I WAS INVOLVED IN A CRASH WHERE I WAS HIT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. ALTHOUGH THE IMPACT WAS SEVERE ENOUGH TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE FRAME OF THE CAR, NONE OF THE SIX (6) AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. AS MENTIONED IN A PREVIOUS COMPLAINT, THERE IS NOW A GAP ON THE DASHBOARD AROUND THE AREA FOR THE PASSENGER AIR BAG. *TR
2003 Toyota Camry
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camry years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Toyota Camry are substantially higher than the model-year median of 295.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Camry years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
575 reports with mileage · 205 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 259 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 112 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 91 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
29 reportsI WAS IN THE DRIVER SEAT WAITING TO TURN LEFT, WHEN SUDDENLY I GOT HIT FROM THE REAR RIGHT PART OF MY CAR. FROM THAT MOMENT THE CAR COULD NOT DRIVE.. THE REAR LEFT PART OF THE CAR BODY AND THE TIRE WAS TOTALLY DAMAGED. THE REPAIR SHOP DECLARED THAT THE CAR COULD NOT BE REPAIRED ANY MORE. ONLY LATER OF THE INCIDENT DID I REMEMB…
Read full complaint
I WAS IN THE DRIVER SEAT WAITING TO TURN LEFT, WHEN SUDDENLY I GOT HIT FROM THE REAR RIGHT PART OF MY CAR. FROM THAT MOMENT THE CAR COULD NOT DRIVE.. THE REAR LEFT PART OF THE CAR BODY AND THE TIRE WAS TOTALLY DAMAGED. THE REPAIR SHOP DECLARED THAT THE CAR COULD NOT BE REPAIRED ANY MORE. ONLY LATER OF THE INCIDENT DID I REMEMBER THAT THE AIRBAGS DID NOT WORK AT ALL. *TR
I WAS SLOWING DOWN TO MAKE A SIGNALED LEFT TURN INTO A PAKING SPACE AT CVS PHARMACY. AS I BRAKED AND TURNED, THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD HITTING A STACKED STONE PILLAR AND CAME TO A CRASHED STOP. THE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY AND I HAD A SCRAPE ON MY SCALP FROM THE SUN VISOR. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO OPEN THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED TWICE BEFORE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE ACTUATOR WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO OPEN THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED TWICE BEFORE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE ACTUATOR WAS DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 10,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 102,000.
I HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA, CAMRY WITH 50,000 MILES ON IT THAT HAS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED (AT MY EXPENSE AT THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED IT). I LIVE IN OREGON WHERE WE HAVE SEASONS SO IT ONLY GETS HOT A FEW MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AND I USE A SUN VISOR DURING THE SUMMER FOR PROTECTION. IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF MY CAR WH…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA, CAMRY WITH 50,000 MILES ON IT THAT HAS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED (AT MY EXPENSE AT THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED IT). I LIVE IN OREGON WHERE WE HAVE SEASONS SO IT ONLY GETS HOT A FEW MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AND I USE A SUN VISOR DURING THE SUMMER FOR PROTECTION. IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF MY CAR WHERE THE AIRBAG IS IN THE DASH, THE RECTANGULAR INDENTATION (LIKE A SEAM) AROUND THE AIRBAG HAS COMPLETELY SEPARATED AT THE TOP EXPOSING YELLOW FOAM AND HAS ME VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF ANY PASSENGERS OR EVEN MYSELF OR OTHERS ON THE ROAD SHOULD THE AIRBAG DEPLOY. MY FATHER IS TERMINALLY ILL WITH CANCER AND ONLY WEIGHS ABOUT 115 POUNDS AND I HAVE TO DRIVE HIM TO DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS REGULARLY. I WAS SO CONCERNED WHEN I FIRST NOTICED WHAT I CALL A "DESIGN FLAW" THAT I MADE HIM RIDE IN THE BACK SEAT. HOWEVER, SINCE HE IS SO THIN, HE WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE BACK AND WANTED TO RIDE IN THE FRONT SEAT AGAIN WHICH I ALLOWED HIM TO DO AFTER THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP IN MEDFORD (LITHIA MOTORS, INC) GUARANTEED ME "100%" THAT THIS IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE BUT IS PURELY COSMETIC. I HAVE PROVIDED PROOF OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS TO LITHIA AND HAVE SPOKEN TO TOYOTA CORPORATE A FEW TIMES. THEY STILL INSIST IT IS ONLY COSMETIC AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING THE ENTIRE DASH AT A COST OF OVER $2,000.00. I MAINTAIN THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND IF THEY CAN AFFORD TO SPEND A MILLION DOLLARS A DAY ON SAFETY (PER THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS) AND ARE SPENDING EVEN MORE ON PR, THEY CAN DO A "GOOD WILL" REPAIR FOR A LOYAL CUSTOMER. TO THEIR CREDIT, I SHOULD ADD THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO PAY 50% TO REPAIR THE DASH, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE "UNREPAIRABLE" BY THEIR UPHOLSTERY PERSON. I HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM FOR MONTHS NOW. I AM A VERY PRINCIPLE BASED PERSON AND BELIEVE THIS IS WRONG CONSIDERING THE AGE, MILEAGE, ETC AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED AT THEIR EXPENSE ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHERS HAVE REPORTED THE SAME PROBLEM. DOES CUSTOMER SERVICE STILL EXIST?? *TR
CONSUMERS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY HAS BRAKE PROBLEMS, WATER LEAKS IN THE TRUNK AND GAS RESERVOIR, DOORS DO NOT CLOSE PROPERLY RELEASING AIR INTO THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR. *TS SMOKE WOULD EMIT FROM THE EXHAUST ON COLD STARTS. THE ENGINE VALVE STEM SEALS WERE REPLACED DUE TO LOSS OF TENSION AND OIL WAS LEAKING INTO THE CYLINDERS. THE STRU…
Read full complaint
CONSUMERS 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY HAS BRAKE PROBLEMS, WATER LEAKS IN THE TRUNK AND GAS RESERVOIR, DOORS DO NOT CLOSE PROPERLY RELEASING AIR INTO THE DRIVER SIDE DOOR. *TS SMOKE WOULD EMIT FROM THE EXHAUST ON COLD STARTS. THE ENGINE VALVE STEM SEALS WERE REPLACED DUE TO LOSS OF TENSION AND OIL WAS LEAKING INTO THE CYLINDERS. THE STRUT SUPPORTS WERE REPLACED DUE THEM BEING WORN. THE POWER STEERING RACK WAS LEAKING, THE ENGINE MOUNT WAS CRACKED AND THE BATTERY WAS LEAKING.*JB THE CONSUMER ALSO STATED THERE WAS A VIBRATION COMING FROM THE BRAKES WHEN THEY WERE APPLIED. THERE WAS A HOLE IN THE DASHBOARD. UPDATED 04/223/10.*JB
IN JANUARY 2008, MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY V6, WITH 35000 MILES ON IT, DEVELOPED A SQUEAK IN THE STEERING COLUMN WHEN THE WHEEL IS TURNED DURING PARKING OR DURING ANY 90 DEGREE TURN. THE TOYOTA DEALER GREASED THE STEERING COLUMN, AND THE SQUEAK WENT AWAY. IN JANUARY OF 2009, THE SAME PROBLEM RECURRED. THE DEALER WANTED TO REPACK THE …
Read full complaint
IN JANUARY 2008, MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY V6, WITH 35000 MILES ON IT, DEVELOPED A SQUEAK IN THE STEERING COLUMN WHEN THE WHEEL IS TURNED DURING PARKING OR DURING ANY 90 DEGREE TURN. THE TOYOTA DEALER GREASED THE STEERING COLUMN, AND THE SQUEAK WENT AWAY. IN JANUARY OF 2009, THE SAME PROBLEM RECURRED. THE DEALER WANTED TO REPACK THE STEERING COLUMN INSTEAD OF GREASING IT AT A COST OF $225.00, OR REPLACE THE STEERING COLUMN AT A COST OF $700.00. I ASKED IF THERE WAS A RECALL ON THAT PARTICULAR MODEL FOR THAT PROBLEM, AND THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE SAID NO. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE OR CONCERN ARISING FROM THIS PROBLEM, AND IS IT COMMON AMONG THAT MAKE AND MODEL TOYOTAS. *TR
THE SPEAKER PANEL BEHIND THE BACK SEAT HAS CRACKED AND THIS HAS MADE HOLES IN THIS BACK PANEL. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING PLACED IN THE BACK WINDOW TO HAVE CREATED THIS TO HAPPEN. WE CONTACTED OUR TOYOTA DEALER AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST $500.00 DOLLARS TO FIX WHICH IN MY OPINION IT WAS CAUSED BY FAULTY MATERIAL THAT THE T…
Read full complaint
THE SPEAKER PANEL BEHIND THE BACK SEAT HAS CRACKED AND THIS HAS MADE HOLES IN THIS BACK PANEL. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING PLACED IN THE BACK WINDOW TO HAVE CREATED THIS TO HAPPEN. WE CONTACTED OUR TOYOTA DEALER AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST $500.00 DOLLARS TO FIX WHICH IN MY OPINION IT WAS CAUSED BY FAULTY MATERIAL THAT THE TOYOTA COMPANY USED. IN ALL OF THE CARS I HAVE BOUGHT OVER THE YEARS MANY DIFFERENT MAKES THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED. I WENT INTO A PART SITE TO SEE IF THIS CAN BE REPLACED AND MANY OTHER TOYOTA OWNERS HAD THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THIS PANEL. I LOVE MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY BUT IF I HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THIS PART FIXED I WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER TOYOTA. I ALSO EMAILED THE TOYOTA CORP OFFICE AND THEY DID NOT GIVE ME ANY RESPONDS TO THIS MATTER. *TR
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
2003 TOYOTA CAMRY PASSENGER AIR BAG COVER COMING APART. CONSUMER IS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS GAP IN BETWEEN THE DASHBOARD AND THE AIR BAG COVER AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE AIR BAG IF IT IS NEEDED. *KB THE DEALER STATED THE SEPARATION APPEARED TO BE CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE HEAT.*JB
Official recalls
104V346000 · Air Bags:side/window
Jul 13, 2004
ON CERTAIN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAGS (CSA), ONE OR BOTH OF THE CURTAIN AIR BAGS MAY BE TWISTED NEAR THE INFLATOR DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THE CSA MAY NOT DEPLOY RAPIDLY ENOUGH WHEN ACTIVATED IN A SIDE IMPACT COLLISION. THIS MAY RESULT IN FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE INTENDED HEAD PROTECTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE CSAS AND REPLACE THE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 6, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3DP06003 · Engine Surging
Opened Sep 14, 2006 · Closed Apr 3, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
DP05002 · Vehicle Speed Control
Opened Aug 5, 2005 · Closed Jan 5, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control
IN A LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2005, AND AFTER EXPERIENCING TWO INCIDENTS (AND ONE CRASH) WHERE HE ALLEGES HIS MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 CAMRY ACCELERATED WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT, MR. JORDAN ZIPRIN PETITIONED THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION?S (NHTSA) OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFECT WITHIN THE ETC SYSTEM IN MY 2002 TO 2005 TOYOTA AND LEXUS VEHICLES, OR TO REOPEN A PRIOR INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-021.IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 18, 2005, MR. ZIPRIN AMENDED HIS PETITION TO INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF INTERRELATED BRAKE AND ACCELERATION PROBLEMS THAT ALLEGEDLY RESULT IN INAPPROPRIATE AND UNCONTROLLABLE VEHICLE ACCELERATIONS.THE 1172 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE REPORTS CITED BY THE PETITIONER INVOLVE 4 LEXUS AND 15 TOYOTA MODELS DEFINING A POPULATION OF 7 MILLION VEHICLES.THE REPORTS TYPICALLY ALLEGED A DEFECT IN THE BRAKE SYSTEM, THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH SYSTEMS.IN ITS REVIEW OF THE REPORTS, ODI A) FAILED TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A BRAKE RELATED DEFECT IN THE CITED MODELS, AND B) DETERMINED THAT MANY CITED PRODUCTS WERE NOT EQUIPPED WITH ETC.ACCORDINGLY, ODI RESTRICTED ITS ANALYSIS TO THE 432 PETITIONER REPORTS INVOLVING MY 2002 TO 2005 CAMRY, SOLARA, AND ES MODELS (ALL EQUIPPED WITH ETC) THAT ALLEGED AN ABNORMAL THROTTLE CONTROL EVENT (SEE THE JANUARY 3, 2006 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS).ABOUT 40% OF THE 432 REPORTS INVOLVE A DRIVEABILITY CONCERN WHERE THE OPERATOR INTENTIONALLY APPLIES THE THROTTLE PEDAL, IN EXPECTATION THAT THE VEHICLE WILL ACCELERATE, AND THEN EXPERIENCES A DELAY OR HESITATION IN VEHICLE RESPONSE.THESE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLE RESPONSE TO INTENTIONAL DRIVER COMMANDS WHICH ODI CONSIDERS UNRELATED TO THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED.ABOUT 20% OF THE REPORTS INVOLVE INCIDENTS WHERE OPERATORS ALLEGE VEHICLE ACCELERATION WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND AN INABILITY OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE WHEN APPLIED.NEITHER THE REPORTS, NOR THE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY ODI, IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE INCIDENTS OR DISCLOSED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT A FAILURE OF THE BRAKE OR THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM HAD OCCURRED.BECAUSE THESE REPORTS DO NOT INDICATE A DISTINCT SAFETY DEFECT FOR INVESTIGATION, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERTHE REMAINING REPORTS (~ 40%, SIMILAR TO THE PETITIONER?S AND THOSE OF PE04-021) TYPICALLY DESCRIBE INCIDENTS WHERE A VEHICLE IS BEING MANEUVERED AT SLOW SPEED IN A CLOSE QUARTER SITUATION AT WHICH POINT THE OPERATOR ALLEGES THAT THE VEHICLE ACCELERATES WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND CRASHES.IN THE AFTERMATH, OPERATORS ARE UNSURE OF WHETHER THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED OR NOT, SOMETIMES STATING THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO USE THE BRAKE; A CRASH OCCURRED AND THE OPERATOR BELIEVES AN UNCOMMANDED ACCELERATION CAUSED IT.IN SPITE OF THE EFFORT EXPENDED DURING PE04-021 AND DURING THIS ANALYSIS, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE REPORTS, OR UNCOVERED ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT A THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURE OCCURRED.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS HAVE AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS ON WHICH ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTION IS WARRANTED.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES T
PE04021 · Throttle Control System
Opened Mar 3, 2004 · Closed Jul 22, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control
THE LEXUS MODELS WERE THE SUBJECT OF DEFECT PETITION (DP) 04-003.TWELVE ODI COMPLAINTS ARE DUPLICATIVE TO TOYOTA REPORTS, INCLUDING THE TWO MINOR CRASHES.THE V6 EQUIPPED SOLARA MODELS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONTAIN THE SUBJECT THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM.TOYOTA INTRODUCED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES BEGINNING IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002.ODI OPENED THE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF THE SYSTEM COULD BE THE CAUSE OF COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE ENGINE SPEED INCREASED, OR FAILED TO DECREASE, (FOR A SHORT DURATION) WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS NOT DEPRESSED (THE ALLEGED DEFECT).DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ANALYZED AGENCY DATA AND REVIEWED VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS, CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS INVOLVING 113 VOQ AND 36 TOYOTA REPORTS, INSPECTED TWO COMPLAINANT VEHICLES, REVIEWED RELEVANT TOYOTA SERVICE AND NEW CAR FEATURE DOCUMENTATION, REVIEWED AND ANALYZED TOYOTA?S RESPONSES TO ODI?S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER, CONDUCTED A LIMITED CONTROL PEDAL ASSESSMENT, AND ATTENDED A TOYOTA TECHNICAL PRESENTATION THAT INCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT OF TWO DEMONSTRATION VEHICLES.THROUGH INTERVIEWS, ODI IDENTIFIED 14 VOQ AND 6 TOYOTA REPORTS (20 UNIQUE VEHICLES) WHERE COMPLAINANTS REPORT MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.IN SOME CASES THE CONDITION WAS EXPERIENCED BY DIFFERENT VEHICLE OPERATORS OR WAS WITNESSED BY OTHER OCCUPANTS.ODI WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THE CAUSE OF 9 TOYOTA AND AN ADDITIONAL 37 VOQ REPORTS (WHICH DESCRIBE 28 UNIQUE INCIDENTS) DUE TO INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.THE REMAINING COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED (62 VOQ, 21 TOYOTA) DESCRIBED CONDITIONS NOT CAUSED BY A FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM AND WERE THUS CONSIDERED UNRELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED REPORTED A COMPONENT FAILURE (OR OTHER INDICATOR OF A SYSTEM FAILURE) AS THE POTENTIAL CAUSE OF INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO THIS INVESTIGATION.IN MANY CASES, THE COMPLAINT VEHICLES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY INSPECTED BY DEALERSHIP OR MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVES WHO ALSO FAILED TO IDENTIFY A FAULT WITHIN THE VEHICLE.TOYOTA IDENTIFIED 43 RELATED WARRANTY CLAIMS, 24 OF WHICH WERE FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES ONLY (NO REPAIRS PERFORMED).ODI FOUND NOTHING ABNORMAL IN THE CONTROL PEDAL CONFIGURATION OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.A DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR FURTHER DETAIL.
Illustration