← 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

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

259 reports
Clear category filter
44,000 miles · Mar 23, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH IN REVERSE, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO A GARAGE DOOR. THE CONTACTS FOOT WAS DEPRESSING THE BRAKE IN AN ATTEMPT TO STOP THE VEHICLE; HOWEVER, UPON IMPACT, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION AND PR…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH IN REVERSE, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO A GARAGE DOOR. THE CONTACTS FOOT WAS DEPRESSING THE BRAKE IN AN ATTEMPT TO STOP THE VEHICLE; HOWEVER, UPON IMPACT, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION AND PROCEEDED INTO TRAFFIC. THE VEHICLE CRASHED A SECOND TIME INTO THE FRONT END OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A POLICE REPORT BEING FILED. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO STALL INTERMITTENTLY BUT WAS RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT AN INVESTIGATOR WOULD FURTHER INSPECT THE VEHICLE FAILURES. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 44,000. UPDATED 5/6/10 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED AS HE WAS BACKING OUT OF HIS DRIVEWAY, WHEN THE VEHICLE SWERVED WITH A GREAT AMOUNT OF FORCE AND CRASHED IN HIS GARAGE DOORWAY AND DID SEVERE DAMAGE. THE CONSUMER STATED HE PLACED HIS FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND A SPLIT-SECOND LATER, THE VEHICLE WAS RUSHING FORWARD AT A HIGH SPEED THROUGH HIS PARKING SPACE AND INTO TRAFFIC ON A TWO-WAY ROAD IN FRONT OF HIS DRIVEWAY WHERE HE COLLIDED WITH A PASSING VEHICLE THAT WAS TURNING LEFT. UPDATED 05/13/10.*JB

NHTSA ODI #10321514

82,000 miles · Mar 23, 2010
Service Brakes, ElectricVehicle Speed ControlCrash

I WAS DRIVING MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY ON HIGHWAY WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON INTERSTATE I-40. I WAS DRIVING 55 MPH ALONG A CONSTRUCTION ZONE WHEN IT SUDDENLY SPEED UP, BECAME UNCONTROLLABLE AND CRASH INTO THE WALL. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE BY PUMPING ON THE BRAKE AND IT WAS FINALLY STOPPED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS DEEP IN THE SAND O…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING MY 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY ON HIGHWAY WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON INTERSTATE I-40. I WAS DRIVING 55 MPH ALONG A CONSTRUCTION ZONE WHEN IT SUDDENLY SPEED UP, BECAME UNCONTROLLABLE AND CRASH INTO THE WALL. I WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE BY PUMPING ON THE BRAKE AND IT WAS FINALLY STOPPED WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS DEEP IN THE SAND ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. THE VEHICLE WAS A TOTAL LOSS DUE TO ITS SEVERE DAMAGES.

NHTSA ODI #10321499

8,856 miles · Mar 22, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE TRAVELING 30 MPH THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES AND NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER, YET, NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. THE FAILURE HAS OCCURRED ON THREE OCCASIONS. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 8856 AND TH…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE TRAVELING 30 MPH THE CONTACT APPLIED THE BRAKES AND NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER, YET, NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. THE FAILURE HAS OCCURRED ON THREE OCCASIONS. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 8856 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 35000.

NHTSA ODI #10321387

96,663 miles · Mar 21, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

WHILE PULLING INTO A DRIVEWAY WITH RIGHT FOOT ON THE BRAKE MY 2003 CAMRY SUDDENLY ACCELERATED STRIKING ANOTHER VEHICLE PARKED IN THE SAME DRIVEWAY. SUDDEN ACCELERATION HAS BEEN A FREQUENT PROBLEM WHEN DRIVING AT HIGHER SPEEDS AND IS CORRECTED BY TAPPING THE BRAKE. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE YET TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM AS THE VEHICLE I…

Read full complaint

WHILE PULLING INTO A DRIVEWAY WITH RIGHT FOOT ON THE BRAKE MY 2003 CAMRY SUDDENLY ACCELERATED STRIKING ANOTHER VEHICLE PARKED IN THE SAME DRIVEWAY. SUDDEN ACCELERATION HAS BEEN A FREQUENT PROBLEM WHEN DRIVING AT HIGHER SPEEDS AND IS CORRECTED BY TAPPING THE BRAKE. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE YET TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM AS THE VEHICLE IS OUT OF WARRANTY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10321265

Mileage unknown · Mar 16, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control

SUMMER 2007, DRIVING FROM BEDFORD, TX TO SOUTHWEST FORT WORTH, 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY SUDDENLY ACCELERATED FROM NEAR STOP CONDITION TO MUCH HIGHER SPEED FOR TWO OR MORE BLOCKS. NOT SURE HOW FAST IT WAS GOING. DON'T RECALL DETAILS. THIS NEVER HAPPENED AGAIN. STILL OWNS CAR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10320247

31,000 miles · Mar 12, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

10/06/09 ACCIDENT--UNCONTROLLED ACCELERATION 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY CAUSING EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO CAR AND REAR GARAGE WALL. BECAUSE CAR HAS NOT APPEARED ON RECALL LISTS MY INSURANCE CO. ADVISES I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT AND WILL FACE INCREASED PREMIUM. I FEEL THIS UNFAIR AND UNJUST. THIS WAS THE MOST TERRIFYING EXPERIENCE OF…

Read full complaint

10/06/09 ACCIDENT--UNCONTROLLED ACCELERATION 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY CAUSING EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO CAR AND REAR GARAGE WALL. BECAUSE CAR HAS NOT APPEARED ON RECALL LISTS MY INSURANCE CO. ADVISES I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT AND WILL FACE INCREASED PREMIUM. I FEEL THIS UNFAIR AND UNJUST. THIS WAS THE MOST TERRIFYING EXPERIENCE OF MY LIFE. ANY HELP YOU CAN GIVE ME WOULD BE APPRECIATED. I WAS ADVISED TO REGISTER MY COMPLAINT WITH YOU BY TV CONSUMER ADVOCATE "7 ON YOUR SIDE". THE CAR WAS PARKED WHEN I STARTED IT TO PUT IN GARAGE--THEREFORE, I CANNOT PUT PROPER SPEED IN AREA SUBSEQUENT TO THIS SECTION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10319185

39,000 miles · Mar 11, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

IN THE PROCESS OF PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE IN A PARKING LOT ON DECEMBER 8, 2009, MY 2003 CAMRY ACCELERATED, JUMPED THE CURB, RAN UP AN EMBANKMENT AND HIT A TREE. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER, WHO TEST DROVE IT AND FOUND NO PROBLEM. PLEASE EXTEND THE RECALL TO 2003 CAMRY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10318895

47,000 miles · Mar 11, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING IN REVERSE OUT OF HER DRIVEWAY AT SPEEDS OF UNDER 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED FORWARD WITHOUT DRIVER INTENT. THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SPIN IN A CIRCULAR MOTION AND PROCEEDED TO CRASH INTO A VEHICLE. THE ENGINE EXHIBITED A LOUD REVVING NOISE WHILE ACCELERATING. THE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING IN REVERSE OUT OF HER DRIVEWAY AT SPEEDS OF UNDER 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED FORWARD WITHOUT DRIVER INTENT. THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SPIN IN A CIRCULAR MOTION AND PROCEEDED TO CRASH INTO A VEHICLE. THE ENGINE EXHIBITED A LOUD REVVING NOISE WHILE ACCELERATING. THE VEHICLE DID NOT STOP UNTIL FINALLY CRASHING INTO A TREE. UPON IMPACT, THERE WAS A TIRE BLOWOUT, EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE CONTACT SUFFERED MINOR INJURIES FROM THE CRASH. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 47,000.

NHTSA ODI #10318807

6,300 miles · Mar 8, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 2 MPH INTO THE GARAGE, WHEN THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO THE GARAGE WALL. THE CONTACT STATES THAT SMOKE WAS COMING FROM THE TIRES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC AND TESTING. THE DEALER DROVE THE VEHICLE AROUND AND FOUND NO PROBLEM …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 2 MPH INTO THE GARAGE, WHEN THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO THE GARAGE WALL. THE CONTACT STATES THAT SMOKE WAS COMING FROM THE TIRES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC AND TESTING. THE DEALER DROVE THE VEHICLE AROUND AND FOUND NO PROBLEM WITH THE ACCELERATOR. THE FRONT BUMPER OF THE VEHICLE WAS DAMAGED.THE CONTACT SUSTAINED INJURIES AS A RESULT OF THE CRASH. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WAS 6300. UPDATED 04/20/2010. *LJ UPDATED 07/13/10.*JB

NHTSA ODI #10317733

50,963 miles · Mar 5, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

I OWN A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY THAT EXPERIENCED THE SAME UNEXPLAINABLE ACCELERATION BEING AIRED ON TELEVISION NEWSCASTS ONLY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. AS I WAS DRIVING IN FRONT OF A POPULAR SHOPPING AREA MY CAR ACCELERATED AT AN ALARMING SPEED. IT FELT LIKE A JET. I QUICKLY ATTEMPTED TO PRESS ON MY FOOT BRAKE AND EVEN TRIED THE HAND…

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY THAT EXPERIENCED THE SAME UNEXPLAINABLE ACCELERATION BEING AIRED ON TELEVISION NEWSCASTS ONLY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. AS I WAS DRIVING IN FRONT OF A POPULAR SHOPPING AREA MY CAR ACCELERATED AT AN ALARMING SPEED. IT FELT LIKE A JET. I QUICKLY ATTEMPTED TO PRESS ON MY FOOT BRAKE AND EVEN TRIED THE HAND BRAKE. THE CAR CEASED TO STOP. THE CAR CROSSED A MAJOR INTERSECTION AND DANGEROUSLY ENTERED A BUSY PARKING LOT AT A POPULAR MALL. I WAS BARELY ABLE TO DODGE PEDESTRIANS, MOVING AND PARKED CARS UNTIL I TURNED SUDDENLY AND CRASHED INTO THE MEDIAN THAT DIVIDED THE PARKING ROWS IN THE PARKING LOT. ON-LOOKERS CAME TO CHECK ON ME AND SPOKE OF HOW THE BACK TIRES WERE SMOKING BECAUSE MY CAR WAS GOING SO FAST. SHAKEN UP, MY PASSENGER AND I CALLED FAMILY MEMBERS WHO RUSHED TO THE SCENE AND PROCEEDED TO CALL A TOW COMPANY BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS CLEARLY NOT CAPABLE OF BEING DRIVEN. THE FRONT WHEEL AXLE WAS BENT, AND THERE WAS MUCH DAMAGE TO THE FRONT RIGHT WHEEL AREA DUE TO THE ANGLE OF THE CRASH. THANKFULLY, NEITHER MY PASSENGER NOR I WERE INJURED, BUT VERY SHAKEN UP. ONCE THE CAR WAS TOWED TO A NEARBY SERVICE CENTER, THEY WERE ABLE TO SURMISE THAT THE CAR WAS A BIT MANGLED AND REQUIRED PARTS NOT READILY AVAILABLE IN HILO, HAWAII. THE ESTIMATE TO REPAIR THE CAR EXCEEDED $3,000. I CONTACTED MY CAR INSURANCE CARRIER TO REPORT THE INCIDENT. NEARLY ONE MONTH LATER, THE CAR WAS REPAIRED. MY DAUGHTER TOOK THE CAR TO A TOYOTA SERVICE CENTER AND ASKED THEM TO PLEASE EXAMINE THE CAR AND EVALUATE WHETHER IT WAS SAFE FOR DRIVING. THE MICRO CHIP DID NOT INDICATE ANYTHING ABNORMAL ACCORDING TO THE SERVICE AGENT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10317286

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