NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Air Bags complaints
79 reportsClear category filter38,000 miles · Aug 31, 2006
Air BagsVisibilityCrashInjury
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 40MPH, THE VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE IN THE RIGHT PASSENGER SIDE DOOR AND THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR GLASS SHATTERED ONTO THE OCCUPANT. ADDITIONALLY, THE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS WEARING A SEATBELT, BUT MINOR INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THERE WAS MODERATE DAMAGE TO T…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 40MPH, THE VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE IN THE RIGHT PASSENGER SIDE DOOR AND THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR GLASS SHATTERED ONTO THE OCCUPANT. ADDITIONALLY, THE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE CONTACT WAS WEARING A SEATBELT, BUT MINOR INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THERE WAS MODERATE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE. THE POLICE WERE ALERTED AND A REPORT WAS TAKEN AT THE SCENE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE BODY REPAIR SHOP FOR INSPECTION OF THE DAMAGE BY AN INSURANCE ADJUSTOR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT ALERTED.
NHTSA ODI #10167136
13,000 miles · Jan 5, 2006
Air BagsCrashInjury
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOP AT ABOUT 25 MPH AT A CROSSROAD A TRUCK TURNING LEFT HIT THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE HEAD ON. UPON IMPACT, THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. BOTH OCCUPANTS WERE WEARING SEAT BELTS BUT SUSTAINED INJURIES. THE CRASH WAS DOCUMENTED BY THE POLICE. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER SPECULATED…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOP AT ABOUT 25 MPH AT A CROSSROAD A TRUCK TURNING LEFT HIT THE CONTACT'S VEHICLE HEAD ON. UPON IMPACT, THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. BOTH OCCUPANTS WERE WEARING SEAT BELTS BUT SUSTAINED INJURIES. THE CRASH WAS DOCUMENTED BY THE POLICE. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER SPECULATED THAT THE SPEED WAS NOT FAST ENOUGH OR NOT HIT PROPERLY FOR THE AIR BAGS TO DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED TOTALED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10146960
Mileage unknown · Dec 15, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
DT: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY WAS NOT MOVING IT WAS REAR ENDED AND PUSHED ACROSS THE HIGHWAY INTO A PARKED VAN. THE IMPACT WAS MAINLY ON THE FRONT PASSENGER'S SIDE. THE DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED, BUT THE PASSENGER'S SIDE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN AT…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY WAS NOT MOVING IT WAS REAR ENDED AND PUSHED ACROSS THE HIGHWAY INTO A PARKED VAN. THE IMPACT WAS MAINLY ON THE FRONT PASSENGER'S SIDE. THE DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED, BUT THE PASSENGER'S SIDE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALED. A POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN AT THE SCENE. THERE HAS BEEN NO INSPECTION TO THE VEHICLE SINCE THE ACCIDENT. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED AN INJURY, A FRACTURED WRIST. *AK UPDATED 1/11/2006. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10145268
6,000 miles · May 21, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
ON APRIL 26, 2005, MY DAUGHTER DRIVING A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY LE (V6) REAR-ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE (AN ACURA) AT AN SPEED OF 50+ MPH AND NONE OF THE AIRBAGS IN THE CAMRY WERE DEPLOYED. DRIVERS OF BOTH CARS WERE TAKEN TO HOSPITAL FOR FURTHER EVALUATION. LATER, I CONTACTED TOYOTA CORP. WHICH HAD ONE OF ITS INSPECTOR INSPECT THE WRECK…
Read full complaint
ON APRIL 26, 2005, MY DAUGHTER DRIVING A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY LE (V6) REAR-ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE (AN ACURA) AT AN SPEED OF 50+ MPH AND NONE OF THE AIRBAGS IN THE CAMRY WERE DEPLOYED. DRIVERS OF BOTH CARS WERE TAKEN TO HOSPITAL FOR FURTHER EVALUATION. LATER, I CONTACTED TOYOTA CORP. WHICH HAD ONE OF ITS INSPECTOR INSPECT THE WRECKED VEHICLE AND DETERMINED "THE AIRBAGS OPERATED AS DESIGNED." I HAVE REQUESTED ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS A COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS AND MEMOS FROM TOYOTA CORP AND THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS. IN A MAY 16, 2005, LETTER SENT TO ME BY TOYOTA, THEY HAVE STATED THAT "THE SRS AIRBAGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO INFLATE IF THE VEHICLE IS SUBJECTED TO A REAR IMPACT, IF IT ROLLS OVER OR IF IT IS INVOLVED IN A LOW SPEED FRONTAL COLLISION." IN REALITY, OUR CAMRY WAS NOT REAR-ENDED, DID NOT ROLL OVER, AND HAD A HIGH SPEED FRONTAL COLLISION OF 50+MPH.
NHTSA ODI #10121792
38,900 miles · Mar 11, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
ON 2/17/05 I WAS TRAVELING SOUTH @50MPH ON A 4 LANE HIGHWAY. A DODGE RAM P/U TRUCK TURNED IN FRONT OF ME AT AN INTERSECTION. I RAN INTO THE SIDE OF THE TRUCK GOING AT LEAST 35 MPH. THE POINT OF CONTACT WAS A FULL FRONTAL IMPACT THAT RESULTED IN AN INOPERABLE VEHICLE THAT WAS TOWED FROM THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDIENT. POLICE REPOR…
Read full complaint
ON 2/17/05 I WAS TRAVELING SOUTH @50MPH ON A 4 LANE HIGHWAY. A DODGE RAM P/U TRUCK TURNED IN FRONT OF ME AT AN INTERSECTION. I RAN INTO THE SIDE OF THE TRUCK GOING AT LEAST 35 MPH. THE POINT OF CONTACT WAS A FULL FRONTAL IMPACT THAT RESULTED IN AN INOPERABLE VEHICLE THAT WAS TOWED FROM THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDIENT. POLICE REPORT LISTED THE VEHICLE AS TOTALED. THE FRONT AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY. THE FRONT LEFT AIRBAG SENSOR LOCATED ON THE FRAME WAS SHEARED FROM THE WIRING ASSEMBLY. I WAS TRANSPORTED FROM THE ACCIDENT IN AN AMBULANCE. MY MOUTH AND THEN MY CHEST HIT THE STEERING WHEEL. MY HEAD ALSO HIT THE WINDSHIELD. THE IMPACT RESULTED IN A BROKEN TOOTH THAT WAS IMBEDDED IN MY CHIN, A LACERATION ON MY CHIN THAT REQUIRED STITCHES, HEAD, ARM, AND LEG ABRASIONS IN ADDITION TO PULLED MUSCLES IN MY NECK AND BACK THAT STILL REQUIRE MEDICAL ATTENTION. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10113923
12,931 miles · Mar 3, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONTAL COLLISION WITH A METAL FENCE POLE AT 35 MPH, AND NEITHER FRONTAL AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. CONSUMER SUSTAINED INJURIES, AND WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE LOCAL HOSPITAL. VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A BODY SHOP. MECHANIC INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT THERE WERE NO AIR BAGS IN THE VEHICLE.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10113332
12,931 miles · Feb 22, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury
MY SON WAS DRIVING MY TOYOTA CAMRY IN A BAD RAIN STORM. HE WENT OFF THE ROAD AND HIT A POLE. HE BROKE HIS COLLAR BONE AND MISSED 30 DAYS OF WORK. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED WE WERE TOLD THE REASON THE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT AN AIR BAG IN THE DRIVERS SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10111972
Mileage unknown · Dec 11, 2004
Air BagsService Brakes, HydraulicCrashInjury
APPROACHING INTERSECTION THE STOP LIGHT CHANGED AND ATTEMPTING TO STOP VEHICLE, THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO FLOORBOARD, BUT DID NOT STOP VEHICLE BEFORE IMPACT WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE. SPEED AT IMPACT WAS APPROX. 20 MPH AND NEITHER AIRBAG DEPLOYED. JUST RECENTLY HAD VEHICLE AT DEALERSHIP TO HAVE SOFT BRAKE PEDAL CHECKED, AND WAS TOLD OF…
Read full complaint
APPROACHING INTERSECTION THE STOP LIGHT CHANGED AND ATTEMPTING TO STOP VEHICLE, THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO FLOORBOARD, BUT DID NOT STOP VEHICLE BEFORE IMPACT WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE. SPEED AT IMPACT WAS APPROX. 20 MPH AND NEITHER AIRBAG DEPLOYED. JUST RECENTLY HAD VEHICLE AT DEALERSHIP TO HAVE SOFT BRAKE PEDAL CHECKED, AND WAS TOLD OF OTHER COMPLAINTS CONCERNING SAME PROBLEM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10102690
300 miles · Nov 13, 2004
Air Bags
THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG OF OUR 2004 CAMRY REPEATEDLY DISENGAGES. THE DEALERSHIP HAS RE-CALIBRATED THE COMPUTER FIVE TIMES NOW AND THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE MANAGER SAYS THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM TO TOYOTA BUT THEIR ENGINEERS HAVE NOT FIGURED OUT HOW TO FIX IT. THEY REFUSE TO REPLACE ANY PARTS, SAYING THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY PART…
Read full complaint
THE PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG OF OUR 2004 CAMRY REPEATEDLY DISENGAGES. THE DEALERSHIP HAS RE-CALIBRATED THE COMPUTER FIVE TIMES NOW AND THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE MANAGER SAYS THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM TO TOYOTA BUT THEIR ENGINEERS HAVE NOT FIGURED OUT HOW TO FIX IT. THEY REFUSE TO REPLACE ANY PARTS, SAYING THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY PARTS THAT COULD BE THE PROBLEM AND THEY'D JUST BE "THROWING PARTS" AT IT. THEY ALSO CLAIM THE LEMON LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROBLEM SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REPLACING PARTS BUT SIMPLY RE-CALIBRATING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO PUT IN HERE FOR INCIDENT DATE BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY. I WILL USE THE LAST ONE BELOW, BUT THIS IS A REPAIR WE'VE HAD TO SEEK AGAIN FIVE TIMES. THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE NOT HAD TO SEEK IT MORE THAN THAT IS THAT NORMALLY MY WIFE DRIVES THIS CAR ALONE AND RARELY HAS A PASSENGER. THE AIRBAG ONLY DISENGAGES WHEN THERE IS A PASSENGER. IT APPEARS THERE MAY BE SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN SEATBELT USE AND PUTTING CAR IN OR OUT OF GEAR. THIS LAST TIME IT WENT OUT WE WERE STUCK IN TRAFFIC FOR ABOUT AN HOUR. AT ONE POINT THE PASSENGER RELEASED THE SEATBELT. WE WERE TAKING THE CAR IN AND OUT OF GEAR EVERY 5-10 MINUTES TO MOVE JUST A FEW YARDS. ANOTHER TIME THE AIRBAG DISENGAGED WAS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR. WE HAD PULLED INTO A REST AREA. I WAS IN THE PASSENGER SEAT AND GOT OUT. MY WIFE LATER MOVED THE CAR (DRIVING) AND WAS WAITING FOR ME TO GET BACK IN WITH THE CAR RUNNING, IN GEAR. WHEN I GOT BACK IN, SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE NOTICED THE AIRBAG DISENGAGE LIGHT CAME ON. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10098791
Mileage unknown · Nov 5, 2004
Air Bags
THE AIR BAG ON AND AIR BAG OFF, INDICATOR LIGHTS INDICATE THE ACTIVATION OF FRONT PASSENGER AIRBAG, SIDE AIRBAG ON FRONT SEAT FAILURE. *BF THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONSUMER THAT A PERSON 70 LBS OR MORE SHOULD ACTIVATE THE AIR BAG ON LIGHT AND AFFORD THE FRONT PASSENGER PROTECTION. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10099924
Official recalls
3Nov 9, 2011
TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004 AVALON VEHICLES; 2004 AND 2005 CAMRY, CAMRY SOLARA, HIGHLANDER, AND SIENNA VEHICLES, 2006 HIGHLANDER HYBRID; 2004 AND 2005 LEXUS ES330 AND RX330; AND 2006 LEXUS RX400H VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 2004 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005, EQUIPPED WITH THE 1MZ-FE OR 3MZ-FE ENGINE. THE AMOUNT OF ADHESIVE AGENT APPLIED BETWEEN THE OUTER RING AND THE TORSIONAL RUBBER DAMPER (INNER RING) IN THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY MAY BE INADEQUATE. IF THE ADHESIVE IS INSUFFICIENT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE OUTER RING MAY BECOME MISALIGNED AND IT MAY NOT PROPERLY ROTATE WITH THE INNER RING, CAUSING NOISE AND/OR ILLUMINATION OF THE BATTERY DISCHARGE INDICATOR LIGHT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN SOME CASES, THE BELT FOR THE POWER STEERING PUMP MAY BECOME DETACHED FROM THE PULLEY WHICH COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF POWER STEERING AND A SUDDEN INCREASE IN STEERING EFFORT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: TOYOTA WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL CHECK THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY TO IDENTIFY WHETHER IT WAS PRODUCED BY THE U.S. SUPPLIER. IF SO, THE DEALER WILL REPLACE THE PULLEY WITH A NEW ONE AT NO CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING EARLY JANUARY 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Dec 15, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A FRONT PASSENGER POWER SEAT, WHEN INSTALLING CERTAIN REAR-FACING INFANT CHILD SEAT BASES ONTO THE SEAT WITH AN EXCESSIVELY HIGH SEATBELT TENSION, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO UNSEAT A COMPONENT CALLED THE BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH FROM THE SEAT BELT BUCKLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE SWITCH BECOMES UNSEATED, THE FRONT PASSENGER OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAY MISTAKE THE REAR-FACING CHILD RESTRAINT FOR AN UNBELTED ADULT OCCUPANT, AND MAY NOT SUPPRESS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONT PASSENGER AIRBAG.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT PASSENGER SEATBELT BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH. THIS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN (SSC 40M) BEGAN ON DECEMBER 20, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331 OR LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987..
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
2DP06003 · 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
Illustration