IllustrationI 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
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
1960–25K
9425–50K
8150–75K
7275–100K
87100–150K
45150K+
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
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
259 reportsIN PARKING LOT. REVERSING TO BACK OUT OF SPOT AND FRONT WHEEL TOUCHED CURB, SO PUT CAR IN DRIVE TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE CAR WHEELS BEFORE CONTINUING TO BACK OUT. WHEN THE CAR WAS PLACED INTO DRIVE, THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD AT HIGH ACCELERATION, JUMPING A GRASSY MEDIAN, ALL THE WHILE WAS TRYING TO BRAKE, TO NO AVAIL. HIT…
Read full complaint
IN PARKING LOT. REVERSING TO BACK OUT OF SPOT AND FRONT WHEEL TOUCHED CURB, SO PUT CAR IN DRIVE TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE CAR WHEELS BEFORE CONTINUING TO BACK OUT. WHEN THE CAR WAS PLACED INTO DRIVE, THE CAR SUDDENLY LURCHED FORWARD AT HIGH ACCELERATION, JUMPING A GRASSY MEDIAN, ALL THE WHILE WAS TRYING TO BRAKE, TO NO AVAIL. HIT ANOTHER CAR IN FRONT AT OTHER PARKING SPACE. NO ONE WAS HURT, BUT IF ANYONE HAD WALKED IN FRONT OF THE CAR, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN RUN OVER AS THERE WAS NO WAY TO STOP THE CAR. EVEN AFTER THE CAR HIT THE OTHER VEHICLE, IT CONTINUED TO SUCCEED TO PUSH THE OTHER VEHICLE A GOOD 6 OR 7 FEET BACKWARDS BEFORE IT FINALLY STOPPED... HAVE OWNED THE CAR TEN YEARS AND BOUGHT IT NEW, AND NOW AT 175,938 MILES THIS HAS HAPPENED TO TOYOTA CAMRY 2003. *TR
THE CAR WAS PARKED IN THE CVS PARKING LOT. WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKE AND PLACED THE VEHICLE IN THE REVERSE TO GET OUT THE PARKING. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE QUICKLY ACCELERATED AND I LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE HIT OTHER TWO VEHICLES IN THE PARKING LOT AND FINALLY STOPPED. WITNESSES WERE AT THE SCENE AND POLICES …
Read full complaint
THE CAR WAS PARKED IN THE CVS PARKING LOT. WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKE AND PLACED THE VEHICLE IN THE REVERSE TO GET OUT THE PARKING. SUDDENLY, THE VEHICLE QUICKLY ACCELERATED AND I LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE HIT OTHER TWO VEHICLES IN THE PARKING LOT AND FINALLY STOPPED. WITNESSES WERE AT THE SCENE AND POLICES WERE ARRIVED TO MAKE A REPORT. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE STOPPED A TRAFFIC STOP, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO A FENCE, CAUSING DAMAGE TO A RESIDENTIAL HOME. THE POLICE REPORTED TO THE SCENE AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL VIA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE STOPPED A TRAFFIC STOP, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO A FENCE, CAUSING DAMAGE TO A RESIDENTIAL HOME. THE POLICE REPORTED TO THE SCENE AND A REPORT WAS FILED. THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL VIA AMBULANCE AND WAS TREATED FOR A CONCUSSION, BRUISES AND LACERATIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A TOW YARD AND RULED AS DESTROYED. THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE WAS UNDETERMINED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000.
LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY TRANSMITTING QUESTIONS RE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION *TGW INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE SENATORS OFFICE, WITH SUPPORTED DOCUMENTATION, WHICH RAISED CONCERNS THAT THE SCOPE OF THE NHTSA AND NASA INVESTIGATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN TOO NARROW. A PHENOMENON KNOWN AS "TIN WHISKERS" WITHIN T…
Read full complaint
LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY TRANSMITTING QUESTIONS RE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION *TGW INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE SENATORS OFFICE, WITH SUPPORTED DOCUMENTATION, WHICH RAISED CONCERNS THAT THE SCOPE OF THE NHTSA AND NASA INVESTIGATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN TOO NARROW. A PHENOMENON KNOWN AS "TIN WHISKERS" WITHIN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ASSEMBLY AND POSSIBLY OTHER VEHICLE ELECTRONICS MAY BE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN. THE NASA REPORT DEFINED "TIN WHISKERS" AS ELECTRONICALLY CONDUCTIVE, CRYSTALLINE STRUCTURES OF TIN THAT SOMETIMES GREW FROM SURFACES WHERE TIN; ESPECIALLY ELECTROPLATED WAS USED AS A FINAL FINISH. IN A SEPARATE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION VEHICLE STUDY OF A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY CONDUCTED LAST FALL, A NASA EXPERT EXAMINED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ASSEMBLY AND FOUND TWO "TIN WHISKERS" INSIDE. HE CONCLUDED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE OPERATED, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE DRIVABLE. *JB
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED AND PARKING HER VEHICLE, IT SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A GLASS WINDOW OF A BUSINESS. NO ONE WAS INJURED IN THE CRASH. THE POLICE WERE CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE CAUSE OF THE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED AND PARKING HER VEHICLE, IT SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A GLASS WINDOW OF A BUSINESS. NO ONE WAS INJURED IN THE CRASH. THE POLICE WERE CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE IS PENDING AN INVESTIGATION. THE MANUFACTURER HAD NOT BEEN CONTACTED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 115,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH INTO A PARKING SPACE, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WHEN THE BRAKE WAS DEPRESSED AND FAILED TO STOP. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR PASSENGER'S SIDE DOOR OF AN UNOCCUPIED PARKED VEHICLE. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED BRUISES TO THE CHEST AREA AND …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH INTO A PARKING SPACE, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WHEN THE BRAKE WAS DEPRESSED AND FAILED TO STOP. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE REAR PASSENGER'S SIDE DOOR OF AN UNOCCUPIED PARKED VEHICLE. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED BRUISES TO THE CHEST AREA AND SUFFERED INJURIES TO THE LOWER BACK AND LEFT WRIST. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE FROM THE SCENE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000.
MY MOTHER HAD COMPLAINED OF HER 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY HAVING MINOR SUDDEN ACCELERATION. SHE ASKED MY UNCLE (A "BACKYARD" MECHANIC). MY UNCLE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO CHECK THAT; SO SHE HAD MY SISTER CHECK ONLINE WHO FOUND THAT HER CAR WAS NOT UNDER RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM. WE BELIEVE MOTHER HAD IT CHECKED OUT AT AN AU…
Read full complaint
MY MOTHER HAD COMPLAINED OF HER 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY HAVING MINOR SUDDEN ACCELERATION. SHE ASKED MY UNCLE (A "BACKYARD" MECHANIC). MY UNCLE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO CHECK THAT; SO SHE HAD MY SISTER CHECK ONLINE WHO FOUND THAT HER CAR WAS NOT UNDER RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM. WE BELIEVE MOTHER HAD IT CHECKED OUT AT AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP. SINCE DEALERSHIPS ARE TYPICALLY MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LOCAL AUTO REPAIR SHOPS, WE BELIEVE SHE HAD THE CAR CHECKED OUT AT THE LATTER. THIS WAS ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO. ON MAY 2, 2011, SHE WAS KILLED IN A SINGLE AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT. WHEN WE RECEIVED THE POLICE REPORT, IT SAID THE WITNESSES SAID THE CAR SEEMED TO ACCELERATE WHEN IT LEFT THE CITY STREET. SINCE SHE WAS COMING UP TO A STOP SIGN, SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOING BETWEEN 15-25 MPH, BUT THE CAR WAS TOTALED, AND THE POLICE OFFICER SAID THE DAMAGE TO THE CAR WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORTS THAT SHE ACCELERATED. THE WAY I INTERPRET THE POLICE REPORT DRAWING IS THAT MOTHER TRIED TO AVOID A COLLISION TWICE: IT APPEARS TO ME THAT SHE MAY HAVE SWERVED TO THE LEFT LANE TO AVOID HITTING THE REAR OF THE CAR IN FRONT OF HER AND, SEEING THE CAR IN THE OPPOSITE LANE COMING TOWARD HER, SHE MAY HAVE SWERVED AGAIN, WHICH TOOK HER OFF THE STREET AND DIRECTLY, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, IN THE PATH TO THE TREE WHICH SHE HIT WITH GREAT FORCE. ACCORDING TO PARAMEDICS, SHE PROBABLY NEVER HAD CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER IMPACT, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED FOR SURE. THE HOSPITAL ER PHYSICIAN REPORTED IN ERROR TO THE POLICE THAT MOTHER HAD BRAIN CANCER AND MAY HAVE HAD SOME SORT OF EVENT (BLOOD CLOT BURSTING IN HER BRAIN). SHE DID NOT HAVE BRAIN CANCER, AND FROM WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM SPEAKING WITH MY PHYSICIAN, IT IS VERY RARE THAT AN EVENT CAUSING A PERSON'S LEG TO STIFFEN FORCING ACCELERATION. ADD ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT THIS ACCIDENT COMBINED WITH THE FACT THAT SHE HAD COMPLAINED OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION LEADS US TO WONDER ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT. *TR
I WAS DRIVING 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY WHEN ALL OF SUDDEN, IT ACCELERATED TO A HIGH SPEED, EVEN WHEN I APPLIED THE BREAK, IT FAILED TO STOP AND WAS UNCONTROLLABLE. THE VEHICLE ONLY STOPPED WHEN IT SLAMMED ON A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. I SUFFERED INJURIES ALONG WITH MY DAUGHTER WHO WAS IN THE CAR WITH ME. *TR
WAS AT A FULL STOP, READY TO EXIT A PARKING LOT. IMMEDIATELY UPON STEPPING ON ACCELERATOR, CAR SHOT FORWARD, JUMPED A CURB AND PROGRESSIVELY ACCELERATED. I ATTEMPTED FULL BRAKING WITH NO EFFECT, IMMEDIATELY PUT CAR INTO NEUTRAL AND SHUT OFF ENGINE. I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE AND CONCENTRATED ON STEERING TO AVOID CARS IN RO…
Read full complaint
WAS AT A FULL STOP, READY TO EXIT A PARKING LOT. IMMEDIATELY UPON STEPPING ON ACCELERATOR, CAR SHOT FORWARD, JUMPED A CURB AND PROGRESSIVELY ACCELERATED. I ATTEMPTED FULL BRAKING WITH NO EFFECT, IMMEDIATELY PUT CAR INTO NEUTRAL AND SHUT OFF ENGINE. I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE AND CONCENTRATED ON STEERING TO AVOID CARS IN ROAD. VEHICLE DID NOT COME TO A STOP FOR 1.5 BLOCKS. CAR MAT HAD NOT MIGRATED, ACCELERATOR AND BRAKE POSITIONS DID NOT APPEAR OR FEEL ABNORMAL. VEHICLE HAD PERFORMED WITHOUT MAJOR PROBLEMS OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS/ FROM 50,000 MI (WHEN I PURCHASED THE CAR) UNTIL DATE OF INCIDENT. ANALYSIS BY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP FAILED TO ASCERTAIN CAUSE.
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.