NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel System, Gasoline complaints
11 reportsClear category filter74,175 miles · Feb 16, 2011
Fuel System, Gasoline
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED ON, THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO PERFORMED A DIAGNOSTIC TEST. THE FAILURE WAS LOCATED AT THE FUEL FILLER NECK. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 74,175 AND THE C…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED ON, THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO PERFORMED A DIAGNOSTIC TEST. THE FAILURE WAS LOCATED AT THE FUEL FILLER NECK. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 74,175 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 74,275.
NHTSA ODI #10382979
77,005 miles · Nov 5, 2010
Fuel System, Gasoline
THE CAR STALLS WHEN IN MOTION. NO WARNING AT ALL. COULD BE GOING 10MPH OR 65MPH, AND IT SUDDENLY GOES TO IDLE SPEED. DEALER SAID IT IS THROTTLE BODY (ELECTRONIC SENSOR?) ISSUE AND MUST BE REPLACED FOR $1200. WARRANTY IS 36 MONTHS OR 36,000 MILES. MY CAR HAS 77,000 MILES. ACCORDING TO THE INTERNET, THIS IS APPARENTLY A COMMON PRO…
Read full complaint
THE CAR STALLS WHEN IN MOTION. NO WARNING AT ALL. COULD BE GOING 10MPH OR 65MPH, AND IT SUDDENLY GOES TO IDLE SPEED. DEALER SAID IT IS THROTTLE BODY (ELECTRONIC SENSOR?) ISSUE AND MUST BE REPLACED FOR $1200. WARRANTY IS 36 MONTHS OR 36,000 MILES. MY CAR HAS 77,000 MILES. ACCORDING TO THE INTERNET, THIS IS APPARENTLY A COMMON PROBLEM WITH TOYOTA. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!! NOT ONLY IS THIS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PROBLEMS THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD OF, BUT TOYOTA AND NHTSA SEEM TO BE IGNORING THE PROBLEM. MY CONGRESSMAN AND CT CONSUMER PROTECTION WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS AND I URGE YOU TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP-------SAVE (LIVES) TOYOTA DRIVERS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10364197
62,481 miles · Aug 10, 2010
Fuel System, GasolineCrash
ON JUNE 20 SHORTLY BEFORE 6:00 PM I BACKED OUT OF THE PARKING SPACE OF OUR CONDO BUILDING, AND I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE THE CAR WITH ABOUT 10 MLS/HOUR TOWARD A STREET CCA 50 YARDS AWAY. BEFORE ENTERING THE STREET THE CAR HAS TO BE STOPPED, HOWEVER, WITHOUT PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL, THE CAR ON ITS OWN ACCELERATED. IMMEDIATELY I A…
Read full complaint
ON JUNE 20 SHORTLY BEFORE 6:00 PM I BACKED OUT OF THE PARKING SPACE OF OUR CONDO BUILDING, AND I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE THE CAR WITH ABOUT 10 MLS/HOUR TOWARD A STREET CCA 50 YARDS AWAY. BEFORE ENTERING THE STREET THE CAR HAS TO BE STOPPED, HOWEVER, WITHOUT PRESSING THE GAS PEDAL, THE CAR ON ITS OWN ACCELERATED. IMMEDIATELY I APPLIED THE BRAKES, BUT THE CAR DID NOT RESPOND. THE CAR SPEEDED INTO A GRASSY AREA, AND FROM THERE TO OUR OVERFLOW PARKING LOT, AND FROM THERE TO A SECOND PARKING LOT. THE TIRES BURNED THE GRASS DUE TO THE APPLIED BRAKES. PICTURE OF THE BURNED GRASS CAN BE SUPPLIED IF REQUESTED. THE UNSTOPPABLE CAR TRAVELED ABOUT 170 YARDS. DUE TO THE FORCE BY WHICH THE CAR HIT FOUR CURVES, THE FRONT TIRES WERE FLATTENED AND THE FRONT RIGHT WHEEL WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED. THE FRONT END COLLAPSED TO THE GROUND AND THE CAR FINALLY STOPPED. MY WIFE AND MYSELF WERE WEARING THE SAFETY BELTS, WHICH PREVENTED TO BE THROWN INTO THE FRONT WINDSHIELD..MY WIFE WAS SITTING NEXT TO ME, THERE WERE NO OTHER PASSENGERS IN THE CAR. IN ADDITION THE FORCE CAUSED BOTH OF THE FRONT AIRBAGS TO DEPLOY. MINIMIZING THE HUMAN DAMAGE. THE AIRBAGS CAUSED A SECOND DEGREE BURN ON MY LEFT ARM AS DETERMINED IN THE ER. THE AIRBAG ALSO HIT THE FRONT OF MY FACE. AND SLIGHTLY BURNED THE FINGER ON HER LEFT HAND. NEEDLESS TO STAY THAT WE WERE EXTREMELY SHAKEN AND FRIGHTENED. UPON EXITING THE CAR I CALLED 911 AND REPORTED WHAT HAPPENED. AN UNKNOWN NEIGHBOR CALLED AN AMBULANCE, WHICH CAME VERY SOON WITH A LARGE FIRE TRUCK. WE WERE TAKEN TO THE ER OF A LOCAL HOSPITAL. WE SPENT AT 4-5 HOURS IN THE ER OF THE HOSPITAL WHERE WE WERE X-RAYED. EVEN AS OF THE DATE OF THIS REPORT, SOME 2 MONTHS AFTER THE ACCIDENT BOTH MY WIFE AND I REMAIN EXTREMELY SHAKEN BY THIS TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE. MY WIFE'S SPINAL PROBLEMS WERE ENHANCED BY THE CRASH, AND HER CONDITION IS BEING MONITORED BY SPECIALISTS. THE CAR WAS NOT ON THE RECALL LIST.. I SUSPECT THE ORIGINAL MICRO CHIP TO CAUSE THE MALFUNCTION OF THE GAS FLOW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10348535
55,000 miles · Feb 27, 2010
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
SUDDEN INCREASE IN RPMS AS I WAS BACKING UP MY CAR UP TO MY WOOD PILE..IT RAMMED INTO MY WOOD PILE AND THE WHEELS WERE STILL SPINNING WHEN I FINALLY TURNED OFF THE CAR. SAME THING HAPPEN WHEN I WAS COASTING UP TO A STOP SIGN FEB 2010.. BOTH TIMES I PUT ALL THE STRENGTH I COULD ON THE BRAKE PEDAL TO STOP THE CAR. IT NEVER S…
Read full complaint
SUDDEN INCREASE IN RPMS AS I WAS BACKING UP MY CAR UP TO MY WOOD PILE..IT RAMMED INTO MY WOOD PILE AND THE WHEELS WERE STILL SPINNING WHEN I FINALLY TURNED OFF THE CAR. SAME THING HAPPEN WHEN I WAS COASTING UP TO A STOP SIGN FEB 2010.. BOTH TIMES I PUT ALL THE STRENGTH I COULD ON THE BRAKE PEDAL TO STOP THE CAR. IT NEVER STOPPED IN 2009 BUT I DID GET IT STOPPED ON THE 2010 INCIDENT BECAUSE I PUT THE CAR IN NEUTRAL. SOME MINOR DAMAGE TO THE BACK END OF THE CAR ON THE 2009 INCIDENT FROM THE CAR HITTING THE STACK OF WOOD.. WENT TO THE DEALER AND THEY SAID IT WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT.. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10314897
75,000 miles · Feb 2, 2009
Fuel System, Gasoline
THE GAS FILLING TUBE IS CORRODED, THE RESULT IS THE 'ENGINE' TROUBLE INDICATOR IS ALWAYS ON. MY MECHANIC TELLS ME THAT THIS OCCURS WITH ALL TOYOTA CAMRY'S THAT ARE OLDER THAN 5 YEARS. MINE IS A 2003 WITH 80,000 MILES. THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE TUBE LEADING TO THE FUEL TANK. IT SEEMS THAT THE METAL CORROD…
Read full complaint
THE GAS FILLING TUBE IS CORRODED, THE RESULT IS THE 'ENGINE' TROUBLE INDICATOR IS ALWAYS ON. MY MECHANIC TELLS ME THAT THIS OCCURS WITH ALL TOYOTA CAMRY'S THAT ARE OLDER THAN 5 YEARS. MINE IS A 2003 WITH 80,000 MILES. THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE TUBE LEADING TO THE FUEL TANK. IT SEEMS THAT THE METAL CORRODES AND THE GAS CAP CANNOT BE SEALED, THE RESULT IS THE ENGINE INDICATOR COMES ON THE DASH BOARD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10257189
60,000 miles · Apr 14, 2008
Fuel System, Gasoline
THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I SCANNED FOR CODES WHICH INDICATED CODE NUMBER 0456 LEAK IN THE FUEL SYSTEM. I HAVE TWICE BEFORE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AND EACH TIME HAD TO CLEAN A LARGE AMOUNT OF RUST FROM THE FUEL FILLER NECK TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. I HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND ADVISED THEM OF THE…
Read full complaint
THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN AND I SCANNED FOR CODES WHICH INDICATED CODE NUMBER 0456 LEAK IN THE FUEL SYSTEM. I HAVE TWICE BEFORE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AND EACH TIME HAD TO CLEAN A LARGE AMOUNT OF RUST FROM THE FUEL FILLER NECK TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. I HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND ADVISED THEM OF THE PROBLEM. THEY ADVISED IF THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN TO BRING IT IN FOR SERVICE. WHEN THE LIGHT CAME ON THIS TIME THE DEALER SCANNED THE SAME CODE AND DIAGNOSED THE FUEL FILLER NECK AND GAS CAP MUST BE REPLACED AT A COST OF OVER $300. I CONTACTED TOYOTA CORPORATION BUT THEY INDICATED THE CAR WAS NOT COVERED. THE CAR CAN NOT PASS INSPECTION BECAUSE OF THE POOR QUALITY MATERIALS USED IN THE FUEL FILLER NECK. REFER TO COMPLAINT ODI ID NUMBER 10223726 DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10224450
80,085 miles · Apr 8, 2008
Fuel System, Gasoline
SEPTEMBER OF 2007- I NOTICED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE CAR AND I WAS DUE FOR A CAR INSPECTION FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THE DEALERSHIP AND OTHER REPAIR SHOPS STATED THAT THE CAR WOULD NOT PASS THE CAR INSPECTION WITH THAT LIGHT ON. ON SEPTEMBER 10TH,2007, I TOOK THE CAR TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AN…
Read full complaint
SEPTEMBER OF 2007- I NOTICED THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON IN MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY LE CAR AND I WAS DUE FOR A CAR INSPECTION FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THE DEALERSHIP AND OTHER REPAIR SHOPS STATED THAT THE CAR WOULD NOT PASS THE CAR INSPECTION WITH THAT LIGHT ON. ON SEPTEMBER 10TH,2007, I TOOK THE CAR TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND A MECHANIC FOUND A LEAK AT THE FUEL FILLER NECK. THEY REPLACED THE FUEL FILLER NECK AND CAP. THE COSTS WERE $225 FOR LABOR, $143.60 FOR PARTS, AND $25.80 FOR SALES TAX FOR A TOTAL REPAIR JOB OF $394.40! THE CAR WAS OVER 3 YEARS OLD. THAT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IN A YOUNG CAR. I BOUGHT THE CAR IN OCTOBER OF 2005 FROM A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. THE COMPLAINT IS WHY SHOULD THE CUSTOMERS BE PAYING FOR " POOR QUALITY" BY THE TOYOTA MANUFACTURER WHEN I COULDN'T HAVE PASSED A CAR INSPECTION FOR THEIR "POOR QUALITY " PARTS? IF I CAN'T PASS AN INSPECTION THEN WE HAVE AN EMISSIONS AND SAFETY ISSUE BY THE FAULT OF TOYOTA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10223726
17,470 miles · Jul 23, 2004
Fuel System, Gasoline
WITH ONLY 17000 MILE ON THE CAR I HAD TO HAVE ALL THE FUEL INJECTORS REPLACED AND HAVE THE ENGINE DE-CARBONIZE. EALER REPLACED THE INJECTORS, CHARGED ME FOR THE DE-CARBONIZE AND SUGGESTED TO SWITCH OFTEN TO DIFFERENT FUEL MANUFACTURES AND A REMENDY, BUT COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10082549
Mileage unknown · Jun 10, 2004
Fuel System, GasolineVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, CONSUMER DEPRESS BRAKES TO MAKE A STOP. WITHOUT ANY INDICATION, THE VEHICLE SURGED. THE DRIVER TRIED TO STOP THE VEHICLE BUT AT AN EXTENDED DISTANCE. IN ORDER TO STOP THE VEHICLE THE CONSUMER SHIFT GEAR INTO NEUTRAL. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10076050
200 miles · Jan 15, 2004
Fuel System, GasolineService Brakes, HydraulicSuspension
GAS TANK THUMP WHEN STARTING FROM STOP. SLIGHT THUMP AND HEAVY THUMP ALL DEPENDS HOW MUCH FUEL IN TANK. SUSPENSION BOLTS TIGHTENED TO FACTORY SPECS. PARKING BRAKE OUT OF ADJUSTMENT COMING UP TO HIGH HARD HOLDING ON HILL AND BRAKE PEDAL TO SOFT.
NHTSA ODI #10069379
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.