← New search

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 →

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.

228 crash reports10 fire reports71 injury reports

Exterior Lighting complaints

8 reports
Clear category filter
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

Mileage unknown · Sep 30, 2014
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS DON'T WORK AS THEY SHOULD. HAVE ADJUSTED THEM, INSTALLED NEW BULBS AS WELL AS INSTALLED THE BRIGHTEST BULBS AVAILABLE WITH NO SUCCESS AT GETTING THEM TO ILLUMINATE THE HIGHWAY AT NIGHT AS THEY SHOULD. I HAVE ALSO POLISHED THE LENSES TO VERIFY IF THAT WAS THE ISSUE AS WELL, BUT WITH NO IMPROVEMENT. THEY AR…

Read full complaint

THE LOW BEAM HEADLIGHTS DON'T WORK AS THEY SHOULD. HAVE ADJUSTED THEM, INSTALLED NEW BULBS AS WELL AS INSTALLED THE BRIGHTEST BULBS AVAILABLE WITH NO SUCCESS AT GETTING THEM TO ILLUMINATE THE HIGHWAY AT NIGHT AS THEY SHOULD. I HAVE ALSO POLISHED THE LENSES TO VERIFY IF THAT WAS THE ISSUE AS WELL, BUT WITH NO IMPROVEMENT. THEY ARE VERY LOW INTENSITY AND NOT SAFE AT ALL THE TOYOTA DEALER SAID THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO AND THE REPAIR MANAGER SAID HIS VENZA HAS THE SAME ISSUE. I MUST USE THE BRIGHT BEAMS TO DRIVE AT NIGHT. ON ANOTHER NOTE, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS WEBSITE UNTIL RECENTLY, OR I WOULD HAVE REPORTED THIS A LOT SOONER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10640205

106,244 miles · Apr 16, 2012
Exterior Lighting

I BOUGHT THIS 2003 CAMRY FROM TOYOTA SUNNYALE (898 W EL CAMINO REAL, SUNNYVALE, CA 94087) ON 3/18. I NEGOTIATED THE PRICE BASED ON THEIR DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE ON WEBSITE BEFORE I WENT IN. HOWEVER, WHEN I WENT IN, I FOUND OUT THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR BRAKE LAMP CASE WAS BROKEN. I INDICATED THAT WATER LEAK WILL CAUSE ISSU…

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT THIS 2003 CAMRY FROM TOYOTA SUNNYALE (898 W EL CAMINO REAL, SUNNYVALE, CA 94087) ON 3/18. I NEGOTIATED THE PRICE BASED ON THEIR DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE ON WEBSITE BEFORE I WENT IN. HOWEVER, WHEN I WENT IN, I FOUND OUT THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR BRAKE LAMP CASE WAS BROKEN. I INDICATED THAT WATER LEAK WILL CAUSE ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE DEALER REFUSED TO FIX IT AND TOLD ME THERE WON'T BE SUCH ISSUE. I TOOK MY KID TO DRIVING TEST TODAY (4/16) WITH THIS VEHICLE. ONLY THEN THAT I FOUND OUT FROM THE DRIVING EXAMINER THAT BRAKE LIGHT IS NOT WORKING AND HE REFUSED TO LET MY KID PROCEED WITH HER DRIVING TEST CITING SAFETY ISSUE. THIS IS DEFINITELY VERY FRUSTRATING NOT TO MENTION THE FEW HOURS WASTED IN DMV. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN HEAVY RAIN ON AND OFF OVER THE 2 WEEKS AFTER I BOUGHT THAT CAR. THE WATER DID INDEED GO INTO THE LAMP CASE AND CAUSE THE HOT LIGHT BULB TO BURST. I BROUGHT THE CAR TO WHEEL WORKS TO FIX THIS ISSUE TODAY AND THE MECHANICS CONFIRMED THE ABOVE EXPLANATION. I HAVE BEEN DRIVING THIS CAR ON FREEWAY TO WORK EVERYDAY WITH A BROKEN BRAKE LIGHT AND WITHOUT KNOWING THAT. I COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED A TICKET, OR SOMEONE COULD HAVE RUN INTO ME ON FREEWAY BECAUSE OF THE FAILED BRAKE LIGHT. AFTER DRIVING 20 YEARS OF TOYOTA VEHICLE, I AM COMPLETELY SHOCKED THAT TOYOTA DEALER CHEATED ME ON SAFETY ISSUE. SIMPLY SPEAKING, TOYOTA TRADED HIS BEST CUSTOMERS' LIFE FOR FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS. THE DEALER THOUGH WILLING TO PAY FOR THE BULB (WHICH IS A CHEAP $5) AND WAIVE THE LABOR COST, SIMPLY REFUSE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEARING THE COST OF THE LAMP CASE. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT TOYOTA DOES NOT SEE THIS AS A SAFETY ISSUE AND HAD THIS ISSUE FIXED TO BEGIN WITH BEFORE DELIVERING THE CAR TO CUSTOMER. I DO ASK THAT TOYOTA REIMBURSE ME THE SAME FULL PART AND LABOR COST THAT THEY WERE TO CHARGE THIS REPAIR TO CUSTOMERS. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10455452

60,000 miles · Jun 30, 2011
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH THE CONTACT NOTICED THE HEADLIGHTS LOOKED EXTREMELY DIM. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE TECHNICIANS STATED THE PLASTIC COVER ON THE SIDE OF THE HEADLIGHTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE THEY FOG UP MAKING THE HEADLIGHTS SEEM DIM. THE VEHI…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH THE CONTACT NOTICED THE HEADLIGHTS LOOKED EXTREMELY DIM. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE TECHNICIANS STATED THE PLASTIC COVER ON THE SIDE OF THE HEADLIGHTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE THEY FOG UP MAKING THE HEADLIGHTS SEEM DIM. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 60,000.

NHTSA ODI #10410045

Mileage unknown · Jul 25, 2006
Exterior Lighting

REAR BRAKE LIGHTS OF 2003 -2006 CAMRY'S ARE INOPERABLE ON A MORE FREQUENT BASIS THAN STATISTICS WOULD INDICATE. PLEASE INVESTIGATE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MANUFACTURER DEFECT THAT AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL DRIVING PUBLIC. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10163444

1 miles · Dec 30, 2003
Exterior LightingInjury

THE NEW MODEL YEAR 03 AND 04 TOYOTA CAMRY SEDANS, SIENNA MINI VANS HAVE POORLY DESIGNED AND OR MIS ADJUSTED HEADLIGHTS CAUSING BLINDING GLARE TO ON COMING DRIVERS OR DRIVERS IN FRONT OF THESE VEHICLES. THE EXCESSIVELY GLARING LIGHT CAUSED EYE PAIN TO OTHER DRIVERS AND TEMPORARY BLINDNESS. THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM THAT NE…

Read full complaint

THE NEW MODEL YEAR 03 AND 04 TOYOTA CAMRY SEDANS, SIENNA MINI VANS HAVE POORLY DESIGNED AND OR MIS ADJUSTED HEADLIGHTS CAUSING BLINDING GLARE TO ON COMING DRIVERS OR DRIVERS IN FRONT OF THESE VEHICLES. THE EXCESSIVELY GLARING LIGHT CAUSED EYE PAIN TO OTHER DRIVERS AND TEMPORARY BLINDNESS. THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

NHTSA ODI #10051314

10 miles · Apr 27, 2003
Exterior Lighting

I OWN A NEW, 2003, TOYOTA CAMRY THAT HAS A VERY LOW VOLUME CLICKING SOUND WHEN THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNALS ARE ON. BECAUSE I CAN NOT HEAR THE CLICKING SOUND WITH THE NORMAL BACKGROUND ROAD NOISES, THE TURN SIGNALS STAY ON EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT GOING TO TURN. I SEE THIS AS A SAFETY AND TRAFFIC VIOLATION ISSUE AND HAVE COMPLAINED TO …

Read full complaint

I OWN A NEW, 2003, TOYOTA CAMRY THAT HAS A VERY LOW VOLUME CLICKING SOUND WHEN THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNALS ARE ON. BECAUSE I CAN NOT HEAR THE CLICKING SOUND WITH THE NORMAL BACKGROUND ROAD NOISES, THE TURN SIGNALS STAY ON EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT GOING TO TURN. I SEE THIS AS A SAFETY AND TRAFFIC VIOLATION ISSUE AND HAVE COMPLAINED TO BOTH MY TOYOTA DEALER AND TO THE CAR MANUFACTURER DIRECTLY, BUT THEY TELL ME THEY HAVE NO SOLUTION FOR MY COMPLAINT. PLEASE ADVISE ME AS TO HOW TO GET SATISFACTION AND RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM. *NLM

NHTSA ODI #10016574

Mileage unknown · Feb 16, 2003
Exterior Lighting

I PURCHASED A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND DISCOVERED WHAT I THINK IS A SAFETY CONCERN.THE TURN SIGNAL LEFT OR RIGHT DOES NOT SHUT OFF AUTOMATICLY WHEN EXITING OR ENTERING A RAMP OR WHEN TAKING A TURN THAT DOES NOT REQUIER A FULL TURN OF THE STEERING WHEEL.MY WIFE BEEN IN TWO ALTERCATIONS ,ONE OF ROAD RAGE FROM ANOTHER DRIVER AND THE…

Read full complaint

I PURCHASED A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND DISCOVERED WHAT I THINK IS A SAFETY CONCERN.THE TURN SIGNAL LEFT OR RIGHT DOES NOT SHUT OFF AUTOMATICLY WHEN EXITING OR ENTERING A RAMP OR WHEN TAKING A TURN THAT DOES NOT REQUIER A FULL TURN OF THE STEERING WHEEL.MY WIFE BEEN IN TWO ALTERCATIONS ,ONE OF ROAD RAGE FROM ANOTHER DRIVER AND THE OTHER WAS A NEAR ACCIDENT ALL DUE TO SIGNAL NOT SHUTING OFF AUTOMATICLY WHEN RETURNING THE STEERING WHEEL BACK FROM MAKING A LEFT OR RIGHT TURN .NEVER IN THE 26 YEARS OF MY DRIVING CARS AND TRUCKS HAVE I HAD VEHICLE THAT HAS DONE THIS AND I FEEL THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. I CALLED TOYOTA HEADQUARTERS ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND THEY SAID FLAT OUT THAT THEY DO NOT OWE ME AN EXPLINATION .ITS TO BAD I EXPECTED A MORE RESPONSIBLE REPLY FROM ONE OF THE WORLD'S BEST CAR MANUFACTURERS

NHTSA ODI #10007571

Official recalls

1

04V346000 · 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

3

DP06003 · 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.

Go deeper into Toyota Camry problems