. WHILE STOPPED AT A LIGHT, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY SHUT OFF.
NHTSA ODI #10626706
Mileage unknown · Jan 27, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingEquipment
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ENGINE PROBLEMS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE ENGINE SEEMED HARD TO START. IT FELT AS THOUGH IT WAS MISFIRING. THE AIR CONDITION STOPPED WORKING, THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED AND STARTED SMOKING PROFUSELY. WHEN THE CONSUMER ARRIVED HOME, SHE DISCOVERED THERE WAS NO COOLANT IN THE RA…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ENGINE PROBLEMS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE ENGINE SEEMED HARD TO START. IT FELT AS THOUGH IT WAS MISFIRING. THE AIR CONDITION STOPPED WORKING, THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED AND STARTED SMOKING PROFUSELY. WHEN THE CONSUMER ARRIVED HOME, SHE DISCOVERED THERE WAS NO COOLANT IN THE RADIATOR. SHE FILLED THE RADIATOR WITH COOLANT AND MANAGED TO GET THE VEHICLE TO HER LOCAL MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC FOUND A BAD AIR CONDITION FAN, NO FREON IN THE SYSTEM, AND THE RADIATOR WAS LEAKING. THE CONSUMER PAID $1200.00 TO FIX THE ISSUES. HOWEVER, AFTER DRIVING 10 MILES, THE AC STOPPED WORKING, THE ENGINE OVERHEATED AND SMOKE WAS EMITTING FROM THE ENGINE, AGAIN. ALSO, THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED TWO YEARS PRIOR, BUT DESPITE HAVING 3 DIFFERENT MECHANICS INSPECT THE VEHICLE, THE COMPUTER DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM, INDICATED NO PROBLEM. IT WAS RE-SET 3 TIMES, BUT EVENTUALLY CAME BACK ON EVERY TIME. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10561996
Mileage unknown · Nov 5, 2012
EquipmentVisibility
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ACCESSORY OUTLET(CIGARETTE LIGHTER) AND REAR WINDOWS NOT WORKING. *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO HER, SHE WAS INFORMED THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER HAD A SHORT AND HAD BEEN FIXED. SHE WAS ALSO TOLD THE RIGHT REAR WINDOW MOTOR WAS BURNED OUT AND WOULD NEED TO B…
Read full complaint
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ACCESSORY OUTLET(CIGARETTE LIGHTER) AND REAR WINDOWS NOT WORKING. *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO HER, SHE WAS INFORMED THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER HAD A SHORT AND HAD BEEN FIXED. SHE WAS ALSO TOLD THE RIGHT REAR WINDOW MOTOR WAS BURNED OUT AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE TWO FRONT WINDOWS WERE WORKING. THE CONSUMER DECLINED THE REPAIRS FOR THE WINDOW. HOWEVER, THE NEXT WEEK, THE PASSENGER WINDOW STOPPED WORKING. A FEW WEEKS LATER, SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE IN THE MAIL, IN WHICH A RECALL HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR A FAULTY WINDOW CONTROL BUTTON ON THE DRIVER'S DOOR, BUT FOR THE 2006 MODELS. THE CONSUMER STATED ONE DAY IT RAINED, AND AFTER IT STOPPED, THE WINDOWS STARTED TO WORK AGAIN. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10483065
100,000 miles · Mar 22, 2010
Equipment
ATTEMPTED TO PARK AUTO IN USPS LOT IN FAIRFIELD. PA; APPLIED BRAKE , AUTO ACCELERATED AND WENT OVER CEMENT STOP, I WAS ABLE TO STOP CAR BEFORE CRASHING INTO POST OFFICE WITH AUTO RESTING ON CEMENT STOP. REVERSED BACK OVER CEMENT STOP AND PARKED AUTO. LEFT POST OFFICE AND PUT AUTO IN REVERSE, BACKED UP, TURNED AUTO TO STRAIGHTEN …
Read full complaint
ATTEMPTED TO PARK AUTO IN USPS LOT IN FAIRFIELD. PA; APPLIED BRAKE , AUTO ACCELERATED AND WENT OVER CEMENT STOP, I WAS ABLE TO STOP CAR BEFORE CRASHING INTO POST OFFICE WITH AUTO RESTING ON CEMENT STOP. REVERSED BACK OVER CEMENT STOP AND PARKED AUTO. LEFT POST OFFICE AND PUT AUTO IN REVERSE, BACKED UP, TURNED AUTO TO STRAIGHTEN AND ENGINE ACCELERATED. I PUT AUTO INTO PARK AND APPLIED BRAKE TO STOP AUTO. HAD AUTO TOWED IN TO TOYOTA DEALER WHERE IT NOW SITS TO BE DIAGNOSED TODAY. *DT
NHTSA ODI #10321388
50,000 miles · Mar 9, 2010
Equipment
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. AFTER EXAMINING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE FLOOR MAT CLIPS WOULD NOT SECURE THE FLOOR MAT WHILE HE WAS DRIVING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE CLIPS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 50…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. AFTER EXAMINING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE FLOOR MAT CLIPS WOULD NOT SECURE THE FLOOR MAT WHILE HE WAS DRIVING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE CLIPS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 50000. UPDATED 4/26/10 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED HE SHOULD BE REIMBURSED. HE STATED THE FLOOR MAT SLID FORWARD AND BLOCKED THE ACCELERATOR. UPDATE 06/15/10.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10318209
Mileage unknown · Jul 17, 2008
Equipment
REAR SPEAKER COVERS DISINTEGRATING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10234703
Mileage unknown · Jun 24, 2008
Equipment
TOYOTA CAMRY- SPEAKER GRILLS DISINTEGRATE--DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. GRILLS IN THE REAR OF THE CAR. SUNLIGHT CAUSES THE PLASTIC TO DISINTEGRATE AND CRUMBLE. VERY LITTLE USE AND HAPPENED SHORTLY AFTER CAR PURCHASE. RESEARCHED ONLINE TO DISCOVER HUNDREDS OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE SPEAKER GRILLS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10232185
15,000 miles · Jan 18, 2008
EquipmentStructure
IN 3/2003 I PURCHASED A TOYOTA CAMRY. WITHIN 1-2 YEARS I NOTICED MINOR CRACKS DEVELOPING ON THE TWO SPEAKER COVERS AT THE BACK OF THE CAR UNDER THE BACK WINDOW AND BEHIND THE BACK SEATS. THE CRACKS PROGRESSED WITH TIME BUT I HAD FORGOTTEN TO BRING IT UP TO THE DEALER BECAUSE THE SPEAKERS ARE LOCATED IN A PLACE I DO NOT NORMALLY …
Read full complaint
IN 3/2003 I PURCHASED A TOYOTA CAMRY. WITHIN 1-2 YEARS I NOTICED MINOR CRACKS DEVELOPING ON THE TWO SPEAKER COVERS AT THE BACK OF THE CAR UNDER THE BACK WINDOW AND BEHIND THE BACK SEATS. THE CRACKS PROGRESSED WITH TIME BUT I HAD FORGOTTEN TO BRING IT UP TO THE DEALER BECAUSE THE SPEAKERS ARE LOCATED IN A PLACE I DO NOT NORMALLY LOOK AND BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE ONLY CHEAP PLASTIC COVERS. BY 2006 THE PLASTIC WAS ACTUALLY DISINTEGRATING AND FALLING INTO THE LOUDSPEAKER ASSEMBLY CREATING AN EVER BIGGER BLACK HOLE. THE DEALER POINTED OUT TO ME THAT THIS PROBLEM EXISTS ON CAMRYS AND THAT YOU MUST REPLACE THE WHOLE BACK PANEL BEHIND THE BACK SEATS NOT JUST THE PLASTIC COVER FOR $450 PLUS LABOR. I WAS TOLD THAT OTHER TOYOTAS DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM SINCE THEY USE A DIFFERENT VENDOR FOR THE SPEAKER COVERS. SINCE THE CAR WAS OUT OF WARRANTY TOYOTA DECLINED TO REPLACE THE COVERS. ON THE ADVICE OF THE CA NMVB I SEARCHED THE INTERNET (HTTP://WWW.TOPIX.NET/FORUM/AUTOS/TOYOTA-CAMRY/TTPVEUN8TERT6NBKJ) AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THAT OWNERS OF 2002-2004 CAMRYS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. I HAVE DISCOVERED CAMRYS IN PARKING LOTS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. IT NOW APPEARS TO ME THAT THIS PROBLEM IS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT WHICH TOYOTA FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO NEW CAMRY BUYERS. THE TOYOTA DEALER ALSO FAILED TO DISCLOSE THIS PROBLEM WHENEVER THEY INSPECT THE CAR, INCLUDING THE INTERIOR, DURING SERVICE. I AM REQUESTING THAT TOYOTA REPAIR MY CAMRY AND RETURN IT TO ITS ORIGINAL APPEARANCE. I AM RECOMMENDING THAT A FINE BE LEVIED ON TOYOTA FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE A KNOWN MANUFACTURING DEFECT TO NEW AND USED CAMRY BUYERS. I BELIEVE TOYOTA SHOULD RECALL ALL 2002-2004 CAMRYS. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ALSO BE CONCERNED FOR THE PUBLIC'S POTENTIAL EXPOSURE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR TO FINE PARTICLES/GASSES FROM THIS DISINTEGRATING PLASTIC AND EXPOSURE TO TODDLERS WHO PLACE THEIR HANDS IN THE LOUDSPEAKERS AND THEN EAT POTENTIALLY TOXIC MATERIAL. (SEE HTTP://WWW.MSNBC.MSN.COM/ID/22360355/). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10215303
40,000 miles · Jun 27, 2007
EquipmentStructure
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT NOTICED HOLES IN THE REAR SPEAKER COVERS AND PIECES OF THE COVERS HAD FALLEN INTO THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE BEGAN IN MARCH OF 2007 AND STILL PERSISTS. THE DEALER AGREED TO SPLIT THE COST FOR PARTS, BUT THE CONTACT MUST PAY THE LABOR FEES. WHEN THE WINDOWS ARE R…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT NOTICED HOLES IN THE REAR SPEAKER COVERS AND PIECES OF THE COVERS HAD FALLEN INTO THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE BEGAN IN MARCH OF 2007 AND STILL PERSISTS. THE DEALER AGREED TO SPLIT THE COST FOR PARTS, BUT THE CONTACT MUST PAY THE LABOR FEES. WHEN THE WINDOWS ARE ROLLED DOWN, THE SPEAKER COVER FRAGMENTS FLOAT AROUND INSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE POWERTRAIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 45,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000. UPDATED 02-01-08 *BF UPDATED 02/01/08 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10194753
23,000 miles · Sep 13, 2004
EquipmentVehicle Speed ControlCrash
WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK SUDDENLY VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. CONSUMER WAS DEPRESSING THE BRAKES, BUT, VEHICLE JUMPED A CURB, STRUCK A BENCH, AND SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS. CONSUMER WAS NOT INJURED IN THE INCIDENT. DEALER EXAMINED THE VEHICLE, AND CLAIMED THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. *AK THE CONSUMER STATES THA…
Read full complaint
WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK SUDDENLY VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD. CONSUMER WAS DEPRESSING THE BRAKES, BUT, VEHICLE JUMPED A CURB, STRUCK A BENCH, AND SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS. CONSUMER WAS NOT INJURED IN THE INCIDENT. DEALER EXAMINED THE VEHICLE, AND CLAIMED THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. *AK THE CONSUMER STATES THAT THE MALFUNCTION MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSE BECAUSE OF THE A/C CYCLED THROUGH ON/OFF. RPM INCREASED. A WITNESS STATED THAT HE HEARD THE ENGINE RACING. THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE A/C WAS ON. THE INCIDENT WAS REPORTED TO THE BUILDING SECURITY. *TC
NHTSA ODI #10087487
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.