← 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

What owners actually said

780 reports
Mileage unknown · Dec 9, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling

ENGINE NOISE CAUSED BY INTAKE MANIFOLD CRACK AS DIAGNOSED BY A TOYOTA SERVICE DEALER. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10251258

Mileage unknown · Nov 27, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling

WATER PUMP FAILURE,REPLACED 3 TIMES 1ST. TIME15MONTHS INTO NEW CAR WARRANTY 2NDTIME 13MONTHS LATER STILL UNDER WARRANTY 3RDTIME AFTER 5 YEAR WARRANTY TOYOTA COVERED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10249986

89,000 miles · Nov 18, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling

THERE IS CLATTERING NOISE IN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD. THE NOISE STARTED ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO AND HAS GOTTEN CONTINUALLY WORSE. I TOOK THE CAR TO A LOCAL DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE NOISE WAS. THE MANUFACTURER CLAIMS IT IS NOT A DEFECTIVE PART. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10249080

66,000 miles · Nov 17, 2008
Engine And Engine CoolingCrash

THE CAR WAS IDLING, WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN PARK, FOR ABOUT THREE MINUTES. I PLACED MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE IN ORDER TO SHIFT THE CAR FROM PARK INTO DRIVE. THE INSTANT THE SHIFT LEVER WENT INTO DRIVE THE CAR ENGINE ROARED, THE TIRES SQUEALED, I WAS PUSHED BACK INTO THE SEAT AND THE CAR SHOT FORWARD HEADING TOWARD VEHICLES ON…

Read full complaint

THE CAR WAS IDLING, WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN PARK, FOR ABOUT THREE MINUTES. I PLACED MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE IN ORDER TO SHIFT THE CAR FROM PARK INTO DRIVE. THE INSTANT THE SHIFT LEVER WENT INTO DRIVE THE CAR ENGINE ROARED, THE TIRES SQUEALED, I WAS PUSHED BACK INTO THE SEAT AND THE CAR SHOT FORWARD HEADING TOWARD VEHICLES ON A BUSY STREET. I SEEMED TO HAVE NO CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, EXCEPT FOR STEERING, FROM THAT POINT ON. TO AVOID A BROADSIDE COLLISION WITH VEHICLES THE STREET I FOLLOWED THE CONTOUR OF THE BANKS DRIVE THROUGH LANE WHICH WAS A 90 DEGREE TURN TO THE LEFT. NOTHING I DID SEEMED TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE MOTION AND OPERATION OF THE CAR. IN MAKING THE TURN THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL CLIMBED OVER THE DRIVEWAY CURB. IN CORRECTING FOR THAT I OVER STEERED THE CAR AND CLIMBED THE CURB ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY STRIKING A WELLS FARGO SIGN ON THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY BEFORE ADVANCING INTO THE MAIN BANK PARKING LOT. THE CAR PROCEEDED FORWARD WHERE, JUST AFTER ENTERING THE PARKING LOT, IT STRUCK THE RIGHT FRONT FENDER AND BUMPER OF A USPS MAIL TRUCK. THE CAR RICOCHETS OFF THE MAIL TRUCK AND PROCEEDS INTO AND ALMOST THROUGH THE ADJACENT CVS PHARMACY PARKING LOT BEFORE COMING TO A STOP. THE GASOLINE TANK WAS GUTTED WHEN THE CAR RAN OVER THE SIGN RESULTING IN GAS BEING DUMPED ON THE BANK DRIVEWAY. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GAS WAS SPILLED ON THE BANK DRIVEWAY JUST AFTER THE SIGN. THE GAS CONTINUED TO SPILL BUT DIMINISHED AS THE CAR PROCEEDED THROUGH THE CVS PARKING LOT TO THE POINT WHERE THERE WAS NO GASOLINE SPILL AT ALL WHERE THE CAR CAME TO A STOP. IT IS MY BELIEF THE CAR STOPPED FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT RAN OUT OF GAS. NOTHING I DID OR TRIED TO DO APPEARED TO HAVE ANY EFFECT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10249011

140,900 miles · Oct 9, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling

DUE TO ANTI FREEZE LEAK THE MECHANIC FOUND LEAK TO BE COMING FROM CYLINDER HEAD GASKET, WHEN HEAD WAS REMOVED FOUND 3 CENTER BOLTS WERE LOOSE, THREADS WERE STRIPPED AND DAMAGED. I WAS TOLD THIS IS A DEFECT IN 2003 4 CYL TOYOTA CAMRY ENGINES. DEALER WOULD NOT COVER, AS IT WAS REPAIRED ELSEWHERE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10245003

68,000 miles · Sep 24, 2008
Air Bags

DOOR SLAMMED SHUT AND SIDE AIR CURTAIN DEPLOYED. CAR WAS NOT RUNNING AND AT A FULL STOP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10243370

100,000 miles · Sep 10, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED. THE CONTACT FILLED THE VEHICLE WITH WATER AND DROVE TO A MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE ENGINE COOLANT LEAKED WATER BETWEEN THE CYLINDER HEAD AND THE BLOCK. IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THREE CYLINDER HEAD BOLTS WERE LO…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE OVERHEATED. THE CONTACT FILLED THE VEHICLE WITH WATER AND DROVE TO A MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE ENGINE COOLANT LEAKED WATER BETWEEN THE CYLINDER HEAD AND THE BLOCK. IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THREE CYLINDER HEAD BOLTS WERE LOOSE. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 100,000. UPDATED 10/16/08. *LJ UPDATED 10/17/08.*JB

NHTSA ODI #10241734

130,000 miles · Aug 20, 2008
Equipment Adaptive/mobilityVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury

MY WIFE WAS PULLING INTO OUR DAUGHTERS DAYCARE TO DROP HER OFF AS SHE DOES EVERY MORNING AND WHILE PULLING INTO THE PARKING SPOT AND WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKE THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD AT A HIGH THROTTLE SPEED JUMPED THE CURB AND WENT CRASHING INTO THE BUILDING. EVEN PUMPING THE BRAKES DIDN'T STOP THE CAR. THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE…

Read full complaint

MY WIFE WAS PULLING INTO OUR DAUGHTERS DAYCARE TO DROP HER OFF AS SHE DOES EVERY MORNING AND WHILE PULLING INTO THE PARKING SPOT AND WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKE THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD AT A HIGH THROTTLE SPEED JUMPED THE CURB AND WENT CRASHING INTO THE BUILDING. EVEN PUMPING THE BRAKES DIDN'T STOP THE CAR. THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE VEHICLE TO STOP GOING FORWARD WAS TO JAM THE GEAR SELECTOR INTO REVERSE AND THEN THE VEHICLE WENT BACKWARDS AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (BRAKES STILL DIDN'T WORK) AND THEN HAD TO JAM THE GEAR SELECTOR TO PARK TO STOP THE VEHICLE. UPDATE AS OF TODAY. OUR VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY AT A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE CENTER AND THE SERVICE MANAGER SAID THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES, AND WE ARE SCARED OF THE THROUGH OF DRIVING THIS VEHICLE AGAIN. IT SEEMS TO BE A ELECTRONIC ISSUE AND CONNECTED TO THE SPEED CONTROL. I HAVE FOUND A MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET WHERE 97 OTHER SIMILAR INCIDENTS HAVE BEEN REPORTED. AND TOYOTA DOES A RECALL ON THE FLOOR MATS? HMM I SMELL A COVER-UP AND A POSSIBLE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10239089

Mileage unknown · Aug 20, 2008
Air Bags

I HAVE A 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE HEAT FROM THE SUMMER HAS CAUSED A LARGE GAP IN THE DASH WHERE THE AIRBAG ON THE PASSENGER SIDE IS. YOU CAN SEE A YELLOW COVER INSIDE WHICH I AM AFRAID IS THE AIRBAG. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10238996

90,000 miles · Aug 17, 2008
Power TrainCrashInjury

TRANSMISSION STARTED TO ACT UP AT AROUND 40 MPH. TOOK IT TO CERTIFIED TRANSMISSION WHO IN TURN TRIED DIFFERENT PARTS, THEY EVEN TOOK TO THE TOYOTA DEALER FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE PROBLEM. AFTER OVER A MONTH, THEY DECIDED I SHOULD REPLACE THE TRANSMISSION. EVEN AFTER THE NEW TRANSMISSION CERTIFIED TRANSMISSION STILL WAS TESTING TH…

Read full complaint

TRANSMISSION STARTED TO ACT UP AT AROUND 40 MPH. TOOK IT TO CERTIFIED TRANSMISSION WHO IN TURN TRIED DIFFERENT PARTS, THEY EVEN TOOK TO THE TOYOTA DEALER FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE PROBLEM. AFTER OVER A MONTH, THEY DECIDED I SHOULD REPLACE THE TRANSMISSION. EVEN AFTER THE NEW TRANSMISSION CERTIFIED TRANSMISSION STILL WAS TESTING THE CAR AND WOULD STALL. THE CAR NEVER STALLED BEFORE THE NEW TRANNY. CERTIFIED FINALLY CALLED FOR ME TO PICK UP MY CAR. I ASKED IF HE WAS SURE IT WAS SAFE AND HE SAID YES. FRIDAY LATE AFTERNOON I PICKED UP THE CAR AND PAID $4,000 FOR TRANSMISSION. DROVE IT SATURDAY ONCE AND IT STARTED TO DOG A FEW TIMES. SUNDAY I WENT TO GROCERY STORE AND ON THE WAY HOME THE CAR DIED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUSIEST STREET IN KANSAS CITY. I WAS PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE CALLING MY INS. TOW SERVICE WHEN I WAS REARENDED AT ABOUT 40 MPG. WHEN IT WAS ALL SAID AND DONE WITH FIGHTING WITH EVERYONE, WITH NO CARE OR CONCERN FROM ANYONE, I FINALLY GAVE UP FIGHTING. I ENDED UP LOSING MONEY WITH THE OTHER INS. CO. BECAUSE EVEN IF THEY REPAIRED THE DAMAGE, THE CAR STILL DIDN'T WORK AND CERTIFIED TRIED TO SAY IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING ELSE. NOW AFTER WHAT I KNOW, I FEEL CERTIFIED TRANSMISSION DID NOT TREAT ME FAIRLY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10238550

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